Romney's Big Ego Trips and Falls Flat In Iowa..He's All But Doomed Now - Political Forum

superdude17* · 01-04-2008, 04:22 AM

Real Clear Politics

Quote:

It's one thing to lose as you are. What you lose is an election, but there's always another election and in the case of presidential primary politics, a new electorate that awaits you in the next state. It's another thing to lose as you aren't. Mitt Romney was never the 700 Club right-winger his campaign managers conceived. He was and is a man of business and a very capable one at that.

He's all but doomed now. Senator John McCain will beat him in New Hampshire, probably by a lot, and Romney's media coverage will evaporate and his candidacy will consequently die. On January 9, his managers will walk in and say that the campaign needs $10 million or $15 million to continue and that he, Romney, will have to write the check. Everyone who would contribute has maxed out. Everyone who might won't. Two-time losers don't get new money. It's a basic rule of politics.

Romney will make his last stand in Michigan; that'll be the compromise he and his advisors reach. It's another of his "home" states, by virtue of the fact that his father was governor there 40 years ago. And he'll make the "economy" the issue there, with some immigration red meat thrown in to try to cut McCain. But by then, everyone there will see it for what it is: a construct of consultancy, a case study in desperation. Romney's defeat in Michigan will be definitive. And then it'll be over; back to Belmont with Ann and the kids and plenty of time to think about what went wrong.

Where would you start? A large piece of the Romney campaign's failure was its unwillingness to discuss the major issues facing the country in substantive terms. He never said one interesting thing about how to defeat radical Islam in its war against the United States in particular and the developed world in general. In the midst of the greatest financial meltdown in at least two decades, he didn't offer up even the sketchiest proposal for national or international oversight of the global financial system. In the midst of a genomic revolution in biological science, one that impacts everything from energy to health care to national security, he said nothing at all.

A large part of politics is framing the context in which one's candidacy is understood. Romney was never going to be a base candidate. He's a Mormon and the base is not. Romney was never going to be the "conservative" candidate, he was the former governor of Massachusetts, perhaps the most liberal state in the country, and campaigned there for the US Senate (in 1994) and for governor (in 2002) as a moderate.

Romney's only real choice was to run as a Republican Gary Hart, the candidate of "new ideas" for a party in desperate need of same. That would have at least given him the flexibility to play to his strengths; his intellectual prowess, his business acumen, his demonstrable executive skills and his admirable personal qualities. And it would have enabled him to attract a wide array of advisors and intellectuals to help him think through innovative policy positions on what appear to be intractable issues.

Had Romney campaigned as the GOP Gary Hart, he would have emerged as an agent of change, regardless of caucus and primary outcomes. Long-term, that would have given him leverage within the Republican Party and with voters generally. If you're the "new idea" guy, almost by definition people want to hear what you have to say.

Instead, his handlers framed Romney's candidacy in a fallacy. We were asked to believe that he was something that he was not. Iowa didn't buy it and neither will anyone else. What people are looking for is leadership. What the Romney campaign offered was obeisance.

If we wanted a business in chief we would get Donald Trump. We want a commander in chief. MITT DOESN'T FITT (new slogan) the bill. While iowan voters are dumb, for they gave their votes to Huckster and Obama of all people, they made the right decision regarding Mitt.

Obama will be a difficult one to campaign against but a brave candidate can do it. Romney could not and I don’t believe Huck could. (He’d get too caught up saying nice things about him and down playing liberal and conservative differences) Thompson and Rudy are the only ones who have the audacity to go after him.

francois60 · 01-04-2008, 07:50 AM

Romney isn't done, but he did miss his big chance. He was the only candidate with a realistic chance to decisively win the nomination early. He led in IA, NH, and MI. WInning the first three contests in a row would have convinced GOP voters that he was the man to go with.

Now he's in the scrum with everyone else.

LessGovMrPrez · 01-04-2008, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superdude17*

Real Clear Politics

If we wanted a business in chief we would get Donald Trump. We want a commander in chief. MITT DOESN'T FITT (new slogan) the bill. While iowan voters are dumb, for they gave their votes to Huckster and Obama of all people, they made the right decision regarding Mitt.

Obama will be a difficult one to campaign against but a brave candidate can do it. Romney could not and I don’t believe Huck could. (He’d get too caught up saying nice things about him and down playing liberal and conservative differences) Thompson and Rudy are the only ones who have the audacity to go after him.

Why are they dumb? B/c they didnt support Rudy?....lol. Funny, Rudy didnt even want to make the trip to Iowa. Is that b/c he knew he wouldnt win? Rudy is a losing ticket Superdude. I hope you know that. The South will not go for Rudy, he is to liberal. He may win up in the NE and out West but down here, he aint gonna sniff it.

Romney is in 2nd place, way ahead of Rudy and Thompson. How that makes him over and done with I have no clue.

superdude17* · 01-04-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessGovMrPrez

Why are they dumb? B/c they didnt support Rudy?....lol. Funny, Rudy didnt even want to make the trip to Iowa. Is that b/c he knew he wouldnt win? Rudy is a losing ticket Superdude. I hope you know that. The South will not go for Rudy, he is to liberal. He may win up in the NE and out West but down here, he aint gonna sniff it.

Romney is in 2nd place, way ahead of Rudy and Thompson. How that makes him over and done with I have no clue.

no, b/c the race is a 32-state race, and rather than waste his time in 1 state for 3 weeks which I think will hurt Romney a lot, he has been gaining in other states, like Florida, which mean much more competitively. Iowa overall does very little and has very few electoral votes.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 01-04-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessGovMrPrez

Romney is in 2nd place, way ahead of Rudy and Thompson. How that makes him over and done with I have no clue.

Given that he was outspending his chief rival 20:1 and given that he had gotten started in Iowa far before Huckabee, it shows that Romney's campaign is pretty pathetic. It looks bad for him at this point.

francois60 · 01-04-2008, 10:55 AM

It's a great campaign, actually, the problem is the candidate. He's a big fake.

But don't count him out yet. He still has a path to victory simply because of his money and the fact that he can compete almost anywhere. Huckabee is a purely regional candidate. He can only compete in the South and Midwest.

If Romney can avoid losing to McCain, in NH, I"d have to say he goes back to being the frontrunner.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 01-04-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by francois60

It's a great campaign, actually, the problem is the candidate. He's a big fake.

But don't count him out yet. He still has a path to victory simply because of his money and the fact that he can compete almost anywhere. Huckabee is a purely regional candidate. He can only compete in the South and Midwest.

If Romney can avoid losing to McCain, in NH, I"d have to say he goes back to being the frontrunner.

The GOP race is still too volatile to make a firm prediction on. If Romney loses NH, then he's finished IMO. Huck's national numbers put him in the same league as Giuliani and Romeny and he's got the Iowa bounce. Huck could very well explode into the West and Northeast, just as he exploded into Iowa.

BTW, of course when I say that Romney's campaign sucks I mean that Romney sucks, I just didn't want to put it that way.

LessGovMrPrez · 01-04-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Given that he was outspending his chief rival 20:1 and given that he had gotten started in Iowa far before Huckabee, it shows that Romney's campaign is pretty pathetic. It looks bad for him at this point.

I wouldnt go by how much a candidate spends to see how well he is doing. Huckabee is alot better candidate then Romney is, by far. Plus Iowa is not that far away from Arkansas. Geographically speaking Huckabee could have been said to be in his own backyard.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 01-04-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessGovMrPrez

I wouldnt go by how much a candidate spends to see how well he is doing.

Seems you misunderstand my argument. The fact that Romney lost is what primarily shows "how well he is doing" (poorly). The fact that Romney lost while he had massive material advantages shows that he is inherently a weak candidate (in other words his loss is double).

LessGovMrPrez · 01-04-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superdude17*

no, b/c the race is a 32-state race, and rather than waste his time in 1 state for 3 weeks which I think will hurt Romney a lot, he has been gaining in other states, like Florida, which mean much more competitively. Iowa overall does very little and has very few electoral votes.

Sounds like a big fat excuse to me. Iowa doesnt matter huh? Hmm, better tell Al Gore and John Kerry that one.