« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Newt Exposes Romney’s Glass Chin: Mitt Can’t Win Elections (Shhh… He’s a Loser!)

Newt’s right: It IS pious baloney, this whole Romney thing..

Not so much, though, as Newt asserted, about Mitt’s alleged Public Spiritedness (Newt, remember, poked holes in Romney’s “Citizen Businessman” meme by pointing out that Mitt has been a chronic –and mostly chronically losing– campaigner for twenty years, after these losing attempts in which he’d simply slink back into his corporate duds, and disabuse himself of electoral envy for another season). Rather, the “baloney” is that Mitt is “electable”. Out of all the candidates, Mitt is the least electable, and has a proven record of losing almost all of the campaigns he’s run, or of winning them barely– like last Tuesday’s Iowa Caucuses.

Mitt Romney, in only the narrowest definition of the term, “won” the Iowa Caucuses. In fact, there are serious allegations that the votes were miscounted, and 20 to 30 votes that went to Romney should have gone to Santorum. But, even in this stunning, awe-inspiring victory, Mitt received less votes in both percentage terms and actual votes than any Republican in modern times, going back to 1980. And, here are some interesting tid-bits:

Mitt actually received a couple dozen fewer votes (if the votes are properly counted) this time ’round than he did in 2008. He received 25 percent of the vote that year– but Mike Huckabee received 34% in his winning bid.

Mitt’s performance, had it taken place in 2000, would only been good enough for third place, behind Steve Forbes (31%) and barely in front of Alan Keyes (14%). That year, there really WAS a front-runner: George W. Bush, who received 41% of the vote, and had the Republican Party Base firmly behind him.

If the results are stacked up against those of 1988, Romney would have once again come in third place, behind both Bob Dole (26%) and Pat Robertson (25%). Likewise, in 1980, Romney’s pathetic showing would have garnered yet another third-place showing behind George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. It is far more typical for a winner in Iowa to come away with between 30 and 40 percent of the vote, rather than to limp away with a paltry 23%.

In short, there is no Romney Juggernaut. If he’s the frontrunner, it’s only by virtue of his hair sticking out more than his nearest competitor.

Historical context is always important  when making the sort of charges that Newt Gingrich made in Sunday’s New Hampshire debate. As fate would have it, though, Newt Gingrich is an historian. And, that was his point: Romney continues to paint himself as some sort of virtuous Citizen Candidate, only emerging from the paneled boardrooms in this, the Nation’s Moment of Crisis– when, in fact, Mitt Romney has been a carrier of the Electoral Pathogen for over twenty years, and it has metastasized into a full-blown case of Potomac Fever.

As we all know, he ran and won for the GOP Senatorial Nomination in 1994 by besting a severely damaged opponent, and then losing to Teddy Kennedy. Now, do we remember 1994? Of course we do: That was the year that the Democrat Party was decimated, and the year Harris Wofford, the ancient Pennsylvania Democrat dinosaur went down in flames to Rick Santorum. But, Teddy Kennedy beat Mitt Romney by a whopping 17%. Likewise, of course, we know what a horrible year for Republicans 2006 was: Mitt knew it too, so he “retired” from politics, paving the way for Democrat Deval Patrick to pick up Romney’s vacated seat, winning the contest over Kerry Haley by some billion percentage points.

Electorally speaking: Mitt Romney is NOT electable, and Newt Gingrich finally brought it up. And, the former governor needs to be hammered on this time and time and time again: He can’t close the deal with the electorate. Some say that the Achilles’ Heal of the Romney Campaign is “Romneycare”. It ought to be, but it isn’t. The real, unspoken downfall of the Mittster’s campaign is that, in stark contrast to the media narrative, Governor Romney is… well,.. a loser. Time after time, and in historical settings.

Oh, sure, the “polls” say he’s the one that can beat Obama. But, that’s in a theoretical campaign that hasn’t started yet. You know, the sort of a campaign that doesn’t feature actual issues, or actual opposition research, or vicious democrat party tactics, or a thoroughly corrupted left-wing news media.  As soon as it becomes a real campaign, though, with Barack Obama as his opponent with his billion-dollar machine, Mitt Romeny will conform to type: A Massachusetts Moderate who comes off as inauthentic social-climbing technocrat.

…and, in a word: “unelectable”.

For God’s Sake, South Carolina, wake up from your nap before you end up giving us all a Romney Nightmare.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • David123

    Rick Santorum has won statewide elections in the key (stone) swing state of Pennsylvania TWICE.

    Rick Perry has won over FIVE statewide elections.

    Newt Gingrich has won numerous elections, although they weren’t statewide.

    Newt Gingrich made a very valid criticism of Mitt Romney on the electability issue.

  • david1313

    than Mitt, and I will support him if nominated. However, Rick S. is not more electable than Newt, and that is why I am supporting him. I know this is just speculation. But it is my opinion nonetheless.

  • AceInTX

    .

    • barleycorn

      Just wondering. He is now clearly to the left of most Redstaters, but I an unaware that being a moderate means you have no principles.

      Dole served this nation honorably both in uniform and out and whatever his policy transgressions I would posit that he was as principled as the next guy and more so than many.

      • AceInTX

        or what his time i the senate as both a back bencher and then as majority leader…

        what cause did he serve?, what were his goals as a presidential candidate or senator?

        Doles most memorable line in his 1996 run came at a cinservative event,…(not sure if it was CPAC)…when he said:

        “If you want me to be reagan, I’ll be reagan, I’ll be anything you want me to be.

        You say Dole is not principled…if that’s the case…name one principle the man lived by and wouldn’t compromise on a dime..I sure can’t come up with one…

        and Romney is cut from the same cloth…say whatever you need to to get elected…and then piss down the voters legs and tell them it’s raining once safely in office!

        • AceInTX

          nt

  • furiouschads

    Wooden
    Inevitable
    Electable (I don’t like him but normal people will vote for him.)
    Privileged
    Well funded
    Moderate
    From Mass.
    Flipflopper

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      …and, I think he’s earned most of his money, versus being a Kept Senator, Unlike John Effing Kerrry…

      But, yeah, I get the point…

  • clowngirl

    We’ve got Romney running with most of the media firmly (and in many cases, aggressively ) behind him, against an extremely crowded field, and with the opportunity (so far) to flood very small states with resources against opponents who didn’t have the means to compete.

    In Iowa, he also had the benefit of multiple other candidates and much of the media savagely attacking his chief rival.

    Jackie Gingrich Cushman (Newt’s daughter) made the point that if you calculated how much money was spent on attack ads against her dad on a per-vote basis, it would cost $5 billion dollars to wage the same scale of attack in the general election. (which even Mitt Romney will not have to spend)

    In short Romney’s running with all the advantages Obama will have in the general election and then some and he STILL can’t get Republicans strongly behind him .

    Newt is running with disadvantages that are greater than what he would have in a general election (multiple candidates competing for the same vote pool, much less money and organization) and against a media that is actually MORE hostile than what he would face as nominee.

    (In a general election, one would presume NRO and other conservatives who are currently bashing Newt would make an effort to support and defend him)

    Newt’s close to or within the margin of error in a couple polls in SC. Given the wild disparity in his circumstances vs. Romney’s it should be clear Newt’s the much stronger candidate.

  • benko

    here:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287725/romney-s-authenticity-problem-jonah-goldberg

    points out.