The Many, Many Ways Mitt Romney Blew the Race Today

I am just as happy as a clam, best pick ever. This the fight Democrats want, this is the one we can win. This shows the stark differences between Democrats and Republicans.

This will forever be known as the LULZ 2012 campaign of crazy, Paul Ryan, climate change denier, he sponsored a fetal person hood bill, he opposes funds for family planning, he is an extremist when it comes to privatizing Medicare and wall street investment of social security fund, eliminating Medicaid, Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, Alternate Renewable Energy Reinvestment Funds, (which  means the tax credit for solar electric projects will go away), this list goes on an on, the guy is the perfect representation of what it is to be a right wing republican with a friendly smile and a cute family.

It's awesome and this pick is on par with the Palin pick, because it is followed by the familiar stench of desperation.

You nailed it - but are 10 nails necessary?   Maybe for a $200 nail job??

I cannot believe that Romney would willingly give up Florida's electoral votes when there is practically no way he can win the White House without them.  Where does he expect to get 270 EVs?  The Dakotas??

Your title is delicious.  And just thank you so much.  This dismal season is slowly turning better and your counting of the ways that yesterday turned the screw again ices the cake splendidly.  

But as for # 10, in connection with Ryan, Paul Wolfowitz and the Project for the New American Century keep coming to my mind.  It's been going on all day and I think my unconscious is onto something.   

They're similar kinds of false prophets, whipping up fear and panic that something like the mythical end of days is upon us if we don't follow them over the cliff that's real and actually waiting in the place they want to lead us to.  

He's another sky-is-falling Pied Piper, but I think (hope?) his tune this time won't sell.  Oh yes, it plays for some, but for everyone who's already hurting and in need of help, and everyone who is right in their own mind, it's just too obvious that the war he wants to wage is on us.

I'm sure you could come up with another ten!  But, kudos for terrific, on point post. 

I just read a piece where it attributes Romney saying Ryan was his own personal bold choice.  Supposedly he's taking full credit (?) for making this decision.  What do you think?

I am of the opinion that the republicans intend to steal this election.  They are quite blatant about their cheats and that is why I think Paul Ryan is VP.  They just need to be able to put up a good enough show to seem legitimate. 

With what is going on with the id laws, purging, and now the example of Ohio having extended early voting on weekends and evenings in republican counties but no weekends and evenings in democratic leaning counties.

If you intend to steal the election it doesn't really matter who you pick for VP does it?

There was more language put out today talking up the pretense of our country being center right. 

It looks to me like its just a marketing game to get the country to buy that their win could be legitimate in order to sell it when they do it...

We are talking about cheats that can take away the president's apparent lead.

And if people are overconfident that the president will win perhaps turnout will not be strong enough and/or people will not try hard enough to overcome the obstacles to voting.

There is a historic amount of 'blatant' cheating going on.  And most of the people who will be affected have no clue and probably no idea what voter suppression is or what 'disenfranchise' means.

So do you really think that the president will win in spite of these issues?

I'm afraid we will all be taking it more seriously after the election...

As always, I am in awe of your writing.

I keep thinking that with two advanced degrees from Harvard, Mitt must have had some sound reason to pick Ryan---other than adoration of his own mirror image. and monumental myopia within his campaign. Why would I be looking for some reason to give Romney the benefit of the doubt....oh, maybe that's it, sympathy play---he's losing, he can't be that dumb, I'll vote for him.

I'm waiting for someone to photoshop Ryan into the Bain group picture of the young turks making love to their money. Or maybe Ryan is already in the picture but he's so small, maybe even a fetus, you can hardly see him.

What might be instructive is to full-heartedly write a screed "10 ways this helps Romney" (or 5 if too tough), and then re-visit your post.

I'm afraid Democrats are so eager to piss themselves with glee that they don't see the danger here.

And might I remind everyone that McCain-Palin only lost by 7.2% nationally - i.e. a swing of 3.6% would have changed the majority. Obviously electoral votes are more important (Dukakis lost by only 6.7%, Carter 9.7% while losing the electoral vote 300+ and 450+ respectively), but the mood of the electorate is very fickle and always easily divided. 

And while this may seem off-topic, I think we get comforted in believing everyone thinks like us - the TSA is viewed by 67% of 18-29 year olds as doing a good to excellent job. For those who remember air travel without removing shoes, sex scans or having gonads groped, this seems incredible.

I remember being amazed in 1984 as I'd turned more liberal how classmates were turning more conservative. 

In 2012, conservatives have been building the Paul Ryan view of government for over 3 decades. They think in lockstep, they're amazingly nimble and quick in filing every event within their model no matter how much they have to mangle facts.

For any who think Ryan will back down on Medicare or that the issue will hurt the GOP, here's his performance in front of Obama. If they fine-tune this message for ads, whatever the truth, it's going to be effective.

Here's "liberal" Chris Matthews enabling Ryan as Ryan plays his Jimmy Stewart/last honest man/both sides do it with-puppy-dog-eyes routine.

Here he is as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington/bobbing turtle head defending taxpayers against the government slush fund.

What you can see between Judd Gregg's and Paul Ryan's performances is that Ryan isn't abrasive like the rest - he's very civil with lots of "you're right's" and "I agree with you 100%" until he frames his views with devastating & misleading angles.

What you get is a presidential candidate half as bad as McCain and a VP candidate much better than Palin. McCain was older than dirt, past shelf-life, cranky, his main claim to fame was being tortured 30 years earlier and he seemed out of touch like H. W. Bush 20 years ago. Palin seemed as much a Museum Director or over-excited sports announcer as leader of the free world, and while she knocked some of her speeches out of the park, much was flat or counterproductive outside the base.

Romney-Ryan are the least visually embarrassing candidates from a long field, which may not be saying a lot, but there we are. Actually, it means more than that. The US electorate is primarily about impressions, and looking presidential is playing card #1. Romney & Ryan look the part, and for many folks, that's the whole interview.

While Romney was pretty successful in avoiding mistakes during the primaries, his latest trip abroad was full of missteps. Fortunately for him, most Americans in mid-summer probably missed this, but with continual gap between him and Obama and Bain/tax issues drawing some blood, a need for some new energy was obvious.

So what can happen between now and November?  Unemployment unlikely to drop below 8%. GOP convention in 2 weeks will be huge Florida ad campaign. Food prices will drastically increase thanks to droughts. Gas prices may remain high thanks to Midwest and California refinery problems.

Expect Netanyahu to help out at least in Florida by stoking the Iranian "crisis" and other Jewish-leaning talking points (how much Florida Jews care, at least vs. Medicare security, remains to be seen).

Ryan will be fine-tuning his stump speech not to disown criticisms and freaky positions, but to double down. Unlike Palin, he doesn't need a Liza Doolittle makeover in the next few weeks - it's more converging the 2 platforms into 1, and since Romney's was always "I know how to business and I was for healthcare before I was against it, and America fuck yeah", it probably won't be that tough, given the right Etch-a-Sketch.

So to go through points:

1) it's not about 1 state anymore. Ryan solidifies conservative across board, but may push away non-tea-party independents. In Facebook age, more important to balance old/young demographics - Romney just old enough for seniors without being decrepit, though his worldview is stuck in late Cold War, while Ryan fits the Gen X/Gen Y crowd.

2) Florida quite possibly blown (it was tough to begin with, with Hispanic, Black vote, and losing Jewish bloc fatal) but will see how Ryan finesses Medicare talking point.

3) Playing gender gap would have been out-of-character, as Romney doesn't-know-who-he-is. In this case, he's solidly in the pro-business camp, his comfort zone forever. No drama Romney either.

4) Obama had the center. If I'm right (which I don't assume), Ryan will add the "anyman" support, bringing back say some bluecollars unhappy with Bain, taxes et al.

5) He listened to right-wing, not bloggers. With Ryan, they won't be holding their noses, but will instead open up the cash flow. Thanks to Citizens United, that flow can be massive, anonymous, and either tightly or tenuously linked to Romney-Obama. Instead they'll likely be pushing their position madness, and their advertising seems to be successful and influential. Look for next ad cycle in Florida to gauge.

6) I'm never sure if its GOP as a party or the conservative wing inside that party who has control. For the conservatives, their influence will go up, even if they lose the majority - they just seem to be good at hanging tough while denying reality.

7) It's unrealistic to expect Romney to be far ahead of Obama unless some huge scandal. Romney is within a few points of what anyone reasonable would have guessed 12 months ago - the President has the advantage. So this pick is not unusual, and frankly, anyone who was in the primaries fared pretty poorly (Pawlenty didn't even make it out of the gate in Iowa). Romney gets a bit more Clinton-Gore 2-for-1 energy out of this one. Whereas for McCain, Romney would have been rich ticket member #2, neither able to count all their houses.

8) Romney's still electable, but as expected, the race is close, though it kicks in seriously in September to really know. Frankly I think this choice is just a sense that the Republicans can and will say anything and it will form their "platform" - until it doesn't. For and against universal health care, for and against Medicare, for and against balancing the budget, for and against offshoring, for and against immigration. They've never been rightly punished for these paradoxes, and my guess is they still won't be. The US public is more polarized than ever, the "swing to the center for November" is no longer as true as it was. (The double-camel hump theory now inveighed)

9) Not sure yet whether Ryan will be saddled with House Tea Party ineffectiveness - he's always been the wonk who's providing "constructive" ideas, not the obstructionist. But you may be right.

10) Yada yada yada. Can't end a blog post without referencing Jerry Springer. Or the Simpsons. Doh!

Bonus 11) Useful to consider our own dull offerings in 2 previous races - Lieberman, Edwards. A couple of excitement points would have shifted the 2000 and 2004 elections. Instead we got dour half-conservative and a superficial hair-enthralled trial lawyer. Their careers afterwards are informative.

And I forgot to add how much I loved these lines:

I hate to break it to the Bill Kristols, Erick Ericksons and Rich Lowrys of the world, but bloggers are idiots.  People on both sides are forever passing forward bromides about how what their team really needs is a more obdurately advanced, rigidly inflexible, dogmatic embodiment of their side's position.  This is stupid, and reflects a childish need for self-validation that drowns out common sense.

Yep I couldn't agree with these three sentences more, especially "People are forever passing forward bromides about how what their team really needs is a more obdurately advanced, rigidly inflexible, dogmatic embodiment of their sides position."

Yes, yes, yes, yes,  yes, it isn't how to win an election.

Irony within irony that is ironically called 'irony'.
 
"His [Reagan's] great legacy was, ironically, propelling us into an era of unsustainable budgets".

"Unsustainable" deficits may be attributable to Reagan but they are not his legacy. Whether convenient or not for Obama as well as everyone who thinks he is preferable to Romney, the economy is the great concern of those who will decide the election. As part of handicapping the horse-race, knowing that so many misunderstand who did what, and what were the affects, does not change the fact that voters have perceptions that are not easily changed. The perceptions of Reagan's worshipers is important because of how it affects their perceptions of things happening now. It will help pre-condition them to agree with the deficit hawks. Democrats and others who can be expected to vote Democratic don't much think about Reagan one way or another when looking at today's situation and how to vote to improve that situation or even to just hold as much ground as possible. But, they are worried and most [I believe] agree with Ryan and other Republicans that deficits are a severe drag on the economy. More importantly, they agree with you that the deficits we are running are unsustainable. Which side is pushing this idea hardest with a pledge and a plan to deal with it? Which direction do you expect this belief to push people's decision?
 So far, I do not see picking Ryan as a big negative to Romney's chances. Maybe it is a Hail-Mary long ball but games get won that way. We will have seen it happen more than once on the America's real important game, NFL football, by the time voting booths open. I agree with PP's caution which he explains well down below.

"And now you are going to get it, by 5 or more points, and more than 100 electoral votes".

If you have so much confidence in that prediction you can go to Intrade and make better than three to one by investing in it. They have Obama well ahead to win but they give the chance of getting 320 or more electoral votes at 22.5 percent.

Thanks for this essay, Articleman. I am not counting my chickens, but the Ryan choice gives me hope that we MAY be able to overcome the new voter registration laws, fewer voting hours, obscene amounts of GOP money pouring in from the super wealthy, and far lefties who don't want to vote for Obama. Hopefully the potential for a Ryan Presidency (let's don't forget that Romney merely has enough digits to sign off on everything the House wants) scares them enough to hold their noses and vote for Obama in spite of their disappointment in him. Same with the few true Indies that are left out there, and maybe some seniors thrown in for good measure.

Excellent article !!!

I like how you've laid out the talking points ... very effective! Very well articulated ,and easy to follow and understand. But I suspect Romney and Ryan aren't too concerned.

I've noted Romney doesn't care too much about what people think. For example, he resents people questioning him ... just accept what he says and assume it's fact.

I also suspect the Ryan selection may be a political trojan horse. While every one is jumping for joy because they believe Romney made a severe poliical error he can't recover from, I suspect there may be something running under the radar ... Romney is known to be extremely secretive in his actions and what he wants the public to know.

We may get a glimpse during their convention where they're planning to go and once the Democatic convention is over and both he and Obama start the final slug fest, I suspect they'll tip their hand. The last few weeks of the campaign might not be enough time for Obama to counter.

The campaign season had barely begun when the Obama team let it be known that they had wrote off Indiana.  I am not surprised they did, even though Obama won here in 2008.  So I was a little surprised to see Obama running a number of commercials here attacking Romney (and almost no ads from Team Romney). My guess is they hope to keep it close enough to force Romney's team to have to spend money and time in Indiana.

For the reasons outlined in your blog, the Ryan choice just made it more likely Romney will have to spend some of his time courting Hoosiers.  The conservative Dems and independents in depressed manufacturing areas of the state are not going to be more endeared to Romney with Ryan on the ticket.  This is especially true I believe for those who are pro-union - many of whom are retirees or just about ready to retire.  Some of these folks might have taken a chance with Romney, or at least be willing to give him a chance to make his case, but Ryan reinforces the notion that Romney is about the rich and not the little guy who has been laid off because his factory was shut down or scaled back.

Like Ohio, a lot of Indiana was dependent or heavily reliant on the auto industry, and have suffered a lot of economic pain in the last fifteen years.  Obama's saving of Detriot plays big here, including with the fiscal conservative Republican business community.  In a way, Romney picking Ryan is a way of Romney saying, "I'd have let Detroit go bankrupt and I'll do it again."

All of this is not enough to hand Indiana to Obama, but I suspect it will tighten the race here, esp when combined with the tight race for Lugar's seat in the Senate between Donnelly and Mourdock.

One other facet of Ryan which could become a factor is he in the end a policy wonk.  I haven't seen him in action on the campaign trail, just the talking heads shows, and it kind of makes me think Biden might come out on top in a debate format.

The reasoning here is that Romney's biggest issue right now is that he is being defined as a rich guy who not doesn't get the struggling worker, but also doesn't care about he struggling worker (or worker looking for a job).  Ryan going on about numbers on a budget spreadsheet  isn't going to make those workers feel like Romney/Ryan ticket "feels their pain."

In other words, a worker who is basically asking the question - which guy is going to be looking out for me? - I think Biden definitely has the upper hand.  Ryan is I think will be to a inside-the-beltway mirror image of Romney's corporate executive, with the corresponding approach to cutting jobs for short-term profits/budget cuts.

re to dijamo's 8/13 10:51 pm comment above

From the WashPost article you linked to:

Privately, some congressional Democrats were alarmed by the president’s proposal, which could include adjusting the measure of inflation used to determine Social Security payouts. But others described it as primarily a bargaining strategy intended to demonstrate Obama’s willingness to compromise and highlight the Republican refusal to raise taxes.

I remember being extremely upset on these reports last summer of what Obama was said to have put on the table on SS and Medicare.  

Yet I don't find it implausible to interpret his willingness to talk SS and Medicare cuts as something he a) had very strong reasons to believe the GOP would not accept, given that he was insisting on revenue increases as part of the deal, but that would help him with public opinion by making the GOP appear more intransigent, leading to the GOP eventually relenting on the debt ceiling extension; and b) thought he would be able to avert in the future.  

Obama was naive about the depths to which the GOP would resort to achieve its budget aims, and was caught off guard when his opponents pushed him and the country in the way they did.  Once he found himself in that situation he had to find some way out, with the clock ticking, to prevent a default.  I don't think that necessarily means he is unreliable on SS and Medicare.  It means that in the hothouse that was last summer's debt ceiling fiasco, he put what he judged to be the overall health of the economy ahead of protecting SS and Medicare benefits from any cuts, while hoping to avert both a default on the debt and those cuts.  As he did.

Your response to what happened is to put people willing to run the country all the way off the cliff in the WH?  On the theory that congressional liberals would then stop them?  House liberals, if the GOP keeps the House majority, will have zero ability to block SS and Medicare cuts, or voucherization of either program for that matter, if that is what the Republican majority wants to do.  You're feeling as though House Republicans are not a real radical bunch, they'd never do something like that?  That may be as naive about the Republicans as Obama was in misreading what they might be willing to do on the debt ceiling issue.  

So you would want to bet the ranch that Senate Dems, holding, let's say, a razor thin majority permitting no more than 1 or 2 defections max, would block SS or Medicare benefit cuts?  And what if the electorate doesn't ticket split so much and votes in not only Romney/Ryan but a GOP majority in the Senate?  What's the plan in that scenario to avert benefit cuts?  I would guess the chances of benefit cuts both sought and achieved for at least one or the other of SS/Medicare in that latter scenario--very possibly the scenario we will get if your desires on the presidential race turn out to be realized--to be at least 50/50. 

The idea of voting more Republicans into office to make Liberals more forceful is shortsighted. The GOP is actively working to suppress Democratic Party voters. In Ohio, the Secretary of State is supporting plans to extend voting hours in strong Republican districts while limiting voting hours in strong Democratic districts.The long term plan is permanent disenfranchisement of Democratic votes. There will be less likelihood of Liberal Democrats in national office because those voters who would support a Liberal candidate will have more problems casting a vote.

A vote for a Republican is a vote for long term suppression of Liberal votes. Many GOP led states are pushing suppression of Democratic votes. There will not be the strong legislative push against the GO-Tea Party that some anticipate