« A really lousy court decision | Main | Mitt Romney on education »

February 08, 2012


Gingrich is definitely smarter than Romney. I would never vote for either of them, but Gingrich is the smartest person to EVER run for president in EITHER party.

Elite Democrats may be smarter; but they have used their intelligence to push stupid policies. Non-elite Republicans may be stupider, but they want policies that are smarter or at least less destructive.

The Planned Parenthood and mandatory birth control news has upset socially conservative voters, and Santorum is a protest vote.

Smart doesn't matter if you don't support policies that help regular people.

Yes, Romney won in Colorado in 2008, but not in 2012, because he was seen as the "conservative alternative" to McCain, whereas now he's seen as the "mainstream moderate." The voters aren't too discerning about their actual policies, however.

I would vote for Santorum over Obama, but I wouldn't really expect him to turn the country around the way I expect Romney would if he were given executive power. My main beef with Santorum is that he comes off as a relic of the Bush era's compassionate conservatism, which means urging huge companies and other such institutions to prop up NAMs, while skimming off hefty profits with pork barrel spending, lobbying and insider trader.

It'll take more than him being against abortion or gay marriage for me to get excited for him, though I'd like to see him win just so I could laugh at Obama supporters.

You simply can't trust were Romney when he tells you where he is on the issues spectrum.

I think the Mormons of Colorado know this and spoke yesterday.

I was pretty sure Santorum would do well in Minnesota as he and Bachmann are colse on the ideological spectrum.

Less smart conservative >>> smartest RINO evah!

Prole whites are never going to vote for Romney. Netzsche has (once again) aleady explained this:

Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (The Gay Science) Section 40:

"Soldiers and their leaders have always a far better relationship with one another than workmen and their employers. At present at least, all militarily established civilisation still stands high above all so called industrial civilisation; the latter, in its present form, is in general the meanest mode of existence that has ever been. It is simply the law of necessity that operates here: people want to live, and have to sell themselves; but they despise him who exploits their necessity and purchases the workman. It is curious that the subjection to powerful, fear inspiring, and even dreadful individuals, to tyrants and leaders of armies, is not at all felt so painfully as the subjection to such undistinguished and uninteresting persons as the captains of industry; in the employer the workman usually sees merely a crafty, blood sucking dog of a man who speculates on all misery and the employers name, form, character, and reputation are altogether indifferent to them. It is probable that the manufacturers and great magnates of commerce have hitherto lacked too much all those forms and attributes of a superior kind, which alone make persons interesting; if they had had the nobility of the nobly born in their looks and bearing, there would perhaps have been no socialism in the masses of the people. For these are really ready for slavery of every kind, provided that the superior class above them constantly shows itself legitimately superior, and born to command by its noble presence! The commonest man feels that nobility is not to be improvised, and that it is his part to honour it as the fruit of long periods of time. But the absence of the higher presence, and the notorious vulgarity of manufacturers with red, fat hands, gives him the idea that only accident and luck has elevated the one above the other. Well then so he reasons with himself - let us try accident and luck! Our turn to throw the dice! And thus socialism is born."

HS: Why are you putting so much effort towards Romney? Clearly all the Republicans with the exception of Ron Paul are better than Obama and they all have voiced their full support of Israel. We might have our preferences but too much of the scorched earth tactics between the GOP candidates will be problematic in the long run.

My general theory for this election is that many people, even Republicans have internalized the notion that Obama "isn't so bad" in the back of their minds. I haven't heard a truly sincere call from the right as to why we should put all our efforts to defeat Obama.

The electorate is desperately looking for someone to inspire them and rally behind. We went from Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Romney and now Santorum, and none of them have come close to capturing Reagan, or even Bush level support from the people. Romney got into trouble when the media pounced on his "I don't care about poor people" gaffe. Offsetting any possible coalescence of support toward him.

I bet most rational people are thinking the same thing; forget the ideology and party, we need someone with presidential presence to grab those female and uninformed voters away from Obama. Unfortunately, women are still in "love" with Obama. If it's a choice between a successful black man or a successful white man, they are only going to pick based on which of the two excites them sexually the most.


How can the Republicans get things right before the election? I believe the answer lies in trying another strategy that focuses on the working class, underemployed and unemployed. Unfortunately for Romney all his business success and popularity with the rich are the what will drive the lower economic group away from the GOP.

I saw that Romney supports indexing the minimum wage to inflation. That is a liberal position. Ranked from most libertarian-conservative to most liberal, he is very liberal:

1) Abolish minimum wage
2) Retain minimum wage but keep it low
3) Raise minimum wage and index to inflation
4) Go to a living wage

[HS: I've supported the minimum wage in previous blog posts, so good for him.]

Any chance you could devote a post to explaining the difference between a caucus and a primary? Also, can you mention the way different states divvy up their delegates? Apparently, some are winner take all and some are proportionally divided.

[HS: Caucuses are more difficult to attend, so they only attract the most motivated.]

I'm not about to compare the intelligence of Romney and Gingrich. I do suspect that Romney has better impulse control than Gingrich (which is a plus).
I think that Gingrich will do well on Super Tuesday, and may knock Romney out. I'm not happy about that, and I don't believe that Gingrich can beat Obama.

It seems somewhat bizarre to me that a person who claims to have a high IQ would back a political candidate based solely on their perceived IQ. Now I understand dumb Christians who would only vote for other Christians, or dumb blacks who would only vote for other blacks (when that's an option), but IQ would seem to be the one characteristic that if a person has it, they wouldn't (by definition) be dumb enough to base their decisions solely on if other people have it.

1) Per the GSS WORDSUM, Republicans are smarter than Democrats and "very conservative" subjects are the most intelligent ideological group. The media does a much better job at protecting imbeciles with a (D) after their name.

2) Santorum will likely win the nomination. At this point conservatives will rally around Santorum. His biggest crime was supporting Specter but in the big scheme that will be forgotten. Just watch some of his victory and concession speeches. He articulates conservatism much, much better than Romney and he's a natural politician.

3) Santorum may well be a better candidate than Romney in the general election. He's certainly much better able to capture the idjut independents in the rust belt who don't like polished rich guys and who cares about suburban Republicans in NJ, NY, MA or CA think!

4) Santorum is good for econ Republicans and libertarians. In the Republican liberty caucus he is rated as an "Enterprizer" overall and "Libertarian" most years:

As we can see from the ideological map, the "enterprizer" category is really just libertarian-lite.


If Romney isn't nominated, the GOP gets crushed into dust in November.

I can't believe Republicans are so stupid that they would nominate Gingrich or Santorum over Romney.

HS, what do you think happens?

[HS: Romney is most likely to beat Obama, but if the people could elect GWB president they could also elect Gingirch or Santorum. Romney would be most effective as president at getting conservative agenda actually enacted. Santorum is most likely to be like GWB, saying conservative stuff about abortion, but nothing really changes under his administration.]

I wonder if the overturning of Prop 8 had any effect on the caucuses?

I think any of the 4 main remaining Republican candidates would *be* a better president than Obama, but only Romney has a good chance of *becoming* president campaigning against Obama. Gingrich is too erratic, Paul is too "kooky", Santorum is too socially conservative.

The polls have been saying for over a year that a "generic Republican" can beat Obama, but that most named candidates can't, so we're going to nominate the closest thing we can find to a generic Republican: Mitt Romney.

I'm not really a Romney fan, but he is undoubtedly the best chance the Republicans have to win the presidency this year. Gingrich has plenty of flip-flops, just like Romney. But Gingrich's high negatives make him an unlikely winner. I don't know where the Santorum surge is coming from. In 2006, two-term Senator Santorum ran for reelection in Pennsylvania against former Governor Bob Casey. Santorum lost by 17%, the worst drubbing of any incumbent senator that year and the biggest margin of victory ever for a Democratic senatorial candidate in the state. I think Obama would chew him up and spit him out. Romney may not be perfect, but he's the best chance we've got.

@Martin L. Morgan,

Nietszche sure had a lot to say about private industry and the military for a guy who never really served in either. But lack of experience never stopped an academic from theorizing, or even taking action on crazy academic theories (case in point, Obama).

"Unfortunately, women are still in "love" with Obama. If it's a choice between a successful black man or a successful white man, they are only going to pick based on which of the two excites them sexually the most."

You can thank the leftist Jews in mass media for glorifying blacks and enchanting them to white women. Barrage of denial incoming from Jewish commentators in 3...2....1.....GO!

[HS: There's no Jewish conspiracy. For example, the GSS shows that the vast majority of Jews oppose affirmative action. Future comments of this sort may be deleted because they put the HBD movement in a bad light.]

Santorum would demolish any chance of Republicans ever winning in the general election. Every reliable polls show Obama winning by a margin of 10%, which would imply an absolute landslide. Probably since he won't even be close to matching Obama's 1 billion dollar PR campaign monolith.


His naive understanding of reproductive rights and abortion will translate poorly in foreign policy negotiations and his overall image in global politics. He doesn't have gravitas, charisma, credentials or the necessary foresight to renounce the treatment of Guantanamo prisoners.

He graduated from Penn State... isn't that a top party school according to Bloomberg?


Nietzsche was a goddamn genius, son.

Save whatever time you'd spend pondering election 2012-since Obama won already, and read Nietzsche's "The Antichrist".

Actually Romney should read it too as it has insight into the Republican base he sorely lacks.

Santorum is a much better politician than Romney. I've been noticing this in the debates for a while. He seems natural, he speaks clearly, he has that likability factor. I think he has an excellent chance of beating Obama.

Forget the political positions they hold. It's the old "who would you like to have a beer with" factor. Obama over McCain. Bush over Gore. Clinton over the first Bush. Etc. It wins EVERY time.

People vote for people they like. Santorum is far more likable than Romney will ever be. I would rather have a beer with Santorum than Obama. But I would rather have a beer with Obama than Romney.

[HS: This "beer" thing is very overrated. Gravitas is more important. Female voters don't care about drinking beer with male politicians. They will vote for a rich and good-looking man like Romney even though he doesn't drink beer.]

The most important issue for our future as a country is getting government spending under control. The three largest expenditures are Social Security, Medicare and Defense. None of the Republican candidates with the exception of Paul is going to cut Defense so if any Republican but Paul gets nominated he's going to have to run on a platform of making cuts in S.S. and Medicare to get the deficit down. They'll have to defend that against Obama in a debate and will the country support them on that and vote for them? I can see people voting for a Democrat who wants to cut military spending over a Republican who wants to cut their Social Security and Medicare and keep military spending high. Eventually we'll have to cut all three but the voters are still in a state of denial about that.

[HS: Defense has continuously been shrinking as a percentage of GDP (with some ups and downs but the long-term trend is less defense spending), so that's not the real reason for the budget deficit.]


Do not be glib about Nietzsche's insight. He is to psychology what J.S. Bach is to music and Shakespeare to words. Profound beyond all criticism.

On topic, I will vote for Santorum just because the left hates him more. Visualize the puerile condescension with which the NPR crowd regards him. Santorum's election would erase their mawkish grins, their unbridled loathing and contempt would come out. In my estimation this is well worth the long odds.

HS is right, there is no conspiracy. Black men are naturally more alpha than white men and can attract women easily. The taboo factor also enhances their allure to white women. With the exception of sports and the military, white guys have been forced to act less like men and magnify their beta qualities. This is part of the course for all advanced nations (ie. Japan - from samurai warriors to herbivore men). Hence there is no need for any sort of cabal to push this agenda.

I have a feeling that the GOP can't win anyway, unless they had a charismatic leader to rally around, and NONE of the candidates have that quality. Ann Coulter said today that even her boy Chris Christi might not be able to beat Obama, so that is a way for her to protect herself against a Romney defeat in the Fall.

This may be the last election that Whites could win. After 4 years of Obama, amnesty and more immigration, it will be over for us crackers. However, some party - GOP or a new one - may try and rally Whites (prole and non-prole) into a voting block.

Santorum isn't as smart as Romney or Gingrich, but he's smart enough. He's at least as smart as Reagan.

Santorum's views are pretty close to Bush 43. Romney is more of a Bush 41. I'll take a 43 over a 41 anyday. When Gingrich was speaker, he was a libertarian in all but name. Damn, did we miss an opportunity!

"HS: I've supported the minimum wage in previous blog posts, so good for him."

Yes, but you never said it should be indexed to inflation so it it increases every year automatically. Right or wrong, this is a very liberal position that Romney is taking.

HS must agree that a high mininum wage creates problems. Millions of people are barely worth hiring at today's minimum wage. A higher one will push more people out of the labor market.

[HS: I think it will increase the labor force participation rate because the higher minimum salaries will induce people to look for jobs.]

Can someone summarize the argument that high minimum wage would drive out illegal aliens? I've heard that stated but not the reasons for it. I'm intrigued. I've always been for free market, but I'd be curious about the logic behind this argument.

Santorum is a loser, because he does poorly with women: anti-Abortion is a loser for Republicans, and while his anti-Abortion rhetoric won him the caucus beauty contest (no delegates); and possibly Colorado, he is poison in every election matchup polled. Period. Because women detest him: too "rigid" (read: beta male White guy), too religious (read: same) and his wife's icky personal story is a turn off. In a way a mirror image of Gingrich. Beta male city instead of "bad Alpha" that Gingrich projects.

Romney, like it or not, is the only guy remotely able to compete with women who will SWITCH their votes from party to party. Everything else is locked in. Obama is crazy like a fox, women love abortion because it protects them from kids with icky beta males. They don't abort say Levi Johnston's kids nor Federline's. Just beta males. Obama is First Rockstar with women like Scarlett Johanssen swooning over him wanting to play Marilyn Monroe (too bad ladies he's GAY! Fabulously!)

Romney is likely to win the nomination, because he has the best organization, ground game, and Santorum has nothing but anti-Abortion which will fade. [Yes Obama loses Catholics but gains women. Probably net plus.]

On topic, I will vote for Santorum just because the left hates him more.

This kind of thinking is the Achilles' heel of the American right. How ridiculous is it to worry more about making some SWPLs and leftist talking heads upset than actually, you know, picking a leader who is good for the country as a whole?

"Charles Murray: As a parent, I too have to hope for the best. No guarantees. And I’ve tried to think of something to add to that without much luck. Getting used to hard work at a young age is perhaps the best single thing you can do. Can’t say I did all that well with my children on that score, however, and they’re turning out okay. Although my daughter did used to say that her dad’s idea of the perfect summer job was to work at MacDonald’s by day and clean toilets by night."

HS, I'd thought you'd have written about this by now.

Scut work for the intelligentsia?
How can Murray be so wrong?

"Scut work for the intelligentsia?
How can Murray be so wrong?"

Because he's an egalitarian at heart. He has a romantic attachment to his own humble roots and has moral objections to stratification of society, whatever its basis. I suspect he'll be on the losing side of history, but who knows.

"Santorum's views are pretty close to Bush 43. Romney is more of a Bush 41. I'll take a 43 over a 41 anyday."

Really? Why? Bush 41 was less liberal than 43, even though 43 mouthed more sham-conservative rhetoric than 41. Also worth noting that 41 WON his wars and did not get us bogged down fighting insurgencies in Third World hellholes.

Intelligence ranking goes like this

1) Republican elites
2) Democratic elites
3) Democratic non-elite whites
4) Republican non-elite whites
5) Democratic NAMs

You're average person probably thinks Democratic voters are smarter because the average white Democrat is smarter than the average white Republican, but in the 125+ crowd I suspect Republicans are overrepresented. Obviously the NAMs bring the average Dem IQ way down.

I'm not excited about Romney (or, frankly, any other Repub candidate) but I agree he has the best chance of beating O. I think all of the Repub candidates would beat O down in the debates, the only difference being that Santorum would beat him, whereas against Gingrich or Romney, Obama would be a shredded, bleeding heap on the floor by the end of the debate. of course, we strongly disagree on how smart Obama is, so YMMV.

"1) Per the GSS WORDSUM, Republicans are smarter than Democrats and "very conservative" subjects are the most intelligent ideological group"

When I run the GSS tool, I get extemely liberal as slightly more intelligent than extremely conservative, though I'm a little suspicious of GSS at the upper score range; liberals tend towards academic pursuits that should leave them with a greater vocabulary, conservatives generally don't. The difference is much closer if you use PARTYID (just about even in fact, with a slight edge to strong dem). I prefer PARTYID because the answer is objective vs self-assessed.

"I can see people voting for a Democrat who wants to cut military spending "

It will be interesting to see if Obama gets into that issue. I actually think his foray into preempitive wet work vs exhorbitantly expensive counterinsurgency is one of the few things he's done right. Of course it's also a gross violation of international law, so maybe not. The press would crucify a Republican who did the same thing.

"Can someone summarize the argument that high minimum wage would drive out illegal aliens? I've heard that stated but not the reasons for it. I'm intrigued. I've always been for free market, but I'd be curious about the logic behind this argument."

Right now illegal aliens are willing to work for less than natives so that gives them an advantage on hiring. If employers have to pay them higher wages then they lose some of that advantage. If it was harder for illegals to get hired here, they would have less temptation to come here and that would be one way to get illegal immigration down.

"against Gingrich or Romney, Obama would be a shredded, bleeding heap on the floor by the end of the debate"

Romney didn't shred anyone in the GOP debates, so why should we think he'll shred Obama? No, he wasn't being "nice" to his fellow partymembers, since he unleashed negative ad campaigns against them.

"Romney didn't shred anyone in the GOP debates, so why should we think he'll shred Obama?"

1. It's difficult to shred someone in a debate when they generally agree with you on most policy issues, attack ads notwithstanding.

2. With a few possible exceptions, the candidates Romney has faced in the Republican debates (and all of the serious candidates) are considerably more intelligent than Obama.

[HS: Only Romney is more intelligent than Obama, Newt could hold his own, Santorum is on par with Joe Biden, Cain and Perry are dumb as bricks, and it's hard to tell with Paul because it's hard to judge whether crazy people are smart or stupid but he was smart enough when he was younger to graduate from medical school.]

"Also worth noting that 41 WON his wars and did not get us bogged down fighting insurgencies in Third World hellholes"

I don't agree. Bush 41 won a battle, but left Saddam in charge. Had he finished the job and gotten rid of him, there would have been no reason for the second Iraq war. Bush 41 was too beholden to his international friends and did not want to alienate them by going after Saddam. On the other hand, Bush 43 said that he was going after Saddam one way or another. If the UN had given its blessing, great, but we were going in anyway. Bush 43 was far more unilateralist than Bush 41.

Also, Bush 41 gave us David Souter, raised taxes while Bush 43 lowered them, and happily signed the ADA which has been a tremendous burden on businesses.

The comments to this entry are closed.