Interesting analysis of the comparison of Romney to Kerry

[karynnj]

It is frustrating as it repeats conventional information, but ultimately it disputes it. I wish that the writer had slightly more guts than he does in challenging the link.

urprisingly, Romney seems to be eliciting less enthusiasm here than even Kerry did in 2004 (I went to college in Iowa, and did get-out-the-vote work on a volunteer basis for the Kerry campaign) and Santorum’s retail skills are relatively weak compared to Huckabee’s.

Romney and Santorum have compensated for their shortcomings with different advantages.

Although the short-hand history for the 2004 caucuses is that Kerry won because he seemed “more electable” than Dean among die-hard Democrats eager to defeat George W. Bush, Kerry also had a highly effective ground game in place in Iowa. As a result, he was able to muster enthusiasm from particular pockets of Iowans, like veterans, who related to his Vietnam service in those pre-Swift Boat days, and somewhat surprisingly, college students, who were attracted in part by the fact that Kerry had a strong record on environmental issues.

In contrast, the Romney events I’ve seen don’t seem to be attracting many people who have made affirmative choices about him. Rather, they’ve given up on other candidates and have come to see him as the best and possibly only available means of defeating Barack Obama. If Ron Paul supporters are classic-car freaks who spend countless hours tinkering with their car’s engine, Mitt Romney attracts the equivalent of Ford Taurus buyers, people who just want a box on wheels to get them to their ultimate destination. (In fact, the most enthusiastic Romney supporter I’ve met so far has been a banker with neatly combed hair. While this may be a natural demographic for Romney, it’s just not a huge one here.)

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/01/4859286/what-john-kerry-and-mike-huckabee-dont-teach-us-about-whats-happeni

No one creates enthusiasm by having a great ground game. (Not to mention that Whirley, who was said to be responsible for the Kerry ground game worked for Hillary in 2008 - and she came in third - even though she was considered "inevitable". I saw the clips with Kerry speaking to Iowans - including students on the environment and to the wife of a vet on healthcare, one on one, he won people over - and they stayed with him. They also ignore that Romney, unlike Kerry, has gotten more favorable press than most of his opponents and more party support.

They then speak of money being the big Romney advantage and speak of his attack ads. Kerry actually had less money that Dean did in Iowa. They ignore that Kerry had far better opposition - as Romney has faced some of the weakest candidates ever. Dean, Gephardt, Clark and even Edwards all had far less baggage that the current crop.