Jimmy Carter endorses Romney for GOP nominee

[Bull Moose Base]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/16/carter-would-be-very-pleased-to-see-romney-win-gop-race/

The man who himself lost to the Republican nominee thought to be too extreme for the general election weighs in.  While there are some Democrats hoping for Perry to be the nominee speculating he'd be easier for Obama to beat, a growing number of Democrats are queasy about the risk of a Tea Party prez.  Though in Carter's case, sounds like he just means the country is better off if the Republican Party was the kind of party that nominated Romney.

[Torie]

Is Jimmy trying to help Perry? Man, he's a slyer dude than I thought!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Looks like Carter is one of the very few people who realize how dangerous Perry would be in general election.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Is Jimmy trying to help Perry? Man, he's a slyer dude than I thought!

And I thought Clinton was slick.

[Bull Moose Base]

Is Jimmy trying to help Perry? Man, he's a slyer dude than I thought!

Doubt he's being clever.  He was asked a question and old people tend to lose the filter between what they privately think and what comes out of their mouth.  I think he's mostly viewing the race through the prism of his own experience, and is skeptical of CW.  Reagan was deemed too conservative and lacking in gravitas while Bush Sr. polled more competitively against Carter than Reagan did.  Maybe Team Carter was hoping Reagan would win the nomination and become the next Goldwater.  Instead he became the next president.  It's pretty obvious Carter thinks Perry would be a terrible president.

[Wonkish1]

Is Jimmy trying to help Perry? Man, he's a slyer dude than I thought!

Doubt he's being clever.  He was asked a question and old people tend to lose the filter between what they privately think and what comes out of their mouth.  I think he's mostly viewing the race through the prism of his own experience, and is skeptical of CW.  Reagan was deemed too conservative and lacking in gravitas while Bush Sr. polled more competitively against Carter than Reagan did.  Maybe Team Carter was hoping Reagan would win the nomination and become the next Goldwater.  Instead he became the next president.  It's pretty obvious Carter thinks Perry would be a terrible president.

Thumbs up for a good analysis.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

1.  Have Democrats pretend to support Romney
2.  GOP base freaks out, nominates Perry
3.  Conservative Perry turns the independents back towards the Democrats
4.  Obama wins reelection

Simple

[Wonkish1]

1.  Have Democrats pretend to support Romney
2.  GOP base freaks out, nominates Perry
3.  Conservative Perry turns the independents back towards the Democrats
4.  Obama wins reelection

Simple

You do know that people said the same about Reagan, W., and Obama right? They also said that about Thompson and Dean and yet Kerry and McCain lost.

For those with Red avatars, how many of you think Clinton would have outperformed Obama in 2008?

[bgwah]

I understand where he's coming from. While I do think Perry would be less difficult to beat, and would provide for a more entertaining election, the economy sucks and whoever wins the GOP nomination has a serious chance of becoming President. And with that in mind, I would obviously rather have Romney and not the insane Rick Perry.

[angus]

Ahahahaha.  Seriously?!  Well, that must certainly be the kiss of death.  Assuming this isn't a RickRoll--I didn't click on the link--But I imagine that Huntsman, Perry, Paul, Cain, Bachmann and others must be enjoying a surge in their odds all of the sudden. 

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

1.  Have Democrats pretend to support Romney
2.  GOP base freaks out, nominates Perry
3.  Conservative Perry turns the independents back towards the Democrats
4.  Obama wins reelection

Simple

You do know that people said the same about Reagan, W., and Obama right? They also said that about Thompson and Dean and yet Kerry and McCain lost.

For those with Red avatars, how many of you think Clinton would have outperformed Obama in 2008?

You think McCain would have under-performed George Walker Bush in 2000? 

Also Hillary had strength in other parts of the country relative to Obama.  Even though Indiana would have stayed a red (or blue based on this forum) state Missouri was more likely to go Democratic.  Also I think she would have performed better in Ohio and Florida

[Wonkish1]

I doubt it.

In both cases of Obama and Clinton and McCain and W. I doubt the more moderate choice would have performed better.

Obama/Clinton:
Yes Clinton would have performed better with some working class whites, Appalachia, etc. But I also believe the enthusiasm of Obama's supporters convinced many independents as well. Plus had Clinton won I bet the turnout amongst minorities and young voters would have been much lower(Kerry turnout). She still would have likely won because of the economy, but I think she likely would have performed worse. I might be in the minority on that one, though.

Bust/McCain:
While McCain may have looked like he would have done better on paper with independents I doubt he would have done better than Bush. First, him not being a fan of tax cuts white collar professionals and small businessman(the backbone of the Fiscal conservatives in the US) wouldn't have donated much to McCain's campaign. That would have allowed Gore's union money and wealthy donors(yes Gore like Dems throughout the 90s raised more wealthy donors than GOP candidates did) to outspend McCain in the ground. Furthermore, the huge new registrations of evangelical voters ahead of 2000 and 2004 would have never happened under McCain. Furthermore, as we noticed in 2008 McCain runs a very boring campaign and that tends to turn off voters.

In general I bet Obama and W. would have outperformed their more moderate counterparts. The point where that goes the other way is when you nominate folks way, way to extreme for the times(Goldwater, McGovern, etc.).

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

The youth vote may not have been as motivated with Hillary, but the Hispanic vote would have made up for that.  Clinton crushed Obama with the Hispanic vote, she won it by massive margins in my states primary
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#TXDEM

I could go state-by-state, I only recall my states primary but I do know she really hurt him in the primary with those numbers and kept it going as long as she did.  With a Hillary candidacy we could have easily seen the Hispanic vote go 70-30 versus the 67-31 it did (based on CNN polls)

As for the black vote it depends, I completely agree it may have been a lower turnout.  That would cost Hillary Indiana.  However that could be exchanged for Missouri.  As for Virginia I don't know, the black vote was critical for Obama there maybe Hillary could have just pulled out Virginia by one point or so versus the Obama margin.  Of course Hillary may have had a lot of good will left over the success of the Clinton Presidency.  

[Wonkish1]

But that was in the primary. Obama did pretty damn well with the Latino vote in 2008. The only place he did get clobbered in relative to previous Dems was in blue collar neighborhoods, Appalachia, Coal country, Iron Range, etc.

And the Black vote would have for sure cost Hillary North Carolina as well.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

But that was in the primary. Obama did pretty damn well with the Latino vote in 2008. The only place he did get clobbered in relative to previous Dems was in blue collar neighborhoods, Appalachia, Coal country, Iron Range, etc.

And Hillary could have done even better with the Hispanic vote.  We could have seen a 70-30 margin or even higher.

Also don't underestimate how the first female president candidacy could have motivated voters.  The female vote could have been even higher for Hillary, especially among the youth.  The way I see it is all the group balancing out with a near-identical result

[Bull Moose Base]

1.  Have Democrats pretend to support Romney
2.  GOP base freaks out, nominates Perry
3.  Conservative Perry turns the independents back towards the Democrats
4.  Obama wins reelection

Simple

You do know that people said the same about Reagan, W., and Obama right? They also said that about Thompson and Dean and yet Kerry and McCain lost.

For those with Red avatars, how many of you think Clinton would have outperformed Obama in 2008?

You think McCain would have under-performed George Walker Bush in 2000? 

Also Hillary had strength in other parts of the country relative to Obama.  Even though Indiana would have stayed a red (or blue based on this forum) state Missouri was more likely to go Democratic.  Also I think she would have performed better in Ohio and Florida

It doesn't matter that McCain may have been stronger than Bush in the election in the sense that Bush became president and I think it's fair to say Jimmy Carter (and many other Democrats) presumably wish McCain had been the nominee and president.  (Obviously, they'd prefer Gore but I mean between Bush and McCain.)  Not that Bush was even that conservative before he was in office.  In any case, this is what I think Carter is operating off of: the idea that Perry is too big a risk as nominee because he could win.  Or more generally, Perry winning means the Tea Party has taken over the GOP and it bodes poorly for America and the world if a guy can doubt global warming and become a nominee for president.  I really don't think there's any chance Carter is trying to hug Romney to death, so to speak.  Obama has probably been doing that, citing Romney's influence on his own healthcare reform (or praising Huntsman, and that one he even did with a proverbial wink).  But Obama and his team are focused on winning re-election and might hope for a more conservative nominee they can beat with a competitiveness someone like Carter isn't thinking about.  Carter is not on the inside and just old-manily speaks his mind.  He said this at a tiny forum when the question was put to him and probably is assuming it won't affect the race. Whereas Obama knows whatever he says about the Republican nominees will get attention and be used against them.

[Wonkish1]

I do hold a personal viewpoint that political analysts way underestimate:
1) The importance of enthusiasm
2) How important base turnout is

Personally, I do believe those 2 things are vastly more valuable than how much cross appeal a candidate has 12+ months before the election.

I also believe that people way underestimate the value of:
1) Talent on the stump
2) Personal likability

Given these 4 factors I personally wish I could place a large intrade bet that Obama's 08 election will be the high watermark for Democrats for at least the next 2 decades. As balsy of a call that is, I believe its fairly safe bet; every possible factor lined up in their favor in 08.

[Disarray]

I do hold a personal viewpoint that political analysts way underestimate:
1) The importance of enthusiasm
2) How important base turnout is

Personally, I do believe those 2 things are vastly more valuable than how much cross appeal a candidate has 12+ months before the election.

I also believe that people way underestimate the value of:
1) Talent on the stump
2) Personal likability

Given these 4 factors I personally wish I could place a large intrade bet that Obama's 08 election will be the high watermark for Democrats for at least the next 2 decades. As balsy of a call that is, I believe its fairly safe bet; every possible factor lined up in their favor in 08.

This is laughable, how can you be this dumb?  Obama did horrible among seniors (hell Obama did worse among seniors than John Kerry did!) and bad among whites if the 2008 election was had under 1988's Demographics Obama would have lost.

Vice-versa if the 2008 elections were held under 2020's projected demographics he would have had a 15% landslide.

I to wish I could bet on Obama's 08 win being the Dems high watermark for two decades, it would be free money from you.

Kerry among seniors got 47%
Obama among seniors got 45%


Obama vs McCain in 1988 rough calculation based on race.

Obama 47.5
McCain 52.5


Reagan vs Mondale in 2020 demographics.. Reagan would loose

[Wonkish1]

You do know that GOP registration numbers have been trending up for the last 40 years, right? And that people are self identifying as "conservative" more than at any point in history, right? Also, the population of Red states are growing by very high rates and the majority of Dems that move to those states change their party registration to Republican or at least start voting Republican in elections, right?

While the population has more minorities today than 20 years, the population is more Republican and conservative than it was 20 years ago because white voters are more Republican and more conservative than 20 years ago.

All of what I said is verified FACT.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually this has reduced the strength of the Republican party in many states precisely because they type of Republicans they are used to seeing and supporting aren't common in those new inhabitations, and the Republicans they do find, scare the sh**t out of them. If anything it is the exact opposite. Republicans who move south, find themselves supporting Democrats more often then before.  Internal migration ceased to benefit the GOP in the 1980's. Prior to that, you had places like Florida and Arizona, where the arrive of NE and MW Republicans spurred the growth of the GOP in those states, where it hadn't existed previously. The flight of middle class Republicans from MA, in the 1970's helped to fuel the GOP revival in NH in the late 1970's through the 1980's, while the rest of northern New England continued to drift away.


And for the most part, the major cause of that growth in population in red states, is high birth rates amongst a group that isn't very favorable to the Republican party at present.

[Wonkish1]

The data I've seen is high numbers of Democrats moving into the Red states switching parties because their new neighbors and friends are conservative and quite convincing.

I haven't read anything on what Republicans are doing when they move to red states, so you may be right.

But keep in mind that its predominately Dem voters coming from the blue states to GOP states.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Since 1990, you have seen FL (which voted for Bush 41 in 1992) became swing state in the 2000's. NC and VA have gone from Red states that rejected Clinton twice, to marginal swing states that voted for Obama. All three have seen continuance of northern in migration over that period and it seems to be strengthing the Democrats in Presidential results.


Republicans are gaining in registration because a large number of people who made the red states, red, were Democrats and continued to vote as such at the state level and kept their registrations as such to have a voice at the state level. Now they are realizing that times have permenently changed and have been switching parties and now have nothing to loose by doing so. However that doesn't add anything to GOP strength at the federal level as many of these people have been voting Republican for decades, already. In 1972 and 1984, NC had a much higher percentage of registered Democrats (75% in 1972, 65% in 1984 and 49% today) and far lower percentage of Republicans then they do now (teens in 72, 25% in 1984 and now at 38% or so now). An 8% to 12% registration advantage now is worth more then a 30% advantage 25 years ago. The Democrats are more liberal, younger, and far more loyal then they were previously, and thus the mass defections that gave Nixon and Reagan the state won't happen amongst them again. They aren't the same people.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The data I've seen is high numbers of Democrats moving into the Red states switching parties because their new neighbors and friends are conservative and quite convincing.

I haven't read anything on what Republicans are doing when they move to red states, so you may be right.

But keep in mind that its predominately Dem voters coming from the blue states to GOP states.

Most northerners aren't dispersing into the rural areas, they are settling into heavily populated areas and often concentrate together. You often hear people comment that parts of the Triangle are like NY or NJ now. So I don't know how effective that kind of invidual missionarism can be in such areas.

Of course they are predominately Dem, I was referring to the few Republicans that are still moving south. Northern migration of Dems and moderate Republicans is credited with giving Obama NC, along with higher minority and youth turnout.

[Wonkish1]

Be careful here,

North Carolina also elected the first Republican legislatures since Reconstruction. The black vote in North Carolina was crucial to Obama winning there, same for Indiana(which on many scales is still one of the most conservative states in the Union).

Virginia moving to the left because of the growth of the DC suburbs is a really unique circumstance. You have people that are moving there to work for the government, service people that work for the government, etc. Their livelihoods depend upon lots and lots of highly paid federal employees.

Clinton won Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Ohio, Montana, and of less surprise New Hampshire, New Mexico, Missouri, and Iowa in 1992

In 96 he also carried Florida, but not Georgia.

In 2000 Bush wins back Florida and Ohio takes all of those Southern states back for the GOP

In 2004 He does the same

In 2008 Florida votes way less for Obama than Virginia or Ohio does and Obama can't win any of the southern states Clinton won

The southern states are more conservative than they have ever been. Texas is assimilating fmr Democrats at an amazing rate.

Florida will vote the way of the elderly from each election going forward

[Lincoln Republican]

Do most of you have to be so cynical?

Can't anyone simply give Jimmy Carter credit for having the best interests of the nation at heart, and expressing that if the Republicans are going to win the Presidency that he would rather have the competent Romney in charge instead of the wingnut Perry?