The Romney campaign was a consultant con job
They say that the truth is the consultants essentially used the Romney campaign as a money making scheme, forcing employees to spin false data as truth in order to paint a rosy picture of a successful campaign as a form of job security.
Zac Moffatt, Digital Director for the Romney campaign, was specifically named as having “built a nest egg for himself and co-founder of Targeted Victory, Mike Beach,” and that they “didn’t get social” media and ignored objections from other consultants and staffers in the campaign…
Stu Stevens of the Stevens and Schriefer Group was said to not be chasing poll numbers with the media buy strategy and appeared instead to be doing little more than “throwing darts at a dartboard.” At best using false numbers provided by ORCA; at worst milking the cash cow of the Romney campaign…
According to all the sources I spoke to, the breakdown of the campaign can be traced to the primaries. One source saying “they looked at the guy who could raise the most money in history as a ride” adding that “money no longer matters. That’s the problem,” also referring to the campaign overall as “the biggest political flim flam of all time.”
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
Love how these “principled” moderates eat their own and lose so graciously. Long knives. Very long knives. Own it Moderates.
conservative pilgrim on November 10, 2012 at 12:39 PM
IMO, bho/team was/is “the biggest political flim flam of all time.”!
L
letget on November 10, 2012 at 12:40 PM
I wonder if by “referring to the campaign overall” he DID mean the Obama campaign, which, as you say, the Obama campaign was bull, bogus. Ignored all the economy-killing things Obama did in his 4 years and will continue to do in his next 4 years. Destroying the energy industry, ObamaCare killing small business, EPA regulations choking everything, crony capitalism flouting the rule of law which is a terrible example to set for everyone else, borrowing so much money every year, not to mention the crony capitalism of Obama is itself picking losers rather than “winners and losers”. The poison of the Obama agenda goes on and on and hurts everything everywhere. And will for the next 4 years.
Paul-Cincy on November 10, 2012 at 12:47 PM
I tell you what, I sure as shit feel duped and lied to. I’m very very bitter at the moment.
p0s3r on November 10, 2012 at 12:47 PM
And had more white voters decided to participate he would have won. Let’s face it, the Obama GOTV focused on Blacks, Hispanics, and young single women. They increased registration and turnout in those groups. They played the race game and won, they played the hand-outs game to young single women and won.
Let’s not lose sight of why we lost.
goflyers on November 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM
Let me get this straight …
Jack Ass Willard – Mr. “Conservative” Capitalist Savior of modern democracies – the man that was to lead us all into salvation from damning debt and a liberty choking police state …
Was too damn stupid to manage his own campaign money and got taken by a bunch of IT snake oil salesmen?
LMFAO!
And Conservatives will still say this idiot is better than Obama and – yeah I’ll probably agree – but then again, is a dead and decomposing dog carcass rotting on the side of the road better than Obama?
Doesn’t mean you guys should nominate that dog as your candidate!
ELECTABLE!!
HondaV65 on November 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM
Meh. It’s hard to draw a distinction. Nowadays, all Presidential elections are just a contest to see who has the best PR machine. Both sides intentionally blur their positions into a mishmash of whatever the latest polling data say the least informed voters want.
Obama’s the only candidate in recent years to have a popular shtick. Mormans? Most people don’t even know that that is, and even fewer people care. But the racism angle is still as popular as it’s ever been.
logis on November 10, 2012 at 12:52 PM
More evidence that this was an incompetent and mis-targeted campaign, starting with the foolish selection of a “moderate” candidate who could present no clear alternative to Obama.
landlines on November 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Duh.
Doesn’t inspire much confidence in someone’s leadership ability when their campaign operation is so poorly managed.
However, there were other fundamental problems with the candidate and the campaign, which were all interconnected. Principles and ideals were ignored — feared, even. Messaging was haphazard, mostly boilerplate, not persuasive. Media strategy was awful.
steebo77 on November 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM
I never could figure out why some pollsters felt that blacks wouldn’t show up for Obama in 2012 the way they did in 2008. That whole thing about an incumbent not being elected with an unemployment rate higher than 8% didn’t take into account that we this was the first black president, and that he was still very popular in the black community. If, say, John Kerry was the president this year, yeah, I would have believed that blacks might not show up. But, Barack Obama, the first black president? The guy who hangs out with Beyonce and Jaz Z, loves hip hop, and goes on MTV and BET?
sydneyjane on November 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM
This was a huge red flag:
Obama campaign had twice the staff as Romney last month at same cost
steebo77 on November 10, 2012 at 1:03 PM
sydneyjane:
Obama was a community organizer in his previous life and he knows how to ORGANIZE.
Did you really believe he wouldn’t get his base out?
That’s like believing Madonna has become celebate.
technopeasant on November 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM
If she has, it’s definitely not of her own choosing.
steebo77 on November 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM
The strong businessman, the true successful leader and the management genius who can turn things around and loves firing people got conned for many months by consultants?!!
lester on November 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM
I’m shocked by the managerial failures.
the_nile on November 10, 2012 at 1:10 PM
Mitt was a mush candidate that prevaricated or tried to hide from the issues of gay marriage, immigration, foreign policy, and abortion. He could have increase the working class white turnout, and that would have the difference, if he made a big deal about gay marriage and and the threat of immigration. But no… Mr “It’s All About Jobs” said that “isn’t part of my campaign.” A lot of people had jobs and their status wasn’t going to change and so jobs wasn’t a big deal to many; Mitt needed to appeal to the full spectrum of issues, not retreat and bunker down to it being just about jobs. Insane.
You really had the feeling that it was the “consultants” and theorists that drove Mitt’s campaign, and the businessman Mitt hadn’t been through political trenches, and so didn’t have a feeling for the game. Yes, the consultants had their political theories were wrongheaded, and Mitt’s top guys like moronic Etch a Sketch Eric Fehrenstrum were horrendous. This was pointed out to Mitt, but the turnaround artist did nothing to turn around his own campaign. A crying shame, especially now with OCare and a liberal Supreme Court looming. Sad that we were saddled with Mitt.
anotherJoe on November 10, 2012 at 1:11 PM
Romney was good at fundraising, probably due to his private equity background. But he certainly doesn’t seem to have deployed that raised capital in an effective manner, to say the least.
steebo77 on November 10, 2012 at 1:14 PM
Name and shame.
the_nile on November 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM
anotherJoe on November 10, 2012 at 1:11 PM
I have always wondered why more conservatives never made a bigger deal of Romney abandoning “the three legged stool” to become a one trick pony.
If it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it.
I’m sorry to say, a lot of conservatives sold out their principles during this election cycle because they focused too much on “electability” as the main criteria to become the GOP standardbearer.
Hopefully conservatives will return to their roots in this forthcoming election cycle.
technopeasant on November 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM
I’m speechless. Utterly speechless. But, you know what? I wondered about what was going on. I live in North Carolina and I kept waiting for the commercials to refute Obama’s commercials, you know? And they never, ever, came. Not ever. And so, I called the NC Romney head quarters and got all this babble from the girl in charge about how they were working 90 hours a week and I pointed out that it was not visible and she told me, and I quote, “Then drive over to the Winston Salem Romney office, there are a lot of people there.”
I’m speechless.
djl130 on November 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM
The reason that Democrats win and Republicans lose national elections is simple: Democrats are good at oversimplifying their messaging for mass appeal. Republicans are not. When Democrats can’t get the public to consume their garbage ideology, they repackage the same crap over and over until they manage to find a delivery system that will make the public swallow the poison. Republican consultants are lazy. They don’t work on repackaging conservative principles to make them understandable and attractive to the masses, they sell out the ideology because they think it’s easier to attract the “middle” by moderating the principles rather than the messaging. The problem is that any “gains” made in the middle are at the expense of supporters they once had.
fitzfong on November 10, 2012 at 1:18 PM
No wonder there was such an effort to discourage certain grass roots favorites from entering. These consultants wanted to make sure they could ride the Mitt gravy train all the way to 11/6.
Kataklysmic on November 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM
Stuart Stevens in several interviews told the world he wasn’t interested in political ideology.
And you got a campaign devoid of political ideology.
Result: Millions of white conservatives didn’t show up at the polls.
Not everyone votes based on the economy.
The polls consistently showed 30% of the voters were focused more on foreign affairs/national defense, social issues or the deficit.
technopeasant on November 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM
Share it conservatives. We chased too many alternatives or waited for the Palin who never came.
rhombus on November 10, 2012 at 1:28 PM
I think mitt should sue them.
the_nile on November 10, 2012 at 1:31 PM
Sarah Palin said basically the same thing earlier this year about her experience with consultants and advisors from the 2008 campaign -— that many of them are just mercenaries for hire who have no loyalty and are looking pretty much for the next gravy train and will move on to the next campaign after its over. She advised that Romney either ignored what these consultants were telling him and go with his gut or dumped them.
journeymike on November 10, 2012 at 1:32 PM
Whatever the issues were in the Romney camp, they were up against union influence and power, pathetically dumb voters, and a complicit media. I guess we’ll never know what would have truly worked on the Romney side.
salem on November 10, 2012 at 1:33 PM
Well said.
Kataklysmic on November 10, 2012 at 1:37 PM
SparkPlug on November 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM
I agree
SparkPlug on November 10, 2012 at 1:41 PM
There aappear to be two kinds of GOP candidates for president in the last few decades.
The ones who say to the consultants, “These are my principles. How can I best communicate them?” Reagan and Bush43 would be in this category.
In the other, it is, “What kind of principles should I have that you can market for the most votes?” Bush41, Dole, McCain and Romney are in this category.
As Bush41 once said, it’s a “vision thing.”
Wethal on November 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Not quite accurate. Palin wasn’t stupid, she knew that besides the Dems and the media that she would have to fight against the Republican insiders of her own party, trying to block her at every turn. So she decide to sit this one out. Palin’s still standing, Romney and those beltway insiders not so much.
idesign on November 10, 2012 at 1:50 PM
Decided
idesign on November 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM
Don’t mean to pee in your punch bowl but I lived through both of these presidencies too and there were plenty of people who complained about their compromises at the time too.
rhombus on November 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM
The Hierarchy of the GOP think they are so smart. So clever. And we, the base should just shut up, stay shackled to our Oar and Row the Rotund Party ship. Then when their brilliant strategy ends up sinking us, we drowned and they float on to a new ship and it starts all over again. Blaming the rowers for not doing our jobs.
“You have the spirit to fight back. But the good sense to control it.”
Well I’m unshackling from the ship.
Maybe a “Forty-One” movement needs to happen.
portlandon on November 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM
Exactly, Palin would have to fight on two fronts and unlike the other candidates like Newt or Santorum, the Establishment pretty much openly stated through the media that they were gunning for her early on and that she was #1 target in their eyes Remember the headline last year: “Next for the GOP – stopping Sarah Palin”
journeymike on November 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM
The Romney-Ryan campaign actually skewed their own polling to counter public polling that turned out not to be skewed at all.
Then Romney started to believe their own knowingly skewed polling to the point that he was so sure of victory he spent 25 grand on victory fireworks and only wrote a victory speech.
Remember there was no evidence that justified the Romney-Ryan campaigns reason for skewing their own polling to counter public polling that turned out not to be skewed at all.
Are there other things that the Romney-Ryan campaign intentionally misled their supporters about?
The Economist – hardly Mother Jones wrote, “For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says.”
Forbes said; “The bottom line is that we have no idea how Gov. Romney will make up the revenue lost due to the tax cuts he has specified in some detail. Obviously, Gov. Romney doesn’t either. The odd thing is that he seems to think that this is irrelevant.”
I could go on and on with reports from the majority of economists saying basically Romney’s plan was as full of holes as his justifications for believing his own skewed polls that neither his budget nor his polls had any evidence to support their conclusions. It was all fantasy that was spoon fed to his supporters.
JustTheFacts on November 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM
Bunch of self-serving garbage, by ‘consultants’, now more than during the campaign. Blame-laying in order to protect their own careers going forward.
rayra on November 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM
Now they tell us.
WisCon on November 10, 2012 at 2:18 PM
But they had such successful previous experience from all of the former moderate candidates chosen to appeal to the independents and moderates: Ford, Dole, McCain, Bush 41 in 1992.
Oh, wait.
AZfederalist on November 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM
The Economist is hardly an unbiased journal. It leans statist and left. Not Mother Jones left, but definitely command economy heavy government control statist left.
… and Forbes here engages in the same static analysis performed by statists and democrats: Namely, the idea that if you raise taxes, additional revenue will be generated, not taking into account the fact that people will alter their behavior to avoid paying those taxes if they are sufficiently onerous. Conversely, the idea that by lowering taxes, revenue is lost despite the fact that years of experience has shown that after the initial revenue shock, future tax revenues actually rise because the tax cut allows people to spend that money in the economy and that has the effect of growing the economy such that more people are paying taxes even though the taxes are at a lower rate.
As opposed to Obama’s clearly laid out plans? Please. The only thing Obama brought to the table was “I’mma gonna take money from those evil rich people and give you all Obamaphones!”
AZfederalist on November 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM
Paul Ryan. Cut, Cap and Balance. Reduce spending and the size of government. Tax reductions. Domestic energy production. Strengthen the military. Repeal Obamacare or 4 more years of incompetence, huge deficit spending, crony capitalism, foreign policy weakness and lies.
Those Millions of white conservatives didn’t show up at the polls are brain dead. As are you..
Basilsbest on November 10, 2012 at 2:50 PM
@AZfederalist on November 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM
Please let me know what news organization or economist that is outside the echo-chamber/bubble you will at least hear out and give some thought to so I can post a link for you.
How about a report requested by Republican congressmen that goes back 65 years?
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report(requested by house Rebublicans)in September that showed that cutting tax rates for the wealthiest Americans did not spur economic or job growth, refuting a key Republican justification for the party’s continued obsession with maintaining the tax cuts for the wealthy they passed in 2003.
The report, found that tax cuts for the rich spurred income inequality , not economic growth. “There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth,” the report stated. “However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”
Even Republicans have admitted in the past that the Bush tax cuts didn’t spur the job and economic growth the party promised, and if nonpartisan studies aren’t enough, history makes the same case. Since Republicans began instituting supply-side policies under President Reagan, growth has lagged and income inequality has surged as the wealthiest Americans make more money while paying less in taxes.
JustTheFacts on November 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM
@AZfederalist on November 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM – sorry, you are wrong. No study has shown that decreasing taxes increases economic activity.
A Axe on November 11, 2012 at 5:04 PM