As NY votes, more tough news for Mitt Romney
This week, Mitt Romney swept five eastern and mid-Atlantic states, including the North Country, putting a final exclamation point on his claim to be the Republican standard bearer against Barack Obama.
But even as he solidified his place at the top of the ticket, he faced more tough news about the fight ahead.
The first was the incredibly anemic turnout, which echoed lackluster participation in GOP primaries even when the race was still contested.
To topple a sitting president, you need zeal and passion, and not just on the part of major Super Pac donors. Romney needs a 2010-style tea party explosion to shoot him out of the starting gates. So far, we haven’t seen that.
But the bigger problem for Romney is that the state-by-state battleground map continues to look more and more like a minefield.
Yes, Romney has ridden his primary campaign to near-parity with Obama in national polls. But in state-by-state match-ups he continues to trail bleakly.
The widely respected Real Clear Politics map shows the Democrat heading into the summer with 227 electoral college votes already firmly in his pocket or leaning his way. (270 are needed to win.)
Romney, meanwhile, has far fewer: just 170 electoral college votes tipping reliably his direction. That’s a world of difference.
Even worse is the fact that many of the eleven remaining “toss-up states” are tottering toward Obama, some of them by substantial margins.
New polls this week show the President up by double-digit margin in New Hampshire, leading by 6 points in Ohio, and maintaining a narrow lead in Florida. If he captures those states alone, it’s all over.
Even more troubling for Republicans is persistent polling that shows Arizona may actually be in play, with Colorado and Nevada also slipping away.
Romney has infuriated many Hispanics with his opposition to immigration reform, including the Dream Act, which appears to be hurting him badly in the Sunbelt West that was once bedrock Republican territory.
The point of all this? A lot of the coverage of Romney in recent weeks has suggested that he’s moved into a kind of steady asendancy, that a “slow and steady” challenge to Obama will carry the day in November.
I don’t think that speculation is born out by these numbers, or these trends.
To win, Republicans will need to do what they’ve done so successfully in past elections, redefining the larger narrative, shifting the overall mood of the electorate.
I think these numbers also argue for the need for Romney to take some risks as a candidate, showing more passion, and throwing out far more concrete policy ideas.
The GOP is clearly banking on this being a referendum on Obama, and clearly some of that dynamic will be at play. Indeed, consistent polls show that widespread dissatisfaction with Obama is all that’s keeping Romney afloat this point.
But so far, and consistently, Obama is still winning that referendum. Where the all-important electoral college is concerned, he’s winning by a wide margin.
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
Romney the Rockefeller Republican would have a much better chance in the general election than the current incarnation, but it is going to be very hard for him to pivot back to the middle without looking like a complete phony. There’s along time until November and if the economy looks bad it could work to his benefit. On the other hand, if our economy were to slow again because of slower growth in China or the European debt crisis, would voters really blame Obama? It isn’t mentioned much, but the stock market has doubled since Obama took office.
Another factor is that once American voters have passed the torch to the succeeding generation, they haven’t gone back and elected someone from a preceding generation. I got interested in this whole topic in 2008, because George Bush was a boomer and John McCain came from the Silent Generation (based on generations in the Fourth Turning). I went back through all the Presidents and found that generational succession had held true. It did in 2008 when the country elected a member of the 13th generation, Barack Obama. If the voters were to elect Mitt Romney in 2012, it would break a historical pattern.
If everyone who has a job, Obama wins by a massive landslide.
I mention this only to point out an absurdity by those saying the economy will be the big deal.
The real issue could be who do you trust more? If you think Romney and the Republicans are more concerned about everyone who isn’t rich than they care about the rich, I guess you will vote for Romney.
Careless editing. First line should have read, “If everyone who has a job votes for Obama, Obama wins by a massive landslide.
Most people who have a job must be unhappy with things otherwise the president and congress would have a 92% approval rating.
Given the money situation for the president he wins.
Gosh, wouldn’t it be awful if Romney won the popular vote (unlikely as this appears now) but Obama the Electoral? You know, like Bush did in 2000? I would really feel bad for all the swell members of the Party of Entitlement, they would feel SOOOOO cheated!
Pete Says: “If you think Romney and the Republicans are more concerned about everyone who isn’t rich than they care about the rich, I guess you will vote for Romney.”
Pete, Does this remark mean that you think Romney and the Republicans do care more about the non rich than the rich?
As I pointed out in my comments to Brian’s 21 April blog about the Obama-Romney competition for POTUS; I think the republican/conservative crowd reading of the tea leaves, chicken entrails, polls, , , , which has convinced them that their support of the 1% and blatant disregard for the welfare of the 99% appears to be reinvigorating the democrat/liberal crew again.
It has long mystified me as to why so many North Country residents register and vote a Republican/conservative ticket when so many of them would be living considerably less comfortable lives without the support programs put in place by downstate and national Democratic/liberal politicians which Republican/conservative politicians would/do gleefully repeal when the opportunities arise.
I reckon the marketing of BS issues is far more effective on most than on me; possibly as a result of nearly no television viewing prior to attaining the age of 14 and then but a minimum until the age of 25. Happily have I been since returning to near zero TV viewing for the past 10 years.
“blatant disregard for the welfare of the 99%”
Ken, given your lack of TV viewing you still seem to have some of the democratic rhetoric down well. It looks like the internet has it covered.
Seriously, the campaign is far more complex than this. Many republicans think that the answer is not to tax the income of the “rich” , which as you probably know will have almost no impact on our current situation, but to do other things. Like reform social security and medicare to make it a program that will take care of more people who really need that type of assistance. Like reforming the antiquated tax code that accounts for much of the disparity that you describe. Reform corporate tax rates and codes (something the president supports as well) to make it so companies contribute what they are expected. Or we can just keep on squawking about the 1% and the 99% like many democrats (and the president wans to do) and continue to accomplish nothing.
Paul says: “you still seem to have some of the democratic rhetoric down well”
Nah, I’ve got most of it down pat. Comes from 10 years active duty USAF and 17+ years in DoD working cheek by jowl with some of the most bigoted conservative and ultra-conservative humans I have ever known. Almost one and all Republicans to the core.
In actuality all of my surviving and non-surviving sisters and brothers, 1 each in both categories, were liberals from the get go which is amazing as we all grew up in the NC.
As to taxing the wealthy having no impact; that is on the face of it absurd for the republican/conservatives and the press to continuously disgorge. Taxing the wealthy at the nose bleed rates that were prevalent in the US in the 50’s, 90% and more, would definitely have an impact. As in all things in life it is all a matter of degree.
Where do you think the so called antiquated tax code of which you speak originated? Is it your impression that a group of faceless inept “bureaucrats” just sat down and willy nilly drew up 10s of thousands of pages of tax codes chock full of special breaks for corporations, family owned businesses and obscenely wealthy families to take advantage of the income tax system in the US? If you subscribe to this nonsense scenario with which the republican/conservatives pander to the masses; then, I submit you must have no comprehension of what the 10s nay 100s of thousands of lobbyists in Washington D.C. do day in and day out. There is likely not a scrap of paper, containing verbiage, in D.C. that one if not multitudes of lobbyists have had influence over. It is no accident that the corporations and obscenely wealthy do not “contribute what they are expected” because they think they do. Their contention is “close to nothing” is what they expect to contribute to the country that protects them and enables them to participate in their corporate schemes of greed and minimal taxes for them is what the lobbyists they hire are expected to deliver.
Ever notice how out of sorts the republican/conservatives become when a coalition of regular folks, called union members, pool their money to hire their own lobbyists. So much for “whats good for the goose is good for the gander”.
Whichever candidate pledges to ban polls from being taken more than a month before the election has my support.
People just don’t like Romney. that’s his biggest problem. People also hold the President responsible for the economy. Thats Obama’s problem. Neither of those should matter, but they do.
Once again Brian, I think you are picking and choosing data to build a point that supports your views. As you mentioned the presidents approval rating is very low, 41%. Mitt has just begun to challenge his performance over the last 3 and a half years. Have you noticed when the president has been campaigning that he does not mention anything about his accomplishments! Mitt has already started to attack his performance. When he selects Rubino as his running mate he will gain much more of the conservative vote as well as the Latino vote. While this is happening the president is loosing the youth vote and much of the independent vote. Stay tuned!!
Rubio will only attract the already rabid, anti-Castro, Republican/Cuban community. The rest of the latino vote falls on the other side of the line.
And what if he selects Santorum?
This headline didn’t demoralize me.
Gary: US auto industry is alive and thriving, thanks to policies that Romney opposed. Obama has directly and indirectly been talking about this accomplishment quite a bit, especially in those battleground states with formerly closed auto factories. Michigan, Ohio….
He, or his surrogates, also talk a lot about the demise of Mr. bin Laden, a fact that makes Romney’s attempt to trot out the old “Dems weak on national security” meme rather both comical and pathetic.
These will go quite a way with some voters.
Many of the very wealthy, and middle income voters more interested in ideology than their own self-interest will not be impressed.
Ken, I do think Romney and the Republicans couldn’t care less about the non rich. They care only for rich.
They are convinced the only smart people are the rich people.
You know the old phrase, “If you’re so smart, how come you aren’t rich?”
This nonsense also translate into some so called Christians who actually believe bad people are poor and rich people are good people. This is the exact opposite of the teachings of Jesus. It’s why he was crucified.
Neither party actually cares about any of us, they are self-motivated actors seeking power, ego gratification and money. The idea that the democrats care about the people and the republicans don’t is just as simplistic as saying republicans are good at running the economy and democrats are bleeding hearts. Its all a game and it depends on which interest group you belong to.
The key is what makes more sense for the country and for most of us realizing that the President is just one arm of our government and actually is not that powerful in the grand scheme of things with one exception foreign policy.
I am much more impressed with Obama than I was after his first year in office and before his election. I mean we got rid of all of the change crap and the bizarre idea that he was intrinsically different etc. Now we can focus on the guy being a politician and day to day pragmatic leader. I think he does okay on those counts.
I noticed Biden is out there pumping his foreign policy achievements I think this is the direction to really run on. Romney in the primary sounded as if he wants to re-invade Iraq and stay in Afghanistan forever, does anyone want that, conservative liberal, whoever???
To me the economy takes care of itself, more or less, we choose to kill people in these stupid stupid wars of occupation.
I mean I don’t agree with most of Obama’s domestic agenda or his health care bill or his stands on social issues. But I am kind of becoming a single issue voter, if he really can end the Afghan war like he ended the Iraq war to me its worth it having him as president. Besides he killed Bin Laden, frankly he should be re-elected just because of that.
“Taxing the wealthy at the nose bleed rates that were prevalent in the US in the 50’s, 90% and more, would definitely have an impact.”
Ken, no one is considering doing this. What they are considering will have no impact. It is political pandering to try and appease the base. That doesn’t help anyone rich or poor. That isn’t quite true it maybe helps the politicians who propose the idea get re-elected.
Paul, we’re always being told that the top one percent pay something like 40% of the tax– surely raising their rates some would have a non-negligible effect.
Let’s put it this way– whatever amount of money it would bring in, if Democrats proposed spending that amount, Republicans would insist on offsetting it by cutting social welfare programs.
Walker, I don’t disagree with that at all. I was just saying that the current proposals being floated around regarding the “Buffet Rule” etc. will not have a negligible effect. These are election year “political” tools not real proposals. Both sides are guilty in this regard.
The analysis I have seen is that the Buffet rule would generate a tiny percentage increase in total US revenue, not enough to have any real or significant impact on our Nations expenditures.
But on the other hand it is more about fairness and so from that perspective it makes some sense.
Although I heard another analysis I think on NPR where the guy was saying it actually will create even more complexity to the tax code, another layer another set of codes that the lawyers and accountants particularly for the very wealthy will deal with.
A better solution would be to have a normal progressive tax code getting rid of ALL the exemptions etc. Why should I have special tax treatment because I am married for example? We need comprehensive tax reform.
Four or five rates with zero exemptions. That won’t pass though as it would be very unpopular, what no interest deduction for my home, no deductions for being married, no deductions for kids, no deductions for all of the other crazy stuff that is written into the tax code to serve particular interest groups.
It is doubtful it will ever happen, so they will pass these little things like the buffet rule to make us all feel better.
Santorum was the only ideologial candidate to bring our country back from the abyss. Gods wrath will soon be at hand if we re-elect Obama or the demagogue Romney. Santorum will bring gods laws back to the land. No Abortions, outlaw birth controll. The Family is god.
onewife: This prolonged bin laden issue reminds me of the movie, “A Weekenk With Bernie”!
one wife: Be serious for a moment. What did he actually DO? He approved of a mission. Did he really have a choice? No! If word leaked that we knew where bin laden was and he said no to the mission then what?
Then nothing, it would have been safer for him to say no.
He deserves a lot of credit and I say that as someone he did not vote for him.
I wonder if we are ready to re-invade Iraq? It seems that is what Romney wants to do or implied was the best thing to do. How about staying in Afghanistan essentially forever?
I just think Obama has got a pretty strong foreign policy case.