Mitt Romney underperforms yet again

In yesterday’s Iowa caucus Mitt Romney beats Rick Santorum by a whopping 8 vote margin. He spent $10 million, campaigned 4 years and was unable to crack the 25% mark. Meanwhile Rick Santorum, the man who was polling in the low single digits barely a month ago and who only spent $500K in Iowa, pulled off a photo finish. Tell me again money matters in politics.

And tell me again that Mitt Romney should be the Republican nominee because he is the most ‘electable’ candidate.  Electable – based on what? It was the same story in Iowa back in 2008. He spent almost 4 years, $10 million and all he managed to do was to increase his popular support from 22% to 25%. He likes to tell Newt Gingrich that, unlike Newt, he isn’t a career politician. What he doesn’t say is that he is not a career politician for lack of trying. He has been trying to get elected to something since 1994 when he lost a senate race to Ted Kennedy. All he has to show for his effort was one term as governor of Massachusetts. When he left he was the 48^th most popular governor in the nation. Admittedly, Massachusetts is a tough state for Republicans, but still, where’s the proof he’s electable?

Furthermore, there is a huge peril in being the ‘inevitable’ candidate. The problem is that if that is all you are, and your inevitability gets pricked by an unexpected loss or even a Pyrrhic victory, all of a sudden you have nothing. The emperor has no clothes on. If you don’t believe me, look at Prime Minister Paul Martin. Less than a decade ago he bestrode the Canadian political landscape like a colossus, but after Stephen Harper held him to a minority, the Martin balloon quickly deflated. Behind the inevitability myth, the Paul Martin phenomenon was just hype. And Paul Martin came with a serious achievement under his belt – balancing the federal budget. What corresponding political achievement does Mitt Romney have? Romneycare?

Aside from the Romneycare millstone around his neck, I think it is the reputation for being a flip-flopper that cause so many people to mistrust Mitt Romney. The reason Mitt can’t shake the charge is that it is true. In deep blue Massachusetts he had to say and do many things that are heresy to the conservative voters he is now wooing. Fine. You have to do what you have to do. But now, when it is most expedient for him to be a born-again conservative, that’s exactly what he is. So do you believe him? Me neither. How will he do when he is President and the really hard spending decisions must be made to balance the budget? Don’t hold your breath.

Conventional wisdom says that his flip-flopping is only a liability in the GOP primaries, but that if he gets the nomination, his moderation will make him an easier sell to the general electorate. Wrong! This is a complete misunderstanding of the moderate voter. As I have pointed out in the past (here, here, here, here and here), we political junkies completely misread the motivations of the people who inhabit the mushy middle: we ascribe our value system to them and this is false. We appraise candidates by examining where they stand on the issues and assume the non-political voter does the same. Jettison a few ‘extreme’ issues and move towards the ‘center’ if you want the independents. Big mistake. Because the moderate non-political voter doesn’t think like that. He doesn’t care about issues. At all. To the extent that he thinks about politics, he cares about personality and leadership. And when he sees a flip-flopper like Romney, he doesn’t see a ‘moderate’ who isn’t ‘extreme’, a guy like him; he sees weakness. He sees a lack of leadership. And when he sees him failing to inspire his own side - the people who know him the best and who make up his team – all he sees is more weakness. This is why it is often the case that politicians who are either on the right end of the acceptable political spectrum or the left end of the acceptable political spectrum are the most successful with the non-political ‘middle’ voters.

For an example look at Ronald Reagan, a man well to the right of the average American voter - and considered eminently electable by them. And for an example from the left, look no further than Barack Obama. He was far to the left of the average American voter in 2008 but he was charismatic and he had his base fired up into a state of religious rapture. As a result, the non-political people wanted to follow Obama, not John McCain, who was 2008’s GOP cod liver oil candidate (“hold you nose and vote for him, it will be good for you”). The non-political independent voter wants a strong leader, not a wishy-washy ‘moderate’ like himself.

Another example of an electable GOP moderate loser? Take Thomas Dewey. Read Zachary Karabell’s Last Campaign: How Harry Truman Won the 1948 Election. Dewey comes across like 1948 version of Mitt Romney. And like Romney, his primary virtue was considered to be his inevitability. And famous headlines aside, we know how that turned out.

 

Comments

[james]

Yeah he spent 10 million and he took out Gingrich, Cain, Bachman and is now running against Santorum and Paul. That's a huge victory. That's like Harper running against Turmel. I agree that Romney is fairly dull compared to flashy Obama but he can take him out by going really negative and he's already signalling that's his strategy.

[Paul]

Romney did okay.
Iowa is 1 of 50 states. None are homogenous.
A win is a win.
Your analysis is weak and based on a preconceived position.
This from a Gingerich supporter.

[Peter]

I don't think you understand Iowa. Money isn't what matters (ask Rick Perry, who out spent all). You have neglected a simple fact that Santorum had everything riding on Iowa, and has lived in the state for the past four months, visited every one of the 99 counties, etc. Iowa caucus is nothing but a non binding, first tier of three poll. While it gets tons of hype, it rarely has any connection with who wins the nomination. Santorum's strategy worked, and now he gets the attention he deserves. But Romney spent less than a quarter of his spend four years ago, and showed up for eight days. Not a bad result, especially as his strategy until mid December was to ignore Iowa.

[Cincinnatus]

Dear Peter:

All of this may be true but it doesn't challenge my main point, that most GOP voters just don't trust him. In 2008 He practically lived there for a year, spent $10 million and lost to a nobody. In 2012, when he had been campaigning for president practically non-stop since 2008, and spent another $10 million, his vote tally was within 6 (six!) votes of his 2008 total. Where's the proof that the voters are warming to him?

[Peter]

Huh? Proof comes in the upcoming primaries. What other proof can there be? Whether or not voters and party faithful warm up to the man is actually inconsequential. If the president of the USA exists to give people warm fuzzies, then perhaps you have a point. But if one is serious about electing a chief executive and head of state, then Romney is the most capable candidate currently in the race, for either party. As long as voters make choices based on obtuse points of religious doctrine, race, phantom notions of ideology or glitched up memories of dead heroes, then they will get what they deserve and cause pain to others who deserve better. The best that the not-mitt crew can do is claim he isn't warn enough, Christian enough, or conservative enough, without ever providing clarity to their criticism or projecting a more credible conservative. And your thought that they have not (yet) warmed only really matters as explanation after the fact: if a self identified conservative sits out the election because the choice is between Romney and Obama, I do not believe the non voter's sentiments would be rooted in rational thought. Remember, Romney was the choice of national review in 2008, but lost to evangelical Huckabee. Perhaps your analysis ought to highlight a more specific cause rather than some nebulous temperature. This time round, NH and SC appear to be "warming" and credible conservative and/or republican voices are coming out in support: Coulter, Pawlenty, Thune, Christie, Hewitt, McCain, etc etc. We will still get lazy journos and bloggers who will recycle lame narratives, but the reasons the whole primary season exists are to select the best candidate and build support for that candidate. If Americans do not want to get behind Romney, they will likely have only themselves to blame when it is over. I too recognize his shortcomings, but on the whole, he's the most credible and rational candidate I have seen the past decade, for either party.

[Peter]

Sorry for going on and on. By the way, Romney's spend in Iowa was 4.6 million this time around, which was 1.5 million less than Perry, and roughly half of 08.

[WiseGuy]

Peter,

You are missing the forest because of the trees. All Mitt Romney has shown us is that he is uniquely incapable of winning elections. Perhaps a comparison with John Tory would been a better choice.

You probably put too much stock in the mainstream media. They have viciously attacked every other candidate in the field while leaving Romney untouched. They did the same with McCain the last time around. Soon as he was the candidate, they laid waste to the McCain campaign.

The Republicans had better start to learn to not select the media's favourite candidate, or it's all over for them, and the world.