« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Metrics in Favor of a Romney Win

“Soon they will go full on outrage pimp accusing the GOP of bad mouthing Barack Obama’s recovery. It’s all they’ll have — that and a staggering silence about their own plans for both recovery and reform.”

A traveler from a distant planet landing in the United States right now would, if observing the Presidential election, presume the election was about a war on women or teasing over a cookie or the leader of the free world eating dogs or something else inconsequential to the Presidential election.

In fact, it is a concerted effort on the part of the Democrats to hide the economy from people’s attention. Like the Great Oz, the Democrats prefer no one pay attention to the economic disaster behind the curtains. I have run a great many campaigns. Each has a real narrative focus. The goal of the campaign is to try to stay on that narrative focus and not get distracted by the team worried about losing. The Democrats’ antics reveal they are deeply worried about losing. They cannot fight on the issue that is singularly at play in this election — Barack Obama’s bungling of the economy, so they must try to force Mitt Romney to play elsewhere.

Mitt Romney is a deeply flawed candidate. His path to victory was smoothed based on familiarity by Republican voters, their habit of picking the guy who ran last time, and his money. He only shined in states where he massively outspent his opponents. That spending advantage covered up many, many flaws. Were the economy to improve, Mitt Romney would lose to Barack Obama. It is abundantly clear, however, from Democrat hyperbole about a host of ancillary issues and their hard spin on economic data that the economy is not improving and the metrics of victory are in Mitt Romney’s favor.

There are a variety of metrics political junkies can pay attention to.

According to Investors Business Daily, if any one of the major market indexes goes up in January by at least 5.8%, counterintuitively the incumbent loses. The metric has been right since 1936. It is also somewhat selective given that it necessitates picking the Dow, Nasdaq, or S&P 500 as need be to make it fit.

But there are more accurate metrics to forecast a Presidential election. The most significant is probably in your pocket right now. Pull out a dollar bill. In the past three years the purchasing power of that dollar bill has declined.

Then there are your unemployed neighbors and family members. The Obama stimulus did nothing for them. About the only thing the Obama stimulus did was line the pockets of Obama donors. Moreso, the unemployment rate is over 8%. Factor in those who have dropped out of the workforce and unemployment is over 10%.

When the purchasing power of a dollar declines and unemployment is over eight percent, voters fire the incumbent.

Voters may not like Mitt Romney, but they’ll be hard pressed to be convinced he will bollix things up worse than Barack Obama. This is not to say Mitt Romney is assured a win. He has issues both with his base and with independent voters. Black voters will turn out decisively for Barack Obama. Romney will need to galvanize the GOP and right leaning independents to him. But if he can resolve those, the metrics are in favor.

In fact, I’ll make a prediction. The Democrats are right to presume that if the economy improves, Barack Obama will probably get re-elected. I think so myself. Objectively though, the economy looks like it will drift back down. Trade numbers suggest trouble on the horizon, hiring is scaling back, and Americans are cutting back on credit card usage again. These are not good signs.

My prediction is that the Democrats will start loudly claiming the Republicans are talking down the economy and cheering for economic disaster. They have tried hyperbole over the War on Women. They have tried hyperbole over mundane issues like the cookie story last week. Soon they will go full on outrage pimp accusing the GOP of bad mouthing Barack Obama’s recovery.

It’s all they’ll have — that and a staggering silence about their own plans for both recovery and reform.

When the economy again dips and Mitt Romney wins, I can already tell you the next Democratic talking point — Romney didn’t win so much as Barack Obama lost. On that one, however, they’ll have a bit, but only a bit, of a point.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • ohiohistorian

    The biggest reason Romney will not win, or Barack Obama will not win, is that not enough people vote for him to give enough electoral votes. The same reason that McCain lost could occur for Romney, and several of those indicators are already in play. If voters don’t have something to vote FOR, as opposed to vote AGAINST, they tend to stay home. That is why the black vote will turn out and those that do will vote for Obama. He is the guy they are voting FOR. My advice to Romney:
    Obama was called a nice guy by Romney. You can be respectful, but ignore whether you might think he is “nice”. His POLICIES and his LEADERSHIP are what you need to speak to, not whether he is a good father. There are tons of good fathers that are currently unemployed thanks to Barack Obama’s poor policies and lack of leadership.
    Don’t pull back on characterization of how he has failed to lead. Continue to point out his lack of leadership on budgets, on the deficit vote (until he got some spine from somewhere), on the control of entitlement spending, on not meeting his promises to his base on Gitmo and the wars, on dealing with Russia and defensive weapons, the list is endless. I would pick a topic a week and still have enough to take me to the 2016 election.
    Highlight on how is policies are bad. His policies of toxic spending, high-roller spending, reversal of welfare reform, free and easy food stamps, perpetual unemployment compensation, and even increased disability on Social Security need to be hammered home. His policy on Iraq (anybody know what is going on there? the media has gone silent), his delay on implementing in Afghanistan, his dissing of the Brits at every turn, his appeasing of the Arab Spring, his dissing of the Supreme Court and his actions by executive action when Congress does not, his unConstitutional actions, all need to be hammered on constantly.
    Don’t back down or apologize if they call you “racist”. That is their way of getting you to back off your effective comments.
    Contrast how YOU will do this. This cannot be a negative only campaign. It has to contrast how YOU will do things. And frankly, I am still scratching my head on your positions on choice, healthcare, tax-the-rich (and tax increases in general), spending cuts, Afghanistan, Russia, general domestic policy,open borders and immigration, the list in endless, because you have flipped and then flopped. Come down on one side, and STAY on that side with at least as much tenacity as you have had for Romney-Care.
    Pick a Governor VP and use him to help you run the bureaucracy. Leave the Senate and the House alone. We need every good Republican we can get in there, and you DON”T need a Mitch McConnell type to screw up your administration.

  • sowa1

    will be a GREAT President. He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. His father was a Governor of Michigan when Mitt was young. Made his money later. Mitt gave away money from father to charity. Stop going after Republicans and vote some of the Democrats out that have been there forever.

  • snappy101

    I have to agree with Ohiohistorian on this “If voters don?t have something to vote FOR, as opposed to vote AGAINST, they tend to stay home.” Romney better not get complacent about those Santorum/Gingrich states and just assume they’ll vote for him over Obama. Unless he does something to make them want to vote for him, I think those voters will stay home on Election Day. He needs to worry less about Independents and revisit the South and some midwest states or they will turn blue by default..

  • hwgood

    It was also the process of the timing of the primaries. The process is not over, but given the way the results are played it is now fully assumed Romney is assured the nomination.
    This happened before large parts of the voting public had a chance to have their say.
    Timing, timing, timing.

  • dudette

    that the electorate has come to this—giving Obama even 1% approval rating given what he has done and what he represents. We have a dumbed down electorate but we also have an awakened segment of people known as tea party. let’s hope that we can reclaim enough ground to get R elected and start a long road to recovery that includes civic lessons and history reinstated in schools, and abolishing the non-accountable powerful agencies who dictate as if they were legislators, the EPA, Dept of Energy, and the rest. But to have to acknowledge that Obama could ever get re-elected is depressing to the core.

  • salemst

    All Romney needs to do to win red states is run solidly conservative. Unless he starts renouncing conservative positions, he’s fine.

    Every candidate who’s ever run for president is flawed. I don’t get the inordinate picking on Romney’s flaws. Didn’t Reagan raise taxes and legalize abortion in California? What would you be saying about him if he were the nominee?

    Romney was by far the best most electable GOP candidate this cycle. Newt would have lost 70% of the women’s vote due to his serial adultery and santorum would have lost 70% of Independents with his hard edged values campaign. The Independents tend to be fiscal conservatives and social moderates/liberals. What would Santorum have offered them as a reason to vote for him?

    You should realize this is the citizenry we have. It’s not the citizenry I prefer. I’d rather an across the board conservative electorate. But it isn’t that way. Romney is the most palatable candidate, and we’ve got to get Obama out of there.

    Simple as that.

  • clintonformccain

    Really?

  • ardendulou

    Romney will have to do the unusual and pick candidates from the base and run on them. A guy like Daniels for VP. Give Ron Paul the Treasury position. He will probably need to leak his nominations for the cabinet ahead of time to win the base over.
    It would be nice to see a strong conservative as sec of state for once.

  • ag8tor

    McCain kept trying that “Reach across the aisle” crap and it got kicked back in his face. As you said, Romney needs to get on message and stay there. If he has to get nasty about his opponent then so be it! I can guarantee one thing about this election, the Dems and Obama supporters will use the nastiest, most disgusting campaigning we have ever seen in the USA. Since they have no respect for ANYTHING this country stands for they will not hesitate to sling as much mud as possible whether is has fact behind it or not. If Romney has anything the public might characterize as questionable in his background that hasn’t been brought to light before now he had better get it all out there. The Obama camp will use whatever morsels they can find and blow it WAYYYY out of proportion, again whether it’s true or not. Truth has never been a very important factor to this administration. I have said before that there will be improprieties, voter fraud, Black Panther type intimidation, Union thugs etc. etc. like we have NEVER seen before. There will be a real problem with all votes beng verified and there count taken. I do not trust this administration to play by the rules since they don’t even acknowledge the Constitution.

  • sigmasix

    “All Romney needs to do to win red states is run solidly conservative. Unless he starts renouncing conservative positions, he?s fine.”

    Plus,

    1. Stay away from Amnesty for Illegals. Rubio’s nuts!
    2. Do not support the Buffet Rule in any form.
    3. Don’t become, Obamacare “Repeal and replace” to “Just Fix”.

  • malvernpa

    For the record Eric, Obama better defines a deeply flawed candidate rather than Romney. Like most other elections conservatives like me did not get what we want in a candidate but the language of “deeply flawed” is the province of The Democrat candidate not Romney.

  • Viet71

    Americans tend to vote pocketbook issues in lean years.

    Romney should focus on taxes and jobs, pointing out how states with no income taxes have been growing economically and with population, while states with high income taxes, like California and Illinois, have been bleeding residents and going broke. This is a telling metric that plays to the Republican playbook.

  • major

    “The Democrats are right to presume that if the economy improves, Barack Obama will probably get re-elected. I think so myself.”

    What kind of positive insight is that?
    Those of us who are sitting at the table having coffee with their morning skim of blog news updates, really need to think about shortening that activity, or trading it in, for a commitment to convince ALL that this is about more than the economy, and that the greatest activism, next to local action to vote in conservatives who are the polar opposite of Communists, is to VOTE and to VOTE AGAINST OBAMA!
    Put aside how disappointed we are about too many things!
    Push Allen West for VP or President, and all naysayers on the positive direction of our country, need to be humiliated in front of large crowds!
    You can repeat that sentence without Allen, if you wish.
    But I am ready for a rally of the people to believe in the importance of themselves and their own ACTIONS, not inaction or pity-pot logic.
    GIVE THEM HELL who are traitors to our country!
    VOTE AGAINST OBAMA and take action on that in every area you can think of!

  • major

    Great points!

  • http://americanstance.org pweldon

    Michael Ramirez on investors.com has inked the cartoon that complements this blog post: http://news.investors.com/editorialcartoons/cartoon.aspx?id=607467&Ntt=Cartoons.

  • major

    But Rubio would STILL be 99% better than ANYONE Obama has at his disposal.
    We could work with Rubio on that one.

  • major

    Vote for him anyway, if he truly will be the nominee…

  • metairiemike

    My candidate was Mike Pense……..then Pawlenty….then …… I fought my fight and my candidates all fell by the wayside. Now Romney is MY candidate because he HAS to beat obama. But, it seems that Eric, and Prager and Levin all seem to be looking forward to seeing obama win just so they can say “We told you so.” Guys, it’s time to put all the denigration of OUR candidate aside and focus on the flaws of obama. Our country will not be recognizable if obama gets four more years. Think about obama being able to appoint himself or Eric Holder to the Supreme Court as a recess appointment (which is whenever he sees fit) or simple issue an executive order abolishing the second amendment and defy SCOTUS when they rule it unconstitutional …. we know he’s capable of that. So, Eric and Dennis and Mark, the next time you have an article to write and you want to get a few more digs in on our “deeply flawed candidate” put your pride aside and remember that you are helping the creatures we HAVE to defeat. I really love you guys but it’s time to recognize the real danger to our country, defeat obama and give the Romney-bashing a rest until the election is over.
    Then, if Romney doesn’t toe the line after he’s elected President I’ll be right there with you criticizing and marching in the streets with my torch and pitchfork.

  • Argentum

    Romney is not our candidate. That’s what we have primaries, caucuses, and the Republican National Convention for… to make that decision.

    So far Romney is right around the half-way mark toward securing the 1144 delegates required to win the nomination on the first ballot.

    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R

    There is still time to stop Romney. I don’t care who you vote for, but in your primary vote for Anyone But Romney! Then we can choose a real conservative at the convention in August.

    If Romney is our nominee then I’ll support him. But I’ll work through the convention to keep him from becoming the nominee. Let’s call it “Project 1143. Holding the line.”

  • gekster

    who has the votes, money, and backing to beat him.
    Who is your red knight.

  • izoneguy
  • Argentum

    Who has the votes, money, and backing is not the issue right now.

    Keeping Romney from 1144 delegates will allow the delegates to choose a good candidate at the National Convention in August.

    We all know Romney is a flawed candidate. There are dozens of good conservative men who would make a much better President, and who could present a much stronger challenge to “Occupy Whitehouse” (Obama).

    I don’t care who you like… we just need to keep the media from choosing our candidate this time.

  • Remington_Steele

    you show me how the 50% of GOP delegates are going to switch to ABR when all of the other candidates are less than 10% of GOP delegates or any other dark horse. No one has a consensus of delegates and such a scenario will just end up with Romney winning.

    If you can show me that, then I’ll try and believe that Argentum isn’t garfieldjl with a second email.

    :|

  • johnt

    A twofer. Suck up capital with massive debt, establish a crippling regulatory regime, then pretend you’re here to help & blame the Republicans. Morons will & have gone for it. This economy is no accident, it was brought about with malicious intent [what else would you expect from liberals] The “it would have been worse” crap isn’t, can’t work anymore, so they have recourse to trivia, pap for the dopes, & ammo for the demented left, incapable as they are of admitting they bet on the wrong horse & that the policies they crave are pure nonsense, designed primarily to help the insiders of various groups and individuals.
    Axelrod isn’t looking so bright now, his stooge coming undone, the media that created both getting nervous as they create poll results.

  • romeg

    How about voting for your children’s future? or maybe the future of the Republic?

    The Perfect Conservative Candidate, unfortunately, did not enter the race this time. And in all likelihood, won’t enter next time so let’s stop pretending that (s)he ever will. But there is a clear choice in November: Allow Obama/Holder to continue their outright assault on The Constitution and our way of life or cede them even greater power.

    There are 33 Senate seats and 435 House seats in contention. The Democrats have demonstrated over the past 75 years that they have NO intention of preserving the freedoms we all cherish. Unless WE step up and tell them no, as we did in November of 2010, then who will?

    Whether you Love Mitt or Hate Barry or anything in between, that is all the motivation you need to get off your duff, go to the polls and vote to put an end to this madness. We simply cannot tolerate Barack Obama beyond January 20, 2012.

  • Argentum

    At the National Convention many delegates will be bound to Romney for the first ballot, according to the rules of their State’s Republican Party.

    Once that first ballot passes with no nominee, then those bound delegates will be released from Romney and we’ll be free to debate, deliberate, and choose a real conservative.

    Please understand that the delegates bound to Romney for the first ballot are not necessarily Romney fans.

    THAT’S how.

    Now believe. I’m not Garfwhatsit. I’m the man with the plan.

    Project 1143. Hold the line.

  • gekster

    Try again and let me know who you have in mind to beat Romney.

    And how does the media “make” voters vote for anyone.
    What special spell do they have.

  • Common_Cents

    The only comparison to be made at this point is: compared to obama.

    Romney is not a flawed candidate compared to obama.

    Barring some remote holdup in the primary/convention, Romney will be the candidate.

    You will have two viable choices on the Presidential ballot.

    1. Romney
    2. Obama

    If you are a hungry cattle rancher and go to a restaurant and there are two choices on the menu, a so-so burger and a bowl of crap, are you going to sit there and say the burger might be flawed?

    It’s real simple. If Romney is our guy, he is no longer compared to his past, other Republicans, other conservatives etc… He is compared to obama. That’s it. Really simple. He’ll look like a freakin nice dry aged citrus wood grilled porterhouse vs. a bowl of crap.

    There are two different distinct concepts. Historical metrics on probability and messaging on behalf of Republicans/Conservatives to fight for our side.

    So our messaging is, gee, we gotta hope the economy sucks? That’s the best we can do? Really?

    Erick, we need grass roots conservative advocates putting the best messaging out for our side, not any more detached political horse race callers in the media as analysts.

  • Argentum

    If you’re really super curious to know who I support, I’m sure you could logically deduce it from the information here on Redstate and a little research. I’m fairly confident you’re not that curious.

    Promoting a specific candidate is not my purpose here.

    My purpose is to keep Romney from getting to 1144 delegates so that we can actually do the work of choosing the nominee once we get to the convention.

    You know the spell the media have… They try to make Romney sound inevitable. Seems like it’s working with you guys…

  • gekster

    I did not ask who you support.
    I asked who would be able to beat Romney.
    Who has the money.
    Who has the votes.
    Who has the support to beat Romney.

    Are you going to give an answer or another non answer.
    The question is pretty simple and straight forward.

    As far as the media spell, AGW isn’t working inspite of all thier promotion of it. Do you honestly think the conservative voteres who have allready voted for Romney were somehow duped by the media.

  • gawken

    Up front, Mitt is not my first choice..heck, he doesn’t make my TOP FIVE. But I will hold my nose and vote for him, because 4 more years of Obama, even if the GOP controls the House and Senate, will be a disaster for this nation.

    The Dems ONLY hope to win is to make the election about Mitt, and NOT about Obama’s failed policies and lousy leadership..and here we are, ..good conservatives all…making it all about, what else? Mitt..(just look at vast majority of the posts on this diary)

    EE omits one key point..the price of gas…it hurts, ( in the wallet) it has hurt, and it will continue to hurt people, and it will cost Obama in November.

    After 2008, we were told by the Dems and the MSM that the GOP was in effect, all but extinct, like the dodo, and we might as well cancel the 2012 election…Obama would will by acclimation, and we could save all the $$ ( and use it to reduce the deficit?) those pesky elections cost.

    Well, now..lookee, lookee. Things have changed. The Dems are attempting to convince themselves that Obama now has “alternate pathways” to an Electoral College majority.

    This is pure, unadulteraed BULL SPIT!!

    The idea that Obama can lose Florida, yet somehow win Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia, is at best, a 1000;1 shot.

    OBama can’t beat us., but we CAN beat ourselves.

  • Argentum

    But since you persist, I’ll give you a list of people whom the National Convention delegates might consider, any one of whom would be better than Romney and easily capable of defeating Obama:

    Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Fred Thompson, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Tim Pawlenty, Tom Emmer, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, John Thune, and the list goes on.

    Do you get it now? I’m not trying to make a list or say “here’s this guy who can beat Romney”.

    The work of the convention will be to choose the person who will best be able to beat Obama, unless, of course, the work of the convention is circumvented by Romney securing the 1144 he needs on the first ballot.

  • gekster

    I do get it.
    Your not here to promote anyone as much as to just bash on Romney.

    Keep trying.
    You might make a good tribble someday.

  • Common_Cents

    There is only one comparison that matters.

    Our candidate, probably Romney, will be compared to Obama.

    The choice is clear.

  • gekster

    how is that “circumventing” the convention.

    I think you are slipping into darkness.

  • Argentum

    It’s about keeping Romney from getting 1144 delegates on the first ballot. How is that bashing Romney? If the convention chooses Romney then fine, I’ll work hard for him. But he’s not the nominee yet, and I’d like to be able to have the delegates at the convention debate, deliberate, and choose a solid conservative candidate.

    Why do you find that so distasteful?

  • Argentum

    Because the voters are getting rail-roaded by the media. All I’m saying is we need to let people know that Romney is NOT inevitable. So far he’s only got HALF the delegates required to be inevitable. There is still time.

  • gekster

    You still think conservative voters are that stupid.

  • gekster

    Who is out there that can beat Romney.

  • Neal Kaye

    I’m going to present two names to you all:

    Elena Kagan

    Sonia Sotomayor

    Now, is anybody still wondering how important it is to vote for Mitt Romney in November?

  • ihateliberals

    for President against LBJ. What I have learned is that whether intentional or not Mitt is using his Fathers play book. In the beginning of the campaign George had LBJ beat by double digits. Then George opened his mouth and slowly had to leave the Race and succumbed to Richard Nixon. One difference this time is that Mitt has been mostly quite thorughthe primaries but when he changes gears Against Obama i am afraid all Hell will break lose. The other Problem George had was tht his liberal tendencies came out during the primaries and people were sick to death of the liberal LBJ. Of course LBJ was so bad he didn’t even win his nomination. In the general election they wanted a conservative back in office and Humphrey was still too liberal. Nixon won all but 9 states and DC. If Mitt turns one iota away from conservatism he will lose. What he doesn’t realize is that he has to have the Tea Party, Other conservatives and the independent vote if he is to have a prayer. If the conservatives feel that they have noting to vote for they will not come out to vote because they don’t vote against things not even the worst President this country has ever had because they wil feel that Romney won’t make it better anyway. You can say all you want about people voting against Obama but I know human nature and they will not come out just to vote against him for someone else they don’t trust.

  • Argentum

    Your question leads me to believe you’re not quite clear on this…

    It’s not about finding someone who can get to 1144 delegates ahead of the convention, thus beating Romney. It’s about keeping Romney from the 1144. If he’s only got 1143 on the first ballot, then the game changes.

    Once we’re in the convention and no one’s won on the first ballot, then all bets are off, and Romney will lose LOTS of his delegates because his wins are primarily from places where delegates are bound.

    Make sense?

  • gekster

    You, on the otherhand, are looking for pie in the sky.
    Who is going to get the delegates besides Romney.
    Out of the choices, Gingrich doesn’t have the support, or money,
    and RP is a loon and the voters know it, asides from the know it all collage students.
    Who are the voters going to vote for to deny Romney the delegates.

  • funwithknives

    go hand-in-hand. If you are truly engaged in the process ,you realize early on that Purity and Absolutism get you a losing hand.
    You get on it,you stay on it and know that change comes slowly, and never as fast as you would like, nor “expect”. Mitt has proven he goes ‘all focus group’, so we have to give him a very large one.

    So many voters say they’re going to sit out each election, but {I KNOW this sounds hackneyed…} virtually no one with a modicum of the*Stuff Of Freedom* running through their veins can do that, this particular time out……

    We got ,what we got. Cryin’ time is over. Not voting assures “Foe Moe BHO” years and he’s gonna double down, on everything we’ve already seen. * Going Geometric!* on some issues near and dear to his dark little heart, is a given. ‘Getting Flexible with Russia’ {RUSSIA??!}, should, by itself, send every Freedom-Loving American screaming to the polls, and all early arrivals, at that.

    You don’t have to trust him. Metaphorically “kick him till he bleeds”, and bring friends. Lotsa’ friends. Keep in view, and Change Will Come.

    Freedom and Liberty to you. FWK

  • Argentum

    then anyone but Romney. It doesn’t matter, and I don’t care who you vote for… Just don’t vote for Romney in your primary. That’s all I ask.

    Thanks.

    Project 1143. Hold the line.

  • gekster

    //nt//nt//

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    George Romney came out with some lefty pacifist mumbo-jumbo that implicity called himself a weak man.

    Mitt Romney is unlikely to take a sudden pacifist turn.

    Also note that George Romney didn’t ever make it as far as presumptive nominee.

  • http://www.BillBowenAuthor.com RightinSanFrancisco

    The real reasons:
    – 27% right track; 65% wrong track.
    – Double digits – economy most important issue
    – Double digits Romney better than Obama on the economy.
    It’s not that complicated.

    www.RightinSanFrancisco.com

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    Name recognition and successful fundraising helped overshadow his flaws.

    I can go through all his flaws, but then you would complain that I’m knocking the nominee.

  • rightlane1111

    I could try this html bit…but it does not work on this website. So…please click on this so you can see the latest…and of ALL PLACES…THE NEW YORK TIMES

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/us/politics/shift-on-executive-powers-let-obama-bypass-congress.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

    Don’t want to…well then I guess you have missed out on Obama bypassing Congress…and now it is official. People want to be represented…they don’t want a dictatorship.

  • rightlane1111

    nt

  • clintonformccain

    Maybe he’s not deeply flawed after all.

    We have a candidate with some flaws (everybody has ‘em!) and some very strong positive attributes. Balance the two out and I would probably put Romney in the “he’s an OK candidate” category. He’s not a “bases loaded homerun” candidate, but I’m not sure “deeply flawed” is a fair and balanced characterization. Name recognition and successful fundraising are two pretty important positive attributes — a pair that no other candidate in the Republican field this year had.

  • snowshooze

    I would be happy if any Republican won in the General.
    I would be even happier if that Republican was a conservative.

  • hls87

    1968 was a close election as is typical when there is no significant ideological distinction between the two major party candidates.

  • kev2m6

    in the past who have lost, as Santorum and especially Gingrich have pointed out many many times. However, both Newt and Rick have tried to convince voters that Bob Dole lost because he was a moderate, not the booming economy under Clinton and the Republican Congress or his image as too old. McCain lost because he reached across the aisle or he was too moderate but not because the outgoing president was wildly unpopular and the the massive media endorsement of Barack Obama, a junior Senator with almost no experience. And the whole economy collapsing in September didn’t help McCain either. What had screaming at the TV though, was Rick Santorum’s constant reference and comparisons to the 1976 GOP Primary. We ran the incumbant, but unelected moderate president Gerry Ford. He lost to Jimmy Carter in the general after beating Reagan in the primary. Okay, granted Reagan may have been a better candidate (even though Santorum and Newt saw it as a flaw to run in more than one election and this was Reagan’s second…out of three) but Reagan wasn’t running against Carter with four years of disaster behind him, Carter had four years of Watergate-less promise in front him. Reagan even did not have evangelicals in ’76, they were behind Carter through the election until he betrayed their support and started cracking down on school prayer. Had Reagan ran in the general and lost to Carter, it may have derailed any future hopes and possibly damaged the nation beyond repair. Ford lost because of Watergate and pardoning Nixon and the recession and inflation, not because he was a moderate. So if I am just a dumb conservative who supported Romney since November, I must have been brainwashed by the media but smart enough not to fall for all the false comparisons and reasoning about how moderates lose because they are moderates, not the actual issues of the specific election. And what media is in the tank for Romney? Simply saying Romney has the overwhelming lead and will likely be the nominee is objective reporting, not being in the tank. Once Obamamania starts again, you wont see anything resembling objective. Read Romney’s record as governor and compare it to Reagan’s record as governor, if anything, considering the 85% opposition legislature, Romney was by far more conservative. It matters what you do as president and Romney was the only electable candidate with executive experience which is why he was the more conservative in 2008. Reagan “ran” for office in ’68, ’76, and ’80 and ’80 was the year we needed it the most and we need Mitt in ’12 just as much as we will need Mitt or any Republican in ’16 if Obama wins because of people like you insisting we bash Romney until 60 days before the general election.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    He is as capable a candidate as Bush in 2000, GHWBush in 1988, etc. In fact, he’s as articulate and smarter than any GOP candidate in a long while. As with any candidate, he has strengths and weaknesses, but ‘deeply flawed’ implies the kind of closted skeletons that will kill his campaign. Romney doesnt have that. Erick’s Romney-skepticism is getting the better of him there.

    The truth is this: Obama is a DEEPLY FLAWED PRESIDENT.

    It’s the economy. Fewer jobs now than in 2007. Nice way Erick painted it – Obama’s campaign is one of Wizard of Oz like distraction – pay no attention to the lousy economy behind the screen.

    I would call Obama’s campaign the PINK SLIME CAMPAIGN. throw pink slime out there to attack Romney and see what sticks.

    That Dog wont hunt. A little dog could smell it out. Obama will be in the voters’ doghouse soon enough. Seriously, he’s going to the dogs. Bowwow.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Maybe Erick feels the need to kick Romney in the shins as a way of not losing his conservative street cred.

    Or maybe he really thinks Romney’s problems are somehow ‘deep’. It begs a question, if they were so deep, how did he win so far? Well, maybe he really thinks Romney should have gotten the nomination in a walk despite all that. The latter view is odd to me because I would think nominating a mormon moderate from Massachusetts in the GOP would be a HARD thing. (And if his ‘flaws’ are “He’s a moderate” I dont get how that is a flaw for his electability, even if it makes him less of a ‘win’ for conservatives.) The fact that Romney campaign achieved it doesnt suggest ‘deep flaws’ but a battle hardened campaign that knows how to win.

    Romney has flaws? Yes. “deeply flawed”(*) No. If he were, we’d be talking about nominee Santorum or Newt.

    (*) By analogy, in 2010 Christine O’Donnell was a ‘deeply flawed’ candidate, with enough flakiness that made her unelectable. Ken Buck (Erick endorsed), who also lost in 2010 in Colorado, was not ‘deeply flawed’ but still lost.
    You cant credibly argue that Romney is in the un-electable category now that he is running ahead of Obama in polls.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’d say it was in the middle, not close or a blowout. Nixon beat him by 110 EVs, 301-191 with Wallace getting 46.

  • northeastred

    is that Obama is going to paint him as some hedge fund elitist who wants to come back to Washington and return the country to 2008 again. The Democrats will argue that yes, it is taking a long time to return the economy to Clinton-type growth, but now is not the time to give Republicans the keys to the car again, blah, blah, blah.

    Romney does not convince anyone that he has anyone but his donor/lobbyist friends’ best interests at heart. And not many people believe that what’s good for Mitt is good for America anymore.

    Somehow, he has to just keep hammering away at gas prices, and inflation and relate to middle class issues of rising college tuition–things he probably knows or cares little about. But it’s his only chance.

  • renl57

    George Romney made the gaffe of all time when, after a long period of vagueness on the Vietnam War, he announced:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSdSiBehQpI

    As for why LBJ chose not to run and why Humphrey had trouble, it’s because the entire left-wing of the Dem Party walked out on them over the Vietnam War.

    The Dem National Convention reflected this party split, with violence:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epxmX_58tOo

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj9TkjL87Rk

    You need to learn more about this period in American history.

    I lived through it.

  • lapert

    The final electoral vote was that close, but it was close in the popular vote between Nixon and Humphrey and a 2 point swing in MO and NJ would have deprived Nixon a majority in the electoral vote as well – which is similar to the spread in OH in 2004.

  • zachv

    … is paramount. In all of the most recent high profile court decision, we’ve been pulling out 5-4 squeakers. If Obama gets another 4 years, we’re done for.

  • zachv

    … and let us PRAY that Erick’s prediction that the economy fumbles again is not true. We need the presidency, but we don’t need more job losses and bankrupt companies.

  • powertothepeople

    and this is the problem the republican party has had for many years.

    Democrats know how to push their agenda on every front, we do not. While I will concede that the economy is the number one problem right now, the idea that we can not address or fix social woe or military problems right now because the economy sucks is absurd.

    Congress and the president work most of the year, well at least in their minds they do. Their is plenty of time to address all three legs of the conservative stool. Fixing the economy is a big deal, but if people we elect find their guts, it is a problem that can be cured with simple legislation. Going on that, plenty of time to address the other issues as well.

  • jon11

    people never have enough of saying moderate republicans can’t win and then pointing to Dole and McCain.

    Dole was up against a humming economy and a very talented, Charismatic politician in Clinton. Really and truely one of the best politcal performers of all time, whether you agree with word he said or not.

    2008 was referrendum on the Bush years. In addition to that McCain was facing an econmic collapse and the ‘historic’ opportunity Obama presented to elect America’s first black president.

    People were hysterical…if you recall. People who didn’t know a thing about Obama were tripping over each other to vote for him.

    It was the perfect storm, and it won’t happen again.

    Reagan’s Ghost couldn’t have won in 2008.

    Romney will be the next president.

    I know im in the minority here, but im just not that impressed by career pols on either side.

    What told me all i needed to know about Santorum and Gingrich’s ‘core’ was that when they lost their positions in govt they hung around washington and lobbied. Or, im sorry, ‘consulted.’

    Romney lost in 1994 and went back to work. Thats who he is. Thats his core. He’s a wildly successful businessman who’s forgotten more about the real economy and free enterprise than most ‘public servants’ will ever know.

    A guy who makes it in the real world, who builds a successful company and does it squeeky clean…not a hint of scandal to be found…im more impressed by that and have more respect for that than i do anything a politician can do in office…or say on the campaign trail.

    Romney’s a smart, talented guy…a little stiff, a little short on charisma…sure. But he’s disciplined and focused. He keeps it about jobs and the economy. He stays out of the weeds. and he’ll make a good president.

    I don’t want or need moral or spiritual guidance from my president.

    Let me repeat that.

    I don’t want it.

    I don’t need it.

    I get that from my bible, my church, my family, my close friends.

    All i want from the president is a solution to our debt crisis (entitlement reform), a tax code that is simple and fair and will encourage growth, less regulation and a strong defense.

    Everything else, i can take care of myself.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Also the popular vote is meaningless with a regional third party candidate involved.

    Sheesh.

  • acat

    Our founding fathers were bright enough to recognize that mob rule is a Bad Idea!

    Mew

  • lapert

    Of course we don’t, but it can be a good indicator of how close the election was. If you lined up all election looking at how much of the popular vote you had to flip to turn enough states to change the electoral results you would have as good an indication of relative closeness as I can think of. An electoral landslide where every state was won by 1% of the vote is a lot closer than a 271 electoral majority where every state was won by 10%..

    Sheesh.

  • checkmate2012

    and no politician can provide enough crap for anyone-they need to get our of our lives and that would be good enough for me. ABO!

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    My views mirror yours. Romney certainly would not have been, indeed was not my first choice but Gingrich and Santorum were both flawed and in my view toxic candidates.

    I don’t want a crusader nor a moralist like G W Bush right now, I want someone smart, business oriented, and a problem solver.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The election is contested and won over EVs, not popular votes.

  • jakeofalltrades

    There is no Constitutional right to vote for president; indeed, the states could let the governor choose who gets the electors, or hold a lottery.

  • lapert

    Sure, it is contested over electoral votes, but popular votes within the states drive electoral votes. If you change a certain number of popular votes in a certain states you change the electoral outcome.

    I think it is a good reflection of how close a race is by looking at how small that shift needs to be to change the outcome.When I look for a close election I care about what would be needed to change the outcome. As an analogy, a 13 point win in football where the final play was an interception in the end zone returned for a TD is a closer game than one where a team went up 10 in the first quarter and nobody scores after that.

    Again I would point to my admittedly exaggerated hypothetical – is the closer election one where someone won by 53 electoral votes cause they won California by .1% or where they won by 3 electoral votes with Vermont being the closest state at 10%? For me it is definitely the first one.

    In 1968, the two party vote had to shift relatively little to bring Nixon under 269 (and not all that much to give Humphrey the outright win) if that shift were uniform. That to me seems like the mark of a close election.

  • garfieldjl

    In a 3 way race, if one candidate gets over 50% of the popular vote Nationally, that candidate will usually win the genera election.

  • goodgovernance

    Romney needs a central theme to his campaign that will illuminate those positions and cut through all the clutter. That will show him to be an optimist and not just someone who constantly finds fault in all others except himself.

    Right now, the closest thing to a campaign theme Mitt has came from Ann Romney, when she said, “It’s Mitt’s time.” As much as I personally like Ann Romney, I just cringed when I heard her say that. It sounds so entitled.

    May as well print up new campaign posters that say”Romney: Because it’s his turn.”

  • lapert

    if one candidate gets over 50% of the popular vote nationally they will usually win the General Election.

  • sensiblethinking

    We better pray that these foolish, short-sighted men and women do NOT stay home just because they feel they cannot vote ‘for’ some one!

    In reality, they can, should and must for FOR saving our Democratic Republic from socialist destruction !!

    They need to ‘man up’ and focus on getting our liberties back.
    Romney was surely not my favorite, but I will work hard for him to win. Right now, he is our only hope to stop the dangerous man in the Oval Office.

  • sensiblethinking

    Stop your whining and get on board!!

    Stop with the ‘deeply flawed’ nonsense—you want ‘deeply flawed’–
    just look at who is in the Oval Office.

    Put your pride aside. Stop trying to sound so ‘in-the-know’ and realize that you are HELPING the other side !!!!!

  • sensiblethinking

    ‘romeg’ is right.

    Think about your children’s future.
    Think about your grand-children’s future.
    Think about common decency and honor.
    Think about all the class envy and race baiting that Obama has
    been doing.
    Think about saving FREE speech.
    Think about stopping, or slowing down the liberal media.
    Think about restoring our liberties.
    Please—just THINK !!!!!!!

  • gekster

    They rate Romney as Obama light, and will do as much if not more damage to the country.
    I think maybe Mau Tse Tong is the only person I know that would be worse than Obama.

  • sensiblethinking

    Rubio….
    Thought he was just wonderful til I heard the pro-amnesty nonsense….
    He is miles and miles ahead of Joe Biden!

  • sensiblethinking

    ‘clintonformccain’…
    There are lot’s of issues that would truly classify a candidate as
    [so-called] “deeply flawed”—successful fundraising and name
    recognition are surely not among them!

    This whole ‘deeply flawed’ business really sickens me–what the heck are these people thinking?!?!?!
    This is not the time to be pulling down the candidate.

  • sensiblethinking

    are right.

  • checkmate2012

    Uphold the Constitution is all you need to know. BO hates it because it limits his ability to be king. ABO is it in my book.

  • snowshooze

    But you can’t change it.

  • celador2

    One trend that has emerged with the disgusting failed policies of Obama and his super majority Democrats 2009 are the winners and losers of their policies. We know now that intellectual curiosity and exploration with R an D did not drive solar green energy guaranteed loans. Cronyism over merit was the name of the game and would become Obama’s signature operating style. .

    The massive bailouts favored Fannie Freddie, GM, AIG, big banks and had public funds paying down mortgages for those who were too misguided to read fine print. The Chairman of Federal Reserve Bernarke swaped bonds with foreign banks., printed and kept interest rates low artifically to help some borrow more easily. Reps Paul Ryan and Ron Paul among other have accused Bernarke of creating a bubble with the low rates and of devaluing the dollar.

    Savers, beware as interest on CDs will remain low through 2014 at least. Your incomes will remain lower than they might be.

    The super majority Democrats’ 787 billion dollar stimulus did not jump the economy anymore than ACA reduced health care costs. One way Obama would fund covering more people including healthy people, many youth from family plans was to abolish Medicare Advantage after the election.

    Greta’s OTR guest, Sen Kyl reported tonight Advantage would go after the election but was to be funded through this year. Advantage is a subsidized supplemental insurance popular among seniors. 150 bil of the 500 raided from Medicare to cover Obamacare would transfer from Advantage. Seniors who save to support themselves and rely on Medicare Advantage lose with Obama policies. .

    Romney needs policy plans in concrete jingles and short and sweet like Newt’s Contract in 1994. Not only economic poilcies and jobs affect voters. How will be restore the dollar, lower health care costs and save Medicare?

    He might compare his plans to the current actions of Obama that have raised Health care costs, removed Advantage and made the dollar of less value than four years ago.

    Since Democrats will say Republicans still want to hurt seniors and will claim the Democrats would save Social Security and Medicare. Romney and GOP must not let them steal that issue. Some things may have to change with the entitlements in the future, but Republicans must get the incumbent Obama on record where he stands.

  • elayman

    I’ll vote for the guy but there are still huge differences in skills required to be a successful CEO and a president of the United States Romney is not a consensus builder but an authoritarian. Business is run top down, like a dictatorship. We have a representative democracy, which is supposed to be run bottom up.

  • Martin Knight

    And yes, everyone knows it can’t be changed.

  • ohiohistorian

    You can harangue all you want, but unless you can show why to vote FOR (not AGAINST the opponent), people are much less motivated than the group who will vote FOR Obama. Address the point; find reasons to vote FOR Romney.

  • ohiohistorian

    These can be framed to be reasons to vote FOR Romney. However, he put his foot in his mouth yesterday when he said that he was in favor of extending the student loan interest rate support. Giving more money away that we don’t have is not the reason I will vote FOR him. Taking issues away from Obama by saying “I am in favor of them, too” is such an idiotic stance. He will not get voters FOR him this way; he will simply cut some of the people who will vote AGAINST him.

  • ohiohistorian

    Not sure how to make the issue resonate. Romney should articulate that conservative judges, Constitutionalists, will be nominated, not either “moderate” nor “Constitutional as a living document” judges. A typical President may appoint over 100 judges. Also, if the meme plays out, he may get to nominate replacements for Scalia and Kennedy who are both in their late 70′s.

  • ohiohistorian

    Who is still in the race? Ron Paul is the only other candidate that I see running. Gingrich is limping, maybe, but you expect him and Ron Paul to keep Romney from the 60% average he needs to capture the necessary delegates?

  • snowshooze

    Don’t take it so personal, I argue to stave off boredom sometimes.
    But I am interested in hearing any winning points and positive attributes that Romney may have hidden away somewhere…
    I looked everywhere…zip.

  • Martin Knight

    Here’s a positive attribute; unlike John McCain – he hits back. Hard.