Skip to comments.Why Romney won -- Why Gingrich lost
Posted on 02/01/2012 8:08:54 AM PST by bigbob
Coming off a decisive loss to Newt Gingrich in South Carolina, Mitt Romney needed to do three things to win the Florida primary: 1) attack Gingrich with a level of ferocity not yet seen in the already-contentious Republican presidential campaign; 2) raise the level of his performance in debate; and 3) improve his on-the-stump message to give voters more substance and fewer platitudes.
For his part, Gingrich had two must-dos: 1) deal with Romney's attacks in a calmer, more seasoned way than Gingrich handled the last Romney barrage, during the campaign in Iowa; and 2) keep up the solid message he rode to victory in South Carolina.
Over the past week in Florida, Romney did nearly everything right; his ads hit hard and his debate performance was dominating, even if he improved only marginally on the stump. And Gingrich did nearly everything wrong. The result was a decisive 14-point victory for Romney, who now has two primary victories to Gingrich's one.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
I think his summary gets it right: At some point, Team Gingrich believes, voters will grow sick of the negativity and say to Romney, "Enough -- what about you?"
The experiences in SC and FL should show Newt what works, and what doesn't. Now we wait to see if he can return to the "big ideas" and bold conservative approach that have salvaged his candidacy twice before.
Let’s not discount the fact that the FL GOP, especially in the coastal counties, is disproportionately older, and Romney won these big. Why? Because, deep down in their little heart of hearts, these older voters want a guy who’s going to keep ObamaCare pretty much as it is, since they get the goodies bundled up in it.
I agree, LLS.
Newt is showing he has little self control, he allows himself to get sucker punched time and again... then responds in kind. he wasn’t able to rise above it, and he felt compelled to attack Romney’s money, very unrepublican...
Romney’s attack ad approach goes all the way back to Nauvoo, IL. You don’t like how someone’s criticizing you? Don’t answer their charges; use any means to destroy them instead.
Many of the older FL GOP are retirees transplanted from the northeast. They are very familiar with Romney politically. They like his style.
people always say they hate negative ads and they always work
I agree with what you say, and here is another truth: In the pros, ORGANIZATIONS win, not players. Romney has the organization. You can’t really pinpoint when he started the 2012 campaign because he never really stopped the 2008 campaign. He’s been quietly going around the country for the past four years sewing up various local and state GOP organizations. Sure, there are Republicans out there who are supporting Newt, but Romney grasped the levers of the machinery.
That’s why a year ago I posted here that he would win the nomination. It is not what I want. I’ve already declared that I will not vote for him because when I go meet my maker, I want to be able to say: “I never voted for a socialist.”
But facts are facts.
I disagree. Seniors were strongly against Obamacare, and know Obamacare cut the hell out of Medicare. Seniors must have fully believed Romney was every bit as willing to reverse Obamacare as the others.
Saw a stat on here last evening that said Willard ran 13,000 ads (most, if not all attack ads) vs. Newt’s 200 ads. Hard to fight against a 65 to 1 radio of ad bombardment.
One word on why Newt lost.....Debate. that is it period. No ifs ands or buts. Newt only won SC because of his debate performance and he lost FL because of his debate performance. There is nothing more or less to this. I mean it makes for good stories that everyone can slice and dice this win for Romney but it comes down to the debates and that is it. Everyone says money and commercials but that is not what lost it for Newt. That look of confusion and shock when Romney gave it back to Newt about his Franny-Freddie stock is the lone reason Newt lost. It is horrible and Newt was stuck and didn’t know what to do. His whining probably didn’t help either. One minute the debate was too quite and the next it was too loud. People don’t like complainers. He needs to stop that immediately.
Unfortunately that seems to be the case. I think part of the reason is that such a large fraction of the population is simply disconnected from political reality, and are susceptible to believing whatever mush gets poured into their brains via the media. A candidate like Newt does well with those who understand the issues and are engaged, but I’m afraid ‘we’ are the minority.
Observations about Seniors may or may not be correct, I don’t know, but regardless of age, a lot of people simply aren’t paying attention, and that’s both scary and sad.
The GOP in WA state isn’t conservative either. Heck, the T-Party in WA state isn’t conservative. The whole party seems to be made up of people with no real core values other than what benefits them.
Right now, in WA State, the GOP establishment is backing Romney big time. They have been backing him for the past two years, even invited him to speak at our state convention the year before last. It was a disaster and still they supported him.
The worst part about this article is the line about Romney’s debate performance being dominating. LOL! He was channeling Gore with his dour looks at the other candidates. Santorum clearly won that debate, not Romney.
Newt is suffering from a typical problem exemplified by the way fouls get called in sports. The original and inciting file is seldom called. But the reaction to the original file almost always gets the whistle.
Romney can pretend innocence as much as he likes by faux-lamenting as he did in the Bloody Thursday debate, “Wouldn’t it be nice if people wouldn’t make attacks that have to be answered in the debates? (paraphrase).
But the reality is, Mitt started it. Newt desperately needs to learn not to react. Until the general, the press will be more than happy to blow the whistle on him and ignore Romney’s fouls. Of course that will change drastically with Mitt’s acceptance speech. At that point his own earth will be scorched—and by pros who will make him look like the amateur that he is.
“Right now, in WA State, the GOP establishment is backing Romney big time. They have been backing him for the past two years, even invited him to speak at our state convention the year before last. It was a disaster and still they supported him.”
That’s exactly my point. Romney was doing all these things with the state GOP’s, and he brought sacks of cash to shower on the locals when he was there. They were all purchased by his “organization,” and became a part thereof. Nobody cares what he said, nobody remembers it. But they remember the money.
Newt didn’t do that; he’d just show up on Fox or Hannity from time to time.
I wish Gingrich would stick to that approach. When it comes to actual accomplishments that promote the conservative agenda, Romney has very little to show.
Well dps.inspect, are you saying that Newt doesn’t have a right to get pissed when someone is outright LYING about you? Wouldn’t you want to hit back? And he wasn’t attacking Mitt’s money, he was attacking the PERSPECTIVE that Mitt has because of his silver-spoon-money upbringing and lifestyle.
However, at this point, I would agree that he needs to just take a small swat at the blood-sucking mosquito then get back to attacking Obama and putting forth a solid message. He doesn’t need to pick back up the sword.
Newt won the SC debates because he attacked the media. The GOP voters, disparate as they may be, tend to all agree that the media is not their friend. Not all agree that Romney is their enemy so Newts attacks during the FL debate failed to gain him much favor.
Simple truth. This notion of always voting for the guy or gal with the (R) by the name has never guaranteed a conservative in office. Nowadays, backing a Republican isn't all that much different than backing the Democrat.
You mean like death panels?
Oh...., that’s what’s behind this. Well, we remember what Romney said. He channeled Glenn Beck and even cried real tears. We all wanted to throw up.
I can’t really understand what is going on with the GOP in my county. They seem to be made up of a mix of union members and small business owners who just don’t see the larger picture. All they care about is how the issues impact their daily lives, here and now. If the Democrats promise that their projects will bring jobs, the Republicans jump on board, no matter the consequences. They are now supporting the Gateway Coal terminal that will destroy a large portion of the county.
That's wonderful advice except for the fact that Newt tried the big ideas approach in Iowa and it didn't work. He got scorched and came in 4th.
In the end of it all a good many people will vote for a personality more than a political platform. Those folks tend to look for someone they can envision sitting in the Oval Office and talking to them on TV. When Newt goes all over the board with new ideas every hour, he doesn't instill confidence in his ability to focus.
He needs to craft a solid message and stay with it. If I were in his camp, I'd be going through Obama statements and using every opportunity to rebut them and focus on him while ignoring Mitt. Newt is going to have to rise above the clutter to find voter confidence. Back and forth arguing doesn't serve him well.
—Here is the truth that no one wants to hear... but the truth is the truth. The gop is NOT a conservative party and the majority of Floridians are in no way conservative... and the seniors only care about themselves and their gubmint check.—
That’s how I see it as well. Problem is, that is how I pretty much see the whole country. It’s why I believe there is no human solution to our debt crisis. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul rarely complains, and when you get to a point where there are more Pauls than Peters, well, things will get “interesting”. Actually, they already are. But not near as interesting as they will be later this year.
I guess we saw a different debate. Yes, Santorum did well, IMO; but that is insignificant because he is an also-ran at this point. I thought Romney came off very well. I tuned in to see Newt smack him down. That didn't happen. My wife would ask me why I kept saying "Dammit!" during the debate. It was because Mittens kept scoring points off Gingrich. At the very start, as they stood together, Romney smiled and appeared very gracious to Newt. Sure, it's an act, but he pulled it off well. When Newt tried to flash a smile, it looked forced, as if he never smiles in real life. In some debates, Romney adopts an Obama-esque air of superiority when someone dares to criticize him. I thought he held that in check during the last Florida debate (except for the "it's not worth getting angry" comment).
On the immigration question, I actually like Mitt's "self-deportation" idea. It's what we've been clamoring for on FR for years. Newt's response about deporting "Grandpa and Grandma" smacked of Perry's "heartless" comments which upset so many Freepers.
If you looked at the debate as one of the sheeple would, you'd have to say Mitt came off well. I hate to say it; but that's how it came off when I watched it. I knew Newt would lose Florida after that debate.
Of course, Romney was also helped by a pro-Romney crowd and an idiotic "moderator" in the person of Wolf Blitzed. He started the debate by asking Mitt and Newt to respond to each others' accusations, which is not a proper debate at all. That was when Newt should have tried his "what has this got to do with a debate?" approach. By the time he did, he was already muddied from the mudfight. Like it or not, I think an average person who is not a political junkie like us would have said "that Romney seems to be a right nice feller".
Women supported Mitt in much larger numbers than was the case with Newt. Just as I have been SHOUTING for the past few months, women voters are the backbone we need to beat Obama in November, and both Romney and Santorum can motivate enough women to vote for them on the family, loyalty and values subjects. Again, I maintain that Gingrich will get no such support from the majority of women in this Nation, and this goes back to the Tiger Woods scandals.
I think one valid point York makes is that Newt has demonstrate both ‘how-to’ and ‘how-NOT-to’, and the results speak for themselves. If he can rise above the fray and stay focused on the big picture, I think he’s got a fighting chance.
As much as I liked Palin, she’s never been able to let even the smallest slap or punch go unrecognized. With his sense of history, I think if anyone can find a way to elevate and re-invent himself, Newt can.
York needs to look at the exit numbers which show a huge gap of where the Married Women vote went. I really feel that Newt’s personal history with his marriages hurt him severely although a lot of women may not admit this.
Thank you Mary. I do not like reality but it is what it is and we must do something to change it.
I certainly hope so.
All the women I know freely admit this, they think Gingrich is a sleaze. One woman friend of mine asked if Calista would be called the first mistress instead of the first lady.
It infuriates me that a rich catalogue cutout can BUY our Presidency.--Guess it shouldn't, since a Southside Chicago thug was programmed and set up as an eloquent, intelligent, handsome peacemaker who would unite the country and make the oceans recede. Enough ignoramuses bought that schtick to put into office the most virulently divisive ideologue in our history, and one who hates this country.--but, Hey! He is Historic! He is the first black man to gain the presidency, right?
Well, that is true, but mainly he is a Trojan Horse or the camel's nose--the detonator who starts to blow up the thngs his friend Ayers only dreamed of blowing up.
Santorum’s fault, no doubt. < /sds>
You and I saw the same debate. Probably the low point for Newt was when he tried twice to duck the question about Mitt’s finances, and then after Wolf pushed back and Mitt jumped in with the “Wouldn’t it be nice...” crack, he then said, “OK...” and started to respond to it in a lame way. I think we’ve all be in similar positions, where you just know you’re going to be damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I don’t like Mitt’s style but I can recognize a major shift when I see it, and he was far more ferocious and persistent in his attacks, sort of like a boxer who never landed a KO punch but just kept hammering away with rabbit punches that wore his opponent down.
And those sheeple who maybe watch a 2 minute replay of one debate on their local TV station the day before they vote don’t apply ANY of the kind of thought processes we do on FR all every day.
All of the media are explaining the cardboard man’s blow-out win against Gingrich as: (Barf alert) the state of Florida mirrors a real ‘DIVERSE’ voter populace which more reflects most of the 50 states except for a few ‘redneck’ states.
Ohio Sen. Portman says Romney shows electability
By DAN SEWELL
CINCINNATI — Ohio’s Republican U.S. senator said Wednesday that Mitt Romney’s Florida win shows he has the diverse appeal needed to win Ohio and the general election.
Rob Portman, from the Cincinnati suburb of Terrace Park, was on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” TV show in the aftermath of Romney’s primary victory. Portman endorsed Romney two weeks ago, saying he thinks the former Massachusetts governor is the best Republican candidate to face President Barack Obama, and campaigned for Romney in South Carolina.
“I think at this point, after winning a big diverse state like Florida so convincingly, that Romney’s got the momentum,” said Portman. He said Romney has electability, with appeal to conservatives like himself, and the ability to tackle the nation’s economy.
What has the Obama campaign learned about Romney to defeat him...
Newt has to do just about everything perfectly and this includes figuring out a way to deal with the first lady issue.
Yep, and the same people who control the 2 parties through money are the same ones telling us that a 3rd party has no chance of success, will guarantee BHO another term, etc.
You have to wonder who are the dopes here sometimes.
The one wild card is Trump, who has the money (and access to money) to go it without the RNC’s blessing. I don’t know if he would seriously consider doing it, but the mere threat sure puts him in the King Maker seat.
How would a positive ad work? Tell everyone your opponent is great or just tell everyone what you’re going to do if you win?
Negative ads are the only kind there are in politics.
February 1, 2012 9:35 AM
Women abandon Gingrich, drive Romney victory in FL
Women abandoned Newt Gingrich in droves Tuesday and helped fuel former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s triumph in Florida’s Republican presidential primary, according to data from an exit poll of voters.
It certainly does... ask the chicoms... they bought us for pennies on the dollar... conquered us without a shot being fired.
So, because Santorum is not running as well as Romney, doesn’t have the big money ads, etc, you are able to discount his message and criticisms of Romney?
Just because Santorum isn’t in the top two tier, doesn’t make his message any less right. You can’t say that Romney did well in the debate just because he is still ahead in the polls.
Santorum destroyed Romney in the debate and fools still vote for him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.