Most likely, it’ll be Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama, meaning the voters’ choices in the midst of a massive global economic crisis brought on in large part by corruption in the financial services industry will be a private equity parasite who has been a lifelong champion of the Gordon Gekko Greed-is-Good ethos (Romney), versus a paper progressive who in 2008 took, by himself, more money from Wall Street than any two previous presidential candidates, and in the four years since has showered Wall Street with bailouts while failing to push even one successful corruption prosecution (Obama).

There are obvious, even significant differences between Obama and someone like Mitt Romney, particularly on social issues, but no matter how Obama markets himself this time around, a choice between these two will not in any way represent a choice between “change” and the status quo. This is a choice between two different versions of the status quo, and everyone knows it.

I don't think that any of the Republican candidates are compelling. Most are too radical and have shot themselves in the foot in one way or the other. And Romney - who finds Romney compelling? I don't even think he really thinks what he says he thinks. He is going to be the nominee because he will be the least of evils.

The wild card is - who finds Obama compelling? Certainly not liberals who are concerned about Wall Street or civil liberties. The partisan activists are going to have a hard time getting traction this year. They might have trouble getting out the vote.

I don't think the Republicans have a good chance of winning this but as they proved in the last election, an army of people who think Obama is a socialist can win elections against an army of people who don't care and aren't going to go to the polls.

The great question in this election will be - who cares?

Iowa: The Meaningless Sideshow Begins | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone