"The Mitt Romney electability myth"
This op-ed in the Washington Times encapsulates the latent danger to the GOP of a Romney nomination:
The media will turn on Mr. Romney faster and with greater vengeance than they did Mr. McCain in 2008, and when they do, his poll numbers - unlike those of his GOP rivals who already have faced their firestorms - will crater like Mr. McCain’s did. I would guess they’re already hunting down every family with a grievance against Bain Capital for breathless “How Mitt Romney destroyed our family” news stories. Unfair? Absolutely. Damaging? You decide.
If you still don’t believe the Obama-friendly media are hoping Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination, Google “Mitt Romney money picture” and ask yourself why the media are - for now - holding back this unseemly photo. It shows the former Massachusetts governor beside his former business partners with cash pouring out of their pockets, lapels, shirt collars and even a few body orifices. Even unapologetic champions of the free market cringe with anticipation of the bonanza that photo provides for Team Obama, which already loves to blame the weak economy on “fat-cat” bankers. This photo will be Exhibit A.
The Washington establishment expects conservatives to fall in line and accept the unproven, if not mythical, dogma that Mitt Romney is the most electable Republican candidate. Why? Because it says so. However, the establishment’s track record of picking winners in the GOP primary is abysmal. Instead, Mr. Romney’s candidacy should be evaluated on its own merits, not on some insider, illusory promise of electability, particularly when Mr. Obama’s supporters are hopeful we take the bait.
If Mitt Romney manages to win the nomination, he and all those who fervently desire the defeat of Barack Obama must be aware that nominating him means we're playing directly into the Obama re-election campaign's plans. That doesn't mean Romney's defeat is inevitable, but it does mean that the President's campaign (formal and informal) will be able to make full use of its favored playbook, and Romney will have to be prepared to deal with attacks far more jarring than the "uncalled for" questions of Bret Baier.
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
Haven't we been trying to get this message through since day-1? McRomney will go the way of almost all GOP party chosen ones. We are running out of candidates, but I still believe that Herman Cain was our best chance to break the Dem's black voting block, and generally disrupt the elections as usual script.
Frankly, as a Conservative, if Michelle Bachman were to get traction, I'd take her seriously. Also Rick Perry still has some credibility, despite his Texas statist governance.
Has anyone heard from Sarah Palin lately?
May '10
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
One thing I liked about Cain's chances in the general, and I feel similarly about Perry, is that they offered strong possibilities for appealing to the lower middle class. We underestimate, I think, the extent to which this demographic is fluid in voter support and play a large role in determining outcomes, particularly in the Midwest. They are ripe for the taking and nominating a figure that is easily demonized with that demographic is asking for an uphill battle. Perry background is genuinely working class and I think has the ability to communicate with them well. He, of course, also has the Texas jobs record in his favor.
May '11
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
Exactly! Exactly! I get so tired of the electability mantra especially since it's perhaps not rooted in anything more than Romney's style and TV presence. Pundits talk like states with a large working class population like OH, PA or WV don't count.
Dec '11
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
Republicans are approximately 30 percent of registered voters. Romney enjoys 25 percent approval among them - which means he is the favorite of 7.5 percent of registered voters overall.
If I were Barack Obama, I'd be salivating to run against Mitt.
Sep '10
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
If Romney gets the nomination its 3rd party time. This fall in line, hold your nose, and vote bull has gotten old.
Dec '10
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
For perhaps two years straight, I kept hearing that "Palin isn't ELECTABLE." Palin herself came to the same conclusion, declining to run against the eminently electable Romney and Perry. That was one of the few times her excellent political instincts failed her, because we have seen the myth of electability evaporate in just a few short months. And Kofola is right: real electability comes from an ability to appeal to the working classes, blue collar as well as white, and Palin would have filled that niche very well (Perry conceivably may rebound to do so, but I'd give him long odds against).
Edited on December 4, 2011 at 7:05pmDec '10
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
raycon, I thought the op-Ed was notable because it explicitly and concisely addresses the idea that we on the Right should dutifully fall into line behind Romney because of his magic electability. That would be a bad idea even if Romney did indeed have magic electability, but I've seen over the last few months that, as Nobody's Perfect notes above, Romney hasn't been able to push his numbers up at all even as a succession of rivals have risen and fallen. And outside the GOP, the sympathy for the goals if not the methods of OWS has made the candidacy of a venture capitalist look less and not more electable.
Aug '11
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
Yep. Isn't it sad that some people still need convincing?
Aug '11
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
By the way, Stuart, your headline/subject header was far more attention-grabbing than the Times'. You should offer your assistance to them -- for a small fee.
May '10
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
It's nice to know that Republicans' political strategy is the same as it was in the decades that led to the current crisis. It's said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Am I correct that it is no longer possible for anyone to enter the primary race, regardless of the political viability of such a late entry? I read an NRO article the other day that argued November 1st was the final day to enter.
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
Thanks for this. It is instructive.
Oct '10
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
I continue to think that Romney is getting the same kind of treatment from the legacy media and the Democrats as McCain did in the primary season: a free pass while they selectively target each of the alternatives. Then, once he's nominated, they will pivot to attack him.
On what basis? I expect they will play the Mormon card in such a shameless manner as to make the anti-Catholic attacks against Kennedy seem barely significant. The goal will be to split off the evangelical Christian vote from the Republican coalition which, although they will never vote for Obama, if they can be persuaded to stay home, may tilt the turnout sufficiently for Obama to squeak by with a win.
I discuss this scenario in more detail in my review of Andrew Breitbart's Righteous Indignation, as well as my expectations for the deployment of the “occupy” mob at the Republican convention next August and in the weeks before the 2012 election.
May '10
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
Yeah, but .... Mitt wears REALLY nice suits and has GREAT hair.
May '10
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
Not addressing the broader topic of "electability", only this little nugget:
So, this photo will be a "bonanza" for the Obama campaign, because apparently most Americans think it is just eeeevil and greedy for Romney and his cohorts to unashamedly want to make lots of money. (Meanwhile, these same Americans are all wanting to make good money in their own lives, but that is okay!)
If this is true, then Americans need to grow up.
Dec '10
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
The "money shot" won't have the effect Stuart suggests. It's spectacularly corny.
I think it might actually endear Mitt to non-agenda driven voters. I don't say this as a fan of Romney. Or of Newt. Because I'm neither.
I've been struggling for months with an intense dislike of the word "electability". Like the op-ed suggests, electability means anything a writer wants it to mean. And so far, nobody has been able to supply a functional definition that doesn't sound like a commercial for his or her favorite candidate.
This coming election, there is simply no such thing as unelectable. Not for Mitt, or Newt, or Perry, or Bachmann, or (God help us) Paul or Obama. Using the word is purely self-serving and completely meaningless.
Edited on December 5, 2011 at 3:41amOct '10
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
The most important thing when choosing a candidate against obama is to find someone with the necessary qualifications, knowledge and experience to fix the economy and deal with the unpredictability of international affairs. Hopefully, not somebody crazy (Paul) or with Baggage (Cain).
This isn't about which candidate is the most right wing.
There are only 4 candidates that qualify as "acceptable alternatives": Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman, Perry
Now which candidate is the most electable? The one that can attract independent voters and conservative democrats and not scare them off! Does Gingrich fit that description? Perry? I think the most electable are Mitt and Jon.
Acceptable Alternatives: Mitt, Newt, Rick, Jon
Electable: Mitt, Jon
Edited on December 5, 2011 at 11:53amDec '10
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
I rest my case. In what world is Jon Huntsman "electable"? Only the one in which the word means, "I'm a squish, and he represents the best interests of squishes."
My point is not to disparage anyone's political beliefs, it's purely to disabuse people of the notion that "electability" could possibly be any more significant than a simple "I like X" statement.
Edited on December 5, 2011 at 2:57pmDec '10
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
Mittens was a member of the financial elite, and currently there is a bipartisan revulsion at the financial elite. Newt was a lobbyist for the most corrupt entities in DC, and currently there is a bipartisan revulsion at corrupt DC entities. Perry is a case study in political opportunism and crony capitalism, and currently there is a bipartisan revulsion towards political opportunism and crony capitalism. Bachman, at least, isn't the same archetype of the corrupt political class, but she thinks vaccines make babies retarded.
I am sick of people telling me Ron Paul is not electable. I acknowledge his chances aren't that good, but let's grade him on a curve defined by the options, people.
On the upside, at least this picture is old enough that they're holding tens and twenties rather than Benjamins.
Aug '10
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
Wow, Karl. Given our often spirited disagreements about trade policy, I would have never pegged you as a Ron Paul admirer. How did this happen? (I'm genuinely curious.)
Dec '10
Re: "The Mitt Romney electability myth"
I know, MFR, it is a bit of a disconnect!
When it comes to policy, the only place I diverge from Rep. Paul is when it comes to trade policy, where I am more of an amalgam of Pat Buchanan and and OWSer.
So even I give up something pretty important to me when I support Ron Paul. I wish the people who think he is so beyond the pale on foreign policy would consider being a little more like me.
This isn't a Ron Paul thread, but really: In the unlikely event he were to become President-- and it is unlikely-- it isn't like Iranian nukes are going to cloud the sky like sparrows. After all, Rep. Paul thinks maintaining a nuclear deterrent, an Army to defend our borders, and an Air Force that can bomb nations into submission if necessary is a fine idea. He just thinks we can do this for at least half as much money as we currently spend.