Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Romney Still Can't Clear 50 Percent Hurdle
“Romneymania Sweeps America”
Mitt Romney is the least appealing front-runner for a Republican presidential nomination since Herbert Hoover convinced an appropriately skeptical Grand Old Party to renominate him in 1932.
And Hoover, for all his faults, was a far more commendable figure than the Bain Capitalist will ever be.
Romney has scant personal appeal, as polling and anecdotal evidence confirms on a daily basis. After pondering several options for the most ironically absurd headline of the week, the editors of the satirical newspaper the Onion chose for their current edition: “Romneymania Sweeps America.”
Romney, pro-choice before he was anti-choice, pro–healthcare reform before he was anti–healthcare reform, has no ideological appeal to a party of purists.
And Romney, now fully identified as the poster boy for crony capitalism, rapacious greed and tax avoidance, has an increasingly limited appeal as a potentially electable Republican nominee in November. As former Florida Governor Charlie Crist said after the former Massachusetts governor won Tuesday night's Florida primary, the Republican fight so far -- and the fight from here on out -- "has to have a negative impact" on party unity and Romney's ultimate prospects.
Even with Tuesday night's Florida win, Romney has yet to show that he has what it takes to unify a majority of Republicans behind his candidacy. He has not done that in any of the primary and caucus states that have voted thus far; nor is he anywhere near doing that in national polls. This explains why the candidates who got the majority of Florida votes -- Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul -- will stay in a race where 95 percent of Republican National Convention delegates are still to be chosen.
On Tuesday night, Gingrich backers, as enthusiastic as ever, held up signs that read: "46 States to Go!" Promising a "people power" versus "money power" race through the rest of those states, Gingrich portrayed himself as the "conservative alternative" to Romney, "the Massachusetts moderate."
That is not an unrealistic frame for the remainder of the Republican race. Florida Republicans are far more moderate and pragmatic than Republicans in many of the primary and caucus states to come. So while the overall Florida results are comforting to Romney, the voting patterns among Republicans who approve of the Tea Party and among core conservatives provide comfort for Gingrich -- and, to a lesser extent, for Santorum and Paul.
Of the two-thirds of Florida primary voters who told exit pollsters they support the Tea Party movement, 60 percent rejected Romney. Among the almost 70 percent of Florida primary voters who identified as conservatives, the overwhelming majority rejected Romney. Indeed, the frontrunner only beat Gingrich among self-identified conservatives by 4 points. And, among the one-third of Florida primary voters who identified themselves as "very conservative," Gingrich won 43 percent to just 29 percent for Romney.
As conservative commentator Erick Erickson -- who suggested Tuesday night that the Republican race is far from settled -- said: "Mitt Romney is not closing the deal with conservatives."
But don't cry for Romney. He may not have much in the way of genuine appeal to the Republican base.
What Romney does have is money. Lots of it. More money in campaign accounts and Super PAC cash flows than the rest of the candidates combined. And he is spending it, wildly. Even before today’s Florida primary, it was reported that Romney was outspending his closest rival, former House Speaker Gingrich, by roughly $12 million.
Specifically, the Romney campaign spent $6.9 million to air commercials on the state’s broadcast and cable channels as of Monday morning. Romney’s Restore Our Future Super PAC spent a reported $8.5 million on the same channels. Total: $15.4 million.
For Gingrich, it was $1.6 million in spending by the campaign and $2.2 million by his Winning Our Future Super PAC. Total: $3.8 million.
Romney spent unprecedented amounts for a primary, while his opponents did not. That explains Romney’s win in Florida, not his modestly more muscular debate performances. Indeed, if the quality of debate performances mattered, Rick Santorum, whose recent appearances have been his strongest, would have won the state. But Santorum did not have the money. Neither, realistically, did Gingrich. And Ron Paul never really played in Florida; having decided weeks ago to place his bets on caucuses in Maine and Nevada.
When the final accounting is finished, it is entirely possible that Romney spent more than all the other candidates on the Florida GOP primary ballot.
But he did much more than that. Romney spent at historic levels in Florida.
Consider this: in 1960, according to the Federal Communication Commission, John Kennedy and Richard Nixon spent a total of $10,052,322 on political commercials during the course of the entire campaign. Romney and his Super PAC overshot that by at least $5 million.
Money matters in politics. And it bought Romney a little “love.”
But not a majority.
In Florida Tuesday night, Romney was winning 46 percent to 32 percent for Gingrich, 13 percent for Santorum and 7 percent for Paul.
So far, Romney has not gotten anywhere near 50 percent of the vote in any caucus or primary state.
Indeed, 75 percent of Iowa caucus goers rejected Romney.
In New Hampshire, 61 percent of primary voters rejected Romney.
In South Carolina, 72 percent of primary voters rejected Romney.
And in Florida, after record spending, Romney still was rejected by 53 percent of Republican primary voters.
The Romney rejection rate in Florida tells the real story, not just of what happened in the Sunshine state but of where this race is headed.
At this point in the race, and with his advantages, Romney should be breaking the 50 percent barrier. In 2000, for instance, George W. Bush hit the 50 percent mark after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, with a 51 percent finish in Delaware and a 53 percent finish in South Carolina. And Bush maintained majority or near-majority support from there on out. As the party’s nominee, Bush won the 2000 election—with an assist from Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris and family friends on the US Supreme Court.
In contrast, in 1996, it took Bob Dole eleven primary and caucuse contests before he broke the 50 percent level. As the Republican nominee, Dole lost, overwhelmingly.
Similarly, in 2008, John McCain went through the better part of a dozen caucus and primary states before breaking the 50 percent mark. As the Republican nominee, McCain lost, overwhelmingly.
Appealing to the majority of caucus and primary voters early on matters, particularly in Republican races. Unlike the Democrats, who are more familiar as a party with drawn-out nominating processes, the Republicans have to work very hard to pull together a “coalition” of billionaires and under-employed opponents of abortion rights. They need time to make this happen.
So the Florida results provide important indicators regarding the 2012 race.
But they weren't the indicators Romney claimed in a "victory" speech that still followed on a contest where most voters opposed him.
Referencing exit polls from Florida, Erick Erickson noted that: "Fifty-seven percent of Republican voters said they want a different choice. That does not spell excitement or unity headed into November."
Romney is likely to be the Republican candidate against Barack Obama. But, despite a Florida "win," he still cannot present himself as the candidate who a majority of Republicans are willing to accept (however grudgingly) as their nominee.
To get there, Romney is going to have to spent a lot more of his money. His SuperPACs are going to have to spend a lot more of their money. And core conservatives are going to have to overcome a lot more of their reservations about the least appealing frontrunner in the modern history of the Republican Party.


43 Comments so far
Show AllBeing part of the 1% as well as a Mormon, Mittens has his work cut for him. He's probably the select one, even if Newt the Gnu has Israel's money behind him.
The folks here in the Good Ol' US of A will have a choice between Frick n Frack, a truly multi-colored Janus head.
Clown with most $$$$ wins.
For the people, buy the people!
It really doesn't matter.
q
"Democracy" in action, no? The see-sawing victories in various states - what was deciding factor: which Republican clown bribed the folks more, which one is more bombastic about "trimming government", or trampling the "enemy de jour" (Iran, I presume superseded North Korea for the moment), or genuflecting before Israel (don't call this semite self-hating please!). We in a friendly vassal state of Empire USA are looking on with mixed feelings of awe and bewilderment at your circuses. So, Romney is the annointed one. Does it mean any prospect for meaningful policy changes: clampdown on banking fraud, withdrawal of troops from overseas, dismantling of your budding police state? Or more or less the same as Obama (and Bush dubya...)
Who should be surprised that the state with all those retired republicans that elected Rick Scott for governor, would vote for the money guy. After all Rick Scott paid the largest fine in history for Medicare fraud, but it didn't slow these people down, the land of Jeb Bush, that should tell it all right there. Aren't these people known for honest election counting?
If the PTB are actually looking for a predictable loser to go up against Obama, then Romney is probably their man. He's a joke, of course, but Newt is a more obvious joke. All they need to do to seal his doom is to saddle him with Michelle Bachman for Veep. Mittens and Michelle would go down like McCain and Palin. Still, I've heard rumors that Jeb Bush is waiting in the wings for a draft if the Romney show closes early. This campaign circus may have a few more surprises in store.
Romney bought the Florida election. True. In a REPUBLICAN primary. In one, very REPUBLICAN state. The elections of 2011 were notable in that, in a general election, the candidates who spent the most on their campaigns, LOST. Big money is only good for one thing anymore: spending big money. It no longer buys elections when everybody gets to vote. The People are waking up to the bullcrap.
"Romney bought the Florida election"
Of course he did - that is politics in America - just as whoever wins the presidency will have bought the office -
What's the true difference between Romney and Obama when considering obama is out there fighting harder for campaign dollars than he fights for for We The People?
Nothing - Both parties are BUYING the election - with $ from the worst of the worst banksters and corporate plunderers and predators.......
Democrats are quite hypocritical - But fail to even see it thru their blinders.....
"Big money no longer buys elections ...."
.
Oh Good! Someone should let Obama know about this developement! He no longer needs to go to those $35,000 a plate fundraiser dinners anymore! He can give back the10's of millions of dollars that wall street and the corporations forced on him!
.
If the Mitt is so bad based on his rhetoric, what does that say about the current president based on his deeds? Actions speak lot louder than words. Romney as a governor was surely better than this president in policy. Mitt is just appealing to his base. Let's stop worrying about Mitt. He's going to be the next president. We'll just have to make him do the right thing. That's what progressive movements are all about. We can do it. Romney is the best thing which can happen to progressive movements. They will expand rapido!
Romney a flip flopped buying an election?
Change the name from Romney to Obama and there is No Difference -
In fact I'd bet with a Romney presidency you'd not even be able to tell the difference in actual governing.....
The words and team colors change but the policies stay the same.....
In fact maybe the left wold wake up if it was a Romney presidency instead of a democrat allowing any and all attacks on our constitutional rights and the social safety net.
Regardless of the democrat or republican running NEITHER party will ever get my vote again until they actually govern as a progressive - so that means I happily 'throw away my vote' on a 3rd party candidate who actually believes in the policies I beleive in - And that IS NOT the Oilybomber.
In fact a vote for a democrat is A Wasted Vote - voting 3rd party sends the message that you vote and you refuse to buy into the duopoly......
I agree, mtdon, and that's why I'll be voting for Rocky Anderson.
This is just to fill in the week before the super bowel. Think of it as half time entertainment.
It's regrettable Nichols didn't expand on his statement regarding Herbert Hoover, because in many ways our thirty-first president was far more progressive than Obama has so far proved to be. Hoover's biggest mistake was bowing to GOP pressure and leaving 1%er Andrew Mellon in place as Treasury Secretary - a calamitous decision which eventually led to the Great Depression. That certainly has a familiar ring to it, does it not?
This poor little hairpiece of a man, Nichols,
wants to keep us within his mental prison.
Romney, Gingrich, Obama,...... they are all owned by the same master.
Nichols needs to NOT be able to see the truth.
Is Nichols a deliberate fraud or is he just Hap-less?
He wants to matter and yet he doesn't because the winds of these times keep revealing his lack of depth.
Nichols is without a doubt a blue party operative and apologist. His lack of depth and substance is deliberate ... keeping us fixated on the shiny (by which I really mean dull and worthless) spectacle that is "partisan" politics ... and especially these mindless election season intrigues .... while purposely ignoring the larger picture ... the fact that both parties are bought by wall street and the corporations.
.
His blue team agenda isn't as blatant as other commentators, such as Rachel Maddow for instance. Usually, he spends the majority of his column attacking the reds, while praising the blues ... and generally omitting their misdeeds, always ingnoring their complicity in the one party system .. sometimes he will gently chastise them, maybe in order to appear "above the fray" like some kind of even handed arbiter of objectivity ... furthering the pretense that he is doing the work of the people and not necessarily acting as a democrat operative.
.
His columns are not the pure multi-layered mendacity that his boss Katrina vandem Shill produces .... she's a real treat to read ... but consider him haples at your own peril. He is not that.
.
The most disturbing thing about John Nichols, to me, are his recent almost weekly appearances on Democracy Now. I'd hate to see DN turn into MSNBC or NPR.
"Franciszek2"
There was a time, a few years back, when I was devoted to Democracy Now!, but I have grown to doubt their objectivity, at times. They are still worth attention, but I find myself occasionally muttering clarifications and, as when I see John Nichols brought on as a commentator, just turning them off.
C'est la vie?
Well said.
Apparently, Nichols is sufficiently effective to warrant the attention of republican operatives such as yourself.
q
"quickstepper"
You seem to be talking to a mirror, not me.
Does anybody here follow the money? Where do all these millions spent on advertising and TV flow to? My guess is it flows into the same pockets it came out of, at least a great portion of it. Who owns the TV stations and the newspapers? The same people who organize and contribute to the PAC's. I'd like to see some serious research into this. Figures should be easy to come by if one knows where to find them.
Where does the money flow? Ask Mr. Murdock, or Republican Greg Walden, he owns bi-coastal media, nearly all newspapers and broadcasters are Republican owned by the one percent. Kind of explains the attitude of the media and OWS doesn't it.
Romney = Gingrich = Obama = the Party of Money, i.e. Corporations = the Evil Empire
The question that needs asking, though, is, why is it that folks are won over by, and responsive to this onslaught of nonsensical political advertisements?
The political failures of Rick Santorum has nothing to do with his honesty. His ideas fall somewhere between medieval theology and the philosophy of the Inquisition.
In other words, most people have started to realize that Santorum is not completely sane.
q
This article pretends to be an objective analysis of the state of the Republican nomination race and how its front runner fares in it.
But in reality this is propaganda by a Democratic operative setting up a narrative that will be used against Romney when he is the nominee in order to support the re-election of Obama.
Thus the entire article and other reports like this (which are a staple on MSNBC and Jennifer Granholm) are extremely ironic. They present themselves as questioning the ability of Romney to unite his party and be its leader. But the only reason they are written or reported is because the operatives already believe that Romney will unite his party and be its leader. So they are already working on building the negative narrative so potential Democratic voters will have lots of antagonism towards him.
John Nichols is the perfect reporter to do this type of apparatchik work. He probably doesn't even realize he's doing it but thinks he's being an objective analysts.
This is also a great reminder that the current Democratic Party is not an honest party that runs on real issues that will benefit the people. Instead it has become more and more like the Republican Party both in its policies and also in its political practices. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.
Bullshit.
q
"quickstepper"
AGAIN, you are talking about yourself.
quickstepper
You're just throwing bovine excrement at the wall and hoping it sticks, and you have failed to achieve your objective. For what its worth, "Bullshit" is a non sequitur designed to stifle further discussion and debate and doesn't constitute a response, unless you're prepared to back up your assertion with evidence and critical analysis.
If that's the best you can do, perhaps you need to return to Obot Central for further instructions on how to effectively divert, deflect, distract, and disrupt any discourse in the public sphere that dares to question and criticize the methods and motives of Barack Obama, Inc.
PS -- Does the "q" that you sign off with stand for "quisling" by any chance?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, one more post from the Commissariat of Discourse of Criticism on the Methods and Motivations of Barack Obama, which stipulates that all articles of Whatever nature MUST criticize Obama, and that all rational people who understand that choice is not optimal must be castigated endlessly with statements of the perfidy of Obama and the essential equivalence of the two majority parties in America, even though one of which is completely batshit-nuts-rightwing and the other is at least not. And the Commissariat demands the condemnation of all Left-of-center individuals, such as the present John Nichols, who do NOT criticize Obama with every second breath, thereby purifying the Left to the several dozen individuals that are perfect.
In other words.... bullshit.
Wow, lots of fancy rhetoric. But you totally failed to address the point of my comment that got the Bullshit response.
The big focus on establishing a narrative about the failures of Romney to unite his party, and thus is "out of touch," is motivated by the realization that he will unite his party and be the Republican nominee.
This is the propaganda. A real analysis would not need a criticism of Obama also. It would instead just focus on the policies of Romney and how they would affect the nation. Meanwhile other articles would do the same for Obama. Nichols, however, has never, to my knowledge, written anything that actually analyzes Obama. Therefore his work to develop the negative narrative of Romney is simply Democratic Party promotion.
Now, you and Quick can simply dismiss this with either a "bullshit" or with lots of rhetoric that is just saying "bullshit" in a fancy way. Or you might give a cogent argument using evidence and logic to show I am wrong on this.
FVHorn
An Obot's Lament:
Since you're not clever enough to address the substance of my argument and/or confront or refute the supporting evidence, citations, and links provided, you prefer to unleash a tidal wave of ad hominem attacks, straw men, red herrings, gross exaggerations, and sweeping generalizations that not only miss the mark but leave you pissing in the wind.
You invent a mythical "Commissariat" that doesn't exist, except in your own mind, and you then ascribe to that fictional body an agenda which "stipulates" that “all articles of Whatever" must criticize Obama. That is perhaps the most ridiculous straw man in the history of straw men.
You affix a snarky and demeaning name to your mythical "Commissariat" -- one that suggests a Soviet-style authoritarian agenda -- in an effort to denigrate and insult people who have posted comments and critical analysis with which you disagree. It's an effort to kill the messenger rather than deal with the substance of the message. But since dealing with the message would require thought, you prefer to hurl insults at the messenger.
You declare that "all rational people who understand that choice is not optimal must be castigated with statements of the perfidy of Obama" – but those "rational people" to whom you refer -- those people who "understand that choice is not optimal" -- are figments of your imagination since there is no evidence of their existence on this thread or on this blog. The truly "rational people" understand that choice is always "optimal" or optional, even if that choice is simply to say "No!" to a corrupt political system -- the "either or" construction is the two-party lesser-of-two-evils fallacy.
Indeed, if anyone is "castigating" others for expressing their opinions, it's you -- and the nasty tone of your response speaks for itself. The people who comment here represent a diverse group of individuals who express a variety of thought and opinion across the political spectrum. But, of course, you don't offer any evidence to support your wild assertions about the mythical "Commissariat" intent upon policing the likes of Nichols and his cohort, because you are, quite literally, making up shit to fit your fantasy.
You express high umbrage at people who dare to present logical arguments and informed opinion which demonstrate "the essential equivalence” between the Democrats and the GOPers. Yet, you present no evidence or counter arguments to make the case that there is a difference between the two major political parties, preferring instead to resort to nonsense talk that one party is "completely batshit-nuts rightwing" and that "the other is at least not." That’s your opinion and you're entitled to it, but why hurl insults at people who beg to differ?
Then, when all else fails, you resort to playing the Purity Troll card , a cherished tactic with the DKos crowd, by suggesting that people with whom you disagree -- presumably the fictional members of your mythical "Commissariat" -- seek to "purify" the Left in keeping with the "several dozen individuals" whom you claim regard themselves as perfect. Are you that fucking intolerant of the arguments and opinions of people with whom you disagree? The Purity Troll card is the favored coercive tool of those who themselves seek purity of thought and political affiliation and can’t tolerate any dissent.
Finally, it's not surprising that you can't discern the difference between attacking the messenger and taking issue with the message, because you engage in that tactic yourself. if you have the cheek to call "bullshit" on any commenter on this blog, I suggest that you start with yourself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well it would appear that even though Republican voters like Ron Paul's message of deregulation and small government, his anti-war message doesn't play out very well. Romney is the most likable imbecile as most Republicans associate large accumulated wealth with intelligence rather than dishonesty. Newt's 'folksy' appeal reaches out to the non-academic sort that lives in a fantasy world about the 'good ole days' of Ronnie Reagan. The saddest part is that the misinformed (Republicans in general) are most likely to take T.V, seriously, relate to the Tea Party, embrace the ideology of consumerism, never travel outside of the U.S. and most importantly... vote this November.
John Nichols – Bad Numbers and Selective Amnesia
Nichols declares: “Romney still can’t clear the 50% hurdle”…in a GOPer presidential primary race involving four candidates.
But Nichols could have written virtually the same line in 2008...about Obama!
Iowa Caucus 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Democratic_caucuses,_2008
Obama: 37.6% -- Edwards: 29.8% -- Clinton: 29.5 – Richardson: 2.11
New Hampshire Democratic primary, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Democratic_primary,_2008
Clinton: 39.1% -- Obama: 36.5% -- Edwards: 16.9%
NB: Romney won the 2012 New Hampshire Primary with 39.3%.
Obama finally cleared the 50% hurdle in the 2008 South Carolina Primary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Democratic_primary,_2008
Obama: 55.44% -- Clinton: 26.52% -- Edwards: 17.57%
Oops -- Obama lost the 2008 Florida Democratic Primary to Clinton!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Democratic_primary,_2008
Clinton: 49.77% -- Obama: 32.93% -- Edwards: 14.38%
Romney won the 2012 Florida GOP Primary with 46.4%.
Obama lost the 2008 Florida Democratic Primary with 32.39%.
Gingrich lost the 2012 Florida Primary 2012 with 32%.
Nichols cautions: "The Romney rejection rate in Florida tells the real story, not just of what happened in the Sunshine state but of where this race is headed."
But, simply by switching the names, Nichols could have just as easily cautioned that the "Obama rejection rate in Florida tells the real story, not just of what happened in the Sunshine state but of where this race is headed."
Nichols feigns sympathy: "But don't cry for Romney. He may not have much in the way of genuine appeal to the Republican base."
With the exception of the 2008 South Carolina primary in which Obama cleared the 50% hurdle, Nichols could easily have lamented about Obama's "genuine appeal" to the Democratic base in the primary race in 2008, when Obama couldn't clear the 40% hurdle in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida!
At this point in primary campaign season, the Obama versus Romney "rejection rate" fiction gives the lie to Nichols' sloppy partisan analysis.
Comparing the 2008 Democratic Primaries to the 2012 GOP Primaries at the same inflexion point on the calendar is an apples-to-apples comparison and therefore fair game.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you. Your facts show how the real motivation of Nichols and the pro-Obama press is to build the narrative that Romney is out of touch. Clearly, even though they are commenting on his "inability" to unite his party, the reason they are so focused on him is because they are convinced he will unite his party and be the G.O.P. alternative to Obama.
LibWingofLibWing
You're very welcome. The numbers and percentages often have a funny way of speaking for themselves.
Plus, I agree that Obama's apologists in the corporate and independent media are engaging in hubris about the 2012 election. They continue to contort themselves into pretzels in an effort to divert attention from the disappointing reality of Obama's record while trying to recycle the same old arguments and attacks against the GOPers that they exhausted in 2010, and we know how that strategy turned out -- not exactly according to plan.
PS -- Even the most powerful and seductive snake oil becomes stale and loses its potency over time -- especially, when the "magic" has failed to deliver the goods.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Both parties are behaving like traitors to democracy and the history of the US.
Billionaire bank accounts in secret island banks are as anti American as secret prisons and executions without trial. Universal education and good health make us strong, endless war makes us poor.
Mathew Scott Fi...
No argument -- you nailed it!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doltish republican candidates are insufficient reason to support the current president.