I know many in this community would argue that Rick Santorum would be easier to beat, but recent polling doesn’t seem to bear that out. Nationally, President Obama’s winning margins in Romney and Santorum match ups are not significantly different. Likewise, in the more important Swing State polls, Romney does not look any better than Santorum against President Obama, especially in swing states likePennsylvania.
Now I am not suggesting that we should reverse “Operation Hilarity” or take any actions to help Mitt beat his primary opponents. The longer the Republican primary goes on, the more beatings Romney will receive from his primary opponents and the more missteps, gaffes and flip/flops he will make, making him an ever weaker candidate by the time he gets the nomination. So by all means, I hope the Romney beatings will continue as long as possible. I am just saying that at the end of the primary process, we are better off with Romney as the Republican nominee (as politically bruised as possible, of course). Join me after the jump /\ for the top 10 reasons why.
REASON #10 – Mr. Gaffe:
Now of course all the remaining candidates have made a substantial number of gaffes during the Primaries that got caught on tape. If you counted them all up to see which Republican candidate actually has the most so far, I’m not sure which one would be in the lead, but I am sure that Romney would be near if not in the top spot. Also, if you define “gaffe” as an unintentional statement”, Mitt would probably be number one, because many of the statements made by Santorum and Gingrich which we on the left might consider as gaffes, were really intentional statements designed to win the votes of as many far right nutso’s as possible. However, in Romney’s case they are pretty much all real gaffes, from “Corporations are People my Friend”, to “I have a number of Friends who are NASCAR owners” to “Cheesey Grits” to probably one of the most damning of all when he was ask to comment on Rush Bows characterization of Sandra Fluke and responded “Those would not have been the words I would have used”. So what words would you have used Mitt? Hope you weren’t planning on getting too many votes from women who make up 51% of the US population. Its more than just Willard’s past gaffes that we have already recorded and can be used to make an almost endless stream of political ads. It’s the fact that his past performance suggests that he is capable of making so many more as the campaign goes on.
REASON #9 – Mr. Bankruptcy:
Its more than just Mitt’s statements that he would have let US automakers go bankrupt, although that’s pretty damaging all by itself. It’s all his Bain Capital past coming back to haunt him. The fact is Mitt was an executive in a firm that routinely bought up companies and liquidated many of them through bankruptcies which put hard working Americans on the unemployment line just so Bain (and Mitt) could make a tidy profit. A profit which came at a price of not only the jobs of multitudes of middle and lower class workers who desperately needed these jobs to survive, but also at a price of economic disaster for whole communities where in many cases the bankrupt company was the Community's sole employer. This is Mitt Romney’s past which he can neither run on nor run away from. Now the other Republican candidates in this race don’t have stellar past employment careers either, but they were not Bankruptcy Managers like Mitt. A Bankruptcy Manager who made millions of dollars for himself while letting millions of laid off workers suffer. A Bankruptcy Manager whose value to society ranks just below that of a Loan Shark Thug who at least only destroys lives one person at a time. Compare that societal ranking to that of President Obama’s, who gave up a high paying legal job to answer a higher calling and take a job as a Community Organizer to help his fellow man. While Barack Obama was making a modest wage by helping people climb out of poverty, Willard Romney was making millions by helping to plunge people into poverty.
REASON #8 - Mr. Debate Club Loser:
Based on his past performances in the Republican primary debates, it is obvious that no one would pick Romney to be on their Debate Club team. He fumbles, has a poor or non-existent counter-punch to accusations by opponents, makes frequent social gaffes that allow his opponents to portray him as someone who is out of touch with the common man, trips himself up with statements that are opposite of his previous statements reinforcing his persona as a flip-flopper, makes jokes that only he thinks are funny, and always looks nervous and uncomfortable in his own skin. Although his remaining Republican opponents are by no means stellar debaters, Mitt is by far the worst of the lot, and Romney himself knows it. Why else would he have tried to skip debates earlier in the primaries. Put him on stage in debates against President Obama who is one of the best at thinking on his feet without breaking a sweat, and he will likely look worse than McCain did in 2008, possibly much worse. While the number of independent votes garnered by a candidate in a Presidential debate cannot be reliably quantified, there is no doubt that a sizeable number of independents make up their minds based on the debate results. So you obviously want to go up against the weakest Republican debater you can, and that’s Mitt Romney. The only thing President Obama has to worry about in debating Willard, is to not beat up on him so badly that Romney picks up sympathy votes.
REASON #7 – Mr. Flip / Flop:
Mitt is a pathological flip-flopper. I doubt if you can think of a single issue that he has firmly remained on one side of over his whole career. Worse yet, Romney doesn’t even honestly change his position. It would be one thing if he admitted that he took a different position on an issue in the past, but after further analysis he had changed his mind. You can choose to believe him or not, but at least he would be acknowledging the fact that he is flipping his position on an issue. But on many issues which he is now taking a more conservative position, he simply denies having previously taken the opposite position, even in the face of video confirming each flip / flop beyond all doubt. This all leads to the production of powerful political ads first showing him saying that he is For “X”, then showing him saying he was never Against “X”, and then showing old video of him clearly saying he was Against “X”. Unlike ideologues like Santorum whose consistency on issues lets voters know clearly where he stands, numerous ads showing Mitt’s flip / flops and flip / flop denials sows doubts in the minds of voters as to where Romney stands on the issue or issues that are important to them. Furthermore, showing Mitt’s flip / flops on a wide variety of issues, will reveal him as a political opportunist who says whatever he thinks will win him the most votes, leaving many voters wondering what Romney truly believes, if anything at all besides his own self interest.
REASON #6 - Mr. Personality:
What can we say about Mitt Romney’s personality? He doesn’t have one! Maybe that’s harsh, but his ability to relate to his fellow man in a public forum is pretty dismal. At every public appearance he lives up to the cardboard caricature of himself, seemingly uncomfortable in his own skin. As much as he tries to seem “human” (for lack of a better word), his attempts to relate to others on a more personal level always come off as phony. From his jokes that are only funny to him, to his obvious nervousness in talking to individuals or groups, he simply lacks the people skills. Unlike his Republican opponents, Rick & Newt who have little trouble in relating to others (at least to other Republicans), Romney always appears nervous and awkward. Now to be fair to Mitt, many of us (myself included) are uncomfortable and awkward when speaking in front of a crowd or to individual strangers. But we’re not running for President. While this lack of inter-personal skills should not disqualify an otherwise excellent person from becoming President (I’m not talking about Romney in this instance, I’m just speaking about a hypothetically candidate), but rightly or wrongly it does seem to be a factor that voters consider. Think back to the Bush verses Gore campaign where Bush was effectively portrayed as being more personable (or the candidate voters would be more comfortable to have a beer with, as Chris Matthews often puts it) and Gore was portrayed as an elitist robot even though he was far more intellectually qualified to be President. Now the shoe is on the other foot and the Republicans have the elitist robot candidate in Romney, and we have the personable candidate (with the intellect of Gore or more) in President Obama.
REASON #5 – Mr. Man Without A Home (State):
Presidential elections are essentially winning voter majorities in individual States to obtain a majority of electoral votes. States where the candidate comes from and/or currently resides usually give that candidate a “Home State Advantage” as seen with McCain in Arizona. But while Mitt Romney has essentially two “Home States”, Michigan where he was raised and Massachusetts where he was Governor, it is doubtful that he has an advantage in either state. In Michigan he barely beat Santorum in the Primary, primarily due to his “let the auto industry go bankrupt” gaffe. And that gaffe will loom even larger when Independents and Democrats vote in mass in November, most of whom see President Obama as the savior of auto industry jobs in Michigan. Then there is Massachusetts, rich in Democrats where Romney probably never had a real chance at winning, and is even more of a lost cause now that he has veered farther to the right in the Primaries. So Romney has no home State he can win, while President Obama is likely to win his home State of Illinois. Contrast that with Rick Santorum who comes from that all important swing State of Pennsylvania, a State I would argue, that President Obama cannot afford to lose. The latest poll I saw in Pennsylvania had Obama at 48% and Santorum at 46%, which is within the margin of error and way too close for comfort. While that same polling showed a 7 point advantage for Obama over Romney in Pennsylvania. We need the advantage in Pennsylvania we get with Romney.
REASON #4 – Mr. City Candidate:
Chuck Todd pointed out an interesting trend during MSNBC’s coverage of the Ohio Primary results. In his presentation of the Ohio Map showing the County-by-County results, he indicated how Romney was winning the Counties containing large Cities like Cleveland and Columbus, where Santorum was winning the Rural Counties. This phenomenon has not only played out in Ohio, it can be seen in the results of many States with large Cities, where Romney wins the cities while either Santorum or Gingrich wins in the country. So why is this important? Because, as Chuck Todd observed, Romney is unlikely to win few, if any of the City Counties in the general election. This is especially true in the crucial mid-western and borderline southern swing States. However, the difference between Romney and Santorum in a general election matchup against President Obama does not lie in cities like Cleveland where President Obama will beat either candidate handily. The difference is in the vote outside of the cities where much of the right wing base resides. It is highly doubtful that Romney can fire up that rural base to the degree that Santorum can. Therefore, it can be expected that Romney will have far fewer rural votes to counteract President Obama’s winning margins in many cities, than Santorum would, making Romney easier to beat in certain swing States than Santorum. At least that’s Chuck Todd’s and my logic.
REASON #3 – Mr. 1%:
Although all three candidates on the Republican side are clearly in the top 1% economic bracket, none epitomizes being the candidate of the 1% better than Mitt Romney. It’s not just because he has more money than the other candidates which makes him more un-liked by the 99%, it because of the way he got that money. First of all Mitt Romney was born into the 1%, he did not get there by earning his way up like a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs. Unlike Santorum and Gingrich who at least have stories to tell about how they rose up from the 99% (regardless of how embellished their stories might be), Mitt has no such story he can tell. Since he has no history of what it’s like being in the 99%, he has proven incapable of relating to what life is like outside of his 1% bubble. Second of all, the money Mitt got on his own (notice I did not say “earned”) was from speculative capital. That’s right, Mitt Romney is not just a member of the 1%, he’s a member of the Wall Street 1%, the group despised most among the 99%, ranking below Congress in the latest polls if you can believe any group ranks below Congress these days.
The picture of Romney standing there next to his Bain Capital buddies with paper money overflowing from their expensive suits is priceless.
">
It’s the gift that just keeps on giving in terms of a campaign ad. Best of all Romney, seems to be reinforcing his personification as Mr. 1% through his comments about knowing owners of major sports teams and race car owners, and his recent statement that he is not ashamed of his money or the way he “earned” it. Romney like no other candidate on the Republican side is ripe for a campaign which appeals to the 99%. A campaign that reminds the 99% that Romney has never done anything to help them (and has indeed hurt many of the 99% in his time at Bain Capital through bankruptcies and lay-offs). His whole life has been about helping himself and his friends in the 1% at the expense of many in the 99%. I have often thought that a simple campaign ad that recaps Romney’s 1% history and then asks the question “What makes you think that 1% Mitt would want to do anything as President to help the 99%?” I can’t think of a single reason, and if voters in the 99% were asked to think about it, I doubt if many would come up with a plausible reason either.
REASON #2 – Mr. Baseless:
Its blatantly obvious from the Primaries thus far that the far right wing part of the Republican Party vastly out numbers the moderates or any other group within today’s Republican Party. If you combined Santorum’s and Gingrich’s votes in the Primaries, Romney would have won few if any States. So the Republican Party is divided with 2/3s favoring Santorum or Gingrich (a small portion for Paul also I guess), and 1/3 for Romney. But Romney’s problem is that he needs the 2/3s of Republicans who do not vote for him in the Primaries, to turn out and vote for him in November. Now many in the Republican establishment have likened this year’s primaries to the Obama – Clinton primary, and have assured all who will listen that Republicans will rally around Romney in the Fall, in much the same way that Democrats rallied around Obama. But there are a few important differences which poke holes in this analogy.
In the case of Obama & Clinton, most if not all the Clinton voters simply liked Hillary more than Obama. However, in Romney’s case, many Republicans are casting primary votes for other candidates more out of a dislike for Romney (Anybody But Romney) than for a preference towards another candidate.
In Obama’s case, he had the nomination sowed up in advance of the Convention giving some time to unite the Party, while its not looking like Romney will be able to get enough delegates to sow things up prior to the Republican Convention.
In Obama’s case, Clinton willingly through her support to Obama before the Convention, which helped greatly to unite the Party, but in Romney’s case I don’t see Santorum doing that for him, and certainly not Newt and Paul who will be taking their delegates all the way to the Convention.
The point being, I don’t see the “Anybody But Romney” group which makes up the majority of Republicans, getting enthusiastic about Romney in November. So a Romney nomination could mean a November contest where the Democratic base is enthused and voting in large numbers, while the Republican base is demoralized and stays home. This could make a critical difference for President Obama in swing States like Virginia, North Carolina and Florida just to mention a few.
AND FINALLY, THE NUMBER ONE REASON WE WANT ROMNEY TO BE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE!
REASON #1 – Mr. Down-Ticket Downer:
Not to lessen the importance of the Presidential race, but an argument can be made that President Obama has a good chance at beating Santorum, Gingrich or Romney. But what should not get overlooked is the importance of the down-ticket races for the House and Senate. Even with the re-election of President Obama, if we don’t retake the House and maintain control of the Senate, we face another two years at least of Republican gridlock. This is the primary reason by far that we need Romney to be the nominee. With Santorum we get a fired up Republican base turning out to vote in close Senate races and in swing House Districts. But, as pointed out in Reason #2, with Romney we get a depressed Republican base who is more inclined to stay home in November. Having a small rather than large turnout of the Republican base in the Fall due to a difference in enthusiasm for their Presidential candidate could very well be the deciding factor in key Senate races such as Maine and Nebraska, and in enough swing Congressional Districts to win back the House. So give me Mitt, the biggest Down-Ticket Downer we could ever hope for!