It's the Campaign, Stupid!
Romney's campaign is shaping up to be the worst in memory. It's that and not Obama's job performance, record or leadership skills that driving Mitt's drop in polls.
It's the Campaign, Stupid!
John Baer, Daily News Political Columnist
I really don't want to pile on Mitt while his run continues a downward spiral, but his campaign is shaping up as among the worst in memory.
He is, after all, running against an incumbent who failed a pledge to cut the deficit in half, who faces foreign policy fires abroad, including a growing crisis over a nuclear Iran, and who famously, though somewhat awkwardly, said in 2009 with regard to fixing the economy, "If I dont have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."
And yet, where are we?
Daily tracking by Gallup now shows the president with six-point lead (50-44) nationally in a race that for so long was a virtual tie. And this comes as poll after poll shows widening leads for Obama in states such as Florida and Ohio that are critical to the Electoral College vote total needed to win the presidency.
It's not that the economy got better or that governance improved or that the unemployed got jobs or that Obama, as pledged, change the ways Washington.
It's that Romney's campaign is horrible. It consistently allows the Obama camp and the media to direct the narrative -- Mitt's money, Mitt's tax returns, Mitt's wife's horse, Mitt's corporate past, Mitt's personal awkwardness, Mitt's GOP pals talking about "legitmate rape," Mitt's Clint Eastwood, etc. -- instead of staying on and riding hard the message of fixing the economy.
From the start, right after sewing up the GOP nomination, Romney allowed Obama to define him as an uncaring corporate raider who hides his wealth in foreign investments. It wasn't until the mostly-botched Republican convention that Romney even tried to humanize himself with stories of his family and faith.
Then, in what might well be the moment most remembered from campaign 2012, he reinforces the Obama campaign's portrayal with that 47-percent remark. And while I assume when he said, "My job is not to worry about those people," he was talking politically, meaning his campaign needs to attract the other 53-percent, there's no escaping the damage done by the next sentence: "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Worse, just as there was no good Romney campaign answer to the early Obama efforts to define Mitt, there was no good response to the 47-percent comments. Mitt saying it "was not elegantly stated" didn't stop a week-long torrent of criticism and campaign free-fall.
Then, nine days later, Romney's campaign released a new ad, "Too Many Americans," with Mitt speaking directly into the camera. It's good. It talks about poverty growth, the increase in folks on food stamps, the promise to enact policies to create jobs. And it says "compassion" shouldn't be measured by the number of people on welfare but by getting people off welfare and into jobs. It ends with Mitt saying, "We can't afford another four years like the last four years.
You can see the ad here.
Problem is, just like earlier in the campaign season, it comes after the damage is done. It's another example of the Romney camp apparently being tone-deaf to what plays well politically and what hurts its candidate directly.
Obama's not winning. Romney's losing. And it's because of his stupid campaign.
John, while I know your playing Devil's Advocate here, the argument is completely wrong. Obama took this race thanks to Bill Clinton's speech, which explained as only Clinton could do, in folksy and understandable terms, what Obama faced when he came into office and what he has had to overcome. People who didn't know beforehand know now that he was inagurated at the time of an unprecedented freefall in the economy, both in the financial and manufacturing sectors. We were hemorraghing 750,000 jobs per month. GM and Chrysler were dead in the water--so were 4 or 5 of our largest banks and insurance conglomerates. We had a 150,000 troop commitment to a war in Iraq that was going nowhere and Osama bin Laden still was out there promoting hatred towards the US. 50 million or more Americans had no or inadequate health care (Romney wants to go back to people visiting the emergency room with a heart attack---and then being driven into bankruptcy by the bill collectors seeking to recover the cost for the hospital). Obama did what he had to do, bail out the financial and manufacturing sectors and try and stimulate the economy of total Republican opposition, opposition based on the attempt to make things worse for Americans so Obama would not be reelected. Right after that brilliant summary of where we are compared to where we were, Obama began to soar. Yes, it accelerated after Romney put down working people who don't earn enough to pay more than payroll taxes and seniors, but it already was going in Obama's direction. You can't rely on campaign speeches of Obama made before he took office in a crisis. You make the same mistake that the Republicans made---just say "look at the economy" and "are you better off than 4 years ago." This only works if the problems with the economy are the fault of the guy in office, not if he took office during the worst financial crisis since the Depression. The American people are smarter than this, and the results are showing.— Palestra Jon- Excuses from an Obama apologist. Maybe Clinton inherited a good economy from Bush Sr and then that was good for the time he was in office but he did so much damage that it started getting bad when Bush was President. I know that's not the case, but let's stop blaming the last guy when the current guy hasn't done ANYTHING to get this going. Consistent unemployment at or above 8% is not Bush's fault. In fact, unemployment was NEVER at 8% under Bush. Handing auto companies a bunch of money was a failure, they went back to the same failed practices as before they claimed bankruptcy. Obama throws money at problems and only worries about his personal agenda. Unfortunately Romney is "unlikeable" so rather than get a guy who thrives in business lets put a lawyer back in office because he sounds better when lying to us. RIDICULOUS!!! — jimbo jones
- This is priceless - so now Bush Daddy made good, carried Clinton years, but the damage clinton did showed up in Bush baby's presidency, thereby exonerating W from any fault at all.
Amazing the gyrations you've gone through but let me pull you back to the main point - Romney is a bad candidate.
- If Obama wins in November, it will be the one that got away from the GOP. They didn't see all through the primaries that none of their candidates were capable of beating the president, failures one and all. Mitt will be remembered as the most inept candidate in history. Obama was beatable, but not by this bozo.— oldlion
Comment removed.- That's what you get when you nominate a man whose life has been bottom-feeding on everyone below him - which is everyone in his plastic little skull. The guy is a lying, tax-evading POS whose has flip-flopped on every single issue. And please, if these dimwits are stupid enough to nominate a guy who CREATED Obamacare - and then plan a campaign based on running AGAINST Obamacare - you obviously have amateur hour at the RNC. Oh - and picking tub slime that spent the entire "campaign" - if that's what this traveling circus is - insulting every global ally, plus Hispanics, the poor, women, African-Americans, veterans, and any other american making less the 500K a year - you don't stand much of a chance. Maybe this will wake up the real conservatives and they can take back this party of ignorance that panders to the worst redneck racist christofascist bigoted dreck in the country. Which apparently is not a majority...— CiceroSpuriousDeodatusTheSecond
- you seriously need to calm down, as you're getting carried away by rhetoric (as often happens with obama supporters). if romney's a bottom feeder, how can there be anyone below him for him to feed on ? i mean, huh ? while i would agree that romney and ryan are unelectable, i don't think romney deserves the slurs and almost libellous comments you posted. — the_chief
- Comment removed.
- Cicero, it's impressive for you to cram so much disdain and misinformation into one small paragraph? Please, provide us with evidence supporting your statement that Mitt evedaded taxes. There is none. Like Harry Reid, you are a blowhard making statements that are not supported by facts.
And as for the tired arguments about Mitt working in private equity, do you have a clue how private equity works? Or who the investors are? A large portion of PE investors are pension funds and university endowments.— jfar86 - Jfar86. Every day that Willard continues to hide 8 years of his tax returns IS evidence that he evaded paying his fair share of taxes. Try not to be a dimwit. If Willard paid his fair share of taxes over the past 10 years at his consistent rate of 14%, he would have released 10 years. That's obvious. The fact that he refused release of more is a clear indication he has something to hide; that he paid even less than the 14%, and most likely little to none. And he's too much of a wimp to defend what he did legally. He's banking on robotic conservatives to follow him and the Fuhrer no matter what he says or does. Fortunately, the majority of Americans THINK, see the BS, and the results in the polls show this is ONE of many topics they will hold Willard accountable to. — CommonSense in Philly
- So what are we to imply when the president refuses to release any Fast and Furious documents.
Or does the standard of guilty until proven innocent only apply to people you disagree with?— barlowjames - No, it doesn't. You should conclude that Fast and Furious was a witch hunt by conservatives in congress (like the Republican witch hunt against Clinton)to get Obama and AG Holder by any means necessary. President Obama was correct in claiming Executive Privilege, and give the SOBs nothing because they were only looking for a way to discredit the President. Republicans had no interest in righting a wrong. — CommonSense in Philly
- CS, how about you try to engage in debate without resort to childish name calling and ad hominem attacks. Cicero levied an accusation of tax evasion. Tax evasion is a crime. You are now changing the game and getting into "fair share." Romney release his returns and summaries of the rates that he has paid. That is above what he is required to do.
Move on, and try to focus on an issue that is actually relevant.— jfar86 - Romney is trying to educate all Americans on what we are facing and he appears to be getting through, as I see his speeches and his audiences' responses on neutral C-SPAN.Try it some time.
Romney actually gives you lots of economic growth and private jobs ideas , and not based on more taxes.
Obama is a charming mouthpiece for brain-dead, not-working European Socialist ideas. Obama's way produces little non-government growth and more unemployment and welfare.
I don't think the voters are not listening nor are they stupid enough to go for an Obama 2nd Term of more hopelessness and decay.— penllynjohn - Hmmmm. How can Romney educate anyone on anything when he's constantly flipping on his topics and beliefs? First he's for something, then he's against, then he's for it again. On which flip (or flop)would you like us to believe? And if you were aware, you would know that Obama has been doing the opposite of what Europe is doing. The brain dead ideas you speak of are the exact ideas Romney and Republicans are pushing: Austerity. Cut Cut Cut. So if the ideas are brain dead, then you've just labeled Romney brain dead. LOL — CommonSense in Philly
John is the author of the book "On The Front Lines of Pennsylvania Politics: Twenty-Five Years of Keystone Reporting" (The History Press, 2012). Reach John at baerj@phillynews.com.
