CONNECT
Campaign for America's Future / Op-Ed
Published: Friday 28 September 2012
Romney arguably lost every possible remaining undecided voter when the “47%” video was uncovered on Sept. 18.
The Three Moments that Wrecked the Romney Campaign, and their Common Thread: Conservatism
Mitt Romney arguably lost Ohio on November 18, 2008, when he penned an oped titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." Today, 64% of Ohio voters call President Obama's restructuring of the auto industry "mostly good."
Mitt Romney arguably lost Florida, with its heavy concentration of older voters, when he picked as his vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan, the face of the conservative plan to end Medicare as we know it.
The CBS/New York Times/Quinnipiac poll now has Obama leading Romney by 9 points in Florida, up from a 3 point lead in late August.
In August, Romney was ahead among Florida voters 65 and older by 13 points. Now, Obama is ahead among voters 55 and older (don't ask me why Quinnipiac didn't publish the same age breakdowns) by 8 points. This tracks with what the national Reuters poll found. Romney used to have a 20 point lead with voters 60 and over, now it's less than four.
And Romney arguably lost every possible remaining undecided voter when the "47%" video was uncovered on Sept. 18. What polling we have seen since then suggests Romney, already losing, is now cratering. Quinnipiac also found record double digit leads for Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Gallup tracking poll, long more favorable to Romney than most, has moved five points in Obama's direction since the video. And the ABC/Washington Post poll found 61% of voters disapprove of how Romney has handled his campaign, with 54% disagreeing with his "47%" comments.
The common thread in all of these moments is they were raw expressions of modern conservatism. Government should not aggressively save an industry in dire trouble. Government should not guarantee health care for retirees. Government should not help those working to help themselves but still struggle.
The albatross around Romney's neck is not so much his wealth or his social skills. It is modern conservatism that has sunk his campaign, and would have sunk any other this year.
The public remembers that conservatism is what wrecked in the economy 2008. And until conservatives make amends for that, they have little hope of earning a majority.
Maybe not even 47%.
Top Stories
By Richard (RJ) Eskow
11 comments on "The Three Moments that Wrecked the Romney Campaign, and their Common Thread: Conservatism"
April 05, 2013 4:41am
It agree, it is an amusing phrase
Pavier Simpson
Bravo, the excellent message
April 05, 2013 4:41am
It agree, it is an amusing phrase
Pavier Simpson
Bravo, the excellent message
March 24, 2013 4:11pm
It is scandal!
Pavier Simpson
Whom can I ask?
March 24, 2013 4:10pm
It is scandal!
Pavier Simpson
Whom can I ask?
September 29, 2012 12:14pm
Here are the three moments that ruined Romney's chances after he decided that a spoiled brat should be electable.
1. People found out he's a been a lifelong bully.
2. People found out he's a tax cheat.
3. People found out he thinks disabled veterans are government leeches.
September 29, 2012 3:10am
A former U/MA professor said to our class, "It won't be the two party system that will bring this country down....it will be the apathy growing in this nation."
It makes me angry has to how many people I talk to that say they are "fed up", "it doesn't matter anymore who you vote for, it won't change anything", and "the government does what it wants, so why should I vote?" as excuses not to partake in their civil responsibilities. Yet, they are the first to gripe and complain when things do go wrong.
When I was younger, I won't say who the two potentials were for presidency, I was so disgusted, I wrote my own name in. I know that it didn't make a difference, but it sure felt good.
I feel frustrated when politicians lie, excuse me...falsify information to gain/win people's votes. It is hard to wade through the garbage spewing at times from their mouths. But, I try to look at the person's history and watch their body movements to try and get a feeling of their honesty and sincerity. So far, I have more belief in Obama than Romney. The debates, of course, are even more essential for determining the best man for the job, even if it is sometimes choosing the lesser of two evils.
I look forward to the day when not only a Catholic, African-American or wealthy person can become president of the United States, but a woman, middle class or poor person as well.
September 28, 2012 10:32am
I am still voting for Green Party candidate Jill Stein.
September 29, 2012 12:10pm
Then you may as well vote Republican. If you care about the environment at all you should vote Dem. The Repulsives couldn't care less about Green.
September 28, 2012 2:39pm
GREGGERRITT:
Well, of course that's your choice, and I wouldn't take it away from you.
But, in a practical sense, what will a vote for Jill Stein accomplish? Will it preserve Social Security or Medicare? Hardly likely. Will it thwart the Republican rich in their effort to buy the election? Not really.
I've voted for Green Party candidates here in NM, because they actually had a chance of winning, and I agreed with what they were saying. In 2000, I was really torn between voting for Nader or for Gore. Nader was saying the things Gore should have said, but didn't. Ralph was talking like an old-style Democrat. Almost at the last minute I decided to vote for Gore because I felt he had the best chance of preventing Bush from being elected, and even then I knew enough about him to feel that he would be a disaster for the country.
Yet Bush stole the election anyway, thanks to his friends on our highest court. And Bush was even worse as our president than I had anticipated he would be.
Well, now some appointees by that same Bush opened the floodgates to untold millions to be donated to the political process anonymously. If you remember, Obama scolded the Supreme Court justices at his State of the Union address for that very decision. He knew it would put crucial offices in the federal government on the auction block, and that is exactly what is happening.
So, the way I see it, if Romney wins, then not only is Obamacare in jeopardy, but Social Security and Medicare and women's rights. It will encourage the plutocrats in our nation to be unapologetic in their manipulation of the laws and tax-codes for their own benefit, and it will discourage those who resisted it. It will not produce a revolution, just a turning away of Americans from all forms of political activity. "Money rules" will be the hard lesson taken from such election results.
And, it must be said, votes for Jill Stein will have contributed to that result. You know as well as I do that she has not the slightest chance of winning the election, so your vote will only be to make a statement, and nothing more.
I would vote for Bernie Sanders if he was running, to be honest; but he's not, and he's advising other progressives to vote for Obama as the better choice.
Maybe because I'm a senior I regard the survival of Social Security and Medicare as more important than just making a statement, a statement, by the way, that would probably throw Republicans into a giggle fit.
But as I say, it's your choice. I just don't think you've considered the consequences, or you don't feel threatened by the Romney/Ryan ticket.
I do, so I want to stop them.
September 28, 2012 10:16am
I wish that this election could live up to the hype about "choosing between two philosophies of governance". In some respects that may be true, but choosing a conservative Democrat and and ultra conservative Republican isn't really an earth shaking distinction. But insofar as the Republicans want to make it sound as though the choice is just that, I would love to think that this election actually did involve a contest between competing philosophies. Maybe it still can. Maybe there is a chance that, with Obama posting a clear lead for the moment, we can actually make this about the presumed philosophies that these two candidates represent. Maybe there is the prospect that the tea bagger movement has used up it's fifteen minutes of fame. Maybe we can use this opportunity to transcend the yammering of the candidates and there surrogates, and actually discuss the merits of a more progressive America vs. the corporatized, privatized everything that the ryan/romney ticket obviously embrace. (Not that Obama represents anything like the opposite). Ideally, I would like to see the whole sham "Philosophy" of the Ayn Rand influence mooks and their friends put to bed for good. FDR and even the even the despised LBJ had a much clearer and more equitable vision for this country. They weren't communists or even anything like a socialists. And the idea that we are left to choose between something like Stalinist Russia or a corporatized police state is a false predicate
September 28, 2012 9:29am
While this is all encouraging news - Romney's slip in the polls - yet it concerns me that Democratic voters may relax and feel "it's all in the bag." It's still weeks before the election, and there may be an "October surprise," or Obama may show poorly in the debates, OR the frantic falsehoods bought by the corporations may start to have a cumulative effect.
I would take heart from the news about Romney, and I certainly celebrate his many campaign gaffes and hope for more, but it's no time to stop worrying about the election or decide your one vote may not matter.
That "47%" video is priceless and is doing more damage than any dozen of slick and choreographed ads could possibly do. It's important to keep it alive and keep it circulating. The whole setting - wealthy donors in a private meeting in a rich man's home, with servants hustling to keep the audience content - just adds to the "effectiveness" of Mitt's candid expression of his contempt and disregard for the 47%.
Coupled with Ryan's budget proposals to voucher Medicare (that Mitt presumably lauds), seniors in our society, who make up the most active voting segment, may lose any enthusiasm for this comedic pair. Now, if the campaign to disenfranchise voters can be de-fanged, I'd say that the election prospects look pretty good.
I'm sure there will be others who post here who will say that both parties are the same, and should be boycotted. I'm not happy with certain changes in the Democratic party over the last 2 or 3 decades, but it's still time for a reality check. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Compensation, and the civil rights of women and minorities, DO MATTER, and which is the party MOST LIKELY to preserve and strengthen these programs and/or rights?
Be honest, and you'll have to admit that it is the party that enshrined these social policies in the laws of our country, and the same party that has been most diligent in protecting them.
Maybe if you're one of the filthy rich, or one of the thoughtless young, you don't worry about SS and Medicare, but the majority of working Americans do, and thus it would be self-punishing to support political candidates who want to do away with them (though they may not be candid enough to tell you they hate them).
Merely sitting on the sidelines and spitting and snarling your discontent will only strengthen the election efforts of the Greedy Old Plutocrat party.