100 Day Sprint: Time running out fast for Romney
So we are almost halfway through the 100 day sprint — I know, I know, you’re thanking your higher power right about now.
But one guy who’s not glad to see the pages drop off the calendar is Mitt Romney.
For the better part of the last year, Romney has been locked in an also-ran position, just inches behind President Barack Obama.
The Democrat has held a solid lead in the electoral college standing throughout the race.
Romney pulled into threat-range in the early summer, staking claim to a tie in the popular vote and thinning Obama’s leads in battleground states.
With the Paul Ryan pick he seemed to be positioned for a bold final push. But that momentum is starting to look more and more like a plateau.
Romney appears stuck around the 45% mark that John McCain hit in 2008. Meanwhile, in the latest polls Obama is pushing toward or even above the 50% mark.
(CNN puts the president at 52% to Romney’s 46%, nearly matching Obama’s final margin over John McCain four years ago.)
None of the Democrats’ current advantages are insurmountable, but the opportunities for the GOP to shake up the race are ticking away VP pick? Done. Conventions? Over.
Swift Boat style blow to Obama’s approval ratings? If anything, it’s the Democrats who are playing the pit bulls this time around. This morning, Politico is leading with a story about the Democrats “Kerry-izing” Romney on national defense.
More bad economic news? Well, maybe that could change the race’s dynamics. In their latest assessment of the race, Team Romney is arguing that high unemployment automatically doom Obama to a one-term presidency.
But I don’t think many politics-watchers buy that anymore. I think most people who’ve run out of patience with Obama have already jumped ship.
Meanwhile, Romney now faces the risk of several crucial days being lost to hand-wringing stories, as GOPers and conservative allies acknowledge doubts about the Romney-Ryan strategy.
We’ve already seen anxious essays in the Wall Street Journal, Politico and the Weekly Standard. In the Standard, Bill Kristol compared the Romney approach to that of Michael Dukakis. Ouch.
To win this, Romney has to actually, you know, win it. He has to find a story to tell that convinces Americans that he’s the better guy, with the better plan. I don’t think there are many pundits in America, including conservatives, who would say he’s done that effectively.
And there’s just not much time left.
Which leaves the debates as the likeliest opportunity for Romney to break through with that message. Doable, yes. But only if Romney elevates his appeal dramatically, and finds a credible, policy-backed narrative along the way.
He’ll probably also need help from an Obama stumble or some other unforeseen event.
The big convention bounce for Obama (let’s be honest and call it the Clinton Bounce) will almost certainly fade. But with 56 days to go, that won’t be enough by itself to lift the Republicans out of a frustratingly close second place.
Tags: election12
Republicans hoped that the Republican Convention would allow the public to finally get to know the real Romney, and their wish was granted.
Also, as a former American History teacher, it gratifies me immensely that a significant number of voters actually recall the policies and the party that got us into our current economic mess, and are not inclined to elect a would-be practitioner of a more extreme version of those very policies.
I saw Romney on “Meet the Press” Sunday and he could not explain his position on the income tax in a way that made sense. He’s going to give “job creators” more money to invest in the economy by lowering tax rates but he’s going to make sure that the amount of revenue coming into the US Treasury remains the same by eliminating deductions. So just how does give “job creators” one penny more to invest? Perhaps he knows that those deductions benefit the middle class the most, so it’s middle income people who’ll pay more so that tax revenues are unchanged. I think that people are smarter than Mr. Romney seems to think they are, and realize that things just don’t add up.
Also, this is the Republican’s second try with a VP choice who actually has little experience on a national stage. The more I watch him in action, the more I come to think that a successful national candidate needs to back up charisma with experience. The presidential candidates get that through the primary process. Picking a VP who hasn’t endured a national contest of some sort doesn’t seem to work as well as the strategists hope.
Brian wrote “The big convention bounce for Obama (let’s be honest and call it the Clinton Bounce) will almost certainly fade. But with 56 days to go, that won’t be enough by itself to lift the Republicans out of a frustratingly close second place.”
Perhaps, the bounce isn’t all about Charlotte. This morning press release over at the Iowa Electronic Market suggests as much.
http://tippie.uiowa.edu/iem/media/story.cfm?ID=2925.
As they note: “The price of a Romney contract dropped 10 cents during his own convention.”
Obama’s contract only added two points after the Democratic convention.
It appears Romney has not connected with people enough and hasn’t provided a compelling rationale for his candidacy.
I’m putting $100 on Romney to Place.
The real “job creators” are the lower and middle class consumers. We already know that employers aren’t hiring because 1) there isn’t enough market for goods and services to justify more hiring and 2) where there is the employers have found ways to increase productivity sufficiently to meet the demand without hiring.
How any reasonable person could conclude that simply adding to employers’ cash on hand in the absence of an increased market would result in hiring more employees escapes me. Even if his tax plan magically (and most studies indicate it would take magic) lowered taxes for the rich, didn’t raise taxes for everyone else and reduced the deficit, you still wouldn’t have a bigger market. To get that you need to put money in the hands of people who will spend it, not hold onto it until the economy improves.
Capitalism is not a naturally altruistic system. Employers don’t run out and hire people just to put them to work without some promise of profit and that in a nutshell is why Romney’s economic plan is nothing but fairy dust. I think that in their gut most people get that but I see no indication from Romney and Ryan that they do.
If Obama wins, people are going to have to start giving him his due. I think he thrives on being underestimated and is very skilled at letting his opponents beat themselves. It’s an art that a lot of people mistake for incompetence.
There’s a good breakdown of the candidate’s positions at http://nationalpriorities.org/en/analysis/2012/election-2012-voter-guide/voter-guide-2012-obama-and-romney-issues/
“I think he thrives on being underestimated and is very skilled at letting his opponents beat themselves. It’s an art that a lot of people mistake for incompetence.”
It looks like incompetence because, to a great extent, it is. Non-performers always seem to be “misunderstood” and their opponents are often characterized as “losers” and “obstructionists.” If Obama was such a winner, all the posts supporting him would be about his accomplishments, instead of being about how badly Romney is doing. Don’t start the celebration just yet.
By the way, why was Bush not given his due when he was re-elected? If he did so poorly, why did his margin of victory increase when he was re-elected? If Gore was really the people’s choice, why didn’t he run in ’04 and give liberals a chance to correct their mistake of voting for Nader?
My point, for those of you who are sure to miss it, is that the dialogue around a Presidential election shouldn’t be the unending spew of hatred it has become. The snide comments and smugness are unbecoming and add nothing.
The “good breakdown” of the candidates’ position you referenced is presented by a liberal organization and is obviously biased in favor of Obama. If Obama’s job creation ideas are so good, what is he waiting for? You would think something would have happened by now. If Obama’s fiscal policies are so good, how has a Trillion dollars been added to the annual deficit? Is he saving the good stuff for later? I must be missing something.
Larry, your point about Bush proves Will’s point. After the ’04 election Bush was, as I recall, very much given his due for leading a campaign that somehow managed to make voters, through the effective use of ignorance, fear, and prejudice, re-elect the most disasterous administration in U.S. History (alternative nominations for this honor are invited).
Even is you think Obama is a total screw-up as President (and I’m not a great fan), he, like W., know how to run a campaign.
That is, “Even IF you think…”
“KNOWS how to run a campaign.” I’m going back to bed.
The Republicans validated Obama’s argument by not inviting their last elected President to the convention, zero, not one mention not one appearance. Yet his policies are what they are embracing. You CAN make a case for the 8 years of Bush being better than what we have now; and that is what they have to do, but they are running from those 8 years. If you run from those 8 years and your policies ARE based on those 8 years, you are chasing your tail in an illogical circle.
What is it? Bush good Bush bad, if Bush bad then why are you embracing his domestic agenda? Tax breaks for “Job creators” that is Bush language and what he did, did it work or NOT?
I don’t think polls this far from the election do anything but attempt to pull people into a position.
Carter led Reagan at this point, and every point, up to one week before the election, and this president is challenging Carter for worst president of the last 100 years.
The last poll that gave an accurate assessment of the sentiment of the country was the Chik-fil-A poll. People voted with their feet, just like they will do in November.
everyone should say it to themselves three times: presidents don’t make domestic policy on their own. presidents don’t make domestic policy on their own. presidents don’t make domestic policy on their own. to wit, take it away mr. krugman:
It’s the liberals who have made this election about Bush and I can only imagine that Romney had no desire to add to it. By the way, in 2000, Gore shunned Clinton. How bad are things for Obama that he brings back Clinton as a symbol of the good old days? Obama gets his big bounce from a discredited, disgraced schemer who was impeached? What a character reference!
HT,
We should be thankful we have some check on harebrained schemes to boost the economy by putting everyone to work for the government. Just having an idea is not an accomplishment, especially if it isn’t a good idea. Did you read what I wrote earlier today about people of no accomplishment blaming it all on being misunderstood and obstructed by their opponents?
Larry,
There has been a lot of talk about Obama’s accomplishments (the auto bailout, the war on terrorism, the withdrawal from Iraq) and very little about Bush.
Those who make the argument Gore was the people’s candidate have a point, in that he won the popular vote. That’s a fact that no one with a tether to reality disputes.
Many gave and give Bush his due for winning the election — he ran a smart campaign. I for one believe Bush is much smarter than those on the left who have caricatured him give him credit for.
The vilification of Bush comes from what he did during his second term and what happened during his second term — the continuing parade of death in Iraq, the meltdown on Wall Street, the near collapse of the U.S. auto industry.
So instead of a nice, reflective blog about September 11 we get more campaigning for Obama. Thanks Brian. Keep up the great work
Larry, Are you saying that the National Priorities site has misrepresented the candidates positions or that the issues they present aren’t the ones we should be considering? If so, what do you see as the correct positions of each candidate and/or the correct issues we should be considering?
September 11, 2001 changed things. Those changes have a lot to do with what we see happening in America and American politics today. It changed the way that America deals with the threat of terrorism. Those events dictated what president Bush did afterwards. It dictates some of what president Obama is doing now. In that respect these two guys are not much different. That is part of the reason that a sitting president with a poor record has a shot a reelection. Which parties policies led to those attacks (that caused a big recession)? Both. Which parties policies pulled us out of that recession? Neither. Which parties policies led to the collapse of the housing market (that caused a huge recession)? Both. Which parties policies will pull us out? Neither. Whichever candidate understand this best is the one that should be elected.
hermit thrush: “Does anyone remember the American Jobs Act? A year ago President Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases”
vaporware.
Obama really did submit a budget. No vaporware, here.
It was voted down 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House.
So you are saying that the man who can’t get one vote on his budget has a magic piece of legislation that would have solved the jobs situation?
I think the odds are not in favor of that assertion.
Larry,
“By the way, in 2000, Gore shunned Clinton.”
How did that work out for Gore? I wonder how Romney’s shunning of Bush will work? I just don’t see how you can run on the Bush platform and then shun Bush?
letstalkaboutthepollsrealfastbeforesomethingchanges
Washington Post poll, last question:
Do you think of yourself as a Democrat or Republican?
33% Dem
23% Rep
Hmmm? A little tipsy on the side on the Dems?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/09/11/National-Politics/Polling/release_126.xml
Let’s reflect on Bush and 9/11.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=3&hp
JDM,
If they polled democrats and republicans equally, they results would be meaningless. There are 63 million registered Democrats and 47 million registered Republicans in the US, so any representative sample should have more Dems.
Like I said both parties were responsible for what led to that terrible day. The folks that worked in that building (I know a few) knew before anyone even said that a plane had caused the first fires that it was a terrorist attack and who was responsible.
The title of the briefing in that NY Times article that Bush got:
“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
The person who wrote that could have even been more specific.
Could you have done some of the things that Bush and Obama have done prior to September 11? I bet this blog would be hopping if you tried.
The Washington Post seems to be running away from their own poll for the sake of a horse race. Buried in the survey is this:
Additionally, there’s been a shift in preferences in the eight tossup states identified by the ABC News Political Unit: Registered voters in these states now favor Obama over Romney by 54-40 percent, vs. 42-48 percent in these same states before the party conventions.
Like I said both parties were responsible for what led to that terrible day.
Let me get this straight. We are attacked 8 months into Bush’s presidency and both parties are to blame
Six months into Obama’s presidency and only he is to blame for our economic woes.
I can only imagine what the political fallout would have been if a Democrat had been president in 2001. Sad.
We’re all guilty.
Please read this article. I am humble enough to post it.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13410-confessions-of-a-former-republican
I would appreciate if it wouldn’t be used as a target for nailing the Republicans with an “I told you so”. It contains some very truthful observations concerning the reality of life – which we can all use.
There’s enough blame to go around for all of us, whether Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Conservative, Liberal.
We’re right – but we’re wrong, too.
Dear Kathy –
Thank you very much for sharing this. I made a similar journey of my own, though somewhat shorter than the author. I became an independent after the whole NY-23 debacle a couple years ago during the special election. I tend to more moderate on social issues, and frugal on fiscal issues. I value building a framework that is inclusive and expands opportunity. Lincoln was right, A house divided against itself cannot stand.” That is what has been most distressing about the last four years.
Romney should be talking about this and the great health care act that is going to “help” the middle class this year and next year.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48988230
Back to Romney and the horse race. He is running out of time, and seems to think that his best chance to get back in the race is the debates.
I am really shocked (pleasantly) at how well the Democrats have swift-boated Romney and kept him off balance. Who would have thought the Democrats could play hardball so well.
Romney’s problem, as Brian points out (sorry Larry), is that if people really understand Obama’s positions, they like them, and if they understand Romney’s positions, they dont like them. That makes for a really tough advertising campaign, and even unlimited money doesnt seem to be able to move the needle.
Excellent article Kathy. One of the problems with many progressives is that they fail to understand that conservatives aren’t being deliberately ignorant of reality. They actually believe their view is right. As long as we shout at one another and call each other names our dialog will continue to be deadlocked. For the kind of comity that our founders envisioned we all have to spend more time seeing where the other side is coming from.
Kathy, thank you for posting the link to that article. It’s the best thing I read today. You are right, there is plenty of not understanding the reality of each others’ lives going on.
Great comment, James – the same thing goes for progressives as well. :-) No one enjoys being demonized for strongly, sincerely held views.
I think we are in the territory here of Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion”. I haven’t read the book, but I have listened to him in a few long pieces on TV. He’s done some fascinating studies about how different political philosophies weight core cultural values that may go a long way to explain why one group seems to have a tin ear to another.
“Let me get this straight. We are attacked 8 months into Bush’s presidency and both parties are to blame
Six months into Obama’s presidency and only he is to blame for our economic woes.”
I have not made that claim. In fact I say specifically that both parties bear some responsibility for the current recession.
But on the former, of course both parties hold some blame. One that held the White House for 8 years prior to the attack that came only months into the administration in power when it happened holds some, don’t you think?. I guess it is possible that they decided to cook it up once Bush was in office but I think the facts are against that idea.
Foreign policy matters are a place that the government can do some significant things. Economic not so much with our system.
Also, I think it is fair to point out that president Obama has gotten rid of a number of Bush policies (bad as they may have been) that allowed him to find and order the attack on the Sept. 11 mastermind.
When I say you can effect foreign policy I mean for example you can snub one of our allies:
From the WSJ:
“Later in the day, the White House said that President Barack Obama wouldn’t be meeting with Mr. Netanyahu later this month at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York.”
Will Doolittle:
Earlier today I wrote:
“My point, for those of you who are sure to miss it, is that the dialogue around a Presidential election shouldn’t be the unending spew of hatred it has become. The snide comments and smugness are unbecoming and add nothing.”
It’s nice that you have a better opinion of Bush than most of the liberal contributors to this blog, but the haters began the anti-Bush campaign on Election Day 2000. By the way, Bush initiated the auto industry bailout in late summer – early fall 2008.
Correction:
I said “Bush initiated the auto industry bailout …” which suggests that I think it was his idea. That was not my intent; I only meant he agreed to begin the bailout.
Thank you Kathy… great read!
PNE:
Clinton is responsible for 9-11 as he let bin Laden escape in the late 90s. That nonsensical NYT article suggests that Bush knew the 9-11 attacks were coming and did nothing. So, Bush is damned for not acting on non-specific 9-11 intelligence AND then damned again for acting on specific Iraq/WMD intelligence. That’s what is really sad.
Concerning the article I posted, I think when people are willing to be honest with themselves, it creates humility, and ultimately, truth, and the courage to speak it. Then, we are not vying for the attention of always giving our 2 cents and the power to “one-up” each other.
That’s not to say we don’t have a conversation. I love a good debate! But let’s not be so locked into our mindset to the point of being stubborn and unteachable. Let’s be honest and go from there.
I appreciated the author’s experiences. He could have continued on his power trip path – but has instead, resisted. That’s leadership. That’s courage. That’s what is lacking today. Even though I don’t agree with him on every point, he hooked me with his honesty.
The discussion on The In Box is one of the most civil going these days. Usually the discussion is on ideas. So many other sites are based on attacks and venom. Having said that, we are not as divided as our politics would seem to indicate. Our politics has become increasingly ideological and dysfunctional. Meantime, we are being overtaken by a number of challenges and problems. People may remember when here in NY that the Republican Party included both liberals, such as Jacob Javits and Lindsay, and conservatives such as Rep. Miller who was Goldwater’s VP choice. We used to have elections and when they were over our representatives actually governed. I am not sure what the answer is for gridlock in Washington. Voters seem to prefer divided government, but very little seems to get done.
Larry –
Clinton let Bin Laden escape. At least that’s the right wing version and they’re sticking to it. Richard Clarke and the 911 Commission evidently disagree.
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-truth-clinton-bin-laden-another-right-71892.html
and here
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/clinton-passed-on-killing-bin-laden/
And remember when Clinton fired missiles into Afghanistan in 1998 in an attempt to kill bin Laden? What was the right wing response then? Oh, it was an attempt to distract from the Lewinsky affair.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp
…”AND then damned again for acting on specific Iraq/WMD intelligence.”
Larry – I guess you forgot there was a commission that investigated just how specific that intelligence was.
Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.
And, It concludes that the US Administration “repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”
But I guess opinions vary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq
Personally, I’m tired of the endless memorialization of 9/11. All it reminds me of is how the horrific events of that day have been misused by millions of people across the full spectrum of belief systems to try to promote their own agendas.
I disagree, knuck. (mistakenly gave you a “like”) The memorials now are fairly appropriate, not the over-the-top stuff of a few years ago. 9-11 should be memorialized and discussed, both for those who died on that day and those who loved them, and as a lesson in humility for the blindness and hubris that led the nation into one catastrophe after another in the subsequent years (e.g., according to an expertI heard on “On Point”, thousands of FBI agents who had hitherto been investingating corporate fraud cases were reassigned to anti-terrorism after the attack. Bin Laden may have inadvertently have helped bring about the crash of ’08).
What Larry and JDM said, all of it, except for what Larry said about 911, because if Obama is responsible for everything that’s happened since he was elected, as I believe he is, just like Larry and JDM do, you can’t pin 911 on Clinton. That is the fair, balanced thing to think.
Now, back to my delicious Chik-fil-a!