The New Republic's Noam Scheiber has got hold of the Romney campaign's ineffably wrongheaded "final internal polling numbers," which of course led the team into an equally ineffable dreamland of ultimate victory. Scheiber claims to have learned why the Romney camp was "so sanguine about its own polling, even though it often parted company with the publicly available data," but I don't quite see the answer.
GroupThink is an obvious one--cheering crowds lending a deceptive ring of broadbased support; internally organized smugness, in which the thundering righteousness of one's own candidate is self-evident; all those campaign staff meetings in which that heck of a job each staffer is doing is duly noted, but little else--yet GroupThink, as an answer, fails to satisfy. This particular phenomenon is generally isolated from reality, whereas the Romney camp's internal polling numbers were swimming against an unignorable stream of poundingly contrary evidence.
The real answer may be much simpler than anything found in organizational theory: Mitt Romney, the indisputably worst nominee in American presidential history, was backed by a team of indisputably total incompetents.
It's been 3+ weeks, but I'm still enjoying the hell out of reading articles about how much of a bumbling embarrassment Romney's campaign was. Florida and Virginia were in the bag, huh fellas? HAAA HAAA!
And I wish I could relive the awesomeness that was the November 6 vote count. The belief Obama would win was there all along, but the nerves just gradually melted as strong Obama numbers kept streaming in. Then, jubliant relief. Good times.
Posted by: Turgidson | November 30, 2012 at 03:56 PM
here's another article for you, pm.
and, you are far too kind.
they weren't incompetents.
they were grifters.
and Willard was the mark.
...............
WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney’s campaign has directed $134.2 million to political firms with business ties to his senior staff, spotlighting the tightknit nature of his second presidential bid and the staggering sums being spent in this election.
Nine firms that are run by, or recently employed, top Romney aides have received almost a third of the $435.8 million that Romney’s campaign and a related fundraising committee have spent on operating expenses through Oct. 17, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis of federal election finance reports.
President Obama’s reelection campaign and a joint fundraising committee have paid about $5.8 million in consulting fees to companies with business ties to senior strategists, according to the finance reports.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-campaign-payday-20121027,0,6084625.story
...............................
It was one HUGE GRIFT.
From beginning to end.
Willard was one big long con for them.
hilarious.
134 to 6
134 to 6
But, Willard was oh so ready to be President of the United States, because he was a rich, White businessman.
134 – 6
HEE HEE HEE
Posted by: rikyrah | November 30, 2012 at 04:01 PM
I share Turgidson's feelings about this. It adds something inexpressibly joyous to the holiday season. The whole campaign appears, from the outside consultants to have been perceived as one giant pinata, that showered money on everyone who hit it with a jargon stick. From the inside it had that confidence that comes from being so deep inside a bubble that the only two comparable management led fiascoes with which I can compare it are the Bay of Pigs and the second Iraq war. Not, I beg you to believe, that I think the horrors of those two misadventures are in any way comparable. Just the unutterable foolishness of the management teams that thought they had it all figured out.
Posted by: Peter G | November 30, 2012 at 05:53 PM
Once again, PM you have hit the nail on the head.
Posted by: Kath | November 30, 2012 at 11:27 PM