Romney’s ROI continues to plummet in Iowa—sign that the hapless candidate is hemmoraging grass roots support as he must depend more heavily on hirelings, paid staff, and other costly services—can Romney buy the Iowa Caucus?

January 2, 2008 in 2008, analysis, campaign communications, campaign communiques, campaign finance, campaign management, conservatism, election 2008, GOP, Iowa, media, mitt romney, polls, republicans, rhetoric, romney, strategy, stupidity, the dark soul of Mitt Romney, triumph of unreason
Tags: agony-in-iowa, Eric Kleefield, negative attacks, negative campaigning, negativity, ROI, spending, talking points memo, tmpelectioncentral.com, wild spending

“In a sign that Mitt Romney is really going all out to win this thing, and also that genuine grassroots support could be slowing down, he revealed yesterday that he did indeed put more of his own money into the campaign during the fourth quarter — but he won’t reveal how much,” writes Eric Kleefield in a Talking Points Memo blog burst titled Romney: I’ve Put In More Money — But I Won’t Tell You How Much

The emphasis is ours, all ours.

Could this be why?

the high price Romney pays for his aggressively negative campaigning—blogosphere blogbuzz suggests movement away from both Gov. Huckabee AND the hapless candidate from MA, Romney

Another artifact of Romney’s negative campaigning. Others feel compelled to defend the victims of Romney’s abuse. Kleefield also reports that the Union Leader has bashed Romney on its front page!

Mitt Romney is facing some more media fire in New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Union Leader’s publisher, Joseph W. McQuaid, has written a front-page editorial bashing the candidate over his attacks against John McCain …

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

Advertisement

how Romney’s spending has distorted perceptions in Iowa and New Hampshire

December 2, 2007 in 2008, analysis, argument, campaign finance, campaign management, election 2008, GOP, incompetence, media, mitt romney, policy, republicans, romney, strategy, stupidity, the dark soul of Mitt Romney, triumph of unreason
Tags: corruption, Jonathan Martin, perceptions, political primitives, Politico.com, Romneyism, self-financing, spending, team romney

“The facts are well-known, but worth repeating,” writes Jonathan Martin of the Politico in a post titled Huckmania running wild in Hawkeye Country

Mitt Romney has been on TV almost non-stop for nine months in Iowa. He’s been to the state dozens of times over the last three years. His 99-county organization is viewed as the most formidable of any Republican in the state.

And now he’s lost the lead he’s enjoyed for the past six months to somebody who just in the past few weeks has gone up on TV, has been to the state less (almost not at all in the past month) and whose campaign team, by their own admission, does not have what Romney does on the ground.

The cross-tabs are not available on the Register website now, but apparently voters sampled see Romney as more presidential and Giuliani as more electable. So why are they moving to Huckabee? Beyond his social conservative credentials, he also wins points for being the most civil and principled in the field. In short, they just like him.

Romney’s challenge now is to change that dynamic by providing them new information (i.e. oppo) that will lessen this ardor. But it won’t be easy. As I’ve said before, Romney risks a serious backlash by going negative. He’s started to do contrast in the mail and in campaign appearances, but it’s a bigger and riskier step to do so on TV … etc., etc.

Remarks:

(1) We predicted this:

• Sargent: “[Grrrr-Romney] was spending $100,000 a week through October, and he’s now upped the ante to $200,000 a week [in NH]”—in which post we discuss how Romney grossly overshot the mark—overshot the culminating point of his gains—in the early primary states.
• how Romney’s early state strategy is creating conditions that resemble a general election—in which post we discuss how Romney mis-timed his media blitz and thereby conceded every advantage to his underfunded, and un- or under-organized rivals.

(2) Another string on which we harp here is Romney’s fantastically low ROI for his every campaign dollar, i.e. the ultra-low efficiency of Romney’s organization.

Examples:

• Romney has spent upwards of US$10 million in Iowa and all he got was this lousy t-shirt—Romney suddenly aware of his painfully exposed position in the early-state primaries—yet more evidence of Romney’s appallingly low ROI for his every campaign dollar
• Romney spending US$85,000.00.00 per day in Iowa, yet Huckabee has suddenly risen to within 7 points of Romney while spending nothing—zero—goose-egg—yet more evidence of Romney’s appallingly low ROI on his every campaign dollar—yet another blow to the Romney von Schlieffen plan
• Is it “mittmentum,” or is it the US$85,000 a day—$US600,000.00 last week alone—for a total so far of US$10.2 million that Romney is spending on television advertising that has resulted in Romney’s unstable, unreliable early primary-state leads—yet more evidence of Romney’s frighteningly low ROI for his every campaign dollar

We have also harped on the string of Romney’s self-financing:

• Romney with a straight face: “it’s the height of irony that the father of McCain-Feingold now has his supporters raising vast sums of money, more than regular citizens can donate, to support his campaign”—also: will someone at Team Romney please explain to the candidate what “irony” means?
• Tapper: Romney Surpasses Steve Forbes’ Self-Funding Pace

(3) Follow us for a moment: the point we want to make is a subtle one.

Say that someone buys a home in your neighborhood and what they pay is significantly below market value. What does this do to the price of your home? It drives it down. Say that some agent or agency dumps a commodity on the market at below market prices, even selling at a loss. What happens? Chaos. Dislocation. A crash in the value of the commodity, the ruin of competitors etc. Moral: free money or huge subsidies can cause distortions that correct themselves in chaos and collapse—generally, you want to pay for a good or a service what that good or service is worth (and no more), and you want others to pay for a good or a service what that service is worth. Otherwise, price become meaningless as an index of value.

Now, consider the Romney campaign, awash in free cash from Romney’s own pockets.

Political fund-raising is costly, especially for Republicans at this precise historical moment. But Team Romney is largely insulated from these costs—as well as from the learning these costs exact upon their payers. Campaigns organized on a more rational basis—i.e. campaigns whose spending is constrained by the success of their operations, campaigns more closely coupled to a broader base of funding sources and support—must adjust and adapt to develop their coalitions. Not so Team Romney, which behaves with the arrogance and sense of entitlement of a spoiled rich kid.

Further: the millions that Team Romney has squandered in Iowa and New Hampshire has so distorted perceptions that no one—not pundits, not pollsters, not analysts—can resolve a clear signal—no one really knows what is happening on the ground. The market realized as a price system—to continue our metaphor—will not support accurate comparisons. For example, when Gov. Huckabee gains on Romney in Iowa it is considered huge news for no other reason than what Romney has spent in Iowa, when the real and un-remarkable story is that Romney is a weak candidate with no clear message.

In other words, were Romney a real candidate and not an artifact of Republican decline combined with our absurd campaign finance laws—i.e. if what Romney could spend were a reliable indicator of his political fitness—then there would be no story, as there would probably be no Romney.

Our point: confusion is what results from what we call Romneyism. Romneyism is what happens when a corrupt political establishment sells off a national party for a pittance.

All of the operational questions that confront Team Romney reduce to one: How much of the patrimony of Romney’s beloved sons is Romney willing to squander? Does Boy Romney have the will and the nerve to sustain his current burn-rate?—or: does he lack to the good sense to cut his losses and pull out now? Here is the problem for the political primitives of Team Romney: the distortions caused by all that free-floating low-cost Romney-money will reach their limit in the form of a massive market correction, i.e. a big crash. We wish we could predict with confidence that it will be Team Romney that gets corrected, but we cannot. What is more likely is that Romney will take the party down with him.

“The system that you have is the system that you deserve,” our systems-administrator is fond of saying. The same could be said about leadership.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

Sargent: “[Grrrr-Romney] was spending $100,000 a week through October, and he’s now upped the ante to $200,000 a week [in NH]”

November 25, 2007 in 2008, analysis, argument, campaign communications, campaign finance, campaign management, election 2008, GOP, incompetence, Iowa, media, mitt romney, polls, republicans, romney, strategy, stupidity, the dark soul of Mitt Romney, triumph of unreason
Tags: advertising, baffling stupidity, electioncentral.com, Greg Sargent, Iowa, madness, New Hampshire, primaries, spending, talking points memo, TPM

“If Mitt Romney is rising in the polls in New Hampshire, this might explain why: He appears to be spending huge sums on TV in the state, and has been doing so for some time,” writes Greg Sargent for Election Central | Talking Points Memo in a post titled Romney Spending Huge Sums On TV Ads In New Hampshire

Mitt was spending $100,000 a week through October, and he’s now upped the ante to $200,000 a week, according to a report from GraniteProf that the Romney camp has not disputed. He notes that this level of spending translates into some 200 ads per week.

It’s yet more confirmation of the extent to which the Romney camp is putting all its chips on big wins in New Hampshire (where he’s widening his lead) and in Iowa (where the race is rapidly tightening) in advance of Rudy’s predicted success on super-primary day, Feb. 5. (Via Jonathan Martin.) … etc.

Just so. Let us ponder the depth and scope of Romney’s error for a moment. From Von Clausewitz’ On War:

… It is even possible that the attacker, reinforced by the psychological forces peculiar to attack, will in spite of his exhaustion find it less difficult to go on than to stop—like a horse pulling a load uphill. We believe that this demonstrates without inconsistency how an attacker can overshoot the point at which, if he stopped and assumed the defensive, there would still be a chance of success—that is, of equilibrium. An attacker may otherwise take on more than he can manage and, as it were, get into debt …

… this is why the great majority of generals will prefer to stop well short of their objective rather than risk approaching it too closely, and why those with high courage and an enterprising spirit will often overshoot it and so fail to attain their purpose. Only the man who can achieve great results with limited means has really hit the mark … etc., etc.

Romney has vastly overshot the mark in both Iowa and New Hampshire. So much so that he has prejudiced in advance the conclusions that will be drawn from his victories, and doomed himself completely should he fall short of overwhelming victory. Hence: Boy Romney is pinned. Against Gov. Huckabee, against Mayor Giuliani, against Sen. McCain, all of whom have suddenly begun advertising whether in New Hampshire or in Iowa or both, Romney must hemorrhage disproportionately more money, more credibility, and more of his dignity, because he himself has created conditions such that a loss in either state may be fatal to his campaign. We predicted this—we predicted precisely this:

how hizzoner brings the fight to Romney—Romney caught in a punic pincer

Question: has there ever been a dumber candidate? Has any candidate in the history of US political campaigns ever botched a race so badly—in advance?

yours &c.
dr. g.d.