The fact that he won the MA governorship in 2002 as a Republican doesn’t even necessarily make him moderately skilled. For one, it just meant he had more money than his opponent if I recall correctly. It may also be that he was just at the right place at the right time. And the fact that he lost to Ted Kennedy by 17 points in '94 really doesn’t say much about him at all, other than he was silly enough to challenge a Kennedy in MA.
He’s a fabulously rich businessman who has a family history of politics. He’s been elected to exactly one thing in his life. He came out on top of this year’s primary, by default, be beating a bunch of chumps. He’s held one job in public service. Sarah Palin had more political experience. “Moderately skilled politician” is being charitable when describing Mitt. He may be a great schmoozer, executive, boss, administrator, fund-raiser, manager, but a politician? It should be obvious to all now that he is NOT even a moderately skilled one.
At the Presidential level, certainly not (though I think those sub-skills you list are all parts of winning elections).
But at the JV High School Football level, I was a moderately skilled kicker. Winning an election for governor, and a presidential primary (even against a weak field) count for at least something. Not nearly enough so far, obviously.
So let’s go through the list of my adult memory, assume someone who couldn’t win the primary is not better - McCain better? Kerry? Bush either one? Gore? Ford? Clinton sure. Obama sure. Reagan sure. Carter? Dukakis? Dole? Mondale? I’ll refrain from going so far as Nixon and McGovern.
Honestly it is a tough gig. Of Presidential contenders he’s in with the pack. Three stand out as skillful politicians. Most are on his level. And the current GOP try out process makes the general gig even harder. Winning the base and being able to appeal to enough moderates and swings (not necessarily the same people always) in the general without losing your base or coming off too Etch-a-Sketchy requires a skillset well above average, well above moderate. There may not be a Republican politician in the country of that skill level. Their best hope is mainly that the Dems send up duds worse than theirs in the future, and they have sent up a few. Obama though? He’s no dud.
I’m gonna disagree rather strongly with that article. The problem is not that Mitt is a bad politician (although he is), it’s that he’s been campaigning on a platform of vague platitudes and hasn’t coughed up any specifics. If the Mitt of that article existed, those specifics would be his strong point. But the actual specifics are devastating for Mitt, because they’re based on bad ideologies. For example, when you have a huge deficit and incredibly large national debt, a platform of making everything better by lowering taxes preferentially on the wealthy is pretty much a non-starter. When you’re running a company and the balance sheet starts looking bad, you cut costs * and * raise revenues. Mitt knows this, but can’t say it, and that’s one of the reasons he’s losing.
There’s also the question of his complete abandonment of every moderate stance he held as governor of Mass in order to get nominated. That’s not the actions of a great leader, they’re the actions of a weasel.
Not quite all that. Jane Swift was a disaster of an acting governor, and there was a faction in the state GOP led by Christy Mihos to try to find someone to beat her in the 2002 primary. Mihos privately funded a poll that included Romney’s name, as well as a few token suspects, along with Swift’s, that showed him to have far more support than she did, and the prospect of losing embarrassingly induced Swift to drop out. There’s no basis for the belief that the schmuck-filled-room types wanted Romney to use the state as a stepping stone do DC; it was all about getting rid of Swift. And, frankly, just about anyone with a pulse could have done that.
538 today forecasts about a 16% for Romney. I’ll go out on a limb and state that if nothing dramatically to Romney’s advantage comes out of the first debate, he’s toast.
Still not buying. I remember distinctly similar predictions being made before the 2004 election (including by me, I think). That’s not to say I think Romney will win, just that it’s not over.
I’d characterize it as being named the CEO of a non-profit organization. To me a public servant is someone who is a government electee, appointee or employee.
Olympic Committees are quasi-government bodies, at least in the US. The USOC and its organizing committees are chartered under Title 36 of the US Code.
Around this time during the 2004 elections, Bush was polling ahead of Kerry by around 5-8 points. Source.
I am not saying your point is completely invalid, just that within the month or so prior to the 2004 election, people who thought Kerry would win were basically gambling that the polls were all wrong. (And yes, I was one of them.)
At this point in 2004, Bush was beating Kerry by 6 points. Larger than Obama is leading Romney today. So in hindsight calling it for Kerry didn’t make much sense.
I know that I personally was tricked into the mindset that so many right wingers have today with respect to Obama. I didn`t think Kerry was great but I just could not comprehend that the polls wouldn’t turn against that awful president and we’d vote him out.
Of course, I was 20 in 2004 so I like to imagine part of my problem was age related.
Straight Dope’s favorite prognosticator, Nate Silver, has already discussed the ability to overcome polling in late September. He found that it is not likely. In 2004 in fact Bush had a larger lead than he won with.
Remember during the primaries we all talked about how Romney just couldn’t close the deal, even after opponent after opponent self destructed and dropped out?
We’re seeing the same thing here against an opponent who is far more skilled than any of his nomination challengers.
Its hard to imagine in this age of political news that anything can come from a debate that would change anyones mind at this point. I know Regan had the huge surge past Carter in 1980, but back then the news cycle wasn’t 4hrs. The general public just hadn’t had a chance to see/hear Regan yet. when they did, they decided to vote for him.
Right now you know what you need to know about these canidates. Unless Obama calls Mitt a “cracker” or Mitt calls Obama a “nigger” I dont expect the numbers to move very much.
I am now imagining Obama playing Richard Pryor in that really old SNL sketch with Chevy Chase (“let’s do some word association. Negro.” “Whitey.” “Tarbaby.” “Cracker!”) and I cannot stop giggling.