President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 02, 2012 05:20 PM UTC

How Can Romney Walk Back The "47% Victims" Debacle?

  • 19 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

With Wednesday’s debate on economic policy at the University of Denver coming up, the Washington Post’s Philip Rucker asks an important question of GOP candidate Mitt Romney:

…[Romney] said that 47 percent of Americans will support Obama’s reelection and are government freeloaders who pay no income taxes, see themselves as “victims” and can’t be persuaded to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

In the two weeks since a surreptitious video of the remarks surfaced, they have pierced the national consciousness in a way that few blunders do. In the closing stretch of the presidential campaign, the moment has become a defining element of Romney’s candidacy.

And on Wednesday, the 47 percent issue is likely to come to the fore in an even more pronounced way, during the first presidential debate. Romney’s advisers – who acknowledge that the moment has hurt the Republican nominee among independent voters in battleground states – said he has rehearsed debate answers in which he argues that he is for “the 100 percent” and that his policy prescriptions would help the growing number of Americans under Obama’s presidency who are struggling to find work or living on food stamps…

Romney’s comments about the 47 percent are weighing him down with voters, according to recent polls. Almost six in 10 voters nationally say that as president, he would do more to favor the wealthy than the middle class, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday. Specifically regarding the remarks, respondents to a Post-ABC poll from last week were displeased with Romney’s viewpoint: Fifty-four percent had an unfavorable impression of his comments, compared with 32 percent who had a favorable view.

Discussing Wednesday’s debate this past weekend, focused on the same issues Romney was discussing with wealthy donors at a secretly-recorded May fundraiser, we said that we really don’t know how Romney can plausibly defend those remarks–which he will be obliged to directly address for the first time. Setting aside partisanship, the simple fact is that Romney was crystal clear in his remarks about 47% of Americans considering themselves “victims,” and this is a candidate whose biggest problem before the release of this video was trustability.

What can you do when you’re caught behaving the way everyone is primed to expect? Dr. Evil was evil. Goldfinger loved gold. At this point, voters expect Romney to yuck it up with fellow rich guys about the accommodations in steerage class. He merely satisfied expectations.

Romney can claim he’s “for 100 percent of Americans” now all he wants. He has created the environment wherein nothing he says about this, other than owning up to it, is believable.

When we say we don’t know where you go with that politically, we objectively mean it. If you have any suggestions for Romney that don’t include the neuralizer from Men in Black, we’re all ears.

Tweet
Share

Comments

19 thoughts on “How Can Romney Walk Back The “47% Victims” Debacle?”

  1. I’m thinking of the one where it’s just him talking to the camera. The line “President Obama and I care about the poor” (going from memory, not sure that’s the exact quote) really jumped out at me because that made it clear that the 47% speech was hurting. But he goes on to talk about welfare in a way that made me think he was still trying to keep the base behind him.

    I don’t know how struggling independents will receive it, but I felt like he was trying to have it both ways. I don’t think it’s a convincing ad, and I don’t think he’s going to get out of the corner in which he’s painted himself easily.

  2. that the 47% who zero out on federal income tax are not, at all, an Obama voting block. Whether or not he can now claim to have warm fuzzy feelings for the 100%, his whole 47% rant was utterly nonsensical. Romney still does best in the states with lowest median income where plenty of his voters don’t earn enough after deductions and credits to pay income tax.  They often think they do because they don’t know that payroll taxes are something else. I’d like to see that better explained by Dems at every opportunity.

  3. The Republican ideology states:

    Poor people don’t pay enough taxes (“broaden the base.”)

    Access to birth control should be more difficult.

    Lower taxes for rich people lead to more jobs for poor people.

    The 2008 economic collapse was caused by too many entitlements.

    He can’t refudiate these without alienating what loyalty remains in the Republican base.  He spoke what all the 35% of hard-right voters believe.  How many more Mitt-flops could he get away with?

    1. of republicans that poor people don’t pay income taxes.

      This weekend on Meet the Press, Gov. Christie was answering questions and summarizing the Romney position as saying that more people should have “skin in the game.”

      David Gregory did not ask the obvious follow-up, which would have been, “Does that mean that Romney believes there should be a tax increase on the working poor?”  If not, what is the point of all this bitching about 47% not paying federal income taxes?

  4. The Democrats want to say it is over.  Yet, they are within the margin of error in virtually every poll.  The gaffes and the convention have not translated into much of a lead

    2. what the Electoral College is and how it works? In swing states, the Obama lead is substantial. Coincidentally, Obama has been advertising a lot in swing states.

      The Presidential election is over, and all the smart money is going into paying idiot Scott Tipton employees to post the dumbest fucking things on the blog.

  5. better, how soon they forget.   Peek again at the first comment in today’s Open Thread — Willard is nothing if not the Supreme Jedi Master of backwalking.  The question in the case of Willard should never ever be “how?” or “will he?”, but rather always “when?” and “how soon”?

    Now, I admit will be a remarkable feat to walk back this latest boner so quickly, but you misunderestimate the power of the dark force in this one at your own peril . . .  

  6. Margin of error is a whole lot bigger than the percentage by which most modern Presidents win. A three point advantage in a poll is within the margin of error.  A 3 point win of the popular vote is considered a very decisive victory.  Obama is ahead by more than the margin of error in enough states to have 269 electoral votes according to RCP.  He’s at the outer edges of that margin in more than enough toss up states.

    Also, a persistent lead in averaged polls over time, even within the margin of error, usually means it’s not in error.  I’ve gotten my hopes up for many Dems who have come within one or two points in the closing weeks but never sustained a lead, only to be very disappointed on election day.  It’s the persistence of small leads that’s almost always more telling.

    And before anyone goes ballistic about how stupid it is to be over confident, I don’t see Dems sitting back and relaxing because it’s in the bag.  Dems are desperate to win this thing, to keep the Senate and we smell blood in the water in CDs around the country.  I see enthusiasm revived by trends going our way, sustaining the giving and working to the end, not discouraging it.  

        1. of low information voters, I am finding a surprising number of folks who simply aren’t buying into Romneys’ campaign of lies. It is the obvious untruthfulness of the Rmoney campaign that is helping these folks to reconcile their doubts about President Obama and allowing them to decide to vote for him.

          I met a young man today who was very articulate in his expression of dismay at the pathetic choice he has been presented by the Pubs. He seemed mostly to be disturbed by the blind hatred and racism displayed by the Tea Party (down here..read “Dixiecrats”) types, and the profound hypocrisy that pervades the rightie POV.

          With young people like him around, I have hope for our country.

          1. no links but the gist is that Obama is up 18% with women in general and in many important states he’s improved by significant points among white women, a demo he lost in 2008. In a few of the important states he has not only gained but achieved small majorities in that demo.

            Apparently Ann Romney yelling about loving women isn’t enough.  American women want to see policies that are good for them and for American families and they don’t mean prayer in school or preventing gays from marrying.  Many women in the low income states rely on Planned Parenthood for basic health care. Many are among the 47% who work their tails off but zero out on income tax, just like some of Mitten’s closest friends but for different reasons and many don’t want to lose the health care benefits, such as keeping their young adult children on family plans, that will go away if Obamacares goes away. And many just don’t want a disconnected rich guy who has no clue about their world for President.

      1. from those straw dogs, can you.  My comment was about the reasonable basis for cautious optimism and how that shouldn’t and isn’t leading to complacency and over-confidence. You might want to take a break from rightie rant radio where the only kind of arguments they know how to make depend on straw dogs. You appear to have forgotten that legitimate debates don’t use them. Also that their claim to hegemony has been a bit over-stated.

  7. He said that Hispanics would vote for Democrats, and that is “bad for America.”

    How can that be, that a whole class of American citizens might vote in their best interest, and that is bad for America? I guess it depends on how you define ‘America’.

    For an America defined as rich white guys, well I suppose it to be true. It is this type of reasoning that justifies in their mind the voter suppression efforts.

    1. and they’re running the country according to the electoral wishes of, say, 55% of the 99%, whatever they do will still be “bad for America” because “America”, according to the Repuglicon yahoos around Romney, is white (and “Christian”, perfumed and well-born). That’s their very definition of “America”.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

174 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!