The Pink Flamingo has been known to take a post and play with it, sometimes for weeks, watching trends. This is one of those posts.
I wonder if those supporting Romney, as THE ONE to defeat Barack Obama comprehend what happens when a political party nominates a person who is not well liked? People stay home. They don’t vote. If they stay home and don’t vote, the party in question risk losing vote for the House and Senate, as well as harm their party at home.
This is what the GOP has to look forward to this coming November. When you nominate someone over half the party dislikes, you are in deep electoral you know what.
Let’s face it, one of the reasons the Romneys are having a difficult time gaining traction, is they are just plain strange. They come across as plastic pod people who are just a little weird at times. If the situation were not so critical, it would almost be comical. Some of the problems is the way they put things, verbally. The Pink Flamingo is not going to harp much on this, after all, The Great Man had a way with words, so let’s not misunderestimate the problem here.
They’re creepy and they’re kooky,
Mysterious and spooky,
They’re all together ooky,
Addams Romney Family.
There’s something just not normal here.
They aren’t your average American family. It has nothing to do with their financial status. I’ve known people who have maybe two cents to rub together who are plastic jerks. I’ve also known people who have a very small cash flow who are the finest, most generous people on earth – they were “real”. It doesn’t matter if they were city, country, burbs, or their religion or social status.
Some of the nicest people I’ve ever met were oh so terribly wealthy. I’ve also known some nouveau riche who were absolute jerks. In fact, most nouveau riche I’ve encountered have been that way. I put the Romneys in the nouveau riche category. So are the Obamas and so were the the Clintons. There is a difference – a huge difference. But – most nouveau riche I’ve had the misfortune to encounter weren’t plastic. Many are fake, but there’s a difference.
It’s also not their religion that makes them weird. In fact, if I were LDS, I would be getting a little ticked with them, just about now. I have never seen any political candidate on the national stage use, manipulate, hide behind and act so strangely about their faith. They put Obama and his little church problem to shame. If you want The Pink Flamingo’s humble opinion, they are making a mockery out of the Mormon faith. Those propping them up are doing the same thing. If I were to judge all Mormons on the basis of what I see in the Romneys, I would write the whole religion off as a bunch of opportunistic, pandering, and self-righteous jerks.
Fortunately, I’ve known members of the Mormon church most of my life. I hundreds of Mormon Reidhead relatives with whom my side of the family does not associate. (It’s a family “feud” thing that has nothing to do with religion). Heck, I have LDS Reidhead relatives who have worked with me on genealogy. These people are NOTHING like the Romney family. My mother’s favorite ex-sister-in-law is Mormon. She comes from a wonderful salt-of-the-earth family who are nothing like the Romney version of what Mormon is.
There is something else going on here, with people who are misfits. I suspect they could no more make themselves comfortable, nor be accepting of the wonderful retired ladies who run a LDS Family History library, I’ve known to use, than they do We the Little People. They don’t have the capacity of making people feel comfortable or treating people decently. They are not gracious. I have been informed, by knowing sources, that they treat people like dirt.
They are not normal. They are “perfect”, but their perfection is a mockery, contrived, and fake, as if it were to mask some deep dark family secret. The American People – We the Little People – are not stupid. We can be conned. We can be manipulated, and snowed. There is one born every minute, but once those eyes are open, it isn’t pretty.
The other night, when Mitt Romney said American would be a better nation because of his candidacy I wanted to gag. No, American will not be a better nation because of Mitt Romney. We are already have a great nation. It would be a better nation if liberal politicians from Massachusetts would leave the nation alone. Let’s face it, the only decent politician from Massachusetts is Scott Brown.
Evidently, the only way Romney can get any traction is by playing the victim card. That makes perfect sense to The Pink Flamingo. Democrats do that best, and Romney is little more than a regurgitated Democrat. Please – this man is not a victim. But, if it takes a little fine whine, well, we all know Mitt will do what ever it takes!
“…Following the still-rippling kerfuffle over Hilary Rosen’s comments that Ann Romney “hasn’t worked a day in her life,” Romney is portraying himself as the victim of the liberal media and secular culture, and some social conservatives who opposed him in the GOP primary are rallying around him as a result…”
These people are NOT from the same planet the rest of us are.
NOTE TO MITT: You need small donors if you are going to win. Okay, you need big ones, too, but I’d rather have 1oo,ooo small donors with ten bucks rather than one donor with a million. If you can’t figure out the answer to that one, then you truly are enamored with Romney.
Very few people like Mitt. It’s that simple. This is a recipe for electoral disaster.
“..There’s only one problem with this analysis: head-to-head surveys from March or April of an election year aren’t particularly revealing. The past four decades of mano-a-mano primary-season polling may suggest that Romney isn’t necessarily going to lose in November. But they don’t telll us anything about whether or not he’s in a good position to win. If they did, Reagan would have succumbed to Carter; Dukakis would have beaten Bush; Bush would have defeated Clinton; and Kerry would have dethroned George W. In each of these elections, the eventual loser was leading the eventual winner as winter turned to spring.
So to get a better sense of how strong (or weak) Romney will be, forget about the head-to-head numbers for a few months; right now, they say more about Obama’s vulnerability than Mitt’s might. The more suggestive metric—the one that actually has some history of predicting a challenger’s general-election prowess—is his favorable rating.
Unfortunately, this is terrible news for Mitt, because he currently boasts the worst primary-season favorable-unfavorable split of any major-party nominee of the last 36 years (at least). There have been roughly 20 polls released in the last two months; only one gives him a positive favorable rating. The rest of the surveys show Romney’s unfavorables outstripping his favorables, often by as many as 20 percentage points. On five occasions, his unfavorable rating has topped 50 percent; his favorable rating has fallen into the 20s five times as well. As of March 12, when the last of these polls was released, Romney was averaging 49.6 percent unfavorable to 37.6 percent favorable—a gap of 11.7 points…”
He is not selling himself to the evangelical community, according to Erick Erickson.
“...For a good subset of evangelicals, they are not committed to the Republican or the Democrat. According to the most recent Barna Survey, evangelicals prioritize their issues first and second on the debt and taxes, but then abortion and gay marriage are up there in the top five, which deviates greatly from the general populace. They remain skeptical of Mitt Romney and, as they are just passing through on their way to eternity, a number of them may sit out.
Just as troubling and extremely likely, they’ll vote for Romney, but they won’t give money, knock on doors, get their friends engaged, or show any other enthusiasm.
For those of you who view Romney as better than Obama, evangelicals view them both as sinners in a lost world, which they fully expect to go to hell in a hand basket before the second coming.
In other words, Mitt Romney cannot afford to take them for granted. While he will get close to three quarters of those evangelicals who do turn out to vote, he must ensure they do turn out. And that brings me to his tin ear.
For a demographic that makes up one quarter of the general election, these voters do not trust MItt Romney, do not think he appreciates them or can relate to them, and thinks he takes them for granted….”
“…The reality-on-the-ground became a public perception of no separation between the negative campaign and Romney, exacerbated by an investigative report which showed both SuperPAC and campaign residing in the same building with a free-flow of communication and staff between them. (The absence of obvious FEC and Justice Department intervention to enforce law and regulation has been curious. Some have speculated that either money purchased a blind-eye or Democrats intend to prosecute during the General Election.)
Romney’s negatives skyrocketed as his Borg-like strategy mechanically absorbed establishment-political endorsements while gathering-in delegates state-by-state.
Party leaders will plead with various unhappy elements of the traditional GOP coalition to remain united, based on their common opposition to the reelection of Barak Obama, but the very improbability of Romney defeating the incumbent President will liberate said groups to go their own way without fear of blame for Romney’s loss.
If the current flow of events play-out Romney’s coup may net him the stewardship of a Party in decline. Appearances are that significant elements of the GOP coalition no longer believe that their future is with the GOP and they are looking for a new alternative.
If the Party-coalition fractures, following the summer Convention in Tampa (if not sooner), there will be a scramble among many individuals and organizations to establish credibility to lead a new conservative Party. Beneficiaries of their competition for alliances will show-up across US House, Senate, and Gubernatorial races in 2012.
Adding to the General Election troubles for Romney will be two well-funded, well-organized, and well-positioned third-party candidacies; those of Libertarian Gary Johnson and Americans Elect Buddy Roemer, both prior governors with equal or superior records to that of candidate-Romney.
Johnson has already begun his out-reach to fiscal conservatives and Roemer to moderates; it is unclear how effectively either can appeal to social conservatives, many of whom feel marginalized (even disenfranchised) by the process….”
He also has a problem surrounding himself with people who aren’t all that warm and fuzzy.
“…The apology is what it is, but deleting tweets and taking down a website strike me as pretty silly. Moreover, while it’s true that Twitter is often a very tongue-in-cheek in environment, one would think that someone in Grenell’s position would know better than to behave like a college frat boy on a social media network. Doesn’t everyone know that you can’t ever really erase anything from the Internet?
This may or may not be a big deal, but as the old saying goes sometimes the coverup is worse than the crime and now, it strikes me, Grenell is just going to leave people wondering what he didn’t want them to see…”
According to the Huffington Post, Grenell has erased a bunch of stuff from twitter, and deleted his personal blog. I guess he’s just following Romney’s example, of deleted transparency.
It is all about being elite.
“…Not that Republicans seem to care much. They like to say their focus is on “cost” as opposed to “coverage.” I’m sure it’s an effective line politically: It suggests that Republicans are focused on the deserving insured, while Democrats are spending their time (and your money) on the less deserving uninsured.
But that claim highly misleading. Under the Republican proposals, insurance would become cheaper mostly because it would cover less and would be available to fewer people who need it. Conservatives believe their system would encourage competition, but, more likely, it would encourage the kind of competition we have already: A competition among insurers to insure the least risky beneficiaries, rather than a competition to provide more efficient care to people who actually need medical care.
Levey’s article, by the way, makes one other critical and under-appreciated point. Republicans frequently complain that, because of the Affordable Care Act, some people with job-based insurance might lose it, despite President Obama’s promise that people with coverage will be able to keep it. That’s true. But, by transforming the tax treatment of health insurance without accompanying reforms of the insurance market, Romney’s proposal is “potentially more disruptive”and would leave even fewer people with job-based coverage.
In a world that demanded honest argument, Romney and his allies would have to acknowledge that fact. I’m not holding my breath….”
Right now, we are just beginning to see the disaster the Most Popular Nominee Ever is going to create within the GOP.
It is a far cry from 2004.
It even looks worse than 2008.