Monday Open Thread [1.19.15]

Today’s theme is Mittens Willard Dillard Romney the III. Before that though, let’s enjoy some polling goodness, some of which does touch on the once and future frontrunner to the GOP nomination.

IOWA–PRESIDENT–REPUBLICAN PRIMARY–Gravis Marketing: Romney 21, Bush 14, Walker 10, Huckabee 9, Paul 8, Cruz 7

NATIONAL–PRESIDENT–REPUBLICAN PRIMARY–Economist/YouGov: Romney 28, Bush 12, Carson 10, Cruz 9, Huckabee 8, Paul 8, Walker 6

NATIONAL–PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL–Washington Post-ABC News: President Obama’s overall approval rating now stands at 50%, the highest since the spring of 2013.

“His standing is nine points higher than in December and seven points higher than in October, just before Republicans captured control of the Senate, increased their House majority to its highest level in eight decades and recorded advances in the states.”

NATIONAL–PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL–CBS News: 46% of Americans approve of President Obama’s job performance, while 46% disapprove. This is an increase in the approval of the President of 7 points since October.

“Mr. Obama appears to be getting some credit for an improving economy. Forty-three percent say Mr. Obama’s policies have helped the economy while fewer — 34 percent — say his policies have hurt. Still, these views are colored by partisanship: most Democrats think the president’s policies have helped the economy, while most Republicans say they have hurt.”

Gallup has the President at 48% and in positive territory over his disapproval rating. Interestingly, at this point in President Ronald Reagan’s term, in February 1987, his approval rating was 42%.

Indeed, the Washington Post observes that President Obama has also bested another Republican predecessor, his immediate one:

“While Obama has certainly been battered over his six years, he can at least say this: He’s in considerably better shape than his predecessor, George W. Bush, heading into the home stretch[.] Obama’s and Bush’s numbers rivaled each other for the better part of the middle of their presidencies — complete with hard-fought reelection races — Obama in recent months has differentiated himself from the tail end of the Bush years, keeping his approval rating steadily above 40 percent.”

NATIONAL–PRESIDENT–REPUBLICAN PRIMARY–CBS News: 29% of Republicans would like to see Christie run for the Republican nomination for president, But 44% say no. Only former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s numbers are more underwater: 30% of Republicans say they’d like to see her run, but 59% disagree. In contrast, 59% of Republicans would like to see Mitt Romney jump into the 2016 race, while 26% believe he should stay out.

First Read:

“Romney and Bush (and maybe Christie) in the 2016 GOP field is very good news for Rand Paul and Scott Walker, because it divides up the GOP establishment vote and donor base and allows them to present themselves as the new generation of the Republican Party. And the more time Romney and Bush (and maybe Christie) spend attacking each other, is less time they spend attacking Paul or Walker.”

That is my thought. Three Establishment, “moderate,” business-type Republicans in Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and Mitt Romney, all with huge donor bases. The three of them will destroy each other, leaving the door wide open for Rand Paul, Scott Walker, or Ted Cruz. Hell, even if they don’t destroy each other, they divide the non-crazy vote, so that if the crazy vote can be united behind one or two candidates, the crazy candidate might just win. Huckabee-Santorum 2016!!!

Nate Cohn agrees:

The odds that Mr. Paul spoils the fortunes of a more traditional candidate increase as more such credible candidates, like Mr. Romney, enter the field. Mr. Romney remains a long shot to win the nomination; it is unclear whether he will even run again. But if he does, and attracts any substantial support among party leaders this year, the odds of a more unusual outcome might increase.

Alex Massie:

“The suggestion Mitt Romney might make another run for the Presidency of the United States made me think of a line from one of my father’s novels: ‘There’s nothing so sad as the memory of lost fucks.’ There’s a measure of wistful sadness but also some wry resignation.”

“The obvious reaction is that, hey Mittens, third time ain’t no charm. Because that’s the way it’s supposed to work these days. You’re supposed to accept being beaten, supposed to retire gracefully from the fray, supposed to recognise it’s someone else’s turn. This ain’t Richard Nixon’s America and it’s not Ronald Reagan’s either.”

“And yet, in one sense, why should Romney accept it is someone else’s turn? It is not as though the Republican party is over-freighted with stars likely to defeat Hillary Clinton. Who can blame Romney for thinking he’s got as good a shot as any of these other schlubs?”

Jonathan Chait doesn’t buy Romney 3.0, and even if Romney is serious, he is going to get a rude awakening like John Kerry did in 2008:

Eight years ago, John Kerry briefly considered another run for president, after also having failed to oust an incumbent despised by his own party’s base and mistaking the outpouring of commitment on his behalf as an expression of personal loyalty, rather than the partisan loyalty it actually was. Soon enough, Kerry came to his senses. Romney will, too.

Nate Silver, with this cool graphic illustrating the many factions in the GOP and where the candidates generally fall in those factions, says Romney will have a tougher go this time around:

While Romney could perhaps beat out Bush, whose candidacy hasn’t been received all that well by conservative elites so far, a fresher face like Walker or Rubio could be more problematic. Or if the establishment field became too crowded, it could open up room for a candidate like Paul to win by plurality. Romney’s path is not impossible — after all, Republicans nominated him in 2012. But he faces a tougher sell and a tougher field than he did four years ago.

Beutler thinks Romney might have been competitive if things hadn’t started turning around for Obama, in the “see I told you so” kind of campaign:

Romney has never been a crusader, and was thus ill suited to the ideological battles of 2012. His best political attribute has always been a reputation for managerial competence. But he cashed in on that virtue at the wrong time, and as such, has legions of supporters, who support him not because he was a successful governor and business man, but because he promised to wrest the country from the clutches of socialism. It’d be untenable for him to pander to that element in a climate of full employment, but it’d be just as untenable for him to step out of sync with his supporters by promising to be a responsible steward of a full-employment economy.

Romney and his supporters are quick to point out that Ronald Reagan ran for the Presidency three times before winning in 1980 (lost the nomination to Nixon in 1968, though that was a spur of the moment campaign to stop the more “moderate” Nixon, and then famously lost the nomination to Ford in 1976 before finally winning the nomination and the presidency in 1980). But then there is also the example of Aldai Stevenson (who was a nominee in consecutive elections and lost both times). Aaron Blake points out that Mitt “would be only the second major-party nominee since the 1800s to lose a presidential race and then come back and win one.” Nixon and Grover Cleveland are the exceptions to the rule:

Nixon lost the 1960 popular vote by less than one point, and Cleveland actually won it in 1888, despite losing the Electoral College. In other words, they were near-miss candidates who probably earned another shot, in the eyes of party supporters. Romney’s 2012 loss — at nearly four points overall and the Electoral College 332-206 — while technically one of the closer popular votes in history, wasn’t really regarded as much of a near-miss (by everyone except perhaps the Romney campaign).