Romney’s Campaign Money and His SC Retreat

Hugh Hewitt interviews Mitt Romney and uncritically passes along Romney’s claim that:

I have the funds necessary to go the entire distance. I’ve got supporters who certainly want me to go the entire distance.

Question: If Romney’s got enough funds “to go the entire distance,” why is the AP reporting that:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has decided to pull his advertising from South Carolina and Florida, in a sign of trouble for a campaign that badly needs a win.

Romney’s decision to pull out of South Carolina is particular surprising. Recall that in September 2007 CNN reported that:

Romney became the first Republican candidate to advertise in South Carolina on September 5 with a “significant” ad buy, according to Romney spokesman Will Holley. That ad, “Energy,” depicts Romney jogging while the narrator touts Romney’s business and management experience.

Months of work and millions (?) of dollars of advertising allowed to go down the tubes. To me, that doesn’t sound like a campaign that has the ability to go the distance.

Posted on Friday, January 11 2008 | Permalink

Perhaps Hewitt would like to spin this

“Make all the promises you have to”

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/mark_i/2008/jan/11/romney_in_seven_words

Romney addressing his phone bank in Boston.

This is the summation of Mitt Romney..."Make all the promises you have to”

Say anything, do anything, whatever...just get me to the Presidency!

Posted by  on  01/11  at  10:36 PM

Ehh.. I actually think Romney pulled advertising in SC for tactical reasons, not b/c he’s short on cash. The marginal cost of keeping the ads running, until he drops out after MI (or after SC and Nevada) would be low.

Posted by Brendan  on  01/12  at  12:16 AM

I think it was clear that SC is Thompson’s Alamo because, while Romney needs a win somewhere, Thompson needs it MUCH worse.  And Romney figures that a Thompson win over Mccain and Huck is almost as valuable to him because it will prevent a runaway lead horse.

It’s a joke that people are claiming Romney is dead if he doesn’t win MI.  1) He has the most delegates; 2) He’s still polling well with conservatives; 3) He has thus far been the runaway favorite of conservatives, while Huck and Mccain win the libs.

Posted by  on  01/12  at  01:44 PM

Moderate Republicans are not liberals Richie Rich.  Independents are not liberals. 

What I know for certain is it is better for the GOP to win over the Democrat party.  Huckabee would lose the general.  Romney would lose the general (his negatives are too high).  McCain has the best shot to win the general.  I suspect Giuliani and Thompson would be competative in the general.

Posted by  on  01/12  at  03:49 PM

JOe,

Based on polling - I don’t buy that. If someone called me, I would say that I won’t vote for McCain or Huck, but by the time general gets around, I’ll have reminded myself the problem with Hillary/Obama, and be ready to hold my nose and vote. There are many things that make a candidate competitive in the general, beyond current polling figures.

Also for McCain the surge is winning right now and on people’s minds. If the surge falls apart OR fails out of their minds, and say the economy goes into the recession, well the political environment will be completely changed, and the polls could be worthless.

Also one on one debates between Hillary or Obama and McCain will be much harder for McCain, who already struggles in debates. And we can expect his media friends, to start hitting him with “friendly fire”.

None of this is to say he can’t win the general, I just don’t by the polling as authoritative (pro or con) on that count.

Posted by Brendan  on  01/12  at  10:36 PM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Thompson's Debate Homers

Previous entry: Fred at the Debate

Introduction


Recent Punditry Entries


Hot Topics on Food & Wine

Hot Topics on Law & Business


Punditry RSS Feed

Flickr

Archives

My Books



Blogroll