The Romney Campaign

[jjamie12]

I have been a Mitt Romney supporter since 2008, so I am certainly biased.

 

However. A part of me was very happy that he lost Alabama and Mississippi (although, to be fair, he really did pretty well at 29% and 31%). It seems to me that Mitt Romney would have to say things that would almost assuredly make him unelectable in the General Election in order to win those types of Primaries, which leads me to an interesting question -- Is this a brilliant campaign strategy, or is it really going to be a tough, terrible, debilitating slog on through to the convention?

 

It would certainly take a lot of chutzpah to 'intentionally' lose in places that, in order to win, you'd have to really do things that would alienate Independents. That sort of strategy requires you to risk losing momentum and not being able to build your own. I think the campaign has done a really masterful job of not panicking, sticking to their gameplan and using their money advantage to dull the momentum swings from the, ahem, Conservative Candidates^TM.

 

On the other hand, you can also argue that they're 'doing their best' but he just doesn't have what it takes to truly win the Primary and, by extension, the General.

 

Thoughts?

Edited March 14, 2012 by jjamie12

[John Adams]

Magox has been saying for a long time that Romney's harder task will be winning the primary because he has a lot of Independent appeal and he's right.

 

At this point, he's my choice.

[Buftex]

Kony 2012!

[jjamie12]

Magox has been saying for a long time that Romney's harder task will be winning the primary because he has a lot of Independent appeal and he's right.

 

At this point, he's my choice.

Fair enough. I'm interested in hearing thoughts about whether or not you think this is a deliberate campaign strategy (to sort of not pay attention to the fervent base) or if you think they are trying to appeal to the base, but just don't know how.

[Taro T]

Fair enough. I'm interested in hearing thoughts about whether or not you think this is a deliberate campaign strategy (to sort of not pay attention to the fervent base) or if you think they are trying to appeal to the base, but just don't know how.

Probably a little of both, but more of the former.

 

He already will have a hard time hitting Pres. Obama where it will hurt the most (Obamacare). Hopefully in the general campaign he sticks to the points of Masscare being right for Massachusetts and not for the entire nation, that states should be able to devise their own systems that work for their particular circumstances, and that he worked with the Democrats to come up with something that was at least palatable for Massachusetts.

 

To pander to the hard right states will force him to answer more claims of 'flipflopper.' And even if he were to come up with a message that appeals there in the primaries, he'd have a hard time beating the more conservative candidates as I don't see how he could 'genuinely' come across as being more conservative than Santorum. If he had a narrative that would seal the deal w/ the social conservatives that he thought would be credible and not cost him moderates, I expect we'd've already heard it. He's not a social conservative, he's close to a fiscal conservative; though compared to the present WH occupant, he is a social conservative.

 

In the general election, even if Romney doesn't energize the far right, there's no way he loses places like Mississippi. Losing primaries in the deep south, especially in contests where he gets ~30% of the votes, won't hurt him nearly as bad as making a far right social conservative turn will when he gets to the real contest.

 

If he were getting 10% of the primary in Alabama he might have an issue, getting ~30% shouldn't be a dealbreaker in the delegate count.

[GG]

My only explanation is that he's doing enough to win the primaries and not provide ammunition to Obama's campaign for the general election this far in advance. OTOH, he does have a knack for saying stupid things that take away support. His polling across education & economic demographics is pretty striking, and he could definitely help himself if he started gaining more traction outside the cities & suburbs.

[B-Man]

RealClearPolitics

 

Chris Matthews: GOP Willing To "Outsource" Election To A Mormon

 

MSNBC's Chris Matthews says Republicans are willing to outsource the election to a Mormon in order to win the presidency. Matthews also likened the process to calling India or another third-world country to get your computer fixed.

 

On top of that, Matthews called Romney a cultist as well as his two opponents who are Catholics.

 

 

 

 

What a wonderful representation of progressive thought.............

 

.

[Buftex]

RealClearPolitics

 

 

 

 

 

What a wonderful representation of progressive thought.............

 

.

 

He might as well have just called conservatives sluts or prostitutes!

[....lybob]

Watched the video clip- and will now call B-man, LB-man with the L standing either for lying or little.

[3rdnlng]

Watched the video clip- and will now call B-man, LB-man with the L standing either for lying or little.

 

 

I watched the clip also and B-man quoted Mathews accurately. You are wrong and owe him an apology.

[Magox]

No, I don't believe its some sort of "brilliant" strategy on Romney's part, I just honestly think that the base genuinely doesn't like him. They don't see him as one of them, he's too plastic for their taste, he isn't uncompromising enough, he's not as socially conservative as they ideally would like, he's a mormon which cannot be discounted when you are dealing with so many righwing evangelicals and lets not forget, he created Romney care.

 

I would say that all these issues could pose problems in the general election, its not as if these voters wont come out to vote for Obama, and I still believe that the vast majority will vote for Romney anyhow, but if 5-10% of these hardcore right wingers don't turn out, that could end up being an aggregate total of 1-2% less for him, and this race I believe could end up being really close. So, I think it's imperative that Romney picks someone that fires up the base, attracts to the latino voter, while not alienating independents. I believe the choice has to appeal to all three of these points. I saw that Rob Portman could possibly be the choice, and even though from a substantive point of view, I believe he is a very bright economic powerhouse, he's too dull, won't fire up the base and worked as the budget man for Bush. So politically speaking he'd be an awful pick. Rubio, Christie, McDonnel from Va.who I like and ran a hell of a campaign n 2009 and would help bring Virginia back to the conservatives and Suzanna Martinez I would say would be the best choices. Having said that, only two of those I believe could attract the latino vote and thats Rubio and Martinez.

 

In regards to Romney care, yep, thats another weak point for Romney and without a doubt it is political liabilty for Obama, but for obvious reasons Romney would not be the best point man to attack him on this issue. So again, his VP selection would have to be the main attack dog,and of course all the SUPER PACS will without a doubt fill in the gaps where Romney lacks.

[3rdnlng]

No, I don't believe its some sort of "brilliant" strategy on Romney's part, I just honestly think that the base genuinely doesn't like him. They don't see him as one of them, he's too plastic for their taste, he isn't uncompromising enough, he's not as socially conservative as they ideally would like, he's a mormon which cannot be discounted when you are dealing with so many righwing evangelicals and lets not forget, he created Romney care.

 

I would say that all these issues could pose problems in the general election, its not as if these voters wont come out to vote for Obama, and I still believe that the vast majority will vote for Romney anyhow, but if 5-10% of these hardcore right wingers don't turn out, that could end up being an aggregate total of 1-2% less for him, and this race I believe could end up being really close. So, I think it's imperative that Romney picks someone that fires up the base, attracts to the latino voter, while not alienating independents. I believe the choice has to appeal to all three of these points. I saw that Rob Portman could possibly be the choice, and even though from a substantive point of view, I believe he is a very bright economic powerhouse, he's too dull, won't fire up the base and worked as the budget man for Bush. So politically speaking he'd be an awful pick. Rubio, Christie, McDonnel from Va.who I like and ran a hell of a campaign n 2009 and would help bring Virginia back to the conservatives and Suzanna Martinez I would say would be the best choices. Having said that, only two of those I believe could attract the latino vote and thats Rubio and Martinez.

 

In regards to Romney care, yep, thats another weak point for Romney and without a doubt it is political liabilty for Obama, but for obvious reasons Romney would not be the best point man to attack him on this issue. So again, his VP selection would have to be the main attack dog,and of course all the SUPER PACS will without a doubt fill in the gaps where Romney lacks.

 

 

Bobby Jindal?

[OCinBuffalo]

No, I don't believe its some sort of "brilliant" strategy on Romney's part, I just honestly think that the base genuinely doesn't like him. They don't see him as one of them, he's too plastic for their taste, he isn't uncompromising enough, he's not as socially conservative as they ideally would like, he's a mormon which cannot be discounted when you are dealing with so many righwing evangelicals and lets not forget, he created Romney care.

 

I would say that all these issues could pose problems in the general election, its not as if these voters wont come out to vote for Obama, and I still believe that the vast majority will vote for Romney anyhow, but if 5-10% of these hardcore right wingers don't turn out, that could end up being an aggregate total of 1-2% less for him, and this race I believe could end up being really close. So, I think it's imperative that Romney picks someone that fires up the base, attracts to the latino voter, while not alienating independents. I believe the choice has to appeal to all three of these points. I saw that Rob Portman could possibly be the choice, and even though from a substantive point of view, I believe he is a very bright economic powerhouse, he's too dull, won't fire up the base and worked as the budget man for Bush. So politically speaking he'd be an awful pick. Rubio, Christie, McDonnel from Va.who I like and ran a hell of a campaign n 2009 and would help bring Virginia back to the conservatives and Suzanna Martinez I would say would be the best choices. Having said that, only two of those I believe could attract the latino vote and thats Rubio and Martinez.

 

In regards to Romney care, yep, thats another weak point for Romney and without a doubt it is political liabilty for Obama, but for obvious reasons Romney would not be the best point man to attack him on this issue. So again, his VP selection would have to be the main attack dog,and of course all the SUPER PACS will without a doubt fill in the gaps where Romney lacks.

Interesting. A latino woman would certainly have the potential to turn this "war on women" thing on it's head. It's a matter of whether she wants to be attacked in the worst way by the worst people.

 

But, actually, you want them to attack her as nonsensically as possible, and follow the Sarah Palin gameplan. The reason being: these idiots haven't learned anything from that at all, and they aren't about to. Amazingly, now they have an erroneous and classless hit piece movie coming out. Question: Who keeps putting Palin's name in the news and insists on keeping her there? Palin? Or, the idiots that continue to unwittingly give her power/give her the opportunity to put herself in the news?

 

They are idiots, so they don't understand that question, or the answer, or how the equation works, and they think they are "helping". If you can get the same equation running for Martinez....that would be hysterical, for me, and also, highly effective. Nothing would be more funny than Obama Pac money-->attack Martinez-->gain women's sympathy for being attacked-->Obama's own money takes votes away/makes women stay home and not vote for him. Hysterical. Picture these dopey liberals sitting around afterwards saying "I don't understand how we lost, we had the best attack ads ever".

 

The left has no defense for it's own identity politics being used against them. That's why they've historically gone bonkers, to the point of losing the election/supreme court nomination fight, when they are. A latino woman? That's like a bunker buster hitting the DNC's HQ. And, even if they can maintain their class, composure and discipline, there's no chance that they can control MoveOn, etc.

[Magox]

Interesting. A latino woman would certainly have the potential to turn this "war on women" thing on it's head. It's a matter of whether she wants to be attacked in the worst way by the worst people.

 

But, actually, you want them to attack her as nonsensically as possible, and follow the Sarah Palin gameplan. The reason being: these idiots haven't learned anything from that at all, and they aren't about to. Amazingly, now they have an erroneous and classless hit piece movie coming out. Question: Who keeps putting Palin's name in the news and insists on keeping her there? Palin? Or, the idiots that continue to unwittingly give her power/give her the opportunity to put herself in the news?

 

They are idiots, so they don't understand that question, or the answer, or how the equation works, and they think they are "helping". If you can get the same equation running for Martinez....that would be hysterical, for me, and also, highly effective. Nothing would be more funny than Obama Pac money-->attack Martinez-->gain women's sympathy for being attacked-->Obama's own money takes votes away/makes women stay home and not vote for him. Hysterical. Picture these dopey liberals sitting around afterwards saying "I don't understand how we lost, we had the best attack ads ever".

 

The left has no defense for it's own identity politics being used against them. That's why they've historically gone bonkers, to the point of losing the election/supreme court nomination fight, when they are. A latino woman? That's like a bunker buster hitting the DNC's HQ. And, even if they can maintain their class, composure and discipline, there's no chance that they can control MoveOn, etc.

After all this pandering and phony manufactured "war on women" obsessively pushed by the progressive, there is no evidence whatsoever that points to this strategy working. As a matter of fact, polls show that Obama has lost support with women over the past three weeks. That's not to say that this ridiculous "conservatives hate women" campaign is backfiring, because more than likey gasoline prices and the wars are probably the most attributable reason to his decline, but it also shows that after all this hoopla in the media, Democrats and the DNC isn't working as much as they would like to have you believe. Evidence is in the polling, and it' quite clear. Just look at what is happening in Massachusetts. Liberals are shocked that Scott Brown is waxing their progressive firebrand hero Elizabeth Brown. He wrote an OP-ED with a strong defense about religious liberty and he framed the fight in the actual manner, which was this has nothing to do with contraception but government overreach. Liberals were so sure that this would backfire on him. Not only did it not backfire, but he went from having a very small lead to virtually all polls showing he has a substantial lead and in some cases a double digit lead.

 

In regards to VP selections, I really don't know enough about Martinez, so I can't really say, but what I do know is that she would have to be much more prepared than Palin was. In Rubio, you know what you are getting. He's the most gifted Conservative politician they have, along with Scott Brown. Rubio, the guy ran an amazing Senate campaign, appeals to independents because he strikes the right balance between holding conservative principles but not alienating those in the middle, has a great story that appeals to middle class folks, he's a conservative firebrand and of course he's a latino.

 

He's the guy.

 

In regards to Jindal. Great governor, filled with substance, but he just doesn't have national appeal. That's just my opinion.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Magox

[OCinBuffalo]

After all this pandering and phony manufactured "war on women" obsessively pushed by the progressive, there is no evidence whatsoever that points to this strategy working. As a matter of fact, polls show that Obama has lost support with women over the past three weeks. That's not to say that this ridiculous "conservatives hate women" campaign is backfiring, because more than likey gasoline prices and the wars are probably the most attributable reason to his decline, but it also shows that after all this hoopla in the media, Democrats and the DNC isn't working as much as they would like to have you believe. Evidence is in the polling, and it' quite clear. Just look at what is happening in Massachusetts. Liberals are shocked that Scott Brown is waxing their progressive firebrand hero Elizabeth Brown. He wrote an OP-ED with a strong defense about religious liberty and he framed the fight in the actual manner, which was this has nothing to do with contraception but government overreach. Liberals were so sure that this would backfire on him. Not only did it not backfire, but he went from having a very small lead to virtually all polls showing he has a substantial lead and in some cases a double digit lead.

 

In regards to VP selections, I really don't know enough about Martinez, so I can't really say, but what I do know is that she would have to be much more prepared than Palin was. In Rubio, you know what you are getting. He's the most gifted Conservative politician they have, along with Scott Brown. Rubio, the guy ran an amazing Senate campaign, appeals to independents because he strikes the right balance between holding conservative principles but not alienating those in the middle, has a great story that appeals to middle class folks, he's a conservative firebrand and of course he's a latino.

 

He's the guy.

 

In regards to Jindal. Great governor, filled with substance, but he just doesn't have national appeal. That's just my opinion.

The thing that is mindbogglingly stupid here is: they are taking on Catholics, the highest concentrations of which are in Democratic strongholds. Scott Brown's Op-Ed works because of the sheer # of Catholics in Mass. It would be one thing if they were fighting with the evangelicals in Alabama, because they aren't going to win that state, and they might pick up some independents on that. But Catholics? Lunacy. And, if anyone thinks that Catholics will forget this, or that the "convert issue to war on women" plan will work on them, of all people, they are mistaken. Catholics live with these issues every day, it's not like political spin will change that.

 

Agree on Rubio. The working assumption has to be that it will be him. But, if Martinez is a warrior, that could work quite well. Jindal...meh.

[UConn James]

After all this pandering and phony manufactured "war on women" obsessively pushed by the progressive, there is no evidence whatsoever that points to this strategy working. As a matter of fact, polls show that Obama has lost support with women over the past three weeks. That's not to say that this ridiculous "conservatives hate women" campaign is backfiring, because more than likey gasoline prices and the wars are probably the most attributable reason to his decline, but it also shows that after all this hoopla in the media, Democrats and the DNC isn't working as much as they would like to have you believe. Evidence is in the polling, and it' quite clear. Just look at what is happening in Massachusetts. Liberals are shocked that Scott Brown is waxing their progressive firebrand hero Elizabeth Brown. He wrote an OP-ED with a strong defense about religious liberty and he framed the fight in the actual manner, which was this has nothing to do with contraception but government overreach. Liberals were so sure that this would backfire on him. Not only did it not backfire, but he went from having a very small lead to virtually all polls showing he has a substantial lead and in some cases a double digit lead.

 

In regards to VP selections, I really don't know enough about Martinez, so I can't really say, but what I do know is that she would have to be much more prepared than Palin was. In Rubio, you know what you are getting. He's the most gifted Conservative politician they have, along with Scott Brown. Rubio, the guy ran an amazing Senate campaign, appeals to independents because he strikes the right balance between holding conservative principles but not alienating those in the middle, has a great story that appeals to middle class folks, he's a conservative firebrand and of course he's a latino.

 

He's the guy.

 

In regards to Jindal. Great governor, filled with substance, but he just doesn't have national appeal. That's just my opinion.

 

Hit it right on the nail on a lot of your points.

 

I think a lot of women could see the Limbaugh-Fluke spat for what it was (hypocrites) when the left refused to equally denounce Maher. As such, the only polling I've seen is that Obama and generic Democrats have ticked back several points since that time. It obviously didn't have the impact they thought it might.

 

On Martinez, I absolutely love what she's done in New Mexico not backing down on issues re: fair re-districting (She and NM Repubs agreed with a plan that a Democrat-appointed federal judge proposed, but which was blocked by the NM Supremes), passing a law denying illegal immigrants drivers licenses, turning around the NM budget and line-item-vetoing earmarks from both sides, bi-partisanship on numerous issues, tax reductions.... I consider her a lot like Palin, only with tact, a lot more brains, and experience in actually getting things done rather than grandstanding or quitting when the going gets tough.

 

The only thing where she might have trouble is that she was a registered Democrat until 1995. I don't know what her particular beliefs were that caused this, but perhaps most importantly she is Catholic and pro-life. The social stances from the 2010 race are very mainstream Republican. I'm not sure if it was a thing of when she was younger that 'Oh, I'm Latino, so I should be a Dem' until when she got involved in politics (she was a DA prior). Now, I'm one who's of the mind that like a lost sheep, some of the strongest adherents are people who've seen the workings of the other side and come to believe by looking at the facts/searching their hearts that what they were hearing there just wasn't right. But for some in the GOP who demand absolute purity, that detail might not be looked at kindly. (There was some mention of it WRT Perry being a Dem until '88.) Especially with Romney's situation, she might be the best pick from a hypothetical 'She'd be a good VP and attract Latinos and maybe help win NM' but she not be the best pick. Then again, if Romney's aim is to go after Independents in the general and rely on the hardcore base to show up in good numbers because they're willing to hold their noses and they primarily want Obama out, then I think it could definitely work.

[Taro T]

Hit it right on the nail on a lot of your points.

 

I think a lot of women could see the Limbaugh-Fluke spat for what it was (hypocrites) when the left refused to equally denounce Maher. As such, the only polling I've seen is that Obama and generic Democrats have ticked back several points since that time. It obviously didn't have the impact they thought it might.

 

On Martinez, I absolutely love what she's done in New Mexico not backing down on issues re: fair re-districting (She and NM Repubs agreed with a plan that a Democrat-appointed federal judge proposed, but which was blocked by the NM Supremes), passing a law denying illegal immigrants drivers licenses, turning around the NM budget and line-item-vetoing earmarks from both sides, bi-partisanship on numerous issues, tax reductions.... I consider her a lot like Palin, only with tact, a lot more brains, and experience in actually getting things done rather than grandstanding or quitting when the going gets tough.

 

The only thing where she might have trouble is that she was a registered Democrat until 1995. I don't know what her particular beliefs were that caused this, but perhaps most importantly she is Catholic and pro-life. The social stances from the 2010 race are very mainstream Republican. I'm not sure if it was a thing of when she was younger that 'Oh, I'm Latino, so I should be a Dem' until when she got involved in politics (she was a DA prior). Now, I'm one who's of the mind that like a lost sheep, some of the strongest adherents are people who've seen the workings of the other side and come to believe by looking at the facts/searching their hearts that what they were hearing there just wasn't right. But for some in the GOP who demand absolute purity, that detail might not be looked at kindly. (There was some mention of it WRT Perry being a Dem until '88.) Especially with Romney's situation, she might be the best pick from a hypothetical 'She'd be a good VP and attract Latinos and maybe help win NM' but she not be the best pick. Then again, if Romney's aim is to go after Independents in the general and rely on the hardcore base to show up in good numbers because they're willing to hold their noses and they primarily want Obama out, then I think it could definitely work.

She'd have to have a convincing narrative as to why she switched teams, but she wouldn't be the 1st Republican to have switched and be successful on the national stage. Ronnie being the most obvious example of a Democrat that believed the party left him behind and ended up a staunch Republican.

[Juror#8]

I have been a Mitt Romney supporter since 2008, so I am certainly biased.

 

However. A part of me was very happy that he lost Alabama and Mississippi (although, to be fair, he really did pretty well at 29% and 31%). It seems to me that Mitt Romney would have to say things that would almost assuredly make him unelectable in the General Election in order to win those types of Primaries, which leads me to an interesting question -- Is this a brilliant campaign strategy, or is it really going to be a tough, terrible, debilitating slog on through to the convention?

 

It would certainly take a lot of chutzpah to 'intentionally' lose in places that, in order to win, you'd have to really do things that would alienate Independents. That sort of strategy requires you to risk losing momentum and not being able to build your own. I think the campaign has done a really masterful job of not panicking, sticking to their gameplan and using their money advantage to dull the momentum swings from the, ahem, Conservative Candidates^TM.

 

On the other hand, you can also argue that they're 'doing their best' but he just doesn't have what it takes to truly win the Primary and, by extension, the General.

 

Thoughts?

 

I have disliked Romney since 2008 so I am certainly biased.

 

Romney lost those southern states because he can't close the deal. He will numb enough of the base that they won't vote in the general election. GOP statements in recent months will be an albatross that will sink his efforts to interest the largest voting demographic, women. He will get Gored as some saturnine business-savy automaton - a characteristic which has never attracted any significant independent contingent. He is running against an improving economy (which most voting persons are too doltish to put in proper context - they just attribute it to presidential policies).

 

I'm supporting BUDDY ROEMER. I'm even handing out informational brochures at DC, VA, MD metro stations on behalf of his campaign on weekends beginning in August. Gotta go grassroots!

 

Volunteers always wanted:

 

http://www.buddyroemer.com/promote

info@buddyroemer.com

Edited March 20, 2012 by Juror#8

[UConn James]

I have disliked Romney since 2008 so I am certainly biased.

 

Romney lost those southern states because he can't close the deal. He will numb enough of the base that they won't vote in the general election. GOP statements in recent months will be an albatross that will sink his efforts to interest the largest voting demographic, women. He will get Gored as some saturnine business-savy automaton - a characteristic which has never attracted any significant independent contingent. He is running against an improving economy (which most voting persons are too doltish to put in proper context - they just attribute it to presidential policies).

 

I'm supporting BUDDY ROEMER. I'm even handing out informational brochures at DC, VA, MD metro stations on behalf of his campaign on weekends beginning in August. Gotta go grassroots!

 

Volunteers always wanted:

 

http://www.buddyroemer.com/promote

info@buddyroemer.com

 

If you think the GOP base will just lie down for a dude who'll possibly nominate 2 more Sonia Sotomayor clones, will have little to stop him from instituting any and all gun restrictions he can, and has seriously overestimated the strength of this "recovery" (99ers falling off the roles is not recovery), you're off your head.

 

I think many people at this point would be eager to vote for a business-savvy automaton, if that's what the left is intent on categorizing Romney as. Because compared to wanna-be 'Al Green Night' American Idol contestant who wants the government to pick up the check for everything for everybody....

[IDBillzFan]

Romney lost those southern states because he can't close the deal. He will numb enough of the base that they won't vote in the general election.

 

You keep telling yourself that, Scooter. In fact, tell all your liberal friends. I'll tell mine, too.

 

Romney will keep conservative voters at home! The GOP base will skip this election! Spread the word! Tell it to the NAACP! Put it in the SEIU newsletter! Put in on Detroit billboards!