Searching for the Not-Romney

Over the last six months, I have described the Republican nomination to be the search for the not-Romney.  The average Republican does not want Romney, but they don’t know who they do want, among the midgets that are running.  Thus we see candidates spike in their approval ratings — everyone except for Huntsman, as Republicans search for an alternative to Romney.

Tonight, Santorum may be the not-Romney.  Ron Paul can never be the not-Romney because he is Ron Paul; he is something in himself, and not the competitor in relative terms.

My guess is that the not-Romney, whoever he might be, will win the nomination, and maybe the election.  My best hope is for a deadlock at the Republican convention, and they choose someone other than the midgets that are currently running.

3 Comments

  • Brooszh says:

    Amazed that you’d say that. There is no “not-Romney” in the field who has even a remote chance of beating of Obama. Santorum? Of the 3,577 reasons why he couldn’t win, I’ll take “no abortion even in cases of rape and incest” as one of the top three. Gingrich? At least we didn’t *know* Cheney was corrupt before he got voted in. Newt doesn’t even have that luxury. He would bring out Democrats like Hilary brings out Republicans. Paul? For the electoral score of that presidential contest, see Goldwater v. Johnson. The fact is, people like it when ma and pa get their medicare checks, etc. Huntsman? Ironically, he’s the best candidate in the field but he’s unwilling to fake insanity the way Romney is. Romney will get the nomination, and (despite being a monumental creep) he has an outside but real shot of winning depending on how the year goes.

  • Brooszh says:

    Not related to this post, but I’m curious where you stand on the so called “Big Lie” that has gotten so much treatment in the media of late. Ritholtz et al. say that the credit crisis was primarily caused by under-regulated private companies (e.g. predatory and fraudulent lending, ratings agencies rubber stamping, insurers delving into exotic derivatives, Wall Street putting lipstick on it all at every stage, etc.).

    Others (not the least of whom being Michael Bloomberg) say that it was caused by the government, i.e. Congress made bankers give loans to people who couldn’t pay them back all in the name of home ownership.

    [FYI, Jim Cramer chimes in on everything under the sun five billion times a week. To my knowledge he has not publicly said where he stand on this -- one of the most central financial issues of our lives. I'll give you one guess as to why. : ) ]

1 Trackback