A commenter on a recent post writes in making his case for Mitt Romney:
Listen, the only way Obama is vulnerable in 2012 is if the economy is still sputtering along without any clear signs that the worst is over. And if that’s the case, only a candidate with real economic gravitas will be in a potisiont(sic) to beat him. When I think economic acumen, Palin and Huckabee don’t exactly spring to mind.
This is a common thought among many Romney folks. It represents a misunderstanding of how Presidential politics works.
One point that was raised in the same thread was that FDR was re-elected in 1936 despite the ongoing Great Depression, that perhaps had even deepened. So, can just a bad economy be counted on to defeat Obama and why did FDR win re-election in 1936?
I’ve referenced the 13 keys before and they explain the re-election of FDR.
The 13 keys are 13 indicators that indicate the condition of the country and the incumbent party. If 8 of these indicators are True, the incumbent candidate is re-elected. If not, they are defeated. The theory has predicted the popular vote in every elections since 1984 and tracked 100 years prior in terms of accurately predicting the result of the popular vote.
In 1936, the following keys were true for FDR:
1. After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections.
2. There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3. The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4. There is no significant third-party or independent campaign.
5. The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
7. The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8. There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9. The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10. The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
12. The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13. The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
The following two keys were against FDR:
6. Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
11. The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
America didn’t come back to full glory in 1936, but the bleeding had stopped at the time of the 1936 elections. Terms like recession and depression are not defined by people out of work. They’re defined by growth in the economy. You can have double digit unemployment, but if the economy is growing, there is no recession. Of course, FDR’s spending policies came back to haunt the nation in 1937 and it’d take World War II to pull us out of it.
Other than double digit unemployment, everything was going okay and the Republicans nominated Alf Landon who had all the charisma of wet spaghetti. FDR had build a charismatic persona through his fireside chats. It’ll be hard to find an Administration with that much going right for it.
So, looking forward to 2012, what will it take for Republicans to beat Obama? Using the 13 keys prediction model, let’s take a look needs to happen the in next 3 and a half years for the GOP to retake the White House in 2012.
We’ll assume Obama is the Democratic Candidate in 2012. Already, Obama will have a minimum of 2 keys in true and therfore in his favor:
On the other hand, it’s safe to assume one key will be against Obama:
Even if the economy comes out of its current funk, there’s no way, we’re going to have growth in this term that’s at the same level as what we experienced during the mostly prosperous Bush years.
That leaves us 10 keys to look at. Obama will need six of ten to be true in order to be re-elected. Some things will have to go wrong for the Obama Administration and/or the country for him to not be re-elected.
1: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections.
For Republicans to win the White House in 2012, Republicans must pick up House seats in 2010. Democrats held 233 seats in the U.S. House after the last mid-term election. Republicans must pick up a minimum of 26 House Seats to bring Democrats under that number and to turn Key 1 to false and towards the Republicans. It should be note that in 1982, just by virtue of a sour economy and Republican wins in Democratic districts in prior cycles, Democrats picked up 27 seat, so this is doable.
2: There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.
By a serious contest, the author of the keys, Alan Lichtman, means a nomination process that goes all the way to the convention. Right now it’s hard to imagine that happening, but it’s not completely impossible.
4. There is no significant third-party or independent campaign
A serious third party campaign is defined as one that draws 5% of the vote or more. We haven’t seen that happen since 1996. By 2012, America will be due and there are a large number of issues under which a third party could come.
5. The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
I think it’s very well possible thanks to the massive amounts of money being spent, coupled with the expectation that Obama will let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011, that the end of the current recession will be followed shortly by another one caused by hyperinflation and lack of economic capital. Whether this will hit in time for the 2012 elections remains to be seen.
7. The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
It’s hard to imagine that there won’t be some major change passed in the next two years that will give President Obama this key.
8. There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
FDR was fortunate to preside over a nation with a mostly intact Judeo-Christian heritage that didn’t turn to rioting and looting in a time of economic hardship. We’ll see how our nation responds, particularly a younger generation that has never experienced a serious economic slowdown handles this.
In addition, Obama’s campaign of lofty expectations could lead to mass disapointment, which could lead disillusionment. The continuing presence of U.S. troops overseas could lead to more vociferous anti-war protests. Real disenchantment is out there in America on both sides of the aisle. If Obama becomes viewed as politics as usual, it could get very ugly.
9. The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
This one is tough to even speculate on. However, given that the administration has Hillary Clinton, as well as an over-abundance of Chicago party hacks and Clinton Adminstration folks, this may be a far more likely key to turn than any other.
10. The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11. The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
No way to even speculate on these two keys. This brings me to the one main key (other than Congress) that Republicans control:
13. The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Charisma, that’s the one factor the GOP has control of that historically has helped decide Presidential election. Being a policy wonk in economics with a lot of money doesn’t make you more likely to win a Presidential Campaign. Ask John Connally, a former Secretary of the Treasury who spent more money than any other candidate and lost. Connally won 1 delegate for his $11 million spent, not as bad as Rudy, but worse than Romney.
On our charisma score card, let’s face it: Huckabee has it, Palin has it. Romney doesn’t have it.
What does this mean? Simply put, if 5 keys are already against Obama, Huckabee or Palin could win. Romney couldn’t. He’d need 6 keys to be against Obama because his charisma isn’t going to win anything.
Bottom line: Republicans can, at most, secure three keys through the national situation or their own efforts (Key 1, Key 6, and Key 13). Beyond that, though, whether anyone can beat Obama in 2012 is ultimately in the hands of God.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
A glutton for punishment?
You’re going to get some hateful comments for dissing the Mitt.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
I think Adam’s just trying to be funny now
January 28th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Adam goes back into the idiot pile, not for putting up an anti-Romney post, but by ending a terrible post with saying it’s all in the hands of God. What a maroon! No wonder why all the mormons are still angry about Huckabee. It’s stuff like this. You diss Romney, say completely opinionated things about him (like he has no charisma, do you have a charisma meter in your pocket?), and then endorse Huckabee, in the name of God, Amen. Huckabee will NEVER win an election. He’s got all kinds of garbage that would be thrown at him by the dems about his own governing record. Palin will NEVER win an election. She’s FAR too polarizing, and she talks like a hick. Don’cha know? I’m pro-Romney, yes, but I also like other candidates as well. What is it about Romney, Adam, that you feel the need to take him out to the shed regularly and give him a good beating?
January 28th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
You’re wrong about Palin. Her “charisma” is too narrowly tailored, and is actually a little more like anti-charisma for most of the voting public.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Good grief. Now Adam gives us his replies to comments as new posts. This is going to be a long 4 years.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
On our charisma score card, let’s face it: Huckabee has it, Palin has it. Romney doesn’t have it. \
Hahahahahahahaha, Huckabee’s phoney-baloney, hate preacher/used car salesman charisma is much more of a handicap than a help. Watch it positively drown him everywhere except the South.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
This is another great article Adam Graham and the 13 key points are basic 101 Politics. It is good food for thought. I actually would give Mr. Romney a slight advantage, but you are correct, as much as these people on this site want to put their heads in the sand, there is no getting around the fact that Both Mrs. Palin and Mr. Huckabee are likable and charismatic and Mr. Romney is simply not. However, do not count Mr. Romney out completely, if he continues to pull up his socks, he might develop such good characteristics.
You made great points about third parties in America, how the economy will be and compare it to 1936. In the end it will depend on who Mr. Obama cheeses off (to put it crudely, the Barackefellers or the Hillaryites) and thus recruit a candidate accordingly.
BTW Adam Graham, while much of what you say about Mr. Romney is true, it would be good to be even handed and mention is good qualities as well even though a few of his short-comings are obvious.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I’m sorry, but I need to disagree with everybody on a big point. I have seen NO charisma from Obama. I believe that he is a media creation and nothing more. Just listen to him talk, compare him to Reagan. Reagan was warm, friendly, quick on his feet, humorous. Obama is none of that. In fact he is cold and flat. His words are guarded. He is a control freak, and I wonder how long the adoring media is going to put up with the stiff arm.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Huckabee and Palin have very very narrow bases. While those bases find their brand of charisma very exciting, it kills them everywhere else. For an example, compare the widespread and demographic-bridging enthusiasm that Obama created.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Bobinator, do you realize that you’re in a small minority?
January 28th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
The problem with Adam is that it is all simply an intent to spin everthing in The Huckster’s favor. There is never any real attempt at honest analysis as to events or the race for 2012– just constant campaigning. He is simply becoming as petty and mean-spirited as his idol.
Romney has no charisma?? To hucksters no, but any honest review of 2008, from the primaries to his effective appearnces for McCain on TV I think would lead most honest observers to concude otherwise. This is someone who, in part based upon his personal charisma and appeal, has been such a success in business, the olympics, winning the Governorship in Mass, etc. To say Romney has no charisma is simply intellectually dishonest.
Look at Huckabee: Half of the baptists hated him when he was in the religion business. You know why so many of the religious right leaders didn’t support him? They can’t stand the SOB. This is a man with more ethics inquiries as gov then Bill Clinton!
Why anyone bothers with Adam Graham is simply beyond me. He is simply a tool.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Bobinator may be in the minority, but there is at least a grain of truth in what he says. While nobody can deny Mr. Obama’s sex appeal and his way with words so to speak, one only needs to watch the evening news occasionally to see how the media is pumping him up. Yes many demographic groups voted for Mr. Obama, but they voted for change. As one of my friends who ran for local office found out, one can only run on change once.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
I partly agree as well, Ohio Joe. I think the media has come to loathe Bush and has as a result been easily swooned by Obama. Factor in the historial nature of his victory, and you have a lot of hype.
But to claim he has no charisma? Insane.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Having charisma in business is not the same as having charisma in politic. It may not be right, but it is reality. What business charisma does Mr. Obama have? None.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
#8. Have to disagree. Obama clearly has charisma. Is there a lot of media build-up? Sure. But he does have a friendly, non-confrontational appeal and I think projects a warmth and likability. And I understand Huckabee’s appeal to a segment of evangelicals. Beyond that, many (and not just Romney folk) find him petty, mean-spirited and vindicitve. That was often the complaint raised about him as governor!
January 28th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Romney will wrap up the nomination by Oct 2011 and will give the President a real fright (if not win).
January 28th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Personally, I don’t think Obama has charisma either Bobinator. As a matter of fact, most of the time, he is quite dull.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
As for Palin–she in incredibly likable! Is she Charismatic? Not sure. I would probably say so (but they are not the same thing). The question for her is whether she has the gravitas–the seriousness and intelligence–to win in 2012. I think voters on both sides are a little tired of the Bush years and the percieved intellectual lightwieght/inability to articulate the problems and circumstances. Palin is interesting and very likable. She has some of the appeal of Huckabee to evangelicals without the meanness.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Adam, do you think Romney would make a good president?
January 28th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Bags is right. Adam Graham is an intellectually dishonest FFP.
He refuses to do an objective post about Romney because he simply can’t. To do so would force him to confront reality.
He twists himself into a pretzel to try to discredit Romney, and Romney’s frontrunner status and general appeal in the party.
Everyone knows that Huck has no shot for 08, through his own bad behavior and horrible record. Palin’s not up to snuff either, but at least she’s doesn’t have the distastful character flaws of Huck.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Taylor, that would be a no. He calls Romney the man with no core. It’s so ironic.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Adam, this post is garbage. you make up arbitrary rules for winning a presidency. ( you forgot that incumbents never win if the AFC wins the super bowl during a solstice) then you decide that one candidate doesn’t have an arbitrary characteristic (Charisma) based on your arbitrary judgment which, surprise!, favors huckabee and palin who are born-agains like you! what a coincidence! huckabee has no charisma to me because hes full of crap, and palin because she can’t answer basic questions that my classmates can. but whatever.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Martha, you really go nuts when anyone criticizes Romney, don’t you?
And look… Adam talked about Romney’s charisma. You CAN’T be objective about charisma. It can’t be measured. It’s a completely subjective trait. His subjective opinion about Romney’s charisma doesn’t make him intellectually dishonest. I don’t think Romney is particularly charismatic, either. It’s perfectly legitimate for someone to have a negative opinion of Romney; stop insisting that it’s always an attempt to “discredit” him. It’s not. This blog exists to facilitate a political conversation, which is what we’re having. I get the sense you’d just prefer to totally shut down any anti-Romney sentiments rather them debate them thoughtfully.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
#22 – Who cares if the rules are arbitrary? Can’t we just use them as a jumping-off point for conversation? Geez, I’m usually really critical of Adam Graham, but there’s nothing wrong with this post. It’s a great discussion-generator.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Absolutely agree on all counts, OJ. One of the things Romney needs is a personality transplant. He may be the world’s most delightful person one-on-one, but his public persona is that he’s a used car salesman.
Assuming that he’s able to assess himself more honestly than his worshippers do (and he probably is — I doubt that he was so successful in business without being able to honestly evaluate his own strengths and weaknesses), he understands this, and I would bet he has hired image advisors who are helping him recraft the way he presents himself. We’ll see the results in time.
Huckabee is certainly likeable and charismatic, but he’s so far wrong on economics (from my viewpoint) and borderline theocratic that I cannot imagine supporting him.
Palin is likeable as well. I want to see how she presents herself when she’s on her own as opposed to the way McCain’s camp (mis)handled her. As with Romney, we’ll see the results in time.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
#14. Feel free to read the complete sentence.
The case for Romney is based upon everything–not just a business success. Obviously merely being a successful businessman does not make one charismatic. But if you look at what he has done: from the stunning success with business to his masterful and yes, CHARMING, influence upon the Olympics and the nations that attended, to winning over the people of Mass and being able to work effectively with both sides (regardless of how you want to agrue the policies)– Romney does have a personal charisma and warmth and appeal (buisness, politics, Olympics, whatever he does).
Afterall, what is really the objective charismatic case for Huckabee (who inherited the governorship)? The fact that he is was a governor and Adam wants to be his mistress? The fact that by campaigning as a “true Christain” he won over a few evangelicals?? Before the primaries, even from his opponents–you never heard personal attacks against Romney the person. The Huckster, on the other hand, has ALWAYS faced charges with those who have worked for him as being petty, mean-spirited and vindictive. Prior to the primary contest–you never heard any such personal charges against Mitt Romney–even from his adversaries.
That being said, the truth of the matter, is that “charismatic” would not be the first word I would use to describe Romney, Huckabee or Palin. I think Obama wins that hands down. But to argue Huckabee is charismatic and not Romney is simply the height of stupidity–even for Adam.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
arbitrary judgments are fine when not presented as fact. this post says “FACT: Romney cannot win, huckabee and palin can.” that’s boring.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
I understand that I am in the minority with my opinion, and I am fine with that. Just do one thing. Watch a press conference of Obama’s and look for charisma. I personally don’t care if our president has a personality, I want competence and conservative ideals. Unfortunately, for everyone that does not hang out at this site, they vote for personality and looks.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I do not know if Mitt Romney has charisma or not. This I do know.
At CPAC 2007, Rudy Giuliani spoke first. He came into the overpacked room to great applause. People were screaming and stomping their feet. Then he began speaking. Something interesting happened. The crowd got quieter and quieter. By the end of Rudy’s speech, you heard little more than polite applause.
Romney spoke later. He came into the room to polite applause. But as he spoke, the applause got louder and louder. Finally when he left, people were screaming and stomping their feet.
I saw this happen time and time again. Romney could really warm up a crowd. He could also leave them cold if he wasn’t careful. It bit him at the National Review Convention. He had arrived the previous night from overseas and had not taken the time and effort to properly prepare his address. His lackluster performance set his effort back weeks, if not months. Who knows, it might have even cost him the election.
I personally could care less if Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Obama, Harry Reid, or anyone else has charisma or not. I like Romney because of his abilities, talents, skills, and resume. I admire competent executives. That is my most important quality in a President, competent executive leadership.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I don’t like saying negative things about Romney, but he comes across as a phony when he talks. All of his flip-flops on important social issues (guns, gay rights, etc.) pretty much reinforce this perception.
I think he comes across as an intelligent man, but not a particularly genuine one, and that’s just going to be a major turn off, especially with women voters.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
It’s pretty simple.
Economy recovers – Obama wins.
Economy doesn’t recover – we need a nominee with business acumen and he (obviously Romney) will win.
Failing an assasination there was only two possibilties Obama or Romney.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Bobinator, I agree with you – I have a hard time listening to him. His inauguration speech was flat and lifeless and uninspiring. Reagan he’s not.
The funny thing is that Bill Clinton bugged the heck out of me and I turned him off whenever he gave a speech. But at least the guy sounded like he was alive! I’d gladly take him again over Obama.
It’s going to be a long 4 years.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Flip, You kidder. You looove saying negative things about Romney.
BTW – Romney didn’t flip flop on social issues. Hre changed one position – abortion. No flip on guns, or gays. You know this. You are lying.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
I’m in the minority as well, as I have no idea what people mean when they say Obama has charisma. I just don’t see it. All his speeches follow the same rhythmic pattern: the sentence begins in a lull, including several “uh”s and pauses, then he speeds up the rest of the sentece, pauses, and begins the cycle again. Just the pattern of the syllables begins to give me a bit of a headache if I listen for too long, mainly because it’s so predictable.
I know this puts me in a small group, but it’s just my opinion. I’ve always preferred a direct manner of communication, which is probably one reason I liked Reagan’s speaking style so much. I also think Romney is a very good speaker, and although I did not support him in 2008, I could easily see myself voting for him in 2012 (unless Gary Johnson secures the nomination, but I unfortunately do not see that happening).
As to the initial post, charisma is definitely in the eye of the beholder. And as others have mentioned, if the economy is still in the tank, it will be tough for Obama to win. If we’re in the middle of a recovery, it will be tough for Obama to lose.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
When Romney ran for Senate in 1994, he said he was not going to follow the NRA line. He opposed the NRA on the Brady law and favored the assault weapons ban. He favored gun controls as governor.
Then, just before his Presidential decision, he joined the NRA in 2006 and claimed he was a big-time hunter of “varmints.” He was almost laughed off the stage when he said it.
And even Martha M admits he changed his position on abortion — he went from attending planned parenthood fundraisers in the most liberal state in the union to attending pro-life rallies just a few days ago.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Flip Dixon.#30“I don’t like saying negative things about Romney.”
Oh come on, Flip. That is way too easy. I simply cannot let that pass.
You are constantly saying negative things about Romney. So you must be constantly not liking the things you say.
You must really loathe yourself.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
I think it is WAY too early to know or project who will win — we don’t even know who is running. While I recognize I am in the minority, I am not convinced Romney even runs. He showed last year that he is a realist and is not going to run unless he believs he can win. I think he will carefully evaluate the landscape at the appropriate time but prepare in the meantime.
To tell you the truth, I really have not given 2012–and the potential candidates–much thought. My early thoughts are that I am not sure that Palin really has the gravitas to win even the republican nomination. These are very serious times and this election (as 2008 turned out to be) will most surely be about the economy and not much else. As for the Huckster, the economy is not playing necessarily to his strength but he will have a loyal following regardless of anything he says or his economic record in Arkansas. The only way he wins the primary, and i consider it unlikely, is if it is a very crowded field with a number of credible candidates whereby he may be able to win just enough states with 35% of the vote while getting trounced in many others. I sleep well at night, however, knowing that the Huckster could never win a general. He would lose practically the entire west just for starters in addition to the biggies of NY, CA and Fl.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Flip,
That ain’t gonna fly. Romney has ALWAYS supported hunting, sporting, and self-defense rights to guns. He has ALWAYS opposed assault weapons. Once, when they tried to pass a law saying that all multiple shot weapons like revolvers and semi-automatic rifles are assault weapons — you know, the kind that are used for hunting, sporting, and self-defense — he fought that.
So because he is FOR hunting, sporting, and self-defense rights, and AGAINST assault weapons, people like you say he is a flip-flopper.
Try again.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Flip, the NRA worked with Mass on the assault weapons ban. They called it a “net gain” for gun rights. You know this. Yet you continue to repeat yourself.
He went to one planned parenthood fundraiser over 14 years ago, where his wife wrote a check for $100. Bid deal. He changed his position on abortion, get over it. As governor, he was entirely 100% pro-life. Even Reagan signed an abortion bill as gov of CA.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
i’m surprised they let a post like this on the front page. i’m all about people disagreeing with each other, but this is just unhelpful.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
#36, I think Romney’s a good person. He’s a good businessman and family man, no doubt about it. He’s pretty much a center-left Republican, no doubt about that either. His own record conclusively proves this fact.
He feels the only way to win the Presidency is to act like the most conservative guy in the room. It’s too bad he feels the need to pretend like he’s something he’s not. That’s why he has such a poor reputation with the media and with the other 2008 candidates. His unfavorables are even higher than Palin’s. Everybody knows he’s not authentic. He got away with this in 2008, against liberal GOP’ers McCain and Huckabee. In 2012, it will be a different story.
Romney’s a tragedy, really. A gifted man wearing a disguise. I honestly don’t like criticizing him. It pains me to do it. But I care about the future of the GOP, and people need to know the truth about this decent yet heavily flawed man. I hope for his own sake, Romney doesn’t run for President.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Flip, if people need to know the truth, then stop lying.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
FDR was re-elected by the “greatest” generation. A generation who knew large and complex problems took time.
We don’t even come close to that generation.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Romney had “such a poor reputation with the media.” What an idiot. You even forgot your talking points that the media was supposed to be in the bag for Romney. Can’t you even remember your lines?? LOL. The media–conservative and liberal–loved Romney because he was articulate and intelligent. Or perhaps you are talking about all of the conservative media who mostly supported Romney. Romney, by everyones account, was McCain’s most effective advocate for the party. Thanks for proving you have no clue what you are talking about.
Oh, and by the way, McCain played Huckabee like the fool he is and then dumped him. Huckabee is petty, incredibly corrupt, and not an economic conservative. By the way–his son kills any more dogs lately and get it covered-up? Boy, that would be an interesting first family. No dog (at least alive) at that White House!
January 29th, 2009 at 12:31 am
#44, I never said the media was in the bag for Romney. I thought he got a lot of negative coverage during the primary, and Mccain got a lot of great coverage. The MSM loved McCain, and didn’t like Romney very much.
I do believe, however, that Romney deserved a lot of negative coverage due to his flip-flops and inconsistencies, which all the Rom-bots on this website deliberately close their eyes to.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Flip: you need to get the Huck’s Army talking points on Romney and the media–you can ask Adam for his copy. While certainly every candidate has some negative attention, Romney got pretty good coverage. If you were actually paying attention and not in school at the time, Romney was endorsed by a lot of the conservative media–National Review, HHewitt, Hannity and many of the guys on Fox, many of the radio folks, etc. The Huckabee spin is that the media was “in the bag” for Romney. And Romney performed admirably as suurogate for McCain and, all in all, I thought got pretty good press (Oh sure, there was the mormon stuff he had to deal with).
The “lot of negative” coverage is only if you are getting all your news from Huck’s Army. Oh sure, he had to explain his change of position on abortion–but all of the candidates had changes they had to explain. Must admit, this is the first time I have ever heard a huck supporter talk about “all of the negative media Romney got.”
Again, talk with Adam and he will give you the correct lines. Or, actually get outside a little. And if you decide to try and leave Huck’s Army, there are people who can help.
Good luck.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:02 am
Bags, I’m no fan of Huckabee and in a Romney v. Huckabee race I’m not sure who i would vote for. It would not be a very attractive choice, quite frankly. They are both flawed candidates with limited appeal.
My hope is that a dark horse candidate emerges, like sanford or Huntsman, who could revitalize the party. We need some fresh blood.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:02 am
The MSM was afraid that Romney would be a strong GOP candidate and they are in the bag for the Dems. That is the whole reason they propped Huckabee up and gave him all of the positive press just before the Iowa caucuses.
Look at how the “Mormon” issue was kept front and center through the whole campaign. It was the media that couldn’t let it go and get to real issues.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Flip
#36 Flip says…
“I think Romney’s a good person. He’s a good businessman and family man, no doubt about it. He’s pretty much a center-left Republican, no doubt about that either. His own record conclusively proves this fact.”
What the crap? His own record proves that he a center-left republican? Tell me some things from his RECORD that shows he is “center-left” Republican.
What liberal blog are you reading? Wow.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:54 am
#49 Don’t you know his entire record consists of his first political debate in Massachusetts against Ted Kennedy almost 15 years ago? Duh! Get with the times! (kidding)
January 29th, 2009 at 8:07 am
All of the Lichtman keys tend towards the subjective and immeasurable. Charisma is the most extreme. Wikipedia has an interesting run-down of the issue, for what it’s worth.
In the last primary, the charismatic appeal of Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson were quite strong for me on the GOP side, with Huckabee as the strongest, even though Rudy was my preferred candidate. Romney didn’t have that effect on me, which is one of the reasons all the mud-slinging done by his campaign and supporters turned me vehemently against him.
I’d have to say that the clownish Joe Biden was the most charismatic on the Dem side for me, but when you sit down and actually parse what he has ever had to say, it’s mostly total nonsense and gibberish. Bill Clinton could also pitch pure BS charismatically, which made him even stronger as a salesman for more reasonable claims.
Obama’s oratorical charisma has improved over time. And one aspect he does well is matching his comments to the needs of the situation. He frequently outdid Hillary and then McCain by being more calm and confident.
Charismatic off-the-cuff speakers with 2012 potential for me include Huckabee, Gingrich, Pawlenty, and Romney. I add in Romney because he has seemed much less impatient since exiting the last primary. He no longer seems like someone who is trying to keep up a facade. That makes him more natural and likable, despite how thoroughly grating many of his most enthusiastic boosters are.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Funny how Adam doesn’t come back to defend his post, but Flip is all over it like stink on crap. Sock puppet anyone?
January 29th, 2009 at 10:29 am
I think a lot of the Rom-bots on this site are suffering from “Flip Derangement Syndrome.” Let’s stop the personal attacks and focus on substance.
I have nothing against Romney, but it’s a joke to say that he’s charismatic or a principled conservative. If he didn’t have $50 million of his own money to spend, there is no way he would have been a first-tier candidate in 2008.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:01 am
I think a lot of the Rom-bots on this site are suffering from “Flip Derangement Syndrome.” True and from where I sit some are also suffering from Adam Graham DS. There is nothing new about the 13 keys, this is standard American political theory. I for one am not saying that Mr. Romney has 0% charisma and everyone else (or at least the major candidates have 100% charisma, but I truly think it is down right laughable to say that Mr. Romney has Charisma in Ohio. Maybe the 49 states are mesmerized by his charisma, but I doubt that all of them are. Look, Mr. Romney is a good man, a basic Conservative and the like and he shall win Ohio most likely in a General election even if we have to drag him across the finish line kicking and screaming, but charisma, let me know when to stop laughing. Hey, perhaps I and other will be convinced of his charisma, but as of right now, no. That being said, I do think it is certainly possible for him to win without having a charisma level of over 5 on a scale of one to 10, but let’s be serious, most Americans who are not commenter on race42008 do not see this yet.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I find the “13 keys” to be a lot of Monday morning quarterback hooha. Anyone can tailor a complex set of “keys” or components to comprise a system that, post hoc, accurately predicted the outcome of foregone conclusions. Especially when several, if not most, of the components are in some way or another judgment based, or subjective. Honestly, if it were this simple to predict a winner for a presidential race, parties would have given in to a forumalic “check box” approach a long, long time ago. It’s fun to categorize issues in this way and put complex, not easily understood issues, like presidential politics, into nice, clean little boxes, but it isn’t practical.
Whatsmore, presidential politics have changed, forever. 2008 was the first real election cycle on which was unleashed the full power of the new media, by way of the internet, cable news coverage, and related forums. Simply put, things have changed, and data collected from the past is largely irrelevant, at least as it constitutes any sort of reliable marker for predicting the future. The game has drastically changed, and the sooner we accept that and begin reshaping our party using all the new tools at our disposal, the more successful we’ll be.
I contend that a Huckabee can never again be a serious presidential contender. Folksy populism with a heavy Christian tint will fly in some areas, no doubt, but it will never again work on a national level. I’d even go so far as to say Bush couldn’t get elected in today’s US if he were the fresh, new politician out there.
But, as it was my post that was quoted to start this thread, allow me to explain two things. One, I hardly was attempting to definitively explain away the next 3 years of presidential politics in the 4 sentences I devoted to that post. Rest assured, I’m well aware of the complexities at hand. I was merely making an anecdotal observation, in a rather rhetorical form. Two, my post was not meant to be an advocation of Romney for President. I left that for the reader to decide (though I do find it humorous that I listed “economic gravitas” as a prerequisite for a serious presidential contender, and though I didn’t mention Romney, Adam immediately glommed on him as fitting the bill). Yes, I do think Romney would be a good fit for the scenario I described, but no, I don’t think he’s the only one. More than anything, I was promoting the idea that Huckabee and Palin would be poor choices as GOP standard bearer in 2012. And I think the logic holds up. An Obama loss in 2012 will most likely be the result, at least in part, of his inability to promptly and effectively start the economic turn around everyone is counting on. The logical choice for his opposition would be someone with just those credentials, namely, the ability to quickly and effectively turn around our economy. No matter what your personal opinions may be, the vast majority of Americans will never see Palin or Huckabee as the one who fits that description, and that’s putting things mildly.