Mitt Romney’s campaign is well-funded and highly organized. It has attracted top endorsements, corralled key GOP donors and consultants, cultivated the conservative media, and won or tied in competitive contests such as Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada. But to be blunt, stumbles in South Carolina and now in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado call into question the planning and judgment of the campaign’s leaders, starting with the candidate himself.
Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are talented politicians with strong followings. But they are also operating shoestring campaigns and have obvious liabilities. If the Romney team believed their own inevitability rhetoric, failing to invest for victory yesterday just as they did before South Carolina, that doesn’t auger well for their ability to make sound decisions later on. After all, two of the three states, Colorado and Missouri, will be battlegrounds in the general election. Investing in them with ad buys and organization could hardly have been considered a waste of resources. And if the Romney team did try to compete with Santorum yesterday but fell so woefully short, what does that say about their ability to compete with a far more resourceful adversary this fall?
Democrats are happier today than they were yesterday, and much happier than they were a month ago. They may be wrong, but they still see Romney as President Obama’s strongest challenger. So if Romney can’t even win in Colorado, a caucus Romney dominated four years ago against a stronger opponent, they’re liking the president’s chances in November. As for Republicans, well, there’s always the U.S. Senate . . .
Money has nothing to do with it. There are just a lot of people who don't like Romney. If he get the nomination, he's gonna get trounced.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you think *Romney* will get trounced in the general without backup from current polling and/or primary returns data, you're not making a fact-based conclusion, just an intuitive or emotional one.
For current fact-based data, head on over to the realclearpolitics poll of averages of matchups between Obama/Romney and Obama/Santorum ('President Obama vs. Republican Candidates'). Check out Romney's numbers next to Santy's numbers in these contests. If you're basing your opinion that Romney will get trounced in the general because of his unpopularity, you would have to conclude from long term general election polling data that Santorum would do worse, despite one outlier poll that showed Santy ahead by 1 point in a head to head with the O..
If you think *Romney* will get trounced in the general, check out the number of delegates that Romney has won in actual delegates via primary *votes*, not just caucus nods supplied by a slimmer number of more activist (R) base members.
And please don't change the argument as Santorum (and Gingrich) supporters often do when actual polling and delegate data is being compared, by responding that Santorum is more conservative than Mitt. I'd love to see Santorum get the nod *if* he demonstrates over the long term he might oust the Obamanator. Rick's chances may change in the months ahead, but at present the data simply doesn't support that conclusion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney will get trounced.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney only wins contests where he massively outspends his opponents. In the General Election, Obama will be the one with all the money. Obama's SuperPacs will literally have billions, and perhaps tens of billions. He will outspend any Republican by 10x or more, even if Romney is the nominee. And the fact that the economy seems to be improving puts a big wind at Obama's back. If Romney is the nominee, we will go down in a historic landslide defeat. We may lose anyway with any other nominee, but I would feel a lot more comfortable with a candidate that does not depend totally on outsized ad buys for his wins. And as much as I like some of Newt's ideas, his "baggage" seems to have a very negative effect on a substantial portion of the electorate, making him less electable. Thus, I am backing Santorum, and since only Paul and Romney are on the primary ballot in my state, I will vote for Paul in the primary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, if you ask the question "is the Romney campaign for real," ------------ it's only fair then to ask another question, very much related to the first, and that is: -------------------------------------------------------------- Is NATIONAL REVIEW for real?
Weren't you the guys puffing Romney, and not just this campaign cycle?
Weren't you the guys endlessly regaling us with tales that Romney was "the strongest" opponent against obama?
Weren't you the guys running down anyone who seriously threatened Romney's slot in the pole position?
And now all of a sudden, in the beginning of Feb., it finally begins to dawn on you that there aren't just probs with Romney as a candidate, but in his method of doing things, running things and overall decision making.
Remember, this is supposed to be the competent candidate. BUT serial examples of ineptitude obliterate any such fantasy.
The guy that can frame narratives, that has successfully changed aspects of Washington, is the very same guy you ran into the gutter with desperate innuendos.
Now we're going to be saddled with an abortion fixated candidate, or the incompetent guy who has some deluded is the be all and end all in competence.
Way to go NR!
You've just covered yourselves in glory this campaign cycle.
And Steyn has got to be the worst of the lot!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's still hope — maybe someone kept the receipt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1) Romney is the best of the Republican candidates.
2) Romney is not a very good candidate.
These statements are not contradictory.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney's instinct is to go nuclear against anyone who seems to be a speedbump on the road to Inevitability. It eliminates opponents, but it doesn't make voters feel better about him.
What his campaign has always lacked is boldness and honesty, and the two are not unrelated. No one knows what his convictions are because he doesn't articulate them, much less place them at the center of his campaign. His campaign seems to be a swirl of platitudes whose only unifying theme is Mitt Wants to be President. For Mitt to really lay on the line what his guiding principles are and how he will use them to address our national challenges takes a degree of fortitude and candor he does not seem capable of.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"His campaign seems to be a swirl of platitudes whose only unifying theme is Mitt Wants to be President."
So nicely put. Concise and exactly right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree. That is the sum total of Mitt's quest for the office: He wants to be president. Not because he wants to do anything in particular, it's just another goal like make a million dollars by the time I am 25, or to accomplish something his father failed at.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree that is Romney’s problem and one reason why his opponents hate him so much (now and in 2008). I leaned toward him in 2008 until I saw how his minions threw others under the bus with innuendo and negative campaigning while he claims to be above it all. If he gets the nomination many will stay home because he has never made the case for true conservative principles . If by chance he wins we will get another GHW Bush and the tax increases and Judges that go with it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBruce, Romney has never made the case for conservative principles? Where have you been, my friend. He makes the case every day on the trail, in op eds, in interviews, in his book, and with his strong conservative record as governor. Try learning a little about the man, and stop buying the false narrative being pushed by talk radio elitists.
I'm weary of people who don't bother doing the homework on Romney or the other candidates. Romney is the only one who's record is repeatedly lied about and who's statements are taken out of context by even the rightwing media--while the flavors of the month all skate by virtually free of any real scrutiny.
I have a hard time believing that the people who voted for Santorum yesterday have any clue about his big government record, his questionable bank loan, his disdain for the tea party, and on and on and on.
I do think Romney has to do a much better job getting his message out. He is fighting the Obama administration, the MSM, the rightwing media, and the religious right. It's quite a headwind, but if he can't overcome it, then we are all in trouble come November. Because let's face it, no one else has a shot.
It's time for the party to get serious and at least start caring about the truth of the candidates records, and their qualifications.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore overwrought media analysis!
Check out 1980. Asking if Romney is for real and hyperventilating over 3 minor losses would give you a heart-attack if you look at how many primaries and cauci that Reagan lost to Bush.
Get a grip, National Review....Mitt Romney is still way on his way to becoming the Republican nominee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMeant to write "well on his way"...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInterestingly, Romney's pattern of primary and caucus wins/losses in 2012 is identical to Hillary's in 2008.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo who's Obama? Gingrich?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe essential problem with Romney is that despite all his practice four years back, and despite all his endorsements -- either voluntary or bought and paid for -- and despite all his hired consultants and ads both negative and positive, Mitt is simply a weak campaigner. He's not authentic, and the voters instinctively recognize it. He lacks the common touch and suffers from a tin ear.
Let's face it, the only thing he has run on is inevitability, and that has proven mighty flimsy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's unfortunate for your argument that Romney is the Bush of this campaign.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is the perfect response to Mr. Hood's article. No one took Reagan seriously until after he was elected. Even then, some still considered him an "amiable dunce".
Being considered electable by National Review isn't the same as being able to win an election.
The people are the final judge. Maybe NR and the rest of the Republican establishment should ask the people if they want another healthcare mandate candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour the guys pushing Romney, the base has been speeding loud and clear your the ones who tank you know better then all of us, and Romney is the most electable and Obama fears him the most, are you kidding me. He won't win without the base and to assume that like the NR we will all be lemmings is delusional, the turn out in FL and NV was not great and you think Romney is the guy?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse