Originally Posted by SDW2001
Romney has had an excellent big picture, and has shown command of the relevant details. Obviously Obama is going to attack him on his Wall Street background, but he should be able to counter that pretty easily by basically saying "at least I worked in the private sector...at least I've had to make a payroll." As for the big picture, his "Believe in America" is a good slogan, particularly the way this President has represented the country.
I've easily said that Romney checks all the boxes. He does everything you are supposed to do to run for president. I don't arguing you've had to try to make a payroll will fly. The counter is that when you've got a quarter billion in family, you don't have to worry about payroll or you made it by laying off thousands which again plays into the 1% argument.
That won't change. The media is going to do that to the GOP nominee regardless. Reagan was an idiot. Bush I was a wimp. Bush II was the idiot prince. Dole and McCain were old and senile. Goldwater was going to blow up the world. Ford was stupid and clumsy.
I don't think Gingrich or Romney can be portrayed as stupid. They'll have to be cruel and heartless.
All of that might be true to an extent. But the question is whether it matters, and how he handles it. I thought he handled it superbly in the debate the other night. He said "I didn't grow up poor, so if that what you're looking for, I'm not your guy. However, my father did, and taught me...." And I think if this comes down to Obama having to make it about class warfare against a guy that was actually successful in the private sector, that's a negative for Obama.
Obama has grown his food stamp nation quite a bit. The presumption that private enterprise holds the answer cannot be assumed. It must be articulated and presented. Look I'm not saying Obama will crush Romney in debates. Obama isn't any sort of super debater. I figure he would just hold serve because that's all he has done through all the Republican debates. He hasn't messed up and he hasn't lost ground due to debates. I just want someone who will gain ground in those debates.
I think Obama will look pretty stupid doing that, especially since at that time it will have been nearly a year since it happened.
Obama does lots of stupid things. The media covers for him or repeat it without context so it sounds important and new. This is the same media that noted Sarah Palin was in a beauty contest, that presented fake Bush commander letters from the early 70's while ignoring all of Kerry's war protests, etc. A year isn't any big deal at all for them.
You mean with the bet? He went after Perry many times before that. I've watched all but maybe one debate. Romney positively crushed Perry. He went after Cain too. But he didn't do it in a stinging way. He smiled as he said things like "you weren't responsible for the oil and gas in the ground in Texas...if you did claim that then it would be Al gore saying he invented the internet." He went after Cain on 9-9-9 as he discussed state sales tax and made good points. Overall, Romney has had excellent debates every time, perhaps with the exception of the second to last one.
I consider those to be the low hanging fruit. It's like saying you made Joe Biden look bad.
Not in a primary. That is what I meant. He didn't need to go after Gingrich in that debate. The other candidates did it for him. The rest he will do with ads and his far superior organization.
Shouldn't his far superior organization and fundraising have him above 30% nationally after one complete cycle and this far into a second? You speak like something that hasn't happened at all yet is a foregone conclusion when the man has had trouble gaining support and getting elected He's one exactly one election and both times he ran he ended up writing his own campaign big checks. He can't write a check big enough to beat Obama nor even match him.
Romney's fundraising will be huge. It's already huge. His organization will be on par with Obama's, if not better. I do like Gingrich's notion of following Obama around, though.
Romney beat McCain in fundraising for the period of time he was a candidate in the last election. It didn't bring people to the ballot box.
I've heard that line before. It depends on how you look at it. Romney has been extremely consistent while others have been rocket ships that fall to Earth. I don't buy the whole "he can't break 30%" line. No one really has done that, except Romney in New Hampshire.
Romney did about the same last cycle. The reality is he goes south and gets badly crushed. The results are looking much the same this time.
Gingrich had his share of problems in that debate. Bachmann hurt him badly on Freddie Mac. Romney had an overall good debate without any clear mistakes or major standout moments. He did have some nice answers. I thought Gingrich was better in the first hour than the second.
I disagree. Bachmann looked ridiculous. She's having to assert she is right because she's a candidate amounts to "I said it and thus it is so." She did no better in the prior debate with her "Newt Romney" or nonsense about trying to co-opt 9-9-9.
Obviously you're for Gingrich. I don't discount many of the strengths you've listed, but I think you're ignoring a lot of Newt's negatives. Personally he's not as likable. He's prone to outlandish musings. He's been all over the place ideologically at times. He has to be smartest one in the room.
I'm not ignoring them. I'm saying quite the opposite that given a different time or different opponent, he wouldn't have a shot.
The Freddie Mac thing is going to hang around his neck for some time. He can also come off as arrogant and too sharp.
Something a half decade old will hang around his neck, but a gaffe a year old will look ridiculous? Be consistent. Anyone can "come off" a particular way when the talking heads want to focus on that rather than on substantive issues. They can focus on such things when there aren't big issues to discuss or perhaps when the candidate is not aggressive and ends up discussing and debating the minutia instead of pushing the big plan.
I think he'd have a much harder time with minority and younger voters, and probably women.
So far he is considered to be taking heat for being one of the least strident on illegal immigration. (He wouldn't throw grandma back over the border.) I think young voters like big ideas and Newt will do well there just like how Ron Paul draws similar enthusiasm.
On the plus side, he's extremely intelligent and experienced from the legislative perspective. He understands history. He's an out of the box thinker. He's an excellent debater. I just think he's not as electable. You can't underestimate the importance of the campaign's theme, of optimism, of the ability to portray one's self as a positive and dynamic leader. Gingrich is all about intellect...he lacks charisma. Romney wipes the floor with him here.
Sorry but I think Romney has absolutely zero charisma. This is why people are calling him the Republican Al Gore. He lost against Kennedy, managed to be elected one time. He manages to bring in the money to pay off his campaigns after he quits but in all cases he has to write big checks to get the message out and hope the enthusiasm catches up later.