Skip to comments.Romney says his campaign doesn’t need a ‘turnaround’
Posted on 09/23/2012 8:51:31 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Mitt Romney insisted his campaign is not in need of a "turnaround" in spite of polls showing President Barack Obama expanding his lead in battleground states.
In an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," the Republican presidential nominee rejected criticism from conservative pundits who have called his campaign incompetent.
"It doesn't need a turnaround," Romney insisted, pointing to national polls that have him "tied" with Obama. "I've got a very effective campaign. It's doing a very good job."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
This must be the stalking that you vowed that you were going to start doing.
Your post has nothing to do with politics, or facts, only personal attacks.
You should give a shot to actually responding to individual posts and their subject, or information.
He nailed it. Anti Romney = pro Obama.
You really want four more years of this? People are like children wanting to take their football and go home. Grow up and vote for what we’ve got. Not voting only helps Obama.
He always does. Glad you agree!
Romney had good enough campaign to beat fantastic candidates such as Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and gov. Perry in the primaries. He will prevail in general election if people wake up and smell the coffee about what the radical socialist from Chicago is doing to the country. If not we will soon be Greece. People deserve the government they vote for.
“I get absolutely disgusted when I read posts here on this conservative website by those who continue to do everything within their power to reelect Obama.” You are spot on; there are whose purpose here is to disrupt our community and ultimately to help Obama get reelected.
I think he did OK but I'd like to know more of what was asked since they spent days over weeks interviewing him.
Romney is not stupid and he can afford and presumably receives the best polling and focus group data money can buy. Whatever he is reading in that data, it has not galvanized him into changing a single thing. He has not changed his style on the stump, he has not gone on the attack, he has not particularized his solutions, he has not tried to paint Obama as a radical, he has not unleashed surrogates to step up and attack or make clear positions.
Romney remains content to run a very conservative campaign certainly not one designed to energize his base, not designed to energize conservatives, but to shave off a few more points from independents to get him closer than Obama to 50%.
I have posted several times on the question whether Romney is confidently setting course based on good polling data or whether he has stubbornly held to a losing trajectory despite polling data because he is either a committed moderate or because he entered the race with an idea he cannot change, that to win one must win the mushy middle and not antagonize their highly refined sensibilities with aggressive campaigning especially aggressive campaigning against a personally popular African-American president.
I recently wrote:
"For months now I have been posting on the subject but I have always been careful to note that Romney undoubtedly has the best polling and focus group data that money can buy and these data must undoubtedly be telling him that the Rino side of the argument is statistically sound. After all, we all know that we would all crawl over broken glass to vote against Obama even though we might not cross the street to vote for Romney. But consider, the tape recently released showing Romney conceding 47% of the vote and telling his potential dollars that he must concentrate on the remaining 3% of undecideds and independents could mean that Romney has carried a Rino preconception right from the beginning of the campaign and has refused to abandon it in the face of objective polling data. In other words, Romney is not informed by current polling and focus group data but he is locked into a prejudice." (Romney Needs a New CEO (WSJ-Noonan) )
It is impossible for conservatives who care about the survival of our constitutional Republic to sit in repose and academically contemplate this conundrum and speculate whether Romney has it right or not. If Romney has it wrong and loses this election, it could very well mean the end of liberty and the end of what is left of capitalism around the world. If Romney has it wrong, it almost certainly means the end of the Republican Party, as dominated by Rinos, and the emergence of a truer conservative party. I cannot imagine conservatives permitting themselves any longer to be shackled to a Rino establishment which serves up one pathetic moderate candidate waging yet another pathetic moderate campaign.
That will be the consequence of Romney not having it right.
I would have a lot more confidence that Romney does in fact have it right if it were not for the disquieting evidence of the Rasmussen polls. At best, they tell us that Romney's apparent state of contentment with the race means that he is content to be tied or slightly behind. But that ignores the state of the race as polled by Rasmussen in the swing states. While Romney need not run the whole table among the swing states, he must at least dominate the board and, according to Rasmussen, he is not doing so.
The article under discussion is about Romney’s campaign which appears to be in serious trouble, as all conservative commentators out there agree, not just the MSM talking heads that you love to watch and love to hate (I don’t watch the idiot box, sorry.) Go argue with Daniel Henninger and Don Feder (among others), instead of absurdly and without basis accusing other members of FR of helping to re-elect Obama.
Holly, use your common sense here. If you don’t vote for Romney, then fer sure Obamacare will go into effect. Romney has pledged to repeal and replace it - so we have a better chance with him. Otherwise, to not vote for Romney, you ARE voting for Obamacare. Put your thinking cap on and stop being so puritanical. The Supreme Court let us all down - all we have left is Romney and his word. Hope its good.
Those were incredibly weak, unprepared candidates against the GOPe, and Mitt’s machine, and his money, the same in 2008.
Mitt has never been a good candidate, in 20 years of running, he has broke many spending records, but has only won a single term in office, with less than 50% of that vote.
He couldn’t win reelection, and he left office with 34% approval, Mitt is not a strong candidate, and the only fire in his belly is when he is fighting conservatives.
Wow, just personal attack after personal attack, never anything related to 2012, the campaign, the thread subject.
That is ansel12’s m.o., claims of ‘stalking’.
He just accused me of doing the same on another thread, and pinged a moderator with that accusation.
I’m voting for Paul Ryan.
Why is it that I have to keep voting for the VP like when McCain ran... (Sarah) and not the top of the ticket?
Can only hope, after the Romney/Ryan win, this year, 2016, someone, takes the top of the ticket...
My first Presidential vote was for Reagan, second term, didn’t care who was VP.
The wheels have not come off the Romney/Ryan bus...they will be here in FL this week, they are getting their
message out and campaigning in a lot of other places.
Now if Newt would tell Mitt, how to take the Media to mat...
It’s not a personal attack that he said “every post you make benefits only one person, and that is Barack Hussein 0bama.”
I’ve yet to see you attack Obama.
Here you are dragging one thread over to another, you really need to separate threads, and not carry personal baggage from thread to thread.
Frustration with their magic underwear wearer not doing so well expressed in the form of attacks on other members here.
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.