Bruce Benidt
Brian Lambert
Ellen Mrja
Joe Loveland
Jon Austin
Mike Keliher
Tony Carideo, CFA
William Souder
Impactful issue?
I share this market segmentation because it may explain why first Newt Gingrich and today Rick Santorum are bringing up the bizarre tale of Mitt Romney reportedly strapping his crated Irish Setter Seamus onto the top of the family vehicle for a lengthy family trip at highway speeds. Reportedly, when Seamus relieved himself mid-trip, due to fear, stress or bursting bowel, Mitt hosed the mutt, and put him back on top.
Grrr, say the dog lovers. Ruff stuff.
Most political consultants will tell you that “Who would I rather have a beer with” really is a relevant political metric. So, is this also a relevant political metric: “Who would I rather have dog sit my little snookems?”
In all seriousness, this will end up costing Governor Romney votes. At best, it makes him look like an oddball, and makes you wonder what other weird ideas lie beneath the hair gelled facade. At worst, it makes him look completely heartless. For a guy struggling mightily to connect with ordinary families, 74% of whom are dog people, this story just can’t be helpful.
Many issue wonks dismiss these kinds of human interest-type controversies as irrelevant. But in an election where the issue positions of the GOP candidates are very similar, and, at this stage, very familiar, these water cooler topics will impact voter opinions on a gut level, both now and in the General Election.
In politics, spouse abuse has long been verboten. It is very difficult for wife beaters to get elected. In this groundbreaking 2012 election, we will soon see whether dog abuse has an impact.
- Loveland
Filed under: Communications, Culture, Messaging, Politics Tagged: | cat people, dog lovers, dog people, Mitt Romney, Seamus, University of Texas at Austin
Ya know, I’m not really a big fan of Mittens, nor would I really look forward to sharing a beer with him (or even a 7-Up, as he is a Mormon, you know). And I am a big dog person, too–got 3 of them (not to mention a cat, but really much more of a dog person). And I would never put my dog on top of the car for a lengthy drive (or even a short drive).
But still, this incident just doesn’t rise to the level of making me think that Mittens is unqualified for the office. There are other things about him that bother me a hell of a lot more–but even without those other issues, this just isn’t something that i think would disqualify him. At least in my opinion.
I agree.
Who’s weirder / odbballer Joe? Mitt or John Edwards? Mitt or Anthony Weiner?
PM, I don’t disagree. I’m arguing impact, not disqualification.
Erik, based on what I know, I’d vote Edwards. Of the three, I’d say Mitt is the least odd, and most able to hold up under the presidential campaign electron microscope. But still, he is coming across as quite odd, and this chapter is particularly bizarre.
Right, and that’s the unwillingness of Democrats to do serious critical analysis of other Democrats that I was talking about.
Well, I think that Mitt might be the weirdest, but I still would trust him more than Edwards. I’d leave Weiner out of it because i simply feel like i know the least about him.
Edwards isn’t all that weird, but i definitely don;t trust him. By that i mean that I can understand (empathize?) with some of the things he has done, but he still displayed massively bad judgement. I find it much harder to empathize(understand?) Mitt, but he has clearly never shown the kind of basic failure in judgement that Edwards did, and i find it hard to imagine that he ever would.
Does that make sense? Am I explaining myself at all well here? Bottom line, I’d much rather spend an evening with Edwards than with Mitt, but I’d trust Mitt more.
But I have to admit, Obama seems like a much more likeable person than either of them, and i also trust him–more than I trust Mitt (not necessarily because of any particular character flaw in Mitt, but because i just do not think that Mitt has had nearly broad enough experiences of this country and the people. He is too narrow)
Re: “Democrats’ unwillingness to do serious critical analysis of other Democrats”
I’m not sure I understand the point with regard to Wiener and Edwards. This Democrat just conceded that the two Democrats you handpicked did indeed reveal themselves to be strange rangers. And both of them have been rejected by Democratic leaders and voters. And yet you say they weren’t subject to critical analysis?
I don’t want this Edwards/Wiener sideshow to wash out the original point of the post. What Romney did to his dog away from the cameras gives me the heebie jeebies, and I don’t think I’m alone. And Romney is the one running for President, not Edwards and Wiener. To me, the treatment of old Seamus speaks to the man’s apparently hollow emotional core.
With him or at him?
From Politico:
And Letterman top 10 lists:
And Colbert…
OK, if you really are that attracted to this issue, then you NEED to view this clip!
I tried to allude to this some weeks ago. You got a dad, Mitt, who was in his 30s, 40s at the time. The family piles in the truckster to go on a trip. Frazzled dad solves his dog transport problem by putting it in the cage on the roof… which is just a stereotypical dorky dad thing to do. And the metaphor is exactly that – Clark Griswold.
The thing is, Clark Griswold and dorky dads are endearing characters. This isn’t going to harm Mitt.
A slight difference: Clark was an intentionally exaggerated figment of a comedy writer’s imagination. Mitt is a real candidate for leader of the free world.
Right. But what is universal is that every dad dorks it up at some point. This anecdote is one man’s dad dork moment, and it’s not particularly malevolent (except, ya know….. that he’s a Republican). Applied fairly, the dad / dork screen would eliminate all Democrat candidates as well.
Bill Clinton flew back to Arkansas during the New Hampshire primary in 1992 to sign Ricky Rector’s death warrant. Rector was profoundly mentally handicapped by then, but the execution spectacle served Clinton to demonstrate that as a Democrat he was sufficiently tough on crime.
Did that prevent you or other Democrats from voting for him Joe?
Southern governor demagogues death penalty didn’t please me, but it didn’t surprise me. This surprised me.
Again, the straw man argument about disqualification. I’m not saying this should disqualify him. Nobody is. I’m saying it is a factor. Policy positions are not the only things that impact elections. This is being discussed in break rooms, probably more than his tax policy.
What’s your basis in asserting that? You work alone, don’t you? I work in a big office.
Which is not to say it’s never literally been discussed in a break room. Rather, I merely disagree this story has any legs at all. I’ve never actually seen it discussed except by people who are Asperger’s about politics. And most people are not.
This anecdote is only capable of moving only a sliver of independents. It’s meaningless.
Yes, I see what you mean. Everyone knows that Leno, Letterman, SNL and the like only cater to the highbrow elites, so that’s why they are giving this so much play.
Look, I’ll grant you, I’m speculating about the interest level in break rooms and among swing voters, as are you. I have no research to back me up, only observations about how I see it playing a prominent role in popular culture. We’ll see.
Beautiful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/seamus-the-dog–an-explanation/2012/03/15/gIQAyd2YES_blog.html
Huffingpost summarizing recent Crategate heat: