GOP Activists to Romney: Why Aren't You Winning?

The Associated Press has an interesting piece on GOP activists wondering why their horse seems a bit lame and halt:

The real Reagan would be too liberal for anyone currently hawking “Reagan was right” buttons.

Oh dear mother of Obama victories yes. Make this happen. Put the expensive oak plank in front of the cameras every single night between now and election day and have him shove his foot progressively farther down his own gullet. The rest of the country, nay, the rest of the world needs to know how out-of-touch and insensitive this man is.

Oh, yes. Let all the elderly voters see the man who wanted to privatize Social Security. Let all the people with credit cards see the man who voted against the Credit CARD Act of 2009. Let all the women who remember wire coat-hangers, and all the ones who don’t, see the man who wants to criminalize every form of abortion, even in the case of rape and incest. He needs to be out of the box.

(Bolding mine)

Goddamnit, I keep agreeing with these people!

Anyway, here’s Mitt’s best response that he’d never use: “Because the party is in a position where choosing me seemed like the best possible option. Were you even alive during primary season?”

I truly hope they’re as puzzled as Democrats who couldn’t understand why Bush won in '04.

That’s one of the things I keep going back to. Well, him and Dukakis. What’s the deal with politicians from Massachusetts? Is it the cod that sucks all the life out of them?

Let’s not forget 2 presidents came from Mass… John Adams and JFK… so I wouldn’t blame Beantown.

Besides, Romney is a first rate Shyster. All Politicians can be shady just not this much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rodifJlis2c&feature=youtu.be

QFT

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/05/10/even-reagan-wasn-t-a-reagan-republican.html

Rush still thinks a beloved cartoon character can beat Obama:

In that case, we can call him “Womney”.

“I am Mitt Romney, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht.”

Bush barely won in 2004, and the economy was doing better at the time. The 2004 election was more about foreign policy.

The 2012 election should be a wide margin in the electoral college, rather than one that comes down to a single swing state.

I don’t recall that many Democrats being puzzled in '04. I knew early on Kerry was a stiff. Plus, knocking an incumbent off is generally an uphill fight.

I think there were quite a few of us frustrated in '04, but not really puzzled.

Romney has made no attempt whatsoever to explain what he’d do if elected. I think he truly believes that repeating “My name is not Barack Obama” would magically give him the keys to the Oval Office. Now the team of Vulture and Voucher is like a sailboat in a dead calm. This has been the worst run campaign that I can recall, and I can recall them going back to 1964. Trying to milk the Libyan dead before the bodies were even identified was the final coffin nail.

Three presidents came from Massachusetts: John Adams and his son, John Quincy Adams, both of who served only one terms apiece, and John Kennedy.

Come to think of it, Kennedy didn’t even make it through one term. Obviously there’s a conspiracy to prevent *any *Massachusetts president from serving more than one term. Connect the dots, people!

I think Mr. Fischer is incorrect. Perhaps if they lose this one, the Republican Party will make a concerted effort to return to its conservative roots and forsake the radical element that has taken over. I have no problem with fiscal conservatism when it’s tempered with some common sense, but people like Ryan take things too far.

They’re already saying he’s a weak candidate before the election. I wouldn’t expect any other notion after the election. Certainly little introspection when they can just blame him.

Also, when the dust settles, they can trot out the old standby of impeaching the incumbent. That never gets old.

I don’t think it’s soon enough. They’d have to suffer several major losses before they reject the radicals. Partly because they won’t want to admit they’ve hitched their star to a declining demographic, but largely because doing so is going to hurt them a lot in the short term and require them to seriously overhaul their image and rhetoric in order to attract the people they’ve driven away; they’ve become dependent on the radicals. There’s also the question of how far the radicals have managed to take control of the party decisionmaking apparatus; it may simply not be possible for the party as a whole to throw out the radicals anymore.

Four - Bush the Elder was born in Milton, MA.

ANOTHER one term president! It’s a conspiracy, I tells ya.

(Damn, how could I have missed him?:smack:)

The sad part of it (for Romney) is that this is actually no easy election to win. The conservatives clearly have no sense of what a majority of Americans thinks of Obama. It seems to me that what he and Bill Clinton said at the convention has worked to great effect, and the people answering all the polls have finally decided that, at the very least, they don’t trust Romney enough to stay mad at Obama. They are ready to give him the benefit of the doubt.

So Romney is running a race that is pretty much already decided, and yet he will be blamed for losing. I actually feel kind of sorry for the guy, as long as he is kind enough to continue losing.

What do a majority of Americans think of Obama?

Based on what evidence? If you go over and look at Gallup’s numbers on the convention, you’ll find that while a greater percentage of Americans said that the DNC made them more likely to vote for Obama than did the RNC, that shift was caused entirely by Democrats being more motivated to vote for Obama. The DNC had no net effect on the number of Independents who said they would vote for Obama (exactly 39% said it made them more likely to vote for Obama while 39% said it made them less likely to vote for Obama) and, obviously, a net negative for Republicans. On the other hand, the RNC had a net positive for Republicans (obviously), and net positive of 3 for Independents (39% more likely and 36% less likely) and a net negative among Democrats (again, obviously). So if you mean “to great effect” at firing up the base, sure, but not at reaching voters outside of the base.

That seems a bit presumptive to me. Not to mention it makes little sense.

You didn’t adjust for wind.