Romney to Flip-flop If He Wins Convention

[Politico]

Team Obama is screwed if their whole strategy revolves around painting Romney as a flip-flopper. Why?

A) It was used in 2004 by the Bush campaign against John Kerry, a more notorious flip-flopper than Mitt Romney even. Bush BARELY beat Kerry (e.g., a swing in Ohio the size of Ohio State's football stadium would have given Kerry the presidency). And this was in an environment where gasoline cost less than $2/gallon and unemployment was less than 5%. We were also in the middle of a war that caused many to rally to the cause of the Commander-in-Chief. Obama has none of these advantages.

B) Bush's top strategist is a backer of the Romney campaign. It is not much of a stretch to imagine that the man who invented attacking a presidential candidate over flip-flopping is also well-aware of how to adequately defend against such charges. In other words, good luck beating Rove at his own game.

The truth of the matter is that Mitt will continue to have a moderate TEMPERAMENT coupled with the ideas he presented in his victory speech tonight. That speech last night is what Mitt is going to run on, with continued fine tuning between now and November. It's going to work unless 2012 really is the end of the world. The only reason Obama won in 2008 is because everything fell right for him (i.e., the financial crisis, McCain's horrendous pick of Palin, etc.). 2012 is not the same ballpark as 2008. Hell, it's not even the same game.

[Politico]

Team Obama is screwed if their whole strategy revolves around painting Romney as a flip-flopper. Why?

I suspect that the Obama campaign will focus mostly on Romney being out of touch with the needs and concerns of ordinary people.

They can try that, much like Carter did in 1980, but Obama will be the incumbent who is presiding over gasoline at $4-5/gallon and unemployment in excess of 8% with real unemployment in the double digits. Like Carter in 1980 and Bush in 1992, the last two incumbents to lose re-election, Obama is presiding over days of malaise. "ROMNEY RICH = ROMNEY BAD" is not enough in this environment with Romney NOT being the incumbent.

I hate to say it, but if I were in charge of Obama's team I would believe that my only chance of victory starts with bombing Iran, and causing a successful military engagement there. I do not see how Obama can win unless something dramatic happens in the foreign policy realm that Obama can use to his advantage.

[Politico]

Unlike slackers who are content to live in their parents' basement well into their 20s (30s?), most of America is not satisfied with mediocrity, especially after the promises of "hope" and "change" in 2008. This environment is not conducive to winning re-election. It is why Obama is in trouble unless something positive happens in the foreign policy realm.

[Politico]

You miss my point.

A Presidential campaign is obviously organized differently from a primary campaign.

Unless everyone working for the campaign is presumed to submit their resignation the day after the convention, any Etch-A-Sketch analogy isn't accurate. Team Romney will stay. Only his promises to Republican primary voters will be discarded.

His meaning was clear: the words Mitt Romney used to pursue the nomination were not in any way binding on Mitt Romney the moment he seizes the nomination. Why should "swing" voters in the general believe a single word Romney has to say to them after the words he said to primary voters were rescinded the minute he seized the nomination?

No matter who you are, you have to say certain things to win a nomination. No matter who you are, you have to say certain things differently to win the general election. No matter who you are, you need to do both to become president and actually accomplish things.

The only people who are benefiting from this circus are those in the media who need high ratings (Rush Limbaugh and his ilk included).