April 11, 2012 Leave a comment
Was looking for something else and discovered this.
Do wish there was a less than $75 option.
Politics, parenting, science, education, and pretty much anything I find interesting
April 11, 2012 1 Comment
I didn’t see an actual article on it, but one of my students in class yesterday said that they read that the Romney campaign plans to unleash Ann Romney to solve Mitt’s problem with women voters (i.e., some gender gap is expected, the huge gap Romney faces is not good (from his perspective– I’m quite happy with it). I’m not convinced that contraception or “The Republican War on Women” is at work here, but I do wonder if enough middle-of-the road women just have a vague sense that the Republican party is not looking out for their best interests. I wonder if Romney’s advisers are actually stupid enough to think Ann can simply solve this “women problem.” I suspect they are smarter than that. But, if so, what is the campaign gaining by suggesting this strategy that seems laughable on its face. Anyway, I really enjoyed Ruth Marcus’ column on the matter today:
Outsourcing the job to his wife isn’t going to solve Mitt Romney’s problem with women voters.
That, though, does seem to be the candidate’s first instinct. Romney, when asked last week about the gender gap, twice said he wished his wife could take the question.
“My wife has the occasion, as you know, to campaign on her own and also with me,” Romney told newspaper editors, “and she reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy.”
Note to candidate: Women aren’t a foreign country. You don’t need an interpreter to talk to them. Even if you’re not fluent in their language, they might appreciate if you gave it a try.
As if to emphasize their candidate’s unfamiliarity with the territory of gender, the Romney campaign then released a fuzzy-wuzzy video, titled “Family” and starring, of course, Ann Romney, reminiscing over grainy film and vintage snapshots.
“I hate to say it but often I had more than five sons,” Ann recalls. “I had six sons, and he would be as mischievous and as naughty as the other boys. He’d come home and” — here Romney makes the sound of a building blowing up — “everything would just explode again.”
Somehow I doubt that Ann Romney, circa 1982, having finally managed to get her five boys under control, was all that happy about their father coming home only to “get them all riled up again.” Somehow I doubt that beleaguered moms, circa 2012, listen to her story and think, “Oh, Mitt is so much more fun than I thought.” Rather, I suspect, they wonder whether he should have been doing more to lend a hand.
Yep! Not exactly clear how stuff like this is going to win over women voters. Now, a tanking European economy that drags us down with it? That will win over women voters.
April 11, 2012 Leave a comment
Maybe I’ll give the Santorum campaign the better post-exit analysis it deserves, but I’ve been too busy working on a PS conference paper (phew, finally done) to read as much on the topic as I’d like. That said, I do think this Amy Davidson post gets one point exactly right:
Santorum was also—perhaps most—important as a gauge of Romney’s weakness. This was true in a general sense (the latest not-Romney) and a more finely tuned one (how bad was Mitt’s evangelical problem? See: Mississippi and Alabama). Now we’ll see what Mitt can do with Santorum the not-candidate.
Santorum’s exit was a big topic of discussion in my Campaigns & Elections class yesterday and I do think it is a telling symptom of just how much cynicism modern campaigning breeds (perhaps, rightly so) that so many student assumed he was going to use his sick daughter as his official excuse for getting out of the race. Not that he would ever admit the obvious truth that he could not face the embarrassment of a potential loss of his home state of PA.