Jay Cost thinks Mac should pick Mitt. He says “it’s not even a close call”.
I’d quote directly from the article, but it’s reasonably long, and I think Cost’s main points can be summed up fairly easily.
1. McCain is viewed as an acceptable Republican and Obama is viewed as particularly risky.
2. McCain needs to find a way to highlight this, without diminishing his own brand.
3. Right now McCain and his camp are doing a terrible job and McCain in particular is simply not an effective attack dog.
4. Romney went on the attack repeatedly in the primaries, and though these attacks predictably damaged his own brand, they were remarkably effective at damaging his opponents.
5. If Romney is added to the ticket, he can land punches on Obama in an extremely effective manner, without harming McCain’s brand.
Read the whole thing.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Agree with all 5 points.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Good points. What was that article from last week explaining why Romney would never work as the pick?
July 30th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Interesting, hard to dispute he dished it out in the primaries. I agree with all 5 points.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Well, I half agree with point #3. McCain is 2 points down to Bambi right now. It’s not fair to characterize the job they’re doing as terrible.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Sorry, Jay Cost. But this election season isn’t going to be won by “attack dogs” — and Mitt Romney ain’t a particularly effective “attack dog” (to anyone that takes off their GOP-tinted glasses).
What would Romney attack Obama over? Flip-flops?
This is the stupidest point:
4. Romney went on the attack repeatedly in the primaries, and though these attacks predictably damaged his own brand, they were remarkably effective at damaging his opponents.
If you didn’t notice, that tactic didn’t work out so well for Mitt (ahem). Remarkably effective? Then why is our nominee the star of Mitt’s ‘contrast ads’?
It’s also very foolish to compare intra-party primaries with inter-party elections.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I totally agree, but Cost brings up an interesting point about the only reason to pick him is because he will be an effective attacker. As he explains it, I agree that McCain sucks at attacking, and that attacking Obama effectively will be crucial to winning in November.
This almost makes me think Romney should be McCain’s VP this year because I do think he would be the best choice to help McCain win. But, because I think we will lose either way in 2008, I’d rather not send a good man like Romney down with a flawed candidate like McCain.
I still the most likely result is 1976, where McCain soars at the end but falls just short. I think the consequences may be just as disastrous if Obama wins, as it was when Carter won. However, I also think that the turnaround in 2012 can be just as dramatic as it was in 1980.
It’s true that Obama will likely appoint 2 or 3 justices, in his first term. That truly will be a huge loss. However, I don’t think McCain would get anyone good through the Senate anyway, so I’d rather regroup so that from 2012-2020+ we can fix the court by replacing, the other 4 to 5 when we have a Senate that will confirm them.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Alex,
I can answer the last point I think. Romney helped ruin Rudy’s brand in November and December with his attacks on taxes and immigration. He helped ruin Fred’s in the same time period. He helped ruin Huckabee’s in late December and early January. At this point, basically everyone hated Romney, because he’d driven his negatives up through attacks; these voters weren’t going to turn him and McCain was the only one with a reasonably intact brand (mainly because he’d disappeared for a vast stretch of campaign). By the time Romney got around to trying to destroy McCain’s brand, it was too late; Rudy and Fred and, to a lesser extent, Huckabee, had faded and their former supporters didn’t like Romney. I think that’s the most plausible explanation for the events of the campaign; Romney drove up everyone’s negatives, including his own, save McCain’s. When Romney tried to drive up McCain’s negatives in January, voters mostly resisted, because he was the only thing standing between Romney, who they really hated, and the nomination.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
I disagree a little with the author because McCain is trying to get independents and democrats. I think that Romney as the smug, smirking, attack dog might turn off some of those who are unsure which way to go. Those Hillary voters over 40 who do not want to vote for Obama, may find Romney condescending.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
I loved when Romney compared Hillary and Obama to chiuawuas fighting over who was a bigger dog; classic. We need some more of that!
July 30th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
#4 is on to something, but fell short.
McCain is setting records for TV advertizing for a Republican. These attacks have been working, as the RCP average has closed to within the margin on error. A VP that can attack is just about worthless. This ties in to Alex’s point. We are not going to win by attacking Obama alone.
This election is about two gigantic personalities, identity politics and an electorate angry at Washington, they are not angry at the two Presidential candidates.
On who is a better attack dog, try this and tell me who was more effective?
McCain – Romney flip-flops
Romney – McCain is not a Conservative
Yeah, I’d say McCain did a little better. Jay Cost was smoking something funny.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
#9 Only problem with that example you gave, is the youtube video of Romney trying to get the African American vote and saying, “Who let the dogs out,” and “bling bling”. I think Obama supporters will be offended by that, especially down in the south.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
For the record, while I’m far from persuaded by Cost’s argument, it’s by far the best I’ve heard for a Romney choice. Romney’s not going to help McCain win over voters concerned about the economy, as I detailed in an earlier post. He’s relatively unlikely to bring Michigan into the fold. He’s not going to win over independents. But, if we assume that McCain’s high favorables, but relatively meager polling numbers, indicate that he has a strong and sustainable brand, it’s possible he could weather a Romney selection among independents. That is to say, while voters won’t say “now that Romney’s on the ticket I’ll vote for Mac”, they might say “I like Mac enough, that I’m not really bothered that Romney’s on the ticket”. In that case, using Romney as a means to bludgeon Obama to death might be relatively effective. Those are pretty significant assumptions though.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Agree on all. If McCain is looking for an attack dog, only Giuliani is close. Romney’s excellent at going on the attack without losing the message.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Actually, Matthew, your title is wrong, because this isn’t a good one for the Rombots. To agree with it they have to agree with the idea that Romney attacked in the primaries, and as I recall it, they tell us that Mitt never attacked anybody (he just ran ads that highlighted the differences between himself and his opponents).
I think Alex has it right — based on the little damage Mitt did to McCain with huge funding, how can he be called an effective attack dog?
July 30th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I think the odds are getting larger everyday that Obama is going to beat McCain because everyday foreign policy becomes less and less important.
I would say the odds of McCain winning are at best 40% and probably closer to 33%. Most of that is because there is a possibility that some terrible October event across the world reminds voters that this is still a dangerous world. Barring some huge event that moves foreign policy back up to a high priority for voters, McCain will lose. He cannot win if this is about domestic issues and right now it is more about domestic issues everyday.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
#15, we read you the first time. You have given up on 2008. Congrat’s.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:03 am
Kristopher,
Regarding whether Romney or McCain was more effective at attacking, you can’t really credit McCain with the flip flop attack.
The MSM, rightly or wrongly, created that image and cemented it in voters minds long before any candidate (including Romney) started running their own ads. The only effective attack McCain did was to lie about Romney wanting a timetable for withdrawal just before Florida. As Matthew points out, Romney took out the rest of the field.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:10 am
Not to mention how many conservatives are excited about McCain? Not this one and i’m still undecided so Romney adds excitement to the ticket.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:12 am
#17: McCain did not lie about that. Romney was for timetables. His words do not lie. It was one of the major turning points for me about Romney.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:12 am
#17, Romney took out the rest of the field? Not Huckabee.
McCain pushed the flip-flop at every chance, do not credit the media 100%.
Do not blame McCain for the fact that Romney explored the option of timetables.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:14 am
Metro Romney was not for a timetable for withdrawal, but clearly benchmarks that the Iraqi govt’ must meet. Didn’t Romney said he would flat out veto any timetable for withdrawal if it landed on his desk.So yes McCain did lie.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:15 am
Let’s not refight the primary all over again … but, you can’t find a quote anywhere that shows Romney said anything like that.
Why do you think every national news organization called McCain out for what he said about Romney. The Washington Post (surely no friend of Romney) gave McCain 3 Pinocchio for that lie.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:18 am
Kristopher,
I haven’t given up on 2008 at all. McCain definitely needs to position himself so that if an October event presents itself he will be ready to take advantage of it and beat Obama. But, he doesn’t need a future leader of the party campaigning as his VP to accomplish that.
Also, I think we should focus on minimizing our losses in the House and Senate so that in 2010 and 2012 we can retake Congress.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:19 am
#22 really, 15 seconds in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu1O_0AIJ1k
Romney is not a neo-con, and a no-go for McCain.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:25 am
“Romney is not a neo-con”
After 8 years of Bush I would think this is a good thing.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:32 am
Kristofer,
You can’t be serious with that clip. Did you listen to it? Honestly did you listen to the whole thing? Either you didn’t or you don’t know what you are talking about.
Every candidate in the field, every analyst, and even President Bush all believe exactly what Romney said. Are you telling me that you believe Bush should just tell Iraq in private, take as long as you want to form your government, it doesn’t matter to us. Of course you don’t believe that.
Bush, through Rice, had to tell Malaki, “Look you’ve got this much time to make X happen. We will do this to help you, but if X isn’t done then we won’t be able to sustain the Surge.”
The whole reason “timetables” are a terrible idea is because they let the enemy know how long they need to hold out. The Dems were for public timetables which is why they were criticized so harshly.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:42 am
No schizophrenics need apply for VP. That includes people who saw their dads march with Martin Luther King.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:42 am
#26, I listened to the entire thing.
I am a neoconservative, I believe it is our choice how long we stay, not the Iraqi PM’s. We dictate terms based on the rec. of our Generals, and only when we succeed, and he stay if there are strategic reasons to stay (invasion of Iran?). NO TIMETABLES FROM POLITICIANS.
btw, I believe it is in our best interest to stay at least 50 years or more.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:49 am
I agree that McCain better stop being negative or he’s screwed. Check out these statements I ran across:
Alex Castellanos, one of George W. Bush’s media mavens in 2000 and 2004, had a different take: “The problem is that ‘advertising’, i.e., anything that smells even faintly false, contradicts his persona,” Castellanos said. “John McCain is the un-cola of politics, the anti-politician. And few things are more political than negative commercials that draw attention to themselves as ‘advertising’ designed to manipulate voters and not as ‘information’ designed to inform them. You can’t be the un-cola and Coca Cola too.”
Democratic media specialist Bill Carrick’s analysis is very similar to Castellanos’. Carrick, who cut his political teeth in South Carolina, said:
“When your political persona and appeal are wrapped around the idea that you are not a typical politician, but an independent, above politics candidate, going negative can back-fire big time. John McCain’s core message is he is a bipartisan leader who will bring the country together. As he becomes a more polarizing and partisan figure, the campaign is undermining his core message and persona.”
July 31st, 2008 at 12:50 am
Ahhh…Romney, the smiling assasin. Romney as the VP Pick would make my day! Then I could get excited about the ticket, work for the ticket, donate a little bit (I’m quite poor these days, being self-employed and all), and do more than just hold my nose and vote for McCain in November.
For those of you who think McCain is going to lose – you should spend some time visiting the blogosphere. I was at the aol straw poll site and was reading comments on several polls.
The negative comments about Obama are so overwhelming (Republican, Democrats and Independents) that I feel very encouraged. It’s a cool site. You can only vote once, so I think it’s pretty reliable as a straw poll.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/straw-poll
From what I’m seeing on the Dem sites I go to. For over 300 anti-Obama sites, mostly by Dems, go to http://www.nobamanetwork.com/
The Rats are literally jumping ship. By the way, I think this is how the Republican Party has gotten so compromised over the years.
The Democratic Party has become so radical, that many thoughtful moderate, conservative yet Democratic-minded Americans can’t find a home there anymore.
Heck, the Dem Party (the socialists, really) doesn’t even want them anymore. See this article in Real Clear Politics, January 29, ’08: “Democrats Should Give ‘Blue Dogs’ the Boot” – Glenn Greenwald, Salon
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/29/blue_dogs_die/
July 31st, 2008 at 12:51 am
Romney = a George Bush third term. If you had a positive opinion of Bush and you didn’t live in the Bible Belt, you voted for Romney.
Yahoo headline: Al-Sadr tells followers not to attack Iraqi government forces
THIS. WAR. IS. OVER.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:58 am
Kristofer-your kind are part of the reason why Republicans got thumped in 2006. The GOP needs to get away from the neo-cons and return to a more sensible but tough foriegn policy.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:59 am
Sean, are you blaming voters instead of the politicians?!
July 31st, 2008 at 1:02 am
“Romney = a George Bush third term. If you had a positive opinion of Bush and you didn’t live in the Bible Belt, you voted for Romney”
That’s laughable for a couple of reasons
1)Romney is to the right of Bush on spending and immigration
2)I live in the Bible belt and voted for Romney
July 31st, 2008 at 1:03 am
#31, Actually the GOP lost in 2006 because they stole, cheated, lied, sexualized 16 year old interns and spent our $.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:03 am
Sampo i’m blaming Neo-Cons, Kristofer is one of them.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:10 am
1) Today he is. Hispanics hate him. End of story. Spending, no. But thanks for trying. Even Clinton was to the right of Bush on spending. Romney thinks universal health care is “fabulous”. Tax payer funded abortions a footnote in his “[F]abulous” plan.
2) You and a handful of Mormons did. Some even voted for Mickey Mouse, I reckon.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:14 am
“Tax payer funded abortions a footnote in his “[F]abulous” plan”
Are you seriously trying to play that again? It was a court order so get over it.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:15 am
Michigan:
Opinion of Bush Administration
Positive-(53%)- McCain 24, Romney 45
Negative-(45%)- McCain 37, Romney 28
Bush’s approval rating- low 20′s
Romney=4 years of Bush
July 31st, 2008 at 1:16 am
37, he didn’t have to call it fabulous. Romney b!tched about the courts legalizing gay marriage. He must have been out to lunch when the courts required him to use tax dollars for abortions.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:17 am
Cheneys— HUGE Romney fans, nuff said.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:17 am
Sampo really why are trying to fight this again? Romney has been promoting the 3 aspects of conservatism for the last year-Fiscal/economic,Social and national security.So me and a handful of Mormons got Romney to with in 3 points of winning Georgia? Nice try
July 31st, 2008 at 1:23 am
It amazes me no other candidate that ran this year covered all 3 legs of conservatism and we have people still on here whining and complaining about things he said 13 years ago.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:24 am
#42, Romney is not a Neo-Con. He covered 2 legs.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:24 am
Republicans need an economic wizard on the ticket. Mitt Romney is so much smarter than any other Republican candidate it’s ridiculous. Mitt graduated from Harvard Business School AND Harvard Law School. If that’s not enough, he graduated as a Baker Scholar – awarded only to the top 5% of each class! I can’t believe that some unknown lackluster lawyer from Minnesota is even being considered as an option. If McCain picks that Tim Pawlenty weirdo he’s screwed.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:32 am
#43 You don’t have to be a neo-con to be a national security conservative.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:35 am
44, In the immortal words of Jeff Lebowski, “that’s like your opinion, man.” Unfortunately for you, public opinion the exact opposite. Look at the exit polls.
But who cares about the common folk right? Well even the Reagan dinosaurs disagreed. Jack Kemp went to McCain. Steve Forbes went for Giuliani, then McCain said some pretty damaging stuff about Romney. George Will had no use for Romney.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:40 am
#46 public opinion has no effect on whether Romney is an intelligent person or not.McCain has admitted himself that he doesn’t know much about economics(which is frightening).
July 31st, 2008 at 1:42 am
no one cares. because negative-17%-romney will never get into the white house, or be VP for that matter. btw, way to paraphrase cheney with your “public opinion has no effect” babbling.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:51 am
Well if we’re gonna resurrect the primaries again…
GO FRED!!!!
July 31st, 2008 at 2:38 am
Oh, our dear friend Sampo that hates Romney blindly and with a passion. Wouldn’t it be sweet irony if sampo had to vote for Romney to vote for his/her favorite, McCain? Probably won’t happen, but I would relish that.
Oh and sampo, a little tip. You loose credibility when you mock Mitt Romney for not doing “anything” to stop Massachusetts from requiring taxpayer dollars for abortions when it was something out of his control. A little history here:
—-
In 1981, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruled That The State Constitution Required Payment For Abortion Services For Medicaid-Eligible Women. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On “The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right” Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
In 1997, The Supreme Judicial Court Reaffirmed Its Position That A State-Subsidized Plan Must Offer “Medically Necessary Abortions.” (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 1997)
—-
All this happened long before Mitt took office.
Now, here’s where you loose credibility. You make an attack on Romney for something like this when John McCain has done countless things against the conservative cause during his career or failed to prevent bad policy from taking place even when he was at the center of negotiations in the senate. You don’t put your favorite candidate to the same level of scrutiny and that’s why you loose credibility.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:45 am
49 – RUDY IS CLEARLY SUPERIOR
July 31st, 2008 at 4:15 am
For the fifty-fifth thousand time, McCain made a much more definitive statement about a timetable for withdrawal than Mitt ever thought about. It aired on Foxnews a couple times, and maybe another station for a day, then was squashed. The weekend before the Florida vote McCain also lied about Mitt’s economic record while Governor. He claimed that Mitt had raised taxes by 850 million,, instead of the raising fees by 260 million, also forgetting to mention the deficit went from 3 million in the red to 2 million in the black.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:17 am
Btw, Mitt has rebounded on intrade to 38.5, while Ridge dropped by 10, back down to 15.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:36 am
As I see it, Obama is a much more vulnerable than McCain was. Mitt would have a field day with this guy who wanted to visit the Bethlehem manger where he thought he was born in. And in this case all those people who used to dislike Mitt would fall in love with him because he is now on their side, not too politely hammering on the Socialistic, inexperienced upstart. Only the the unswayable Obama fans would hate him, and that’s a good thing!
July 31st, 2008 at 4:46 am
Romney supporters may convince me that we can win with him on the ticket and that he may even deliver certain states, when they say that we can not win with anybody else, I find that wrong and insulting.
The debate about comparing Mr. Romney to Mr. Bush is also interesting. While every candidate has some similarities to our current President, he is his own man and nobody can compare to him. In and of itself, this is neither a good thing or bad thing. In my own opinion, as flawed as all the candidates are, each candidate is better than Mr. Bush in at least one minor area, but on balance, it is difficult to be better than Mr. Bush. With respect Sampo, I wish we could have a third Bush term. While Mr. Romney or anybody else is no Mr. Bush, the fact that you try to compare Mr. Romney to Mr. Bush is actually a feather in Mr. Romney cap, in my view.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:51 am
Ohio, when I say we can’t win with anyone else, I mean with the status quo. Its possible with the right campaign strategy and events moving a certain way, we may be able to win with others. I don’t mean to insult, but I do feel with todays current situation, Mitt is the only one that could deliver the states we need. Sorry, but that’s the way I see it.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:09 am
OK, and BTW my statement was not singling you out, Illinoisguy.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:44 am
What does Romney do for VA? I’m worried about that state.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:55 am
IG use Betfair – gives a better indication. Looks there’s chance 33.34% T/Paw, 33,33% chance Roms, and 33.33% chance some stupid pick coz McCain likes him.
I will declare here and now that McCain cannot and will not win without Romney. Unlikely with Romney, but no chance without him.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:15 am
Mr. Romney does nothing for Virginia. However, if things continue to move in the GOP direction, we will win Virginia in November even with Mr. Romney. By the same token, we can also win the country as a whole without Mr. Romney come November. I just hope that Mr. Romney (or anyone else) has coat-tails down the ballot.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:21 am
New Q-Polls are out.
OH: Barry +2 (last month showed Barry +6)
FL: Barry +2 (last month showed Barry +4)
PA: Barry +7 (last month showed Barry +12)
Q-polls have consistently low-balled McCain’s strength in these states. The trends are good.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:24 am
“Not even a close call.” Wow, what a bold prediction!
http://www.political-buzz.com/
July 31st, 2008 at 8:20 am
I disagree that Romney “took out the rest of the field.” He certainly did take out Giuliani, but Fred took himself out by refusing to campaign very hard.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:22 am
Ohio, would you not agree, that if the election were held today (without Romney), and perhaps Colin Powell, we would not win?
July 31st, 2008 at 8:39 am
First of all …. how are people still arguing over Romney’s ‘timetables’.
Are the people on this blog seriously not able to distinguish between a ‘timetable’ and a ‘timetable for withdrawal’?
Metro is still so committed to help McCain beat Romney i wonder if he’s noticing how utterly ineffective the 10th iteration of JMac’s campaign is. Obama’s new stump speech (headlining Drudge currently) is spot on, I’m afraid …
Three more months of contrarian scare tactics are not going to build broad support for McCain. Charges of “He’s a socialist! He’s a tax raiser! He’s a Muslim! You know you’ll vote for me because the alternative is so much worse” aren’t going to get me fired up? What are you, John?
It’s been pointed out that Romney was able to take out the other Republican candidates. I wonder if at this point Romney’s attack tactics would even be that useful given JMac’s intellectually stimulating Paris Hilton comparisons.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:43 am
BobH/Alex
I hear all the time that Mitt spent a ton of money and accomplished so little. I agree that Huckabee became the darling of the media for awhile in the primaries and used the talk show circuit to advantage at low cost. But to claim Romney didn’t accomplish
anything is just total BS. Go back to before the Iowa primaries and ask yourself who knew Mitt Romney? People might recognize the last name from the 60′s, but outside of Massachusetts, no one knew Mitt. Who knew John McCain ? For God sakes, he had
already run once for President and McCain-Kennedy immigration legislation was almost a household word.
So start in the spring/summer of 2007 with almost 0 name recognition nationwide for Mitt and almost 100 % for McCain. Fast forward to after Super Tuesday. Cumulative results ? 4.8 million votes for McCain, 4 million votes for Romney and 2 million votes
for Huckabee. A pretty significant accomplishment and a fair -to- good return on mainly your own money….available because you are smart and know how to earn it.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:46 am
#65 G,
Dukakis school of politics does not work. It never does. Kerry, Dole, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter all took the high road, and lost.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:55 am
67, i have no problem hitting people (I voted for Romney, after all).
My problem is with the terribly weak and ineffective punches the McCain campaign is throwing.
I will remain skeptical until i see a better idea out of the campaign than: ‘Don’t vote for him! He’s Paris Hilton!’
July 31st, 2008 at 9:20 am
McCain is the nominee not because he won anything base on his own merits, no, McCain was the last man standing in a painful process of elimination; voters were looking for a real conservative and ended with a liberal nominee.
Giuliani with his stupid strategy was the first eliminated, then lazy Fred, the evil preacher made the openning McCain needed and a combination of Gov. Christ and the timetible lie make the miracle for McCain leaving Romney out of the race.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:22 am
It is often claimed that Mitt’s favorable/unfavorable numbers are not that great, -6% in the last poll I saw.
However, consider this:
McCain’s favorables are running around 57 – 39, something on that order, but certainly pretty good, right?
Now think about the July 18th Zogby poll that showed that for likely voters, by a net of 15% for all voters, 17% for independents, and 39% for Republicans, they stated they would be more likely to vote for McCain with Mitt on the ticket.
Now, for the all voter category, with a net of 15% more likely to vote for McCain, doesn’t it make sense that Romney favorable numbers, at least with that group being polled had to look something like 65 – 30? That is unless you feel that those who considered him somewhat unfavorable were still more likely to vote for McCain.
I think this just shows the weakness of the polls showing favorable/unfavorable. And I further believe that those Republicans and Independents who would rather have a Huckabee, or a Pawlenty, or a Palin, are saying unfavorable just because they know it makes their candidate look good, and Mitt look worse than he is. Other candidates can suffer the same situation. I just believe the favorable/unfavorable rankings are amongst the weakest in terms of relevance.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:46 am
It’s not even close. McCain is fading, he needs an infusion of strength. And competence. Obama is so darn racist, saying McCain will point out he doesn’t “look” like the other presidents on the dollar bills”, what a farce, McCain nor anyone EXCEPT Obama and his preachers have ever said any such thing. McCain has more than a great chance to sink this Obama if he just does the right thing.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:58 am
I personally don’t care if McCain wins or not. I do care if America wins, and right now, America doesn’t have a dog in the fight – EXCEPT for McCain’s patriotism. That is the only thing inspiring in this race right now. Romney is inspiring, because he has lived the American dream with grace and style. He knows how to fix, and he knows how to lead. I saw Pawlenty on TV, a nice, older man who appeared to have conservative leanings, but very slow of speech, at least in that interview. No, we need a real champion that is awake, prepared, and accepting of all Americans. Oh – and not afraid to say it like it is. That would be Romney.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:25 am
#44
The reason Romney did not win, was because he really only represented one leg of the stool, the ficon leg. Look where all of his money came from-wall street execs, big business, republicans with big money, washington elite, etc. Those of you who are true Romney supporters and do not care about abortion and gay marriage, put his past history aside and said it did not matter to you, because there were other issues that were more important. But because of his past history, Romney showed his socon weakness, which allowed Huckabee to emerge right before Iowa. Those in Iowa hold true to those moral convictions, and wanted someone who would defend those issues, yesterday, today and tomorrow. Not just when it was politically convenient.
But that is why McCain is the winner this year. Duncan Hunter represented all three legs of the stool. But he lacked pizazz and was a second tier candidate who did not make a chance for himself to move ahead of the pack. I would imagine in 2012/2016, there will be more candidates who truly represent all the legs of the stool, and Romney and Huckabee will not be on top.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:26 am
OK Guys,
I want to bore you with some facts that are really illustrative, I think. Let’s look at the 20 Primaries from Iowa, through Super Tuesday to when Romney withdrew and see if we can read some ” tea leaves.”
1. There were 11,560,000 votes of which Romney got 36 %, Huckabee got 21 % and McCain got 43 %
2. Regionally
SOUTH ( Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, S.Carolina and Florida )
Romney……30 %
Huckabee ..31 %
McCain…… 39 %
WEST ( Arizona, California, Oklahoma, Utah )
Romney …. 42 %
Huckabee.. 14 %
McCain ….. 44 %
MIDWEST ( Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Michigan )
Romney ….. 36 %
Huckabee …24 %
McCain …….40 %
NORTHEAST ( Connesticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, N. Jersey, N.York, N. Hampshire )
Romney …… 38 %
Huckabee … 9 %
McCain ……. 53 %
O.K., after you have digested these FACTS, consider the following:
A. McCain had a minority of the votes in every region except the Northeast ( 53 % ). In a 2 person race , like Obama, Clinton, he would have lost everywhere except the N.E.
B. Huckabee only got above 30 % of the vote in one region, the South, at 31 % and only edged out Romney in the South by 1 %. In the West and Northeast, Huckabee was almost invisible in votes, despite the media.
C. If McCain needs to see how he can move his numbers above 43 % with the Republican base, he only needs to look at these numbers. Even in the NORTHEAST, Romney got 38 % of the vote. In the WEST, he got 42 % of the vote and that didn’t
include caucus states like Colorado, Alaska, Wyoming and Montana. Almost certainly his numbers would be greater than McCain’s, even INCLUDING California
In conclusion, I am not trying to knock McCain, but to show the incredible asset Romney would be in demonstrated vot gathering. Please show me similar numbers for Lieberman, Ridge, Jindal, Palin, Thune, Smith, Portman, et al.
C.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:39 am
Texas:
I have to half agree with you. It certainly concerns me that Mr. Romney puts the economy ahead of Social issues and the military, but even on the other two legs, he is still more Conservative than Liberal.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:42 am
Texas, you stretched truth so much it didn’t even make sense.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:45 am
With respect, Illinoisguy, Texas has a point, not all Romney supporters are as Conservative as you, ACT and Craig.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:46 am
75. (SAMPO FIRST THOUGHT) I HATE WHEN PEOPLE USE FACTS…
July 31st, 2008 at 10:54 am
Nice post Craig. Unfortunately, whenever a lot of these people see positve things like this as to how Mitt can help, they quickly ‘kick in’ their amnesia, so that their future postings will be just as biased as their past ones. When nearly everybody completely ignored, or barely acknowledged, the July 18th Zogby poll showing the huge asset Mitt brings to the party, its pretty obvious they don’t want to know the truth. When the SUSA poll showed McCain/Romney absolutely creaming Obama/Kaine and Obama/everybody else, they ignored it, and just wanted to know how some of their ‘no names’ would have done. The recent Rasmussen VP poll also was amazing with a full 50% of all Republican respondents stating they preferred Romney, you would think that would carry some weight. But no, these folks on here are far too hard headed to want to listen to facts.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:56 am
Ohio, the vast majority of them are. I’ve seen very little of anything other than three legged stool conservatives, except for those who have joined lately as a process of elimination, and observations that he is best positioned to help us win. The primary Mitt supporters were almost 100% three legged stool conseratives.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:57 am
Let me ask all of you Romney supporters a question, and please answer honestly. Lets say McCain loses (and I think he is actually going to win)and for the next four years, Jindal, Sanford, Palin, Pawlenty do a tremendous job as governors, remain true conservatives, and gather more experience on all three legs of the stool. Are you really going to be out there pushing for Romney? Or are you going to get behind one of the newbies? These 4, and I am sure there are others, have an ongoing opportunity in their current job, to gather the experience they need to run. Romney does not have an active job that will get him the experience he needs to run again in 2012/2016. Especially if it is 2016-Romney will be 69 years old.
So I really feel that Romney and his surrogates are pushing so hard because they realize that Romney will not have the same opportunities in 2012/2016. This is his now.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:02 am
#75
You listed all of the votes, but candidates win by delegates, not by popular vote. What are the facts on the delegate numbers?
July 31st, 2008 at 11:03 am
Texas, I’m pushing hard for Mitt because I feel McCain, and therefore, this country needs him very, very, badly. I hope he is the nominee, and that McCain wins, putting Mitt in the position to be the President. I believe he has the integrity, intelligence, and know-how to lead this nation back to some of the values we’re constantly losing.
I’m not concerned about Palin, or Pawlenty, or Jindal right now, because that’s all hypothetical..I’m dealing with the best man for the job right this minute and for the next several years.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:08 am
TEXAS,
How could we consider someone else in 2012 ? Wouldn’t that be ” flip-flopping ?”
July 31st, 2008 at 11:12 am
#82 (Texas). 2012 or 2016 are too far away, so who knows. In 2004 i thought that Jeb Bush would be the GOP nominee in 2008.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:12 am
Texas,
Yes Delegates count at conventions, but votes count in elections. Conventions are often ” adjusted ” as necessary to distort raw votes. Look at the Democrats in the Florida and Michigan primaries . There were a lot of votes either uncounted or missing for Clinton and Obama in their primary and they will pay for that selected vote counting in November . Do you think votes are unimportant? The Florida and Michigan people will vote in November , just as Romney’s votes will be recast in November, particularly if they are motivated to do so.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:14 am
2012 and 2016 is a while away and the world could change. I promise nobody my vote in future elections.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:19 am
Falz wrote: “Giuliani with his stupid strategy was the first eliminated, then lazy Fred”
That is incorrect. Fred dropped out on January 22nd, one week before the Florida primary. Rudy dropped on on January 30th, a day after finishing 3rd in Florida.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:19 am
Craig, with respects, while delegates do not matter in a general election, primary votes are not the only factor in the general election either. For example, I know a few people who told me (on primary Day no less) who told me that they were voting for Mrs. Clinton in the Primary, but would not do so in the general even had she beat Mr. Obama.
Do not get me wrong, I cannot disagree that primary votes mean something, but we cannot cry popular vote and EC system at the same time.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:22 am
Some of you have painted the picture that Romney is like Reagan in 1976, moving toward his landslide victory in 1980. If McCain loses, I just do not see Romney being that Reagan. There are just too many current conservative governors that are standing in the ondeck circle waiting for their turn at bat. Romney had his turn, and did not get a homerun.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:22 am
Aron, Rudy was eliminated before he dropped out. Hardly anyone thought he had a prayer for a month before he dropped. I know some of you did though.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:22 am
You are right Aron, apart from blaming Rudy and Fred, maybe Falz can blame Mr. Brownback, Mr. Allen, Dr. Rice, Dr. Keyes and Dr. Frist as well.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:23 am
Texas:
It is true that Mr. Romney is no Reagan, but neither is anybody else. Mr. Reagan is his own man.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:25 am
Texas, I’m still putting my eggs in the basket that Mac goes with Mitt, and that we don’t need to talk about losing in 2008. I want to win THIS election. THIS election is monumentally important.
If Obama is elected, we may not recognize our country in 4 or 8 years.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:28 am
Here is some interesting data on the 2008 primaries. Excluding caucus states and all states after Super Tuesday, here are the number of votes, counties won, and delegates won for the three top GOP contenders:
Candidate (votes : counties : delegates)
McCain (5138476 : 550 : 654)
Romney (4275737 : 138 : 98)
Huckabee (2438099 : 419 : 134)
I excluded caucus states because caucuses are largely activist-driven affairs and are so different from the general election that they are likely to be poor predictors of the behavior of normal pull-the-lever voters in a general election. Primaries are better, but not perfect. I also included only those states in which all three candidates competed fully, namely through Super Tuesday. These result show that in a real secret ballot election, Romney got a lot of votes in a few areas (Note: over a quarter million of his votes, and over a third of his delegates in this count came from Utah, where he won almost 90% of the vote), including those with a large Mormon population and near cities. Other than Utah, and to a lesser extent Michigan, his performance in number of votes vs. McCain in each of the states largely mirrors the total number listed here, indicating that he is pretty much across-the-board less popular than McCain.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:32 am
Big S:
That is good food for thought to be sure, but with the somewhat exceptions of Maine and Nebraska (vote by CD) we vote by state and not county. I do commend you for your interesting research.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:32 am
The following is Tony Perkins, just out:
“On September 12-14, just 53 days prior to one of the most pivotal presidential elections in our lifetime, values voters from across America will gather in Washington, D.C. to hear from national leaders and policy makers about the issues that are at the heart of the struggle for this nation: traditional marriage, religious liberties, radical Islam, illegal immigration, the sanctity of life, and out of control judges.
The future of our children and grandchildren hangs in the balance on November 4. Will they inherit an America based on our Judeo-Christian heritage or will they inherit a secular, godless society where individual responsibility and freedom have disappeared? We are on an even more slippery slope, and we simply cannot afford to shirk our responsibility as citizens.
Confirmed speakers include Newt Gingrich, Dr. Bill Bennett, Chuck Colson, Lou Dobbs, Gov. Mitt Romney, Gary Bauer, Judge Robert Bork, actor Stephen Baldwin, Rev. Jonathan Falwell, Michael Steele, Michael Medved, Phyllis Schlafly, Reps. Michele Bachmann and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and other experts on current issues including Islam, bioethics, marriage and the family, religious liberty, and Hollywood.”
I don’t see a Huckabee, or a Palin, or a Pawlenty, or a ‘anybody else in line for VP listed hear as a speaker, do you? It seems those in charge of the ‘values voters’ conference know whoo represents them pretty darn well.
So, those of you who keep pretending Mitt is not a true social conservative may want to consider what the tops in the nation experts on this matter think about it.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:36 am
We already know that we can count on Mr. Huckabee, Mr. Palin and Mr. Pawlenty. What is Mr. Dobbs doing there?
July 31st, 2008 at 11:37 am
Sorry Mrs. Palin, but I guess we can count on Mr. Palin as well (hopefully.)
July 31st, 2008 at 11:37 am
Big S – Its always so convenient of you to exclude caucus’. Those participants know the candidates best, are the worker bees in knocking on doors, calling on phone, and donating the money. I kinda doubt if they enjoy being excluded as irrelevant in your analysis.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:37 am
#97
I included counties as an indicator of the geographic distribution of the candidates’ appeal in these states, since it’s the easiest to get. I found it interesting that McCain averaged about 9,300 votes per county won, while Mitt was all the way up at 31,000. His votes were far more clustered together than McCain’s, which I though was kinda interesting.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:39 am
What are you saying Ohio? I listed the speakers. Are you saying those you listed are speaking as well?
July 31st, 2008 at 11:40 am
I thought I remembered reading somewhere, that Romney and McCain pretty much got their votes from the same type of cities (urban, suburbs rather than rural). So if McCain is already doing well in those areas, does he need Romney on the ticket? Or does McCain need someone like Pawlenty who can reach out to the rural voters that he was not able to capture in the primaries?
In addition, McCain has to stand as his own man. He can’t say that I am selecting Romney because he is good on the economy and he is going to help me make all of my economic decisions in the white house. So having Romney on the ticket (with all of his youtube moments stating McCain did not know the economy) does not make sense.
Finally, anyone who is reading about politics this year knows that the Washington elite are pushing for Romney. Romney himself said that Washington is broken. So putting Romney on the ticket makes McCain look like he caved into the Bush/Republican elite, and was pressured by all of those “Washington is broke” powerbrokers.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:40 am
Caucuses may have their advantages, but similarity to the mechanics and voter tendencies of a general election are not among them. We’re in general election mode right now, and the strengths you cite are largely irrelevant to it.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:43 am
#97 (again)
Of course, the counties in western states are far larger (geographically) than those farther East. That may distort these numbers to some degree. Like I said, it’s a rough but interesting number.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:44 am
Also, if the California voters would have voted for their first choice, rather than their perception of who was the most electable, what would have that done to your numbers? Exit poll numbers for California indicated that Mitt would have won the state by 8% margin, which would have flipped your votes, counties, and delegates by a huge amount.
You can never look at a set of numbers in isolation.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:47 am
Whoa….!!!! You’re saying GOTV efforts of knocking on doors, calling on phone, and donating money are largely irrelevant? I DON’T THINK SO!
July 31st, 2008 at 11:55 am
All I am saying Illinoisguy is that the three people whom you said were not going to speak are already know to be loyal Social Conservative. Perhaps, it would be nice if they spoke, but that does not make them any less Social Conservative.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:59 am
#107, #108
Caucuses (and exit polls, to a lesser extent) have a tendency to measure the voting preferences of only the most committed voters. Unlike in a primary, caucusgoers must show up at a very specific time, stay for a long period of time up to multiple hours, and must make their preferences public. For this reason, only a few people show up and an electorally insignificant core of dedicated voters can swing a caucus sharply to one candidate. Example: only 70,000 people voted in the Colorado caucus, and Romney beat McCain by 30,000 votes. While this gave him 60% to McCain’s 20%, that margin looks significantly less impressive when you consider that 2,100,000 people voted in the 2004 general election in that state.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I would like to point out that this, a Romney post, has 109 comments on it. Clearly Mitt brings out passion in people, which is something that McCain does not (and Obama does). T-Paw doesn’t either.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bush bring out even more passion.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Counties are useless. You might as well use cities or townships. For example, Maricopa County (Phoenix Metro) has over 4 million residents. McCain won here obviously, but the point is that some counties are 1000 times more populous than others, and thus more important.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Ohio, you can say what you want, but I think says something that Mitt is the only VP candidate being ask to speak at this prestigious ‘values summit’ conference. I won’t argue that the others are conservative also.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
With regards to this, I am not tearing Mr. Romney down. I do ask that you do not tear down the other three on the same issue.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
That’s actually the reason why I included them. Mitt got about 80% of the primary vote total that McCain did, but got his votes in a far more restricted geographical area. The map is linked below; recall that most of Mitt’s yellow areas are in the caucus states. I mentioned my reasons for excluding them above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2008primarycounties.png
July 31st, 2008 at 12:21 pm
It looks like about 42,000 additional people to knock on doors, donate money, call on phone etc., in Colorado alone. I read yesterday that tens of thousands of people would pour out of Utah and Idaho to aid in neighboring states. So, the GOTV effort will be huge in NM, AZ, CO, NV, and even in some states we’re not currently allowed to speculate on out west.
Btw, the caucus’ I attended in Iowa only had a handful of speakers, all the rest was secret ballot. In all honesty, it was so loosy/goosy, I could have easily voted.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Ohio, was I? I said I had no argument that they were conservatives.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Could you have voted twice?
Perhaps you see what I’m getting at…
July 31st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
No, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I’m from Illinois, but if I reached my hand out for the little pieces of paper they passed out to those all around me, I could have voted. I doubt if they would have given me two of them.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
#120
If caucuses are that open to fraud, perhaps they should be done away with altogether, not just excluded from my silly little bean counting exercise.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I had that same concern to be quite honest. I’m also concerned about the big city fraud in the general election. I can’t verify it, but I’ve heard in Chicago, fraud is rampant and people vote in many different precincts, just using different addresses etc.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Ohio, here is my whole point! Let’s say if Mitt had not been a speaker, and Huckabee was, can you even imagine how much garbage Mitt supporters would have had to endure on this site? We constantly get the idiocy of Mitt not being a true social conservative thrown at us, and we don’t like it. So, I posted this to make sure that those people saw that those who spend their lifetime evaluating people’s positions on all of the above mentioned topics consider Mitt Romney to not only be one of them, but to be one of their best. After all he won the votes of this conference last year as well as the CPAC conference last fall. How much more conservative do you have to be for Pete’s sake to have these people stop throwing out false charges? But when I point this out, you act as if I was dissing the other people, even though I readily admitted they were conservatives. I might amend that in the case of Huckabee, that would be socially conservative, and Pawlenty has a few liberal tendencies such has his Gore loving positions.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Thanks for clarifying Illinoisguy. I can understand you wanting to show that your man was a speaker, I’m just glad that you were not dissing the other three for not speaking (I can respect that you has differences with them, I have differences with everybody on at least a minor issue.)
On a side note, I admit that to a degree you are doing a good job convincing me of the electability of your candidate, I still think other could win too, but that is another story. While I will vote for McCain, I’m probably more concerned about the bottom of the ballot. If Mr. Romney can get out a few extra hundred voters in my county to the poll to give me a GOP county Commissioner and GOP State Senator and do similar things elsewhere than perhaps it is best.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Ohio, I believe you always try to be fair.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Thanks, I try, but do not succeed every time.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I just with McCain would pick his VP already. Either he doesn’t pick Romney (thereby ending Romney’s 1-term, 1-office political career) or he picks Romney, who drags down the ticket because of how much he turns off independents and blue-collar voters (of all political stripes) thereby costing McCain the election but ending Ronney’s 1-term, 1-office politcal career and opens the door for the up-and-commers of the party.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Dan-Zogby’s latest poll disagrees with you, Romney actually adds support among Independents to the ticket.
I think it’s foolish to say that Romney only covers 1 leg of the “stool” his economic might be a big stronger but Romney believes in the guiding conservative principles of the other two legs as well. Also Romney supporters generally don’t place an emphahsis on one leg but more of a balance between the 3 as they are all linked together in my view.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:16 pm
#128 – Mitt did not just add a small amount for independents a full net +17% were more likely to vote, and amongst Republicans, a full 39% were more likely. That is absolutely huge.
August 1st, 2008 at 9:53 am
“Falz wrote: “Giuliani with his stupid strategy was the first eliminated, then lazy Fred”
That is incorrect. Fred dropped out on January 22nd, one week before the Florida primary. Rudy dropped on on January 30th, a day after finishing 3rd in Florida.”
Aron, the dates when Giuliani, Lazy Fred and the Evil Preacher are irrelevant because their campaign were dead long before.
Giuliani lost the nomination when he put all his eggs in Florida. Thompson lost whe he skip the NH debate. Huckabee lost in SC.
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 am
Jay Cost’s glaring omission is the single best reason to pick Romney. Its competence stupid! Romney is the most competent leader to come around in a very long time. He would do an excellent job to get things done instead of the dilly-dallying around that you get with most politicians. He is capable, brilliant and energetic all of which contributes to his competence. The contrast with Obama is stunning. No doubt Romney would do the job. Why risk it to anyone else?