Contact
My prediction: Mitt’s the man
Carter Bundy
It’s not too late for a non-Mitt to win the GOP primary, but it’s getting close. The main reason Romney won’t lose? The reasons for each of the big four non-Mitts staying in are too compelling for any one of them to drop in the next few weeks.
There’s nothing to embarrass a writer more that a political prediction piece, so fully anticipating that nothing in here will actually come true, here’s why I think Mitt Romney has the GOP presidential nomination in the bag.
There’s only 25-40 percent of the GOP that actually wants Mitt. There has been, and continues to be, a solid majority of Republicans who want someone, maybe anyone, else to win their nomination. But as long as that 60-75 percent is split three, four, or five ways, Romney can’t lose. Plus, as he continues to win even with under 40 percent, momentum starts to make him look inevitable, and people – voters, financiers, journalists, and political hacks alike – like being with a winner.
It’s not too late for a non-Mitt to win, but it’s getting close. The main reason Mitt won’t lose? The reasons for each of the big four non-Mitts staying in are too compelling for any one of them to drop in the next few weeks.
Newt’s crusade
After Mitt’s superpac singlehandedly dropped Newt Gingrich from comfortable frontrunner to fifth place, Newt despises Mitt. A lot. He feels Mitt was dishonest and he knows Mitt was ruthlessly negative against another Republican. A friend of mine posited that if Newt really hated Mitt, Newt would gladly drop out, unify the non-Mitt field, and cost Mitt the nomination.
My friend further thinks that Newt doesn’t really want the job anyhow, but rather is lining himself up for more and more book/history/talking head type slots.
I disagree. I think Newt very much wants the job, although his desire for it has a little of that self-indulgent Borkian flavor (“intellectual smorgasbord” and all that).
Newt genuinely believes he’s the best suited to be the non-Mitt, because he’s the smartest guy on the stage (other than maybe Huntsman), Perry’s a loon, and Newt thinks, probably correctly, that Santorum will have a hard time with all the D.C., academic, government, and business folks Newt’s spent his life with. Newt has a terrific competitive streak, meaning he really would rather do almost anything other than get out of the race due to Mitt’s attacks in Iowa.
Even though if Newt really wanted to get back at Mitt, he’d do everything he could, including falling on his own sword, to unify the non-Mitt vote, he badly wants to emerge the victor himself. He has just enough financial backers like billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson to keep his superpac (and by extension, campaign) going. Which is a dilemma for the non-Mitt majority of the GOP because…
Santorum stays
Rick Santorum’s not getting out. He’s already the guy with the support of the biggest chunk of the Christian right, which is a big deal for most states’ GOP primary electorate (unfortunately for Santorum, New Hampshire isn’t one of those states).
Santorum’s perspective: There’s no way I’m bailing out when the main alternative is a philanderer who is probably insincere about his faith (to Santorum’s thinking).
Plus, no one does economic populism on the GOP side as well as Santorum, and he well remembers his victories in a Democratic-leaning congressional district, as well as in a Democratic-leaning state. He believes, maybe correctly, that he is the only one that genuinely can wear the mantle of Reagan social conservative and get back blue-collar Reagan Democrats with economic populism. No one else in the GOP field really even tries, except maybe Paul.
Santorum might be the most likely to quit of the four big non-Mitts, because it’s harder to see where his money comes from if he doesn’t break out in South Carolina like he did in Iowa. But for now, as long as he’s in decent double digits and has plenty of evangelically-oriented states ahead of him, he has no reason to be the one to sacrifice himself for non-Mitt unity.
Perry prepares to pounce
The non-Mitt movement is further crippled because Rick Perry legitimately thinks HE’s the non-Mitt. Perry brings the most readily accessible fundraising base outside of Romney himself. He’s got a strong case that he has the best résumé (12-year governor of the 13th largest economy in the world, job growth while the rest of the country imploded, etc.) and best executive experience.
Perry is second only to Santorum in terms of Christian conservative love, is better hooked in to the fiscal conservative crowd than Santorum, and is the only veteran outside of Paul. He’s in with the three big GOP primary groups (fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and military). No one else can say that.
Knowing that most of Santorum’s and Newt’s support would go to him, Perry is thinking, “Why would I get out now, when if the other two fold I’m even or ahead of Romney?” To the detriment of the non-Mitt movement, Perry doesn’t realize how utterly goofy he is seen as by even to a large swath of the GOP primary electorate after the debates (and, perhaps unfairly, due to comparisons to the last Texas governor in the White House).
Ron’s revolution remains
Ron Paul ain’t getting out. He’d love to win, but even if he can’t, he’s not in this to make friends. He’s in it to preach a gospel of repealing government back to levels not seen since before World War I, and tens of millions of Americans love him for it.
For some, it’s ending the counterproductive-at-best, suicidal-at-worst war on drugs. For others it’s ending 75 years of what Paul perceives as American empire and constant warring. For others it’s ending everything from minimum wage to Social Security to Medicare to the safety net to civil rights protections, letting the market decide everything in a dog-eat-dog world.
There’s some overlap with the other GOP contenders on gutting government, but mostly Paul’s the only voice in either party on some of these issues, so why would he give up his platform? I don’t think he makes a 3rd-party run, but if he thinks he can help frame the debate the way he truly believes is best for the country, dropping out isn’t an option until the convention in Tampa.
‘So you’re saying there’s a chance…’
Each of the four major non-Mitts has sound, sensible, logical personal and political reasons for staying in the race. All of which is admirable, understandable, and I’d even say, in my geekiness, cool.
Further guaranteeing that all four stay in the race until Mitt has it locked up is the fact that the first states distribute delegates on a proportional basis, and are small states. That means no one is falling too far behind, and won’t for at least another month. To quote Jim Carrey, “so you’re saying there’s a chance…”
If, by some series of events that are well beyond my ability to foresee, the four non-Mitts (or at least the three non-Paul, non-Mitts) come together and throw their support fully behind one of the others prior to the winner-take-all phase of the primaries, Mitt could be in big trouble. But for the very sensible reasons each candidate has, it’s pretty darn unlikely.
Apologies to Huntsman
P.S. Apologies to Jon Huntsman, who is absolutely brilliant, has great experience, possesses unsurpassed foreign policy knowledge, is civil and honest, and would be a formidable challenger to President Obama. But he really doesn’t have the path to justify staying in that Newt, Santorum, or Perry does, nor the philosophical reason for continuing that Paul does. His path would essentially be the same as Romney’s, and Mitt’s not dropping out.
Had Huntsman made a stronger case that he’s like Mitt but more principled, more experienced, more honest, more consistent, more sincere, and less flawed, he’d have had a chance. Huntsman had the terrible bad luck that his best platform for doing that was a state that doubles as one of Mitt’s vacation homes, where many Republican voters from Massachusetts have moved to, where Mitt campaigned non-stop for five years, and where Mitt spent millions more than even the equally uber-rich Huntsman family would or could spend.
But lots of us in both parties hope Jon Huntsman continues to find a way to serve our country no matter who wins in November. And that will be Romney or Obama.
Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in New Mexico. The opinions in his column are personal and do not necessarily reflect any official AFSCME position. You can learn more about him by clicking here. Contact him at carterbundy@yahoo.com.
24 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You know Big D, you’re right. It would not be good to benefit anyone who might disagree with the Obama Administration. Much better to keep sending money to our friends in OPEC. Not only do they keep the price of energy high, their support for anti-American interests will ensure plenty of high paying jobs in the defense industry for years to come. Win Win Thanks for that insight. I would never have thought a U.S. corporation in the energy industry might benefit from the import of oil.
I really need to read the same objective news sources you do. Generally I dismiss folks who invoke the “Koch Brothers” as lazy and unsophisticted but you’ve given me cause to reconsider. Darn profit motive!
Why should Obama approve a pipeline that will profit Koch Industries so they can use the money gained to buy even more ads against him through their special interest group, Americans for Prosperity? The Koch brothers are doing everything they can to see that Obama doesn’t get re-elected, why should he help them make more money? If the Koch brothers want to play politics, they should realize that it is a double-edged sword.
Obama doesn’t have to make class warfare, the Republican candidates are doing it themselves.
@Dr. J
“Obama will make this a true class warfare election.”
You are spot on, mate.
@Hemingway: Fact check: Check out this article for a more balanced investigation of Bain deals while Romney was CEO. For example, in the first case study used in the film (the closing of UniMac’s plant in Marianna, Fla.), occurred seven years after Romney left Bain and nearly two years after Bain sold UniMac’s parent company to another private equity house.
Read more: http://njtoday.net/2012/01/16/fact-check-facts-strained-in-king-of-bain/#ixzz1jkUJqJSW
Tell everyone to get New Jersey News from http://WWW.NJTODAY.NET
@ Carter: Lively analysis!
Re: Ron Paul. For a while, I believed the third-party option was out. Paul would never consider it. But now I believe it’s still possible. I believe the GOP will never allow him to speak at the convention in Tampa. I came to this conclusion after listening to Paul’s speech after his second-place finish in NH to his supporters. The speech was far too radical for the stodgy neocons who control the GOP and drive around Washington in their black limousines. They hate this man, as they well should, because he shows them up to be contemptible charlatans and imperialists. So everything seems to be back on the table now. Paul is not going to be given a place at the convention. But will he settle for just another rah, rah gathering on his own across the street from the convention like in 2008? I hope not. Somehow, someway, Paul should make a third-party run. He is a shoo-in to get the 15% needed to get into the debates in the fall. This would truly shake up the system and lay the groundwork for a powerful challenge to the Demopublicans in 2016 – which, who knows, may come from his son Rand
.
Here is a 1994 documentary on Romney as a businessman. A Bain business associate described Bain Capital as representing the best and the absolute worst in capitalism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQkN1gEMsT8
Well said skeptic, and let us remember who was Sec. of Energy at the end of Bush’s admin, it was Sam Bodman, MIT engineering head and a distinguished venture capitalist himself with much business and engineering experience. It makes sense a person like him would not approve such a ridiculous, politically motivated venture as Solyndra. But, Stevie Chu, on the other hand, who has no business or engineering experience, is an Ph.D. academic elementary particle physicist (he got a Nobel for that, not business or venture capital), and has no clue about venture capital or hi-tech alternate energy projects, easily and eagerly approved it. And yet he said in Congressional hearings the decision was his and he made it on Solyndra. Very clear why so many of these DOE political favors disguised as “investments in green jobs” fail and are wastes of our tax money.
And the Keystone XL pipeline rejection by Obama is a typical example of him not allowing shovel ready projects with thousands of private jobs available to be implemented. This is since there is no pork for him and his masters of funding and lobbyists, and no political leverage for him since the jobs are private, not public. He will never allow public jobs to be created unless there is something in it for him, and the labor unions are not big enough, he favors the greenies over them every time. That usually is not a good strategy for a Democrat running for re-election this year, but it may work since the Repub field is so weak.
>>>Also, stever, if you’re referring to Solyndra, …
>>>…the loan application and approval process by the DOE took place entirely during the Bush administration.
… That the money was actually disbursed during the current administration – and that the current administration could have halted that >>>disbursement but instead advocated in favor of it – does not change the fact that the previous administration
>>> spent nearly four years vetting the company and found no reason not to give them the money.
The Bush admin did NOT approve the Solyndra loan – the DOE Credit Committee voted AGAINST the Solyndra loan in
its last meeting under Bush. Even under Obama DOE advised against approving it but the politics of Obama’s
misguided ‘green jobs’ initiative pushed the approval.
Obama’s big solution to economic malaise was ‘green jobs’ remember?
But Solyndra demonstrates an ugly refutation of Obama that government is very poor at increasing jobs
because it responds to politics not economics and thus doles out money for favor but with very poor business sense.
All presidents are fallible and incompetent but maybe a business guy like Romney would
have better economic sense than Obama who appears to have none.
Hope and Change in 2012 means someone other than the guy who peddled hope and change the last time.
stever:
I assure you, I make no assumptions; I merely pointed out that you implied only part of the story.
IP here’s 5 billion more that the DOE invested for us
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57358484/tax-dollars-backing-some-risky-energy-projects/?tag=morningFlexGridLeft;flexGridModule
IP please don’t assume I’m ever defending the Bush Administration.
Mr. Romney and his partners have been taking advantage of the unfair “carried interest” loophole that is a share of a partnership’s profits that have been taxed as a capital gain as opposed to ordinary income. It is a great deal for private equity firms: The top rate on gains held longer than a year is 15%, so the tax on carried interest is usually less than half the top 35% rate on ordinary income. There isn’t any FICA or Medicare taxes, either.
Here is how carried interest has worked in Bain Capital : Romney and his partners set up a private-equity fund known as Bain Capital . They organized it as a partnership in which they are “general partners” who managed the fund,and their investors were “limited partners.” (“Limited” means the investors can’t lose more than they put in and aren’t in charge – great deal.) There wasn’t any layer of corporate taxes, so profits and losses flow directly through to all partners’ personal tax returns. “The typical fees charged by these funds are known as “2 and 20″—an amount equal to 2% of the fund’s assets plus 20% of its profits.”
Mr. Romney and partners claimed the 2% fee as compensation, so it is subject to ordinary-income and payroll taxes. However they classified the 20% share of profits—where the big money was—as an investment that produced a capital gain or loss.This is a joke. Anyone with common sense can see that carried interest is not an investment. It should have been compensation to partners in exchange for their services. This is a big travesty of justice. That is why Romney made big money with creative destruction
Bain Capital then invaded small companies, eliminated their pension funds, dropped healthcare benefits, killed jobs and drove companies in bankruptcies and and made millions. This is not entrepreneurship or good business. It is pure exploitation. Gordon Gekko would be proud of Mitt “Willard” Romney.
Bingham22, I’m sure you also think Obama brushes his teeth incorrectly.
To me, a President who sends our armed forces off on a errant and unsupportable invasion of a soveriegn nation, gets over 4000 young men and women killed and another 30,000 plus wounded, many grievously, is a lot closer to the “most destructive” President in our history. Not to mention an incompetent handling of the post-war situation that has resulted in over 100,000 additional deaths or the Trillion dollars it all cost….I think we know who the prize winner is.
PS: It wasn’t Obama.
“Where on earth do you people live?”
It’s a little-known place called “the real world”, bingham, where we can tell the difference between a disapproval rating that hovers in the mid-40s and “2/3rds” and where we don’t cull wildly inaccurate factoids from chain e-mails and think we’re contributing to intellectual debate.
Also, stever, if you’re referring to Solyndra, then we are (again) talking about a case where mainstream media told exactly half the story and forgot to mention the part that doesn’t fit with the narrative; specifically, that the loan application and approval process by the DOE took place entirely during the Bush administration. That the money was actually disbursed during the current administration – and that the current administration could have halted that disbursement but instead advocated in favor of it – does not change the fact that the previous administration spent nearly four years vetting the company and found no reason not to give them the money.
I do agree that Jon Huntsman would make a far stronger candidate for the GOP; indeed, I’ve been saying that all along, but with the knowledge that the Sound-Bite Party – in it’s current tin-foil hat brigade-dominated form – is completely incapable of taking seriously a man who doesn’t pay lip service to conspiracy theorists or base his platform on chain e-mails – which would also explain his absence from the national conversation; after all, if the party in which he’s trying to gain the nomination doesn’t even acknowledge his presence, why should people reporting on that contest bother?
You’re totally right about Mitt sneaking in through the back door while the conservatives split their vote between the other non-Mitts. But you’ve got to wonder why there were no stronger conservative candidates in the running. I’ve heard Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, all mentioned as good strong conservative candidates…and none of them chose to run. Why? Obama is already polling ahead of all the candidates in the Republican field, and he hasn’t even really gone on the attack yet. Why? Anne Coulter spoke the truth when she said, “If Chris Christie doesn’t run, Romney will be the nominee…and we will lose.”
Mr Carter is probably correct in his assessment. As for the primary process, it sure has been messy. Kind of like the way the process worked during the last NM Governor Race in 2010. I listend to several Democrats argue that the hostility in that race would cause Ms. Denish to run away with that race. I guess that did not happen as some on the left thought. I do wish that someone on the Democrat side had the guts to primary President Obama. But it appears they have all bought off on his skill…or lack there of. Beauty is in they eye of the beholder.
Hemingway. Take amoment to put things in perspective. During President Obama’s tenure, we have run up a $5 trillion dollar deficit, and, not seen a budget from a Democrat controled senate for over three years, Now acording to CBS comes news that the Obama Administration spent $6. 5 billion on risky green-tech ventures. Forgeet about over 1.2 million jobs being lost and labor participation rates down too. How about trade deficits rising as exports fall. Also just read the notes from the Fed released today and you can see that they never saw the housing debocle comming. You think government can make wise decisions on allocation of scarce capital. Surely you are joking are you not?
And you have the gall to complain about a venture capital firm like Bain placing “PRIVATE’ capital to work. Personally, I would rather make the decisioins my self or have a private sector manager make the decisios. That is because of the inability of the public sector to get their act together which has cost us $trillions. And to think the next generation is going to get stuck with the tab.
Private equity firms have a built-in advantage – they benefit from special federal tax breaks, including the “carried interest” rule that allows them to treat their profits as lightly taxed capital gains. It is a special privilege like a bailout for these firms.
A question for Mr. Romney – when are you going to release your tax returns - a routine step for presidential candidates!
Romney is just amazing. He says he and Bain Capital created 100,000 jobs, but there is absolutely NO proof. Even Sarah Palin scoffs at his unproven numbers. However, the truth is that Romney closed thousands of manufacturing plants, stores and offices, and cut employee wages, benefits and pensions. That is why Romney made millions. He laid off American workers and outsourced their jobs to other countries like Asia and Mexico. Of course he made millions taking companies to bankruptcy. Romney’s claims about being a job creator is sheer nonsense!
He is in South Carolina where Bain Capital destroyed the livelihood of 150 workers at the Holson Burnes factory in Gaffney. The jobs were shipped overseas.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/in-gaffney-sc-mitt-romneys-bain-record-clashes-with-campaign-narrative/1210394
This is the height of folly for Republicans to nominate Mitt “Willard” Romney.
Hemingway prefers to use taxpayer money for investment in failed companies.
Regarding Romney and Bain Capital, Reuters described one company, Worldwide Grinding Systems, that went bankrupted after Bain invested in it. The company not only lost 750 jobs, but the federal government had to come in to bail out its pension funds while Bain walked away with millions in profits.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/08/us-campaign-romney-bailout-idUSTRE8050LL20120108
Nominating Romney for President will be like nominating Gordon Gekko on the platform of GREED. Is this what the Republican Party wants?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONXpaBQnBvE
Where on earth do you people live? Has it even dawned on the democrats that 2/3 rds of America hate and despise Obama so much that they will vote for ANYONE but him. His has been the most destructive presidency in history and America is certainly not blind. People are struggling, really struggling all around the nation, and most of us put the blame rightly on the Obama admin. And it just rubs salt in the wound that oblivious Obama and his family have taken 15 million dollar vacations during his four years. Most Americans are lucky if they ever get to take a luxury vacation in their lifetime, much less 15. He has paraded around the world, thumbing his nose at real Royals while imagining himself to be like them. He has apologized for America and told us basically as Mitt put it “well it could be worse.” He was a man with little experience when we voted him in, and he has gained nothing…not even wisdom. I will be voting for Mitt since he is the only one with A) the experience needed to run this country and turn it in the right direction. B) He has the cool head needed to make rational decisions that avert war without catapulting us into one. And the strength to see one through if it comes to that. C) As governor of MA he has the experience and proven history of uniting both sides of the aisle, something badly needed in this “do nothing” congress. He is not perfect, but he is the best of the bunch for the job and I will be casting my vote for him.
Overall, a pretty good assessment of the situation, except I would disagree about Jon, he is just as power and money hungry as any of them, and has the charisma and attraction of a wet mop. He persists in the race purely due to his giant ego, and is willing to throw tens of millions of $$ of his and his Dad’s (who without him Jon would be nothing since he is essentially a trust baby) billions into a futile chase for acceptance and publicity for himself alone. He retorts his rivals in Mandarin (or was it Cantonese?) to show off and act like a renaissance man, but he is just another crude, greedy, and incompetent politician.
In fact, Jon was so inconsequential as a candidate that the article in my recent Scientific American about the candidates didn’t even mention him: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gingrich-tops-scientific-american
But with Mitt as the nominee, and the others all trying to paint him as too much of a capitalist and too free market oriented, the Repubs will go down come Nov., and Obama will get 4 more years. Mitt makes Obama look warm, engaging, and fuzzy, and since Mitt is not only the 1%, but the 1% of the 1%, Obama will make this a true class warfare election.
Watch the video on the unscrupulous Mitt Romney by the Newt Gingrich PAC. Romney is a good example of “Vulture Capitalism” or as Romney calls it “creative destruction.” His private equity firm was a job killer and represents the worst in capitalism – GREED.
http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/
Here is a 1994 TV ad attacking Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c0y3FDgxf8
Here is a hypocritical speech by Romney in 1994on abortion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeQGObiGGqY
His nomination by the Republicans will be a disaster.