Mitt’s monumental, perhaps insurmountable problem

At TalkingPointsMemo, Josh Marshall has posted an interactive version of the chart below, documenting the rather quick deterioration of Mitt Romney’s favorability index. (It’s a compendium of results from six different polls.)

romney

As Marshall puts it, “I don’t think many political observers would disagree that someone that far under water public opinion-wise is just not going to be elected president.” My own opinion is, that depends. I’d like to know a little more before reaching that conclusion.

In this case, I think it’s important to try to understand what may have driven that rather shocking rise in Romney’s unfavorable numbers. Was it a one-time event, a gaffe or something that might be overcome in time, or is it something more fundamental and difficult to shake?

Personally, I can’t think of any one news event substantial enough to have caused this dynamic. Romney hasn’t been hit with some major scandal; he hasn’t committed some monumental blunder that would explain what the chart depicts.

But timing offers an important clue.

Because the chart is an amalgamation of polls, it’s hard to pinpoint exactly when Romney’s deterioration began. You have to go back to the original data, preferably using polls that have asked the same question repeatedly over a period of time.

For example, here are the last four results as reported in the Washington Post/ABC News poll:

wapo romney

And here are similar numbers culled from CNN’s polling data:

cnn romney

They both tell us the same thing: Romney’s sharp plummet nationally began sometime in the 10-day period between Jan. 12 and Jan. 22. In the Post poll, a five-point favorability advantage on Jan. 8 became an 18-point disadvantage two weeks later. In the CNN poll, a plus-one favorability rating on Jan. 13 became a 20-point disadvantage four weeks later.

And what was happening in that time frame?

Well, Newt Gingrich was beating the holy hell out of Romney in the South Carolina primary, which was held  Jan. 21. In the debates and on the airwaves, Gingrich was depicting Romney as a wealthy, out-of-touch Wall Streeter more concerned with making a lot of money than with helping his fellow Americans. Romney’s years with Bain Capital became an issue, and he was forced to reveal tax returns for the last two years documenting high income and low taxes. Thanks to Gingrich, an aspect of Romney’s history and background that had been only vaguely touched upon previously was pushed front and center.

Romney has never recovered, and I’m not sure he ever will.

(I should also note that it’s foolish for Republicans to blame Gingrich for what has happened. He didn’t create this problem for Romney; he merely exposed a major weakness that was destined to come to light anyway.)

As in many things in life, politics is about being in the right place at the right time. Romney’s fate is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In another year, under different circumstances, he might have made a perfectly fine Republican presidential nominee and perhaps a perfectly fine president as well. He’s a smart and decent man with a lot of relevant political experience.

But given the country’s current mood — a mood the Democrats are more than ready to stoke — voters do not seem comfortable with a man who, right or wrong, often comes across as a caricature of an unfeeling Wall Street banker. At times in our history, those people have been perceived as heroes and role models, but that’s not how they are perceived today. Voters do not want to elevate a person of that background to the White House. In fact, the polling data suggest that voters have recoiled from it.

As political strategists will tell you, policy white papers and political platforms are all fine and good, but in the end elections come down to what voters are feeling in their gut. And what Romney makes them feel is not good. Maybe it’s not fair; maybe it’s not all that rational. But it’s reality nonetheless.

It’s quite a predicament for Republicans. Romney has shown no ability to overcome his liability. In fact, the harder he tries for the common touch, the more awkward he becomes. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are not feasible options, and the realists in the party know that waiting until the GOP convention Aug. 27-30 to try to identify and unite behind a white-knight candidate simply is not feasible.

I keep saying that it’s a long time between now and November, and it is. A lot of things could still happen. But this is a helluva pickle for the GOP.

– Jay Bookman

738 comments Add your comment

Stonethrower

February 15th, 2012
2:26 pm

He is elite and he looks presidential. What more can we ask for?

stands for decibels

February 15th, 2012
2:28 pm

Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are not feasible options

“I’m normally not a praying man, but if you’re up there, please save me, Superman!”
–Homer Simpson

Steve

February 15th, 2012
2:29 pm

It will still be Romney/Obama this Fall, and Obama was clean Romney’s clock.

Normal

February 15th, 2012
2:29 pm

Oh Joy! More good news for President Obama!

Kamchak

February 15th, 2012
2:29 pm

Mitt’s problem has always been with the evangelicals. I originally believed they would rally ’round Perry. Now it looks like they are rallying ’round Santorum.

Normal

February 15th, 2012
2:31 pm

Jay,
You say, ” But this is a helluva pickle for the GOP.” and I say yes, but it’s a self made pickle.
They bought the cuecumber, jar and picke juice…It’s all theirs.

M

February 15th, 2012
2:33 pm

And Republicans will interpret this as a sign that they’re not conservative enough…which will lead to them eventually trying to declare buying a girl a drink as a person.

barking frog

February 15th, 2012
2:35 pm

And again I say, President Obama is the most brilliant
politician I have seen in my lifetime. The RNC has to
contend with Romney- a wall street insider in an election
where where wall street will be a dirty word. Newt- a
Washington insider that was kicked out by his own party
for ethical problems. Santorum- a Washington insider that
could not get reelected in his home state. Unless they
plan an August surprise in candidates, They are beat
now.

Adam

February 15th, 2012
2:35 pm

No wonder the GOP establishment was pissed when Newt opened that line of attack.

Sorry cons, the “wealth envy” and “class warfare” counterpoints don’t work!

Midori

February 15th, 2012
2:36 pm

“bring it on”

— Thomas Jefferson :lol:

Granny Godzilla

February 15th, 2012
2:37 pm

Happy Birthday to Josh Marshall!

TaxPayer

February 15th, 2012
2:37 pm

kinda lazy

February 15th, 2012
2:38 pm

Romney is a bad enough candidate ,but Santorum and Gingrich are bloody awful.

barking frog

February 15th, 2012
2:41 pm

It’s Obama’s fault the GOP primary is so fouled up.

Steve

February 15th, 2012
2:43 pm

I laughed out loud at someone last night who admitted to voting for McCain/Palin in 2008…he’s voting Obama in 2012.

Recon 0311 2533

February 15th, 2012
2:44 pm

“But this is a helluva pickle for the GOP.”

Jay, might consider that Obama’s favorable approval ratings were deep in negative territory most of last year. While he’s bounced back some he doesn’t appear to be gaining any significant traction in regaining his 08/09 popularity. He’s been hovering around a tie and dropping back negative even though he’s been actively campaigning since late last Summer. He’s message isn’t really resonating effectively and that’s a helluva pickle for the Democrats.

Adam

February 15th, 2012
2:44 pm

M: And Republicans will interpret this as a sign that they’re not conservative enough…

It is fun to watch their self fulfilling implosion isn’t it? Deny science (i.e. the taking of positions based on EVIDENCE examination) and it’s real easy to just feel like the right answer is to do the exact opposite of what will cause you to get more votes.

Adam

February 15th, 2012
2:47 pm

TaxPayer: I think this guy would have been a good candidate to win against Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Wb14NZ01E

King of Everything

February 15th, 2012
2:49 pm

Pat Buchanan’s southern strategy will leave the Republicans in the wilderness of their own little bubble for 100 years.

md

February 15th, 2012
2:53 pm

It will still come down to what the independents prefer……Obama or the not Obama…..

TaxPayer

February 15th, 2012
2:54 pm

Adam,

I especially liked that Horn of Urgency. :lol:

King of Everything

February 15th, 2012
2:55 pm

They cannot challenge Obama on the issues and they lack the skills to beat him at politics. They are just very bad at their jobs. I smell a landslide in Nov but the lame stream media wont say that because they want people to watch the horse race.

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

February 15th, 2012
2:56 pm

Well, I swear, this poor Mr. Mormon Underpants just can’t win for losing. I mean, he’s just like us, only he’s got a few hundred million bucks and some overseas bank accounts and said he don’t care about the poor and worked for a co. that went in and fired folks and sent their jobs to China. And then the PETA nutcakes went after him for hauling his dog to Canada in a cage strapped to the roof of his car. Then Michigan got all worked up because he said the auto cos. ought to of been let to swirl down the toilet. It’s just his bad luck they’re making a comeback.

I bet deep down he’d like nothing better than to have a big bowl of caviar and maybe some thousand-buck French wine with us at some redneck truckstop. Voters are so picky, picky, picky.

Anyways, I’m backing away from the poor guy because the stuff’s about to hit the fan and he won’t even be able to win his home state. If any of the people in Michigan show up carrying a fence rail, my advise to him is hit the road with both feet moving. If this keeps up he won’t be able to get his weekly manicure and 500-buck hair style. People these days will hate you for the least little thing.

Have a good p.m. everybody.

getalife

February 15th, 2012
2:56 pm

This cycle is very entertaining.

Kamchak

February 15th, 2012
2:57 pm

“But…but…but…$4-5 a gallon gas on election day.”
–Thomas Jefferson

Midori

February 15th, 2012
2:57 pm

“the south shall rise again”

— Del :lol:

Midori

February 15th, 2012
2:58 pm

LOL, Kammy!! :lol:

Adam

February 15th, 2012
2:58 pm

md: It will still come down to what the independents prefer……Obama or the not Obama…..

Yes…. remind me how being “not-Bush” worked out for Kerry?

Normal

February 15th, 2012
2:59 pm

“the south shall rise again”

What do you mean…again?

Adam

February 15th, 2012
3:00 pm

the lame stream media wont say that because they want people to watch the horse race.

Actually they won’t say it because they actually believe that the Republicans have a chance even after all this BS. Either that, or they are bending over backwards to create a false “fair and balanced” viewpoint.

ByteMe

February 15th, 2012
3:01 pm

While he’s bounced back some he doesn’t appear to be gaining any significant traction in regaining his 08/09 popularity.

He doesn’t need to. He just has to suck less than his opponent. Given his current selection of opponents, that isn’t going to be hard.

Adam

February 15th, 2012
3:01 pm

the south shall rise again

“Because if there’s one thing Southerners DON’T do, it’s lose a war and get over it.” – Bill Maher Thomas Jefferson

Steve

February 15th, 2012
3:02 pm

GOP = greedy old pigs. Pimps for the rich.

Adam

February 15th, 2012
3:02 pm

So I haven’t heard people claim Obama isn’t a leader lately. Did Rush and Hannity stop using that talking point?

SoGaVet

February 15th, 2012
3:02 pm

Under normal campaign circumstances, with the other party’s primary also going on to dilute and distract the media – Romney would probably have done ok. But the spotlight is all GOP, all the time.

Meanwhile, the Cons have been blasting the President for 3 years and folks are finally figuring out that Con-talking points – which were sold as fact – were nothing more than fabricated non-sense.

jewcowboy

February 15th, 2012
3:02 pm

I bet he eats arugula.

Why oh why?

February 15th, 2012
3:02 pm

Maybe, just maybe, the Regressive Party will get so thoroughly thumped this November that they will see fit to get rid of guys like Ryan and Cantor (Boehner too, but he’s not nearly as bad) and the Tea Party in its entirety, and will return to being a rational, reasonable, grown-up party with whom the President and the Democrats can obtain real compromise (on both sides), thereby advancing the ball for ALL Americans (jm included).

Coincidentally, I haven’t seen jm’s infantile, hate-filled invective soiling this particular blog post. Kudos to you, Jay, to the extent you either banned him or encouraged him to be a little less flatulent.

md

February 15th, 2012
3:04 pm

“Yes…. remind me how being “not-Bush” worked out for Kerry?”

Worked pretty good for obama, and Bush wasn’t even running…….

CJ

February 15th, 2012
3:05 pm

[Romney] is a smart and decent man with a lot of relevant political experience.

Actually, I couldn’t disagree with Jay more. Whether Romney is smart is debatable (riches are not necessarily evidence of overall intelligence), but he is anything but decent. First, he’s a serial liar who will say anything to get elected. But worse, he’s psychopath who has no regard for how his actions affect the lives of others.

So what the hell is wrong with the one-third of Americans who think favorably of the man?

Aquagirl

February 15th, 2012
3:06 pm

thereby advancing the ball for ALL Americans (jm included).

Do we really have to include him? :)

Gale

February 15th, 2012
3:06 pm

I still cannot understand how the social conservatives can be such a big voting block. Are they really and I am just in denial? I wish we could get those social issues out of the discussion because they just distract from real problems the country faces. When most people claim it is the economy they are concerned about, why are the candidates carrying on about abortion, gay rights and women in combat? Oh, to stir up the social conservatives of course. Then back to the first point. Are they that big a voting block that they matter?

Jill

February 15th, 2012
3:07 pm

There is really only one thing Mitt can do to get back on top… play the Mormon card. It’s really the only thing he’s passionate about (that and personal wealth creation) and he’s going to need some sort of passion to break through.

http://mankabros.com/blogs/chairman/2012/02/07/mitt-romney-its-time-to-play-the-mormon-card/

Adam

February 15th, 2012
3:08 pm

Why oh why? @ 3:02 pm

I really appreciate your optimism. I mean that seriously.

Paul

February 15th, 2012
3:08 pm

“Was it a one-time event, a gaffe or something that might be overcome in time, or is it something more fundamental and difficult to shake?”

I’d say this entire Republican primary process is a gaffe whose effects will be difficult to shake.

When a reasonable guy like Huntsman gets roundly rejected and a guy like Romney’s seen as the best chance to beat Pres Obama yet he’s vilified because he’s…. gasp….. moderate

ByteMe

February 15th, 2012
3:09 pm

Worked pretty good for obama, and Bush wasn’t even running…….

Worked great when Bush had a 20% approval rating. And worked great against the cranky old guy yelling “Get the hell off my lawn!” We don’t quite have that dynamic this time.

Adam

February 15th, 2012
3:09 pm

Jill: You’re right, he should do that. Democrats certainly won’t attack him on that angle.

Steve

February 15th, 2012
3:09 pm

The GOP religious base (conservative Christians) are not ready for a Mormon President. They don’t consider Mormons Christian.

CJ

February 15th, 2012
3:11 pm

Incidentally, I wasn’t using a metaphor or trying to be extreme when labeling Romney a “psychopath” in my previous comment. He is, by definition, a psychopath.

Recon 0311 2533

February 15th, 2012
3:14 pm

Amusing how the lib’s rationalize. We have it that the media won’t come out and say that Obama is so far ahead that it’s a certainty he’ll win because then nobody will read their news reporting. Or that Pat Buchanan whose been out of the political landscape for years is leading Republicans into the wilderness. And then you have the Thomas Jefferson pretend quotes. Funny but also kind of pathetic.

Mr. Snarky

February 15th, 2012
3:14 pm

Mitt let his opponents define him…never a good move.

md

February 15th, 2012
3:15 pm

“Then back to the first point. Are they that big a voting block that they matter?”

Just an observation, but an answer may be found in CA……kind of interesting that a blue state voted against gay marriage……may be a starting point for your quest.

Jay

February 15th, 2012
3:15 pm

Interesting to see the complete absence of rebuttal here….

Adam

February 15th, 2012
3:18 pm

Recon: I find posts about how Obama will lose handily and how being socially conservative is a virtue that will carry us back into the false reality of being a Christian Nation just as entertaining. Also this stuff about media matters is amusing. Can’t wait until I see ALL of you start squirming over their influence.

Billings

February 15th, 2012
3:19 pm

Maybe democrats will vote for Romney. They think he’s grand.

ByteMe

February 15th, 2012
3:19 pm

Rebuttal, Jay? The best they got is “Your team sucks! Nyah nyah!” They’re waiting for page 3 to return to their talking points where they’re more comfortable.

Aquagirl

February 15th, 2012
3:22 pm

I still cannot understand how the social conservatives can be such a big voting block. Are they really and I am just in denial?

It’s not that there’s so many, it’s that they are easily controlled and have a system in place already (churches) to target and get out the vote. The groundwork organization is already there and it’s free, courtesy of the taxpayers.

Mr. Snarky

February 15th, 2012
3:23 pm

Don’t be counting your chickens… – Thomas Jefferson

Recon 0311 2533

February 15th, 2012
3:24 pm

Adam,

Just keep blogging and drinking the Kool-Aid. Jay will keep you well supplied as will I’m sure Media Matters that only matter to you and the rest of the 20 percenters

ByteMe

February 15th, 2012
3:26 pm

it’s that they are easily controlled

It’s more than that. They take information from someone who sounds like them on faith instead of requiring evidence. Belief is a powerful thing with them. That makes them almost like lemmings … or cows stampeding toward a cliff.

Midori

February 15th, 2012
3:27 pm

“Frankly Scarlett — I don’t give a d*mn!!” — Del

Adam

February 15th, 2012
3:27 pm

20% +35% is 55%. Sorry, rational thinking people are NOT in the minority.

Why oh why?

February 15th, 2012
3:28 pm

Mr. Snarky – believe me, none of us are counting our chickens. But, to borrow from the Gipper, we’re hopeful it’s morning in America.

carlosgvv

February 15th, 2012
3:28 pm

Of course, Republicans don’t want Romney. They see him as a cultist Mormon who is really not a Christian. Unfortunately for Gingrich, they see him as a womanizing Catholic. If Santorum was not a Catholic, they might go for him. As for Paul, they see him as a loser. So, their choices are no, no, no and no. Come election time they will either stay home or vote for whichever on of these losers gets the nomination. If Democratic voters think Obama is a shoo-in and don’t bother to vote, maybe Romney will be our next President. In the immortal (more or less) words of Paul Simon:

Laugh about it
Shout about it
When you’ve got to choose
Any way you look at it
You lose

Billings

February 15th, 2012
3:28 pm

“It’s not that there’s so many, it’s that they are easily controlled and have a system in place already (churches) to target and get out the vote.”

And democrats with their black churches?

Jefferson

February 15th, 2012
3:29 pm

Mitt has an image problem, the GOP has an image problem. The president has a congress full of problems, until that changes nothing else will.

Brosephus™ "Browning America since 1973"

February 15th, 2012
3:30 pm

When a reasonable guy like Huntsman gets roundly rejected and a guy like Romney’s seen as the best chance to beat Pres Obama yet he’s vilified because he’s…. gasp….. moderate …

^^^^This^^^^

the howardchronicles

February 15th, 2012
3:32 pm

Do you know what polls mean? NOTHING. I can go out right now conduct a poll and it would say the Prez Obama would be better suited to work for a conglomerate that he gave trillions to. Polls are idiotic for the idiotic

Paul

February 15th, 2012
3:32 pm

I believe it was either Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard or Jeff Zeleny of The New York Times the other night on Brett Baier’s All Star Panel who said Romney’s campaign team traced it to Romney’s use of attack ads against Gingrich – changed the perception of Romney – and this is what’s causing the delay in responding to Santorum. They aren’t quite sure what will be effective that will further drive Romney’s negatives.

jm

February 15th, 2012
3:32 pm

Jay is pretty much trying to write Mitt’s obituary already.

“Romney has never recovered, and I’m not sure he ever will.”

I think its early. These are probably the lowest ratings Mitt will get, though one never knows for sure.

If he can put Santorum away, then he can stop fighting a two front war.

jm

February 15th, 2012
3:33 pm

Jay 3:15 – cons are busy at work :)

Brosephus™ "Browning America since 1973"

February 15th, 2012
3:33 pm

Interesting to see the complete absence of rebuttal here….

http://www.hark.com/clips/vdnftlvzmx-called-crane-technique

Butch Cassidy

February 15th, 2012
3:33 pm

The problem is that Mitt is a “CEO” kind of guy. I know that’s the dream candidate for those who want Obama out. But the problem with CEO’s is that their power is limited to those that they can control. If your the boss, and everyone is at your beck and call, things are awesome. But take away the power dynamic, and they suddenly don’t have the first clue as to what to do. You can’t fire the guy who’s attacking you, because he doesn’t work for you, so he has nothing to lose by doing so.

Steve

February 15th, 2012
3:35 pm

Clearly, Obama wins in 2012. Yet will we still have a do nothing corporatist Congress continuing to thwart his every move? Probably.

jm

February 15th, 2012
3:36 pm

Butch – poor comparison. CEO’s face external competitors all the time. Unless they’re monopolists (which is rare). Try again.

Recon 0311 2533

February 15th, 2012
3:36 pm

Adam,

You misunderstood it’s the irrational 20% of the population over on the far left. You know the ones who worship at the feet of people like David Groves at Media Matters. The majority of Americans are rational and proved it November of 010. I think it will be proven once again this year.

Midori

February 15th, 2012
3:37 pm

Butch –

please don’t take the bait and feed the troll……

jm

February 15th, 2012
3:37 pm

Butch (aka post turtle), where were you educated?

JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President

February 15th, 2012
3:37 pm

the howardchronicles

February 15th, 2012
3:32 pm

awwwwwww, howard no likeie the polls that show his candidate losing..lol

Aquagirl

February 15th, 2012
3:38 pm

And democrats with their black churches?

Are also easily motivated to vote certain ways on social issues. Why would black people be any different? Or are you one of those Republicans sore that African-Americans generally avoid your party like the plague? Please, clarify your free-floating anxiety for us, because your point is so poorly phrased it’s unclear what has crawled under your skin.

jm

February 15th, 2012
3:38 pm

“we’re hopeful it’s morning in America.”

it won’t be morning in America until Obama is gone.

jewcowboy

February 15th, 2012
3:38 pm

ByteMe,

“Belief is a powerful thing with them.”

“You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe.” ~ Carl Sagan

Fred

February 15th, 2012
3:38 pm

Jay

February 15th, 2012
3:15 pm

Interesting to see the complete absence of rebuttal here….
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LOL see my post from last evening is what I WOULD say, but the Cagle blog seemed to prove me wrong on that post. Personally while I have no rebuttal, I really have nothing to say about Romney that I have not had an opportunity to express in any of the other 53,000 Romney blogs so far this month……….

Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")

February 15th, 2012
3:38 pm

Jay – “Interesting to see the complete absence of rebuttal here….”

To what? The chart kind of speaks for itself doesn’t it?

Butch Cassidy

February 15th, 2012
3:39 pm

jm -”Butch – poor comparison. CEO’s face external competitors all the time. Unless they’re monopolists (which is rare). Try again.”

It’s closer than you might think jm. I’ve worked with several former CEOs and company owners. Both on my CO-OP board and on my parents HOA back home. They have the business saavy , but it’s limited to the control factor. Once the threat of adverse action is removed, so is their power base.

stands for decibels

February 15th, 2012
3:39 pm

“It’s not that there’s so many, it’s that they are easily controlled and have a system in place already (churches) to target and get out the vote.”

And democrats with their black churches?

Billings, something like 20-25% of Americans self-ID as evangelical Christian. Pretty decent chunk (not all) are politically conservative and are a natural target demographic for the GOP.

Last I checked, African Americans constitute about 13% of the US population.

Of that percentage, many, but not all go to church.

Of those churchgoers, a disproportionate number (unfortunately, thanks mostly to stupid drug laws) have felony convictions which disenfranchise them in many states.

So that church network is certainly a factor in Democratic politics, just not as large of one.

Butch Cassidy

February 15th, 2012
3:40 pm

jm – “Butch (aka post turtle), where were you educated?”

I got my BA at Utah State University and my MBA at the University of Utah.

jm

February 15th, 2012
3:40 pm

Butch – mormon? :)

Butch Cassidy

February 15th, 2012
3:41 pm

jm – “Butch – mormon?”

Lutheran

Fred

February 15th, 2012
3:41 pm

Butch Cassidy

February 15th, 2012
3:40 pm

jm – “Butch (aka post turtle), where were you educated?”

I got my BA at Utah State University and my MBA at the University of Utah.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And now live in NEW YORK? That was a huge change I’ll bet lol. (or is it New Jersey? Or am I just remembering wrong……)

Odis

February 15th, 2012
3:42 pm

Mitt’s biggest problem is that he has no core. He wants to be President, but he doesn’t really stand for anything. Outside of running for political office, Mitt has never had to deal with the problems of the middle or working class. He has no idea on how to help the disadvantaged in our country, nor has he ever really given it much thought. Mitt spent the better part of his adult life making money and more money. My gut tells me that Mitt could give a rats arse about abortion or other people’s religions or their belief. Does anyone think that Mitt has ever gone hunting or fishing a day in his life? He may have paid lip service to those things, but everyone could tell that he was telling a lie. I mean who actually goes hunting for “vermin”? lol. This man really has no grand vision for our country and is treating his run for president as something else to check off his rich bucket list.

No thanks.

DebbieDoRight

February 15th, 2012
3:42 pm

Unless they plan an August surprise in candidates, They are beat
now.

The GOPs Surprise Candidate

Take THAT you dirty libs!!!

jm

February 15th, 2012
3:43 pm

Butch, I don’t disagree that CEO’s have to be experts in the art of exerting power. Every CEO in a competitive industry has to deal with external threats, competitors, and technological obsolescence / innovation. Many fail, many don’t.

I have no idea how a reasonably educated person would try to extrapolate that a CEO is somehow incapable of contending with external threats simply because many also happen to be experts in wielding power. Unless you think people can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

Recon 0311 2533

February 15th, 2012
3:44 pm

“But take away the power dynamic, and they suddenly don’t have the first clue as to what to do. You can’t fire the guy who’s attacking you, because he doesn’t work for you, so he has nothing to lose by doing so.”

Okay that explains why the last budget proposal that Obama submitted that they actually voted on went down 97 nay to 0 yeah. Now Reid won’t bring his latest proposal up for a vote. Three years without a budget now that’s executive competency.

ByteMe

February 15th, 2012
3:44 pm

jewcowboy: there have been a bunch of psychological studies that show that most people when confronted with facts that are counter to their beliefs will not only ignore the facts but also double-down on their incorrect beliefs.

Which means the vast majority of people are ill-suited to make money in the stock market, where “strong beliefs weakly held” are how you make and protect your winnings.

St Simons - we're on Island time

February 15th, 2012
3:45 pm

“…two rules in particular – one, when an incumbent crosses over the 50
mark, its over, and two, if you’re unfavorables are over 30, you can pack
it up and go home…” – Paul Begala & James Carville in a PBS interview
on Polling

just sayin

barking frog

February 15th, 2012
3:45 pm

DDR, don’t know about winning but he could sure supply the
party with wine…

Peadawg

February 15th, 2012
3:46 pm

The problem w/ Romney is nobody knows where he stands since he’s flip-flopped so much before.

Atleast w/ Santorum you know what he believes.

Butch Cassidy

February 15th, 2012
3:46 pm

Fred – “And now live in NEW YORK? That was a huge change I’ll bet lol”

Not too bad. My first job out of school was with Fidelity in their SLC office, moved to Atlanta back in 1998 to work at JP Turner and then finished up in NYC in 2008 at Citi.

jm

February 15th, 2012
3:46 pm

Butch – there is the ivory tower phenomenon kind of thing. I just think that was an incredibly broad generalization.

Let’s forget CEO’s and talk Mitt. Mitt was a private equity guy. Yes, probably somewhat insulated. Not the world’s foremost public speaker. However, he has dealt with many different types of companies and types of people over the years. In his early PE career, they were working with very small companies.

I don’t think anyone will argue that Mitt has the super slick smooth talker skills that some may love. Then again, voters may not be the most focused on that in November.

mm

February 15th, 2012
3:46 pm

“The majority of Americans are rational and proved it November of 010.”

It is now obvious the blowout in 2010 was a direct result of the tea party. They promised to change Washington and stop spending.

Instead, they stopped everything. And they lost their voters in the process. 2012 will be more like 2008.

But you righties can continue to let the corporate owned media blow sunshine up your butts.