Primary 2012

[Casino67]

He was just such a poor loser. Couldn't just say he lost and would have to do better. Blamed Mitt for lying, outspending him, etc.

 

Whined.

[Valin]

@Valin I am watching the sitcom Big Bang Theory and missed Newts presser. So I am posting from my phone and can't get the link to work. Just wondering what made it painful for @Casino67.

 

What came before the Big Bang?

[pollyannaish]

He has done that before @Casino67. I feel the same way about it. I loved his last speech. This is the stuff that really turns me off an pulling the "he lies and he has more money poor me" always makes me wonder what running against Obama would be like. As I've said before...just about the time Newt starts to seem credible to me he starts that self pitying whining and it just reminds me of why I can't stand the guy.

[Valin]

He was just such a poor loser. Couldn't just say he lost and would have to do better. Blamed Mitt for lying, outspending him, etc.

 

Whined.

 

Maybe it had something to do with Mitt lying? Just a thought.

[pollyannaish]

Mitt may have lied. Obama WILL lie. Newt has done a lot of lying.

 

Welcome to politics. Set the record straight but do it in a way that makes you seem above it, not in a way that makes you smaller. Leaders are not victims. I hated this about mcCain and I hate it about Gingrich

[Rokke]

Economic woes, anti-Obama Sentiment Fail to Draw Large Crowd.

 

Turnout was unlikely to match 2008, when 44,000 Republicans participated in Nevada’s caucuses. Complete figures were not released by the state party as of 10 p.m. Saturday, an indication of a lackluster showing.

“It was less than what we had planned for,” Clark County caucus Director Michael Chamberlain said on KNPR.

Republican turnout in Washoe County, Nevada’s second largest, was 8 percent, well below the 20 percent some had predicted.

“We expected more. Obviously we hoped for more,” David Buell, chairman of the Washoe County Republican Party, said.

To illustrate how important voter enthusiasm is, quickly answer this question: Who won the 2008 Nevada Democratic caucus, when 116,000, many of them newly registered voters, caucused?

 

We have a solid trend developing. Mitt wins with a low Republican turnout. And he still can't break 50%, even in a state where he got over 50% in 2008. Turnout for this caucus is going to be half of what it was in 2008, which was less than half of democrat turnout that year.

Mitt is not electable. I don't care how attractive he is to independents. He is sucking the life out of his own party.

[pollyannaish]

Mitt does have something to do with it, there is no doubt. However, the fact that people don't feel like there is a viable alternative to Mitt also has something to do with it.

 

For all the sound and fury, I just can not get excited about Newt OR Santorum either. Honestly, I could have gotten really excited about Cain, because I liked the guy and found him inspiring. I will be one of the 80% that doesn't bother going to the caucuses in Washington States. I would have voted in a primary, but just not motivated enough to go out and have to discuss it with people. I don't care that much about any of them. I'm simply voting against Obama in the general.

 

So I think blaming this soley on Mitt is probably a little unfair. Blaming it on the entire field that's left, isn't.

[clearvision]

Romney's Big Win: Who Turned Out for Romney

 

Analysis of results.

[Rokke]

Mitt does have something to do with it, there is no doubt. However, the fact that people don't feel like there is a viable alternative to Mitt also has something to do with it.

 

For all the sound and fury, I just can not get excited about Newt OR Santorum either. Honestly, I could have gotten really excited about Cain, because I liked the guy and found him inspiring.

 

So I think blaming this soley on Mitt is probably a little unfair. Blaming it on the entire field that's left, isn't.

 

I would agree, except that before Gingrich ran his forehead into Romney's $17 million negative ad campaign and essentially imploded, he helped encourage a near record turnout in South Carolina. The enthusiasm index for people voting for him was extremely high. That came to a crashing halt, when party insiders let loose the dogs of war to shut Gingrich down. Enthusiasm was there. I don't see it anywhere now.

Romney stopped by Colorado Springs yesterday. In this staunchly conservative town, on a Saturday afternoon, he managed to get 1000 supporters to turnout. Santorum got more than that last week on a week night. .

[clearvision]

Hard to judge rallies. You don't turn out the middle/main group of either party in general to rallies.

[pollyannaish]

I think you give inside-the beltwayers too much credit.

 

And negative campaigning ONLY works when it has an element of truth to it. I don't think I'm the only one that can't shake off Newt's negatives. For a moment there, when he did well in the debates it was exciting. And then we remembered.

 

I'm not thrilled about Romney, wouldn't go to hear him speak...might check out Santorum to see if he is a contender at all...and still wouldn't vote for Newt. I just won't unless he is the last man standing. It has nothing to do with my excitement for Mitt. It has to do with my contempt for Newt. I'm sorry, but my sense is that the man is a narcissistic, thinned-skinned shyster. No amount of talking is going to change that.

[clearvision]

I think too much is being made of the negative ads. They might have some small hit, but not enough to make up double digits. I just don't think Newt was going to do that well in Florida. I suspect that except for a couple of one liners in the SC debate he would not have won there. If a week had gone by before the SC vote, that enthusiasm would fade. I think Newt has issues and baggage (just like Mitt does but in different areas). I'm personally scared of what Newt might do or say as President as he comes off as a "know it all" and expert on everything. Would he listen to advice? That said I am about as enthused about him as Mitt, but think Mitt is probably more electable, especially in the key swing states.

[pollyannaish]

I agree with that @clearvision and I think that one of the toughest things Newt is facing has nothing to do with people on the outside.

 

His on the ground campaign organization sucks. It's essentially non-existent. IF Newt was actually prepared to be a front runner, he would have had enough of a structural organization in place to face any impact of negative ads off effectively. He didn't have the capacity. You really have to win a campaign one voter at a time, one precinct, one county, one state at a time.

[Valin]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nfeLIS1jiY

[Valin]

New York Magazine: Who in God’s Name Is Mitt Romney?

Frank Rich

Jan 29, 2012

 

Back in the thick of the 2008 Republican presidential race, I asked a captain of American finance what he had made of Mitt Romney when they were young colleagues at Bain & Company. “Mitt was a nice guy, a smart businessman, and an excellent team player,” he ­responded without missing a beat. Then came the CEO’s one footnote, delivered with bemusement, not pique: “Still, whenever the rest of us would go out at the end of the day, we’d always find ourselves having the same conversation: None of us had any idea who this guy was.”

 

(Snip)

 

For four years now, Republicans have been demonizing Barack Obama for his alleged “otherness”—trashing him as a less-than-real American pushing “anti-colonial,” socialist, and possibly Islamist ideas gleaned from a rogue’s gallery of subversive influences led by his Kenyan father, Saul Alinsky, and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And yet Romney is in some ways more exotic and more removed from “real America” than Obama ever was, his gleaming white camouflage notwithstanding. Romney is white, all right, but he’s a white shadow. He can come across like an android who’s been computer-­generated to be the perfect genial candidate. When forced to interact with actual people, he tries hard, but his small talk famously takes the form of guessing a voter’s age or nationality (usually incorrectly) or offering a greeting of “Congratulations!” for no particular reason. Richard Nixon was epically awkward too, but he could pass (in Tom Wicker’s phrase) as “one of us.” Unlike Nixon’s craggy face, or, for that matter, Gingrich’s, Romney’s does not look lived in. His eyes don’t show the mileage of a veteran fighter’s journey through triumphs and hard knocks—the profile that Americans prefer to immaculate perfection in a leader during tough times. Even at Mitt’s most human, he resembles George Hamilton without the self-deprecating humor or the perma-tan.

 

(Snip)

 

The book has no bombshells, and the very lack of them is revealing. For all the encyclopedic detail its authors amassed, and all the sources they mined, their subject remains impenetrable. “A wall. A shell. A mask,” they write at the outset, listing the terms used by many who “have known or worked with Romney” and view him as “a man who sometimes seems to be looking not into your eyes but past them.” Former business and political colleagues are in agreement that he has scant interest in mingling with people in even casual social interactions (in a hallway, for instance) and displays “little desire to know who people are.” He so “rarely went out with the guys in any social venue” that one business associate dubbed him the Tin Man for “his inability to bond.” During his one term as governor of Massachusetts, Romney was inaccessible to legislators, with ropes and elevator settings often restricting access to his suite of offices. He was notorious, one lawmaker explained, for having “no idea what our names were—none.” A longtime Republican, after watching Romney’s vacuous, failed senatorial campaign against Teddy Kennedy in 1994, came to the early conclusion that Mitt’s “main cause appeared to be himself.” This was borne out in 2006, when Romney spent more than 200 days out of Massachusetts ginning up a presidential run rather than attending to his duties as the state’s chief executive.

 

(Snip)

 

 

[Geee]

I think you give inside-the beltwayers too much credit.

 

And negative campaigning ONLY works when it has an element of truth to it. I don't think I'm the only one that can't shake off Newt's negatives. For a moment there, when he did well in the debates it was exciting. And then we remembered.

 

I'm not thrilled about Romney, wouldn't go to hear him speak...might check out Santorum to see if he is a contender at all...and still wouldn't vote for Newt. I just won't unless he is the last man standing. It has nothing to do with my excitement for Mitt. It has to do with my contempt for Newt. I'm sorry, but my sense is that the man is a narcissistic, thinned-skinned shyster. No amount of talking is going to change that.

 

Ditto@pollyannaish

[Rheo]

[Valin]

 

 

[Valin]

Who Castrated Ann Coulter?

David Catron

2.6.12

She once had cast iron… well… courage. Now she's backing the "safe" GOP candidate.

 

There is no conservative writer that I admire more than Ann Coulter. She's smart as hell and, more importantly, she is courageous. She has always been willing to write what other conservatives believe but don't have the guts to say in print. She has never played it safe and has certainly never adjusted her opinions for the sake of conforming to the conventional wisdom of Old Guard Republicans. In 2008, for example, she declared that she would not merely vote for, but actively campaign for Hillary Clinton if the Republican Party were foolish enough to nominate John McCain for President: "If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name, manifestly, if he's our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is."

 

But something has happened to Coulter. I don't have firsthand knowledge that she was kidnapped by RINO Team Six and taken to an offshore medical facility where she was forced to undergo a gruesome surgical procedure, but many of her recent columns suggest that something of the sort must have occurred. What else could explain her endorsement of Mitt Romney? Once immutable where her core convictions were concerned, she has executed a vertigo-inducing volte-face in order to promote a brazen opportunist whose positions on the big issues were the opposite of hers before he began running for President. She relentlessly trashes Republican "moderates" like McCain, yet now supports a candidate who makes the Arizona Senator look like Barry Goldwater by comparison.

 

It first became apparent that something awful had happened to Coulter last November, when she wrote a column asking "If Not Romney, Who? If Not Now, When?" In this surreal effusion, she claimed that the media were "pushing Newt Gingrich" and other alternatives to Romney "because they are terrified of running against him." This, as many pointed out at the time, was preposterous. The only thing that terrifies the media about Romney is that he might not get the GOP nomination. This is the man they want to run against. Unlike Coulter, the media and the Obama reelection team know that Romney can be easily portrayed as a Wall Street parasite whose only memorable "accomplishment" as the Governor of Massachusetts was the enactment of a health "reform" law that renders him unable to credibly denounce ObamaCare.

 

Which brings us to the latest evidence that Coulter has been somehow altered. Her inexplicable support for Romney has led her beyond being merely wrong about his chances in the general election to writing things that are either deliberately disingenuous or genuinely ignorant. The latest example of this tragic development is a column titled, "Three Cheers for RomneyCare." As its title suggests, this piece actually defends the Massachusetts "universal" health law. When I first read it, I could hardly believe such horse manure had emanated from Coulter's keyboard. The column opens with this howler: "If only the Democrats had decided to socialize the food industry or housing, RomneyCare would probably still be viewed as a massive triumph for conservative free-market principles -- as it was at the time."

 

(Snip)

 

 

Don't go away mad Anny girl....just go away.

 

[Rokke]

I think too much is being made of the negative ads. They might have some small hit, but not enough to make up double digits. I just don't think Newt was going to do that well in Florida. I suspect that except for a couple of one liners in the SC debate he would not have won there. If a week had gone by before the SC vote, that enthusiasm would fade. I think Newt has issues and baggage (just like Mitt does but in different areas). I'm personally scared of what Newt might do or say as President as he comes off as a "know it all" and expert on everything. Would he listen to advice? That said I am about as enthused about him as Mitt, but think Mitt is probably more electable, especially in the key swing states.

 

The Romney campaign and its supporters spent $17 million almost exclusively on negative attack ads in Florida. If negative ads aren't effective, than he's got the most misguided and wasteful campaign in history. And while I agree that Newt probably wasn't going to do well in Florida, he was leading by double digits there shortly after South Carolina. If a couple debate one-liners in South Carolina were enough to rocket him well past Romney, that is just another indicator of how shallow Romney's support is. I'm not saying Newt is a great Republican candidate. But I am saying that when you compare the two, only Newt seems to generate actual enthusiasm among republican voters.

I'll just have to shut up about Romney. It isn't constructive or morale building to throw stones at a candidate that we are unenthusiastically stuck with. He's got a few months to generate excitement among republicans. Screw the stupid "independents". How many election cycles do both parties have to lose, before they realize that their candidate must first excite their own party. Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain...are you kidding me? All deemed "most electable" by their respective parties. None of them capable of generating excitement in their own parties. Stupid Obama ran on something as nebulous as "hope and change". He won because he was exciting to a majority of democrat voters. If Romney could ever learn to articulate his message, it still wouldn't matter because there is nothing else about him that comes across as interesting. He's a 1998 Ford Taurus in a used car lot. Dependable. Safe. Practical. And completely unnoticable.

And now I see Romney has turned his sights on Santorum and launching a negative assault on him. Sigh....

[Rheo]

This Embarrassing Romney Photo Is Rocketing Around The Internet But It Is A Fake

[clearvision]

So Romney is code for R-money... hmmm.

[Rokke]

Romney Turns Guns on Santorum

Generally speaking, political campaigns don’t waste time or effort attacking competitors who pose no threat to their standing. The Mitt Romney campaign has mostly focused on Newt Gingrich for its attacks, which made sense in December and January, as Gingrich had the poll standing and the cash to pose a serious threat — a threat fulfilled in South Carolina. Now, however, the Romney campaign has a new target:

The campaign has sent out three press releases attacking the former Pennsylvania senator in the past 24 hours — and is trotting out lead-surrogate former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty to attack Santorum in a conference call this afternoon.

“Rick Santorum is a nice guy, but he is simply not ready to be President,” Pawlenty said in a statement released by the Romney campaign. Pawlenty also attacked Santorum for his record as “pork-barrel spender” who is not as conservative as he presents himself to be.

The new focus is a response to Santorum’s strong position leading up to Tuesday’s Minnesota caucus, leading Romney 29% to 27% in a Saturday poll by the Democrat-leaning

Public Policy Polling.

Additionally, Santorum has been the only candidate who seems capable of tripping up the usually-unflappable Romney. In the two Florida debates, Santorum drew blood with attacks on the Massachusetts health care law Romney championed. The Romney campaign issued a separate list of Santorum’s “false attacks” on Romney’s signature legislative achievement in the Bay State.

Still waiting for word from Romney himself on why he should be elected.

[Rokke]

Romney Leads Big in Poll as GOP Base Splinters

 

Mitt Romney holds a wide lead over other GOP contenders in a new Washington Post-ABC News national poll, but his support continues to lag among core Republican constituencies and he faces an uphill battle appealing to those not already backing his candidacy.

Overall, 39 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents support Romney (or already backed him in a primary or caucus), his best showing in Post-ABC polls since last summer. Newt Gingrich clocks in at 23 percent, with Rick Santorum and Texas Rep. Ron Paul garnering 16 and 15 percent apiece.

After a raft of debates and five primaries and caucuses, many Republicans are souring on their alternatives. A majority — 56 percent — of those who are Gingrich, Santorum and Ron Paul supporters say the more they hear about Romney, the less they like him. Nor is this merely a problem in the nominating contest: By better than 2 to 1, political independents say the more they learn about Romney the less they like rather than more they like him.

 

This is where Romney needs to train his focus. Tearing down his opponents leaves him as the last man standing. It does nothing to increase his chances of being anything else. He will not defeat Obama in a war of negative ads. He can only win if he can get people to like him.

[clearvision]

The Romney campaign and its supporters spent $17 million almost exclusively on negative attack ads in Florida. If negative ads aren't effective, than he's got the most misguided and wasteful campaign in history. And while I agree that Newt probably wasn't going to do well in Florida, he was leading by double digits there shortly after South Carolina. If a couple debate one-liners in South Carolina were enough to rocket him well past Romney, that is just another indicator of how shallow Romney's support is.

I agree with your comment about a couple of debate one-liners, but not the negative ads. The national polls all switched on a dime after that debate, the national polls all switched backed to Romney within days of that debate. The nation did not get bombarded with the the negative ads. Maybe some press articles on them. So it is possible the ads had a small to large effect in Florida (I think small). It is harder to say they had an effect on the national results in that same week span from when Newt jumped after the debate, and then drifted back below Romney again. I looked at several polls on different dates during those periods and all showed the spike and then drift back down.