Romney’s Continued Uphill Challenge

Michael Gerson - with whom I frequently disagree sharply - has a column in the Washington Post that looks at the continued weakness of the Romney/Ryan campaign and the inability so far of Romney's huge spending on anti-Obama ads to shift the dynamics of the election.  The piece seems largely on point albeit anti-Obama.  The reality is that between his mostly details free "plans" for the country and his robotic like personality, Romney just doesn't seem able to get any real traction.  All of which, in my opinion, is a good thing and demonstrates that perhaps American voters are not as stupid as some in the GOP like to believe.  The problem with Romney isn't just the man, but also lies with the GOP's message that best plays with angry white evangelicals and the super wealthy.  Here are some column excerpts:

The presidential race has been stable for months but not in a way favorable to Mitt Romney. On his best days, Romney is even with President Obama. On his worst, Romney is a few points behind.  This dynamic has not been changed through advertising. More money has been spent on TV ads in the general election so far this year than during the entire 2008 presidential election.

The selection of Paul Ryan did not change the structure of the race. What initially seemed like an ideological choice — previewing a shift in campaign strategy and content — now seems like a more personal decision.

Romney’s convention speech did not change the unfavorable stability of the campaign. Romney softened his image through biography; he did not broaden his appeal with unexpected outreach. There were no innovative policy initiatives directed toward Hispanics or suburban women. The speech was humanizing but ideologically uncreative.

With less than two months until the election, Romney is left with dwindling opportunities to reshape the dynamic of the race. This places extraordinary pressure on him in the presidential debates that commence on Oct. 3.

This analysis requires an admission. Obama’s political strategy has generally worked. The president could not run on his economic performance. So he has turned the race into an ideological contest that he has a better chance of winning. His convention speech — equally light on creative policy — emphasized the choice between Democratic community and Republican selfishness. 

Romney has made his contribution to the success of Obama’s strategy. The Democratic convention also included an aggressive outreach to Hispanic voters — enabled by Romney’s alienation of this group during the Republican primaries. The policy of “self-deportation” has pushed a community heavy with social conservatives and entrepreneurs toward the party of Sandra Fluke and Elizabeth Warren. Quite a legacy for Romney to leave.

While Obama’s approach is currently succeeding, it has not yet succeeded. A base strategy requires a party’s base to turn out on Election Day. For Obama, Latinos, single women and younger voters must become likely voters. 

Obama has significant vulnerabilities. But Romney does not appear to have a route to victory that allows him to coast. If he plays not to lose, he seems likely to lose.