I think John Hawkins does a pretty good job of explaining why Mitt Romney’s electability is a myth. Yet, with one dubious exception, he doesn’t explain why any of the other candidates would be better suited to win a general election against the President of the United States. That lone exception is Hawkins’ assertion that Romney will underperform in the South in a way that Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich would not. He bases this on Romney’s performance in the primaries in 2008, and on his Mormon religion. I’d argue that the primary results are terrible indicators of general election outcomes. As for the Mormon religion, I don’t know how many evangelical Christians would be more concerned about giving it a giant boost in credibility than they are about Roe v. Wade or gay marriage. I suppose there are some people in that category, but there are a lot of factors that go into choosing a political team. If people are concerned about Romney’s religion, they’d also be concerned about Perry’s competence and Newt’s mental stability and temperament and history of infidelity and…on and on and on.
Mitt Romney’s greatest asset is that he doesn’t frighten anyone. He doesn’t breath fire. When he throws bombs, they sizzle and fizzle like wet firecrackers. He doesn’t have much of a temper. He’s trained to knock on your door and talk to you about the merits of the Book of Mormon. To do that effectively, you have to eliminate the slightest hint of danger from your persona, and Romney has succeeded. He’s a salesman, and he will adjust his pitch to his customer. In this sense, he’s almost an ideal candidate to throw up against the president. His happy, healthy face masks the sociopathic and irrational movement he seeks to lead. His lack of principles and willingness to turn with the wind make him hard to pin down. He’s slippery.
And, if he isn’t exactly a good retail politician, he at least has the basic competence to get himself on the ballot in all 50 states, which is something Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry cannot say.
I think Hawkins is correct when he says that most of Romney’s advantages in the primaries will disappear in the general election, but he’s still the most electable Republican. So, in that sense, Hawkins’ argument fails.
All the emphasis by the Rep powers are focusing on Romney’s business experience to counter the economy and build up enough hope to overcome the socially perfectness of Santorum, for now.
But even the anti Obama voters have been listening to the 99%. Obama’s position last week resonated with more than just little old us.
And so, with all his eggs in his business basket; his venture capital perspectives warmly tucked in, because corporations are people too ya know, Romney will stride confidently on. But as those eggs rot before his supporters’ eyes, there is no fallback for him. His social issues stances will fuel the drawback, they won’t rescue it.
A whole post about Romney’s weakness, and not one mention of Ron Paul. You are so…last week, Booman. Ron Paul can no longer be disappeared in a confetti storm of Romneys, Perrys and Gingriches. Get up to speed along with your models!!! Quick!!! Attack him on the non-issues!!!
Unbelievable. There is a tidal wave building in the gulf between the two (identical) parties and you are paddling around in the shallows hoping to catch a few
yuppiesguppies.Head for higher ground, brother. It’s gonna get wet where you’re living, and soon.
Watch.
AG
You are amazed that a critique of an article about Romney’s lack of electability doesn’t mention Ron Paul?
Yes, I am. Ron Paul is the anti-Romney. Real as opposed to plasticized “real.” You mention the usual suspects mass media-style (Perry and Gingrich, both already essentially over) and you make a case that Romney is a weak candidate, but do not mention the only Republican who stands any chance whatsoever of beating him.
Amazing?
This whole primary campaign has been amazing…mostly amazingly stupid, a concatenation of clowns…,and the most amazing part of it has been the lockstep attempt by every part of the Permanent Government and its media minions to get rid of Ron Paul. No, I take that back. The most amazing part is that they have failed.
Your own lockstep Dem thing?
No surprise.
I wish that it was.
So it goes.
Queen Victoria allegedly said “I am not amused?”
Well…I am not amazed.
Later…
AG
You got deadpan down.
It’s Ron Paul, all the time, for AG. He is a true Kool-aid drinkin’ cowpoke. As long as the Kool-aid is entirely white, with no taint of jewish, muslim, black, brown, or asian component. For the Ron Paul supporter, it’s pure white thru-n-thru.
Well let’s admit it, there is no true believer bigger than a true believer in whiteness.
.
You speak the truth
AG may have his issues, but eschewing all things “jewish, muslim, black, brown, or asian” ain’t one of them…
Yeah, very very true. So, the question then is “Why does he support a racist like Ron Paul?”
It’s dangerous to try to speak for another, but it seems to me that AG views Paul as one to upset the status quo, one to change the system fundamentally. I get that, but I doubt its likelihood – assuming Paul doesn’t encounter any grassy knoll issues between here and 2013 the Senate would neuter him and contravene everything that he tried to implement as President. Truth is, even if Paul gets the nomination there is no way he beats Obama – none.
As for Paul’s racism (or the lack thereof, I can’t call it), how does it manifest itself in the only manner that matters – his votes? It’s a mixed bag, but better than most Republicans from my POV. I don’t care to police what goes on in a politician’s head, just their actions on our behalf. If they have no track record then we have to get into their head to see what their potential track record might eventually look like, but with someone like Paul who has a lengthy public life we don’t have to guess about what’s going on in his head – we know how he votes and we know what he supports.
Do I want him to actually be president? No, not really, but I could think of worse things (President Newt, for starters). I wish this were 2016 instead of 2012 – it’s Obama or bust right now – but I’d be interested in what a potential Pauline presidency might bring about. A much more assertive Congress would be one immediate result, and that’s not a bad thing.
Romney’s white. He wears a suit. He’s a guy. He makes president-noises. He has an R after his name.
That’s 50-60 million votes right there. Those are just the ones who will crawl over broken glass to get that awful Negro out of the White House. 10 million more in the right states and it’s President Romney till 2020.
You can buy enough outrage and enough bright shiny things, even before Citizens United, to come up with 10 million votes. You might not even need more than 10 million, depending on how many Democrats stay home.
Even with the Mooselini pick, and the worst economy since 1930, and an awful campaign, McCain outperformed Bush in ’92, Dukakis in ’88, and an incumbent in ’90.
Romney is not going to beat himself — he’s going to take far more beating than you think.
I have no idea what is going to happen. It still shocks me when I talk to people who are not paying attention at all to the candidates or really to how we happened to find ourselves in all of the messes we are in.
I plan to leave everything on the field–that means donate, make calls, knock on doors–everything I can.
Citizens United has opened the flood gates on massive lying via advertising but I am pretty darn persuasive, especially one on one. So I am going to have to talk to as many people as possible. I hope that everyone who gives a damn will do the same.
I don’t buy it. I think it’s extremely likely that Evangelical voters will be reluctant to vote for Romney for exactly the same reasons that they hate and fear gay marriage. Their whole worldview revolves around preventing the political acceptance of “deviance”, and that applies to Mormonism every bit as much as it applies to homosexuality.
But they are going to have to make a choice. And maybe the choice is that they stay home. If so, we’ll know both are unacceptable to them. If they vote, we’ll know they’ll put up with a Mormon, so we’ll all know where their true heart lies.
WITHOUT electability, Willard has NOTHING.
and, I do mean NOTHING.
and, like the fraud that it was for Hillary Clinton in 2007, it will be the same for Willard here.
the right-winger’s commentary on Willard’s electability was on spot, IMO.
However, I suspect that Obama’s group have rounded up several thousand of those who lost jobs, pensions, houses, and ever committed suicide as a function of the kind of shit that Bain Capital pretends is “responsible capitalism”. The day after Gov Special Undies is nominated, they will hit the airwaves.
the ads write themselves. period.
This doesn’t pertain to the electability argument, but over the last 24 hours I’ve developed a strong feeling that Iowa is not going to go with Paul. He has solid support and still leads in the numbers, but the next 4 candidates after Romney combined have more votes at present than either Paul or Romney.
In a caucus situation, those votes have to end up somewhere, and it won’t be Paul. Maybe there’ll be significant abstentions, I don’t know if that ever happens in IA but I guess it’s a possibility. Anyway, Paul might pick up a few more percentage points but he’s not firm in the ‘second choice’ category, or I think I read that earlier today although I can’t find it now.
One other thing: Paul is bringing in a lot of ground troops from outside the state. I’m starting to wonder if he doesn’t overdo it like Joe Trippi did with the orange hats and etc. That enthusiastic youth component in one’s supporters can get pretty obnoxious if not carefully trained and even restrained to some extent.
So, if Romney wins IA, I think we’re back to not the electability argument, but the inevitability argument. If Paul doesn’t win IA, or barring a last-minute surge from Santorum (cough) then the primary season may be wrapped up pretty quickly, depending I guess on how Newt does in FL when the time comes.