Mitt Romney Wins in Michigan
Mitt Romney won yesterday’s Michigan primary. First of all: I’m happy, because I think he’s the best Republican candidate, but secondly: what does this mean?
Mitt Romney won yesterday’s Michigan primary. First of all: I’m happy, because I think he’s the best Republican candidate in the race. He’s a manager, and an incredibly successful one at that. He saved the Olympic Games of Salt Lake City. He founded a business… which became one of the most important business in its field of work. He saved many companies from themselves / disaster. When a company had a problem, Romney went it and fixed what was broken.
That’s what America and the world need right now: the US economy has got a recession coming. The rest of the world will automatically follow or at least feel part of the pain. Aside from that there are some serious foreign policy challenges which require someone who’s able to think in a nuanced manner, who has principles, and who can work with other people(s).
It’s clear to me that Romney fits that description. Not McCain. Not Giuliani. Not Thompson. Not Huckabee. They’re all, to a degree, good candidates, but they won’t all make good presidents. McCain knows foreign policy, but he doesn’t have a whole lot of executive experience and he isn’t knowledgeable with regards to the economy. Giuliani does have such experience, but he’s too extreme, or too hawkish even for my taste, on foreign policy. Thompson? Not enough executive experience and I think that whatever he’d do, he won’t be a “Bain-way” president. And Huckabee: not enough knowledge on the economy, he doesn’t understand foreign policy… and overly religious (which, trust me, won’t play well in the world, especially not the Middle East).
Here’s Romney’s victory speech, in which he basically explains what his strengths are and why he’s different from all the other candidates.
OK, I had already explained my view on the Republican candidates in other posts, so now it’s time to look at what Romney’s victory means.
Firstly it means that McCain’s created momentum has been put to an early halt. Yes, he’s still one of the candidates who can win the nomination, but he’s no longer the frontrunner.
Secondly, Romney’s victory means that there are no frontrunners in the Republican race. Bryan of Hot Air seems to believe that Romney is the new frontrunner but I disagree with that. He has collected the most delegates, yes, and he has been competitive in every state (and he won in Wyoming, which has been ignored by the MSM)… and he’ll probably be competitive in the other states that’ll follow until February 5, but I don’t think that he has performed so much better than his rivals that we can call him the frontrunner. He’s simply leading.
Thirdly, Romney campaigned differently in Michigan than he did in New Hampshire and especially in Iowa. I’m in agreement with John Hinderaker when he writes that Romney’s team made a mistake when they tried to present Romney as an all-around conservative with an emphasis on social conservative issues. He is a social conservative, like John I think that he truly changed his views on this issues, but he should’ve presented himself as a fiscal conservative and manager first and foremost. O, and as a Washington outside. These are his strengths, social conservatism isn’t, especially not considering that Huckabee suddenly surged.
In Michigan, Romney finally focused on strengths, and ignored his weaknesses. When he talks about social conservative issues it’s clear that his heart isn’t in it and it leaves him open to ‘flip-flopper’ accusations. Team Romney has learned their lesson, fiscal conservatism and a positive message for America’s future is what brought Romney victory yesterday, and I’m 100% sure that they’ll continue down this path.
On the other hand that doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t talk about social conservative issues. Hinderaker explains: “I don’t think Romney needs to do an about-face on the social issues. If he emphasizes his expertise in applying free-market solutions to economic problems, with strong national defense in a close second place, and if he couches whatever comments he makes on the social issues in terms of the only sphere where the President actually impacts them–the appointment of judges–he should be able to achieve a subtle shift in the way he presents himself to voters.”
Fourthly, Romney is now the only Republican with a truly positive message for America, at least with regards to its economy. Giuliani could also emphasize this issue, but Romney is a much better manager than Giuliani and everybody knows it. He can talk about the economy all he wants but Romney is the one who can and I think will own this issue.
Fifthly, the race is still wide open. Romney will be able to compete in South Carolina, but he won’t be able to win. He has to focus on the states that come after SC. This means that SC will go to either McCain, Thompson or Huckabee. As it is, McCain’s leading there, but I think that he isn’t conservative enough to win. Frankly, I think that it’ll be very close between him, Thompson and Huckabee, and if you’d ask me, I’d probably put my money on Huckabee… and then some on Thompson as well. If Huckabee wins, he’ll have shown that he’s truly in it for the long haul, if Thompson wins, the race for the Republican nomination will be even more open than it already was.
Sixthly, frankly, I think that Romney’s victory means that increasingly more conservatives will decide to support him. The only reason that McCain won in New Hampshire was because of Independents. The only reason that he was able to compete yesterday was because of Democrats (and Independents). Romney owned the Republican vote, which brought him a 39%-30% victory. If Thompson doesn’t win in South Carolina, even more conservatives are likely to rally behind Romney with the idea that he’s acceptable to all groups that form the conservative coalition.
As it is, I think that Michigan spells trouble for John McCain. As mentioned above, he was only able to win in New Hampshire due to the support of Independents and he was only able to somewhat compete in Michigan because non-Republicans came to his rescue. Can he compete in states that only allow Republicans to vote in the Republican primaries?
No, he isn’t out yet, he still can win, but I think that it’ll be difficult for him to do so.
At this point in time anyway.
Ah, and there’s more, much more I could mention, but the problem is: the post is long enough as it is.
Excellent review, Michael- particularly as to Romney’s ability to pivot away from social con issues toward fiscal issues. His "Washington is Broke" theme has legs, and ties directly into his experience.
One key omission- cash. Everyone’s broke except for Romney (Huckabee’s never had any). Cash and organization are going to be huge factors once the race breaks out of small markets (SC’s the last one) into large ones- first, FL- and then Super Tuesday. Unless someone breaks out of SC and FL with great momentum (most unlikely), funding’s going to be a huge factor. Simply, can any other candidate run statewide ads in CA by Feb. 5th- much less anywhere else?
Very good point, one I should’ve mentioned in the post (Especially considering its length).
Exactly. He’s looking strong.
Michael, I know you like Romney, but he blamed government interference for Michigan’s economy–and railed against the new CAFE standards set by Congress. He also promised to bring manufacturing jobs back to the state.
Michigan’s woes have much less to do with the federal government and much more to do with the decline of the Big 3 automakers and their inability to compete with foreign companies like Toyota and Honda. And CAFE standards have been the same for over 30 years.
For me, its just one more example of Mitt saying whatever folks want to hear. McCain was more forthright—did not promise that the jobs would come back, and lost as a result.
Romney’s victory keeps his campaign alive, but indicates there’s no frontrunner in the GOP, and that the party is still deeply divided between social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and national security conservatives.
Good for Romney, and I think your analysis is correct- what this really means is that the race is still wide open. It’s a fascinating election season, isn’t it? I guess in a way, this should have been predictable because what we’re seeing is the various factions of the conservative coalition jockeying for position. In my lifetime, I don’t think I’ve ever seen it work out that way though, and quite honestly because usually I think the party power brokers have more influence. This time it feels more like the people are responding to certain candidates and refusing to let their voices be ignored.
Kim: it’s a mix of both. One: too much government, two, the changing economy. What these people need is less government, that’s one, and two more opportunities to adjust to the new economy. Both Romney and McCain were, therefore, right.
By the way: McCain was quite hypocritical. "These jobs are gone," he said. True. It’s not as if he did his best to keep those jobs there. In fact he advocated changing the CAFE standards which would, according to the automobile industry, have cost some 100,000 jobs.
CAFE standards:
O what’s this?
O, and then there’s this:
In other words: McCain’s doing his very best to make sure that more jobs will indeed disappear.
Oops:
Ouch:
Hmm
Oef!
Yeah I can see why McCAin says that those jobs will never come back: he’s doing his very best to accomplish just that.
LMAO
Christine: yes, that’s what’s happening. I agree. The question, though, is what candidate can they compromise on in the end?
Actually, I misstated Mitt’s theme- it’s "Washington is broken", not "broke". Although the latter is accurate too.
On the CAFE standards, isn’t it true though that most of Detroit’s woes are due to consumers just choosing to buy imports rather than American made vehicles? That seems to be what is happening- that the market is just speaking to the US automakers but they’ve failed to adjust to that. It’s the consumers who want better mileage and vehicles that they can actually keep for more than a three year lease before they start breaking down. Sadly there’s just no comparison in quality between US made cars and those from, say, Toyota. Detroit can point fingers at Washington DC for imposing standards on them, but in reality it seems to me that they simply failed to adapt to the demands of a competitive marketplace.
If that were the case, why push for tougher standards? They’d be forced to do just that anyways because the market would force them to do so.
No, I don’t think you’re right. Not completely at least.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that it’s because:
For whatever reason (inertia? local economic factors like high taxation?) the Big 3 car companies have resisted response to the consumer demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. Consumers are showing that this is what they want in two ways: buying imports and telling their elected leaders that they feel that there should be higher standards set since the companies aren’t responding to the market forces on that.
LOL. So wait. The market wants them to change it. If they don’t, they sell less cars, make less money and have to fire workers.
Yet you say they don’t "listen."
Thus the government has to act. But instead of that this would give a boost to the industry – they’re doing what consumers want – it’ll make their problems even worse!
Don’t you see that it doesn’t make sense what you’re saying?
If the markets would truly force them to do this, they would.
I didn’t say that that govt action would give a boost to the industry. In fact what I’m saying is that McCain is right- those jobs aren’t coming back. It’s understandable that the workers of Michigan don’t want to hear that, and that they punished him for it- but it’s the reality that they and the auto companies don’t want to face.
And look at the flip side: would it help or give a boost to the industry to NOT raise these standards? No, because the market has already shown that the consumers want the fuel efficient cars. So what would be the point in opposing legislation that people want, to protect the environment and reduce oil dependency, if opposing this doesn’t even help the industry anyway?
No, you did. Because you said that Americans want more efficient cars and are therefore buying Asian ones. The market, you said, wants US manuf. to change their fuel efficiency and if they don’t do that themselves, they’ll be forced to do so by the government… But if that were true, tougher CAFE standards would result in them selling more cars. But it doesn’t work like that. In stead of helping them, it’s hurting and will hurt them.
Shorter: your argument doesn’t make sense.
You’re leaving out one part of the equation: quality of the product. The market forces are bearing down on Detroit for two reasons, fuel efficiency and quality. If they’d responded to that a few years ago, they’d probably have been able to compete and rebound- but instead, they’ve stuck to making crappy cars that also don’t compete with the MPG of the imports.
Public wants both, so they buy imports and they ask Washington to enforce higher standards- not so that the US industry will again get their business, but so that they’ll reduce emissions and foreign oil dependency. The higher CAFE standards mean that there’ll be more fuel efficient American cars, but that doesn’t mean that the public will go back to buying more of them because the quality still won’t be there.
Reminds me of the 70′ and 80’s, when Detroit lost ground after CAFE was imposed not so much because of CAFE, but because they produced lousy cars. They recovered by producing decent vehicles that stepped around the CAFE standards and fed the market demand. The response? Mandate the market.
Sounds familiar.
Christine is correct about the Big 3, and their inability or unwillingness to adjust to market forces. Its true that they had to pay hefty amounts for benefits that their competitors haven’t had to pay, but the fact is that they have consistently underperformed their foreign competitors.Globalization, the market and consumer preferences have put the auto industry in the situation its in, not the government.
If Americans don’t get increased CAFE standards from American companies, they’ll continue to prefer foreign cars, which continue to provide higher quality, better gas mileage and competitive prices.
Always nice (though rare) when we agree, Kim!
Tully: the difference between mandating dietary choice and mandating fuel economy standards though is that there’s a collectivist interest at stake in the latter (actually two interests: preserving air quality and reducing foreign oil dependency.)
My point here is that consumers want better fuel economy and the market forces suppliers to either respond or suffer the consequences; but the public sentiment toward CAFE standards goes beyond what they want for their own personal vehicle and addresses how all vehicles affect the environment and geopolitical concerns.
There’s no similar dynamic with food choices, at least until we end up with a socialistic health care system.
Tully: what’s so hilarious about this is that they would do that, if they were convinced it was in their own interest. You say it’s in their interest… then why would we need the government to decide upon this matter for them?
It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Either they have to adjust, and will do so (or go down), or you’re talking nonsense.
Michael: read my comment #19. There are two separate things: what the consumer wants for his own vehicle (market functions fine to give him that, and the auto companies either give him what he wants or he buys a foreign made vehicle) and what he wants for all vehicles on the road (to conserve environment and have a downward effect on oil dependency.)
If you’re a pure laissez faire market guy, then you still might disagree with that- but personally I feel there are some instances where collectivist interests can’t be met with market forces. You can’t as an individual consumer cause the manufacturer to change the product in a way that you believe is necessary; your choice to purchase or not purchase will not bring about that change.