Tag: Mitt Romney

Under their point **Indicators:**

> Many point to a Romney win. He does well among “high-propensity-voting” blocs such as, in the Battleground Poll, seniors (54 percent), married voters (56 percent), weekly church attendees (59 percent), white evangelicals (79 percent), and gun owner householders (60 percent). He also leads among key demographic groups such as suburban voters (54 percent), Catholics (53 percent), and middle class voters (52 percent).

I could read a thousand of these predictions for Romney and I still will be nervous about tomorrow.

> I would disagree with Michael in only one particular. I believe, as I have believed since early August, that Romney’s victory will be much more impressive than Michael imagines. What happened in 2010 is going to be confirmed in spades. The electorate will break for him on Tuesday as they broke for Ronald Reagan on the first Tuesday in November in 1980.

Another prediction of a Romney landslide. I continue to hope these are correct.

*via [The RightCoast](http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2012/11/a-landslide-without-coattails-ricochetcom.html)*

Well said.

I hope this guy is right.

> One can point to individual unhappy results from Republican-appointed justices, but it is a mathematical certainty that Obama-appointed justices will flip the Court on these critical issues of the rights of individuals against the government—none more critical than First Amendment protection for political speech. Once that falls, the game is over and libertarians have lost permanently. This alone is a dispositive libertarian case for Romney, even before one gets to the difference between a Romney and Obama on economic freedom and regulation

As [David Bertstein said](http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/volokh/mainfeed/~3/qjbA7wAt960/), food for thought.

Mitt Romney performed better than I thought he was capable of performing. I completely underestimated his debate abilities.

Some quotes about Governor Romney’s performance:

[Alexis Levinson on The Daily Caller](http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/04/obama-surrogates-cant-quite-spin-a-win-after-denver-presidential-debate/):

> But style, more than substance, led to Romney’s clear advantage. The former Massachusetts governor was aggressive, and he made his arguments without any sign of hesitation. He repeatedly asserted himself and even interrupted moderator Jim Lehrer occasionally to ensure that he could respond to the president’s remarks.

[Erick Erickson on Red State](http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/04/bam-slam-pow-crash-boom/):

> The debate was so bad for Barack Obama I expect Eric Holder to send Jim Lehrer to GTMO. Barack Obama suddenly agrees with Republicans on defunding PBS. Without his precious TelePrompTer to feed his Gollumesque addiction to its illuminated, precious words, the President fell flat. Instead of John Kerry for a debate partner, the President should have just gone through airport security a few times or embraced BOHICA as a debate preparation strategy.

> Put it to you this way, within ten minutes of the debate ending, Jessica Yellin of CNN spoke with Stephanie Cutter of the Obama campaign. Ms. Cutter conceded up front that Mitt Romney won on both debate preparation and debate style. It went downhill from there. She began parroting talking points about the debate she herself released to Obama surrogate at sun up yesterday morning. She had nothing new to add.

[Michael Walsh on NRO](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329454/what-mitt-did-michael-walsh):

> No, what really mattered was that Mitt — until last night practically the epitome of the GOP establishment — rudely stripped Obama of his intellectual pretensions and made fools of the Praetorian Guard media that has both coddled and worshiped Obama since his (in retrospect) one and only great speech back in 2004. Last night was like the scene near the end of *The Man Who Would Be King*, when the villagers realize their soldier-of-fortune “god” is only human after his bride scratches him and he bleeds.

[Victor Davis Hanson on NRO](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329463/problem-last-night-was-not-just-obama-victor-davis-hanson):

> The problem for Obama is not that his performance was disastrous, but rather than it was his normal workmanlike coasting. But this time, and for the first time, he was pitted against a skilled debater who had both the better argument and the better intellectual artillery to deliver it. Disengaged cool could not cut it. “My/I/me/mine” first-person overload was of no value. “Make no mistake about it/Let me be perfectly clear” was of no use. “Bush did it” is passé. And the faux-patois of a Reverend Wright-like sermon had no place here. Obama was just Obama without the props.

> …

> The final irony? The real culprit for Obama’s disastrous night is not entirely Barack Obama, but rather the media training-wheels who assured Obama for years that he was riding on his own; when they went off last night, he immediately fell, and for some reason we are supposed to be surprised?

[Rich Lowry on Poltico](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82028.html#ixzz28M6TacSL):

> Romney had an answer for everything the president said, partly because the president relied on tired riffs from the campaign trail that don’t sound nearly as good without an adoring audience looking for any excuse to laugh or applaud. It’s hard to imagine a better point-by-point argument than Romney made last night, when he seemed less a former management consultant than a former litigator.

> It’s not often a president of the United States has someone stand several yards away, look directly at him and contradict everything he says. It can’t be a pleasant experience. But all President Barack Obama could do last night was grimace and take it.

and a sampling from [John Fund](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329411/obamas-media-enablers-turn-him-john-fund) on how President Obama’s friends in the mainstream media turned on him:

> Bill Maher, HBO: “Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter.”

Erick Erickson, writing on *Red State*:

> Here’s a simple truth: the polls and polling trends are by and large accurate, but — and pay attention to the but — the polls are overestimating Democratic turnout. Those polls that presume less than a 2008 Democratic wave, which I think is most reasonable, have the race very close, though pretty much all of them have Romney still behind. The reality is that Mitt Romney is behind, but that does not mean this thing is over. It is close and Romney can very much still win this election. Finally, at long last, it also seems Romney has a message that can resonate.

That seems to be the most straightforward, and honest, explanation of what is currently happening with the presidential polling.

Mitt Romney gave $4 million to charity, almost 30% of his income, but that is not enough for Democrats.

*Business Insider* talking about Mitt Romney’s advantage on money left to spend:

> And now, he’s got a massive upper hand, which very few people are talking about. Once he and his surrogates carpet bomb the swing states with adverts, by shear mathematics Obama will take a small but predictable dive in the polls. In the middle of October, Mitt starts looking like a contender again.

> The past few weeks of Mediocre Mitt are about to end. He’s got more resources than the Obama campaign, and his ability to find cheap media markets and flex his muscle are just coming to the fore. This, plus a few more bad economic months, and he’s in the White House. Mitt is undervalued.

I hope *Business Insider* is right on this one.

> If the media cannot knock Romney out over the tape, it’s a new ballgame and Romney will have the momentum.

I hope so.

> Romney was right to call the Cairo embassy’s obsequiousness “disgraceful,” which is why the White House eventually followed Romney’s lead in disavowing it. Romney was also right to defend his statement against charges that he had “jumped the gun,” saying it is “never too early . . . to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values.” Although the press acted as if Romney’s performance at the press conference was laughably unpresidential, what he said was appropriate and true: “It breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served during their lives for the cause of freedom and justice and honor,” and “the attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place, and that American leadership is still sorely needed.”

National Review nails it.

Michael Tanner:

> I thought that when Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan to be his running mate, it meant that the Romney campaign was preparing to wage a bold campaign based on big issues. Instead, the Romney campaign seems to continuing in the assumption that you can beat something with nothing.

Initially, I disagreed with Mr. Tanner. I thought Governor Romney had started to give more plans about what he intends to do to help the country. I think, however, I have just been searching out that information. I have been doing the research to figure out what Governor Romney’s plans are, instead of getting that information from the campaign itself. Maybe Mr. Tanner is right and it is time for Governor Romney to make the case for why he is the right guy to replace President Obama, not just the case for why President Obama needs to be replaced.