Photograph: Rick Wilking/Reuters
Mitt Romney, after winning first actual vote of the primary season, has knocked out or badly wounded all of his viable rivals (if any of them can truly be said to have earned that adjective). He now looks almost certain to be the Republican nominee, if only by default.
This has been the most likely outcome for quite a while, but despite this, the New York Times reports that Obama still hasn't figured out how to take on Romney in the general:
The bigger conundrum for the Obama campaign is how to balance its two lines of criticism of Mr. Romney, particularly if he wins the nomination.
Do they go the out-of-touch, protector-of-Wall-Street route or the flip-flopper route?
The third option, as adumbrated and advocated by Kevin Drum, is to paint Romney as a "rightwing nutcase" in hoc to a party gripped by extremism.
To me, it seems obvious that the best route is 'flip-flopper', and I'd be surprised if the Obama campaign doesn't use it as its central line of attack. Let me explain why.
As I've remarked before, the most important component of any successful political attack strategy is truth; attacks work when they identify and build on something about an opponent that voters already sense to be true. The "right-wing nutcase" strategy doesn't pass that test. Romney has been very careful not to let himself be pulled too far right, in substance, during the primaries. More importantly, he just doesn't come across as a zealous or ideological character. Indeed, his problem is at the opposite end of the scale.
The wealthy/out-of-touch framing is closer to the truth, and I am sure it will form one line of attack. But if it's too prominent, it risks making Romney seem like a Big Guy; the entrepreneurial, ruthless alpha male of the race.
The flip-flop charge, however, is both true, and likely to be very effective. The fact is, Romney has very publicly changed his mind on several big issues over the years, and has left some great footage behind in his wake. 'Flip-flop' doesn't quite cover it. It's not simply that he changes his mind (as the NYT says, that might be interpreted by the voters as sensible pragmatism); it's that each time he takes up a new position he communicates it with the same moist-eyed sincerity as he did the last one. In the end, this isn't about intellectual inconsistency, it's about character - and that, rather than policy, is what a presidential contest is all about.
When combined with his awkward, robo-pol manner, self-basting hair and lack of the common touch, Romney's history of shape-shifting makes him seem hopelessly inauthentic: an archetypal politician in an age when everyone hates politicians. I think the Obama campaign will hammer away at this theme relentlessly - and I think it will work.
To follow this blog - and me - on Twitter, click here.
I wish it was possible for people to do well in politics without being obliged to have/try to have the 'common touch'. Some of the best presidents haven't had it, even if they could put on a good show of it. A person who stands up and says "I'm good enough to be leader of the free world' surely isn't remotely 'regular' in any way. Romney apparently hates parties, hates standing around making small talk and is no good at it. Makes me instantly like the guy more.
Posted by: Ejoch | January 08, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Shorter answer to the question posed in your headline:
"Successfully."
Posted by: Tom | January 09, 2012 at 01:58 AM
After yesterday, by saying "I prefer to hire people".
(It may not be a fair shot, but Romney already set the standard by constant lying, and by using Obama's quote of McCain as if it was Obama's own thoughts, and then justifying that by explaining that everything in a campaign is propaganda.)
Posted by: N.Wells | January 10, 2012 at 01:30 PM
There has been some commentary that the election theme will be all about jobs.
Romney'll run on his CEO creds, that he's run big organizations, been a governor, and turned around failing companies. Obama's counter would be he helped save America from going into a great depression thru' stimulus packages and that Romney didn't create jobs at Bain, he fired people. The Romney counter would be what's better; staying in business with a halved workforce or going out of business making everyone unemployed. I think both sides have a believable position they can take, it could be close. The job's figures this year will be critical.
Romney's 1950's family TV show style will resonate with swathes of America, and not just the middle, there are millions of middle management MBA American's just like him with that hair, that dress sense, the tasseled loafers, the suit trousers with turn ups, and those social mores....
As for flip flopping, Obama hasn't delivered on all his election promises and his 'lets find the middle ground consensus building approach' is seen by his base as capitulating. He's definitely changed his positions during the term, he's had to. So could be open to charges of saying one thing and doing another...As for the out of touch man of the people thing...Obama was a Harvard law professor!...
Dunno, think its going to be closer than we think, easy to write Rom off if don't identify with him, but, many do...
Posted by: RN | January 11, 2012 at 03:12 AM