Actually, he has a record of being ignored by Democrats. Well, except for his signature accomplishment, the health care reform of Massachusetts. Too bad he won’t run on that accomplishment.
Romney wants to cut taxes again. That is his economic plan. More Bush/Cheney - who proved tax cuts don’t create jobs.
Romney has nothing.
(Obama doesn’t have a whole lot economically either)
I don’t mind his personal life, he seems to be a older and more moral version of John F Kennedy in some ways actually. My major concern is Romney’s flip-flopping which took place on dozens of issues.
He does have one solid accomplishment that he accomplished with Democrats, he made a deal to close a big budget gap. That’s a selling point given our current problems.
What reason have we to believe that the skill sets are even remotely similar? What businessman can you point to who had a sterling record as President? As well, the moral horizons of the businessman are narrow. Should we be pleased that the country is “turning a profit” if our people suffer?
it’s a little more nuanced than that. Bush and Reagan ran on pure tax cuts, Romney’s running on tax reform, and one reasonable interpretation of his tax reform plan is that it will cut taxes for the rich. But when the CBO scores it, and negotiations have to be done with congress, the plan will almost certainly end up revenue neutral or even revenue positive.
Romney’s plans are mostly non-specific though. Obama could put pressure on him by getting specific himself, but that’s not really in the cards.
The Salt lake City Olympics and his tenure as governor of Massachusetts are examples of turnarounds in cases that weren’t purely business. You’ve heard about Massachusetts under Romney being 47th in job creation, I’m sure. What you might not have heard is that 47th is his four years in total. What you may not have heard is that he inherited a state that was 50th in job creation and left to his successor a state that was 28th.:
The ad states that job creation in Massachusetts “fell” to 47th under Romney. That’s a bit misleading. Massachusetts’ state ranking for job growth went from 50th the year before he took office, to 28th in his final year. It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but it was improving, not declining, when he left.
So his record as a turnaround artist has been proven three times: Bain, Salt Lake City, and Massachusetts. That’s pretty compelling.
Um, what did he do in Massachusetts that plausible could have affected the job numbers, for better or worse? Remember, job growth was still under the national average when he left office: it just wasn’t as dismal as when he signed up.
Bain wasn’t a turnaround firm really. It was a financial engineering firm. Nobody hired Bain to turnaround themselves: Bain under Romney would just take companies over with borrowed money, then resell them with debt intact. Occasionally they would back entrepreneurs who had good ideas, but that isn’t building businesses. Remember, 70% of his profits came from just 10 deals, so we have something tractable to work with.
The Olympics example is decent, though it owes much to the lobbyists he hired to extract funds from Washington, DC. In short, Romney is no Ross Perot, never mind a Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet or Jack Welch.
I await evidence to the contrary with interest.
I have no evidence, but neither do you. Maybe Romney had nothing to do with improving those job numbers. Maybe he did. Given the totality of his record, I think it’s likely that Romney did help turn around Massachusetts. Massachusetts did more than just ride an improving economy, it got better faster than other states. If any other governor saw that kind of improvement, from 50th to 28th, then I’d like to see that evidence.
I suppose we’ll have to give you that one, unless there were two states going from 50th to 28th. You’re on pretty solid ground with that one, for whatever its worth.
Besides, which Romney are we talking about here? Which version did they install in Massachusetts? The guy who’s running now talks like he’s somewhere between GeeDubya and Calvin Coolidge.
This election reminds me of '96. Somebody said then that Dole’s support was “a mile wide, and an inch deep.”
Romney was elected governor in 2002. Massachusetts had been hit hard when the tech bubble burst. I don’t know how much Romney’s policies had to do with the employment situation. A lot of it was probably just timing.
Maybe, but a governor can make a difference. Some states were heavily affected by the housing bubble. California, Nevada, and Florida were hardest hit. Here’s their unemployment rates starting in Jan. 2011, when they elected new governors, and today:
California- 12.1% in Jan. 2011, 10.7% now.
Florida- 10.9% in Jan. 2011, 8.6% now
Nevada-13.8% in Jan. 2011, 11.6% now.
Data here:
So California, 1.4% drop, Nevada, 2.2%, and Florida, 2.3%. Now I can’t prove that the Republican governors are doing a better job than Jerry Brown. There could be other factors at work. But something is making a difference, and the governors are as plausible as any other explanation. Especially given the big difference in California and Florida’s budget situations. california is still having financial difficulties, Florida just cut spending and moved on.
That’s fair, but Dole was running against a popular incumbent with a healthy economy and a rapidly improving deficit situation. Romney’s got an easier opponent to deal with. He doesn’t have to be loved to win, he just has to not be hated. And with the last two favorability polls having him at +5 and +6, it doesn’t look like Obama will be able to win on personal popularity unless he can chop romney down to size. Given that he’s failed to do so after $100 million in negative ads, I think it’s unlikely he’ll succeed later.
Obama might not have succeeded in making Mitt look like a hapless doofus, but he’s got a lot of help on that.
Well, Obama’s trying to make him look like a ruthless corporate raider. Being a hapless doofus might actually endear him to people. You know, kinda like Joe Biden.
Here’s some evidence that attacking his Bain record might have been an epic fail:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-07-23/poll-romney-obama-economy/56439758/1
WASHINGTON – Despite concerted Democratic attacks on his business record, Republican challenger Mitt Romney scores a significant advantage over President Obama when it comes to managing the economy, reducing the federal budget deficit and creating jobs, a national USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.
Mitt Romney is preferred over President Obama on the economy, despite attacks on his record at Bain Capital, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.
By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney’s background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation’s economic problems over the next four years
Obama is still winning on likeability and honesty, but both of those have taken a hit due to the nasty campaigning and the factcheck sites all telling voters he’s full of you know what. NY Times had his favorability at 36%, now below Mitt’s if that’s not an outlier.
If Mitt becomes more likeable to the public, it’s game over. He’s kicking butt on competence.
And then the whole bit of news is not all roses for Romney:
I would make the point that in reality it is more worrisome to Romney that even with all that advantage in money and the problems Obama has with the economy that they remain even in the overall polling, and in the area that it counts the most, the electoral college, Romney is still not doing good.
I didn’t make a claim. You did. And saying that surveys say that people luv Bain proves nothing.
As for unemployment, Massachusetts was the 17th highest in 2006 when Romney left office. A year earlier it was only 29th highest. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checker-biography-romneys-dubious-explanation-for-slow-massachusetts-job-growth/2011/10/28/gIQAhclXmM_blog.html I’ll note this uses the same methodology you used in the Jerry Brown comparison.
Now I’m fairly dubious about that figure and am even more skeptical about job growth, absent a closer look at the data. Romney’s key policy in Massachusetts apparently involved “…establish[ing] a sales force to entice companies to set up shop in the state, … the number of companies considering the state jumped from 13 to 288 during the former governor’s tenure.” I’m not sure what that means, but it is a policy, passed with cooperation with the legislature. I would want to take a closer look at that. Cite: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checker-biography-romneys-dubious-explanation-for-slow-massachusetts-job-growth/2011/10/28/gIQAhclXmM_blog.html
Still waiting (politely) for the Bain reference from magellan or adaher. There must be some company that was turned around by Romney, right? I mean he did impose his treatment on scores of them.