Four ways campaign 2012 might have gone very differently
The proceedings of the Campaign Decision Makers Conference were off the record until noon Monday, when the institute released audio of the sessions. Here are some factors that changed the course of the race and possibly even of history.
A Fateful Immigration Detour. Top Romney strategist Stuart Stevens “fell in love” with Perry’s book, Fed Up, in which he described Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, according to Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades. Romney went after Perry’s Social Security stand from the left and Perry was “badly hurt” by the third debate, Rhoades said. He added, “In retrospect, I believe that we could have probably just beaten Gov. Perry with the Social Security hit.” …
Straw Poll Circus. Pawlenty bet his campaign on the August 2011 Iowa straw poll, only to come in a distant third — behind Reps. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul – and drop out the next day. If he had skipped the straw poll, he might have gone all the way to the nomination or the White House. Until Perry got into the race, “we were most worried about Tim Pawlenty,” Rhoades said. He said Pawlenty’s retail campaign skills could have won him Iowa and New Hampshire, and “we had respect” for his jobs record as governor of Minnesota.
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
NO! Not another election postmortem.
Make. It. Stop.
The Rogue Tomato on December 4, 2012 at 2:45 PM
Remember when all the Hot Air rubes were running around before Ames with the slogan “Obama will have PAWLENTY of time for Golf come Jan 2013!!!”
good times
good times
corujodp on December 4, 2012 at 2:46 PM
Yeah, Pawlenty would have cinched the win. Geesh!!
Monday morning quarterbacking and they still reach stupid conclusions.
Bitter Clinger on December 4, 2012 at 2:52 PM
LOL. Perry beat himself in the primaries. Romney didn’t lay a glove on him – SS is a Ponzi scheme, essentially, and most halfway intelligent people understand that. Perry’s stand on amnesty and his pathetic performance in the debates (just on his own, not in answering anyone) sunk his candidacy. It’s funny that the Romney idiots think they had anything to do with Perry losing. Perry was the reason Perry lost – both his deal-breaker amnesty stand and his drugged-up … whatever … performance in the debates.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 4, 2012 at 3:01 PM
not a bad article IMHO
The main take homes– too many damn debates.
Having 20+ debates allowed so many lesser candidates who had zero shot and zero ability to even raise money hang on for the free exposure
It just ended up wasting more money for everyone during the primary, plus creating way too many self-destructive sound bytes from our own to be used against us
Kill the straw poll, and have far fewer debates, and don’t let the MSM jerks like George Snuffalupagous be involved at all with the debate process either
thurman on December 4, 2012 at 3:02 PM
Perry was never for “Amnesty”.
You would know that if you were not a meme’ following headline reading drone.
But, go about your delusion of the liberal progressive that governs Texas./
tonotisto on December 4, 2012 at 3:20 PM
The Mean Auntie Sekhmet Plan for the 2016 Campaign:
1. 2012 isn’t even over yet. Provided the Sun doesn’t go nova between now and 2016, most of us should still be around to see what 2016 brings. Let’s not marry a candidate or narrative now which/who could be rendered irrelevant four years from now. Romney’s biggest flaw was that he was 2008′s news–but events between 2008 and 2012 rendered him less relevant. Because of the aching need to find a “next in line,” all of these concerns were blown off in 2012
2. Events, dear boy, events. 0bama is a man raised to deal with the handled, pre-digested, and expected. The next four years will be none of these. We are likely to be attacked in the homeland again. Fidel Castro is likely to die soon, and a friendlier government in Cuba could cut loose the economic engine of Latin America. Hispanic immigration to the US could grind to a halt, and even reverse. A major advance in space technology could re-ignite calls for a space program. And second terms provide more opportunities for 0bama to step on his dork. Be ready to take advantage of the unexpected.
3. Target the machine. If they already organize against you, you can’t p1ss them off any further by targeting them. Take a knife to the student-loan and higher-education bubble. The schools will have to start layoffs by begging the tenured radicals to retire–and then they will have to cut the underwater basketweaving departments. No more telling newly-deflowered 18-year-olds that Republicans want to make them have that creepy frat guy’s baby. Forbid House members from employing media employees, and Democrat Congressmen can’t dandle a job in the media office to the guy interviewing him.
Sekhmet on December 4, 2012 at 3:27 PM
It was not just Romney. It was as if every right of center media outlet was already to roll with this meme.
Note the paint is as attacks on capitalism itself. If that is the case, then Enron should never have been investigated. In fact, no company should ever be audited by anyone. Citizen or government alike. It as a crap attack, but every last outlet I know of was running with it.
It is the only reason Romney won. Because the right of center media outlets attacked every other challenger to Romney until the electorate gave up and stayed home instead.
Of course, that stay home thing did not end with the end of the primary season. And as they say, Obama beat Romney up on these very things we said he would, that even more non primary voters stayed home as well.
The one and only thing that should have changed was Romney should not have been the Nominee. The fact that he was argues that the Republican party is no longer even remotely friendly to conservative values and is in need of being replaced.
astonerii on December 4, 2012 at 3:29 PM
How about just one. A conservative candidate for the GOP.
cs89 on December 4, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Yeah, so extensively that Romney failed to really say what he would do as President. He more accurately decreed what he would do as RULER. Hence, no one bought his argument.
He should have stood up and said what his core values were. What actually would guide his actions. Of course, we all know the reason he did not. “My views are progressive” is why he could not.
CUT, CAP & BALANCE! That stated at every single appearance alone likely would have put Romney so far over the top that Obama would have likely found a reason to leave the election before the votes started.
astonerii on December 4, 2012 at 3:39 PM
That could be.
But it also could be that Romney was supported because he was the candidate with the least baggage that could be spun as “immoral” and offensive to conservative values as a potential leader. When was the last time a man with those values was potentially at in a position to set a new standard for politicians to live up to.
It may have been a gamble, and its a pity the voices of slander from the left and from the right were so effective…I can accept the ones on the left…the ones from the “conservative” right?…I hate your guts..every last one of you brainwashed chicknshet basturds…..is what some people might say.. I’ll just keep my feeling about it to myself.
Mimzey on December 4, 2012 at 3:44 PM
Divorced Reagan?
What was Perry’s sin?
Bachmann needs some serious message discipline.
Newt Could use some discipline too. But his conservative sins have always been easily turned by the base.
Water under the bridge. But the part that is not under the bridge is that progressive (R) does not win the presidency. At least, not unless it seriously camouflages itself like George W Bush did. But then, when it comes to governing, that progressive (R) causes immeasurable but extraordinarily huge amounts of pain.
astonerii on December 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM
One way campaign 2016 could have a different result than campaign 2012:
All of these people no longer work for the Republican Party.
Joey24007 on December 4, 2012 at 3:53 PM
yawn. We lost because lots of voters no longer believe that Republicans stand for individual liberty. Democrats and the media have convinced them that we’re the party that wants to limit their choices.
hawksruleva on December 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM
Voters also no longer believe the Republicans are the party of small government and fiscal sanity. A decade of voting for every increase in government power that came from an (R) made that happen.
Self inflicted wounds.
Until either the entire electorate is 100% progressive or the republicans work to fix their brand name, they will be out in the wilderness.
astonerii on December 4, 2012 at 4:08 PM
That wouldn’t have meant a hill of beans to the folks voting on birth control and Big Bird.
changer1701 on December 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM
I think the strategy was aimed at the media and the garbage can diggers and the woman who crawls out of the woodwork from 20 years ago. Those things were taken away from the left as ammunition.
Mimzey on December 4, 2012 at 4:13 PM
Would have meant a hill of beans to the people who would have used that to embrace Romney rather than protest vote Obama.
100,000 people invigorated to turn out an extra 20 to 30 of their coworkers, neighbors, family members and so forth could have done quite a bit of good. I think the number would have been a nice cool 2 million more excited voters. EXCITED TO SHARE, EXCITED TO TURN OUT.
That was the problem with Romney from the beginning though. He was always going to be a progressive and run like a progressive, and attack like a progressive. Obama is a nice guy that just is in over his head!
astonerii on December 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM
There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that would’ve made any difference. Didn’t seem to when Romney supported the Ryan budget while folks like Gingrich were decrying it as right-wing social engineering. But, we’re to believe support of CCB would’ve drawn thousands more to the polls?
changer1701 on December 4, 2012 at 4:38 PM
Ryan’s budget was destructive to conservative ideals. How would it enthuse people to go out and vote?
It was social engineering. I would not have given it the title right wing though… That was a mistake. I would have just simply called it what it was. The Republicans being the tax collectors for the welfare state. A dirty job we should never volunteer to do, EVER.
I almost got excited with Romney in the first debate when he said that it is just not moral to spend a trillion more than we take in. That saddling our children with debt was also not moral. Unfortunately, he did not follow through with the core of the argument. Since it is not moral, we need to stop it, and in order to do that I propose we follow through on my pledge to Cut, Cap & Balance the budget. By the end of my first term a constitutional amendment will be presented to the states doing just that.
That would have woke up the people who did not trust Romney and got them busy getting people to the polls. Why? Because it would have been a Read My Lips moment if done like that. It would have locked Romney into either a single term or would have held his feet to the fire to actually get ONE of our goals done.
astonerii on December 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM
Romney’s attack on Perry over SS was a disgrace. It was one of the first and main reasons that I was never comfortable backing Romney. It illustrated early on that he was just in the race for his own personal glory and had zero interest in promoting and advancing free market principles and solutions. And his attack on Perry for immigration was also idiotic. If Pawlenty had stayed in, I would have eagerly supported him (in retrospect, that probably would have been a foolish position on my part given his later status as a Romney sycophant).
besser tot als rot on December 4, 2012 at 5:36 PM
One way would probably have done it: run an actual conservative.
Romney wanted to be president, but to what end? A conservative looking at the Obama administration would have been ready to describe one thing after another that needed to be different. Romney wanted to fix the economy … and absolutely nothing else.
The fiscal conservative vote was huge in this election, but not huge enough to overcome Obama’s radicals. Romney needed to appeal to the other two legs of the conservative stool: the social conservatives and the national security conservatives.
But Romney looked at Obama’s foreign policy and found nothing to criticize other than a vague comment about an “apology tour” that he was quick to back away from in the third debate.
And rather than criticize Obama’s radical positions on social issues, he was petrified that someone might link him to the conservatives. All he wanted to run on was the economy.
And his whole campaign was based on the assumption that absolutely no one else cared about anything else.
tom on December 4, 2012 at 6:21 PM