There’s a lot of talk these days among pundits that Mitt Romney has “lost his general election narrative.” We’re told he is “suddenly headed for the kind of political and ideological cul-de-sac that losing presidential candidates often end up occupying.” And that despite winning Michigan, “his path to the White House has narrowed considerably.”
So just for fun, I went back and checked where Ronald Reagan stood in March 1980. And here’s what I found (courtesy of Craig Shirley’s excellent book Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America). As Shirley reports,
Reagan may have been doing well with Republican primary voters, but he still wasn’t breaking through to the general population, according to a new poll in the Chicago Sun-Times. The survey showed that in a matchup against Carter, Reagan would get blown out in Illinois, 60-34. [George H.W.] Bush was doing much better against Carter in Illinois, down only 42-36; Anderson was actually doing better than Carter in Illinois.
On Election Day 1980, Reagan beat Carter 50 percent v. 42 percent in Illinois, with John Anderson winning 7 percent of the vote. Reagan, by the way, beat Carter 489 v. 49 in the Electoral College vote.
I’m not saying Mitt Romney is Ronald Reagan. I’m not even saying Mitt Romney is the sure-fire 2012 GOP nominee. But what I am saying is all this talk about Romney having lost his general election narrative, finding himself trapped in ideological cul-de-sacs, and his path to the presidency having been narrowed considerably is wildly premature. Today is March 1; the election is November 6. Whoever the GOP nominee is will have lost and re-found his general election narrative roughly ten dozen times between now and then. It’s far too early for Republicans to panic and Democrats to rejoice. The election will probably be close, and it won’t pivot on anything Mitt Romney has said, or not said, so far in this campaign.
You're right, it is nonsense. n nFor Romney, Michigan was hard-fought and humbling. His comment on the win makes me think this. And all of this is good. n nI love Erasmus for a few reasons, but the biggest is his desire for every plow-boy to be able to keep the Psalms at his side. n nWith a lot of good-will toward the Governor and his family: n n n
Romney has the advantage that his negatives don't offend people. Being wealthy might make people jealous, but none of us would mind being rich ourselves — meaning there's nothing wrong with it. Santorum's social beliefs and his willingness to put them out there do offend some and make others uneasy. Paul's social views offends different people, but some are bothered by them — and people are afraid of terrorists and he's extremely appeasing. Gingrich's marriages offend many and he's still a boogeyman to those (and there are still, surprisingly to me, many) who still like Clinton. So, Romney can turn his focus on Obama (and he can't start too early to my mind)!
Here's your problem, Keith … n n'Newt's many marraiges' is a phony complaint, as it means little to the general populace any longer. n nLook, more than 50% of the country has been divorced, and frankly, a huge number of Americans now don't even believe in marraige in the first place. n nJust think who Obama's supporters are … Do they give a fig about marraige? n nThe answer is 'no' in case you haven't figured it out. n nSo Newt's 'negatives' have no weight in the general election. n nOn the other hand, his messages about high gas prices and about food stamps are powerful. n nAnd, Romney is the perfect stereotype of the rich, uncaring Republican that Democrats have spent 70 years demonizing. That doesn't add up to 'electable' not when he won't be able to outspend his opponent by 5 to 1 or more. n nThis time, he'll get outspent 10 to 1 and will be up against the most vicious demonizing machine in history. Newt knows that the only path is to go on the offensive, and he's putting the Left back on its heels every week. n nNeither Romney nor Santorum knows how to do this.
We've been real clear about Santorum, Newt, and Paul. If you want to beat on Mitt – find a living and genuine horse to ride in on.
I don't beat on anybody. n nI support Newt Gingrich.
Mr. Wehner acknowledges in his own article how basically laughable it is to compare Mitt Romney to Ronald Reagan but then goes ahead with it. Okay, Mr. Wehner.