Skip to main content

View Diary: So Mitt Romney is a terrible candidate. Mitt Romney has ALWAYS been a terrible candidate. (62 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Again, I beg to differ. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sethtriggs, Thestral

    George W. Bush was an incompetent President and he had gaping flaws as a candidate, similar to those Romney has.  He was stupid, many of his businesses failed by design because he was an opportunistic vulture capitalist in the same mould as Romney.

    However, W. didn't face a candidate who effectively defined him.  Instead he faced a snorting know-it-all who ran away from his would-be predecessor's popularity and lost his home state.

    By contrast you have Romney who, despite his apparent flaws, is a well-connected establishment candidate with donors who can write 9-figure checks to placate an already docile media.  The fact that his flaws have been magnified despite all of the structural advantages he enjoys is a credit to the Obama campaign's effectiveness.

    Luck has little to do it with it.

    Have you googled Romney today?

    by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 12:04:35 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So you disagree with the diarist? (0+ / 0-)

      The point of the diarist is that Mitt is, was, and will always be a shitty candidate.

      No matter what Obama or Obama's campaign team does.

      My point is simple: Obama has faced weak challengers.

      That, in itself, is not a comment on Obama's qualities as a candidate or his team's ability to astutely strategize their path to victory.

      •  No, I disagree with you. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sethtriggs
        The point of the diarist is that Mitt is, was, and will always be a shitty candidate.

        No matter what Obama or Obama's campaign team does.

        You seem to think "shitty" is some inherent flaw in a candidate that has nothing to do with our perception of that candidate.  You seem to think we can assess a candidate's weaknesses independently of his opponent's ability to define him.

        That is completely untrue.  I think you fundamentally misunderstand politics if you believe this is true.

        I don't believe that was the diarist's point.  

        Have you googled Romney today?

        by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 12:38:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Read the diary. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slothlax

          It outlines every campaign Mitt has ever run. He has sucked in all of them. He has been always been a shitty candidate and a lousy campaigner.

          What do you think the diary is about? Just curious.

          •  Stop hiding behind the diarist. (0+ / 0-)

            You made a stupid point.

            If you read the diary again, you'll notice that Romney in fact won some of those campaigns because he lacked effective opposition.

            Obama isn't lucky.  Case closed.

            Have you googled Romney today?

            by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 01:00:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I "made a stupid point?" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slothlax

              Because you're a person who can't hold two, independent thoughts in your mind at the same time? Seriously?

              The title of the diary (in case you missed it) is:

              "So Mitt Romney is a terrible candidate. Mitt Romney has ALWAYS been a terrible candidate."
              And my point was two-fold:

              1. I agree with the diarist. Mitt Romney is, and always has been, a terrible candidate.

              2. Obama has been lucky in general elections in that he has had very weak GOP opponents.

              For some reason, this must strike you as a put-down of Obama and his campaign skills. As I have tried to explain to you a few times here, the suggestion that Romney sucks as a candidate (and that Alan Keyes and McCain suffered from the same affliction) is no way related to Obama's qualities as a candidate.

              But I now realize that you are unable to grasp that, so I will just leave it at that.

              Have a nice day!

              •  Yep, you did. (0+ / 0-)

                You continue to make the same stupid point because you misunderstand politics, and because you can't grasp the simple point I was trying to make: that it's meaningless to assess a candidate's weaknesses independently of his opponent's strengths.

                You keep saying that Romney's flaws have nothing to do with the strength of his opponent because you're not an astute political observer.

                For some reason, this must strike you as a put-down of Obama and his campaign skills.
                Don't be ridiculous.  It doesn't make sense that I would think you're putting down something that you don't understand.  I think you're completely unable to comprehend Obama's effectiveness because you seem to think that Romney is "naturally" weak, and that your perception of his weakness has nothing to do with Obama's effectiveness in defining him.

                With the possible exception of Alan Keyes, Obama has never faced an unviable opponent.  He's always faced a viable, well-funded, well-established opposition.  Obama is no more or less lucky than any other politician, but he's able to maximize his strengths and effectively define his opponents.  That's why he wins.

                Have you googled Romney today?

                by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 08:28:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Romney won only because (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slothlax, sethtriggs, Thestral

              The MA democratic party had imploded so badly, there was no credible candidate facing Mitt, and no functional party apparatus to support a decent opponent if there had been one. (Having been a politically active MA teen at the time, I can tell you, things were f*ed up).

              Mitt was and remains a crappy candidate - he just happened to be able to exploit a major structural weakness to weasel his way into office. He was not a popular governor, and the entire state heaved a sigh of relief when he toddled off to Utah to play Mr. Olympics Guy.

              Romney can be a shitty candidate without reflecting in any way on the Obama campaign. Obama can be brilliant, and still face crappy opposition. His brilliance is what makes it possible for him to face down the untold billions of $$ being arrayed against him by the masters hoping to have Mitt as their puppet (after having also failed to get McCain as their puppet). Taking on the economic hit men is where Obama's strength is, and where it needs to be. Mitt is only the window dressing on the real opposition.

            •  Hiding behind the point of the diary? (0+ / 0-)

              The comment expanded on the point of the diary, that Romney is not a strong candidate, historically. Neither was Alan Keyes or John McCain. Hillary was a quality opponent, but there was a strong anti-Hillary vein to be tapped in 08. Now Obama deserves some credit for his success and I think he may have bested stronger opposition, but he hasn't had to.

              There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

              by slothlax on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 01:54:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  That's pure hogwash fou. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radical simplicity

      Not to take anything away from Obama but he is in the easiest election of ANY Democratic Presidential candidate in history.

      Frankly, calling Gore a 'snorting know-it-all' when he had to face opposition in his own party not to mention being hated by the press, is trying to rewrite history. If Gore had it nearly as easy as Obama has today then the country would be much better off.

      •  You ignore the current economic conditions. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fou, sethtriggs

        This is not an "easy election" by any means. Gore was coming off the heady days of the Clinton economy. Granted, he was also dealing with the leftovers of the failed GOP effort to oust Clinton, but he had a much easier climate in which to run than the current state.

      •  You're making my point for me. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, sethtriggs
        Frankly, calling Gore a 'snorting know-it-all' when he had to face opposition in his own party not to mention being hated by the press, is trying to rewrite history. If Gore had it nearly as easy as Obama has today then the country would be much better off.
        You believe Gore's flaws as a candidate are everyone else's fault, but Romney's are intrinsically his because of your perception, not because of any objective fact.  That's precisely my point.
        Not to take anything away from Obama but he is in the easiest election of ANY Democratic Presidential candidate in history.
        Gore was the incumbent Vice President in the most robust economy in nearly a half century!  His would-be predecessor had approval ratings in the 60-70% range!  He faced an idiot!  And "lost!"  Just because you like Gore doesn't mean that he didn't run a shitty campaign.

        OTOH, yes Obama's winning, but by an average of 2-3 percent.  He's struggled to have approval ratings at or above 50% throughout the campaign and the economy is barely moving.  Plus, he's the first AA incumbent facing a phalanx of anonymous billionaires and a challenger who looks like he was plucked from central casting.  If Obama did not effectively define Mitt Romney, he'd be in a lot of trouble right now.

        You can't have it both ways.  Gore lost because he was an ineffective candidate that allowed his opponent to define him as unstable.  Romney's losing because he's been effectively defined as a jerk.  Pure and simple.

        Have you googled Romney today?

        by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 12:51:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site