Axelrod shocked by Romney campaign’s missed opportunities
President Obama’s top reelection strategist conceded surprise Monday that Republican super PACS didn’t attack Obama far earlier, Mitt Romney didn’t invest much more in ground operations, and that the Republican nominee played narrowly to the party base in picking Rep. Paul Ryan as a running mate. …
Offering a lengthy dissection of the campaign, David Axelrod told a Chicago audience that he was “a bit surprised that super PACS, which spent an unbelievable amount of money,” didn’t hit television and radio with anti-Obama ads until May.
“Our air defenses weren’t ready,” he said, alluding to his side’s early lack of resources. “They gave us a pass, for whatever reason.”
At the same time, he was surprised that a plausible, distinctly positive image of Romney as successful businessman was not central to Romney’s media strategy until late fall. In part he ascribed that to Romney’s “Faustian bargain” to get the Republican nomination and tacking far to the right while also unleashing a barrage of mostly negative ads against GOP primary rivals.
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
Where was the Death Star?
El_Terrible on November 30, 2012 at 7:28 PM
That brutal primary took a lot of steam out of Romney.
He had to spend time and resources fighting off challengers instead of fighting Obama.
Not to mention that the primaries looked awful, just a mess.
SteveMG on November 30, 2012 at 7:30 PM
Maybe it was a sign of trouble when the Death Star had trouble dealing with Santorum?
El_Terrible on November 30, 2012 at 7:36 PM
Dantooine
29Victor on November 30, 2012 at 7:37 PM
Yeah because Mr. Romney sure was so nice to his primary opponents. Never heard him call them “nice guys.”
He missed opportunity after opportunity to go for that nice guys throat and now we is in deep doo doo.
arnold ziffel on November 30, 2012 at 7:38 PM
el death star lacked Seamus on the roof.
renalin on November 30, 2012 at 7:38 PM
5 strong young men in rmoneys family.
how many enlisted? someone remind me.
renalin on November 30, 2012 at 7:40 PM
NO! Romney was PERFECT! He
iswas gonna beat Obama for sure!!11!1! It was the primaries! And “true Cons” and bigots! and Obama! And the MSM!! Voter fraud! Storms!1!1 Consultants!1 Blacks!! Easing!! But ROMNEY WAS PERFECT!!!!!29Victor on November 30, 2012 at 7:40 PM
Yeah…and Steve, did McCain lose because Romney was so brutal to and dishonest about him and the other Republicans in the 2008 primary?
29Victor on November 30, 2012 at 7:42 PM
its all Sarah Palins fault.
renalin on November 30, 2012 at 7:45 PM
McCain lost when the financial crisis hit. Until then he was leading.
In any case, my comment was about the primary and the energy/resources/time that Romney had to use to secure the candidacy. Not to mention the public’s perception of the circus that it often was.
I didn’t appraise how he ran his campaign or whether he was too “mean” to his opponents.
SteveMG on November 30, 2012 at 7:47 PM
So what should we have done instead? Nominate Santorum who lost to the guy who you claim was terminally flawed from the jump? Santorum would have fit their Akin/Mourdock template like a glove. They successfully character as-sass!nated an upstanding Mormon family-man; how do you think Newt would have fared against that kind of onslaught?
The Count on November 30, 2012 at 7:50 PM
Anyone else shocked?
Gee – me neither.
famous amos on November 30, 2012 at 7:58 PM
Mr. Severely Conservative, the Olympian, had a death star malfunction. And how confident some of his early supporters were. Lol
tommy71 on November 30, 2012 at 8:01 PM
Wrong. You forgot the apostrophe. It’s Palin’s.
Basilsbest on November 30, 2012 at 8:07 PM
I wonder if Axelrod was also shocked by the ton of free press and kid glove treatment obama got from the media while they slapped mitt about daily. I wonder if he was surprised how blatantly biased the VP and last two Presidential Debates were handled by the liberal moderators.
hawkdriver on November 30, 2012 at 8:12 PM
No sir, i think he was quite pleased by the air cover, carpet bombing and psyops.
arnold ziffel on November 30, 2012 at 8:15 PM
Remind you of what, that you’re an idiot? No problem….you’re an idiot.
xblade on November 30, 2012 at 8:23 PM
Romney had to use a lot of his money, energy and resources to put his opponents away because he himself was a very weak candidate. A stronger candidate would have stomped the Santorums quickly.
Blaming other people who had every right to run is really bothering me. People here are treading perilously close to saying that the candidate chosen by the party leadership should have no opposition whatsoever. I always assumed that was just baloney dreamed up by Romney’s supporters to delegitimize any opposition to him during the primaries, but it looks like a fair number of people actually believe that Romney being challenged in any way is somehow “unsightly.”
Doomberg on November 30, 2012 at 8:27 PM
Goebbels II knows his propaganda.
bob77 on November 30, 2012 at 8:27 PM
Yes, the same way McCain had to blow a lot of time and cash doing the same thing against Romney. But, as you point out, without the financial crisis McCain might have pulled it off. Romney….not so much.
29Victor on November 30, 2012 at 8:35 PM
So the South Side is getting an Institute of Politics, with Mr. Axelrod as Grand Poobah. University of Chicago tuition must necessarily skyrocket from stratospheric to ungodly to pay his salary.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 30, 2012 at 8:58 PM
I agree which is why my preferred ticket was Romney / Santorum 2012. Santorum would have drawn many, many, many more evangelicals and turned PA red. He’s a little kooky. But he’s affable and a nicer seeming guy than Romney.
Balance would have delivered. Romney was deflated by having to play too rough. Santorum could have played bad cop. Romney, good.
Capitalist Hog on November 30, 2012 at 9:44 PM
Reverse that.
Romney was the more capable candidate. His primary was harder on him. McCain’s problem was that the press savaged Sarah Palin. They attacked Palin which ultimately made McCain look feckless.
Yeah, yeah. Palin was attacked from the right, still is (ahem), as well but for different reasons.
Capitalist Hog on November 30, 2012 at 9:50 PM
Not true. Romney conceded to McCain after Super Tuesday, on February 7, 2008.
Romney had to deal with the Palin-prolonged-primary and did not clinch the nomination the end of May 24, 2012.
Basilsbest on November 30, 2012 at 10:18 PM
I just don’t buy that the primary defeated Romney. But more to the point I’m sick and tired of hearing excuses for Romney the same Rombots who were here a year ago calling anyone who questioned the viability of their candidate a “bigot,” “un-American,” “RINO,” “idiot.” Several times it was pointed out that it was a bad idea to run Mr. Moneybags McWhiteguy against Obama. That it was a mistake to run a candidate whose past political stances were so similar to Obama’s current political stances, who couldn’t seem to attack Dems but had no problem attacking Republicans, who had “evolved” on so many issues, who had turned off so many conservatives, etc…
A year ago we said that these things would defeat him…and Lo and Behold! they did!
But now, instead of the Romney supporters admitting their error, or even just shutting up, we hear them blaming other Republicans, or the storm, or the primary, or consultants, or voter fraud, or the MSM, or a host of other things.
You say that Romney was a more capable candidate than McCain but, as SteveMG pointed out and as I was responding to, McCain was running ahead of Obama until the financial crisis — with the same consultants, the same voter fraud, the same MSM, etc…
Romney support was always, ALWAYS a matter of faith for some people here. You could tell that a year ago when anyone who even dared to hint at possibly questioning the viability of their candidate would be attacked with a fervor usually reserved for protecting religious relics. And you can tell that now when they continue to make excuses for a candidate who, in retrospect, was remarkably unequal to the task.
29Victor on November 30, 2012 at 11:30 PM
Wrong again and you have to be pretty clueless to think McCain ran anywhere as good a campaign. The Obama team that beat Romney had been organizing for 4 more years and the voter fraud was far worse. And McCain clinched the nomination in February. He didn’t have to contend with a Palin-prolonged-primary.
Basilsbest on December 1, 2012 at 12:51 AM
I completely agree.
By the way, I think it is so ridiculous how some people are still so upset that Romney ran negative ads about other Republican candidates during the primaries. I mean, really, does no one remember all of the bile that was dumped on Romney week after week by both the left and the right during that time? This site’s comments section became an almost unreadable, nonstop Romney bash fest. It was sick. And, of course, there was good old Sarah Palin egging on the Romney-bashing, and pushing for a brokered convention right up till the very end. Yuck, good riddance to that woman.
bluegill on December 1, 2012 at 7:47 AM
Enjoy that cup of coffee this morning and realize how right you are……
famous amos on December 1, 2012 at 8:05 AM