Mitt Romney has to be thinking: My goodness, what do I have to do to get a bounce in the press?
Romney showed some muscle on Super Tuesday, winning the crucial state of Ohio in addition to Virginia, Massachusetts, Vermont, Idaho, Alaska and Wyoming. Rick Santorum won Tennessee, Oklahoma and North Dakota, and Newt Gingrich won his home state of Georgia. For those of you scoring at home, that's Romney 7, Santorum 3, Gingrich 1 and Ron Paul 0. And one of Romney's seven, Ohio, was far and away more important than any of the others.
The performance followed Romney's victories in Michigan, Arizona and Washington state last week. Those followed victories in Nevada, Maine, Florida and New Hampshire. All those victories, plus how the states and rules stack up going forward, give Romney a commanding lead in the delegate count.
So the media has Romney in the driver's seat, right? Wrong.
The narrative this morning was consistent: Super Tuesday was a split decision, confirmed Romney's weaknesses and did nothing to solidify Romney's hold on the eventual nomination.
The New York Times' Jim Rutenberg concludes: "Far from bringing more clarity to the race as some in the party had hoped, Tuesday's elections gave every candidate cause to keep driving forward." The headline in the Times on Jeff Zeleny's analysis: "With no knockout punch, a bruising battle plods on." "Mitt Romney won the delegates," Zeleny writes, "but not necessarily the argument."
The LA Times said: "Romney's slim victory over Santorum brings little clarity to the race for the party's nomination." USA Today called Super Tuesday "split." Politico's Maggie Haberman says "Win, no bounce, repeat... (Romney's) campaign and its backers had hoped to use a strong night to start making the case that it's time to wind this down, ... but in the end, he underperformed."
Politico's Jonathan Martin said in his analysis: "Mitt Romney's weaknesses show no sign of going away. ... All of his flaws were on full display Tuesday as he failed to wrap up the GOP nomination on an evening when it was within his grasp."
David Gregory on MSNBC: "Make no mistake: Rick Santorum had a SUPER Tuesday night. ... There's a lot for Mitt Romney to be concerned about."
Look: There's no question Santorum, and maybe even Gingrich and Paul, are going to linger a while longer. But that's partly a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the media universally say that this is a dogfight, that goes a long way to allowing it to be one. If the media emphasized instead that Romney has won 14 states (including Florida, Ohio and Michigan) and Santorum just six, the national conventional wisdom would be considerably different.
This has been a topsy-turvy race and we suppose anything could happen. But we'd be stunned if Romney didn't win the nomination. The rest of the world knows that too, but that's not as compelling a story.
-- Taylor Batten
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Mitt Romney = Rodney Dangerfield
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
You and many in the press continue to dumb down the whole process. Very few of the states are winner take all and some that you have listed above as wins were just beauty contests (people just voted but no delegates are assigned). The real issue is delegates and none of the candidates will be able to get enough ahead of the convention.
Observers Editors = Obamas lapdog media
Hopefully, this long distance marathon works to Romneys advantage and gives him time to sharpen his platform and economic plan. This race might be the best thing to happen to Romney and America when hes elected.
No mentions of the Dennis Kucinich primary defeat yesterday in Ohio. Another establishment liberal kicked to the curb. More to follow.
"No mentions of the Dennis Kucinich primary defeat yesterday in Ohio. Another establishment liberal kicked to the curb. More to follow."
Why would that be mentioned. it is a congressional race, not the presidential race. Duh. Kucinich lost his seat to another Democrat. It is a primary. The PRIOR redistricing made him and another congresswoman fall into the same district. So two districts turned into one. She won the district in the primary he lost.
Aside from being off topic, you have no idea what you are talking about.
"Observers Editors = Obamas lapdog media"
Based on the article this makes no sense.
What tyler said is in no way evidence that he or the Observer is Obama's lapdog. All he did is state who he thinks the Republican contender is. That is no way an endorsement of Obama or cow towing to Obama. Obama and his staff have made it clear that Romeny is their most dangerous opponent because he is the most moderate and can appeal to independents.
To the last person ....wake up and smell the coffee.If you can't see the love this rag has for obummer you must be on another planet.
What we need to do is stop all this honoring of "civil liberties" crap, start cracking heads in the street, throw the Constitution out the window, crown some doddering old affable fool like Reagan King, and then get down to the business of running this Country. Those who can survfive will, and those that are of able body that still can't make it, let them wither on the proverbial vine.
People keep saying Romney won't win but he continues to win more than half of the delegates awarded. Half the states have voted and Romney has a third of the delegates needed. Further, if he's ahead, the elected official delegates are going to vote for him for the most part. There's very little drama here other than the media dramatically trying to pump up ratings.
To annonymous at 12:13- you really think that comment was about one article? Its about the slant given every political article. From the headline, to the pictures used, to the spin. They avoid the real issues of the economy, unemployment, gas prices, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and so on. They have focused on Rush Limbaugh, Franklin Graham, gay marriage, and contraception. The entire editorial staff is liberal, not a single conservative to offer any perspective.
"To the last person ....wake up and smell the coffee.If you can't see the love this rag has for obummer you must be on another planet."
To the person that wrote this. please provide areference in THIS article that indicates the editor is acting on the bahlf of Obama' interests. Good luck!
To Anonymous, stop drinking the kool-aid, get educated on the issues and start to think for yourself. There is hope for you but only if you realize that you need help....and you do.
"To annonymous at 12:13- you really think that comment was about one article? Its about the slant given every political article. From the headline, to the pictures used, to the spin. They avoid the real issues of the economy, unemployment, gas prices, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and so on. They have focused on Rush Limbaugh, Franklin Graham, gay marriage, and contraception. The entire editorial staff is liberal, not a single conservative to offer any perspective."
Ok here is a challenge. Where is the "headline, to the pictures used, to the spin" in this article that ilustrates Mr. Batten's or the Observer's bias toward Obama in "EVERY POLITICAL ARTICLE". Good luck!
To Anonymous, stop drinking the kool-aid, do your own research on the issues from reliable sources so you can educate yourself on the issues, stop parroting the GOP talking points (if you can't speak beyond them, which you can't, it only shows ignorance) maybe then you can regain the ability to think for yourself....it could be your only chance to wake up from the nightmare you want to create.
To Anonymous, stop drinking the kool-aid, do your own research on the issues from reliable sources so you can educate yourself on the issues, stop parroting the GOP talking points (if you can't speak beyond them, which you can't, it only shows ignorance) maybe then you can regain the ability to think for yourself....it could be your only chance to wake up from the nightmare you want to create.
Anon 12:13 - the reason the commenter would make that statement about the CO is based on the content. Taylor quoted the NY Times, the LA Times, and MSNBC. The decision-makers at those 3 organization are more than 90% registered Democrats, and consider the far-left lunatic fringe their reader/viewer base. While Politico isn't quite as far-right, it is far from GOP-friendly.
So, in posting an unfavorable post about Mitt Romney, he quoted 4 sources that are obviously and overtly dedicated to the re-election of Barack Obama. While I would not choose to use inflamatory language like "Obama lapdog," I definitely agree that this paper is decidedly biassed toward liberal ideals and causes. The days of news outlets simply reporting the news are long gone, replaced by editorializing news events with the outlet's chosesn ideology.
LOL Digging your hole deeper
"So, in posting an unfavorable post about Mitt Romney, he quoted 4 sources that are obviously and overtly dedicated to the re-election of Barack Obama."
yes he did quote 4 newspapers that (lets assume fr theoretical purposes ) are biased and in total support of Obama. He quoted them as examples of ews sources that are misrepresenting Rommy's obvious dominance. He clearly acknoledges Romney is the leader and is not geting his just deserts... "This has been a topsy-turvy race and we suppose anything could happen. But we'd be stunned if Romney didn't win the nomination. The rest of the world knows that too, but that's not as compelling a story. -- Taylor Batten"
How does that crow taste?
How does that Kool Aid taste?
How does that Kool Aid taste?
How does that Kool Aid taste? I'll tell you, just as soon as you provide one shred of evidence from this article that it is biased in favor of Obama. Good luck! P.S. I see you are already trying to divert
Post a Comment