Romney loses a long-held lead in Iowa. He wins Wyoming. He loses a long-held lead in New Hampshire. Now he wins Michigan, apparently with 39 percent or so to McCain’s 30 percent or so.
This is going to be a long, long campaign. South Carolina and Nevada will be big. I’ll check in later with some reports from the crucial state of Florida, which Mitt still has a chance to win, and where I am marginally involved in the Romney campaign.
Meanwhile, please read one of the best articles I have yet seen addressing the “plastic” nature of Mitt’s public personality. I am becoming more and more convinced that Mitt’s biggest failing has been his inability to show people his true character, not his religion.
Update: This article in USA Today discusses this issue.
Greenville County in S.C.
Geoff, this is one of the biggest.
I think a lot of people are turned off by the plastic/used car salesman persona. No matter how much I like Mitt, it’s real and it’s a factor.
I think I’ve mentioned here that Mitt was my boss during the SL Olympics and I got to see “the real Mitt.” I saw him ecstatic, I saw him pissed off, I saw him joking around, I saw him working his butt off to pull them off. I think if the voting public were to see that Mitt, he’d be the clear frontrunner in this race.
I think what it boils down to (and I say this with no intent to offend) is that business in general tends to bring out the B.S. factor in a person. Extended involvement in business in the big leagues infuses them with a plastic, full-of-crap look. Mitt must shed this persona.
I’ll butcher the quote, and I’m not going to bother looking it up, but someone had a line about would you rather vote for a guy like you or the guy who laid you off. Romney suffers from that perception, I think.
People liked Dubya in part because they thought he was the kind of guy to have a beer with. Romney doesn’t portray that attitude, even if he *did* drink.
Tossman – A relative worked very closely with Mitt on the Olympics (maybe not as close as you). Said relative tells a vastly different story — how he had one face for the public and another, less admirable, face for the office. It’s not a factor for me, just an observation said relative made.
Extended involvement in business in the big leagues
This is why I know a lot of Church members who leave before they get called up to the big leagues. I know about 20 people over the last 5 years who have left C-level positions (but not CEO) because they felt it was compromising their integrity.
I’m not saying this has anything to do with Mitt. Mitt might be the greatest guy in the world, but the face he’s presenting to the public is the “CEO/Venture Capitalist/I’ll run DC as a business”, and for a lot of people, that’s NOT a selling point. Is it right? Maybe not. But you don’t win with the voters you like, you win with voters who like you.
Me, I have issues with his politics. I don’t know who I’ll vote for (him or McCain) should it still be in play when it comes to Texas. Maybe I’ll register as a dem this year and vote for Kucinich. (evil grin)
Romney supporters need to get used to the ups and downs. I don’t think he’ll win South Carolina, but possibly Nevada, then probably not Florida. The field is still wife open for Republicans, I’m interested to see if Guiliani’s gamble to wait until Florida and beyond will work or if he’s already history.
The NY Post has a typically Posty headline today: “THE MORMON THE MERRIER”
I think that the shift in attention to the economy as the almost all-encompassing issue of the race is good for Romney. I’m betting that of the Republican candidates people will consider him the most able to do something about the coming recession.
Why do people think that Presidents can do anything about a recession?
Bill, you are correct that any presidential action on the economy has a long-term lag. If we are in a recession or heading into one, there is nothing Bush can do now to change that. And of course the Fed has the most amount of power over the economy, not the president. But there are lots of things that presidents can do to shorten recessions, make them less severe or make them worse. The Kennedy tax cuts in the early 1960s fueled the 1960s boom. The Reagan tax cuts of the early 1980s fueled the 1980s boom. The Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003 have fueled the current expansion. Any increase in taxes or lack of knowledge of the economy could certainly make a recession worse. I think the economy is clearly one of Romney’s strong points.
Geoff,
What do you make of the polling data that shows Romney losing badly to either Hillary or Obama?
bbell, that’s a tough one. Six months ago I would have said it was lack of knowledge about Romney, but I don’t think you can say that now. I guess I would say that Mitt still suffers from his “junk bond salesman” image. He does not come across as authentic to a lot of people. I think he found his voice in Michigan, however.
There is a general rejection of Republicans right now. I forget the numbers, but people self-describe as Democrats in very high numbers compared to 2004, for example. This does not affect McCain as much because he is seen as an independent, not a Republican. So his polling numbers against Hillary and Obama are better (although in many polls Hillary and Obama beat him as well).
If we are heading into a recession (two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth), then we will not know until the summer. But clearly a lot of people are suffering with the economy today. I think many independents will begin to worry about the economy more and more if the numbers don’t turn up again.
Here’s why I think Romney is still more electable than McCain or Huckabee or Giuliani:
1)People will be more likely to rally around a candidate who has competence and can fix the economy without raising taxes. Romney is that candidate.
2)He is very good on television, very believable and smooth. As people see him more and more on television, they will begin to like him more. Just look at the Frank Luntz independent focus groups. People who don’t know that much about Romney love him after seeing him in debates.
3)The war in Iraq will be pretty much won by this summer, and Romney will be able to beat up the Democrats on this issue.
4)Romney is a good family man with no skeletons in the closet, unlike all of the other Republicans.
I am not being a Pollyanna about this. I have seen all of the numbers. In poll after poll, Romney gets creamed by the Dems. I just don’t think this country is ready to elect the most liberal president ever. All three of them would raise taxes big time. None of them were right about the war and are weak on national security. Perhaps I am very, very wrong. We shall see.
Geoff,
If you’re wrong (#10), I don’t think you’re very, very wrong. Sometimes I feel the liberals are more vocal, making it sound as if they have the election clinched, but come voting time the conservatives come out and narrow the spread.
I found it interesting to learn that, in Michigan, Romney took a greater percentage of the evangelical vote than Huckabee. That tells me what we’ve been hearing in broad strokes is not necessarily what’s really taking place. I suppose one could argue that a good deal of Mormons won’t be voting for Romney, either, but that’s to be expected. What I take away from that itty-bitty nugget of fact (the Michigan evangelicals) is, the anti movement isn’t as wholesale as some hoped it would be, or hoped we would perceive it to be. While I agree Mitt needs to loosen up and be himself (great NYT article, BTW), I think he’s learning that on the trail. Hopefully, the makeover will be done sooner than later.
It’s better in central Ohio to be Mormon than be named Clinton or Guiliani — our “would never vote for” level hovers around 20%, while Hillary’s is at 45% and Guiliani’s is at 35%. I have no idea how many Democrats vs. Republicans have such negative feelings towards Guiliani, but he blows every other candidate (save Hillary) out of the water. It’s creepy.
And I don’t “get” why people see Romney as “slick.” Especially given how much less they say it about candidates I think deserve it just as much: the list of things McCain and Guiliani have reversed themselves on is quite a bit longer, and they don’t admit it out loud all the time. But I have never been good at this part of politics. Romney’s negative perception levels do worry me, but I still like him better than McCain or Guiliani (Huckabee I now dislike enough to place in the same category as Dennis “an embarrassment to the entire state” Kucinich.) And at the end of the day, there isn’t a single candidate that can satisfy me on every issue — though if Thompson were twenty years younger and had a slightly different record in the Senate, he and Romney would be tied for first with me.
Oh, and I assume the race will still be wide open by the time it gets to Ohio. With my congressman retiring, and this being a county that went for Bush by a margin of ~75% in 2004, I plan on disconnecting the phone by my computer for the better part of February. I was really hoping that someone would have the thing locked up before South Carolina by now. Oh, well.