Political Animal
Blog
Last week I did an extended meditation on Sean Trende’s observation that Mitt Romney just isn’t telling voters enough about his own personal background or his agenda to get him across the threshold of credibility as a presidential challenger, even if they are ready to “fire” Barack Obama. Let me repeat Sean’s key argument:
[T]hese are parts of his biography that simply must be filled in if Romney wants to win, along with his activities turning around the Salt Lake City Olympics. (Does anyone outside of the political world even know about that?) If Romney can do this, he’ll have an excellent shot at winning this race. It might not even be close. But if he can’t, he will probably become the first presidential challenger in modern history to pass Step 1 of the referendum model, but fail Step 2.
Sean wrote that before Romney’s blundering appearance in London cast serious doubts about the utility of his “Olympics Story,” previously the one bright shining exception to a long public and private career that he has chosen to obscure. Moreover, there is fresh evidence that voters just don’t like what little they know about the GOP nominee: a Pew survey showing Mitt’s favorability ratings (37/52) deep underwater. Pew’s analysis points out that the only two recent presidential nominees with net negative favorability ratings prior to Election Day (Bush 41 in 1992, Dole in 1996) lost. Moreover, while undecided voters in Pew’s survey don’t much like either candidate, Mitt’s numbers (18/57) are significantly worse than Obama’s (31/48). And it’s no longer possible to blame Romney’s bad personal favorability ratings on the misgivings of conservative Republicans who don’t like or trust him but will march to the polls to send him to the White House anyone: his favorability ratio among those intending for vote for him is now 79/12.
In the weeks just ahead, we’re going to hear a lot about Romney’s opportunity for a home-stretch “reboot” of his campaign. He’ll get to roll out his Veep. He’ll have the usual high-production-value convention that enables him to “reintroduce” himself to voters. He’ll deliver an acceptance speech that will draw more eyes and ears than anything he’s said and done up until now. And then there will be debates and all the brouhaha associated with the most intense stage of the campaign, in September and October.
That’s all entirely true. But the fact remains: what can Romney do to boost his favorability ratings if he’s unwilling to talk about his business background, release his taxes, discuss his record in Massachusetts, or go into details about his tax proposals or the Ryan Budget? According to virtually every source, he’s not going to take any risks in choosing a running-mate. What, exactly, will barnstorming around the midwest with Tim Pawlenty or Rob Portman do for him?
The race is obviously close enough that even a small turnaround in personal perceptions of Romney could be crucial, and the threshold he needs to cross could draw closer if the economy gets worse or Obama makes some mistake of his own. But at some point the man is probably going to have to change what he’s doing, not simply do more of what hasn’t been working up until now. And even if he does stand pat and hope for the “referendum effect” to take hold, big elements of the conservative chattering classes will almost certainly greet late-cycle reports of Romney weakness with shrill demands for Breitbartian viciousness against the incumbent (never a formula for boosting one’s favorability ratings) or loud-and-proud advocacy of exactly those features of the GOP agenda that swing voters are certain to reject.
I’m not one to assume that Romney and his brain trust are stupid or feckless, and if they can come up with an effective stretch-drive message that damages Obama while making Romney more palatable, they will have vast resources for driving it home and ensuring that the pre-mobilized conservative voter base shows up on Election Day. But there’s no way around the realization that Team Romney has painted itself into a very small corner with the decisions it has made (and that the candidate himself has made for many years), and will probably need to make some sort of significant leap to get itself out and across the finish line.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on August 03, 2012 11:18 AM:
The whole Republican plan is to run AGAINST President Obama, with Mitt as the anti-Obama: a rich, successful, businessman. AND white!
The problem is, that they haven’t yet defined Mitt to the public, except as that.
And, with Mitt not willing, or not able, to show his tax returns, and the stories about the Bain outsourcing and lay-offs, that puts a taint on this aspect of his career.
By this time, his campaign was to flip over Mitt the human ‘Etch-a-Sketch,” and start over, running towards the middle.
The problem is, the Conservative base STILL doesn’t trust him, so everything he says and does, everywhere he goes, he’s still trying to convince them that he’s one of them.
And that make Mitt less an ‘Etch-s-Sketch,” and more of a ‘paint-by-numbers.’
And since his campaign is afraid to filling-in some of the numbers in the picture, that leaves the base to project it’s colors where it wants, and leaves the Obama campaign to fill-in the rest.
The result isn’t art – it’s political graffiti.
And at this late date, it may be too late to try to paint Mitt a better picture. And their Convention will try to do just that.
The problem is Mitt himself – even when he stays on script, he’s still liable to say something pretty stupid. And that’s if that’s not already scripted for him by his neo-con clowns, like Dan Senor, and others, who have spent too much time in the Right Wing Echo Chamber, and think most of the country think as they do.
Because of propaganda, and too many people in this country who are stupid, ignorant, racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, and/or homophobic, this still leaves this election as still a close one.
As one Republican consultant put it, ‘Romney can’t win this election – but Obama can lose it.’
And that’s what they working towards, and hoping for.
The next 3+ months will be the ugliest election in our lifetimes. BECAUSE UGLY IS ALL THEY’VE GOT!!!
JM917 on August 03, 2012 11:22 AM:
At some point--perhaps once the Romney campaign starts running the warm-and-fuzzy biopics about Willard's steadfast faith, his wonderful family and sterling family values, his fun-loving lifestyle (no Seamus-on-the-roof, of course), and his "success" as a businessman--voters are going to have to start asking questions about the source and contents of his family values, and how they contribute to his success.
And that's where the inevitable questions about his Mormonism are going to come up.
esaud on August 03, 2012 11:24 AM:
Interesting question for the media to ask Romney (if he ever gives an interview to anything other than Fox):
Mr. Romney, have you asked the VP candidates you are vetting to turn over their income taxes?
Ha Ha.
PS - TPaw and Portman have been mentioned alot. Is Christie Todd Whitman (former gov of NJ, not the current one) ever discussed as a candidate? She would be one of the few ways Romney could swing to the center to the old establishment Rockefeller Republican school.
steve on August 03, 2012 11:30 AM:
Dem's should run an ad that just asks: Who is this guy. Information about BAin private. Information about Olympics private. Information about time as governor private. Tax returns private. Who is this guy?
kraftysue on August 03, 2012 11:31 AM:
What would be the procedure if so many things come out about Romney he is virtually unelectable before the convention? Or what if he pulls out due to "medical concerns" as in being unelectable? He has won the majority of state conventions--so what would happen? Didn't some states demand a loyalty oath from his delegates that they would only vote for Romney?
Davis X. Machina on August 03, 2012 11:41 AM:
He's white, he's a guy, he wears dark suits, he makes President-type noises, there's an R after his name.
That's 46% of the popular vote right there.
Unless Romney wakes up one morning, and he suddenly looks like Xerxes in 300, he's electable.
There won't be a McGovern-Goldwater-Landon drubbing again in either of our lifetimes.
jonh on August 03, 2012 11:47 AM:
My search for a U.S. cnservative website that is not dishonest has led me to The American Conservative (www.theamericanconservative.com). I was interested to find that they (including Pat Buchanan) DO NOT LIKE Mitt. At all. One big problem for them is his Israel trip, and his promise to make the U.S. Bibi's bitch if elected.
One can imagine Romney trying to navigate a debate question like 'In a Romney administration, will the U.S. provide the boots-on-the-ground for an Israeli occupation of Iran?'. Mitt has pretty much devoted himself to the neocons, so he must answer 'yes'. How would the rest of his party feel about that?
Al on August 03, 2012 11:51 AM:
The liberal chattering classes overlook one key fact: voters know that Romney will not try and enact Sharia law.
Mimikatz on August 03, 2012 12:02 PM:
Let's face it. Mitt is strange, can't connect with people and has poor political skills. He is out of his depth in a general election campaign, as are his campaign staff. Moreover, he is a prisoner of his base and their crazy ideological tics. He is severely limited in his options and his ability to execute. And then there is the tax problem, and the fact that it undrmines his credibility on his own tax policy that so favors the rich. Obama moreover has the edge in the popularity of his policies and personal likability. I see a slow but steady gain by Obama until election day.
James E. Powell on August 03, 2012 12:16 PM:
If Romney had not had all that money to spend on ads attacking his rivals, would he have had a chance of winning the Republican nomination? If he had not run, would other candidates, better than Santorum or Gingrich, have entered the race and won it?
T2 on August 03, 2012 12:19 PM:
"But at some point the man is probably going to have to change what he’s doing"
He can't. If he could have he'd changed between 08 and now. He can only win if Democrats sit on their butts voting day OR are not able to cast a vote because of various Republican "voter ID" scams or other such crooked schemes. He can steal the election, but I don't think he can win it.
jjm on August 03, 2012 12:59 PM:
I'm actually beginning to believe that Romney is not serious about being elected--not serious enough to give up even one drop of 'private' information about himself, and not serious enough to spend even one single dollar of his own.
Last time around, he put in $46 million of his own money; I think this still galls him, him of the penny-pinching ways. I think he may be using the election to hit up a bunch of rich peers to pay back his failed 2008 campaign's losses.
He won't bend to public will to know; that means he won't be president. Pure and simple. AND HE DOESN"T CARE.
RalfW on August 03, 2012 1:12 PM:
Driving an empty Romney campaign bus in circles around Obama events seems to be working well. I recommend more of that.
JR on August 03, 2012 6:02 PM:
It almost sounds like a cliche but, this year, the debates will truly matter. Far more than the GOP convention, they will provide the platform to detail a Romney administration. If he believes he can simply walk on stage, shine his self-satisfied grin, and say nothing beyond essentially "Trust me," while repeating well-honed attacks on the President, Romney might better stay home. Does he truly believe Obama will not be prepared to slice him like sushi?
emjayay on August 03, 2012 6:10 PM:
Well I suppose Mitt has killed the whole "I saved the Olympics" thing in the public mind anyway, but I've been wondering why it hasn't been pointed out to everyone that he did it mostly by hiring lobbyists to score a shitload of FEDERAL AID.
Doug on August 03, 2012 7:27 PM:
"I'm not one to assume that Romney and his brain trust are stupid or feckless..." Ed Kilgore
Why not? Everything I've so far seen or heard from the Romney campaign leads me to believe they're a captive of "group-think", probably based on that famous bubble so many Republicans exist in.
Romney doesn't interact well with other people, particularly those NOT of his economic class. Fine, then concentrate on policy. Oh wait, Republicans don't DO policy, do they? They can't even produce a balanced budget without invoking the "confidence fairy" (how appropriate!) because that would mean raising taxes on the obscenely rich; while STILL screwing over everyone else!
So Romney CAN'T run on an actual platform consisting of what Republicans will do; forcing him to run on the horrors that an Obama second term will produce and various lies ginned up to please his base. With the two often being completely interchangeable.
Come to think of it, Mr. Kilgore MAY correct and Romney's advisors AREN'T feckless and stupid, but rather out to take him, his donors and the Republican Party for every cent they can get.
It's so..so Republican of them...
smartalek on August 04, 2012 6:19 AM:
I never watch tv, & rarely read newspapers, unless u count the NYT website as a newspaper. Almost all my news comes from NPR and blogs, most of them center-left.
(Even w/ this restricted diet, my blood pressure's still dangerously hi.)
So I often have little idea what Jane and Jo Sixpak are hearing from the corporate propagandists.
But I heard something on NPR w/in the last few days that scared the dickens out of me:
Someone raised the possibility of an election outcome in which Obama ekes out a modest electoral-vote win w/ the swing states (where he's currently polling well), but loses, possibly by a significant amount, the popular vote, being trounced in the same lo-population red states that gave us the Publican House in '10.
That sounded to me an awful (literally) lot like the trial balloon we heard briefly out of the GWB camp in October of '00, raising the spectre of just such an outcome for Gore, and clearly starting to lay a base for a claim that such an outcome would be an anti-democratic travesty, an affront to common-sense and justice alike, and sufficient cause for SCOTUS intervention, & so forth. (Funny how that principled stance wasn't evoked when the reality appeared to be the direct opposite.)
(You DO remember that, yes? Cause, of course, it's NEVER mentioned by the corporate mass-media, and the vast majority of ppl I speak to have less than zero recollection of it.)
Has anyone else heard, or heard of, any such murmurings anywhere lately?