« Annals of Good Reporting | Main | Alphabet Soup »
December 07, 2007
My Commenters Is Smarter Than I: Romney Edition
Jasper writes:
It remains to be seen whether or not the speech worked. It is sometimes said that there is no such thing as "bad" PR -- but this is surely not the case in politics. I thought Romney was doing pretty well, all things considered. This looks to me like a pretty clear case of rookie overreaction 101. The well-financed, hitherto disciplined, on-message Romney campaign has nearly a month before Iowa to soften up Huckabee's numbers, and they've got plenty of issues with with to work, such as the latter's failure to hate immigrants, and his preference for financing government in real time rather than leaving it to future generations. I don't think it was necessary to go nuclear on the religion issue. Especially when their rival has better ICBMs.
Now, people are talking even more about an "issue" -- Romney's Mormonism -- that really wasn't an issue even to most GOP voters, never mind the electorate as a whole.
We shall see. Maybe all of this helps Romney. But maybe not. And if not, I think it opens the door a bit more widely for a McCain resurrection. I think four or five days ago at least one poll had the Arizona senator in second place in New Hampshire. That's pre-speech.
That all seems pretty plausible, too. It's certainly the case that Romney's speech did the opposite of deflecting attention from his religion. It put him back at the center of the conversation, but when the sneak mailers go out and the push polls begin, voters will have already been alerted that there's something here that Romney is embarrassed about.
December 7, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Now, people are talking even more about an "issue" -- Romney's Mormonism -- that really wasn't an issue even to most GOP voters, never mind the electorate as a whole.
I think this could be wrong on a couple counts, though nothing is for sure when you're talking about this kind of stuff.
1. How do we know the Mormonism wasn't/isn't an issue for GOP voters? It's hard to explain Huckabee's rise otherwise, isn't it? Romney provided GOP voters with a doctrinaire conservative up and down the line, including, in contrast with Rudy, abortion and the other "social" issues. Huckabee provides a similar ideological choice, at least with respect to abortion etc., but his chances of getting the nomination seemed, a month or so ago, much lower than Romney's.
So if you're a social conservative, you can pick between candidate A who agrees with you on everything and is looking like a front-runner, or candidate B who also agrees with you on the big stuff but looks like an also-ran. Why would you choose B? The only relevant difference that I can see: Huck's a "true Christian."
2. I think at this point in the race, what Romney needs is a little bit of attention, a little buzz. It's not like he was making mistakes right and left; it's just that, all of a sudden people were paying a lot of attention to Huck, who's affable and a new face. Now instead of talking about Huck, we're talking about Mitt.
His timing may have been a little off only in that the increased attention paid to Huck also means increased attention paid to Wayne Dumond - and Carol Sue Shields, whose face will haunt Huckabee's campaign every day if he becomes the nominee.
If I'm a Republican voter, Romney is starting to look much better than he did a few months ago. Huckabee will implode over the Dumond thing, not to mention his loopy tax policies. Rudy has way too many skeletons in his closet to seriously consider giving him the nomination. Thompson, yeah right. Their only viable options might be Mitt and McCain, and if Mitt can make himself the default, he'll get the nomination.
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 7, 2007 1:57:30 PM
All true, but I think the ICBM metaphor is wrong. They took a calculated risk that among all the Republicans, Huckabee is also the least likely to use that particular weapon, at least in a way that would hurt their campaign. I.e., he's not going to prey on Romney's Mormonism as unChristian.
Huckabee's gun will remain firmly in its holster. To draw would be uncharacteristic of his political persona. (Metaphors are teh awesome.)
Posted by: jhupp | Dec 7, 2007 1:58:24 PM
They took a calculated risk that among all the Republicans, Huckabee is also the least likely to use that particular weapon, at least in a way that would hurt their campaign. I.e., he's not going to prey on Romney's Mormonism as unChristian.
Huck's already using it. And rather obviously it has hurt Mitt's campaign in Iowa. He's apparently got spots running in Iowa with bright, flashing graphics highligting the word "Christian" or somesuch. Huck's not a total idiot -- far from it -- so he's trying to do it "subtly." What I meant by my "better ICBM" reference was only that you don't want to emphasize your religion when you belong to a Satanic cult (Mormonism) and your opponent belongs to the One True Faith (fundamentalist Protestantism). I agree Romney's got a Huckabee problem. I just think emphasizing your membership in a faith almost as dangerous and evil as Islam is not the way to go.
How do we know the Mormonism wasn't/isn't an issue for GOP voters? It's hard to explain Huckabee's rise otherwise, isn't it? Romney provided GOP voters with a doctrinaire conservative up and down the line, including, in contrast with Rudy, abortion and the other "social" issues. Huckabee provides a similar ideological choice, at least with respect to abortion etc., but his chances of getting the nomination seemed, a month or so ago, much lower than Romney's.
I think I've read on the internets that something like a quarter of likely GOP primary voters (nationally? just in Iowa?) consider Mormonism an illegitimate, heretical cult. So, undoubtedly it is an issue for some GOP voters. But how's this speech going to change that? I'd say Romney's better off going after Huck in the old fashioned way: negative ads. He won't get all or even most of the votes he can peel off of Huckabee, but that doesn't matter as long as it leads to a net harm for the Huckster.
Thanks for the shout-out, Ezra.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 2:18:05 PM
undoubtedly it is an issue for some GOP voters. But how's this speech going to change that? I'd say Romney's better off going after Huck in the old fashioned way: negative ads.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Previously, Mitt's message to the anti-Mormons was essentially: I realize you think I'm a heretic, but if you care about abortion and the rest, I'm the only game in town.
Then Huckabee came along and punctured that particular argument.
It can be revived by getting rid of Huckabee, which ought to be the equivalent of flicking a fly off of your arm. May I suggest a commercial, with no voiceover or soundtrack of any kind, that shows us:
-closeup of young woman's face; caption: "Carol Sue Shields...."
-dissolve to picture of Wayne Dumond. Caption: "...was found murdered ... she had been sexually assaulted and suffocated ... authorities charged Wayne Dumond with the murder."
-dissolve to picture of Huckabee. Caption: "Dear Wayne, My desire is that you be released from prison. I feel that parole is the best way for your reintroduction to society to take place."
-fade, caption: "Can a man who let a serial killer out of jail to murder again really be trusted to be the President of the United States?"
Or some such schlock, highly cliched but nonetheless all true and brutally effective. Huckabee is a non-factor by the end of the year.
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 7, 2007 2:56:27 PM
I'll believe in a McCain resurrection when I see it. Here's the deal:
1) Any GOP candidate without a primary or caucus win before Feb. 5 is pretty much dead.
2) In McCain's case, it's pretty much NH or bust. If he doesn't win there, he sure isn't gonna win SC.
3) He's saddled by two problems in NH that he didn't have last time. The independents who voted for him in 2000 are more likely to vote in the Dem primary this time than they were in 2000. And people looking for a maverick can vote for Ron Paul, who will likely get 5-10% of the GOP vote.
These NH problems hurt McCain and no one else, and they really put a crimp on how much he can grow his support this time.
Plus he still doesn't have a lot of money, and he's eight years older than last time, and showing it. John McCain, prepare to kiss your Presidential aspirations goodbye.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | Dec 7, 2007 2:56:37 PM
I'm not making any prognostications for the impact of the speech, but I can see a tactical argument in its favour. Huckabee's got the hardcore evangelical vote anyway - I don't think Romney's speech was aimed them at all. Rather it was aimed at those Catholics, protestants and less loony evangelicals who don't like Huckabee's soft (relative to the rest of the candidates) positions on things like torture and the poor, but weren't sure if Romney was really onside in the culture war. This wasn't about reassuring them about his Mormonism. It was about reassuring them that he's one of them in the fight against secularism, ie he will nominate judges they like.
"Huckabee will implode over the Dumond thing, not to mention his loopy tax policies"
Bull. Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. Dumond will do nothing to Huckabee in the primaries, while his tax plan is probably net positive.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Dec 7, 2007 3:59:55 PM
Dumond will do nothing to Huckabee in the primaries, while his tax plan is probably net positive.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise, though I'm not sure the Dumond thing won't hurt him. Right-wingers in the media, who I think dislike Huck for other reasons, are coming down pretty hard on him.
But I meant to say this stuff would doom him in the general election, which would make him a very unwise choice for the GOP. That doesn't mean they won't choose him, but if I were them, I wouldn't.
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 7, 2007 4:16:34 PM
At the end of November, McCain was second in New Hampshire in the Zogby, ABC/WashPost, and FOX News polls, and tied for second with Guiliani in the Rasmussen and Marist polls.
BUT - even when he comes in second in NH, Romney is double digits ahead of him in all but one poll. The best he can do is a second place finish in front of someone who is essentially not running.
Posted by: gkoutnik | Dec 7, 2007 4:17:49 PM
An aside to people doubting a McCain resurrection:
Romney's speech created a problem for Huckabee, too. If religion in general becomes a front page issue for the Republicans as a whole, then the fact that the Catholic vote is bleeding away from the Republicans becomes a more noticeable problem. Not to mention the fact that the Jewish vote is already solidly Democratic, as is the secular/atheist vote.
Romney making a point that secularists are not invited on the Republican ark could come back to haunt him, and because Huckabee is the other candidate campaigning on his religion, he could end up in hot water too. The last thing either of them needs right now is someone to start badgering them about which religions they see as sharing common values and which are the enemy in the "culture wars". That could easily turn into a dialogue about which candidate is best able to stop Catholics (i.e. Hispanics) from going over to the Democrats, and neither Huckabee or Romney is in the best position to do that.
Giuliani is in too much hot water of his own right now to really benefit, so McCain becomes the least offensive choice. He can't win Iowa, but the other candidates could bruise each other enough to give him New Hampshire. And I also think that he will pick up the most votes from Giuliani if he crashes and burns in the first two states.
Posted by: Splitting Image | Dec 8, 2007 2:02:29 AM
MESSAGE
Posted by: earneaaasyy | Jan 10, 2008 11:15:31 AM
Is it perfectly carbon copy ? Already saw the notwithstanding info on this area <a href=http://just-info.freehostia.com>Watch</a>
Posted by: advedopomyday | Apr 1, 2009 7:49:08 AM
The night of the fight, you may feel a slight sting. That's pride f*cking with you. F*ck pride. Pride only hurts, it never helps.
a2414a4e311fa60c9e0d12691fba298b
Posted by: Randy | Apr 2, 2009 8:52:36 AM
haUzDG dkv7Rq29nVvzm74lApqSw
Posted by: richard | May 10, 2009 4:10:46 AM
haUzDG dkv7Rq29nVvzm74lApqSw
Posted by: richard | May 10, 2009 4:11:10 AM
haUzDG dkv7Rq29nVvzm74lApqSw
Posted by: richard | May 10, 2009 4:11:26 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
