The OP answer is “yes.” It really depends on what Romney does to turn things around.
However, I’m not sure that he’ll take the “right” path. Take this National Review comment. Perhaps it IS a viable strategy. But to me, it reeks of “if only we explain how bad Obama is a little better, this time the voters will get it!” It strikes me as a rewarmed, previously failed strategy that has as much chance of getting traction this time as it did the last time - perhaps even less, considering we’ve lived under Obama’s policies for the last four years. How much better can the explanation be this time?
There are very few series of events that could reasonably occur that would put Mitt in the white house.
I think more people believe that the economy is about as good as it can be, especially considering the obstructionist congress. Thanks to Bill Clinton - Secretary of Explaining Stuff.
The majority of Americans agree that Obama tried to work with Republicans (60%)
A minority of Americans think that Republicans are making the same effort to work with Obama (27%)
Republican obstructionism is really starting to look like people putting party before country.
I’d really like to see Clinton stumping in swing districts across the country. I bet he could swing half a dozen districts by showing how obstructionist their purported “moderate” Republican congressman has been.
But during the primaries the right wing candidates - individually and as a group - consistently outpolled Romney. Some of this might be because he is just a bad candidate. Also, Romney really never beat anyone but Gingrich and Santorum. Gingrich remember lost all his money and campaign staff, and was a kook, so that he was even a challenge didn’t speak well for Romney. Santorum came from nowhere only after Romney had it wrapped up. We can only wonder how the other candidates would have done if they hadn’t shot themselves in the foot.
So I don’t think you can say Romney won due to his relative level of being a moderate. And of course he didn’t run as a moderate.
Primary yes. But not for the national campaign. Romney didn’t shake the Etch-a-Sketch, he scribbled more stuff onto it. Why did he pick Ryan? Did he cave in? Did he think it would help? Did he really believe Ryan’s crap? Palin actually made more sense.
A moderate Republican would have a chance in a general election - a good one. But the demographics are increasingly hurting the traditional Republican base.
I believe early voting is open now, and as far as I can tell, having a sizable lead is always a good thing. It doesn’t matter what your peak is. Maybe Obama will never have a bigger lead than this and maybe he will, but you don’t get extra points for finishing with the largest possible lead.
The latest Ohio polls in the WaPo and NYT are a real punch in the gut for the Romney campaign. It’s all looking rather desperate now. Obama’s numbers on Intrade seem to climb every day and are now at 76%. Nate gives him 80%. If Romney loses Ohio he could win Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Iowa and Colorado and still lose.
A ten percent lead in the states that matter isn’t “peaking too early,” it’s indicative of a crushing victory. IF accurate - and again, I’d like to see more polling to support such a hgue swing - this lead is completely insurmountable without a once-every-fifty-years election-changer, like a truly horrible scandal or a terrible incident or something. “Peaking too early” in this case would mean he wins every battleground state by 5 points or more, instead of 7 points or more, and ONLY comes back to win South Carolina, instead of also coming back and winning Missouri.
If Mitt Romney is really 9-10 points behind in Florida there is nothing he can do to win; he has to hope Obama pulls off the most spectaular campaign meltdown in the modern history of American politics.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Why did he pick Ryan? Did he cave in? Did he think it would help? Did he really believe Ryan’s crap? Palin actually made more sense.
[/QUOTE]
People are down on Ryan but, honestly, he makes no difference at all. No matter who Romney had picked as his running mate I honestly believe the race would be exactly where it is right now, Romney would have made the same gaffes, and the polls would say the same thing. When, really, has a VP candidate ever made a difference? I can’t think of a single example. Bush 1 won with a clown as his running mate, and Bush 1 himself was an afterthought on the Reagan tickets, when he placed, as VP, a guy named “Walter Mondale” who was exactly as exciting as you would expect a guy named “Walter Mondale” to be. Most people forgot Al Gore existed when Clinton was President. Darth Cheney wasn’t an asset to Bush in the elections. Joe Biden seems like a nice guy but, really, he was on the ticket in 2008 because the law says someone has to be.
Would Romney be better off with Marco Rubio? Nah, he’s still have said that 47% crap and he’d still be losing.
Romney was losing to “idealized perfect Republican.” Just as Obama was once losing in the polls to “not Obama.” But neither of those matter at all in our reality. You don’t run against an imaginary opponent with all virtues and no flaws, with infinite money, no gaffes, and the ability to be in ten places at once. You run against real individuals. Romney beat every real individual. Obama is beating his real opponent. Neither should be a surprise.
Vice-Presidents can hurt but they don’t help. For once the conventional wisdom is correct.
An imaginary moderate Republican, maybe. There is no real Republican who fits this description.