Douthat: it’s Romney, whatever we may think about that
in the NY Times says
that everyone should stop playing with the notion that we don’t know who will win the GOP nomination. Romney, he says, is inevitable. Here is the core of his argument:
[W]hen you have eliminated the impossible, as Sherlock Holmes told Watson, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. This rule holds for presidential contests as well as for whodunits: Romney is improbable, but his rivals are impossible, and so he will be the nominee.
- end of initial entry -
Jim C. writes:
1. Republicans loathe Obama and will not gamble on his challenger.
2. Mitt Romney could knock Barry out with one punch in any debate, on any topic.
3. Romney will be the nominee.
4. Obama will lose in a landslide.
5. Expect a ton of books published after Barry’s ignominious defeat finally telling the truth about this affirmative mediocrity.
James N. writes:
We’ve discussed before the left’s fear and loathing of popular opinion, and their resultant desire to come to closure on electoral matters BEFORE THE CAMPAIGN. After all, if campaigning could change anything, then incorrect opinions could come to the fore, and then, perhaps, something could change.
The nomination of McCain after a short primary process accomplished the purpose for which it was intended. The near-coronation of Romney, before the voting has even started, solidifies the anti-democratic model. As I see it, this model has come into existence to serve a purpose—to prevent organized opposition to the ruling coalition.
The ruling coalition is united around several things that the people are against. They are skilled at setting up phony issues (or issues that don’t concern the federal government) to break up the formation of any possible other coalition. They also have become accomplished at creating contests between two candidates who are more similar than dissimilar.
Republicans and Democrats agree that the purpose of the state is redistribution. How much, and to whom, and under what circumstances, there are disagreements. But no elected officials of either party believe that it is wrong to take from you and give to another of their own choosing, for reasons that make sense to them.
Republicans and Democrats agree that you have “rights”—lots of them. They also agree that any question about your “rights,” or about whether or not something is a “right,” should not be decided by a political process because that is “divisive.” So, they both agree that the voice of “the people” as contemplated in Articles IX and X can only be voiced by nine unelected life tenure judges, and that five of them, at any time or for any reason, can give new “rights” and take away old ones, particularly if those old ones arise out of majority voting.
Republicans and Democrats all believe in “diversity.” Ignoring completely the results of all social science research on this subject, and contrary to millennia of human experience and wisdom, they believe that the more “diverse” our country, its institutions, and any private entities within her become, the more cohesive and productive we will become.
Republicans and Democrats almost all believe in “free trade” and “immigration.” These things are good for various constituencies of both parties while they wreck the economy and the nation.
Many of the people, perhaps a majority, do not believe in any of these things. But in our existing system, captive as it is to the MSM-mandated “process” for choosing two candidates for POTUS neither of whom will change a thing, leaves the People with no voice.
Something’s gonna blow.
I don’t think Douthat was engaged in trying to manipulate the process. I think he was making a reasonable forecast.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 25, 2011 09:55 AM | Send