Even his friends don’t like him

I'm wearing magic underwear

---

Overestimating Romney
Aside from getting votes, he’s a great candidate.

There are three basic theories to explain why Mitt Romney hasn’t been able to build support above the 30 percent level, despite being the heavily favored frontrunner for most of the past six years: (1) Republicans distrust Romney because of his history of flip-flopping. (2) Republicans view Romney as insufficiently conservative. (3) Republicans aren’t comfortable with the idea of a Mormon as president.

[...]

If none of the conventional wisdom is fully satisfying as an explanation for why Romney is now stuck in the mid-20s, then, perhaps a more elemental explanation will do: Voters just don’t like him very much. And they never have.

Romney has the least-impressive electoral history of any Republican frontrunner in a very long time. Most of the politicians who chase the White House are proven vote-getters with very few electoral blemishes on their record. John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis—what unites all of these men is that before getting to the presidential level, they had demonstrated a talent for getting people to vote for them. (Barack Obama is the exception who proves the rule.)

Over the years, Mitt Romney has faced voters in 22 contests. He won 5 of those races and lost 17 of them. (This total includes a win in the 1994 Massachusetts Republican Senate primary as well as results from the 19 primaries he participated in during 2008. It excludes caucuses because their rules make them complicated enough to be considered distinct from straight-up lever-pulling.)

Romney’s electoral record becomes even more underwhelming when you examine the particulars. He first attracted national notice in 1994 when he mounted what was considered a strong challenge to incumbent senator Ted Kennedy. But when it came time to vote, Romney lost by 17 points in what turned out to be the best year for Republicans in more than half a century. In 2002, Romney won the gubernatorial race in Massachusetts. This victory—the triumph of a Republican in deep-blue Massachusetts—is now the cornerstone of his 2012 “electability” rationale.

---

It’s easy to forget that four years ago Romney was considered to be the front-runner by many experts. Hew was sold as the inevitable nominee this go-round, especially with Sarah Palin declining to run.

Romney held the lead for most of the year in most polls. But the first straw poll went to Michele Bachmann, with Romney coming in 7th behind Rick Perry’s write-in campaign. Bachmann’s lead lasted about as long as an Obama promise as people flocked to the Perry bandwagon.

Perry rose, then fell. Cain surged into the lead, then tripped. Now Newt Gingrich is in the lead. Meanwhile Romney’s numbers haven’t budged past where they were six months ago. If all the not-Romney voters settle on a single candidate, he’s toast.

It’s the Curse of Seamus.

---

---

Why Newt could win

---

Dave Weigel at Slate:

They like the idea of Gingrich facing Obama, and they think he provides a stark contrast. He says so. His last full-on grapple with Romney came when the former governor attacked him, in a sort of more-in-sorrow-than-anger way, for saying that the Palestinians were an “invented people.” That, said Romney, was complicating things for Israelis.

“The Israelis are getting rocketed every day,” snorted Gingrich. “We’re not making life more difficult. The Obama administration is making life more difficult.” Plus, he sounded like he was right on the facts. “Palestinian did not become a common term until after 1977.” That’s the sort of knowledge-bomb that Republicans dream of dropping on Obama—they feel like this is right, but here’s a candidate who can say so.*

And then Gingrich closed the loop.

“I’m a Reaganite,” he said. “I’m proud to be a Reaganite. Even at the point of causing some confusion with the timid.”

Who was “the timid?” Whoever viewers thought it should be. Obama. Romney. The media. All of them, as far as they’re concerned, would lose in a showdown with Newt Gingrich. And this is how he won the debate.

---

There are basically three modes of thought on the Israel/Palestine issue in this country. Some people are strongly pro-Israel. This group includes both Jews and fundamentalist Christians.

There are some people who are strongly pro-Palestine (or anti-Zionist). This group is the smallest and tends to be left-wing. Then there is the group I belong to – the people that either don’t care about the issue or give it a fairly low priority on their personal care-o-meter.

So a couple days before the debate Newt drops a bomb and refers to the Palestinians as an “invented people.” (If you want to debate whether that is true or not go ahead but that’s not the point of this post.) This was not an accident or coincidence. This statement guarantees he will get questioned about it during the debate. He is prepped and ready when it happens.

Your reaction to his statements depends on which group you belong to. You will either agree, disagree or not really care.

If you don’t care then it’s “no harm, no foul” as far as Newt is concerned. He didn’t gain anything with you but he didn’t lose anything either.

On the other hand, if you are pro-Palestine you probably object rather strongly to what he said. But then you’re probably a lefty and weren’t going to be voting for Newt anyway.

There was only one group where Newt could hope to win votes using this issue, and his statements were directed at them. And he knew what he said would be controversial, thus guaranteeing lots of replay and discussion. He set himself up for a fat pitch over the plate and then hit it out of the park.

Well planned and well executed.

---

STANDARD DISCLAIMER:

This is not an endorsement of Newt Gingrich. This is an assessment of his political skills. If you held a gun to my head and told me to choose between Newt and Obama, I would tell you to pull the trigger.