Who Will Take Out Mitt?
by Patrick Ruffini :: August 24th, 2007 1:19 amThe campaign was formally “engaged” (as we political junkies like to say) on August 21, with the Thompson-Giuliani gun battle, and Mitt launching ads implicitly attacking “sanctuary city” New York. The combination of paid advertising, the candidates themselves attacking, and the frontrunner actually hitting back makes this qualitatively different than the earlier McCain-Romney skirmishes, or second tier sniping at the top.
The field may have finally realize that — holy crap — they need to attack Giuliani, and that he won’t go anywhere from atop the polls until they do. Paradoxically, this comes at a point when Romney is on the move and Romney-bashing is falling out of favor, a felicitous combo for the crowd in Boston.
In other words, they needed to be attacking Giuliani a month ago and didn’t. And they need to be attacking Romney now, and aren’t. If you’re a Romney hater, now (or post-Labor Day, at least) is the time to act. Don’t, and Romney’s Iowa and New Hampshire leads get set in stone.
Why? Look at the RCP chart. Romney’s growth nationally has been steady-as-she-goes, without the ups and downs that characterize a mature base of support. (It kind of reminds me of Dean’s growth in 2003.) His rise in IA and NH has been dizzying and remarkable, clearly helped by his unchallenged early ads. What happens when someone starts dropping 1,000 points on flip-flops in WHO-TV in Des Moines? (…”another flip-flopper from Massachussetts?”…) Isn’t Romney especially vulnerable to this? As we’ve seen in the myriad YouTube clips, his inconsistencies are easily channeled on video in a way that parsing Fred’s NRTL rating is not.
And consider that establishment-minded voters have one or two fallback options, unlike in previous years. This is not 2000 with the hated John McCain followed by seven dwarves. Fred Thompson is a perfectly logical alternative, and it’s still surprisingly difficult for a lot of conservatives to get upset about Rudy. That may make it less risky to strike early.
None of the candidates will do this — it’s not in their interest to get drawn into a one-on-one battle with anyone. A 527 would have to, forcing Romney to double down with his own money. And then the perception of Romney as a self-funded candidate will further set in.
Furthermore, the fundamentals are starting to point south for Romney — in a little bit the same way they were totally out of whack for McCain. His problem is how does he product-differentiate from Fred? Yes, there is the “laziness” factor and the fact that Romney does six events a day in Iowa, but do non-political junkies care? Are all those events and all those ads simply buying him a nodding assent from Iowa conservatives not on the payroll, or a crawl-over-broken-glass type fanaticism that will be difficult for others to overcome. I’d argue the former.
But those concern pale in comparison to the evidence that’s starting to align for Romney as a bad general election candidate against Hillary. To begin with, he starts with higher negatives than Hillary (I know. This shocked me too). And a series of battleground state polls confirm it too:
PRESIDENT - NEW MEXICO
Hillary 49%
Giuliani 43%Hillary 52%
Thompson 40%Hillary 53%
Romney 38%PRESIDENT - MISSOURI
Giuliani 47%
Hillary 46%Hillary 48%
Thompson 46%Hillary 49%
Romney 43%PRESIDENT - OHIO
Hillary 48%
Giuliani 45%Hillary 50%
Thompson 43%Hillary 51%
Romney 40%
In these three states, Thompson runs 4.33% behind the Giuliani margin — and Romney runs 9% behind. If you’re a conservative who’s rolling the dice anyway by looking for a Giuliani alternative, which looks like the safer bet? How much of this is Romney’s lower name ID (which should be less and less of a factor as time goes on), and how much is just his plain high negative ratings?
So, I repeat, when do the ads begin? (NB: The typical November timeframe for this type of stuff seems too late given the accelerated calendar.)
Tagged: fred thompson 
iowa mitt romney
Comments (22) 
Trackbacks (4) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Which is more of a risk? Romney, a candidate wounded by a single attack theme who can organize, put together a winning campaign strategy, and who can articulate his views extremely well when he talks directly to the voters.
Or Thompson, a guy whose political timing is so bad he missed a golden opportunity to seize the nomination by a factor of months, whose campaign management has been a trainwreck, and who has managed to underwhelm every time he’s opened his mouth.
Romney has scratched and clawed his way to where he is today despite a constant drumbeat of attacks that would destroy any other candidate that started as far back as Romney has. Don’t underestimate him.
Patrick… I would think that a numbers guy like you wouldn’t get caught up in something as silly as those head-to-head comparisons. Are we forgetting 1984? As late as July 1984 Mondale, in the “polls” that is, had Reagan all but checkmated. Meanwhile, when November rolled around, Reagan took 49 out of 50 states! In 2000 and again 2004, we were barraged by MSM polls showing Gore and Kerry respectively taking Bush out. But, we know how that went. Bush senior had his ‘unfavorable’ polling moments against Dukakis in 1988, and he too bucked history, giving Republicans the White House for a third term in a row.
This polling data is meaningless, and I think we all know it. If we want to talk about polls, why don’t we talk about the bump Romney got in both national and state polls after Ames, when only ONE THIRD of REPUBLICANS could even recall who won Ames when asked by Gallup just this last week?? Hillary vs. Romney comparisons are silly. Romney does not have to name recognition, nor is Romney currently the frontrunner for the GOP, as is the case with Hillary w/ the Dems.
Besides Patrick… we all know where your loyalties lie in this race. How can we give a piece like this any weight, when you’ve outed yourself as supporting Rudy before? Like I said on the day you announced your support for Rudy… you would’ve been much better off keeping that little tid bit to yourself, as everything you say from now until the GOP nomination will be questioned. Even something like recanting support for Rudy won’t change that at this point.
I think most campaigns are waiting until voters are more engaged before beginning negative attacks. Romney seems to be panicking a bit to me by going at Guiliani so early while also trying to portray the race as a two-man contest (when it clearly is not). I personally believe that Americans are not ready to accept a mormon just yet - their beliefs are just too strange. For example, mormons believe God was once a man and that he had actual sex with the Virgin Mary.
The GOP had better wake up if they think Romney can beat any Democrat.
Patrick this sounds like a lot of wishful thinking to me. Hillary’s negatives are high because everyone knows her and you either love her or hate her. That doesn’t stop the DNC from wanting to nominate her though. She is on a mission to change some of those opinions.
For Mitt, it is nothing like that. Most people do not even know who he is! They may have a general feeling based on some DNC talking points, but the feelings on Mitt are not etched in stone. More likely than not they don’t like the sound of his name. Further, there is evidence to show that Mitt is inceredibly likeable. The people who know him the best, the ones in Iowa and New Hampshire, seem to REALLY like him. He’s leading in those two states by wide margins. So, unlike Hillary, the more people get to know Mitt, the more they like him. That’s good news.
So this poll is meaningless at this point. Did you notice Huckabee had high negatives of 42% too? What? What’s to hate about him? Probably just his goofy name as well. Nobody really knows him either. It’s just a bunch of hogwash being used by shills for the other candidates who know Mitt is the man to beat with all the momentum.
Mitt has the most executive experience, is the most articulate and polished speaker, is a fabulous debater (having won 3 or 4 of them already), has presented the most innovate ideas and platform and leads in the two early primary states. I think the Dems are scared to death of Mitt Romney.
People do not want another slow, good ol’ boy from the South like Fred and the GOP will never nomninate someone as liberal as Rudy.
Once Romney slays Hillary in a few debates there will be no doubt as to who our next president will be. These polls are meaningless until they go head to head and then — the party’s over.
I agree with Kate, once Romney and Hillary go head to head in debate form, the differences between the two of them will be stark. It may come down in this race to either the marxist or the mainstream. And most folks will not choose the marxist when they see them side by side… Hillary is going ot have to present herself as someone different than she really is in order to pull this one off, and Mitt will make sure those differences are obvious. I agree with Mitt when he says that America is not going to turn left.
And besides, Fred looks phsically sick to me… not a slam but an observation. He just does not look now like the Fred we all loved…
Patrick, the other candidates would be wise to rise above the attacks and let Romney’s campaign continue to shoot themselves in the foot.
Romney had such an opportunity to complete the sale to me, he had a lot of things I was hoping for in our 2008 candidate: not a practicing attorney, from outside the South, business success, governing experience, not a tool of the most dogmatic social conservatives, free trader. He then proceeds to act like a classic pandering politician, running as “who do you want me to be?” instead of just being somebody certain, flaws and all.
Cautious, hazy about national security and foreign policy, dogged focus on the mechanics of campaigning in NH and IA, doing everything possible to have it both ways on having been governor of Massachusetts (”that place is a mess, but I was the MAN!”), and now attacking the front runner.
I had great hopes he would have been a great addition to the field and a strong contender, but it is hard to see now how he could redefine himself to be even slightly competitive in November. I’m beginning to think even McCain would be a better nominee. Right now only Rudy and Fred seem plausible candidates to energize the party and give it a fighting chance.
The way Romney is campaigning strikes me more like being saddled with Bob Dole in 1996, not really worth bothering going to the polls in November to cast a losing ballot for an uninspiring candidate. Even though they were both lawyers, I would in comparison jump at the chance to put Fred or Rudy over the top.
I have nothing to say about this silly call to arms by a desperate Rudy supporter who is reading the writing on the wall.
But I will just say this. Rudy Giuliani will not be he Republican nominee for POTUS. Trust me.
In addition, I do not share the opinion often expressed that Hillary will be automatically rejected. She has extremely strong personal negatives with some people, an equal number feels strongly positive to both Hillary and Bill. The rest will wait and see, and are open to persuasion. Given that the country as a whole is trending toward the Democrats and away from the Republicans, she will be a strong candidate not easily defeated.
On the mainstream v. marxism issue: Mormonism isn’t generally considered “mainstream.” America will balk at that with more ease than Roger Clemens in the zone. I got love for my mormon brothers….but lets be real.
Fred Thompson is a bigger threat to Rudy than Mitt.
Patrick, you’re hitting the wrong target. Fred Thompson is betting on the same strategy as Giuliani of writing off the early primaries to focus on the big states. If Romney gets shot down in Iowa the winner there will be Thompson, make no mistake about it. Iowa is a rural, conservative state and Giuliani has done well to focus elsewhere.
So, now imagine a scenario where Fred Thompson wins in Iowa. Contrary to Romney, Fred Thompson is polling well in every state so an Iowa bump might be all he needs to pull ahead of Giuliani across the board. Look at the Florida polls. Fred Thompson is running a very close second and if Rudy loses there he is history.
The best scenario for Giuliani is one in which he manages at least a second place finish in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina with anyone other than Fred Thompson winning those races. Then Giuliani proceeds to win in Florida and goes into Super Tuesday with momentum on his side.
With Fred Thompson out, as you can see on this poll, most of his supporters go to Rudy:
Without Fred Thompson included
Rudy Giuliani 36%
Mitt Romney 13%
John McCain 9%
Newt Gingrich 6%
Mike Huckabee 3%
http://race42008.com/2007/08/23/fox-newsopinion-dynamics-poll-gop/
In a Giuliani-Romney race as you can see, Rudy has a clear advantage and when you factor in Mitt’s high negatives the nomination will be in the bag. Fred Thompson is the only one standing between Rudy and the nomination.
I’ve never met a practicing Mormon I didn’t like, but then again, I’ve never felt any real personable connection to any either (admittedly only two or three). The opacity of their prayer meetings combined with their proselytizing zeal make them a little suspect in my mind. Granted, that may be unfair of me. But when I consider what I know of Mr. Romney, it makes me even more skeptical.
For one, he grew up in private school privilege, which is fine, but we’ve just had two general elections fought between silver-spoons presidential candidates that seem even more distant from what anyone I know can relate to. Yes, Mr. Romney seems to have made the best of his starting position and done quite well for himself. His ambition would also seem quite inspirational to others with a comparable background.
His ambition led him on a single tour of the MA governorship. It’s a mystery to me why he didn’t opt for seconds, other than that he saw he couldn’t possibly win. He would seem more persuasive and genuine to me if he had taken on the MA Democratic Assembly on economic issues and actually brought about growth in the state rather than leaving a job apparently half finished.
My other, more worrisome, pet theory as to why he didn’t go for a second gubernatorial term holds that he never really could persuade MA voters of enough, which is also why he has shifted political shape rather drastically over time. As a non-SoCon and classical, laissez faire liberal at heart myself, it doesn’t really wrench my innards how many different aspects of abortion, immigration, and even gun control (to an extent) he has appreciated most at various times. I’m more concerned about the below-average economic performance of MA during his single term.
But then again, Bill Clinton stands out in my mind as someone else who was suspiciously flexible. I clearly recall around 1991, when I completed my liberal arts BA and experienced a soft landing onto my mother’s sofa for a few jobless months during which I watched C-SPAN’s coverage of the primary candidates. I liked Paul Tsongas and his strict adherence to deficit reductions and fiscal entitlement control.
Candidate Bill Clinton, on the other hand, would speak in front of a seniors’ group somewhere and promise to keep or increase the goodies coming from Social Security one day, for instance, and then address a college-age crowd the next day talking tough on getting SS’s costs under control, even if means testing or other tools were required. He pandered at each appearance, promising opposing groups what they wanted and contradicting himself every day. I wound up writing Tsongas in on the general election ballot.
My political tendencies have grown more Republican over time, as I have come actually to believe there to be some lasting spirit of restraining government and cutting taxes in the party’s genetic code, although their Congressmen often have to struggle against their baser porcine instincts. And I already see Hillary running the same kind of panderfest of a campaign that installed Slick Willy in the Oral Office back then. So I wonder what should make me think that a pandering former one-term (by choice!) MA governor really wants to achieve?
For me, voting for Romney would be a vote for a politically flexible Republican with lackluster economic performance and a hint of carpetbagging in his political past. I’m not sure I wouldn’t simply plump for Billary — the political contortionists’ Zen masters — since they might actually drive a Democratic Congress to overextend itself and soon fall. Having the Republican Congress essentially running the Clinton administration is a slightly more appealing prospect than the fellow I feel I will never be able to know enough about or relate to.
(As a parenthetical footnote: I am glad that Gov. Romney has not worn his religion on his sleeve, as seems to have been the fashion since 2000. Religion for me — secularized WASPish protestant/DIY deist — is as personal and private as it gets. But when it’s opaquely secretive, it’s kind of spooky.)
Thompson looks very ill from the pictures at the Iowa State Fair where he had to ride in a Golf Cart and when walking Sen Grassley had to direct him to where people were calling his name.
Any candidate that cannot even read a speech at the VFW Convention without flubbing it and Obama gets almost three times as many applause breaks as Thopmson is not ready for prime time and should not be running.
Then he goes and brags this week about saving $50M by not getting in the race earlier basically making fun of candidates who have been out there every day and going against the intent of the FEC rules he cosponsored. He certainly has had to manufacture his down home TN accent because he has been in DC for years.
Noted how he has avoided debates and no one knows if he writes the blog entries or not. Am not about to take his word when he makes comments to the media and an hour or so later his campaign said he didn’t mean that.
As for Romney, he is taking himself out. His religion will keep him from winning in state after state especially on top of his flip flops and equating his sons helping with his campaign to serving in the military.
Some people need to get their head out of the sand and face reality that Rudy is most likely going to be the nominee because when people meet him in person they come away feeling good because he has so much energy and his ideas are very good and well thought out. The attacks by Romney and Thompson give Rudy a chance to shine!
Thompson went on record as the first non-candidate/candidate to attack someone. Thompson has nothing to offer so he attacks. The lackluster Senate record is not going to get the Nixon Mole anyplace. Guess if you are an actor playing a DA that has to count for experience but there you get to have a redo if you flub your lines as an actor. Another debate will come and go and where will Fred be?
I’m not a Mitt Romney fan, but I have to agree with most of the posters here that he is the likely nominee. He has done everything right. Until recently he was still in single digits nationally and yet he was still ranked among the “front runners” by the MSM because of his strength in Iowa and New Hampshire. Sure he has flip-flopped. But he flipped-flopped earlier than the others. Giuliani has also flipped-flopped, especially on immigration. John McCain has refused to flip-flop and look what has happened to his campaign.
DanD writes:
“Cautious, hazy about national security and foreign policy, dogged focus on the mechanics of campaigning in NH and IA, doing everything possible to have it both ways on having been governor of Massachusetts (”that place is a mess, but I was the MAN!”), and now attacking the front runner.”
That’s how you run a winning campaign! No one gets credit for sticking by his prinicples except losers!
When Ronald Reagan was Governor of California, he signed the first legalized abortion bill into law and vetoed a bill passed by the Democrat legislature that would have prohibited homosexuals from teaching in public schools. He also proposed the biggest tax increase in California history, and completely reversed himself on the question of income tax withholding.
Romney is better positioned to respond to the changing circumstances in national and world affairs than any other candidate.
Thompson is a terrible speaker and, from what I’ve heard, he’s not any better at the give-and-take of press conferences and informal interviews.
Giuliani’s too liberal on domestic issues and his stand on the Iraq war will make him poison to Republicans running for re-election in 2008. He’s not going to be the nominee.
I would call a steady-as-she-goes climb a sign of mature support base. People are not flocking emotionally to Romney. They are listening, studying him and deciding they like him. Up and Down seems a sign of a very immature base easily swayed by the media and events. As I see it Rudy’s poll line is overall down. I see that as the writing on the wall.
I absolutely agree with MJN. Giuliani’s poll numbers were in the mid ’40’s last February. The better known he gets, the lower his numbers. He’s going to go the way of John McCain.
Romney doesn’t need to attack Giuliani. Giuliani has no message. All he does is talk about 9/11. That just isn’t going to work for the next year and a half.
Besides being a Law & Order supporting actor, what is Fred Thompson exactly? What is the draw?
Besides being the mayor during 9/11 what did Giuliani do exactly in a leadership capacity besides deny funding for many deceased firemen’s non-functioning radios, place his disaster response unit in the most vulnerable building in the city (i.e. ground zero) against the counsel of his advisors, and then he got the city completely ticked off at him when he was ready to start bulldozing the remains of people that were still being looked for?
Can someone explain these mens’ strengths for me? Please?
From a distance I like both of these guys. Nobody likes Thompson on L&O more than I do, and nobody laughed at Giuliani on SNL like I did, but should this really affect my vote? We’re not talking about becoming 7th grade class president here. They’re not putting a skit on after their speeches.
There is nobody in this race that is even close to being as competent and driven as Romney. In Giuliani I see another Bush who is stuck in one gear and will not listen to anyone. In Thompson I see someone who can’t make a decision.
Patrick - This is nothing but but Giuliani spin. If you haven’t noticed, Giuliani was off message all month, stumbling for two straight weeks on sanctuary cities. At least you identify yourself (vaguely) as a Romney hater.
Your historical comparisons are way off. Stick to web development and not political analysis if this is your work product.
My prediction: The 22nd amendment will take Mitt out in 2017.
Patrick,
What scares you so much about Romney. Is flip-flopping the only thing you have against this man. Compare the records, from leadership to likeability it is Romney in a wash. I knew nothing about Romney until everyone started attacking him. I am no intellect, but when I saw all this attack. I decided to take a closer look at him. The more I looked, the more I like the man. I’m sorry, I prefer a candidate who looks at the times and make adjustments. I was once a staunch pro-lifer (abortion under no circumstance) however, I have since moderated my stance (abortion in certain circumstances. Does this now make me a flip flopper. If flip-flopping is the only thing you have on this man, then you guys are in deep trouble.
>mormons believe God was once a man
In a certain sense, yes.
>and that he had actual sex with the Virgin Mary.
Oh, boy. That old one again. (I would laugh really hard at that one, but I’ve heard it from so many frothing-at-the-mouth, brain-dead anti-Mormon types that I’m all laughed out. Now I just pity your ignorance.)
We most emphatically DO NOT BELIEVE THAT GOD HAD SEX WITH THE VIRGIN MARY. (That would make her, well, not a virgin anymore. Duh.) We know that, as the Bible teaches, Jesus was the Son of God, literally, physically as well as spiritually. We don’t know how it was accomplished. When the more sensationalist of the anti-Mormon wackos read that we actually believe the Bible on this point, rather than diluting it out to some meaningless symbolism, they go immediately to “Sex! They must have had SEX!” However, God isn’t limited by the requirements placed on us mortals, so anyone who actually believes in the God of the Bible ought to know that He could have accomplished it in some other fashion. (I don’t make mention of atheists here, because they are in this case, as in everything in life, completely irrelevant.)
I don’t care if people disagree with our doctrine and teachings, but setting up straw men (or straw virgins) like that just makes you look dishonest and stupid. Disagree if you wish, but please have the courtesy and good sense to disagree with what we actually teach and believe.
In conclusion, I would ask you to please fill out the ID-10-T form and leave it with the receptionist. Thank you.
That being said, I’m not excited about Romney, even though we’re both members of that horrible cult, the LDS Church. Like most Republican candidates, he’s just Liberal Lite. I’d rather vote for somebody who actually buys into the whole constitutional limits on government, letting me keep my money and property, allowing me to enjoy my God-given liberty, etc. You know, all that stuff the Founding Fathers were thinking of. Call me old-fashioned, but I’m not into the whole collectivism thing, regardless of whether it’s called Marxism or modern American liberalism.
[…] Who Will Take Out Mitt? by Patrick Ruffini […]
[…] I’ve had some issues with Romney, but his supporters are right to point out that his superior organization is a point in his favor when going up against the brutal Clinton machine. It’s something savvy Republican primary voters have a right to evaluate, and this year, the Web is going to be a huge component of that organization, because we will be outraised by $100 million or more if our campaigns only start thinking about building lists and engaging online on February 6th. […]
[…] Now tell me, in what world does a candidate win the first four or five primaries or caucuses and not go on to win the Republican nomination? Pretending that each victory will occur in a vacuum and not affect the outcome of each subsequent contest is ludicrous. Not even the competing campaigns believe this. The always eerily prescient Pat Ruffini’s warnings on this should be keeping Romneyhaters up at nights. […]
amy jo johnson bikini…
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !…