Last night, BooMan reassessed the Republican race:
For the first time, I am beginning to think that Romney might actually lose the nomination and that Santorum might win it.
And, even worse, I am beginning to think that Santorum is a much stronger candidate against Obama than Romney. I think Gingrich is a stronger candidate than Romney. I just can’t exaggerate how bad I think Romney is as a politician and as an alternative to the president.
I’m also beginning to think again that Romney might lose — Public Policy Polling now tells us that Santorum has a massive lead over Romney, 38% to 23%, among Republicans nationwide. (And possibly, as Tom Hilton says, the Obama contraception decision pushes social issues to the top of the GOP agenda, which helps Santorum as a Republican candidate, and hurts Romney.)
And then there’s BooMan’s other assertion: would the non-Romneys really be stronger candidates against Obama?
I have to disagree on Gingrich — he’s too much of a hypocrite/blowhard/egomaniac/know-it-all; he appealed briefly to GOP voters when they saw him attacking debate moderators and thought he could out-debate Obama, but, really, that’s all he had. In the general population, his unfavorable ratings are off the charts. I’m crushed that he’s fading in the polls, and that he can’t possibly come back unless a new debate moderator tosses him one that he can hit out of the park (which I think all future moderators will avoid doing).
But Ricky?
I think enough liberals and moderates know, or could easily see, how extreme his agenda is. I think his sanctimony and extremism shine through. But there’s an aw-shucks, sad-sack quality to him that may make him harder to hate than Gingrich or Romney.
That’s also the reason I think Romney might have a hard time crushing Romney the way he crushed Gingrich — non-Republicans may ultimately be turned off by Santorum, but Republicans seem to have positive feelings toward him. And, well, there’s this:
But his digs at the president are not what people talk about as they crowd around him to shake his hand. It is his 3-year-old daughter, Isabella, or Bella, as she is known, who has a fatal chromosomal disorder called Trisomy 18. Bella’s struggle is the emotional undercurrent of his campaign and, for his supporters, has become inseparable from Mr. Santorum’s appeal as a Christian conservative who opposes abortion.
“When she got pneumonia, he stopped his campaign,” said Stephanie Broardt, an Oklahoma City stay-at-home mother who stood on a chair to watch his speech. “He strikes me as a good father. That’s another reason why I love him, because he’s a family man. Other candidates cannot say that.”
It’s Sarah and Trig Palin, minus Sarah’s diva act. Could general-election voters be swayed by this, if he beat Romney for the nomination? Especially if mainstream pundits started saying Santorum is really kind of a good guy? (Beyond the obvious — David Brooks, Joe Klein — my money’s on Niall Ferguson as a spreader of that meme; see Ferguson’s recent love letter to Charles Murray in Newsweek. I could imagine him writing the Newsweek cover story on how Santorum could lead an American moral regeneration.)
But would Santorum really be a tougher opponent against Obama? A recent Rasmussen poll says he would, but Rasmussen is an unreliable wingnut propagandist; by contrast, the latest Fox News poll has Obama beating Romney by 5 and Santorum by 12 — and Gingrich by 13, for what it’s worth. (Yeah, it’s Fox, but the Fox polling operation has always had a surprising tendency to play it straight, even if the results contradict Fox propaganda; this survey, for instance, shows 61% approval for the Obama birth control policy, even before yesterday’s policy adjustment.)
My worry would be that the Obama reelection team has concentrated all its efforts on planning for a race against Romney, with, it seems, no Plan B; an Obama aide recently reaffirmed this to The New York Times:
“When you guys were all out there writing your Herman Cain stories, we were not following you into that sideshow,” one Obama aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We are keeping our eyes on the prize.”
Four years ago, Team Obama had no plan when Sarah Palin was put on the GOP ticket. The Democratic National Committee had launched a Web site called thenextcheney.com, with negative information about everyone the Dems thought could be on the short list — and Palin wasn’t included. And you’ll recall that McCain/Palin briefly surged to the lead after Palin’s convention speech.
I think the Obama team was woefully unprepared for Palin, and lucked out when she turned out to be an idiot and an albatross. Would the Obama team be equally unprepared for Santorum? And is he unappealing enough for that not to matter? I think he is, and I hope I’m right, but I’m not sure.
(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog)
Santorum and Gingrich are better, more skilled politicians than Romney, yes. Mitt Romney is still the candidate who was a significantly worse campaigner than John McCain.
However, Romney is a better matchup against Obama. His history of competent executive leadership, his non-scary ideological moderation and, er, flexibility, and his reasonable level-headedness minimize Obama’s personal strengths, while his success in business and obvious comfort with economic management (as opposed to just saying crazy shit about poor people and the gold standard) positions him much better than his opponents to make the case that Obama has done a poor job with the economy.
What history of competant executive leadership?
His history in MA is atrocious.
His leadership of Bain Capital lead to the rape and stripping of at least 15 moderately successful companies.
Like Rick Perry, Romney’s competant executive leadership is a lie.
Disagreeing with his policies as governor doesn’t tell us anything about his executive management. He was very effective, and whether you’re happy about what he was effective at doing is a separate question.
Disagreeing with the business model of Bain Capital on moral grounds, likewise. Frankly, I wish he’d been less competent at what he did.
You’re confusing “competent” with “ideologically appealing.”
You are right about Bain. His executive expertise was instrumental in transforming Bain into a power player. And, he certainly succeeded in making lots of $$$. The fact that Simon Legree would be repulsed by the methodology is neither here no there.
In the case of MA? Not so much. MA under Romney was 47th in job creation. And this was after a big drop due to out migration:
“Just one state had a bigger drop in its labor force during the same period, according to Sum — that was Louisiana, which was hit by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.”
I guess its true. Facts DO have a liberal bias.
In the case of MA? Not so much. MA under Romney was 47th in job creation.
Let me let you in on a little secret: Republican governors don’t actually run Massachusetts. There are veto-proof majorities in both houses of the state legislature, and then some, for the Democrats every single year. When Massachusetts elects Republicans governors, they are being hired to act as a speed bump for the state legislature. The Speaker of the House sets the agenda. The Republican governor has no chance of being able to implement a conservative agenda.
Attributing Massachusetts’ economic performance to a Republican governor greatly overstates his influence. (As does calling the health care program “Romneycare.” He was one guy at a table that included the legislative leadership and the Congressional delegation, all Democrats, among others).
Romney’s executive leadership as governor, therefore, is best judged by the competence with which he administered the executive branch in its day-to-day operations, and Romney proved himself quite able as manager-in-chief.
I think his executive management skills are bad, or at least his leadership ability. One example was the recent spat over his ability to need credit during the debates that his debate coach got in a few articles. If a leader needs all of the credit like that, they have a deficiency, and imo they’re a bad leader. Good leaders will always share credit, and in many cases willingly give most of the credit to others.
Competent executive management? Who cares? The Wall Street management that destroyed the economy was “competent” within its own junkyard-dog parameters, but so what? That’s precisely the problem. I don’t see how Romney can make much of a case for his “business success” without activating the disgust most people now feel toward corporate greed and the whole biz culture of reckless greed. Romney can’t show a single useful thing he did for all that money. He invented nothing, created nothing, he just manipulated other people’s money. I think America is finally getting over the mythology that making a bunch of money is evidence of usefulness. It will be a very hard sell for Romney.
Where you get this stuff about moderation and level-headedness I don’t know. Smirking about how “corporations are people”? I like firing people? “Only” $300,000 or so for speaking fees? You don’t think this is all going to come back during the campaign, to say nothing of his shameless pandering to every new polling number?
Competent executive management?
People in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina?
The Wall Street management that destroyed the economy was “competent” within its own junkyard-dog parameters
No it wasn’t; they lost trillions of dollars, destroyed some of their industry’s most profitable lines of business, and sparked a backlash from the government that resulted in much more stringent regulation, after years of enjoying a deregulatory trend.
I don’t see how Romney can make much of a case for his “business success” without activating the disgust most people now feel toward corporate greed and the whole biz culture of reckless greed.
Now, this is true, but it’s not a point about his competence as an executive; it’s a point about his values and general ideological orientation.
Where you get this stuff about moderation and level-headedness I don’t know.
From actually living in Massachusetts during his administration. Where are you from, DaveW? Because from what I can tell, you’re basing your impressions about Mitt Romney entirely on his actions during the presidential campaign, which (unlike a familiarity with his actual record in office) is a pretty thing, unreliable source of information about how someone would govern.
Gee, it would be fun to run against Santorum, Mr. “-18 pct in PA”. He is such a pure guy, he will repell any normal human being. No one could live up to his standards of rectitude.
Ricky will be way too easy to destroy in a general election. If the election simply becomes a referendum on social issues, we win. This ain’t the ’90s anymore…
harder to tie to Wall Street. He is a much better candidate than either Romney or Gingrich. He does not come from money, and he is from the midwest.
I still don’t know why people thought the author of Romneycare was going to win the GOP nomination. In retrospect it looks like Santorum’s attack in the second Florida debate was a game changer that drew blood. It was what the GOP base wanted to here.
I don’t think they’ll be unprepared. I think they’re purposefully attacking Romney to weaken him both in the primary in the GE. That’s all they’re doing. If he loses in the primary, they’ll face a much weaker candidate. If he wins in the primary, he’ll be badly weakened. Win-win.
Interesting analysis, Steve M., but I’m going to jump in with seabe (and with DavisXMachina and torpidbunny below).
The better analogy, to my mind, for the Obama campaign’s attacks on Romney is with Harry Reid’s 2010 campaign going after Sue Lowden. Reid wanted to run against either a severely weakened Lowden, or against Sharron Angle. Likewise, Obama would like to run against a weakened Romney or another, weaker candidate (e.g., Santorum).
You can say, “I think the Obama team was woefully unprepared for Palin, and lucked out when she turned out to be an idiot and an albatross.”, and there’s an element of truth in it. I think there’s a larger element of truth in the fact that the Obama campaign was prepared to respond to any number of credible VP picks McCain might make. McCain’s choice an unvetted, not-very-credible VP candidate is less about Obama’s luck and more about McCain’s poor judgment.
Yes, but what campaign aides are paying attention to what the GOP supposed heavy-hitters are saying? Remember that Bill “William the Bloody” Kristol was trumpeting The Quittah either 6 months, or 18(I forget which), before Cranky McSame picked her. Maybe it’s more of a job for the DNC, I don’t know. But the signs were there that GOP opinion makers thought of the possibility a while before.
run that campaign. Reid was unpopular.
Obama is not, and if the economy continues to recover will be in a position to ignore the Republicans.
You nailed it, massappeal. Palin was serendipity: When good things happen without planning for them.
Palin was not considered as a legitamate choice as VP for a very simple reason: She WASN’T.
One look at her record and the potential for blowup would have shown that. I think that the R’s got into the affirmative action gig (gotta get a woman) because the D’s didn’t pick Clinton for the VP … here was a chance to pick up some cheap female votes from the PUMA crowd.
More like another case of ‘eyes on the prize’.
VP picks don’t decide elections. The top of the ticket is all that matters.
VP picks don’t decide elections. The top of the ticket is all that matters.
It certainly helped decide it. Would you have wanted Palin in control if Cranky McSame was somehow unable to do his job? It’s not like Cranky was PBO’s age. He’s an old man prone to health problems.
Nobody votes for someone because of the VP pick. And really, I can’t think of any pre-Palin examples of the VP pick costing a ticket votes. Palin was that bad. She set the standard for bad VP picks, strategically as well as in her (lack of) qualifications.
That said, McCain gambled that more people would be attracted to his lethargic campaign by Palin than would be repelled by it, and the wingnut bubble in which such an idea sounds plausible is even bigger, crazier, and more reality-proof now than it was in 2008. It’s entirely possible that any nominee – but especially the lethargic Romney – could pick a red meat-spewing VP that makes Palin seem statesmanlike, thinking it’d be a positive. They’re that separated from reality.
I can think of two VP selections that cost votes: Tom Eagleton and Curtis LeMay.
Yeah, but neither one flipped an election. The one pick in recent history that arguably did make a difference was Kennedy picking Johnson in 1960 (which probably helped the Dems win Texas that year).
You can bet against the spread, but the spread won’t elect you….
I agree with that somewhat. The VP pick can’t win you the election but it certainly can lose it for you. Good for us that we have a solid VP.
“The top of the ticket is all that matters” is dead right.
If they can avoid letting it turn into a typical election, Obama can win. They have to force Americans to seriously think about where they want the country to go.
Absent that, the GOP can win.
We are a long long way away from a Santorum nomination. Yes it could happen but let’s not start blaming the white house months in advance geez.
You’re concerned that a guy who got crushed in his reelection campaign 6 years ago and who polls way lower against Obama than Romney does might win the Republican nomination? This would be like Republicans worrying that Russ Feingold might jump in and take the nomination from Obama. Except for the Republicans not having a single strong candidate.
As for Palin, it was an insane, desperate move by the McCain campaign. It turned out not to matter one bit that they didn’t see it coming. And when you’ve got an erratic, loose cannon like McCain as your opponent, how are you supposed to prepare for every nutty thing he might do? If they were as savvy as you are they would have known that he was going to stupidly announce a “suspension” of his campaign too? Who could have predicted such a pair of crazy moves and why would anyone need to? Are you now concerned that the eventual nominee will select Duke Cunningham as his running mate? Because I can guarantee you that Obama has no game plan for that possibility.
I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that [] would use a special needs child as a stage prop.
So if this woman thinks Santorum is a “family man”, and that’s why she’d vote for him, then what the hell is Barack Obama he is as much of a family man as Santorum…right????
But I suspect the wont vote for “family man” Obama. She’s full of shit!!!!
tell it, lamh.
tell it!!!
out of the morass of DemocRatublican triple speak that passes for “political news” in this sad, fucked up system..y’all seem to insist on ignoring it.
Deep.
Here’s today’s little nugget:
Your take on this rare example of public truthiness?
The fix is in. The designated winner and his team know this because they have done their job exceedingly well.
Job One:
Reward?
Another term.
Tactic?
(Tomato can #1? Need you ask? McCain/Palin. Please.)
The Obombers are “…are keeping [their] eyes on the prize???”
Well…yeah.
Of course.
They know where it’s located and what to do to keep it. Only some sort of true disaster will stay this course from happening.
Bet on it.
And if something does “happen?”
The PermaGovs can live with Romney, too.
It’s the American way, folks.
The Omertican way.
Watch.
Obama/Romney in 2012. A moderately safe winning margin for our man Barry, followed by more four more years of PermaGov security state metastization and four more years of economic imperialist-dictated foreign policy.
Learn to roll with the punches, babies. It’s gonna be a rough ride.
Bet on it.
Later…
AG
Upon reflection, I disagree with primary precept of the article. To wit, Team Obama has not thought out how to defeat Rick Santorum.
Answer: They don’t have to. Bob Casey already did it.
You can ask Boo, but IIRC Casey hardly ran any ads and didn’t campaign much at all. He had the advantage of being the son of a somewhat popular former Governor.
I do not think Santorum can win the nomination. The GOP designed the rules of proportional delegates to ram Romney down everyone’s throat. All the states that Newt or Rick (or Perry or Bachman had they survived) might do well in award delegates proportionally. Namely the south and midwest. OTOH, The biggest and best states where Mitt can do well (New York and Cali) are winner take all.
Add to that that Santorum isn’t even on the ballot in Virginia, and IIRC, a couple of other states, and it’s hard to see how Santy will get the nomination. And if it ends up being brokered, the GOP will likely find a way to screw everyone else and give it to Romney.
What will be interesting is if Romney suddenly finds himself needing Ron Paul’s delegates to win.
I confess I don’t follow Republican party rules-making that closely, but my recollection is somewhat different.
Conservatives were dismayed that a “maverick” like McCain won the nomination because (as they saw it), the conservative majority split among multiple candidates and McCain—with minority support—quickly seized the lead and became the de facto nominee.
To reduce the chances of that happening, they changed the rules to require some level of proportionality for most state delegations. They left it up to the individual state parties to decide how proportional to make it, and the answer for some is “not very”. FrontloadingHQ.blogspot.com is probably the most authoritative source for this whole story.
How could they possibly be unprepared for Santorum? Even if we accept the notion that they were unprepared for Palin (not planning for your opponent to make irrationally self-destructive choices is pretty reasonable), they’ll have months of advance notice that he’ll be the nominee.
Besides, unlike Santorum, he’s hardly an unknown quantity. He’s got two terms in the Senate and some time in the House before it. And everything about him is gonna freak independents right the hell out.
I think the Obama team was woefully unprepared for Palin, and lucked out when she turned out to be an idiot and an albatross.
Isn’t this another way of saying they were exactly as prepared for Sarah Palin as they needed to be, and as the threat she represented deserved?