For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
7 Reasons Why Mitt Romney’s Electability Is A Myth
Written By : John Hawkins

Mitt Romney was a moderate governor in Massachusetts with an unimpressive record of governance. He left office with an approval rating in the thirties and his signature achievement, Romneycare, was a Hurricane Katrina style disaster for the state. Since that’s the case, it’s fair to ask what a Republican who’s not conservative and can’t even carry his own state brings to the table for GOP primary voters. The answer is always the same: Mitt Romney is supposed to be “the most electable” candidate. This is a baffling argument because many people just seem to assume it’s true, despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary.

1) People just don’t like Mitt: The entire GOP primary process so far has consisted of Republican voters desperately trying to find an alternative to Mitt Romney. Doesn’t it say something that GOP primary voters have, at one time or another, preferred Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now even Ron Paul (In Iowa) to Mitt Romney?

To some people, this is a plus. They think that if conservatives don’t like Mitt Romney, that means moderates will like him. This misunderstands how the process of attracting independent voters works in a presidential race. While it’s true the swayable moderates don’t want to support a candidate they view as an extremist, they also don’t just automatically gravitate towards the most “moderate” candidate. To the contrary, independent voters tend to be moved by the excitement of the candidate’s base (See John McCain vs. Barack Obama for an example of how this works). This is how a very conservative candidate like Ronald Reagan could win landslide victories. He avoided being labeled an extremist as Goldwater was; yet his supporters were incredibly enthusiastic and moderates responded to it.

Let’s be perfectly honest: Mitt Romney excites no one except for Mormons, political consultants, and Jennifer Rubin. To everybody else on the right, Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama would be a “lesser of two evils” election where we’d grudgingly back Mitt because we wouldn’t lose as badly with him in the White House as we would with Obama. That’s not the sort of thing that gets people fired up to make phone calls, canvass neighborhoods, or even put up “I heart Mitt” signs in their yards.

2) He’s a proven political loser: There’s a reason Mitt Romney has been able to say that he’s “not a career politician.” It’s because he’s not very good at politics. He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994. Although he did win the governorship of Massachusetts in 2002, he did it without cracking 50% of the vote. Worse yet, he left office as the 48th most popular governor in America and would have lost if he had run again in 2006. Then, to top that off, he failed to capture the GOP nomination in 2008. This time around, despite having almost every advantage over what many people consider to be a weak field of candidates, Romney is still desperately struggling. Choosing Romney as the GOP nominee after running up that sort of track record would be like promoting a first baseman hitting .225 in AAA to the majors.

3) Running weak in the southern states: Barack Obama won North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida in 2008 and you can be sure that he will be targeting all three of those states again. This is a problem for Romney because he would be much less likely than either Gingrich or Perry to carry any of those states. Moderate northern Republicans have consistently performed poorly in the south and Romney won’t be any exception. That was certainly the case in 2008 when both McCain and Huckabee dominated Romney in primaries across the south. Mitt didn’t win a single primary in a southern state and although he finished second in Florida, he wasn’t even competitive in North Carolina or Virginia. Since losing any one of those states could be enough to hand the election to Obama in a close race, Mitt’s weakness there is no small matter.

4) His advantages disappear in a general election: It’s actually amazing that Mitt Romney isn’t lapping the whole field by 50 points because he has every advantage. Mitt has been running for President longer than the other contenders. He has more money and a better organization than the other candidates. The party establishment and inside the beltway media are firmly in his corner. That’s why the other nominees have been absolutely savaged while Romney, like John McCain before him, has been allowed to skate through the primaries without receiving serious scrutiny.

Yet, every one of those advantages disappears if he becomes the nominee. Suddenly Obama will be the more experienced candidate in the race for the presidency. He will also have more money and a better organization than Mitt. Moreover, in a general election, the establishment and beltway media will be aligned against Romney, not for him. Suddenly, Romney will go from getting a free pass to being public enemy #1 for the entire mainstream media.

If you took all those advantages away from Romney in the GOP primary, he’d be fighting with Jon Huntsman to stay out of last place. So, what happens when he’s the nominee and suddenly, all the pillars that have barely kept him propped up in SECOND place so far are suddenly removed? It may not be pretty.

5) Bain Capital: Mitt Romney became rich working for Bain Capital. This has been a plus for Romney in the Republican primaries where the grassroots tend to be dominated by people who love capitalism and the free market. However, in a year when Obama will be running a populist campaign and Occupy Wall Street is demonizing the “1%,” Mitt Romney will be a TAILOR MADE villain for them. Did you know that Bain Capital gutted companies and made a lot of money, in part, by laying off a lot of poor and middle class Americans? Do you know that Bain Capital got a federal bailout and Mitt Romney made lots of money off of it?

“The way the company was rescued was with a federal bailout of $10 million,” the ad says. “The rest of us had to absorb the loss … Romney? He and others made $4 million in this deal. … Mitt Romney: Maybe he’s just against government when it helps working men and women.”

The facts of the Bain & Co. turnaround are a little more complicated, but a Boston Globe report from 1994 confirms that Bain saw several million dollars in loans forgiven by the FDIC, which had taken over Bain’s failed creditor, the Bank of New England.

Did you know Ted Kennedy beat Romney in 1994 by hammering Mitt relentlessly on his time at Bain Capital? No wonder. The ads write themselves.

Imagine pictures of dilapidated, long since closed factories. They trot out scruffy looking workers talking about how bad life has been since Mitt Romney crushed their dreams and cost them their jobs. Then they show a clip of Mitt making his $10,000 bet and posing with money in his clothes. All Mitt needs is a monocle and a sniveling Waylon Smithers type character to follow him around shining his shoes to make him into the prototypical bad guy the Democrats are trying to create.

Now, the point of this isn’t to say that what Mitt did at Bain Capital was dishonorable. It certainly wasn’t. To the contrary, as a conservative, I find his work in the private sector to be just about the only thing he has going for him. But, people should realize that in a general election, Mitt’s time at Bain Capital will probably end up being somewhere between a small asset and a large liability, depending on which side does a better job of defining it.

6) The Mormon Factor: This is a sensitive topic; so I am going to handle it much, much more gently than Hollywood and the mainstream media will if Mitt gets the nomination. Mormons do believe in Jesus Christ, the Mormon Church does a lot of good work, the ones I’ve met seem to be good people, and two of my best friends are Mormons. That being said, Mormons are not considered to be a mainstream Christian religion in large swathes of the country. There will be Protestants who will have deep reservations about voting a Mormon into the White House because they’ll be afraid it will help promote what they believe to be a false religion. There have also been a number of polls that show that significant numbers of Americans won’t vote for a Mormon as President.

Just look at a couple of the more recent polls and consider how much of an impact this issue could have in a close election.

The poll found 67 percent of Americans want the president to be Christian and 52 percent said they consider Mormons to be Christian. Twenty-two percent of those polled said they don’t think Mormons are Christians and 26 percent are unsure.

“I do believe they are moral people, but again there is a difference between being moral and being saved,” Linda Dameron, an evangelical Republican in Independence, Mo., told the Tribune.

More than 40 percent of Americans would be uncomfortable with a Mormon as president, according to a new survey that also suggests that as more white evangelical voters have learned White House hopeful Mitt Romney is Mormon, the less they like him.

A survey by the Public Religion Research Institute released late Monday also shows that nearly half of white evangelical Protestant voters — a key demographic in the Republican primary race — don’t believe that Mormonism is a Christian faith, and about two-thirds of adults say the LDS faith is somewhat or very different than their own.

You should also keep in mind that if Mitt Romney gets the nomination, Hollywood and the mainstream media will conduct a vicious, months’ long hate campaign against the Mormon Church. They will take every opportunity to make Mormons look weird, racist, kooky, scary, and different. Would this be a decisive factor? I’d like to say no, but by the time all is said and done, it’s very easy to see Romney potentially losing hundreds of thousands of votes across the country because of his religion.

7) He’s a flip-flopper. Maybe my memory is failing me, but didn’t George Bush beat John Kerry’s brains in with the “flip flopper” charge back in 2004? So now, just eight years later, the GOP is going to run someone that even our own side agrees is a flip-flopper right out of the gate? Romney doesn’t even handle the charge well. When Brett Baier at Fox pointed out the obvious, Romney’s response was to get huffy and deny that he was flip flopping, which is kind of like Lady Gaga denying that she likes to get attention. If Mitt can’t even handle run-of-the-mill questions from FOX NEWS about his flip flopping, what makes anyone think he can deal with the rest of the press in a general election?

There are a lot of issues with trying to run a candidate who doesn’t seem to have any core principles. It makes it impossible for his supporters to get excited about him because you can’t fall in love with a weathervane. Even worse, since politicians tend to be such liars anyway and you know Romney has no firm beliefs, it’s very easy for everyone to assume the worst. Democrats will feel that Romney will be a right wing death-beast. Republicans will think that Romney will screw them over. Independents won’t know what to believe, which will make the hundreds of millions that Obama will spend on attack ads particularly effective. Ronald Reagan famously said the GOP needed “a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors.” That’s particularly relevant when it comes to Mitt Romney who has proven to be a pasty grey pile of formless mush.

3
  • Bill Dalasio

    Interesting list of arguments.  However, I do think you missed one:  the absence of an imperative to change.  At the end of the day, there’s not much that Mr. Romney is offering that is distinguishing himself from Barack Obama.  They basically share the same premises.  I mean, who out there is saying, “Wow!  Obama has really put us on the wrong track.  I know, let’s replace him with Mitt Romney!”  It just doesn’t make sense.  If you think Mr. Romney is the right way to go for the Republicans, you probably don’t think Mr. Obama’s policies are all that bad.  
    I’m not attacking Mr. Romney.  In many ways he seems like a decent guy.  Maybe an administration or two ago, he would have made a fine choice for president.  But, right now, we’re approaching the abyss.  It’s going to take more than simply taking our national foot off of the accelerator of Mr. Romney’s, Mr. Obama’s, Mr. Bush’s and Mr. Clinton’s shared assumptions to avoid catastrophe.  

    • Martin Hale

      Congratulations on being the only non-Ron Paul commenter in a while Bill. 

      • Bill Dalasio

        Heh.  Thanks, Mr. Hale.  Yesterday’s mega-thread seemed to split pretty evenly between the “Ron Paul is the Second Coming” loons and the “Ron Paul is the Anti-Christ” loons. 

        • President Friedman

          Looks like it is still going on.  Could it break 500 posts?  What is the record # of posts on a RWN comment thread, anyway?

          I like Ron Paul, but I’ve long since learned to stay the hell away from any thread where more than two or three of his ardent supporters show up at the same time.

          • Anonymous

            In the old days it wasn’t unheard of for a thread to go over 600. (I know because on one thread someone made a post with the sole purpose of informing everyone that it was the 666th comment.)

          • President Friedman

            I remember some of them going well over 100, but couldn’t remember what the upper limit was.  

            Ah, the old days.  

            One of the biggest surprises of the Obama Presidency for me has been the toll it has taken on the RWN comments section.   It drove Trench and Stan so nuts they got themselves banned. Somewhere in there a host of other long time commenters just quit posting here… Mike M, Cerebrum, Huckupchuck, Good Ol Boy, Economic Liberty… I’m sure there are some others I am forgetting.

            Kind of a shame… now that most of the trolls are gone, the folks who used to complain about them  are gone too.

          • Anonymous

            P_F: I’ll tell you why I stopped commenting.  There are a number of reasons.  First is that I find RWN’s transformation to an aggregator site to be unappealing.  There’s too much clutter.  Second, there is very little posted here that I find to have any intellectual value anymore.  It’s mostly just hyperbolic screeds.  Third, the moderators got way too overzealous in deleting posts they considered troll commentary.  Even any thoughtful criticism was deemed trollish and was deleted.  Fourth, the quality of the commenting really deteriorated.  I still read RWN on occasion, just to keep my pulse on what insanity passes for conventional rightwing thinking these days.  Fifth, comment threads aren’t around for nearly as long as they used to be, and it’s just not possible to keep up a sustained comment thread any more over a fair amount of time that a busy working man can handle.

            I may start commenting again based on your evaluation of how the blog has changed for the better.  I hope so, but I honestly don’t see much of that change you are talking about.

          • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

            First is that I find RWN’s transformation to an aggregator site to be unappealing.

            I think the repeated changes have turned a lot of people off, and this latest incarnation really was the last straw for many people.  It almost was for me.

          • Martin Hale

            Well, PF, as of 17:43 the count is at 447 – I’m thinking it’s going to reach 500 before it dries up completely.

            John did himself a real favour by publishing that one – lots of traffic and page views. 

  • MFG

    I have read you for years and enjoyed your columns but I am beginning to find your demented anti Romney screeds increasingly deplorable

    He is going to be the nominee at what point are you going to come to grips with reality?

    • Bill Dalasio

      And if we think Barack Obama is going to beat Mitt Romney, we should back him, too, right? 

      • JoeBritton

        Nobody is going to beat Obama, fool. Obama hasn’t even been on the campaign trail yet, and the latest polls show him beating all of GOP primary candidates, even after, one after the next, openly campaigned against him and his alleged faults. It is not even going to be close.

        • Anonymous

          Ha! Obama hasn’t been on the campaign trail. That’s a good one.

        • Anonymous

          . Obama hasn’t even been on the campaign trail yet :
          He has never been off it !

        • Bill Dalasio

          As always, shergald, you are profoundly unserious.

  • MFG

    Also a nice touch to play the Mormon card while decrying the use of the Mormon card

    Have you ever thought of how you are going to walk back all of these self beclowning statements when Mitt is the nominee?

    • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

      If you think his being a Mormon is not a factor, you’re a bit misguided, let’s say.

  • http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

    I would say that Romney was electable, but now has become damaged. He should have stuck to his record and been proud of it. Now he is just political All Sorts, a mixed swill of wishy washy political backwash.

  • President Friedman

    I would take these criticisms a lot more seriously from somebody who wasn’t endorsing Newt.   Declaring Romney unelectable while endorsing Newt Gingrich is like arguing over whether people prefer broiled beef tongue to broiled sheep tongue.  

  • http://twitter.com/murmur55 murmur55

    Romney also was Gov of a state that ran the most violent, misogynistic, fraudulent medical center in the USA. Multiple women doctors had their lives destroyed by personality disordered men. Multiple women patients were sexually assaulted by abusive doctors who were supported by the state and federal taxpayers. 

  • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

    I don’t think Romney is any more or less electable than any other GOP candidate except Paul or Bachmann.  He’s got his drawbacks and his advantages.

    • Mikebert

      Exactly.  So one should vote for Romney only if one wants Romney to be president.  It seems clear that voters don’t really like Romney.

      Every single nominee has been a Protestant, so why is Mormon even being considered?  There has never been a Mormon president, so the Republicans are now supposed to elect the first one?  Since when is the GOP the party of *diversity*?

      Nothing against Mormons, but if the GOP is going to stray from tradition why not at least start with a Catholic?

      And what is with Cain and Bachman?  Every president has been a white man, except one, who is both a Dmeocrat and the guy we are trying the defeat.  What the heck, is Obama not diverse enough for Republicans nowadays?

      If you just stick with people who at least vaguely resemble real-life presidents (e.g. no President Palmers) and who have any stature at all, you have just Perry and Gingrich.

      Both men are Southerners so that is a plus.  But otherwise the comparison is all in Perry’s favor.  Perry is a three-term governor of the largest red state.  He is still quite popular and could easily win another term.  Gingrich left the Speakership in disgrace and is disliked by most Republicans who ever worked with him  If Gingrich has what it takes to win the presidency he would have run 10 years ago

      This leaves Perry as the only major candidate who fills all the traditional requirements for a Republican nominee and who hasn’t demonstrated epic fail in office.  This business about immigration is a MSM meme.  Heck Gingrich is just as soft on immigration if not more so.  Besides Perry is a Texan.  Texans have always had a more amicable relationship with Mexicans because ethnic Mexicans have been part of Texas since the revolution.

      IMO opinion Perry is a no-brainer.  What do I have wrong here?

      • MFG

        Perry can’t speak English and he isn’t very bright

        • Mikebert

          Has being bright made for great presidents?  Coolidge was no brainiac, yet he was a pretty good president.  George W Bush had trouble with diction yet he won two elections against arguably brighter and better-spoken opponents.  So why should a lack of brilliance or a golden tongue disqualify Perry?

          Won’t the comparison between Perry and Obama in debates underline the difference between the suave, sophisticated know-it-all (their guy) and our common-sense, plain-spoken man of the people (our guy)?

          With Gingrich you will have the war of the college professors (since when is the GOP the party of college professors)  and with Romney you will have a GOP Kerry, which Obama will destroy with his own statements.

        • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

          This one always cracks me up, its the mindset that decided President Obama is brilliant because he was a smooth talker.  That doesn’t prove a thing about intelligence.  It used to be that the less eloquent and more awkward a speaker you were, the more of a genius people figured you had to be.

      • President Friedman

        I like Perry, but Perry stood on stage and promised to shut down the Department of Education (along with Commerce and Energy).  I think shutting down the Department of Education is a wonderful idea, but I also accept that such a viewpoint is much too extreme for a large part of the voting public, and such a statement effectively makes it impossible for Perry to win any of the populous states in the region north of the Mason Dixon line and east of the Mississippi…  and Republicans can’t win the Presidency without bringing home at least one of those states and the electoral votes that come with it.

        The “oops” moment made Perry look incredibly stupid, and that is a theme he would have to fight but could possibly overcome… but the bigger issue is what he was actually trying to say during the ‘oops’ moment.   

        It is possible (barely) the right candidate could stand before the American people and make convincing arguments as to why one or some of these departments are unConstitutional and should be shut down, but Perry does not have the rhetorical chops to do it.   Especially in regards to Education he will come across as a dumb redneck who thinks book learnin’ is overrated (which he isn’t).

        Again, ‘m not a Perry hater.  I have problems with some of his policy as Governer, but I respect his defense of those items in terms of Federalism (the same argument that I think makes Romney a better candidate than Newt) I’m not sure that Perry is really all that conservative, but he would be a better President than Newt or Romney… but he’s never going to be President.  It is a pipe dream, and people who think he has a shot are kidding themselves as much as any Ron Paul supporter who says the same (Ron Paul actually does BETTER than Perry against Obama in most national polls).

        • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

          I think Perry is hurt by being a poorly spoken Texan, something people are too familiar with right now.  I liked President Bush a great deal but I can see not wanting another.

          • President Friedman

            There is definitely a “Bush factor” that hurts Perry.  I think he is more conservative than Bush,(for instance, Perry wants to eliminate the Department of Education, while Bush enthusiastically doubled its budget and dramatically increased its authority in the states) 
             but for the most part it is way too easy to draw insubstantial-but-probably-devastating comparisons between the two. 

            That’s even true in the primaries, where Perry should be able to shine in this weak field… his single biggest mistake was his “heartless” comments regarding the Texas DREAM act’s opponents.  Instantly, every conservative in the USA had flashbacks to GWB and ‘compassionate conservatism’.   All other gaffes aside, I think that was the one where a lot of people who had been primed to support Perry said, “perhaps not”.

          • Mikebert

            Conservativism is supposed to be of the head not the heart. Doing the principled action no matter how unkind it may seem.  To make an omelet you have to break eggs.

            Perry’s comment is not out of line; the opponents are heartless.  Sometimes one has to be.  But since Perry is a human being he is going to have his share of human frailties like compassion.  So for this he should be disqualified?  In favor of Romney who isn’t even remotely conservative?

          • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

            I think he could have recovered from that idiotic statement if he’d been better spoken and stopped making stupid mistakes.

          • JoeBritton

            Perrys and Bushes are the only kinds of candidates Texas has to offer. Are you kidding?

        • Mikebert

          So what you are saying is conservatives should support a candidate who will lie to the public about what he believes?  If closing the Dept of Education is a good idea, then a candidate should proclaim it.

          I think people are way overrating the “electability” issue.  In an election like this one, its all about how the public views the incumbent.  If the economy sucks enough they will elect a cucumber.  And if the economy recovers then even a reincarnated Reagan will lose.

          So the key is to nominate the man who is best for the job–regardless of “electability”.  Then if the economy goes down the tubes, there will be a silver lining in that the sort of president conservatives believe is necessary gets into office.  And if Obama wins, this means the economy has improved (because that’s the only way he can win) and that in itself is a good thing.

          It seems like a no lose situation.

          You only get a Republican victory is the economy doesn’t improve, in which case it may well weaken before it improves.  Suppose the economy does weaken.  When his advisors come to him with an “economic rescue plan”, will the president resist the siren call to intervene?. Mr Romney, who touts a 59-point economic plan, is going to intervene. Mr. Perry, who has less grasp of economics, will be more likely to hold tough and do nothing.

          • President Friedman

            I guess I just disagree with you on the degree to which ‘electability’ can swing an election.   George W. Bush should have been easy pickings in 2004, but he Dems picked a horrible candidate in John Kerry (who still came very close to beating Bush).    The exact same thing could happen to Republicans in 2012, and it could happen whether the economy gets worse or better.

            There are some candidates who will scare away all but the most dedicated conservative voters, and there are some candidates who conservatives will hold their nose and vote for who also can attract moderate independent voters. 
            I’m just saying that if your main goal is to unseat Obama, you can chose between Newt, Romney, or possibly Huntsman.
            Anything else is a principled stand for a sure loser.  I don’t blame anyone for taking such a stand.  I’ve taken one myself.  I just don’t think it is healthy to delude ourselves about the prospects of such candidates.  

        • JoeBritton

          “he will come across as a dumb redneck who thinks book learnin’ is overrated”

          Maybe you should take a look at Perry’s academic credentials and performance before you speak. George W is probably the only other Republican who got by without at least an average intellectual and academic standard of performance. It will not happen again.

  • Anonymous

    The nomination of mr. romneycare = the re-election of THE WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

  • Anonymous

    The nomination of mr. romneycare = the re-election of THE WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

  • Mannning

    May God give us a Republican President.!  It seems that all of our candidates have serious flaws that may hinder their electability.  I will take any of them but Paul happily.

  • Rufusfrodo

    yes all true, yet 19 states have open presidential primaries, so ALL can vote either side of ballot…..AND with 40 + percent STILL support BHO …….the chance of a RINO being “elected” for the Republi-crats is tooooooo risky…….

  • JoeBritton

    It is surprising to say the least that anyone is taking the GOP primaries seriously at all. It is not so much the mutual destruction going on, but that Obama hasn’t paid a dime to slay all of these dragons. The only one missing in this circus is Sarah Palin. I once thought she was the biggest nut of all; but now I’m thinking she was the shrewd one staying out of it. She got her millions and left the scene. And the Tea Party will soom follow her.

    This is Obama’s year, the second term, and there’s no daffy Reagan personality out there capable of beating him. Romney has the best chance of losing by less than 5 points. The rest, let’s forget them. Think 2016.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dora-Wong/100003270734815 Dora Wong

    Life is lonely and sometimes even boring. You may need a fresh thing to excite your mind. My best friend ,she met a sexy man and they love each other! they date via online dating -casualloving dot c’0M-it’s the most effective place in the world to connect with, to find intimate encounters.There you may easily have free scamming with charming and sexy girls or handsome men….Hope you like it!Good luck!

  • Pingback: RINO Mitt Romney now open to European-style VAT tax « Wintery Knight

  • Anonymous

    hes still preferable to the stink of obama

  • swcoolbreeze

    change the name and every reason was true of Lincoln.

Advertisement
Featured Video

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info