Skip to comments.Why Romney is Weak vs. Obama
Posted on 01/14/2012 8:10:39 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
Romney, indeed, is the perfect foil for the Obama campaign, first because he is the very epitome of a Republican born rich who got richer by moving money around -- a millionaire plutocrat who just can't relate to "ordinary" Americans, and second because he is yet another Republican political/dynastic legatee. Think about it: We've gone from one Bush trying to outdo his Senate father by becoming president, to another Bush trying to outdo his president father by winning two terms as president, to a McCain trying to outdo his admiral father and admiral grandfather by becoming president... and now to a Romney trying to outdo his Michigan governor father and failed presidential front-runner by this time succeeding as a presidential front-runner. In the hands of the $800 million Obama campaign, this can easily by portrayed as a rather creepy and anti-American reliance on dynasticism.
Combine that with what appears to be a plastic insincerity (again, the "flip-flopping" charge was devastating against Al Gore and can be so again), with a "how dare you question me" attitude that increasingly has shown itself in debates, and with an utter failure to "connect" emotionally with what once were known as "Reagan Democrats" (old-ethnic. i.e. Italian-American/Polish-American, etc., blue collar workers, culturally conservative and on economics distrustful of Wall Street), and you have a recipe for an extraordinarily weak general election candidate.
Against all of that, all Romney can offer is a supposed greater acceptability to the educated, less culturally conservative, right-leaning economically, urban and suburbanites who are being targeted by Obama in places like Virginia and North Carolina. But the key thing here is that while these folks may be more socially liberal, they tend to vote more on the basis of their slightly upper-middle-income economic expectations rather than on social issues,
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Mormans and Romney are NOT Christians.... doomed to failure !!!!
That was J.F'in Kerry.
Where is the evidence that Romney is so electable? He’s won only one election (Governor of MA in 2002) and didn’t seek a second term in part because he faced certain defeat. He certainly wouldn’t win his home state this year.
Opposing Romney is not only good principle, but it’s also good politics.
Why Romney is Weak vs. Obama
I thought the term “White Obama” was pretty good the other day. Romney is a pussy just like this African fellow.
What’s funny, is that while I agree that Mormonism is a perversion and not a denomination f Christianity, they statistically know more about the Bible than most “main stream” denominations. Mormons and white Protestants are reportedly the most knowledgeable in regard to the Bible and its inner workings. Most people not only can’t name the books of the bible, don’t even know how many there are.
This election is all about the economy. Whoever the public thinks is competent enough to fix it, will win. The other issues won’t matter this cycle.
.... The plain simple truth is the Morman religion is a "cult"!
...been there .... done that....
I am a gentile in their eyes...
They had the right solution in Nauvoo, Illinois....
Why on earth he is the front-runner in a race where a real conservative could waltz straight to the White House without breaking a sweat is well beyond me. I guess I chalk it up to the weak field -- I can't say I've been a fan of a single one of our candidates this time around.
What a shame, especially considering that this 2012 election really matters. I'll hold my breath and vote for one of them, but I'm not going to be happy about it.
What the farking hell is wrong with the GOP primary voters?!
I can not speak for anyone else, nor have any intention of suggesting how one votes. However, if Mitt Romney is the GOP choice to run against Obama, I will not vote for him.
That isn’t true, that Mormons know more about the bible than Christians, that little quiz was mocked pretty heavily here on the forums.
Romney? No vote for sure.
“if Mitt Romney is the GOP choice to run against Obama, I will not vote for him.”
If you want to be irrelevant in the next election, that’s fine with me, but please promise you won’t vote for 0.
Whenever anyone says that RINOS/liberal Repubs are “more electable” they are either lying on purpose or deceiving themselves.
I guess that I could accept that critisism of Mitt, or Newt, or Rick, or Ron, or, whoever!
Please identify where this scribe questions anything about the nothing that backs up our President of today!
What are his backrounds: his parentage; his early life; his education; his employment, his religion; his voting record in Chicago! Yeah, I did’nt think you could!
If Romney is the GOP pick, then gets thrashed by Obama, the establishment will find some way to blame the Tea Party and Sarah Palin. Go to your neighborhood bookie and lay down your Benjamins. It’s a sure bet.
I can just hear the post election analysis from Rove, Luntz and Morris...all cackling like a bunch of sycophant chickens.
“Cluck, cluck, cluck. Palin wasn’t submissive enough or an obedient foot soldier for the cause. Cluck, cluck, cluck. She didn’t endorse the right candidates. Cluck, cluck, cluck. Her negatives turned away voters. Cluck, cluck, cluck. The Tea Party never materialized and abandoned the cause. They’re traitors.”
“What the farking hell is wrong with the GOP primary voters?!”
The conservative vote is divided among other candidates. We need to winnow the field.
“Where is the evidence that Romney is so electable? “
There’s a reason why the lib media doesn’t go after Romney.
Did Romney actually win Iowa? I read that the eight vote spread may be in error. It may be that Santorum won and we won’t get Iowa’s final count until around January 18th. Since South Carolina’s primary is on January 21st, 2012, the perception that Romney is a two-state winner may hold in the minds of voters even if it is not true.
The state GOP has denied there was anything wrong with the count but I haven’t heard them offer any details. We can only hope.
Anyhow, the only substantial evidence that Romney is “the most electable” is that he polls the best against Obama.
But how much of that is just name recognition? He’s been running for President since he decided to quit as MA Governor because he was gonna lose and he needed to start pretending to be conservative immediately to have a chance.
Any Republican with 100% name id (which any nominee will get) and without sky high negatives ought to be able to beat this Obama.
It’s not hard to argue that a blue-collar Catholic (Rick S) is more electable than a wealthy Mormon named Willard. (Willard Mitt versus Barack Hussein? Really?)
I’m neither swayed that Romney is so electable as his people claim NOR that is so certain to lose as some conservatives claim.
A paper plate ought to have an even chance of beating his Most Incompetent and Radical Majesty.
Other than New Hampshire, where independents voted in the primary, we have yet to see recorded ballots from GOP primary voters. Iowa was not a primary.
The real issue is what can be done to fix a system where many candidates are eliminated before the voters can cast ballots. Plus can the system be reformed so independents and Democrats aren't voting in the primary and skewing the results to favor the Democrat agenda?
It appears the GOP primary system has been set up to favor an establishment moderate to liberal candidate backed by big money. The earliest primary is in once conservative, now moderate New Hampshire. Plus New Hampshire allows independents to vote in the primary. The first Southern primary, South Carolina, is open which theoretically allows the Dems to vote in mass for the candidate the Dems wish to run against. The first big state with a closed primary, Florida, does not come until January 31. Super Tuesday, where a significant number of voters actually get to cast ballots doesn't occur until March 6. By then many of the conservative candidates will be out of money and gone before the voters can speak.
The system was set up this year to elect Romney. Most debates were run by liberals who steered the questions to minimize attacks on Obama as well as avoid meaningful discussion of philosophy and ideas. The underfunded conservative candidates were forced to spend their limited money early to be noticed in Iowa and New Hampshire where the number of votes at stake were small but the media attention was critical. Plus the media did the job of destroying the conservatives — Palin opted out, Gary Johnson was ignored, Cain was destroyed, Perry was neutered, Bachmann was painted as crazy, and Paul was portrayed as a flake. The real or perceived flaws of each conservative became issues, thereby giving the electorate an impression each conservative is weak. Br focusing on personalities instead of real issues and substance the media, the DNC, and the Republican establishment have almost certainly ensured Romney will be the candidate before most Republicans even have a chance to cast a ballot.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with the GOP voter. If the voters actually could cast ballots choosing from the entire field in closed primaries, after listening to substantive debates about the critical issues, the voters would make a good choice and select a real conservative the party could rally around. Unfortunately that isn't the way the primary system is structured so the establishment “moderate” will win by default.
The author mentions Kerry's flip-flopping too, earlier in the article than the excerpt.
I admit the only Gore flip-flop I remember is on tobacco, but I also admit I don't recall the details of that campaign that well.
Great article — he seems to cover everything!
Ok, I promise!