Turn Out Proves Mitt Really DID Scorch the Earth (FEB ARTICLE ON $$$)

American Thinker ^ | 2-9-2012 | C. Edmund Wright

[C. Edmund Wright]

.....No, the real story is that three states held votes and nobody came. Almost nobody, that is. Consider that the total turnout for Missouri, Colorado, and Minnesota combined was barely over half of the turnout of South Carolina alone and -- worse yet -- barely over half the turnout for the same three states in 2008. Thus, after South Carolina's record-setting primary turnout, the Republican Party has now seen a total of five events in a row where turnout was down compared to 2008. This includes the three events from this week along with Nevada and Florida. Yes, something has made Republicans less excited about beating Barack Obama than they were about John McCain maybe replacing George W. Bush. Who knew that was even possible? What gives? The answer is fairly clear. The candidates have forgotten about Obama. What has turned folks off is Mitt Romney's scorched-earth campaign, which has managed to unfortunately suck all the rest of the candidates into a circular firing squad of a childish food-fight that is of zero interest to the Republican base voter.

[ansel12]

How has Akin morphed into “THE TEA PARTY CANDIDATE”?

“Missouri, a bastion of the tea-party movement, has been shifting right in recent elections. The Tea Party Express and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin endorsed former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman in the GOP primary. Self-financing businessman John Brunner had the backing of FreedomWorks, a national tea party umbrella group.”

[C. Edmund Wright]

You are correct, except that the Dems had their Bain ammo ready to go anyway.

But there is no doubt, history is crystal clear, Newt was the very last candidate to ever attack another Republican. They all, all, teamed up on him in Iowa when he was 14% ahead of the field. They beat him down.

He reacted, and the PAC, poorly, and was wiped out in NH too.

Then in SC he refocused on liberals with his debate performances, and went after Obama, the media, the race pimps, academia nuts, trial lawyers, all of them, and wiped the floor with the competition. After SC, Newt had more total votes than any other candidate.

He went to Florida, and lost his way again, under another withering attack ad assault.

But again, the absolute last one to ever say a word about other Republicans was Newt. Cain never did either, except for one kind of blip about Perry.

[ConservativeDude]

Good point.

Sort of raises the question, yet, again, of “how and why did Akin win the primary” when clearly he should not have.

Regardless of how one labels him, he wasn’t ready.

And we need to remember that, as we move forward.....

[AmericanRobot]

This highlights why we are always fighting with each other. Either you are pure fiscally and socially, or you aren’t a conservative. You listen to pundits clamor on about how we need to be more inclusive. Yet, we can’t even get on the same page from the inside.

[C. Edmund Wright]

My thought is this: it is phony and short sighted for the socon only to break it down as fiscal v social. There is a huge moral component to the fiscals issues - property is sacred in that property is what we exchange our very lives for - meaning our time and our talent. Thus when someone says they are for the moral issues and it means the social issues only, they are way way way off base.

There is sanctity of life - both inside and OUTSIDE of the womb. When people dismiss non social issues as not moral issues, they are ignoring the sanctity of life outside the womb. It’s called liberty.

Meanwhile, the conservative who dismisses the social issues altogether is missing the philosophical and moral underpinnings to fiscal conservatism in the first place.

I would submit that the balanced approach is the Reagan type Rush type Levin type conservative approach. That seems to contemplate the proper balance, and has an understanding of the times we are in at any given moment.

Rick Santorum does not meet that criteria to me, though I agree with him on social issues. What I really resent is the notion that not supporting Santorum is some kind of sneaky dog whistle admittance to being a social liberal in disguise.

That is not Reaganesque at all.

[ansel12]

Sort of raises the question, yet, again, of “how and why did Akin win the primary” when clearly he should not have. Regardless of how one labels him, he wasn’t ready. And we need to remember that, as we move forward.....

Remember what? The primary was split almost equally three ways and Akin narrowly won, what is there to learn?

[Wuli]

“A National Primary Day would eliminate all but the most heavily funded candidates.”

“Candidates like Santorum, Gingrich, Bachman, etc. never would have been a factor. Romney would’ve had no competition for the nomination.”

I don’t accept the premise.

The total number of days needing to campaign would not in fact be that much longer; so its not like the total funding must be greater.

Its not like the “weaker” candidates do not need to plan on campaigning for every primary if they want to win. They do.

And, the best support that can bring in money from lobbying for that support across the country in the first place. That does not mean the candidate has to NOT keep their own state-by-state schedule, building their support. It does not mean they have to be campaigning simultaneously across the country.

The key I left out is that I would replace the primary season’s current primary schedule with a primary debate schedule, providing more debates around the country among the primary contenders, where a candidate can sell themself in the debates, and if they are well recieved, they can generate competing financial support as the primary campaign period progresses.

A well funded lousy candidate at the start does not have insurmountable advantages over a much better but less initially well funded opponent.

[Wuli]

I then think there was something about those states, and the GOP organizations in them, more than the primary candidates at the time. I think there was enough open variety and competition remaining for any GOPer in those states that was really interested. I think it would hard to show that Romney or any other candidate CREATED that low turnout by their candidacy.

[cookcounty]

Primaries areset by state law....not sure they can “opt out” because it’s an open primary. Though I agree that open primaries are stupid.

[okie01]

I don’t accept the premise.

That's unfortunate. Because it's true.

No money, no advertisee.

One national primary day and only one, maybe two, candidates can afford to advertise in enough markets to be a factor in the final vote.

[okie01]

A well funded lousy candidate at the start does not have insurmountable advantages over a much better but less initially well funded opponent.

But, given one national primary day, they do.

The way the system works now is the same way that national packaged goods marketers work. Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina, e.g., are test markets. Small, inexpensive markets to start with -- which allow a candidate to prove he can compete and, thus, gain funding.

A single National Primary Day essentially concedes the election to the guy with the most money.

I assume you don't favor the "establishment candidate", but that's who you'll get with a National Primary Day.

[JediJones]

There is no mystery to why Romney lost. It was easily predictable and many saw it coming as far back as the primary. It came down to his baggage from business and politics and his inability to connect with people.

Read Overestimating Romney from the Weekly Standard last year to see what would happen in this election laid out simply by analyzing Romney's previous campaigns.

Here are some things I wrote on this and other forums during the primary. If me and others could predict this, why couldn't the primary voters? Granted, Romney did pretty bad in the primary for a long while, and often only won because other candidates split the vote.

Romney is as stiff and cold on camera as previous Presidential losers Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole, John Kerry and John McCain. He comes across to people as a kind of cautious, calculating salesman that you can't get to know and certainly can't trust. He is quite possibly the least electable candidate in the whole Republican primary field, aside from Ron Paul.

Here is the baggage that makes Mitt Romney unelectable: he took part in Wall Street high finance scams that bankrupted companies while he collected millions and took advantage of government payouts, he was responsible for layoffs and sending jobs overseas at the companies he took over, under his governorship Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 in job creation, he raised taxes/fees by hundreds of millions, he granted at least 189 gay marriage licenses that were not required by the courts, he instituted socialized Romneycare and his own people used it as a model to help craft Obamacare, Romneycare included taxpayer-funded abortion courtesy of Planned Parenthood, he supported an assault weapons ban, he makes constant gaffes that make him sound like the out-of-touch and heartless mega-millionaire that he is, he is a member of the exotic Mormon religion which has a history of racism among other unusual beliefs, he's made more flip-flops since he started running for president than John Kerry making pancakes, and much more.

In a general election, Obama will focus most of his billion-dollar campaign squarely on Romney and make him as unelectable as he was when lost to Ted Kennedy by 17 points on the very same day Newt Gingrich and other Republicans were elected in a sweep that took over the House for the first time in 40 years.

[Wuli]

“The way the system works now is the same way that national packaged goods marketers work. Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina, e.g., are test markets. Small, inexpensive markets to start with — which allow a candidate to prove he can compete and, thus, gain funding.”

A primary debate process, with more debates, held on some similar pattern to the present primary schedule would serve the same purpose via the polling that would be done after and between the debates.

And the advantage is, with the actual vote held on the same day following the last debate, those who thought they made uo their mind after an earlier debate but have since changed their mind (which happens with the primaries now), would be able to put their final choice in their vote.

[Wuli]

“One national primary day and only one, maybe two, candidates can afford to advertise in enough markets to be a factor in the final vote.”

It really depends on what else and what all takes place from beginning to end during the primary season, and I do not accept that other things during the primary season cannot be done differently than now, knowing there will be one day for voting at the end.

see my other posts on this so I don’t have to repeat myself

[okie01]

A primary debate process, with more debates, held on some similar pattern to the present primary schedule would serve the same purpose via the polling that would be done after and between the debates.

All nice and neat.

Except somebody will spend $100 million in advertising -- and they'll be the winner.

You won't be able to keep them from doing it either -- the First Amendment insures them that right.

The point is this: a single national primary day will result in the election of the candidate with the deepest pockets. And it will shut out any candidate without immediate access to big bucks.

I assume that isn't what you want.

[Wuli]

“I assume that isn’t what you want.”

I don’t ASSUME your premise is an absolute.

we will never agree, that’s O.K.

[redangus]

Great point. The GOP totally ran away from the Bush story. Average unemployment 5.8%, average yearly deficit $134B, average price of gas $2.50/gal, national debt after 8 years of GWB and 42 other presidents about $9 T. Compare that with Obama’s record over 4 years, but not one republican ever made that comparison. They just let Obama and the media spread the lie until it became fact. Somewhere Goebels is smiling today.