Can Mitt win doing nothing? Maybe Mitt should ask Tom Dewey.

[yellowcanine]

Romney is testing whether a vague campaign can unseat an incumbent when the economy is rotten

BY STEVE KORNACKI

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/15/is_98_6_degrees_good_enough/singleton/

Go ahead, Mitt. Play the Tom Dewey card.

[liberalnationalist]

1. Slick Willard

is going to lose worse than Dewey...Dewey at least did not lie continually,

this from wikipedia

Given Truman's sinking popularity and the seemingly fatal three-way split in the Democratic Party, Dewey appeared unbeatable. Top Republicans believed that all their candidate had to do to win was to avoid major mistakes; in keeping with this advice, Dewey carefully avoided risks. He spoke in platitudes, avoided controversial issues, and was vague on what he planned to do as President. Speech after speech was filled with non-political, optimistic assertions of the obvious, including the now infamous quote "You know that your future is still ahead of you." An editorial in The (Louisville) Courier-Journal summed it up as such: "No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead."[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1948

on edit:
Slick Willard's campaingn can be boiled down to "I'm a congenital lying liar"

[yellowcanine]

2. "Agriculture is important...." Romney may just prove the Courier-Journal wrong. Because that is

pretty good summary of his stump speech.

[applegrove]

3. It is how the Conservatives in Canada won a majority in 2011. Stephen Harper answer all questions

during debates and the like with "Conservatives will promote a strong, stable government". Over and over and over again. They didn't talk policy. Bet that is what Romney is doing.