Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
Even Rupert Murdoch is beginning to notice.
| |
|
| |
| |
|
| |
It was easy for Obama to just be the "I'm not Bush" in 2008. He was an empty vessel where people poured out their hopes and dreams.
Romney too is an "empty vessel" but with the opposite effect. Instead of "Hope and Change" it's "Fear and Distrust" --especially for conservatives.
Here's an advice for Romney: He can start by helping Governor Rick Scott against the Obama DOJ's lawsuit on the purging non-citizens off the Florida voter rolls. Nationalize it. Force Obama to respond to his DOJ lawsuit and the Voter ID laws. Does Obama really believe what Eric Holder and Pelosi said about "Voter ID" = "voter suppression"?
Don't worry about pissing off the monolithic black vote, you'll never get them anyway. But Voter ID laws are popular to the rest of the sane public, especially independents. This isn't a "distraction" from the economy, Mittens.
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
When your opponent is drowning why throw him a rope?
Oct '10
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
if the individual mandate is struck down by the S.C., and the economy improves by September, what else is romney going to run on if he's being vague on everything?
Aug '10
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
I believe Romney is keeping his powder dry in order to respond to the situation on the ground as it develops. 2008 showed that events can change quickly and change the dynamic of the race as well. Romney is in it to win it - second place is for losers.
May '12
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
Absolutely. I had been one of those wanting Romney to be more forceful in his statements but I'll admit that I was wrong. It appears that Romney is well advised to let Obama irritate if not isolate himself out of the race and pick the best place, time, and issue to fight. Good for Romney and let's hope Obama keeps on showcasing himself in the worst possible fashion.
Edited on June 25, 2012 at 7:47amMay '12
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
Great Post. I think your comparison using Obama in 2008 running as 'not Bush' is correct, but not the best analogy because Bush wasn't running.
I think the better comparison is John Kerry 2004. Kerry ran as anybody but Bush. Kerry was a policy chameleon and didn't inspire much enthusiasm among his base other than the fact they didn't like George Bush.
Fast forward to 2012 and Romney isn't as much of a policy chameleon as he is a policy fog bank and there isn't much enthusiasm for him other than he isn't Barack Obama. I have yet to meet a person that was excited when Gov. Romney declared and has supported him from day 1. Everybody just talks about warming up to him as the least bad choice and then immediately changes the subject to Obama.
If all we are going to talk about between now and November is Obama don't be surprised when a bunch of people vote for Obama because they have no idea who Romney is or what he stands for.
May '12
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
Jim Ixtian
Absolutely. I had been one of those wanting Romney to be more forceful in his statements but I'll admit that I was wrong. It appears that Romney is well advised to let Obama irritate if not isolate himself out of the race and pick the best place, time, and issue to fight. Good for Romney and let's hope Obama keeps on showcasing himself in the worst possible fashion. · 5 hours ago
Edited 5 hours ago
There are limits to how much damage Obama can do to himself. There is 45-50% of the country receiving federal transfer payments either outright or through tax kickbacks, the press is in the bag for him, and Hollywood can't get enough of him. Obama could divorce Michelle, declare he is an atheist, and marry Joe Biden and still get ~45% of the vote. Remember when his stance on SSM was going to enrage black pastors across the country? NAACP couldn't endorse the position fast enough.
The battle is for the other 50-55% and Romney has to fight for it.
Oct '10
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
Jim Ixtian
Absolutely. I had been one of those wanting Romney to be more forceful in his statements but I'll admit that I was wrong. It appears that Romney is well advised to let Obama irritate if not isolate himself out of the race and pick the best place, time, and issue to fight. Good for Romney and let's hope Obama keeps on showcasing himself in the worst possible fashion. ·
I know that Romney for now is practicing Richard Rushfield's "no buzz is good buzz" rule. ;) But will it continue to be effective all the way to November?
One other thing, Romney's Real Threshold Test is not to show whether he's not a right wing nut during the debates ala Reagan, or human (like what Kaus jokingly said)--but to show whether he's trustworthy enough.
Edited on June 25, 2012 at 12:43pmApr '11
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
Spending, labor, defense, immigration, competence, decency.
Attacking distracts attention from Obama. It's important to do, but he can wait until he's distracting from less bad news. Right now, Obama's suffering terribly, Mitt's fundraising is doing well, and distracting too much from the clown show would be a disaster. There'll be better opportunities over the next few months.
Apr '11
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
Have you not met any keen Romney 2008 supporters?
BrentB67
Remember when his stance on SSM was going to enrage black pastors across the country? NAACP couldn't endorse the position fast enough.
No sensible commentator thought this would lose him much of the black vote, certainly not the NAACP; there were a few perennial traditional marriage favoring black pastors who got on the news again, and a good deal more pro-family sermons. It does seem likely to have lost him North Carolina, though, and will cost him at the convention.
This campaign features the two most experienced micro-targeting operations in history. Most of the fighting will be invisible. For now, Mitt is building databases. If you want him to act as if he has more complete databases, start making calls and help complete the databases!
May '12
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
"Playing to not lose" suits his character, and his business record certainly suggests he doesn't always do that, but yes, he does need to step it up a notch.
He doesn't need to go meshugana, and I don't think he would, but a little less cautious, and show some of that fire in the belly, yes.
He could also show that he has a disciplined team working with him when he steps up, one that respects him (he's worked with a lot of good teams in the past).
One thing, though ... he will never completely please the Conservatives. Mitt Romney did envision RomneyCare, and for as sound a reason as LBJ envisioned the Great Society. Just because your plan to deal with an issue does not work does not mean there is not an issue - and it certainly does not mean that you are wrong to want to take it on. That's just Life happening.
And Conservatives have to understand they are not the only voice in the Choir, and that a Choir of only altos, or basses, or baritones, or tenors, or even counter tenors (one of my favorite voices) will be off balance.
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
I'm torn between two ways of looking at this. On the one hand, I think he's running a brilliant campaign. Whenever Team Obama tries to distract, they just keep saying, "Well, that's nice. We'd like to talk about the economy." And that's brilliant and so anti-McCain.
On the other, I worry that he's not inspiring anyone or teaching anyone but just simply being anti-Obama. Now, if it's enough to win, then who are we to say it's bad? But it leaves me unclear on how he'll govern and it doesn't exactly ooze leadership.
But, then again, I'm back to the beginning. There is discipline in this campaign and that involves "playing not to lose" instead of whatever the heck McCain's idiocy was -- being a rebel? What was that word he kept using to describe himself? Renegade? Something else lame?
May '12
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
James Of England
Have you not met any keen Romney 2008 supporters?
No sensible commentator thought this would lose him much of the black vote, certainly not the NAACP; there were a few perennial traditional marriage favoring black pastors who got on the news again, and a good deal more pro-family sermons. It does seem likely to have lost him North Carolina, though, and will cost him at the convention.
I've not met any keen Romney supporters. I have met those that think he is a fine business leader of impeccable character and I share those sentiments. I have met no one that is fired up to volunteer or speak to friends about Gov. Romney's merit or bold policies. I meet people that default to him because he is the last person standing and not Obama.
Agree that no sensible commentators thought so - but those are a rare breed.
Feb '12
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
BrentB67
I've not met any keen Romney supporters.
Brent, allow me to introduce you to James of England ...
Oh, I see you've already met.
Jun '10
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
Part of the strategy (in Romney's campaign) depends on how much money they have to work with. They don't know that yet. The more money you have, the more positive you can be in your ads. You want to be positive if you can.
Apr '11
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
I like to think of elections as boxing matches. It may be more entertaining for the spectators to see Romney throw some wild heymakers in the hopes of landing a square hit, but it isn't a good way to fight. You have to keep your guard up, keep moving, and work the body. It is only round 2 maybe 3 we have many more rounds to go.
Aug '10
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
You haven't met me, Brent, but believe me when I tell you there are plenty of people who are fired up about a Romney candidacy, me included.
Mitt Romney is easily the most qualified candidate the GOP has nominated since Reagan. He is an extremely competent executive with a successful track record in the private, public and quasi-public sectors. He may be a little stiff and geeky but who cares? The guy has competency in spades. He is the anti-Obama in every sense of the word.
He may not be a movement conservative but most of those guys sat out the race either because they didn't think Obama could be beat or they knew that Romney would be very hard to beat for the nomination because of his impressive ground game and organization.
When it comes to cutting spending talk is cheap - Romney has walked the walk time after time and stands the best chance of doing it at the federal level. Those who underestimate him (Obama) do so at their own risk.
Oct '10
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
I was late to board the enthusiasm train, but I'm on board now. I'd like to see Romney develop his offense further, but I don't doubt that's part of the plan. He's not going to be a Howard Dean, that's not his style
Dec '11
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
You can't win a November election in June. You can loose an election in June. He's playing it properly now. But what is right in June, against an opponent that is struggeling, might not be right in September. But he's smart enough to know that, I'm sure.
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
BrentB67
I've not met any keen Romney supporters.
I'm staying here in Cabo with my in-laws. I could be wrong, but I believe that they are Romney's keenest supporters. I made a joke about him and I think they're only continuing to talk to me because I have their grandchildren. I'm only slightly kidding.
Also, my mother is obsessed with Romney. And both she and my in-laws are so sold on him that they loathe anyone who ever threatened his path to presidency.
May '12
Re: Romney "Playing Not To Lose" Strategy, But Is It Enough?
Pleasure to meet you. I have no doubt you are correct about Gov. Romney, hopefully in due course he will make the case for himself as passionately as you do.