Skip to comments.Romney's Scattered Campaign Message Baffles Strategists
Posted on 09/16/2012 3:36:11 PM PDT by drewh
click here to read article
There’s a legal aphorism, `When you’ve won, stop talking.’
Romney knows what he’s doing. Obama is doing a good job every day—for Romney.
Proof? Obama’s side—Democrats, the MSM, et al.—are doing all they can, but they can’t change Obama.
People on Obama’s side (like here) can’t keep Obama from serial pooch-screwing, so they are advising Romney to act differently.
I’ll dig up an old saw: Let Romney be Romney. Unlike Obama, he didn’t just fall off the turnip wagon.
Quite honestly I don’t understand where the TEA party has gone.
After 2010 they just sort have went away.
I am sure they will get specific with the debates....that’s what they are for.
TEA went NOWHERE. Still 100% here, just silent running now, not about to give RATS any advantage via communication.
I suspect despite the liberal moderators, Romney will dissect Obama in the debates.
I know Ryan will handle Crazy Uncle Joe.
These recommendations you identify are good ones but policy prescriptions, however specific, aren’t really necessary. Just look at BO’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns. There are no specifics, just childish and vague plattitudes, and he won. It seems the Democrat party has PT Barnum for campaign manager. Individual Dems make outrageous statements and follow courses of action that could well cripple our nation’s security and economy for decades—but they tell a bunch of lies and are able to win elections.
Republicans need to grasp at least a few points (and probably a few more):
1. Everything you say, whether good or bad, will be presented to the public as bad. You have to have your own information outlets and failing to support and promote new popular information outlets to counter the hard left news media has been a problem for Repubs since the 1960s.
2. Being nice and not saying anything that is too harsh results in your being invisible. If you don’t have hard-hitting simple statements to repeat over and over for the electorate, you will be seen through the propaganda of the hard left media. Failing to aggressively defend your positions, as Bush 43 failed to do, results in your being vilified with myth.
3. Going on stage to debate with the left managing the debate will damage your campaign—it is not “reaching out to the middle”. There is no such thing as the moderate voter, only socialists, Americans, and people who aren’t very knowledgable about politics or government. Those are the only three voter groups.
4. Most people don’t understand foreign, economic, domestic, education, or any other policy. Policies put people to sleep and there is no way people can understand the long-term consequences of political policies. At best, voters know whether a proposed policy hurts them immediately or helps some seemingly poor unfortunate people. Voters have no idea what Obamacare will play out in the next ten years. If it isn’t hurting their pocketbook or health this afternoon, and if it sounds nice to help all the poor people, the prospect of crippling health care quality and costing people a fortune in the process is all just mumbo-jumbo to them. Republicans must keep the message simple and hard-hitting. It must be repeated often. Remind voters that Obamacare means no more good health care and remind them they will need to pony-up $X to get bad care.
Tell voters everyday that the Dems want to be Greece. Tell the voters that the Dems are screwing up the middle east. Keep up the drumbeat!
I was thinking the same thing, and approve.
I was thinking the same thing, and approve.
“Death from below”
Yes I do believe it. Look it, polls might be off a few points but they show trends and a pattern. ALL have Romney behind, except Ras and Romney just went from being four points head to one point according to Ras.
There isn’t a clear message. It should be about the state of the economy and Obamacare. Hit both hard and often.
Watch and wait, and listen...
Death from below.
“Weaver, a former strategist on Republican John McCains presidential campaigns”
That says a lot.
Romney just needs to talk like the lion at the end of the wizard of oz.
Jon Huntsman’s campaign was a better idea than it was a reality, and the idea was John Weaver’s.
Weaver, a rangy, 52-year old Texan has a storied and controversial career in Republican politics, and now an uncertain future. And the Huntsman campaign is the latest and purest version of a strategy that he’s been pressing since he was at John McCain’s right hand in 2000: A Republican campaign that embraces the mainstream media, sets itself against elements of conservative dogma, and builds a coalition of moderate Republicans and independents that – if it could only survive the primary – would be formidable in a general election. The campaign’s birth in baroque intrigue and its high-level infighting are also Weaver signatures.
“You get a lot of good out of the guy, you get a lot of brilliance out of the guy – but you get a lot of dysfunction out of the guy,” a Republican who has often worked with Weaver said Sunday night, after the news of Huntsman’s departure had broken. Members of Huntsman’s family blame what they saw as a debacle on Weaver, the Republican said. “It’s really going to get ugly.”
To Weaver’s critics, he’s a “Svengali,” as one said, persuading a wealthy, talented former governor to blow his money and his name on a lost cause. To his admirers, Weaver had the right strategy -- to nip Romney in New Hampshire – and a message that would have made Huntsman formidable in November, and was let down by the candidate and his wealthy father.
“This should have been a well-funded campaign,” said a Weaver ally. “There was no reason this should be a penniless campaign.” (Weaver's June monthly retainer from Huntsman was $20,000; it had declined to $14,500 by fall, according to the most recently financial disclosure report, filed in October.)
But the core complaint about Weaver’s strategy – which seems to have matched Huntsman’s own views – is that the consultant was running for the nomination of a party whose leaders and members he seemed to view at times with disdain.
“"There's a simple reason our party is nowhere near being a national governing party," Weaver told Esquire in June. "No one wants to be around a bunch of cranks."
A man with those views might be an unlikely strategist for a Republican candidate. He and Huntsman seemed to rely on the support of a silent moderate Republican majority that hasn’t been shown to exist. And the consultant enjoys the loathing of his party's conservatives.
You would never see a Democrat do this.
Makes you wonder how many "Republican campaign strategists" are really Democrats...
Why don't the “GOP” A-holes impeach Obama? Sounds like a lying cowardly bunch of POS RINOs sniping at Romney.
RE: THIS JOURNALIST....
WaPo’s Tumulty Calls Clinton’s 1993 Tax Increase a ‘Deficit Reduction Plan’
I'd disagree. There are probably at least dozens of categories of voters. Three is way too few. For simplicity's sake, I'd say there are at least four big groups of voters: (1) economic and social conservatives (white southerners, white evangelical Christians), (2) economic and social liberals (single white women, Obama, Carter, Kerry, Pelosi), (3) economic liberals and social conservatives (blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, Huckabee) and (4) economic conservatives and social liberals (Huntsman, Schwarzenegger, Giuliani, Wall Street). Then there are other categories not captured by the above, such as non-Christians who despise Christians for attempting to convert them, racial minorities who see the GOP as being aligned with racists, national minorities who see the GOP's muscular internationalism as being antithetical to the interests of their countries of origin, and so on. I suspect swing voters are as knowledgeable as every other category of voter - their dilemma is figuring out where to compromise, since whichever party they choose, they only get half of what they want on the issues.