Why Romney won, why Gingrich lost
Romney’s message remains the weakest part of his candidacy. And that means, despite his skill with attack ads and in debate, his campaign could still face substantial obstacles. “At bottom the Newt insurgency is fueled by the sense that Mr. Romney’s tepid policy agenda reflects no fixed beliefs,” the Wall Street Journal editorial page’s William McGurn wrote Tuesday. “In fact, it’s telling that Mr. Romney’s GOP rivals are defined as non-Romneys, each standing for something lacking in the front-runner.”
That “something lacking” problem has not been fixed.
What now? The Gingrich campaign will argue that the race is between one candidate who has won two primaries versus one candidate who has won one — hardly a lopsided contest, and hardly a result to declare one man the overall winner. And they believe the longer Romney has to devote much of his muscle to attacking Gingrich, the more Romney hurts himself. At some point, Team Gingrich believes, voters will grow sick of the negativity and say to Romney, “Enough — what about you?”
That could well be wishful thinking among Team Gingrich. Even though Gingrich is pledging to continue the race for as long as it takes to win, the fact is, the former speaker presented a mortal threat to Romney in one of the nation’s largest states, and Romney turned that threat into a huge victory.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Which is ironic considering how much the occupant of the White House acts like the subject of said exam.
Right Mover on February 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM
No, it’s the truth, Mitt Romney’s only weakness is kryptonite! Sucks for you! Bwahahahaha crybaby! Go ask gwammy to comfort you with milk and cookies!
Aitch748 on February 1, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Anything legislated can be undone. Mitnness says he will make OC optional on day one. That does nothing to stop the mechanisms from kicking in. Yeah, OK will opt-out, but Mittness will compel them to come up with a universal plan for OK, same with the other States. How is this different from OC coming into effect on its own.
Let’s posit that on 07 Nov, we find that Oboobi won with 40% of the vote, the GOP wins 30% and combined 3rd parties win 30% (5% leftist and 25% conservative/libertarian). Furthermore, the House GOP boosts its majority and the Senate even flips (assuming 30% GOP voters plus 25% 3rd party voters vote GOP down ticket).
Do you not think that what blue dogs/moderate Dems will factor this shift, namely that the Donks do not have a mandate with just 45% of the final tally? They will be the ones voting across the aisle with the GOP because they are up for a vote in 2014/16.
Now factor in the GOP congress critters. Don’t discount Ron paul having a say in the GOP platform in August. With 55% of the NOT-Obama behind them, Boehner & McConnel will suddenly find a brass pair. My hope is that even brass ones won’t cut it and the TPers with steel ones will capture key leadership positions in both houses. It is they who will KILL OC and do so over Oboobi’s veto. It is they who will countermand his EOs and start defunding or even shuttering agencies wholesale. Oboobi will be a lame duck in his 2nd term.
The above is preferable to simply voting for the lesser of two evils or just staying at home on election day. And letting Oboobi win with 50+% of the vote, while the GOP gets 45% and the 3rd parties geting 5%, as happened in ’08. Do recall that Dubya barely won because many a conservative stayed home because they felt Junior was just Pappy’s mini-me.
Using the same assumptions as above, but with GOP getting 40% to Oboobi’s 30%. The 3rd party victory effect will amplify the pulling of this country to the right and will keep the GOP in check from progressive excesses.
Granted, it is the EVs that will determine the actual winner, but the point is that the shock of 30% voting 3rd party will shake the establishment to the core. And no amount of spin will deflect the fact that we are watching and will hit them again in 2012/14 if they don’t stop acting like 435 little princes/princesses.
Bottomline, playing it safe and voting the lesser of two evils will only encourage the stupid party (win or lose) to continue voting across the asile to advance the progressive agenda. Because the meme of a 3 -7 point spread between the GOP/DNC will be that there needs to be more bi-partisanship, thus green-lighting the moderates to double-down on progressivism. Amnesty anyone? More spending. More entitlements to woo the indies/moderate etc.
AH_C on February 1, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Mittens said that he will balance the budget without raising taxes. That’s so much better than what Obama will do, I see no point in further argument.
Undoing “anything legislated” has not happened yet.
Making OC optional means no mandate.
“Mittness will compel” contradicts “optional”.
I’ll read the rest …
gh on February 1, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Lighten up a little bit.
Mitt Romney rearranged the stars and created the constellations on his way back from kicking 8utt at Newtropolis….Newt’s moon base.
csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Like Mitt balanced the budget by raising fees in MA.
Mitt has and continues to say that each State needs to find their own formula for universal care – and he recommends RC as the model they should adopt (psuedo 10th Amendmenter). Great! instead of one federal mandate, there’ll be 50 little mandates and we’ll all have to figure out which State to move to. Yes, that’s progress.
Bottomline, OC et al is a cash cow for anybody on the inside to profit from. Many a GOP talks the talk, but intend nothing more than to trim around the edges while their cronies will profit. We the people will suffer, as 1/6 or more of our income will evaporate to HC, another 1/3 vacuumed up by entitlements.
When Mitt says he will fix, he’s only talking about the fringes, not the core problems/framework. Look how he bashed Perry over SS.
A vote for Mitt is only kicking the can down the road, by about 5 years, before you have to look your kids/grandkids in the eye and asy, “sorry we blew your inheritance on ourselves”. And in turn, with all the remorse they can muster, they will reply, “sucks to be you, because we refuse to pay one thin dime for your excesses”.
AH_C on February 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2