E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNBC's Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro discuss the difference between John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney’s 2012 bid for the White House.
Thanks to Jody, Iowa for the question!
Edited by NBC's Morgan Parmet.
TRANSCRIPT:
MARK MURRAY: Welcome to the latest edition of Inside the Boiler Room. I'm Mark Murray, joined by my partner in crime, Domenico Montanaro. Domenico, we've got a question from Jody, Iowa, long time commenter on the sight. Jody asks, "In 2008, Mike Huckabee won Iowa and won much of the South. In 2008, there was chatter about John McCain not being able to lock up the nomination. What do you think is the most significant difference between John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012?”
DOMENICO MONTANARO: Well, there are a couple of significant differences. One, just on how the mechanics of the nomination process works. Last time around, we had a lot of winner take all states. This time, because of how they changed the rules, they're more proportional. So a candidate could stay in longer. So a lot of these candidates instead of dropping out because they know what momentum means, which was that they could get a lot of winner take all states and it would essential be over pretty soon. They figured, I'll stick around. Why not? I'll pick up some delegates.
But the other thing that's a real important difference between these two guys is narrative.
Mitt Romney doesn't have the thing that he could fall back on like John McCain did as a war hero. Every event that you went to with John McCain there was this war hero video that he would play. People respected and knew that background of him as somebody who had been tortured, who had a lot of credibility. So people didn't go personal on him because they knew of that backstory. So even for folks in the South who might not trust John McCain. For people who become Tea Party folks who didn't really love John McCain. They still held their fire a little bit because they knew of his backstory.
MARK MURRAY: Well, Domenico, this stage in 2008 in March, John McCain had almost something of a 45 positive/25 negative fave/unfave. Mitt Romney's numbers are actually under water on that score. You raise a really good point on the narrative.
I'd add just one more thing that John McCain was also a Maverick. He was willing to buck his party and that actually appealed with independents a lot and so he had those two things going for him.
Mitt Romney's narrative right now is I'm a business guy who can turn around the economy. That seems to be falling on flat ears with the Republican electorate so far even though he is ahead.
One other thing, John McCain also won South Carolina, which Mitt Romney was unable to do. So when Mike Huckabee was able to beat John McCain in numerous southern contests, particularly on Super Tuesday in 2008. John McCain was able to say look I still won the state that had at that point always decided presidential nominating contest.
DOMENICO MONTANARO: Well and I think your point on the appeal to independents is something that is different from last time around because John McCain, having that Maverick narrative, he did have that positive score which would help him in a general election. Of he wound up losing anyway, but Mitt Romney seems to have been hurt in this process among independents. I'm sure how much the Maverick thing helped him with Republican primary voters. He had basically an apology tour for bucking his party on one major issue which was immigration.
MARK MURRAY: Right.
DOMENICO MONTANARO: And until he was able to overcome that hurdle, it was very difficult to see him getting the nomination, but he did unlike Mitt Romney in healthcare.
Leave a Comment:
Stoned6
Actually it was slick Willie Clinton that forced the banking community to make those loans. The decision was taken out of the equation by Clinton. The banks, however had an out. They would immediately sell the bad paper to debt clearance houses and still make a profit while eliminating all their risk.
So who gets to take on the risk?? Investors, you and me. Who were told these "derivatives" were rated triple A. LOL The people selling them knew they were crap.
Got a photo of him with a gun to the Bankers head forcing him to make the loans do you?
Sort of like deep-throat when she said the dog she was sucking off made her do it. You can almost see the dogs paw on the trigger.
There must be something about being a politician that scrapes away at your integrity and allows you to say and do things that you have to know you really don't believe. Romney shows it all the time when he panders and back peddles and changes his message to fit the audience he's trying to win over. McCain used to be a honorable man but somehow in his quest to be president he lost his way with his choice of Palin and I guess his pride has turned out to be larger than his courage because he still won't admit that monumental gaff.
100% correct. As the GOP campaign in 2008 became more desperate it decended into a circus clown act. Seems that seems to be playing out again in 2012. As Obama firmly takes the high road and mounts what appears to be a growing lead the GOP seems to be desperate to find a gimmick of some kind to reverse the momentum. The problem is those gimmicks (like Palin was in 2008) are starting to become more transparent and blow up in their face with increasing frequency. The GOP jumps from issue to issue hoping to find where Obama is vulnerable while Obama is able to just stay the course as the economy gradually improves. And that improving of the economy is much of the reason oil has rebounded back into what maybe considered a bubblish territory.
McCain flip flopped plenty but Romney almost comes off as a bit of a menbo (a male bimbo) in the way his gaffs and flip flops play out. Even after countless embarassements he still starts of arguments with "I've made a LOT of money."... It seems for him that he really sees his massive wealth as something that makes him "special". the problem however is that Romney seems to only have that going for him. On top of it the way he makes money is much like the Robber Barrons and the vultures of the industrial revolution. His loyalty has not been to create jobs for Americans. It has not been to raise the wages of Americans. Instead his loyalty has been to making more and more money.
Saying "i don't care about the poor" is like saying "i don't care about the hole in my boat". Who does Romney think pays for all the people that are living in poverty? Certainly not the guy that offshores his massive wealth offshore to avoid taxes!! It is the middle class worker that is having to subsidize the poor that Romney doesn't care about.
Romney believes the most important quality in a president is that he can tell when the trees are the right height.
there is no difference= they are republicans and as such a serious threat to all women and their children. repulicans have decended in a hell hole and will never be able to recover- women will vote in massive numbers to defeat as many republicans as possible now and in the future- our lives and the safety of our children depend on it.