Why Romney Will Win
Think Obama is invincible? Think again. This is, after all, a president who argues that today’s tax and regulatory policies will materially affect sea level and global average temperature a century hence but not next year’s economic output.
President Obama expected to run for reelection in a reprise of Ronald Reagan’s 1984 campaign. Like Reagan, Obama took office at the start of a deep recession. Like Reagan, Obama took bold legislative action and donned the mantle of “Great Communicator,” hitting the hustings to deliver speech after speech linking his policies to economic recovery. And, according to leftist orthodoxy, a strong recovery was inevitable: the deeper the recession the stronger the subsequent rebound.
Think of it as the astronomical model of economics. Like planetary motion, economic growth waxes and wanes in predictable fashion. From this perspective, Presidents Reagan and Clinton each exploited a natural oscillation, cruising to reelection on the back of a business cycle on the upswing. The same phenomenon that, on its downstroke, crushed an unlucky George H.W. Bush in 1992. Policy? Pshaw. Reagan cut taxes while Clinton raised 'em, but both were charismatic speakers and therefore effective in earning political credit for fortunate timing.
That was the plan, anyway. But it isn't exactly Morning in America right now, is it? Fortunately, Mitt Romney seems intent on reminding the electorate of this fact early and often.
We know that this election is about the kind of America we will live in and the kind of America we will leave to future generations. When it comes to the character of America, President Obama and I have very different visions.
Government is at the center of his vision. It dispenses the benefits, borrows what it cannot take, and consumes a greater and greater share of the economy. With Obamacare fully installed, government will come to control half the economy, and we will have effectively ceased to be a free enterprise society.
This President is putting us on a path where our lives will be ruled by bureaucrats and boards, commissions and czars. He’s asking us to accept that Washington knows best – and can provide all.
We’ve already seen where this path leads. It erodes freedom. It deadens the entrepreneurial spirit. And it hurts the very people it’s supposed to help. Those who promise to spread the wealth around only ever succeed in spreading poverty. Other nations have chosen that path. It leads to chronic high unemployment, crushing debt, and stagnant wages.
President Obama is off his game plan and scrambling for his political life as Romney begins his blitz. Who do you think will win the game? My money is on Romney.
- Comment (50)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Why Romney Will Win
I don't get the naysayers, some of whom argued fiercely, as I recall, that Romney had to be the man! How is it some right-wingers don't really believe in free enterprise principles? Really. This president is inclined to exactly nothing, NO policy, which might mitigate the economic misery this country is falling into. Not on energy. Not on interest rates. Not on spending and borrowing. Nothing which might contribute to recovery. Either you acknowledge the fact, or you believe in some voodoo economic business cycle which will save his sorry...
Clinton and Reagan had one thing, and apparently the most important thing in common in their economic policies. They both restrained federal spending as a percent of GDP. Does anyone see Obama ever even contemplating such a move? If he became president for life, he'd never do it. It's the obscene projectile vomitous spending, stupid. /I would never call anyone stupid, I'm just using left-speak.
If we don't understand this ourselves, how will we ever persuade the electorate? At least Romney seems to get it. I've never felt better about him or his prospects.
Re: Why Romney Will Win
Awesome post. Ditto.
Dec '10
Re: Why Romney Will Win
All you doom and gloomers, Buck Up! Romney is finally saying everything we conservatives have been asking of a truly conservative candidate. The engaged electorate is seeing how flawed Obama is (both right and left). The unengaged are living their lives and will have their radar attuned around the fall. If by then Obama is still around 50% I'll be worried. But, I'm betting Romney will be pulling ahead. Remember, Reagan didn't turn it around until the final weeks of the campaign.
Jun '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
I like Romney to win by 5 to 10 %. A reverse Willie Brown voting pattern will develop where blacks and other Democrats will vote for Romney even though they seem to be for Obama with family and friends beforehand.
(I think it was Willie Brown, the former mayor of San Fransissie, who garnered many white votes but the prior polls didn't reflect that he would get so much of the white vote.)
Dec '10
Re: Why Romney Will Win
Terrell David: I like Romney to win by 5 to 10 %. A reverse Willie Brown voting pattern will develop where blacks and other Democrats will vote for Romney even though they seem to be for Obama with family and friends beforehand.
(I think it was Willie Brown, the former mayor of San Fransissie, who garnered many white votes but the prior polls didn't reflect that he would get so much of the white vote.) · 7 minutes ago
You mean the Bradley Effect for LA mayor Tom Bradley who was high in the polls but lost big on election day in a stunning reversal of the polls.
Apr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
wmartin:
Romney has absolutely tanked in Gallup over the past week, a massive fall in only 10 days. The only real pivot point I can see is when conservatives started talking endlessly about Obama eating dog meat, but I doubt that that's it. Every other poll except the somewhat untrustworthy Rasmussen has Romney solidly behind. · 6 hours ago
It's true that Gallup has moved in the last week. I'm not sure how big a deal that is. There are two polls showing Romney with a lead (Rasmussen's Likely Voter tracking poll shows him up 5, Fox's Registered Voter has him equal, but with a positive enthusiasm gap). There is one other poll from the last week (National Journal), and that has Obama up 8 amongst adults, a pool even larger than registered voters and one that is consistently more pro-Democrat.
This week's polls suggest a tie, but this is a very long way out. Last week's suggested a Romney win, the week before that an Obama win. Romney still hasn't fully recovered from King of Bain, but the gap has been narrowing ever since the toxic Newt stopped being the ABR.
Apr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
Alan Weick
Terrell David: I like Romney to win by 5 to 10 %. A reverse Willie Brown voting pattern will develop where blacks and other Democrats will vote for Romney even though they seem to be for Obama with family and friends beforehand.
(I think it was Willie Brown, the former mayor of San Fransissie, who garnered many white votes but the prior polls didn't reflect that he would get so much of the white vote.) · 7 minutes ago
You mean the Bradley Effect for LA mayor Tom Bradley who was high in the polls but lost big on election day in a stunning reversal of the polls. · 49 minutes ago
It's worth noting that there've been no clear examples of the Bradley Effect since the 80s. Obama is likely to poll better than he actually performs, but for the same reasons white liberals generally do (more voters want to sound caring but actually care about their pocket book than fake it the other way).
Apr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
The polls are not to be invested with much significance. The decisive events are still over the horizon for most voters. In the meantime, I take solace in what Hugh Hewitt proclaims: people will tell a pollster they are voting for Obama, but in the booth away from witnesses they will vote against him. It's a matter of keeping up appearances.
Apr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
James Of England
It's worth noting that there've been no clear examples of the Bradley Effect since the 80s. Obama is likely to poll better than he actually performs, but for the same reasons white liberals generally do (more voters want to sound caring but actually care about their pocket book than fake it the other way). · 31 minutes ago
It should be said that there also might never have been a Bradley effect at all. I remember reading an extensive study of that election that claimed there was huge movement toward Deukmejian in the final week. This movement was in fact being picked up by the polls, but all the major polling firms documenting that race did their last night of polling on Friday before the election. The final vote was consistent with the tremendous late momentum Deukmejian was showing.
Edited on April 26, 2012 at 5:14amApr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
James Of England
It's true that Gallup has moved in the last week. I'm not sure how big a deal that is. There are two polls showing Romney with a lead (Rasmussen's Likely Voter tracking poll shows him up 5, Fox's Registered Voter has him equal, but with a positive enthusiasm gap). There is one other poll from the last week (National Journal), and that has Obama up 8 amongst adults, a pool even larger than registered voters and one that is consistently more pro-Democrat.
Well, I'm looking for reassurance. But I happened to read James Tanranto's analysis of the two-party vote and swooped down into depression all over again. In every election since 1992, the Democrats have won 50% or more of the two party vote, except for 2004, when they won 49%. They are naturally the stronger party but it was bracing to be reminded just how strong.
Apr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
wmartin
Well, I'm looking for reassurance. But I happened to read James Tanranto's analysis of the two-party vote and swooped down into depression all over again. In every election since 1992, the Democrats have won 50% or more of the two party vote, except for 2004, when they won 49%. They are naturally the stronger party but it was bracing to be reminded just how strong. · 20 minutes ago
I haven't read him today, but that's a pretty small sample size (five, with 80% going Democrat, assuming you meant to include 1992). If you look at the 6 before that, 83% go Republican. The 9 before that? 77% Democrat. The 9 before that? 77% Republican. The 9 before that? Also 77% Republican. The next 8 are 75% Democrat, then 8 at 88% Democrat-Republican, then Washington (2 at 100%).
The permanent governing majority just doesn't work at the Presidential level, and hasn't since the destruction of the Federalists. You do get longer at the congressional level, but there the trends are unambiguously supportive of us. Also at the state legislature level, where we're likewise dominating.
Apr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
wmartin
James Of England
It's worth noting that there've been no clear examples of the Bradley Effect since the 80s. Obama is likely to poll better than he actually performs, but for the same reasons white liberals generally do (more voters want to sound caring but actually care about their pocket book than fake it the other way). · 31 minutes ago
It should be said that there also might never have been a Bradley effect at all. I remember reading an extensive study of that election that claimed there was huge movement toward Deukmejian in the final week. This movement was in fact being picked up by the polls, but all the major polling firms documenting that race did their last night of polling on Friday before the election. The final vote was consistent with the tremendous late momentum Deukmejian was showing. ·
I totally agree, but I think the evidence is even stronger for modern races. Captain Spaulding reminds us that Hugh Hewitt (and a lot of others) are claiming a substantial effect today, and I don't think that that false hope is helpful. Not least because, due to tradition, it implies racism as a motive.
Jun '10
Re: Why Romney Will Win
James: "Toxic Newt" causes Romney to have low poll numbers. Really? How so? So much so that he only now sees the gap narrowing?
Mitt must do something extraordinary to win. Election night will be a very bad experience for us all if he doesn't. Is he creative like Newt? Could he have thought up the Contract with America? Could he have implemented it?
Will Mitt be able to handle the personal stuff that is coming his way? How about his family? So much to ponder. He needs to come up with a new idea. The point that wmartin makes about the Dems being the stronger party is true. Elections are where they shine. They are ready. But, they will probably just do what has always worked.
What could Mitt do that would be different than a standard match-up? He has to have something to offer -- a way to work in a wedge issue or three. Or perhaps a new Contract with America. I still like the idea of promising a bunch of things that aren't happening but that the people really want. He could frame it that way -- again. Ask Newt how.
Apr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
Yeah, really. King of Bain comes out on January 11th. Mitt's favorability numbers go almost overnight from being consistently about equal to consistently terrible. If Obama wins this, Newt is almost certain to be amongst the chief factors, shaping the public's perception in a way that Obama simply couldn't have. Thanks to Newt's choice to focus on policy free, dishonest, ad hominems (corporate raider/ negative ad producer), Obama has no difficulty in repackaging and reusing his material.
Newt didn't implement it. The government departments he slated for destruction grew under his watch. The whole of government grew. The only reductions that took place were those that had been passed under Bush Senior and by Clinton before the revolution, over his objection. Like Nixon, Newt gave the impression of massive conservatism while delivering liberalism.
Newt's done his work for this campaign. All that remains is his MSNBC career.
Edited on April 26, 2012 at 7:19amJun '10
Re: Why Romney Will Win
All Newt did was do what Mitt did to him: He gave him a taste of what he could expect in the general. After all, this seems reasonable with regard to Newt, doesn't it? He better face up to how the media and the Dems would go after him, eh? No reason to be surprised at any of this -- this is what campaigns do.
Regarding the Contract: are you not aware of what the contract was? Why mis-characterize it? The promise was never that the items would be passed but rather that they would be put up for a vote. It is interesting that the surpluses occurred only when Newt was Speaker, isn't it? Why was that?
You will be surprised how quickly these two candidates make up. And hard partisans will have to scramble to find something nice to say about the person his boss has just embraced. So don't go too far out on a limb on this. This is standard business. Newt has had to learn this. Mitt probably already knows -- it's the operatives who get disillusioned.
Apr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
Larry Koler: All Newt did was do what Mitt did to him: He gave him a taste of what he could expect in the general. After all, this seems reasonable with regard to Newt, doesn't it? He better face up to how the media and the Dems would go after him, eh? No reason to be surprised at any of this -- this is what campaigns do.
You will be surprised how quickly these two candidates make up. And hard partisans will have to scramble to find something nice to say about the person his boss has just embraced. So don't go too far out on a limb on this. This is standard business. Newt has had to learn this. Mitt probably already knows -- it's the operatives who get disillusioned. ·
Take a look at the numbers again. Obama will never be able to hit him that hard; that required the anti-capitalism to come from a figure portrayed as a conservative.
I fully expect every single contender from the primaries, bar Johnson, to have their place in the campaign, formally or informally. Newt and Huntsman are the only ones I anticipate being minimized. They can't be trusted.
Apr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
Larry Koler: All Newt did was do what Mitt did to him: He gave him a taste of what he could expect in the general. After all, this seems reasonable with regard to Newt, doesn't it? He better face up to how the media and the Dems would go after him, eh? No reason to be surprised at any of this -- this is what campaigns do.
Regarding the Contract: are you not aware of what the contract was? Why mis-characterize it? The promise was never that the items would be passed but rather that they would be put up for a vote. It is interesting that the surpluses occurred only when Newt was Speaker, isn't it? Why was that?
I was far from unusual in being surprised by Newt's leftist assault, with many learned and experience campaigners being taken aback, particularly after his apology the first time he "failed to live [his] values" some weeks before.
You treated it as important, so I assumed you meant the content of the Contract rather than the rhetoric. And only half the surpluses were under Newt.
Jun '10
Re: Why Romney Will Win
James Of England
...
Take a look at the numbers again. Obama will never be able to hit him that hard;
...
Oh, don't you just wish. You really don't know what's coming at Mitt, do you? I think you will find this next phase of the election cycle very interesting.
The air of desperation that Mitt's campaign used when dealing with Newt was really something to watch. I don't blame them for going after him with all guns blazing because Mitt had to break through this ABR barrier and Newt was seen then as really being trouble. But, it seemed to be over the top and over-reacting. It certainly made an enemy of Newt and a lot of Newt supporters. But, for myself (even though I was for Newt), I was comforted in seeing Mitt's steel throughout this. He turned it on and he rolled over Newt. This is the hope that I have that Mitt will be able to handle Obama.
But, let's not forget that McCain was much more comfortable going after Republicans and conservatives than in going after the NY Times, the Dems and Obama.
So, let's watch Mitt.
Apr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
Larry Koler
James Of England
...
Take a look at the numbers again. Obama will never be able to hit him that hard;
...
Oh, don't you just wish. You really don't know what's coming at Mitt, do you? I think you will find this next phase of the election cycle very interesting.
The air of desperation that Mitt's campaign used when dealing with Newt was really something to watch. I don't blame them for going after him with all guns blazing because Mitt had to break through this ABR barrier and Newt was seen then as really being trouble.
It's worth noting that no other ABR caused a similar reaction. Newt was, uniquely, evil; all kinds of tactics like airing negative ads well after the primary had been held in Ohio and Kansas made it clear that Newt was looking for something other than victory for himself and other than victory for his party.
Would you take a hundred dollar bet that nothing in the rest of the race causes a double digit drop in Mitt's approval gap over a week, that persists continuously for a month?
Edited on April 27, 2012 at 12:15amFeb '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
James Of England
Newt was uniquely evil;
Why, that's an interesting take on the matter. Interesting.
So Newt did Mitt damage, unlike the other ABR candidates. Thus, Newt was uniquely evil. But the infamous carpet bombing of poor Newt in Florida, and the hideous distortion of Santorum's record that I heard here in Michigan- that's A-OK because...
Hmmm. Well, politics ain't beanbag.
But I have a suspicion, which I hope I'm wrong about. I think the reason why Newt's attack on Romney hit such a nerve was because the Romney camp knows deep down Romney doesn't have much of a response to that sort of thing.
So they say- as you do, James, roughly- that Newt's attacks were somehow beyond the pale, and uniquely despicable.
That isn't good enough. I found Newt's attack square in the middle of the pale, and rather effective too.
I bet Obama and his minions were watching those attacks intently, and taking notes.
Bluntly, and obviously, complaining that the attacks are unfair won't work. I think Obama can use that line of attack much more intently than Newt, and Romney better be ready.