What if everything we have been told about Mitt Romney’s electability is wrong, Part 4
This is latest in a series debunking the primary justification for Mitt Romney’s nomination, electability versus Barack Obama. (See Parts One, Two and Three)
Conn Carroll, at The Washington Examiner, used favorability ratings for a headline column, America Hates Newt, which generated a lot of attention and fed into a narrative pushed by the Romney camp that Romney matched up best against Obama.
My theory from the start has been that Romney’s early favorability polling and match up against Obama should not be taken as a decisive measurement because historically Romney has not been able to withstand the types of attacks used by Ted Kennedy (Bain) and John McCain (lack of core conviction).
Unlike other candidates who came under withering assault and scrutiny last fall, as of year end Romney largely had been untested.
As I predicted, Romney could not withstand the negative attacks, and his problems just now are showing up in polling.
Byron York points to a just released Washington Post poll which shows that Romney’s favorability ratings have plunged in January and now essentially are the same as Newt. Via WaPo:
The number of Americans with negative views of Mitt Romney has spiked in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compounding the former Massachusetts governor’s challenges as he tries to rally from Saturday’s big loss in South Carolina.
Among independents, Romney’s unfavorable rating now tops 50 percent — albeit by a single point — a first in Post-ABC polling back to 2006. Just two weeks ago, more independents had favorable than unfavorable views of Romney; now, it’s 2 to 1 negative.
Romney’s losses since a Post-ABC poll conducted between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary are not limited to independents. The number of Democrats viewing him unfavorably is up 10 percentage points, and among his fellow Republicans, negative ratings have jumped from 18 to 32 percent.
On November 16 I wrote that we were being fed “a false narrative of Romney electability.”
Nothing has changed, except the narrative is being revealed to be overstated, in not false.
If you like Mitt Romney, vote for him. But don’t vote for him just because you think he’s more electable versus Obama.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
[…] They will NOT vote for Obama. * They will NOT vote for Jeb […]
After bombing out of Stanford, or just quitting? Legacy admission?
Paul Krugman has him way beat. Better, you think?
As opposed to being unemployed? Actual personal achievements beyond the ability to apply inherited money and count on family connections? Unknown.
Achievements? Lost a re-election bid, and repeatedly ran for office unsuccessfully, notwithstanding vast wealth and connections at his disposal?
In what way? Achievements?
I am seriously reconsidering my preference for a “safer” choice like Mitt. Now that Mitt’s taxes are out, the crystal ball clears up a bit. Obama will cast Mitt as the rich guy with offshore accounts that got richer as regular people got poorer — and anyone that votes for Mitt can expect the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. I think Obama wins that argument, and Mitt seems too feeble to fight back decisively. Nominating Newt means a rehash of his 90s policies and ethics, but Newt is no shrinking violet — he is clearly the more able candidate at decisive counter-attack. He will be a more decisive and innovative POTUS than either Obama or Mitt. However, if Newt’s elected, I will still fear a repeat of his initially promising, and then imploding, performance as Speaker. I will have to trust that even he will see the Office as being much bigger than himself.
Newt Gingrich = Honey Badger
Mitt Romney = Eeyore
Leave a Comment