Posted on 08/11/2007 6:31:35 PM PDT by Reaganesque
~”That means per dollar, these guys netted Fred Thompson 100 times the votes as Mitt Romney’s official campaign produced.”~
Umm... Romney won. You’re correct in your statement, of course, but what does it matter how much was spent per vote, if he won?
With the momentum generated by this symbolic victory, Romney has the opportunity to reap ten times as much in free publicity and increased fund raising as he spent to garner the victory.
That’s how business works. You invest in the hopes that you’ll make up for the losses later. What is a campaign but a business with a specific product to sell?
No, because instead Romney’s ink is all being spent on how he bought the straw poll, and him trying to refute that it’s a “hollow victory.”
If anything, I think it backfired on him a little bit and is a net negative for him.
There are only two things that really came out of the straw poll:
1) Mike Huckabee’s legitimate victory - he’s the real winner here and everyone knows it.
2) Tommy Thompson’s subsequent exit from the race.
All that comes generally from people who were already predisposed against him. It’ll settle out in a couple of weeks. In the meantime, he’s begun a track record of being a winner. Everybody likes a winner.
Those who dislike Romney underestimate him due to their own bias. That’s not smart, not if you want to defeat him.
Personally, I’m still undecided, though I do lean in Romney’s direction.
I’m not committed to any candidate or non-candidate yet, either.
I’d certainly support Mitt in the general election, though I do have reservations about his potential strength in it.
I think you have a half-point about it coming from people opposed to him. But that’s only natural, that his adversaries would play up that angle, while his supporters would play it down. But the inescapable truth is it is out there, and there is a truth to it at its very core.
It was an investment Mitt believed was worthwhile, and given his position in the polls and the strategy for victory which that place requires, it was probably a good investment. But Mitt still remains a very long shot. There was no way he could have won the straw poll without buying it, and there is no way he could walk away with such a victory clean. He is gambling that the ultimate victory was more crucial to his campaigns viability than the accusations of buying the race. But it’s a catch 22 for him, because he simply cannot win the nomination without buying it. He is gambling on the slim possibility of being able to get away with buying the race over the impossibility of him winning it upright.
A lot of people will point to his religion as his weakness in the general election, but my concern is it will be how he won, if he somehow manages to. The candidate that wins the presidency is always the one who manages to seize the populist mantel in the eye of the public.
~”But it’s a catch 22 for him, because he simply cannot win the nomination without buying it.”~
I don’t agree. He needs to buy name recognition (and name recognition is what wins straw polls) - it’s a handicap that he faces against Giuliani and Thompson. But once people get to know him, they tend to stick with him. His strong numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire, where’s he’s spent his time and resources, point to this phenomenon.
I do agree with you that Romney is still a long shot at this point, but I think he’s the only one with a feasible strategy on how to turn his long shot into good odds.
~”The candidate that wins the presidency is always the one who manages to seize the populist mantel in the eye of the public.”~
That’s a good point, let’s discuss it. Do you really think that the unwashed masses, when seeing Romney standing across from Clinton, would find Clinton to be representative of how they think America should be? If they do, then our problem is a whole lot larger than Romney - it would mean that conservatism itself is crumbling, and neither Romney nor any other candidate would be able to overcome that.
Whether or not you like Romney’s politics (and let’s face it, while he’s not perfect, he’s not nearly so liberal as his opponents try to paint him), it must be admitted that he has an optimistic quality about him towards the future of this country that echoes of the inspiration we felt with Reagan. He is upbeat, energetic, positive, and hopeful, and this attracts people.
Compare that to Hillary: forced, shrill, overstuffed with baggage. If (when) she gets the nomination it will be because the liberal base thinks she is entitled to it.
The American people, as a whole, will have no such predisposition. Do you really think they would follow her over Mitt when they are placed in stark contrast?
I don’t know if Mitt will get the nomination; at this point, my gut puts his odds at 70%, and I’m torn as to whether Giuliani or Thompson will be his biggest competitor. But if he does, he may indeed be the only candidate we have that could survive the Clinton attack machine and come out the other end smiling and optimistic in his “golly-izing” ways. He has the management chops to run a lean, effective, nimble campaign, and can outspend Clinton through self-funding if need be. I am approaching the point to where I think Romney is the only major candidate we have that can actually beat Hillary.
Your thoughts?
I think Mitt runs the chance in the general election of cancelling out Hillary’s image of being scheming, contrived, and power hungry that would normally work against her. He would certainly make it harder to raise that argument against her. And who knows, the Clintons, with their media machine behind them are pretty good at fooling some people, enough that the MSM may even turn it around on Mitt. We must keep in mind, this time, more so than any prior election, the Republican candidate’s primary rival will be MSM, not the Democrat nominee. They will do their best to shield the Democrat from any serious scrutiny.
Obama will be even harder for Romney, and if those two are the nominees than the Democrats will probably win. It’s hard to hit a moving target with no record, especially when the media is holding him up as The Second Coming who isn’t “politics as usual.”
I think Romney is very bright and articulate, so that’s his strength. But it may not help him is the media turns him into Michael Douglas’ character from the film ‘Wall Street’.
I agree with you about Romney being the only trailing candidate with any sort of viable plan to actually win the nomination. But the thing about the GOP is they are not prone to choose the underdog like the Democrats are. The fact that there may be a real race between Thompson and Giuliani at all is surprising. Republicans have a habit of giving it to “the next in line,” which really hasn’t been broken since Reagan defeated Bush in 1980, and perhaps not before.
McCain was never in line for it, but the media tried to portray him as such, partly because they just don’t understand the GOP and how it works, and partly out of wishful thinking. Giuliani actually has been The Chosen One ever since 9/11, because of his leadership that day that catapulted him into a national hero and household name.
However, I see a 1980 redux in the works, with Thompson playing the part of Reagan playing the part of cowboy on the white horse.
If this was the Democrats and not the Republicans, I would say that perhaps Mike Huckabee has a chance. But it’s not, and he doesn’t. But this is why Hillary is really not a sure thing, and why Obama still has a decent chance of getting the Democrat nomination, or perhaps even Edwards.
The Democrats almost never choose the anointed candidate in the end. That tends to make the race very unpredictable.
Interesting comments, particularly those about Obama’s chances. I must admit, I consider Clinton a shoe-in. I’ll have to give it more thought.
Thanks for the great discussion. It’s kinda rare around here, particularly when Romney is the subject.
You may find this to be an interesting resource:
http://www.pollster.com/08-FL-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
Be sure to check out the links to other early states at the bottom of the page.
At this stage in the game, I’m paying a lot more attention to the -direction- a candidate’s support is moving, rather than the -degree- of that support.
Yeah, but look at the past 3 Democrat “shoe-ins”:
Howard Dean
Paul Tsongas
Gary Hart
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.