Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Money can’t buy Mitt the general election

Money can’t buy Mitt the general election

Mitt Romney “surges” when he and his SuperPAC outspend rivals on negative ads several times over.  In Florida he has outspent Newt by $12 million, and it is showing up in the polls.

Mark Levin made a good point yesterday as to why Romney outspending Republican rivals to win is no measure of Romney’s general election strength:

… while Romney can swamp his Republican opponents by 3 to 1 or more in every state with his spending advantage, Barack Obama will be raising more and spending more to beat him in the general election, meaning Romney’s financial advantage will be non-existent.

Romney’s sole advantage will not exist in the general election.  If anything, he will be in the position Newt is in now.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

listingstarboard | January 30, 2012 at 12:27 pm

The attack ads featuring some poor dog strapped to the roof of a car have probably already been produced. OWS is in place. The Mormon faith i about to be pulverised. Obama will be so so ready for Romney–everything is in place.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to listingstarboard. | January 30, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    The Left, obama, his administration and his campaign have been grooming the American people intensely for the last three years to hate wealthy people who are in any way connected to Wall Street. Why? They were fine with John Kerry’s money and his connections to Wall Street. Barney Frank, John Corzine, Chris Dodd, all big Wall Street connected guys. So why the sudden demonization of Wall Street and the wealthy connected to it? Why the support for the unwashed OWS goons railing against the “1%”?

    The stupid ‘pubs are famous for giving the nomination to whomever is deemed “It’s his turn.” Romney has been running for 4.5 years as the inevitable nominee whose “turn” it is. Romney is a “1%” guy whose wealth is directly connected to Wall Street.

    Obama and his gang of thugs have been setting up to run against Romney and only Romney for three years based on his wealth and its source. Add to that the fact that Romney is the ONLY ‘pub who cannot promise to deconstruct and/or repeal obamacare and we can easily see the game at hand.

    It really isn’t about money. No matter who we nominate, they’re not going to have near the money obama has. It’s about Romney being the only candidate who can’t run on one of America’s biggest grievances against obama, meaning obamacare, and the “1%” they’ve already got him ready to be pigeonholed as part of, and the 30% GOP party support he can’t get past because he’s a slick, flip-flopping phony in an expensive, empty suit.

    In other words, Romney isn’t electable because he’s Romney, not because obama will have more money.

    Darkstar58 in reply to listingstarboard. | January 30, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    Romney from 2008:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4rzRsDeFJQ

    (@0.22) “There’s nothing wrong with changing ones mind.”

    like on Abortion/Pro-life, Tax&Cap, Gay Marriage, massive Tax/Fee/Fine increases, “Diverse” Liberal & Activist Judges, etc – all in the span of 4 years?

    (@0.25) “But some politicians are more interested in insults then issues”

    Like the 2012 Romney campaign?

    (@1:04) “And if you want someone who never changes their mind, then you are going to find someone who sticks with the wrong view”

    Like a certain persons view on Romneycare?

    (@1:53)“And I’ll take being right over being consistent every day of the week”

    So is that why you seem so willing to change your views depending on how the political winds are blowing that day? (well, on everything but Romneycare – but you and your team seem to be changing their stance on Obamacare every day too so…)

Even worse.

Given that Romney has not shown any attempts at reining in the lies and distortions of his super PACs he will be in no position to demand that Obama do anything about his PACs
himself.

If Romney tries to take Obama to task over it the press will be merciless in exposing Romney’s own hypocrisy.

Romney will be in a MUCH worse position. Romney is an empty suit with a record like Obama’s, but far less money to make up for it.

Gingrich wants to be President, and animates people with ideas and grand plans. Romney (like McCain) wants to be the GOP nominee and will stop at nothing to get it, but appears to have no real vision for the Presidency.

As bad as they are, Obama has IDEAS. And money. And a record his constituents can cheer. Comparatively, Romney, like McCain, has…NOTHING.

    CalMark in reply to CalMark. | January 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Looks like I got a “downy-pointing” finger from somebody.

    Merry Carol, is that you? Getting revenge?

    Hugs.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to CalMark. | January 30, 2012 at 1:26 pm

      Well, nanny-nanny-koo-koo to Merry carol or whomever did it. I gave you an “uppie” to offset it and I have a wedgie ready for Merry Carol. 🙂

    WoodnWorld in reply to CalMark. | January 30, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    First, that “down finger” wasn’t from me. Second, and more directly, can you direct me to a single poll that shows anyone else, other than Romney, coming even close to Obama? I can’t find one, and would like to add this to my list (sorry, without the little numbers you like) from last night.

    You support Newt and say he is electable. Prove it.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 30, 2012 at 3:41 pm

      But that means they think he is electable. The difference between Newt’s position and Romney’s, and here’s where GOP stupidity enters, is this: Romney is a very known quantity to older and younger voters because he’s been running for 4.5 years. The younger voters, say 35 and younger, remember him from ’08. But they don’t know Newt well because he has been out of elected office for some about 12 years. Some of them were still in middle school and high school then, or of an age in which they gave little attention to politics. Older voters know both candidates pretty well. Pitting Gingrich, an unknown to many, against a known quantity, Romney, accounts for some of that polling difference. However, once those who don’t know Newt see how he handles obama, Newt stands to advance ahead of obama. Romney, on the other hand, is a known quantity and still can’t get ahead of obama.

      That’s what’s wrong with your analysis.

        It sounds as though you are hanging your hopes on Mitt having a higher name recognition than Newt? And that this is somehow going to influence (just) younger voters to go for him?

        This is a little dated, and biased against Newt, but I think it’s clear that they are both well known.

        Your logic would be sound if everything the youth, those “35 and younger,” heard about Newt, the “unknown” were good. I absolutely concede the Romney camp is systematically taking Gingrich down. It’s not pretty, it’s not fair and it’s not the way things should go in a perfect world. It is politics though. My point is a LOT of the old stuff they would learn about him is not good, and much of the new stuff they will, and are hearing about him is also not good. So, even if you are right and they do start switching on, what they are going to tune into, particularly right now, is NOT going to do the man any favors.

        I question how that one constituency will have any more of an impact than others, or why they will think Newt is any cooler than Barack. That seems to be a flaw with your own line of reasoning…

          WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 30, 2012 at 4:33 pm

          Crap, it would help if I actually provided the link:
          “Gingrich Starts Presidential Quest With High Name Recognition, But Also Has Negatives” http://tinyurl.com/6va4qal

          Like I said, I know it has a tilt but it rebuts the Newt as an “unknown.”

    MerryCarol in reply to CalMark. | January 30, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    You just made my day, CalMark!

    I’m glad to hear someone out there is picking up on my posts and truly honored that you remembered my screen name.

    Oh, and no, I did not give you the downer.

    Or a wedgie.

    Good grief. 🙂

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to MerryCarol. | January 30, 2012 at 3:10 pm

      Just joshin’ ya’. No offense intended. 😉

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to MerryCarol. | January 30, 2012 at 3:38 pm

      But that means they think he is electable. The difference between Newt’s position and Romney’s, and here’s where GOP stupidity enters, is this: Romney is a very known quantity to older and younger voters because he’s been running for 4.5 years. The younger voters, say 35 and younger, remember him from ’08. But they don’t know Newt well because he has been out of elected office for some about 12 years. Some of them were still in middle school and high school then, or of an age in which they gave little attention to politics. Older voters know both candidates pretty well. Pitting Gingrich, an unknown to many, against a known quantity, Romney, accounts for some of that polling difference. However, once those who don’t know Newt see how he handles obama, Newt stands to advance ahead of obama. Romney, on the other hand, is a known quantity and still can’t get ahead of obama.

      That’s what’s wrong with your analysis.

Like Palin said “The math is the math”:

“The memo, from National Political Director Martin Baker, notes Romney’s lack of conservative grassroots support, and stresses that Romney currently has just 33 of the 1144 needed (Gingrich has 25 of 1144).

“Regardless of who wins on Tuesday,” the memo says, “they will have less than 10% of the delegates they need to claim the nomination….”

Additionally, the memo stresses that the proportional nature of the upcoming contests “essentially guarantees that no candidate will secure the nomination anytime soon and the map quickly becomes more favorable for Gingrich.”

More than 20 percent of the available delegates (467) will be awarded on Super Tuesday, and the memo notes that, one of the Super Tuesday states is Georgia, with 76 delegates at stake. To put that in perspective, “even if Romney wins Florida on Tuesday, he will only have 83 total delegates; Newt’s home state could effectively cancel out his entire delegate count to date.”

The memo also describes Tennessee (58) and Oklahoma (43) as “favorable” Super Tuesday states, and notes that just one week after Super Tuesday (March 13), 90 delegates will be in play in Alabama and Mississippi. And if the point that a Florida loss is survivable wasn’t already hammered home, the memo notes, “these 90 [delegates] alone are more than the 83 Romney will have in hand on Wednesday morning if he wins Florida.””

http://tinyurl.com/82w5rzg

    “Romney currently has just 33 of the 1144 needed (Gingrich has 25 of 1144).”

    When you put it like that, it’s still a horse race – and Gingrich could use our campaign donations. (I sent one last week.)

    CalMark in reply to NewtCerto. | January 30, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Something to watch: the GOP “halving” of the FL delegation to 50, because they are jumping the gun with a “winner takes all” primary before April.

    If Romney needs a few more delegates at the convention, or if they’re really playing dirty if he wins the primary, look for the GOP to award Romney all 100 delegates, “in the interest of fairness to the Republican voters of Florida.”

    If he finishes second, they may award him, say, 30, 40, 45 delegates, for the same reason, “since we ARE in proportional primary season.”

    Don’t, of course, look for Newt to get any of this.

      logos in reply to CalMark. | January 30, 2012 at 1:31 pm

      Politics is a dirty business.

      By the way, I gave you a “thumbs up”.

        CalMark in reply to logos. | January 30, 2012 at 1:52 pm

        Thanks for the “uppie.”

        Politics sure is a dirty business. That’s expected.

        The level of intra-party dirtiness in this election is unprecedented, though. You have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt-Taft for anything even approaching it.

Well I believe it, because he hasn’t been able to buy the GOP Primary either and that is in a contest where he has most all the money. He doesn’t want to face it, but the majority of people just don’t like him or trust him.

    gabilange in reply to Say_What. | January 30, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    Here is an amusing “music” video that I was sent yesterday:
    Nobody Loves Me: A Mitt Music Video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrsIaxIfmNQ&feature=player_embedded

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Say_What. | January 30, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    What I am not seeing is why the GOP establishment continues to back a loser. Is backing Romney more important to them than winning the general election? It must be. The question is, why?

      If they are supporting him in the general, I promise you it is because he is the only candidate who is polling anywhere near Obama right now. As imperfect, and corruptible as polling may be, it’s the only indicator we have to how the general election might play out. By that standard, if Romney is a loser, he is certainly not the “Biggest Loser.”

      “Is backing Romney more important to them than winning the general election? It must be. The question is, why?”

      George Soros said this week there’s not much difference between Obama and Romney. I can’t argue with him on that one.

      In my opinion, the ruling political classes of both parties are united in slopping at the taxpayer trough. The Establishment Republicans fear the Tea Parties far more than their Democrat opponents.

      Possibly, it’s easier to maintain a Congressional minority, blame the Democrats for everything – all the while compromising with the Democrats, continue to spend money which doesn’t exist and stick the taxpayer with the debt than to withstand Tea Party demands for sound fiscal policy.

As I’m reading this, the ad on the right for Romney claims: “creating jobs, reducing debt, cutting spending”. These are his so-called “positives” and they are absurd. (E.g., how is his record of loading enormous debt on corporations he took over a record of “reducing debt”.) Romney would be pulverized in the general election. I can envision the ads against him.

FL turns out to be a Romney stronghold because of how strong the Bush organization is in that state. Michael Steele was on CNBC this morning seemingly presenting himself as the voice of conservatives but calling on “fellow conservatives” to listen to Jeb Bush and his appeal for amnesty. Sheesh.

We need a brokered convention to have that long overdue bloodletting. I would never vote for Newt (nor for Romney) but he needs to win a few to make that happen. He should do better once he leaves Bush/Romney/Kennedy/McCain strongholds.

    “We need a brokered convention to have that long overdue bloodletting.”

    I disagree.

    That would accomplish the will of the Establishment Republican ‘overlords’ – not the will of the registered Republican voter, who are generally much more conservative than the permanent political class.

      “That would accomplish the will of the Establishment Republican ‘overlords’”

      You are assuming too much. If all they want to do is guarantee that there will be 3rd party challenge, then fine. That is why Ron Paul is so important. But if they realize that conservatives are NOT going away and that they cannot win without us, then they will either let us in and negotiate or else eliminate all doubt for all to see how utterly pointless it is to be a Republican. We need to fix the GOP or wreck it. It’s up to them.

      Whigs=GOP=RIP

Let’s be strategic here. All the lies and money Romney is utilizing is secondary.

Let’s focus on the primary calendar.

http://tinyurl.com/4zlupr7

Professor, maybe you can do a countdown on the upcoming primaries, their delegates, whether they’re closed or open, and lay this out in the battle Newt will be in.

Having read that memo, it really puts things in perspective. And that every state will have a say in this primary. We are all important in this selection.

Interesting tidbit, nationally, Laura Ingraham mentioned Romney’s loss of support from independents, which I believe some are tea party people and Romney has written them off.

Newt can win! Certo!

Your heading should be:

Money Can’t Buy Obama the General Election

Please stay focused, Professor.

    CalMark in reply to MerryCarol. | January 30, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    Stop shilling for Romney.

    The Prof is making a very important point: Romney’s so-called “strengths” in the primary don’t mean diddly against Obama, who is far stronger than Romney in Romney’s “strength areas.”

      WoodnWorld in reply to CalMark. | January 30, 2012 at 1:39 pm

      You are doing a great job of convincing me to support Mitt Romney Cal, better perhaps than anyone else so far.

      It’s genius! Barack is going to have a LOT of money. So rather than nominating someone with proven fundraising skills, someone who can at least try to compete, we should nominate the OTHER guy because he doesn’t have those weaknesses. Brilliant.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 30, 2012 at 1:53 pm

        On fish or cut bait day, people are not going to turn out for Romney in the numbers he needs no matter how much money he has. He’s been running for 4.5 years and still doesn’t have more than 30% of the party support. If he doesn’t have enough after all this time, what makes you think he will in November? There are enough former ABO voters who dislike Romney so much we simply will not vote for him, period. Write-in, third party, leave it blank. I have never done that in my life, and I had to steel myself to vote for McCain. I won’t do it again, not after the way Romney and the GOP have behaved. They are NOT going to ram this suede-shoe boy down my throat. He’s no better than obama so I may as well vote my heart, and I 9and so many others) are as pissed off at the GOP as we are at obama. Not my nor my family’s nor my country’s interests and principles are going to see the light of day after 4 more years of obromney-style policies and governance.

          Two advantages Romney has over Obama, and they’re kinda negative, but still there:

          1) Obama is poised to become a dictator. Romney, like most Republicans, doesn’t have the spine or cojones to do that, even from the left.

          2) Romney won’t be AS radical, giving us time to regroup for 2014 and 2016. Obama, without needing to worry about re-election, will go scorched-earth immediately.

          “He’s been running for 4.5 years and still doesn’t have more than 30% of the party support.”
          -I will take this, ah… bait. As others have said, it looks like that 30% was more of a floor than it was ever a ceiling. Today in Florida, RCP has him at over 40%. Newt has been running for President of the United States since at least the early 90’s, don’t doubt it for a second and is taking down just under 30%.

          In Iowa the field was divided 6-7 ways and he, meaning Romney, never pulled lower than 30% What do you expect? It was a crowded field. More importantly, how is performance any worse than Newt, for instance, who pulled far, far less. “Romney’s been running for like, YEARS dontchaknow?” Yeah, yeah. Newt has too. They just have entirely different methods and have expressed their ambitions in very different ways.

          “If he doesn’t have enough after all this time, what makes you think he will in November? There are enough former ABO voters who dislike Romney so much we simply will not vote for him, period.”
          -I have said this in other threads. Don’t vote for him. The rest of the Republican Party does not care and all you will do is throw the rest of us into the arms of the Moderates. If we win, you have no say. If we lose, you are to blame. Do what you are going to do if Romney is as identical to Obama as so many of you say, “He’s no better than obama,” I sincerely doubt he will have much trouble carving off enough of the disaffected independents, moderates and Reagan Democrats to offset your little protest votes. Is that what Republicans WANT to do? Not a chance. We would rather have you in the tent. You just can’t lose your minds every time things don’t go the way you want them to.

          “I may as well vote my heart…”
          -Do what you feel you must. No one should do otherwise. Just don’t ask any one of us to cry, or beg you to come back when you leave.

          You guys are going to make a Romney “shill” out of me yet!

        Your a Romney troll. We all know it. You aren’t fooling anyone.

          WoodnWorld in reply to JRD. | January 30, 2012 at 2:58 pm

          No, I am not but, with the clarity of your logic and the powers of your collective persuasion, I am FAST becoming one. Nothing has made me more sure of the ridiculousness of this “fight” than listening to what some have had to say here.

          William A. Jacobson in reply to JRD. | January 30, 2012 at 3:02 pm

          I beginning to agree, the volume from a single person is getting pretty tall. It’s been a problem here lately, disagreement is fine, but sometimes it just doesn’t smell genuine.

          WoodnWorld in reply to JRD. | January 30, 2012 at 3:16 pm

          If you are suggesting that I am in any way associated with a campaign now, or have endorsed anyone directly, that is false.

          If dissent is punishable by banishment, by all means, do what you feel you must. I am commenting no more, and no less, than anyone else here. I am no less passionate, and certainly no more so than many of those who support you. I respectfully disagree with you on this one Professor and am not shy to say it.

          If your articles progress to topics other than a Republican Civil War, I will be just as happy to contribute productively and agreeably. Until then…

          MerryCarol in reply to JRD. | January 30, 2012 at 3:33 pm

          With all due respect, Professor, I did not get the sense that WoodnWorld was a Romney troll at all. In a previous thread he said that he was keeping his options open and being objective about the candidates. That is my stance as well, although, like WoodnWorld, the shrillness of the discussion here is driving me away from Newt.

          I find the troll label to be terribly offensive, especially when it is being slapped on anyone who has an opinion that is perceived as remotely anti-Newt in this forum, even when the commenter is neutral.

          I empathize with WoodnWorld’s obvious frustration. I hope you will not discourage commenters who are striving for some semblance of balance in the discussion.

          raven in reply to JRD. | January 30, 2012 at 4:01 pm

          Agreed. And a lamely transparent windbag of a one.

          WoodnWorld in reply to JRD. | January 30, 2012 at 4:37 pm

          Thank you Raven. You, and others, may not like me now but I promise when we are on the same side of an issue you are going to be happy to have me. Cheers!

    “Your heading should be:
    Money Can’t Buy Obama the General Election”

    But it can. That’s point. Obama’s got more — lots more. Romney’s sole advantage is negated.

    Try to stay focused.

Subotai Bahadur | January 30, 2012 at 1:01 pm

Obama will have another advantage over Romney in the General. Obama’s base will be out in full force; doing everything both legal and illegal to GOTV or invent false votes to re-elect him. Where is the base of rabid moderate progressives in the Republican party who will do 1/10 of the GOTV for Romney?

Subotai Bahadur

    WoodnWorld in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | January 30, 2012 at 1:42 pm

    I know this may come as a shock to some of you, but the GOP has been doing GOTV for years, decades now. If you think for a moment that there isn’t a small army of people who are absolutely fired up to volunteer against this administration you are out of your mind.

      CalMark in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 30, 2012 at 1:48 pm

      Yep, GOTV in Nevada against Harry Reid, in Alaska, where they got out the vote for “Independent” Lisa Murkowski, in Delaware… We got swamped in all three places.

      Or, more applicable to your Establishment sympathies: Washington State and Colorado, where the Democrats stole elections against an Establishment-approved candidate by a few hundred. GOTV should include aggressive anti-fraud policing and post-fraud counterattack, doncha think?

      Yep, that GOP GOTV. Can’t beat it. If you’re a Dem.

        WoodnWorld in reply to CalMark. | January 30, 2012 at 2:38 pm

        You actually think you invented this wheel, or that you somehow improved upon or perfected its utility. Who do you think taught the TEA Party how to become more organized? That’s right. Former GOP politicos who are and have been sympathetic to the cause.

        Don’t talk to me about mistakes, blunders or failed efforts. Believe me, there have been plenty enough to go around. I seem to remember a few candidates from this last election who met the purity test but didn’t seem to have the chops to get the job done, if you know what I mean and I think you do… How’s that Senate minority feel? Yeah. Those left a mark. Well DONE.

      No you are out of yours. 70% of the Republican base does not support Willard. And since your so into polls Willard is dropping Indy’s like flies.

      Do the math. You can’t win. The conservatives have you over a barrel and we are not bailing your progressive piece of garbage out.

      A Romney nomination means socialized medicine is here to stay and we aren’t buying your crap sandwich.

      The Beacon Hill Institute study found that, on average, Romneycare:

      •    cost the Bay State 18,313 jobs;

      •    drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion;

      •    slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376; and

      •    reduced investment in Massachusetts by $25.06 million.

      The state’s health-care costs have been heavily subsidized by billions of dollars in federal aid through a Medicaid waiver program.”

      Romneycare was bad for Massachusetts. You can spin that.

      http://michellemalkin.com/2012/01/26/confirmed-romneycare-obamacare/

        WoodnWorld in reply to JRD. | January 30, 2012 at 3:00 pm

        He can win. Listening to all of you is actually convincing me of it more and more every day. I do like polls and have a few, ok more than a few I could throw right back at you but I suspect you have already seen them and are steadily ignoring them. We will see, time will tell.

        “Romney will NEVER win Florida.” hrmm… about that…

We need a bare-knuckled verbal pugilist in this fight and not Mittens. My money is on Newt.

Excellent quote from an excellent post by Dan Riehl, in which he considers a boycott of general election if Romney is nominee, and references and links to LI:

“The GOP will not reform itself so long as it can ridicule and abuse genuine conservatives and count on their votes. If anything, Romney would more likely tarnish the GOP brand if elected and he has demonstrated such low character in his years of desperately seeking the White House, many of us are reaching the conclusion that he’s not fit for the job.”

There is a solid longer-term case to be made for a GOP House and Senate with Obama in the White House and a GOP that finally wakes up to the fact that it can not consistently ignore and even malign conservatives.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/01/conservatives-opposed-to-mitt-romney-in-the-general-election.html

From now on, I’m just going to call Romney “The One.” Everytime you hear one of his supporters talk about him…you can practically see their leg tingle.

Professor, there’s an interesting bit about the Abrams hit piece on Newt over at Jerry Pournelle’s Chaos Manor site.
http://jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=5147

BannedbytheGuardian | January 31, 2012 at 2:27 am

Hehe I like the way Woodnworld refers to himself as “WE’ . (GOP)

Hey baby WoodnWorld’s got wood .

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend