THE STUMP MARCH 21, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
A week ago, after Rick Santorum swept the GOP contests in Mississippi and Alabama, Mitt Romney faced a choice: He could shake up his campaign following the unexpected setback, or double down on the strategy he’d been deploying for weeks, which meant touting his large delegate-lead, portraying himself as inevitable, and exploiting his enormous financial advantage.
Romney chose the latter, and the decision paid off in Illinois last night. He scored a convincing victory by massively outspending Santorum and stringing together his usual coalition of college grads, affluent suburbanites and city-dwellers, and Republicans preoccupied with the economy and ousting Barack Obama.
In retrospect, the decision was a no-brainer for Romney. Throughout his career, the former governor has evinced two qualities above all else: He is both risk-averse and hyper-rational. In the aftermath of his two Southern losses, both those qualities nudged him in the same direction. The risk-aversion militated against a major course-correction, and the rationality told him the old strategy was highly likely to work in Illinois given his demographic advantages in the state (whose Republican electorate was less conservative, less evangelical, better educated, and wealthier than Mississippi and Alabama).
What we don’t yet know about Romney is what happens when these two forces pull him in opposite directions. Suppose, for example, that today’s big prize hadn’t been Illinois but Texas—a state hospitable to Santorum and rich with delegates—or even a mid-sized state like Indiana, which, with its larger blue-collar population (22 percent with a bachelor’s degree versus 30 percent in Illinois), would have been much tougher for Romney to lock down. Would he have preferred to play it safe and run the real risk of a game-changing loss? Or would he have gone the arguably more rational route and overhauled his game plan?
This matters, of course, because when it comes time to take on Barack Obama, it’s very likely that the cautious approach will be a loser for Romney. With unemployment falling and Obama’s poll numbers generally rising, Romney’s businessman-economic critique of the president—the one he wielded in with only minor alteration in his Illinois victory speech—seems destined to fail. And, I suspect, few people are likely to be as aware of this as time goes by as Romney himself. (As the candidate told Laura Ingraham in January, making the argument that the economy is getting better but people should oppose Obama anyway may not be compelling, but it “happens to be the truth.”)
Will Romney have the guts to take a massive gamble—to make a move that offers him a higher probability of success than his current strategy but also a greater chance of spectacular failure? I have in mind here something like a long-ball vice presidential pick (maybe a sitting Democratic governor?) or a balanced-budget plan that increases taxes on the wealthy. He’s ambitious and clear-eyed enough to see the benefit of such a move against a heavily-favored incumbent—and, at least in the latter case, he may even believe in it—but also so lacking in nerve that it’s hard to imagine him pulling the trigger.
Unfortunately, whatever we've learned about Romney during the GOP primaries, it hasn’t been the answer to that question. As in Illinois, the cautious approach has generally been the right approach for a candidate with his mix of assets and liabilities. In fact, given the way things went tonight, with Romney building what looks to be an insurmountable delegate lead, I suspect we’re not going to know where he comes down on this question until the moment of truth this summer.
Follow me on twitter: @noamscheiber
14 comments
I don't know if I can make any sense out of Santorum's strategy in Illinois. I am solid Democrat in Chicago and I got a robo-call (supposedly) from the Santorum campaign that was insane in tone and message, and which directed me to the following link - http://jewsandchristianstogether.org/ The Robo-call contained gems such as "Romney supports open homosexuality in the military, the appointment of homosexual judges, and the ENDA law, making it illegal to fire a man who wears a dress and high heels to work, even if he’s your kid’s teacher. When you vote tomorrow, please vote for social sanity and Rick Santorum, NOT for homosexuality and Mitt Romney. Rick Santorum is the ONLY candidate who can be trusted to uphold traditional marriage, a straight military, and the rights of American children to have both a mother and a father." It has the disclaimer that "This message paid for by Jews and Christians Together.ORG and not authorized by any candidate.", but I'm not really sure if it is a hit on Santorum from Romney or a misplaced robo-call from a Santorum Super PAC. I got this message when I came home for lunch while canvassing for a Democratic committeeman and state rep candidate, and who in their right mind would send this robo-call to ANYONE in the 773 or 312 area codes?
- Attrill
March 21, 2012 at 1:10am
As a follow up in my efforts to figure out if this is really from Santorum or not, I got the following whois info: Registrant Organization:c/o JEWSANDCHRISTIANSTOGETHER.ORG Registrant Street1:P.O. Box 821650 Registrant City:Vancouver Registrant State/Province:WA Registrant Postal Code:98682 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.3604495933 Registrant Email:gezxgw@privacypost.com Admin Email:eezbey@privacypost.com Tech Email:krpqvw@privacypost.com Name Server:NS1.IWSDNS.COM Name Server:NS2.IWSDNS.COM Name Server:NS3.IWSDNS.COM The phone call also has a caller ID of AICRSCH2012 1 (202) 599 8630 and ends with a request to call the number 760 348 8595 I'm going to dig around some more tomorrow to find out what's up with the IP and phone numbers. The Republicans' strategies are so crazy nowadays I can't figure out what is a real call and what isn't.
- Attrill
March 21, 2012 at 1:35am
"Will Romney have the guts to take a massive gamble—to make a move that offers him a higher probability of success than his current strategy but also a greater chance of spectacular failure?" Hmmm. Do you mean a "hail Mary pass" that will "excite the base"? A, um, "game changer," perhaps? I think we saw how well that worked last time. Romey's chances may be fading, but his best bet is still to play for the breaks and hope for something between now and November--an unforeseen event or economic nose dive--that evens the playing field. Anything that smacks of desperation will just undermine his biggest asset, that he's the steady, non-crazy guy. It probably won't work, but neither will a surprise VP or dramatic budget deal (Paul Ryan has already stolen that idea).
- timteeter
March 21, 2012 at 8:18am
Romney will propose tax reform along the lines of Bowles-Simpson (broadening the base, cutting the rates). What's great about tax reform is that it means whatever one wants it to mean: cuts both the tax rates and deficits, increases "fairness", promotes innovation and economic growth, increases compliance, honors Reagan (it was his signature achievement), etc. And it will work for Romney because I don't expect Obama will propose tax reform ("no tax increases for those making less than $250,000" is a campaign slogan, not tax reform). David Corn's new book contains a revisionist assessment of Obama: he is a masterful politician, having defeated Ryan, Boehner, and Cantor in the budget wars and putting himself in the postion of likely re-election. We will see.
- rayward
March 21, 2012 at 8:21am
Romney's campaign will be based on lying, "reflexively" as Andrew Sullivan describes it. The heart of his campaign so far has been negative advertising against his GOP opponents, coupled with lying about President Obama and the President's record (viz., "apologizing for America," "deliberately raising gas prices," etc.). This is something we *do* know about Romney, that's been pretty consistent. His character flaws date back to his time at Bain, documented in an interesting and under-reported Washington Post article in January (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-romney-ran-bain-capital-his-word-was-not-his-bond/2012/01/12/gIQACvQxwP_story.html). Romney's own substantive proposals are non-existent or nonsense, for example, his endorsement of the Ryan budget plan. I expect one of the most discreditable GOP presidential campaigns on record from Romney, concentrated on lying mischaracterizations of the President, with a backstory based on puffery about his own alleged business expertise.
- Tarquin10
March 21, 2012 at 8:54am
Yes, Romney will base his whole general-election campaign on lying. It's working now on candidates whom the Republican base doesn't hate nearly as much as it hates Obama. And the base dislikes Romney to start with. No need for the Mittster to gamble. Just put a billion dollars worth of attack ads out there, lie by lie. A million weaselly pin pricks work as well as an honest, leap-in-the-dark debate. But not always. 2008 proved that.
- magboy47.
March 21, 2012 at 9:17am
The problem from Mitt Romney's perspective is that when his father changed his mind, he did so under the fatal excuse that he was brainwashed. Romney constantly switches positions to get the most votes, but when Romney switches positions within a day or so, he often says he was "confused." The most candid thing Romney has said was that could not have illegals working for him because he "was running for President for Pete's sake." He is against hiring illegals, but only if he is running for office.
- Nusholtz
March 21, 2012 at 9:59am
as to long ball, he might go with Susanna Martinez. The problem with Palin is that she was not even close to being vetted and no one could have imagined she could be so goddawful stupid. Martinez is a Lawyer, so she must at least have some brains. As to her relative inexperience, when people start comparing her to Palin she need only open her mouth and speak coherently to alleviate those concerns.
- blackton
March 21, 2012 at 11:51am
Attrill, your anecdote just goes to show that Jews and Christians Apart tend to be pretty rational and moderate people, but Jews and Christians Together are completely nuts.
- wildboy
March 21, 2012 at 11:54am
Picking a Democratic running mate or calling for higher taxes would see Romney burned in effigy, as well as the object of death threats. I think we certainly know enough of Mitt Romney to know that those are risks he's not willing to take.
- janus
March 21, 2012 at 3:29pm
Yeah but just think for a second how hilarious it would be to watch the conservatives go bananas if he DID do something like that, after all that pandering to the crazy right.
- Tristan
March 21, 2012 at 4:02pm
I think timteeter is correct. Romney can cruise to the nomination, but if present trends continue he will lose--badly--to President Obama. But of course present trends may not continue. I am curious to see how he will try to tack back to the center after trying so hard to prove himself severely conservative. Romney will have a tougher time of it than usually is the case.
- Vekert
March 21, 2012 at 9:37pm
I should have read about the etch a sketch before I made my comment above.
- Vekert
March 21, 2012 at 10:25pm
I think you're absolutely right Wildbo. I came home pretty lit from a victory party last night, and I guess I discovered that when I get wild and crazy I end up posting a non sequitur on TNR boards. One thing I think everyone is overlooking about the Illinois primary is how low the turnout was - it set new records for low voter turnout. No one running on the Republican side got anyone fired up. Once the primaries are over it will be interesting to see how many Republicans bothered to vote in the primaries nationally.
- Attrill
March 21, 2012 at 11:31pm