The Romney Camp needs to do something quick [UPDATED]
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (31) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I don't mean this to be negative of the Romney camp, but I really think they need to do something about this. I think there are two overwhelming factors that have hurt the Romney campaign thus far: (1) there is a sense of arrogance that voters react negatively to and (2) there is this perception that Mitt Romney can't be trusted.
I'm not going to debate whether those are concerns people have, but I'm telling you that a lot of people have them and they are reflected in the exit polls.
The media smells blood in the water. They consider themselves the real experts on vote counting, etc. They've waited eight years for this race. And they are going to really, really make a stink about Romney ignoring Iowa's delegates. I guarantee you it is going to happen. They will use it as just another example of Romney playing fast and loose with convenient facts.
The Romney campaign might want to just suck it up and admit they lost Iowa to Huckabee.
[UPDATED:] I stand mostly corrected. In prior years all the major news networks attributed Iowa delegates at the time of winning. But, as several readers have pointed out in the comments, the media is not doing that this year, with the sole exception of ABC. So nevermind.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Skill vs. Enthusiasm Watch, 01/09/2008 — Comments (20) »
The Romney Camp needs to do something quick [UPDATED] 31 Comments (0 topical, 31 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Romney's an adult and anyone who doesn't vote for him is fickle and would rather vote for a rock star or the soothing words of a double talking preacher??
Talk about arrogant. This is the problem I have with Romney and the sMITTheads that support him. They're right and everyone els are idiots.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
I think you hit on something when you mentioned Romney's Mormonism.
The NYT Magazine had a pretty good piece on this last Sunday. "What Is It About Mormonism?" A pretty good read, and explains some of the problems Romney has in handling his Mormonism.
Also, I think we need to remember that the evangelical vote in Iowa was motivated at least in part by their fear and distrust of Mormons.
This isn't discussed in polite company, of course, which is why most of the MSM is not dealing with it. But I think it is a factor ... and maybe even a deciding factor.
is well taken. Most of the evangelicals I know would never admit it but Romney's Mormonism is a big issue. For most I have spoken with that drops him behind Huckabee and Fred.
On the flip side for most Mormons it is a huge plus which is something you don't hear much about -- similar to Barrack being black. I haven't really seen any analysis about the numbers of Mormons voting for Mitt although I have seen a number of stories on the numbers of evangelicals voting for Huck. Nor have I seen any stories on whether or not Barrack being a black man is giving him a bump among African Americans. It’s almost as if people are afraid to address it.
You're right about Obama's race. I suspect it is giving him a bump in the primaries.
I wonder how race would affect voting in the general election if Hillary, a white woman, is the nominee.
The Dems may be in a no-win situation if Hillary beats out Obama, and it might be the end of the Democratic Party's lock on the black vote.
I suspect at least some African Americans would take it as a personal affront if Obama is not the nominee, and they might sit on their hands or maybe even cross over and vote Republican as a way of punishing the Democratic Party.
Obama's candidacy is taking us into uncharted territory, and if Hillary is the nominee, the vote will be pretty interesting.
This is another subject the MSM really doesn't want to talk about. Pretty sensitive stuff, for sure.
Interesting point, especially if Hillary is perceived to have 'won dirty' using a bunch of smear tactics, it could negatively effect turnout amongst black voters.
YUou are unfortunately severely underestimating the way that Blacks feel about the Clintons, especially Bill. Rasmussen has been tracking support on key constituencies and Obama has gotten the Black vote 3-1 compared to Clinton. She doesn't ahve the same attraction as Barack does, mostly because she splits Blacks into Black males which are mostly going for Obama and Black women which are mostly going for Clinton. I imagine Bill will be called on to bring the disaffected males. The only other candidate Blacks would vote for in the general if it is Hillary would be the other Democrat, Mike Huckabee who talks just like Jesse and Al in terms of race. (And I don't say that in a compliment to Jr. Slick Willy.)
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
Iowa's delegates are not committed.
Erick's argument is that this claim plays into a pre-existing press narrative. True. The liberal press despise Romney more than any other GOP candidate (btw, that is a fact that should give us pause).
Regarding the delegates: What happens if this thing really does turn into a brokered convention with two or three guys standing at the end. Is it possible that those Iowa delegates are then up for grabs?
Romney is saying he leads in delegates because he does, in fact, have the most delegates. As far as I can tell, it's ABC that's being selective here. How can you look at the delegate math and get the number ABC reached? Here is CNN's take (which have Romney winning)....
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=R
The other thing I don't get here is why you (Erick) wouldn't mention the reason WHY Romney actually thinks he's ahead. Instead you're just echoing ABC story, taking the opportunity to perpetuate a negative.
It does not really matter what we *think* in this matter. Sure, Romney has more delegates because the caucus delegates won't be assigned until the convention.
Go look at 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1984, 1980, and 1976.
The media attributed delegates at the time they were won, not at the convention. Everyone else did too. Everyone else is now. That Romney is not doing so, though actually being very accurate about it, comes off as too clever by half for a media and voter already thinking the guy can't be trusted.
Why is ABC's estimate more valid than CNN's?
They have:
Romney 24
Huckabee 18
McCain 10
Thompson 6
Paul 2
Hunter 1
But anyone who is paying much attention knows that it is Iowa overblown - the caucus night festivities do not directly apportion delegates.
I think it is a way for a bunch of Iowans who could not go to Florida for the winter get a little bit of winter fun every few years.
ABC got it wrong big time.
Fox has Mitt only down by 2: http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/national-delegate-count-tally/
CNN has Mitt ahead by 9:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=R
I don't think ABC is factoring in Wyoming. The numbers they're giving as supposedly being from the Romney campaign aren't right either. I have no idea where they found those numbers, but Mitt's website doesn't have those and neither does mymanmitt.com.
Erick, we know you don't like Mitt but you're going to have to do better than this.
"Politics is the business of trying to convince fools to do the right thing."
-Braden Pace
I may be wrong but, this seems like the second hit-job on Mitt in the last few weeks which was repeated whole-hog with little attempt to verify before posting. The first being the posting of the McCain ad with the deliberately chopped off Romney quote.
Maybe there ought to be a little better (self) control over what gets posted front page.
At least this was updated, the ad one just kinda was faded away after the facts came out.
PS: No, I don't support Romney--I only consider him because of those who oppose. Kind of like if the ACLU comes out against something, that thing probably is a good thing.
The entire Delegate process is a mess with RNC delegates, pledged or unpledged...If we look at just the actual delegates from the three (3) states
Romney:24
Iowa-12
Wyoming-8
NH-4
Huckabee:18
Iowa-17
Wyoming-0
NH-1
Where does ABC get thier numbers, are they missing Wyoming?
This is a MSM made up story to attempt to eliminate a canidate...so in reality "they" choose because they are so powerful.
He got 17 in Iowa (it's a "proportional" state folks, not "winner-take-all") and 1 in NH.
That's 18, not 30!
Romney got 12 in Iowa, 8 in WY and 4 in NH. That's 24. Plus he has 6 more in these weird "pledged delegates" which I don't even pretend to understand.
The IDIOTIC thing that ABC is doing is giving ALL of Iowa's Delegates to Huckabee!
Iowa is a PROPORTIONAL STATE you idiots! Look it up!
Many of these early states are being docked delegates at the Convention for going early, don't forget that.
the only person that can restore the delegates that were lost is the nominee himself. This causes the chicken and the egg scenario the longer this contest is dragged out. Thus, delegates lost should be shown as such until we know for sure who the nominee is and if they will be restoring the lost delegates. If it's a brokered convention, then don't expect the delegates to be restored anytime soon.
Geesh, even major news networks have no clue as to the simplest things and they print these big damning headlines saying that Romney is lying when, in fact, it is they who are lying.
It doesn't matter WHEN the networks assign delegates, the FACT is in Iowa, Huckabee won 17 and Romney won 12. That is an indisputable fact. They are obviously giving Huckabee all 29 delegates from Iowa - duh!
CNN has it right, ABC, MSNBC and AP on on drugs.
1. Let's remember that this is about who gets the most delegates.
First, Mitt won more delegates than anyone else.
Second, Mitt won more votes than anyone else.
Third, Mitt has the money to continue the fight, unlike others, sans Rudy.
Fourth, Mitt has an organization in most of the states.
2. The party should, but so far has not, get behind anti-McKennedy/McFeingold/McShamesty. McCain is a liberal media darling. He is wrong on taxes. He is wrong on the judicial nominees. He is wrong on illegal (let me repeat for the idiotic liberals, that's illegal not legal) immigration. He is wrong on Free Speech. He managed to antagonize every Republican group.
So, if you want the party to survive, then give Mitt a chance. After all, the National Review, endorsed Mitt, because he is the candidate who can UNITE the Republican factions. Every attack on Mitt helps McKennedy/McFeingold/McSAmensty.
I think McCain's recording is going to be brought to light by the conservative talk show and blog outlets regarding Amnesty, CFR, Global Warming(He plays right into the liberals hands there).
You would think the National Review endorsement should give us pause to think maybe we ought to back him, but no, just like Huckabee, many on our side are tasting the new flavor of the month and it will leave them with an Extremely bitter taste.
Romney's the best chance to go and run on our views and not sell out just in the name of winning, which seems to be what so many here are ready to do.
How hard would it be for them to agree on what the delegate counts are 3 states in? We got at least 3 different counts from 3 different networks. I put the most stock in CNNs because they are all broken out by state... so you can see how they arrived at the numbers. ABCs and FNCs seem to be black boxes... who knows how those are arrived at. If they don't tell us, we can't see where they differ from the other networks and decide who is right.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
But, as several readers have pointed out in the comments, the media is not doing that this year, with the sole exception of ABC.
CNN is counting Iowa delegates and Romney is ahead in their count. But they are also counting Wyoming delegates which most media outlets seem to be ignoring. And they are taking off the delegate penalty... which also seems to be ignored by other media outlets.
They have a really nice breakdown of who all the delegates are, what states they come from, and whether they are technically committed or not. It is a pretty impressive site.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Mitt Romney's Free Market Pledge to America
1. Free Markets are not the enemy of the middle class
2. Big Government is the problem
3. Washington is broken
4. Class warfare, is unfair to the middle class
AWESOME!!! AWESOME!!
We need a President that understands the free markets. We don't need a politician with another plan.
For years Washington has talked about universal health care, but Romney acheived it through the free markets.
Mitt's health care plan is AWESOME!!
Yes premiums will will be a little high at first but they are starting to come down as more people enter into the system. This is how free markets work. A big screen TV would have cost you 7 or 8,000 dollars when they first came out, now you can get one for a thousand bucks. Over 300,000 thousand people have entered the system.
This shrinks the government and the tax burden for the middle class.
Go Mitt!!
I mentioned this yesterday in another blog entry, but it bears repeating. If we take the ABC figure that Huckabee is in the lead with 31 delegates, that's still less than 3% of the total delegates needed for victory. I'm amazed that such tiny numbers have flustered so many.
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-...
Almost a Who's Who and many are running for President including #1 Clinton, #5 Giuliani , #6 Huckabee and #8 Obama. Are we a pathetic nation or what? This is as you can see an unbiased list from a non profit. Are any of these someone we really want for President???
Hillary is well Hillary.
Giuliani is a NY power broker guy, nuff said.
Huckabee destroyed taxpayer equipment, what did he hide? Suing the states ethics commission looking out for the taxpayer!! TWICE
Obama like Harry Reid and Clinton, shady real estate deals, campaign business in taxpayer facility Bill Clinton/Gore)
Whatever Romney's attributes are, and there are many, he unfortunately comes across as too confident and successful (read that as arrogant) for the fickle American electorate. They'd much rather be enthralled by a rising rock star, the soothing words of a double talking preacher, or an emotional pit bull, than to elect an adult. Having said that, it's inconceivable to me that Romney had no clue about his perceived image before he started (including his Mormonism). Consequently, he needed to tee up what precisely he had to do to counter the negatives. He either didn't do that, or he didn't listen. Whatever the reasons, he's close to being ousted even though, as we speak, he leads in the delegate counts (go figure). The fickle American public will reap what they sow. If you let your national campaigns turn into the politcal version of American Idol, then this is your doing, no one elses.