Romney v Obama 1

If the polls are accurate, and so far they have been pretty reliable, Mitt Romney will beat Newt Gingrich in the Florida Primary by more than ten points. No, this won't mean that Romney has the nomination all wrapped up, but it will suggest that Gingrich is very unlikely to take it from him. Only a week ago Gingrich was leading in a handful of polls. What explains Romney's recovery?

Three things: first, Romney outspent Gingrich 3 to 1 in Florida, a place where the TV market is both necessary and expensive. Second, Romney has built a substantial organization in Florida. Third, the Republican electorate in that state seems to have come to the same conclusion that Republicans across the country are coming to: Mitt Romney might win a general election against Barack Obama; Newt Gingrich cannot.

It is the last item and not the first that is decisive. Romney outspent Gingrich 2 to 1 in South Carolina and lost by full lap. The relationship between money and organization is reciprocal. The former helps you build the latter, but the latter helps you raise the former. No amount of money can buy the following poll numbers reported by Gallup:

Mitt Romney leads Newt Gingrich, 59% to 39%, in U.S. registered voters' perceptions that each "has the personality and leadership qualities a president should have." Romney also has solid advantages for being "sincere and authentic" and able to manage the government effectively. Romney and Gingrich are about tied, however, on understanding the problems Americans face in their daily lives.

Registered voters in 12 key swing states are almost evenly split between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in their 2012 presidential election preferences, while giving a 14-percentage-point lead to Obama over Newt Gingrich.

In short, Republicans tend to think that Romney is more electable and they look to be right, at least just now. They seem to be about to exercise prudence and moderation rather than spirit in their choice and that is very probably a good thing regardless of who wins.

What does the campaign look like, from this early vantage point? Obama has obvious advantages. The Presidency is an awesome institution. The President enjoys the majesty of the state and he has his own jet airplane.

What Republicans fear most is that Obama will turn out to be as ruthless and efficient as he was in his first campaign. For a sample of that, and for other things, I recommend Ryan Lizza's remarkable article in The New Yorker. Here, he reports on the Obama campaign's decision to attack Ms. Clinton personally during the nomination period.

Neera Tanden was the policy director for Clinton's campaign. When Clinton lost the Democratic race, Tanden became the director of domestic policy for Obama's general-election campaign, and then a senior official working on health care in his Administration. She is now the president of the liberal Center for American Progress, perhaps the most important institution in Democratic politics. "It was a character attack," Tanden said recently, speaking about the Obama campaign against Clinton. "I went over to Obama, I'm a big supporter of the President, but their campaign was entirely a character attack on Hillary as a liar and untrustworthy. It wasn't an 'issue contrast,' it was entirely personal." And, of course, it worked.

Politics is hardball and both sides will play to win. If anyone thinks that the Obama organization played nice or will play nice, that person is naïve. Here is another example:

On June 19, 2008, he announced that he would be the first Presidential candidate since 1976 to forgo public funds, which allow candidates to run in the general election while limiting the corrupting influence of fund-raising. This was an awkward and hypocritical decision, given that in 2007 Obama had explicitly promised that he would stay in the system. David Plouffe, his campaign manager, wrote in his memoir, "The Audacity to Win," that the promise had been a mistake: "We were overly concerned with making sure the reform community and elites like the New York Times editorial board, which care deeply about these issues, would look favorably on our approach." Obama, Plouffe noted, was "genuinely torn," but was eventually convinced that victory trumped idealism… From September 1st to Election Day, Obama outspent McCain by almost three to one, and, as many Republicans are quick to note, ran more negative ads than any Presidential candidate in modern history.

I find notable not only that "victory trumped idealism," not to mention the integrity of a promise, but that Obama's promise to stay in the public funds system was made not out of any scruple but in order to win over the New York Times. At any rate we know that Obama will do whatever he thinks he needs to do to be reelected and that his campaign organization last time around was adept at judging what he needed to do.

Putting these two considerations together, without even mentioning Romney's weaknesses, Obama looks formidable.

On the other hand, he also looks very vulnerable. Obama 2008 was all promise. The moment he became President, his powers of persuasion largely deserted him. Despite scores of speeches, he was unable to rally public support for his health care reform. If anything, support went down the more he talked about it.

Perhaps he will regain his moxy as the campaign goes on, but it hasn't happened yet and he has been campaigning full time. His approval rating at Gallup has risen above 50% only once, and that only briefly, since February 2010. So far his campaigning, including his State of the Union Address, has only managed a tie in approval/disapproval (46% to 47%).

The fact that he is currently tied with Mitt Romney doesn't mean much but it means something. Newt Gingrich has been throwing everything he has at Romney. Romney has been debating constantly and occasionally has made grave errors. Republicans have feared that their candidates are tearing each other down and so weakening the eventual candidate for the contest to come. What if they are right? If a tie with Obama is Romney's low point, he can start measuring drapes for the White House. Bear in mind that the national polls showing a tie are sampling registered voters, not likely voters. Generally Republicans do better when likely voters are sampled and those are the voters that count.

I am carrying no water for Mitt Romney. I have predicted he will be the Republican nominee and I haven't changed my mind. I make no predictions regarding the outcome. Looking at the situation right now, it does look like we have the makings for a real contest this November.

Comments

[larry kurtz]

A couple of posts back you said that a quick win by Romney would be the best course for the GOP, Ken. He's just as flawed now as he was at the beginning of the campaign. It should bolster your party that a longer primary season means more transparency and trains the eventual nominee to handle the pounding in the general.

His choice of veep may have to define who he really is to his electorate.

I think he's unelectable, too.

[Bill Fleming]

Romney has a built-in problem being himself, observes Frank Rich in a recent TV interview. This is unfortunate for him, if true. He has to continually dodge questions about the thing he really cares about. Kind of sad, actually.
http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/289765/frank-rich-its-almost-if-romney-closeted-about-his-religion-greg-pollowitz

[Miranda]

Thanks for your analysis!

Just a couple of questions:

A) Before a single vote was cast, much of the media tried to frame the Republican race as one between two candidates - Herman Cain and Mitt Romney. The picture has changed dramatically since then. Since we have only seen the outcome of three primaries, with different winners in each, why are so many so sure that Romney will be the nominee?

B) You write that Newt Gingrich cannot win in the general election. Why is this impossible?

[Miranda]

I would also add that Gingrich is beating Romney in several national polls. (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh12rep.htm)

[lynn]

The GOP establishment wants Romney because he won't upset the apple cart too much, maybe just a little. He has been their choice for years. The Dems want him probably because they think he is the easiest to beat; heck, even Soros said he and Obama weren't too different. The media wants him. And the MSM does have a big influence on the outcome of a race, whether primary or general. The establishment does not want a true conservative because the establishment still loves big govt and spending, contrary to a true conservative. I wish Gingrich would be the candidate, as I think he would really address the problems and not care whose feelings get hurt. I think Romney will be the nice guy who won't really change things much. I hope I'm wrong, but not holding my breath.

[Stan Gibilisco]

Barack Obama will probably exhibit more ruthlessness in the upcoming election than he did in 2008.

The Republicans' Achilles heel, in my opinion, lies in their way, at times, of seeming to pander to the wealthy.

General resentment toward the "one percent" has grown steadily since 2008; Mitt Romney certainly comes off as a member of that club.

In recent weeks I've moved toward the conclusion that Obama will win handily, although not by a landslide (unless some conservative makes an independent bid).

I've also concluded that it doesn't matter who wins in terms of the fate of our economy. I think we're on the verge of a long depression no matter what.

Add a few rogue sunspots that decide to have a fit, and we could face a near total socioeconomic collapse.

Makes me want to join Larry down in New Mexico or up in Montana ...

[duggersd]

Bill, of course Romney has some built in problems. But then so does the incumbent. In the past three years we have learned the most articulate President ever cannot give an answer without stuttering unless he has a teleprompter. This will look bad in extemporaneous situations. We have also learned he knows absolutely nothing about the economy. We found out he has a thin skin. I could go on, but you see the point. We elect the people we choose in spite of their problems. Any Republican is going to have to contrast themselves with Obama. In a sane world, that should win it. However this is not a sane world.

[Bill Fleming]

That teleprompter thing's gettin' pretty old, dugger. If it's Romney's lead argument (as it appears to be yours) he's toast.

[duggersd]

No, Bill, I did not say this is a reason to vote for someone else. I just pointed out if BHO does not have a teleprompter, he cannot put together a coherent sentence. This is not an thing, just talking about what he looks like when he talks without one. BTW, Romney does not exactly excite me. If he is the nominee, I will be voting against someone rather than for someone. That, IMHO is Romney's biggest problem.

[Jon S.]

Miranda,

Let me do Blanchard's work for him. I recently heard a podcast that featured GOP campaign guru Mike Murphy. I think he made a couple good points. Newt Gingrich would kill Barack Obama...in a Republican primary. The kind of arguments that Gingrich has been making only work as red meat for Republicans. Murphy said that if Gingrich uses the same debate language with Obama as he famously has in the primaries, he will leave the debate stage with Obama's footprint on his butt (that's Murphy's language, not mine). Look how bad Gingrich did with women last night. A Republican can afford to lose the female vote, but not by 22%. Gingrich get's clobbered by Obama in general election polls. The main problem is that Gingrich has essentially run as a right-wing demagogue, more interesting because of who he hates and who hates him than because of anything he actually believes in (which appears to be little, other than himself). This might play in Charleston, but it won't play in Peoria.

[Bill Fleming]

Dugger, Obama can and does put coherent sentences together sans teleprompter. You're just mouthing some stupid dittohead garbage as usual.

[duggersd]

Whatever, Bill. I do not need Rush for this. You believe what you want. Anyway, it does not matter. Obama cannot speak without a teleprompter or he can. The evidence is in Youtube. Don't make me post them again. I only point to it as one of the MANY problems he has when it comes to reelection. He has one big advantage as he has the ability to spend US taxpayer dollars to bribe his constituency. But on the other hand, independents are flocking away from him. He has even dropped in approval in the group from the same race as he is. He has dropped in approval from people from just about every group. Unemployment dropping is only a veneer. He promised to cut the deficit and yet it continues to be above $1 trillion. He ran against GWB in 2008 and is trying to do so again. His signature law is one most Americans want repealed. The list goes on and on and on. Even if you can show something as not true, that is the perception and for the voters, perception is reality.

[Donald Pay]

"Perception is reality" aptly describes the people (ie., "ignorant people") the Republican Party relies on. And the Republicans want to do away with public schools and higher ed because they want to keep people ignorant.

People want to repeal the Affordable Care Act until they find out what's in it. Then they agree with about 95 percent of it, and no longer want to repeal it. The people who want to repeal the act don't know what's in it.

[Bill Fleming]

For DuggerSD. Here's an example of Mr. Obama working without a teleprompter:
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc-tv/35147797#35147797

[duggersd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0hU1THjuc, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iap0LMsa36w&feature=fvwrel, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHgH5i8ug6E, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAKQG6QhjSw, and my personal favorite, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbzSi0LTu0s
Even in that one, he was still blaming Bush. I gave up after several minutes of his uh's, and um's and it was even worse than we thought. Actually he pretty much said the same thing over and over.

[Miranda]

Thanks, Dr. Schaff. That makes sense.

But here's what puzzles me. The country is divided nearly in half between liberals and conservatives. But while conservatives seem to spend a good deal of time trying to decide which candidate will appeal most to the left, I have not seen that sort of instinct on the left. None of the arguments I heard in favor of Obama had anything to do with how much he might appeal to the right. Perhaps I did not look hard enough for them, but even if that is the case, it is hard to see what qualities Obama has that might recommend him to conservative voters.

So I am left wondering why Republicans feel the need to pick a more moderate candidate, rather than picking the candidate that best represents them, letting the Democrats do the same and then letting the country choose between the two best candidates each side has to offer.

[Ken Blanchard]

Miranda: conservatives are the largest ideological bloc in the US, but not quite half of the likely voters. Liberals are a rather smaller group. Conservatives can win when they draw a significant portion of the middle in their direction. That requires compromise and opportunity. I don't think that the point is that we have to choose a moderate. I would much rather choose a movement conservative who had the savy and judgment to win.

However, it is not only political perspective but ideology that is in play. I do not dislike Newt Gingrich, but I do not think he has the character for the White House. He has a history of charging successfully and then blowing it. I just don't think that he can win a general election. I don't know if Romney can, I just think that he is the best we have at this point.

It would be nice if we got to choose between the best candidates. Unfortunately, we have to choose between the ones on tap.

[Miranda]

Makes sense! Thanks for taking the time to answer.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: you can be such an idiot sometimes.

[Stan Gibilisco]

"People want to repeal the Affordable Care Act until they find out what's in it. Then they agree with about 95 percent of it, and no longer want to repeal it. The people who want to repeal the act don't know what's in it."

Great take, Donald! I have a hunch that you're right, and I also have a hunch that I can go with my hunches, except when I can't. Only once in my life has my intuition been bad, anyhow; and that was the time that I thought that something was bad when it was really good.

I have reservations about Romney because he comes off as plastic and elite -- well, just like Obama! He also comes off as a member of the one-percent club. Obama will doubtless attack him on that issue. Romney had better figure out how he'll handle that, and also how he'll deal with the Romneycare issue.

Just read that Donald Trump has thrown his support behind Romney; The Donald says he will not attempt a third-party run if Romney becomes the nominee; The Donald also thinks Romney can beat Obama in the general election.

At least the next few months won't be dull!

[Dave]

Can't post a picture so this will have to do...
http://reddogreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Romney-Teleprompter-Black.jpg
And here's a winning argument if there ever was...
"Donald: you can be such an idiot sometimes."
Really K.B.?

[Dave]

Yesss... The black muslin "not one of us" with the muslummy sounding name and no birth certificate comes off as "plastic and elite"... (cuckoo clock going off in background...)

[QPM]

And here's a winning argument if there ever was...
"Donald: you can be such an idiot sometimes."
Really K.B.?

There's that scholastic firepower that the NSU Poli Sci deparmentt is so noted for.

[QPM]

Oh lord. Facepalm...;)

[Ken Blanchard]

QPM: I'm not sure what "deparmentt" you're in, but where I was educated calling something what it is in plain language is a virtue. Donald said this: "Republicans want to do away with public schools and higher ed because they want to keep people ignorant." He was being an idiot when he said it.