I have been almost alone in asking What if everything we have been told about Mitt Romney’s electablility is wrong?
Among the points I have made is that current polling is not a reliable indicator because Romney has not faced the volume of attacks ads and hostility from the conservative and Republican media as has Newt, and Romney uniquely is vulnerable to Obama’s Secretaries versus Bosses campaign theme.
Jeffrey Anderson at The Weekly Standard makes these and other points in The Case for Gingrich’s Electability:
In fact, if one were going to design a Republican opponent tailor-made to President Obama’s liking, that opponent would be uniquely vulnerable to Obama’s main rhetorical thrust (making class-warfare arguments), uniquely unsuited to take clear aim at Obama’s least popular action as president (spearheading the passage of Obamacare), and uniquely strong in states that are unlikely to matter in the general election race. In all three of these ways, Romney is made to order for Obama — while his chief rival, Newt Gingrich, is not….
Current polls do indeed show Romney faring better than Gingrich versus Obama, but these polls tell us very little about how things would actually play out in November. Gingrich has faced far fiercer attacks to date — both from the Washington establishment and from his rivals (who are all jockeying to become Romney’s leading competitor, rather than generally taking direct aim at Romney himself) — than Romney has. But that would change quickly if Romney were actually to become the nominee. Moreover, in a general election campaign, the financial advantage that has afforded Romney the luxury of pummeling Gingrich with negative ads in Iowa would disappear.
Anderson also points out that Romney’s “moderate” image simply will narrow the margin of loss in states Obama will win anyway:
When contemplating the places on the map where Romney would provide the GOP with the greatest electoral advantages, the answer would seem to be in the Northeast and on the Pacific Coast. But none of the states in those regions, save New Hampshire, would be up for grabs in a close race. Instead, Romney would merely succeed in helping the party lose the likes of California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, by more respectable margins.
I don’t claim Romney is unelectable, but his electability is overrated. When Romney’s electability bubble bursts, you can’t say you weren’t warned.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
He won’t stand up to scrutiny. Between his time at Bain Capital and his time as Gov of Mass, he’ll be gutted. They’re (the media and the Obama/Chicago machine) are licking their chops at the prospect of taking down Romney.
Found an interesting article in the NYT (will wonders never cease) about his time in Mass. and how he governed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/us/politics/romneys-strategies-as-governor-bucked-his-ceo-image.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
It’s an interesting read to say the least…
Lemme see now … as I understand it the choice is probably going to be between either a community organizer or a corporate raider.
What’s a mother to do?
Romney is not electable. I don’t know what the republican establishment is thinking. Do they want to lose? The MEDIA picked Romney. They are all out promoting him. Remember the media picked McCain and look what happened. They are saying nothing about his negatives but just wait and see what happens if he wins the nomination. Scorched earth will be the least of it. This will be a very dirty, filty campaign. How could it not be with the candidate the dims have? Obama is well versed in Chicago thuggery and will use everything he can to destroy Romney and the republican party.
Besides all that, the base will not vote for him. Many held their noses and voted for him because Palin was on the ticket. I doubt she will be on it this time. I am firmly convinced that McCain threw the election. When you think about it didn’t he do just about everything to insure a loss? He played nice, nice all the way through it and only one time that I saw said anything negative about obama when there was a slew of stuff he could have used. He took as his VP a little known Alaska governor with multiiple ethic charges against her and a pregnant unmarried teenage daughter. He told Palin none of this mattered. He didn’t know that she had so much charisma and really made the base stand up and cheer. So what does he do? He lets his staff put her on TV with the scavengers and let them tear her to pieces. They publicly trashed her at every opportunity. In fact, they are still doing it. Was it jealousy or a more sinsiter plan? The republican elite have shown how stupid they are in th past just about every day. They are actually satisfied to grab the crumbs that fall from the dims table when they loot the treasury and want this situation to continue. They cave at every opportunity. I have lost patience with them and don’t know what the remedy could be.
I see it pretty much this way too. The Republicans are hellbent on losing. And just who hung out Gov. Palin to dry on the clothes: Weren’t they Romney ops working for McCain?
He took as his VP a little known Alaska governor with multiiple ethic charges against her..
—————————-
Note to Barbara: The “ethics charges” came AFTER the election and they were all BOGUS. Please make sure your time line is correct. “Troopergate” was also dismissed.
The DNC knew that Palin was a game changer and had a gift for attracting crowds and connecting with people. They basically told the Democratic legislature to shut Gov Palin out the legislative process. The Republicans, wanting the good old days of the CBC (corrupt bastards club) waned Palin out. The penalty for filing a bogus complaint…ZERO.
To make matters funny, these same bozos who trashed Palin will be the same ones asking for our help this summer/fall. If they come canvassing to my door, I’ll tell them of frack off.
Thanks for correcting that. And don’t forget that her approval rating was something like 88% at that time.
HEADS UP: Sarah Palin will be talking with Eric Bolling TODAY on Fox at 4:00 P. M.
http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/01/governor-palin-talk-to-eric-bolling-tomorrow-on-cavutos-showopen-thread.html
Every time I think of Romney, I see 1996 all over again.
The Republican Establishment (the ones who also like bigger government) picked according to the pecking order to give us President Bob Dole .. a nice enough guy who had no chance.
I shudder to think about people just staying home and not voting at all. We will not only not take the senate but will lose the house and this is the dims’ main goal. And th cream of the jest is that third party would make things a thousand times worse.
The stay-home types are worrisome. We will vote for all candidates other than president, if Romney is the anointed one. Nevah. And I resent like hell people already saying to me that then it’s a vote for Obobo. It’s not a vote for Romney, and won’t ever be a vote for Obobo either. We are informed voters who can’t even hold our noses to vote for Romney.
Oh I’m not going to stay home, but I’m not going to support a presidential candidate hand-picked by cowards to sustain their place at the public trough. If we don’t get a game-changer, no sense changing the game. I’d rather try for the senate and send Obummer back on a 4 year golf tour than reward those other rats.
The cocktail party Republicans are forcing Romney as the candidate. Look at what they did in Virginia? Not only is it possible that Romney is not electable, it’s probable.
Why don’t people see that the person that the MSM calls “electable” is just the OPPOSITE?
Gingrich would wipe the floor with Obama in one damn debate.
Amen.
Romney appears the be the Richard Nixon of the 21st century. By that I mean that Nixon ran as a “moderate” in 1968 (politically between the left-wing Hubert Humphrey and the not-exactly-left-wing George Wallace), and as a “conservative” in 1972 (to the right of George McGovern).
Campaign rhetoric aside, Nixon’s record as President was decidedly left-of-center. He instituted wage and price controls, created the EPA, normalized relations with China and promoted the disastrous policy of détente with the Soviet Union, pushed affirmative action, and continued many of the Kennedy-Johnson policies with little or no change. Even the left-wing maniac Noam Chomsky admitted that Nixon was “America’s last liberal President.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States#Nixon_and_the_liberal_consensus
Similarly, Romney’s record as governor is also very left of center. I predict that in the 2012 general election he will alienate conservatives and independents without attracting any significant support from “moderate” (read: liberal) voters. Obama can start planning his second term if Romney is the nominee.
When the GOP anointed McCain, I felt the exact same despair as I do now, with their man-crush on Romney.
The youth vote for Obama is pretty much disenfranchised and disenchanted at this point; they have no jobs and no future after all. The likes of Romney does NOT appeal to them. If we think the youth vote important as a swing factor, I have news for the GOP: you’ll lose again. Every young person I know under age 35 is voting for . . . Ron Paul. Seriously. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by going with something radical.
I don’t like it, but I don’t blame them.
You know you’ve got a great GOP nominee when the base has a hard time deciding between sucking it up and voting for him, and sucking it up and allowing four more years of Obama.
At that point, I’d feel like a hostage….either vote for Willard or we’ll unleash Obama on you for another four years! This time, he won’t have to worry about getting reelected and he’ll have the urge for a “legacy”.
RNC: Have a nice day you hayseed rubes!
Winning a single election in 17 years of trying does not make a convincing case for Romney’s electability.
Romney = Obamalite
I can’t help but feel we are being led into an ambush.
Willard has won exactly one general election, for one term, in his life. He didn’t run for re-election because his approval numbers were so low he knew he’d likely lose.
Obama created this whole 99% vs the 1% dynamic becuase they want Willard to be the nominee. IMO, the whole thing was devised with him in mind. I think they’re going to Gekko-ize Willard for several months while also highlighting his flips and his flops on nearly every issue he’s ever taken a stand on – just hoping to gradually grind him down and create an unfavorbale impression of him.
Then I suspect Axelrod has something big planned for the “October Surprise” which will be the knockout punch that poor Willard will not be able to recover from.
I don’t buy this. You can cherry pick negatives for any candidate and say this makes them less ‘electable’. Of course they do – that’s why they’re negatives. Obama was the most liberal member of the Senate, with no legislative accomplishments, who worshipped under Reverend Wright for 20 years, who derided Middle Americans as bitter clingers, etc. Didn’t seem to matter much.
The Obama team would have very little difficulty in ripping apart Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, et. al. or fitting them into their narrative. And what is the logic behind saying Romney would attract coastal moderates but repel those in Middle America where the election will be decided?
Is Romney the ideal candidate? Of course not. But the main reason he’s leading the GOP polls is that a plurality of those being polled think that he has the best chance of winning in November – a view shared by the Obama team incidentally. These ‘warnings’ about electability seem more about being on all sides of an issue so no matter the outcome, the ‘I told you so’s’ are ready to go.
Well, if Romney and Paul are the only two candidates on the VA ballot, it will be interesting to see if Paul takes VA. Possible protest vote from angry VA voters? I really don’t see how the Romney camp would be able to spin that one.
If only Romney and Paul are on the VA primary ballot I will be voting for Paul even though I would NEVER vote for Paul in the general election. I am pretty well fed up with the establishment GOP…
If McRomney and Paul are the only ones, I’ll be very interested to see the turnout numbers. How many will simply sit it out?
I agree that Romney may be the perfect candidate from Obama’s perspective. But the MSM will hammer ANY GOP candidate this cycle. The MSM dropped any remaining shred of pretense of objectivity in 2008 so I expect the 2012 cycle will be truly vicious on that front.
After the debacle of McCain, I fully expect many conservatives to sit this one out if Romney wins the nomination, especially if the GOP establishment continues to blatantly manipulate the system to favor Romney.
Few reasonable people trust either party and we are damaging America’s trust in the democratic process with the blatant fraud and electoral manipulation going on over the past 5 to 8 years.
I saw this article in Weekly Standard yesterday and found it unpersuasive. Granted, I am biased (an unabashed and unapologetic Romney supporter), but it seems to be a rehash of everything I’ve heard from Gingrich (and Perry) supporters throughout this campaign. Whenever I suggest that their candidate raises serious concerns about electability, their response is that Romney isn’t as electable as he is made out to be, because: XYZ.
I grant that some of these arguments are quite valid, that Romney will be hammered on his tenure at Bain and his personal wealth, that Romney isn’t doing himself any favors by playing coy with his tax statements, etc. I fully expect the Obama-Soros-union sludge machine to pound away at Romney being “Mr. 1%”, a rich, clueless, nefarious fat-cat who revels in bankrupting companies, laying off workers and pocketing whatever he can get. I further expect an a advertising blitzkrieg with a crying little old lady whose husband lost his job when Bain took over his company juxtaposed with the notorious “money” picture of Romney. Evil, evil, evil rich bastard Romney! Hate him! Hate him!
As I have said before, Romney needs to be very well prepared for the upcoming onslaught and have a finely honed, well argued, yet emotionally appealing response ready to roll out immediately. At this point, I don’t think he does, and this is a cause of significant worry. It definitely detracts from the argument for his electability.
While this all is true, it does nothing to prove that Gingrich or Perry (or anyone of the other contenders) are more electable than Romney. It is an unfortunate truth that the strongest, most appealing, most electable Republicans (e.g. Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels and others) chose not to run. Despite a few rather far-fetched speculations, it is HIGHLY unlikely that any one of them can (or will) swoop in during the primary season. Therefore, the nominee will almost certainly be one of the seven candidates before us.
Assuming this, an argument that Romney’s electability is overblown does not necessarily show that any of the other candidates are more electable than him. Indeed, even if these arguments have some merit (and I concede they do), I do not think any of the other candidates are more electable than Romney and have encountered little evidence to the contrary.
I’ve maintained that Gingrich is likely the least electable of the six (discounting Ron Paul who, if by some bizarre circumstance, won the nomination, would bring about the complete collapse of the GOP). The standard argument is that Gingrich has high negatives among independent voters, many of whom state that they would never vote for him. While this is true, it is also true that independent/moderate voters tend to be the most mercurial and uninformed demographic out there. I concede that it would be possible for Gingrich to win over a majority of them, although not without a Herculean effort in terms of time and money. Romney certainly cannot take them for granted either, but it would require considerably less of an investment for Romney to secure their support.
But all that aside, there’s another demographic which is often overlooked, but is very important in Presidential elections: the apathetic liberal/progressive/leftist. These individuals would NEVER vote Republican under any circumstances, but are often rather indifferent to the Democrats as well, particularly in national elections. It often takes a considerable investment to motivate them to get to the polls and to loyally vote straight Democratic ticket. This group tends to be younger, well-educated, professional or semi-professional, decent yet moderate income, often childless (all of which describes myself). They are very liberal on social and foreign policy issues, and vary widely on economic policy (from pretty straight up libertarian to unabashed socialist). They are interested in current affairs, and love John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Most importantly, however, they disdain political parties and politicians in general, and are lukewarm about voting; they are very cynical about the whole electoral process. Therefore, they tend to sympathize with unorthodox candidates of almost any stripe. Ron Paul is attractive to many of them, but so was Ralph Nader. It’s not so much what the candidate stands for but rather whether he’s doesn’t seem like a typical politician.
The Democrats desperately need this demographic, particularly if independents break, even slightly, for the GOP. Yet, this is very fickle group, very difficult to energize to even vote, let alone contribute or volunteer.
Virtually all of my friends could be classified as a part of this group. I’m 33 and up until 2008, I was passionately liberal and very active in the Democratic party. With this background, I have at least some knowledge of the attitudes of a lot of youngish (20somethings up to age 40 or so) left-leaning voters. I’m the lone conservative (and an apostate! ;-)) in my social group.
It was this group who helped defeat Al Gore, because so many of them were willing to vote for Nader. In 2000, Bush did not seem very threatening and Gore was almost entirely unappealing to them. They were willing to risk a Bush Presidency to vote their heart
It was this group who helped almost elect John Kerry, a weak candidate who should have lost by a much larger margin than he did. The Democrats had learned how to motivate this group and hammered home the message of Bush’s evil, stupid and pernicious attitude. Of course, the war in Iraq also motivated them to strongly support Kerry. Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” was especially aimed at this demographic.
It was this group who gave Barack Obama a landslide in 2008. Without them, I am sure he still would have won, but by a much smaller margin. Obama (and his handlers) were able to appeal to them, reach out to them, in a spectacularly successful way. For many of them, this was the first time they ever felt passionate about their vote.
However, he has disappointed them, I think partially because many of them actually believed much of his rhetoric; actually convinced themselves that he would transform politics and political discourse. But he hasn’t and thus many of them have returned to their previous apathy about the Democratic party.
My own experience strongly indicates the following: While this demographic is relatively indifferent to Romney, they HATE Gingrich with a fiery passion. Ergo: If Romney is the nominee, many of them will be inclined to stay home. If Gingrich is the nominee, they will vote in record numbers…against Gingrich (and therefore, for Obama).
For this demographic, Gingrich is the most hated, despicable politician existing today…outside of the Bush II administration. In other words, only Bush himself (were it Constitutionally permitted), Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. would be a worse choice.
Romney, however…Their response is “eh…”. And that is exactly what the GOP wants. Once again, this demographic will never vote for any Republican nominee. But, they may easily stay home, which is ideal for the GOP.
Of course, Obama will go to massive lengths to get this demographic to turn out; to convince them that a Romney victory truly will result in the complete collapse of western civilization, the advent of a dark and depressing age, dominated by greedy, rapacious Wall Street fat-cats along with ignorant Jesus-freaks from the flyover states, all of whom are racist, sexist hate-filled homophobes. And, it’s possible that he will succeed. But it will require a LOT of money and effort to do so, money that Obama would rather spend on wooing independents and the rust belt working class, whose votes he also sorely needs.
If Gingrich is the nominee, getting the indifferent liberals to the polls will require almost no effort. Gingrich qua Gingrich will provide all the motivation necessary.
A very important point needs to be stated: We should not let the proclivities of our opponents determine our nominee. I wholeheartedly endorse this; and if the only drawback to Newt Gingrich were the argument I’ve outlined above, such would be insufficient to reject his candidacy. However, Gingrich has many, many other marks against him, as we have seen amply over the course of the last six or seven weeks. The argument I’ve delineated only adds to the plethora of reasons why Newt Gingrich is utterly unelectable and why the GOP would be courting electoral disaster, all the way down the ticket, were they to bestow the Presidential nomination upon him.
But all that aside, there’s another demographic which is often overlooked, but is very important in Presidential elections: the apathetic liberal/progressive/leftist. These individuals would NEVER vote Republican under any circumstances, but are often rather indifferent to the Democrats as well, particularly in national elections.
Those whose political views are liberal or left-wing are about 20% of the population in most polls. So how big can this apathetic liberal/progressive/leftist group-within-a-group actually be?
You also mentioned Ralph Nader, and suggested that this apathetic group tended to support Nader over Gore. Nader’s presence was really felt in only two states: New Mexico and Florida:
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=2000
In Florida, Nader got 1.63% of the vote (Bush won by 0.01%). In New Mexico, Nader got 3.55% of the vote (Bush won by 0.06%). Nationwide, Nader got 2.73%. By any measure that seems to make this apathetic group pretty tiny, in terms of overall numbers. Enough to cost Gore the election, perhaps, but still tiny.
What happened in the 2004 presidential election was an equal and opposite reaction against the Michael Moore-driven left by conservatives and numerous independents. In 2008 conservatives were dispirited, and many independents were eager to vote for the first black Presidential candidate who actually had a major party’s nomination. In all of these elections, I don’t see how this apathetic group you described made much of a difference.
At any rate, it seems a pretty weak strategy to try to lull this apathetic group to sleep by picking Romney. What about conservative and independents who will be repulsed by Romney as the GOP nominee? At best it seems to be a zero-sum game, and it may actually backfire as Romney turns off the GOP base without making offsetting gains elsewhere. And if Romney is elected, and if his administration turns out to be in effect Obama’s second term (as Romney’s record tends to indicate), then the country and the GOP could find themselves worse off than before . Schwarzenegger and the California Republicans ran into this problem in California.
Absolutely spot on. This tiny, ego-driven, self-admiring, hubristic subset of a fractional demographic doesn’t know how or why they will vote, let alone when or who for. Leave them alone to mature another decade. By then they will all be avowed compassionate conservatives.
How sad that the future of the country could break on the vote of self-indulgent voters with attention span of gnats who are bored by all the mundane realities of routine life.
The only good thing I can say in their favor is that their parents share much of the blame for spoiling this generation by raising them to think they were entitled to all the “things” their parents worked hard for and causing them to think their “sh*t” doesn’t stink.
I won’t make a declarative statement that Romney can not be elected, but will agree with the premise of this article that his electability is a myth. No matter what Romney says regarding Obamacare he is less able to exploit that issue than the other candidates. That issue is Obama’s biggest weakness. That was demonstrated clearly in the November election in Ohio. Two big state-wide issues were on the ballot. One, called Issue 2 was regarding repealing the recent legislation to deal with public sector unions. The other was Issue 3 which was a vote to opt out of Obamacare. Issue 2 was demagogued with $3M in union paid for TV ads which lead to heavy Dem turnout. Issue 2 successfully repealed the legislation to control union costs with 60% of the vote. Issue 3 opting out of Obamacare won with something like 70% of the vote. So in an election heavily tilted in their favor Obamacare was crushed. That crap is so unpopular it has to be one of the key campaign themes. If Romney is the nominee Obamacare can’t be as much of a focus. Also with all the clips of Romney on both sides of every issue it would be simple to undercut any claim he may make about repealing Obamacare.
More than anything, I want Obama to be properly and fairly defeated. I admit that I am unhappy with the lot that we have to choose from.
From my work, I know a few people from Massachusetts and I am aware of their attitudes. Still, it is hard to read good reviews about Romney’s performance as the Governor of Massachusetts and translate it into “good” in my experience.
The best defense I have seen so far is from PowerLine:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/more-on-romneys-record.php
I’m yawning, but it’s also late on New Years night.
It may not always be true that the past is prologue but the past should not be ignored either. In this case Obama has been compared to Carter and that’s appropriate to some extent. So remembering the Reagan/Carter election might be instructive.
Reagan was a principled conservative coming on the heels of a disastrous 4 years of Carter. That made for a stark contrast and a clear choice for voters. Voters at all levels knew that a vote for one or the other was choice to go one way or completely in a different direction.
I think the GOP’s best hopes in 2012 are to again present voters with an absolutely clear choice so that everyone, rich or poor, well informed or not, knows that their vote for the GOP candidate is a vote for a course correction.
Romney, of all the present candidates, seems the one least likely to present voters with a clear choice to go in a different direction, especially with a steady drum beat from the Obamaites that Romneycare was the model for Obamacare. For those voters, and there could be a lot of them, it will be easy for them to think it just doesn’t matter who they vote for. That spells trouble for the GOP, the party that seems to be able to steal defeat from the jaws of victory even when they have been handed the opportunity of a lifetime.
If I remember correctly, the GOP establishment wanted George H.W. Bush in 1980 and not Reagan. If they’d gotten their wish Carter might have pulled it out. Fortunately, after winning the Iowa caucuses Bush lost big in New Hampshire and lost every other primary after that. His “voodoo economics” slogan not working, he finally dropped out in May of that year. Too many people thought of Carter instead of Reagan every time Bush uttered “voodoo economics.”
The GOP might be saved from itself if Romney suffers a similar fate.
I completely agree. If establishment Republicans had either a brain or a smidgen of ethics, they would go for the contrast, not “more of the same”. Problem is………
[…] Professor Jacobson we are directed to a piece at the Weekly Standard that questions the argument that Mitt Romney is […]
I think people, including William, are needlessly making divisions that aren’t going to serve us. The fact is that we don’t have an ideal candidate, and we never do. If I look at Newt, I can look at the recent Dede Scozzafava endorsement, “right wing social engineering,” and 3 wives and say “blah, what a creep and sell-out.” I can also look at his track record–the Contract w/ America is very impressive–the rubber met the road and he came thru in historic fashion. Same w/ Mitt. We can slectively look at him and say “yea” or “nay.” I live in Mass. and he’s the only republican governor (out of 4 in a row) that I voted for. He put the state’s finances in good order w/o complaining about the mess he inherited. He did a great job w/ the Salt Lake City olymics. My main misgiving is about Romneycare. I think it’s imperative that a stake be driven thru Obamacare asap. Is he going to do it? He says so. I hope so. But I can’t have any more confidence in Newt for this than I do w/ Mitt. We’re all stuck w/ choices like this. No need to demonize other candidates over this. We all must remember that they are all vastly better than Obama–all of them. Sitting out this election is irresponsible and will serve no one.
Gee Barbara, why is there such discontent and talk of a third party challenge? Because of a serious lack of connectivity between the party leadership and the base. After Bush 41 (read my lips), Dole (excuse me while I fall off this stage), Bush 43 (conservative one day, Medicare part D the next) and McCain (I’d be a road smear if it weren’t for Palin).
See a pattern? The only one fighting this are the Tea Party and a coalition of conservative groups but they’re new to this game and the learning curve is STEEP. It’s a case of weekend jocks against the pros and after a few good rounds in the ring by the newbies, the more experienced fighter (establishment) is getting its second wind.
So here we are….stalemate….and troops are pissed.
The ONLY ways to fights this are two fold (1) Incumbents must get defeated in the primaries and (2) the culture must change. To quote Breitbart: “Politics are down steam of popular culture.” Simply getting rid of the current batch won’t due you any good, you gonna have to burn the weeds out and inject herbicide into the soil
Particularly for the first stage, The Primary, “Electability” and electability arguments are “A False Premise”. But then I was and continue to be a hardcore Cain voter. Think of The Virginia Primary Drama, my concerns in 2012 include that there not be a repeat of the 2008 cluster-farce.
There are reports that at least one of the Republican campaigns includes a segment of “Operation Chaos” left wing supporters ALA http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/08/democrats-say-obama-hitler-should-be-hung-for-crimes/
and
http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/
If the media are picking Romney for us, the GOP sure seems to be cooperating in the effort.
Let’s see if the GOP will stick up for Romney during the general election. Of course, they said very little when (to pick just one example) Sarah Palin was being accused of fomenting mass murder in Arizona.
The correction is not to say that Romney is unelectable, but that claims of his superior ‘electability’ are a myth. It is to point out that Romney is no more or less electable than either Gingrich or Perry. Obama is down to one single theme he can run on – class warfare. Romney is a born rich/got richer 1%-er, the ultimate Yuppie come to age. One of Obama’s greatest albatrosses is Obamacare. Romney’s greatest legislative achievement is Romneycare. Barring a Paul nomination, Romney is as good as it gets if you’re Obama.
As we’ve seen pointed out, Romney is 1 for 3 in elections, 1 for 4 if you count his refusal to run for reelection as governor of Massachusetts. We must also remember all the primaries Romney lost on his way to losing the 2008 GOP nomination, over for him by early February 2008. All of that and the Electable One has managed exactly one victory.
I’m all about evidence. Receiving any checkable assertion, I check the record. Told Romney is conservative, I’ve begged for evidence of it because I couldn’t find any. None forthcoming as yet. Told Romney is the electable one, I’ve asked for evidence of it or at least coherent reasoning in favor of it, because I could uncover none. None forthcoming as yet.
When you hear or see the words electable and electability applied in support of Romney, what you are supposed to hear is inevitable, inevitable, inevitable, etc.
This seeming GOP preselection-by-protection of Romney – despite consistent polls over the past twelve months showing that at any given moment at least 70% of Republicans do not support Romney, with multiple surges by at least four not-Romneys – is now the loudest and most often heard complaint among my Tea Party compatriots (in a rural east NC area). The GOP is alienating and angering the Tea Party by forcing on the party a candidate whose two strongest attributes, rich businessman and signer of Romneycare, play right into Obama’s weak hand, thereby strengthening it.
To the degree that TP-ers in rural NC are typical, the GOP has an internal problem with base conservatives. They will vote for Romney over Obama, but the enthusiasm level will be somewhere below the knees. This will affect campaign donations and turnout to an unknowable degree.
Speak not a word on ‘baggage’ – they all have baggage by the train car load. Considerations of baggage do not separate one GOP candidate from another. Even if there were a spotless Teflon candidate, the media can and will create negative baggage out of how a candidate unwraps his soda straw. (“Is it presidential to blow your soda straw across a public diner? Mika has the story, next on….”).
Who do you want trading gotcha comebacks during debates with Obama, Romney, Perry, or Gingrich? Who do you want fielding gotcha questions from a constantly attacking media, Romney, Perry, or Gingrich? Who do you want explaining the deeper aspects of conservative policies and political philosophies, Romney, Perry, or Gingrich?
Remember Robert Redford in The Candidate, wherein a newbie to politics actually wins a Senate election? He turns to his staff and says, “Now what?” My last consideration is what happens after the GOP candidate wins the White House? Who do you want using his experience and knowledge to translate a conservative agenda into legislative action, Romney, Perry, or Gingrich?
Its not just that he’s a perfect target for Obama’s demagoguery. Romney has yet to give anyone a reason to vote FOR him.
He’s an empty suit. His positions have changed with the polls. He stands for nothing. No one is, or is going to be, excited about voting FOR Romney.
If he’s our candidate, most of us will turn out to vote AGAINST Obama, but many will simply stay home. Just like last time when we ran McCain.
The Tea Party is not going to turn out to vote for a man that shares none of their values. Evangelicals aren’t going to turn out to vote for a Mormon. Pro-life advocates aren’t going to turn out for a man that appointed stridently pro-abortion judges as Governor.
Outside of the Liberal Media, just who is it that supports Mitt Romney?
The press will support the weakest candidate on the Republican side either by saying nice things about him or by attacking stronger candidates. Once he’s nominated they will discover him to be a ravening extremist.
And so the cycle of life in the beltway continues from Dole to McCain to Romney.
The Republican party needs to go the way of the Whigs, and good riddance.