Ruminating On Romney's Victory
National Journal reports that Newt Gingrich leads 41-20 among Florida tea party voters. Among those who do not support the tea party, Romney trounces 47-24. I know that anything could happen in the next couple of days, but with Romney's fantastic debate performance last night, and with all of the early voting he'd locked up back when he was inevitable, this should be an easy win for him in Florida.
Now, I'm an original Gingrich critic -- I have often joked about how bad so many of his ideas are. I also struggle with Romney and everything you need to know about why was said -- by him, no less -- in one sentence last night. I was hoping against hope that somehow we could get to a brokered convention. And yes, I realize that it was always an almost impossible dream.
But I am interested and possibly worried in how Romney is winning this nomination. And it's not even Romney so much as those around him. The establishment really did flip out over the possibility of Gingrich winning the nomination and winning the presidency. I was at one of those D.C. cocktail parties on Wednesday night (an awesome bash with people from all over town) and people really were just openly mocking the idea of Gingrich. I'm fine with that but wondering why people aren't more critical of Romney.
Even little things. Today we learn that Jeb Bush has told National Review that it's "ridiculous" for Gingrich to point out that Romney's Florida operation includes folks who worked for Charlie Crist. But did Jeb Bush think it was "ridiculous" for Romney to criticize Jon Huntsman for working for Obama? Why not? More importantly, what in the world is ridiculous about pointing something like that out?
Now, Romney has a wonderful operation, an airtight campaign with the discipline of Obama's 2008 campaign. He is to be commended for this. But I wonder if the establishment are thinking about how they're going after those portions of the party that aren't enthused by Romneycare and Obamacare. What will the downticket effects be? Am I worried over nothing? Will opposition to Obama simply carry the day?
Jonathan Martin of Politico tweeted a link to an article yesterday with this nugget:
Mitt adviser on why some downmarket Rs can't warm to Mitt: "They like preachers"
Ah yes, we cling to our God and our guns, basically.
I'm elated that Mitt Romney is learning how to debate more effectively. He had a great first half of the debate last night. But I'm wondering how we downmarket types will view this over the long run. In other words, does it help Romney or hurt Romney that he was most passionate and articulate and effective when debating the conservatives' pick but stammering through debates otherwise?
I'm really just thinking this through -- which means I should probably think some more before posting on this. But what do you think the long-term effects of a Romney nomination victory are? Is there something he could do to reach out more to conservatives and independents who don't love the establishment? Do you see those downmarket activists who like their preachers coming out and helping him and other establishment favorites on the road to November?
- Comment (80)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
Billionaire investor George Soros explains why there wouldn’t be much difference between President Obama and Mitt Romney.
http://www.breitbart.tv/george-soros-admits-hes-one-of-lenins-useful-idiots-no-difference-between-romney-and-obama/
"Mitt Romney’s advisors have now advised him to support “a $2 gas tax, a VAT, and open Taliban talks.” Add to that list not repealing Obamacare. Norm Coleman, an advisor to Romney, went on record saying We’re not going to do repeal. You’re not going to repeal Obamacare…"
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/25/romney-advisor-no-obamacare-repeal/
Apr '11
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
Mitt, unlike Newt, was not condemning anyone for holding conservative views. None of Mitt's words could be used by a Democrat to cut ads against their Republican opponent in a congressional or gubantorial race. Santorum is pretty good about that, too. Paul and Newt are not; every congressional candidate disagrees with them about something, and they're scathing about disagreement from any side. There has never been, and will never be, a "right wing social engineering" or "anti-immigrant" or anti-capitalist problem with Mitt. The closest he's come was when he derided Perry's claim that Social Security was unconstitutional, a claim that it was clear not even Perry believed (he talked about a lot of reforms that would have changed nothing with regard to constitutionality).
You suggest an example in the "preachers" comment, but look at it again. It's pretty clear that Mitt's advisor (not Mitt!) was not being anti-religion, let alone anti-gun. He was talking about a tent revival meeting as a way to refer to red meat preaching to the choir.
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
The large question for me in this cycle is in regards to the lean-Republican independents who make up much of the Tea Party, and who prior to 2009 were mostly inactive in politics beyond regularly voting.
The Tea Party is a collection of people who felt compelled to transition from citizens to activists in favor of limited government and fiscal restraint. Many sacrifice time away from family, work, and life in a desperate attempt to save the nation they love, from their perspective.
This passion burns hot. But it also is just passion. Where cycles of political strife often include longtime activists bemoaning flawed nominees (as we saw in 2008 with McCain, and 1996 with Dole) and threatening to walk away, these are paid professionals who have been actively engaged in politics for decades. The Tea Party is much different, and has a much shorter timeframe of engagement, which may indicate they are more likely to return to their previously disenfranchised state. This could have major ramifications downticket.
Will the Tea Party remain engaged in a party led by Romney, Boehner, and McConnell? We are about to find out.
Apr '11
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
Viator: Billionaire investor George Soros explains why there wouldn’t be much difference between President Obama and Mitt Romney.
http://www.breitbart.tv/george-soros-admits-hes-one-of-lenins-useful-idiots-no-difference-between-romney-and-obama/
"Mitt Romney’s advisors have now advised him to support “a $2 gas tax, a VAT, and open Taliban talks.” Add to that list not repealing Obamacare. Norm Coleman, an advisor to Romney, went on record saying We’re not going to do repeal. You’re not going to repeal Obamacare…"
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/25/romney-advisor-no-obamacare-repeal/
Romney has repeatedly promised to repeal it. He has an organized and effective plan for doing so. Waivers on day one, reconciliation on day two (which takes out the mandate and most of the rest of the bill), more bills to mop up the bits that can be filibustered thereafter. A lot of people cast doubt on this by referring to Bush '41's tax pledge. Do you believe that '41 would have reneged on that in Spring 1989?
Romney slapped down Coleman the moment he said it, and the advice would obviously doom his presidency to implement.
Jun '10
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
If we can agree that nobody in the party establishment likes Gingrich, and few in the party's base like Romney, what are we left with? It looks like Santorum is finally going to get his shot. He's far and away the best candidate based on character. Let his social conservatism not deter you. It's a virtue, not a vice. The 10th Amendment is the conservative ace in the hole. Questions about birth control, abortion, and other sticky social issues can be redirected to the states. This would seem to me a wise and prudent tactic.
Sep '10
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
It's pretty clear that Mitt's advisor (not Mitt!) was not being anti-religion, let alone anti-gun. He was talking about a tent revival meeting as a way to refer to red meat preaching to the choir.
Do you people never learn?
I have 80 year old parents and will watch them slip away in the only Western country with an identical healthcare mandate to North Korea and Cuba. Those are Mark Steyn's words, not mine. In the People's Republic of Canuckistan they have the Euro view of the United States: Stump toothed in breds bitterly clingin' to religin'. They even have their own code word which Mike Murphy used in the podcast: "Dogwhistle politics" - only the hicks and hillbillies can hear the frequency. Those people are everywhere in Washington, they festoon the corridors of power and they will slowly snuff the conservative life out of any administration, just like they slowly did to Reagan.
Charlie Christ and his advisors are the Wile E Coyote/Acme Team Implosion wonder boys of the conservative movement. If you can't see that, you're doomed.
Jun '11
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
It's strange considering that Romney himself could be considered a former preacher. Perhaps it was code for "Christian"? Probably not, but it's worth exploring.
Jun '10
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
My rumination:
Sep '10
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
In other words, does it help Romney or hurt Romney that he was most passionate and articulate and effective when debating the conservatives' pick but stammering through debates otherwise?
If he can't learn to ennunciate conservative first principles between now and 2012, then the base will simply conclude that the choice between Romney and Obama is the choice between a car and train wreck: the train wreck will total you; with a car wreck, the airbags deploy and you live to crash another day.
Apr '11
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
Did you go to the quote in its original form?
As you say, Mitt spent decades as a sorta priest, taking confessions, delivering sermons, administering LDS sacraments, and rising to a very senior level. Do you think that he was saying that Newt was priestly, or that primary voters are mostly snake handlers? Mitt has a lot of evangelicals on staff for faith outreach, but they didn't bother with this one, because it's obviously addressing secular red meat, not people of faith; it's not like Romney clings to his bible any less keenly than any but a tiny minority of primary voters (admittedly, his bible is a bad translation, but there are a lot of KJV guys out there).
Nov '11
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
Completely agree. Romney's team doesn't seem to see the need to do anything to make his opponents dislike his nomination less.
I think South Carolina helped in a way -- it dispelled the air of inevitability and gave him an opponent with some stature. South Carolina defied the establishment and Floridians could too; if they do vote for Romney it's not because they had no other choice.
I don't think it hurts him because of the particular lines of attack Gingrich was using -- someone from Mars (or the moon) probably would have thought Mitt was more conservative. What last night really showed is why Santorum should have been the conservatives' pick rather than Newt -- and if we'd had this debate before SC maybe he would have been. I hope and expect he picks up traction.
Apr '11
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
In Iowa and New Hampshire, the party's base was just fine with Mitt. A bunch of them have supported and will vote Mitt in Florida, and a plurality in Nevada. Stipulating the media narrative helps no one.
I agree with you that Santorum could, and should, win the base away over the next month, but he's not there yet. While I agree with you regarding Santorum's upstanding character, I'm intrigued by the superlative; do you believe Romney to be of poor moral character?
Mar '11
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
Ben Domenech: The large question for me in this cycle is in regards to the lean-Republican independents who make up much of the Tea Party, and who prior to 2009 were mostly inactive in politics beyond regularly voting.
The Tea Party is a collection of people who felt compelled to transition from citizens to activists in favor of limited government and fiscal restraint. Many sacrifice time away from family, work, and life in a desperate attempt to save the nation they love, from their perspective.
Ben: Protecting this description of the Tea Party is precisely why some of us have argued vigorously that it is wrong to characterize Newt Gingrich as "anti-establishment" or "the Tea Party candidate". The reality is: look seriously and carefully at the careers of these two men. Both Gingrich and Romney are insiders; both are establishment.
That doesn't mean it isn't sensible to support Gingrich over Romney (among those who do) on the grounds that he's a fiercer fighter or a better debater, but to remake his image as "The Tea Party Candidate" is to jeopardize everything that this movement says it stands for going forward.
Mar '11
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
Romney won the debate with Gingrich on stupid stuff that has little to do with the big issues of 2012. Romnely lost the debate with Santorum on the things that really matter. He once again showed his tone-deafness with the comment, "It's nothing to get angry about." It was a pre-planned line to highlight Santorum's previous weakness in the debates (that he was too "hot"), but Romney inserted it mindlessly and without any sense of the underlying emotional truth.
Jul '11
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
Is there something he could do to reach out more to conservatives and independents who don't love the establishment?
The only thing he needs to do is mount an effective campaign against Obama. Most of us grumbling about a Mitt nomination are not so consumed by anti-Mitt bitterness that we can't see that the real challenge, the most important goal, is to prevent a second term for O. Add to this, the fact that most Newt supporters are not emotionally invested in him, as they might have been for a genuine Tea Party candidate, means that stitching the party together come convention time should not be too difficult by historical standards.
If we're lucky, we'll be faced with the challenge of keeping up pressure from the Right to exert some influence over a Romney adminsitration in a way that was sorely lacking with either Bush administrations.
May '10
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
James Of England
Did you go to the quote in its original form?
Even more condescending in its full form.
If Romney's camp and the establishment begrudgingly courts the Tea Party while holding their noses, is it any wonder they are being spurned?
Disaster for the party, for conservatism, and ultimately for the country.
If he wins, we will continue to have creeping socialism, just on a slower pace. Not that Romney will necessarily be advancing it-- I don't believe he's an outright socialist like Obama-- but that he will be unable or unwilling to halt and reverse the natural tendency of government to grow. After all, he's such an effective administrator, maybe he can make it work effectively. That will be the rationale as the government just continues to grow.
May '10
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
As an official "Establican" (I've even been on an NR Cruise to cement those credentials) I was doing anything but mocking Newt. I was wincing, cringeing, decrying that the Stupid Party was about to become the Suicidal Party. All because we were angry and liked to hear people yell.
I supported Cain, and then Perry. Perry could easily have beaten Obama. As will Mitt, by 5-6 points (seal this prediction in an envelope). When the only Not-Mitt is Newt, there really isn't a Not-Mitt. We were thisclose to throwing a way a gimme election and doing the nigh impossible: losing to Obama in 2012.
Dodged a bullet. Though I won't trust Newt's dead until we sever his head, stuff garlic in his mouth (OK, that's probably done already), burn his corpse and scatter his ashes into the river. Even then I'll be looking over my shoulder. Like a bad penny, this guy.
Dec '11
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
When Romney asserts, "It's not worth getting angry about," he's actually saying, "It's not worth getting angry about Obamacare."
Continuing to defend the indefensible will eventually make him look ridiculous.
Sep '10
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
Mitt has a lot of evangelicals on staff for faith outreach, but they didn't bother with this one, because it's obviously addressing secular red meat, not people of faith
No, its addressing the tone deafness of advisors who rather than trying to find the nugget of truth in a hayfield of error, simply deign to let the entire pile burn. Just because someone who they view as a populist demagogue got them on their feet with an overt emotional appeal, doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate grievance somewhere in those standing ovations.
Question for anyone in the know with regards to Team Wile E Cristote and the Exploding Rocket Sledders: are they the ones coaching Mitt's team to never actually use the word "Tea Party" because it makes independents uncomfortable? Their secular manicheism may make them feel better at Washington dinner parties during the shrimp cocktail, but if they want to actually get on the stick maybe they should think a little harder about peeling off some votes while they're busy dismissing the base as snake handlers.
Jun '10
Re: Ruminating On Romney's Victory
Poll update from RealClearPolitics. Two more polls (Sunshine State and Quinnipiac) have Romney up by nine in Florida (I assume the calls were made pre-debate, but am not sure)
Even more interesting is the NBC/WSJ poll, which shows Obama killing everyone in national head-to-head races (it's clearly an outlier from other polls like Rasmussen or Quinnipiac). NBC shows Obama beating Mitt by six and Newt by 18. Other polls show Romney in a dead heat or ahead and Newt much closer.
Anyone know anything about the NBC/WSJ poll--it always seems to be out there in "la-la" land?
Edited on January 27, 2012 at 4:45pm