Very cool. I should look through my stuff and see if I have any I can sell you on the cheap. Maybe this next month.

The Republicans agree with me, which is why they're running this slate of crazies. No one sane wants to get in there.

IIRC, that's also largely how Bill Clinton became the Dem nominee in '92. Bush Sr's high approval ratings (at the start of the process) scared off the Mario Cuomos of the Dem world.

I agree that defeating an incumbent President is very difficult, but I'm less sanguine about what it takes to do so. In particular, I don't think it takes a political genius to pull it off. (I do, however, think that anyone who manages it will be lauded as a political genius after the fact.)

The key to such a race, IMO, is that the decision becomes about the President, far more than about the challenger. If the people continue to regard the incumbent as acceptable, he'll get back in. (Though if the judgment is very close, a truly talented challenger could influence that.) If, however, he's now deemed as unacceptable by the electorate, they'll vote in the challenger. The one proviso, the hurdle the challenger has to clear, is that they have to be regarded as acceptable enough that America can take a chance on them. (That's the lesson I draw from 1980. It's not that Reagan was seen as being so great before he won, it's that Carter was so heavily on the nose. All Reagan had to do - and what he managed in the debates - was convince people he was not as recklessly unsafe a choice as they'd thought before the election began.)

IMO, then, there are just two things to watch. First and foremost is Obama's disapproval ratings. (And approval, but it's easier to win undecideds than turn opposeds - especially for a sitting President.) Second is if the Repubs nominate someone whom the electorate can vote for, even if some of them have to hold their nose to do so.

I don't think Bachmann or Santorum pass even that test. Paul is, as usual, a category unto himself. (Bachmann could conceivably see herself as some kind of Goldwater. Paul can only dream of being a Goldwater.) Perry and Gingrich - there would be nose-holding, but I could see it happening. Romney would not, I think, be seen negatively. If America wants to vote out Obama, Romney won't give them sufficient reason not to. (Huntsman is in the same boat as Romney, except for the whole not being able to win the nomination.)

I still favour Obama to win. Being the incumbent is a big advantage, especially if the Repubs prove keen to make him the only adult in the room. He's proven to be a strong campaigner (frankly, I think he's better at that than at governing). His ratings right now are borderline; if the economy improves over 2012, even slowly, that should be enough to get him over the line. On the other hand, if the economy slips, then I think the race is the Repubs' to lose. (If the economy is fairly static, I'd tilt towards Obama due to the incumbent and campaign machine advantages, but with a lot of uncertainty.)

I think you largely overrate Romney's appeal, particularly against a good candidate. This is telling:

On the other hand, if the economy slips, then I think the race is the Repubs' to lose.

"The Republicans" aren't a candidate; it rests totally on Romney's shoulders. A candidate who can't garner enthusiasm by the base over a number of poorer candidates.

Very cool. I should look through my stuff and see if I have any I can sell you on the cheap. Maybe this next month.

I well remember visiting msbelle's apartment in NYC when she showed off her many fabulous vintage dresses.

Back when she lived within spitting distance of Jesse. (Not that either of them spit.)

I found a speaker cable on Amazon that sells for $8.5K. More importantly, I found the comments on a speaker cable for sale for close to ten grand.

The problem with Romney is that he can't get above 25-30% of support. He has been holding this %age for months. So nationally, while he might be the nominee, I don't think he inspires passionate support, which is a problem.

Perry is out. He's going back to TX to assess his candidacy. We all know what that means. See ya in '16 sucker.

Gingrich was all but in tears in his speech. Bachmann will be out soon. So the question is how long Paul and Santorum will hang in there and how full bore Gingrich will go after Romney to damage him.

"The Republicans" aren't a candidate; it rests totally on Romney's shoulders.

No, but the candidate will carry the Republican label, and in the absence of knowing which candidate it will be, I still need something to call them. I think you're reading too much into it. (I'd also say that even if you don't have a parliamentary system, party affiliation still isn't completely irrelevant either; but the political landscape in America has become an odd one of late. At the very least, being too closely associated with the party heirarchy may carry as many negatives as positives these days.)

I think you largely overrate Romney's appeal, particularly against a good candidate.

No; my point is that his appeal is largely irrelevant. Against an incumbent, the electorate knows what one candidate is like in office, but has to guess at the other. Their assessment of the known quantity will dominate. If the electorate does still believe that Obama's a good candidate, it's unlikely to vote in a challenger, even if that challenger is well-regarded. If Obama is on the nose, however, then he'll most likely lose to any challenger who doesn't trip over his/her own shoelaces.

Romney doesn't need to be an appealing candidate. He needs to be a candidate that doesn't make the hairs on the back of one's neck stand up, and hope that Obama's approval ratings slip before November. (Well, he needs the nomination first. Still.)

Romney has two big strikes against him with the active Republican voters--he's Mormon and while he was governor of Massachusetts he was surprisingly liberal. The rabid Evangelicals would rather the world came to an end than vote for someone that many of that ilk don't even see as Christian. To most rational thinkers, the religious angle makes little difference. To the wingnuts, it's cause for terror.

For the stern conservatives, Romney has made very drastic changes to his stated policies, and it was fairly obvious that the changes were done to position him to be favorable to the rising tide of Tea Party influence. The ones who want to embrace him tell themselves that he was only pretending to be what passes for liberal in their neck of the woods, but there are dire suspicions about which publicly stated opinion is actual the truth.

We're looking at a lot of "Well, he's not Romney" on one side and "Well, he's not Whatever Whackaloon is Staging a Poll Surge This Afternoon" on the other side. The dedicated voters are probably going to split the Republican ticket, and the vaguely unsettled and undecided voters may decide to sit out the election altogether.

Romney doesn't need to be an appealing candidate. He needs to be a candidate that doesn't make the hairs on the back of one's neck stand up

I'm curious if Americans think Romney's Mormonism is a non-factor (as they did with JFK's Catholicism) or if it registers as "off."

Americans think Romney's Mormonism is a non-factor

Most Americans put it as 'huh, weird religion, oh well.' The rabid wingnuts think it's a sign of the devil. Honestly. In parts of the South, Mormon missionaries are still getting guns pulled on them.