Mitt Romney receiving negative returns on investment
Posted on July 17th, 2007 at 3:41 pm by Ethan BoivieAfter starting out as the top Republican fundraiser (before Rudy Giuliani was fully in the race), Mitt Romney’s star has continued to fall, and donors to his campaign may feel their contributions would have been better invested in junk bonds.
Romney has been spending huge amounts of money on his presidential campaign, and at a clip faster than he has been able to raise it. The spending has been so prolific that he has had to lend his campaign nearly $9 million. Not that he can’t afford it, or that spending money is a bad thing, but one would hope, or even expect, that such spending would improve the fortunes of a candidate. Not so in Romney’s case. To the contrary, it seems the more he has spent, and the more people his message reaches, the further down the polls he slips. Granted, he did have some good showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, but on a national level he is performing horribly: trailing soon-to-announce-he-is-running Fred Thompson and soon-to-announce-he-is-no-longer-running John McCain.
Romney’s negative returns are intriguing. One possible explanation is that as people learn more about Romney, they learn about the various conflicting positions he has taken with himself, and voters are sure to disagree with at least one of his positions on a particular issue. So perhaps the best strategy for Romney would be to spend less money and keep quiet, and then maybe he’ll bounce back in the polls.
21 Comments
Leave a comment
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
What a bunch of bunk! EVERY other political Website, media outlet, and news source has stated quite the contrary - that it’s because Mitt Romney is spending a lot of money that has made him #1 in Iowa, and #1 in New Hampshire, and why it has kept him at or near the top of the campaign/race in all the polls!
Out of 161 GOP Insiders polled last week, the majority of them have Giuliani and Romney in a dead heat!
Let’s see…advertising costs money, right? And advertising and marketing, as any business owner knows - takes up the biggest part of any budget behind payroll and benefits. Also, advertising and marketing for a good campaign costs a lot of money - more so than your mediocre campaign if you realy want to get noticed!
So, Mitt is spending money on advertising, marketing, payroll, benefits, etc., and has one of the largest staffs of any campaign - is it any wonder (do the math) that he then is going through a lot of dough to get a lot of attention? Works for me!
BTW - what polls show him going no where or downward when most polls show him rising?
If I were running for president, the first thing I have to do is get my message out as to why I feel I’m the best person to lead this country - and the only way to do that is to raise a ton of cash (especially if I know going into it that I’m a relatively unknown to most people), and then to spend a lot of cash! Only makes sense! And for Romney, it’s working!
No, Mitt Romney actually has some really high negatives. Giuliani’s and Thompson’s net favorable ratings blow Romney’s away.
The anti-Mitt people are divided into two kinds of people: People who believe his story and people who don’t.
People who believe his conversion stories don’t like him because he has recast himself as an ultra right-wing conservative.
People who don’t believe his conversation stories don’t like him because they don’t think he’s really an ultra right-wing conservative.
This is why Romney will not capture the nomination. If he manages to pull it off, he’ll be slaughtered in the general election, in a 35-40 state sweep for the Democrats.
ThatLibertarianGuy - what drugs have you been on lately, or what planet are you from?
ThatLibertarianGuy, do you really truly believe that if Romney is the nominee someone like Hillary Clinton would win 35-40 states? If you honestly believe that, I’d love to see the list of only 10-15 states Romney would win. (So by comparison I can see the states you think Hillary would win.) Do share.
Sounds like a few of you Love Romney…and a few others dislike him. But, favoritism does not an analysis make. So let’s give it a try:
It is currently mid-july. Romney is at about 11 percent. He is fourth behind McCain at about 15., Fred Thompson (who hasn’t even announced yet) is at about 20%, and Rudy at about 21-22%. (This is a general, blended average of a number of polls.)
McCain looks to be in sorry shape. you just can’t run a national campaign without a staff and without any money. As such he looks to continue droping in the polls. Romney should move into number three soon. (If not, then he really has a problem.)
So, lets say that by mid August the race looks something like this: Rudy and Fred Thompson neck and neck a 2-3 point alternating spread) for number one. (Assuming Thompson really runs.) Romney is a solid number three, 8-11 points behind Rudy and Thompson.
The question is, can he close that gap? I give him about a 50-60% chance of doing so, based on the following conditions. To do so he first needs for Newt Gingrich not to run in September. Newt will take GOP base votes away from all three of these guys. Second, he needs for Fred Thompson to be the “flash in the pan” that he just might become–a big burst of support after he announces, followed by a fissle. Lastly, he needs to continue to hammer home that he is a far better choice for conservatives than Rudy. Pro-life, ect.
In conjunction with all of the above–and obviously a few more things–Romney needs to continue to raise money and spend it. He is a media candidate and needs to use multi-media to that advantage.
Lastly, if Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich don’t run, Romney’s chances go up in my estimation. I then give him almost even chances of besting Rudy. At this point it becomes one-on-one and allows Romney to differentiate himself against Rudy to conservatives especially…but also to moderates in the party.
Why is it that when someone tries to discredit any candidate - no matter that their political party - they always refer to “national polling”, when it’s a widely known fact, and discussed amongst ALL political commentators, that national polls really don’t count for much because they’re based more on name recognition than substance!?
People polled nationally are not paying as close attention to the issues, candidates, and parties at this time - however, those polled in the early primary states tell a different story…they are the ones paying very close attention to the candidates and the issues…even scrutinizing the candidates more so than people in other states.
As time goes by, national polls will change, as evidenced by every national poll during every election year, as people get to know the candidates more.
Candidates like Mitt Romney are never going to do well at first in national polls, again history shows, until after the first primary states have their say.
People in New Hampshire and Iowa would tell a very different story as to who they like - and all the polls in those states are consistantly pointing towards a Romney win!
If Romney does indeed keep the momentum and win both New Hampshire and Iowa, then he becomes the candidate to beat, and the national polls will start also reflecting that as well.
So, keep polling perspective in its truest light - it’s the polling from primary states that matter most, not national polls.
Romney has spent a ton of money in Iowa and New Hampshire, where his opponents have hardly shown up. Yet he has only a single digit lead in both places. He lags behind in virtually every state after those first two other, other than in Utah.
He has consistantly polled between 10 and 12 percent nationally.
Jacosta, you have yet to point out to anyone that you live in Utah and that you are either are a member of the Mormon Church or are a strong supporter of it. I’m not trying to make this religious, but you come off as a gigantic fake. Stop saying “a couple of months ago I supported X candidate” because its pretty obvious you support Romney no matter what is said.
Rollman76 - you’re wanting to turn this personal and religious? The truth is, yes, several months ago I didn’t support any one candidate, but was leaning towards a couple. And, yes, I didn’t give Mitt Romney one credible look.
Wanna make up something else? You say that you don’t wanna make this religious - when indeed you are. You’re the fake!
One thing that has been utterly and completely consistent is that no matter where I go on the web, on every political blog, Romney’s fervent supporters are all Mormons.
My Man Mitt is run by a Mormon. Race 4 2008’s contributors for Romney are Mormons — except for one.
Romney would win the South: AL, GA, MS, NC, SC, TN …. And the Midwest: ND, SD, KS, NE, MT, OK , UT (of course) — all of those for sure. He’d win IN. TX. KY.
I’ve got 15 now. He could *possibly* pull out wins in AZ and MO. MAYBE VA. And that’s a BIG maybe.
At the VERY BEST, I see Romney winning twenty states — at the *very best*.
Arkansas would be Hillary’s.
Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa — Hillary’s.
Rust Belt — Hillary.
Every New England state — Hillary.
Hillary wins West Virginia.
Thompson would do better.
Giuliani would do even better.
I was too hasty in saying Romney might only win ten states. That was incorrect.
But he’d lose a ton of them, and get slaughtered, for sure. I don’t think I’m “on something,” Jacosta, but thanks for that nuanced reply.
Hmm…let’s see…..I did a search this evening and discovered at least 41 Websites supporting Romney - and the vast majority of those have no connections with Mormons.
However, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that a majority of Mormons would support Mitt. When John F. Kennedy ran for president, the majority of Catholics voted for him. Obama’s congregation has been very vocal in their support for him.
Although, I do find it amusing that the governor and attorney general of Utah - both Mormon - are campaigning for McCain; that the most powerful liberal Democrat in Congress, Senator Harry Reid, is Mormon; and that there are Mormons on the staffs of Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, and Fred Thompson. Isn’t all this an “oxyMormon”? LOL
Well LibertarianGuy, at least you saw SOME light
There is just no chance Hillary pulls a Reagan-like national landslide. And you may be right that Hillary beats Romney, but if she does she’ll absolutely shatter the record for being elected with such high unfavorables. And what isn’t being discussed yet, but will be once she’s the nominee, is whether the country wants to keep two families running the country for 25 years. It will be tough for Hillary to campaign for change when her opponent, whomever it is, is running commercials of Hillary promoting Hillarycare from the White House in the mid-nineties.
And, for what it’s worth, I found this on Google this morning when doing some research on the Mormon question you raised. It’s from today:
Mormons in Congress not flocking to Romney’s side
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C695192894%2C00.html
I think you’re being hasty” again when you say “on every political blog, Romney’s fervent supporters are all Mormons.”
You’re implying this is a Mormon candidacy. It’s clearly not. Of course they’d like to see their guy win, that’s natural. Jews wanted Joe to win in 2000, Obama’s United Church of Christ wants him to win, blah blah blah. So what? But it seems “hasty” for you to suggest every blog is Mormon run. And you’re tempting Jacosta to generate a big list of every blog and prove you’re wrong
After some thinking I want to extend an apology to Jacosta for my post. It was wrong of me to say what I did, I hope you can accept.
Rudy is the last best hope the GOP has for 08.
Rollman76 -
I do accept your apology. In looking over my reply, I, too, need to apologize for my heated comments back to you.
There’s no hiding the fact that, yes, I have become a strong supporter of Romney, though at first I wasn’t. Perhaps I’m a bit too strong of a supporter and need to chillax a bit…
All’s good now…
I love the uncertainty about Romney and all the debate and controversy around him just for the nomination. Dominick08 has a great analysis, and I’d have to say TheLibertarianGuy’s list of states isn’t too far off either (I would add MA and MAYBE another New England state, but just barely).
I’m a moderate/conservative Utah Mormon (if it really makes any difference to anyone) and my personal stance on the election is “Anyone but Hillary”. And being out here has led to one observation that I at least find interesting even though it probably won’t have a large effect on the actual election. There have been a lot of religious and political leaders from across the country coming out here to Mormon country to specifically find out more about Mr. Romney’s religious beliefs since the actual religion is still rather ambiguous to the general masses. How many other candidates have people traveling across the country to at least attempt to form an objective opinion of them?
Anywhoo, as long as good ol’ Hillary gets beat out by anybody I’ll be happy. I do like Romney because he has a brain and isn’t a career politician rather than just the religious ties (he did a great job with the 2002 Olympics, including the scandal and all that fun stuff), but I would be just as comfortable with a few of the other candidates as well.
P.S. It’s SOOOOOO refreshing seeing a message board where people have the capacity to actually be mature and decent to each other compared to so many other message boards and blogs!!!
It isn’t suprising that a “majority” of members of the Mormon religion are supporting Mitt Romney. After all, how many times in the last few decades have they had the opportunity to support one of their own; a candidate who shares their same beliefs and fate?
It is a bit different for Catholics. JFK broke the Catholic barrier and since then it just hasn’t been a big deal for Catholics to find a candidate of their own faith. For example, you really don’t see a big Catholic lobby for Rudy. Sam Brownback is also Catholic but you hear little about it. Catholics tend to be rather “catholic” in their politics. Many are very liberal and pro-choice, others moderate (either pro-choice or pro-life) and others conservative and pro-life.
Members of the Mormon faith feel rather misunderstood both among other christians and the general public. Having a Mormon candidate like Romney in the race makes many feel far more mainstream than they have before. The fact is most are very mainstream in their lives. It is the perception they aren’t which lingers.
The fact is though that christians of all faiths are very skeptical about the Morman religion. I’m not saying it is right, just stating a fact. Mormon practices like storing food and water underground and constantly keeping it rotated because they want to be prepared for the coming end of life on earth, and the remaining vestigages of polygamy will be difficult for Mitt Romney to overcome. Not saying he can’t, but it will be very difficult–especially with christian evangelicals and the rest of the GOP conservative base–for him to do so.
In fact, I think it is within the GOP primary race where Romney’s religion will effect him negatively, rather than if he does eventually get the GOP nomination. In other words I think the general voting public is more open to religious diversity than the primarily protestant, christian GOP conservative base.
Hi all, I believe some on the board have valid concerns that we’ve crossed a fine line on our discussion of religion. I have taken the liberty of deleting several posts that are unnecessarily inflammatory and tinged with bigotry. We certainly want healthy debate, but enough is enough. Let’s be respectful here.
To those who are bothered by this, and there will certainly be one or two, I’d invite you to move on.
Thank you, Jason.
Yes, thank you. I repeat my regret and apology, won’t happen again!
Aww man, it looks like I missed the action
Jason - I hope you will allow this to stand.
I am an early and enthusiastic supporter of Mitt Romney - and I am a Methodist, just like Dubya.
NOT all of Mitt’s supporters are Mormon; that’s just another slander.