14th July 2011, 02:33 AM #1
"When movements capture parties, strange things happen..."
Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast (not my favorite rag, but occasionally I drop in) has written a fascinating editorial on how he thinks Michele Bachmann could win the GOP nomination in 2012.
In How Bachmann could win, there are some noteworthy points.
"If you’re not yet taking Michele Bachmann’s candidacy seriously, this may be the week to start....
...First let’s dispense with the mechanics. The non-Romneys have all raised in the range of $4 million or so. That’s awfully small potatoes (remember that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama raised $25 and $30 million, respectively, in the same quarter of 2007). Bachmann has always been strong on money. She was in fact the top fundraiser in the House last year among Republicans, hauling in $13.5 million for what initially looked to be a tough race. As was true of Obama in 2007-08, she gets most of her money (far more than he did, in fact) from small donors, with an average donation of $619.34, suggesting the presence of a large army of people out there who have the money and will to write her one, two, three, or more $500 checks as the nominating process goes on. That will sustain her through the early contests...
.....We always knew it would come down to Romney and One Who Is Not Romney, and the latter is shaping up to be Bachmann. Two questions then arise. First, whom does the calendar favor? ...
...the first four states are Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. If Bachmann gets a split on those four, she heads into Super Tuesday positioned to win a bunch of smaller states. Romney would probably take big states like New York and California. That will help him on the delegate count, but the Bachmann team will undoubtedly argue that those are Obama states anyway—and that the GOP needs a person who’s a vote-getter in red states. And it will be an argument that will make people stop and think...
...What will be happening in Washington next spring as Republican voters select their nominee? Is there any reason to think the GOP base will be any less enraged about the fact that Barack Obama is the president? Is there any reason to think that a conservative movement that is at this hour unloading more bile on Mitch McConnell than even on Obama will become more pragmatic when deliberating on its presidential nominee? Maybe. But when movements capture parties, strange things happen. The antiwar faction captured the Democratic Party in 1972, giving us the candidacy of George McGovern, and the tea party movement has captured the GOP now....
One point I would like to differ on is the point about Romney winning "Obama" states in the primaries, as if that is a detriment to him in the GE. Clinton supporters tried to use this same argument about Obama in 2008, pointing out that he won the majority of "red" states in the primaries, but those were states he would not win in the General, and since Hilary won the big "blue" states, she would have the better chances. We already know how that all turned out. So, the Bachmann team could try this tack, but even the most recent of political history would prove them false.
As for the formulation "We always knew it would come down to Romney and One Who Is Not Romney", I would think that we should NEVER make assumptions in election years. In December 2007, the talk was all about Clinton vs. Giuliani. That being said, barring a Perry run or a Palin run (I still don't think she is going to run), it does look like Bachmann is sucking up most of the oxygen in the room and leaving precious little for the other anti-Romneys. And then there is the Ron Paul factor to consider (a side topic you all may be interested to discuss in tandem with Michele Bachmann).
Last edited by bonncaruso; 14th July 2011 at 02:37 AM.
Tags for this Thread