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:
Apr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
Xennady
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....... that's A-OK because...
Hmmm. Well, politics ain't beanbag.
.......
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......
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.
Airing negative ads after the primary is not "effective" assuming a conventional aim. Newt self destructed to no personal benefit; Obama won't do that. Newt betrayed his donors, wasting their money on chartered flights, the post-election vileness, and other ego trips; retaining enough support to become the post-Santorum ABR should not have been hard, but he burned all of his bridges.
Newt was uniquely despicable in the unrestrained and self-harming nature of his campaign. Santorum (and others), took shots, but always aimed at winning themselves.
Edited on April 27, 2012 at 5:47amJun '10
Re: Why Romney Will Win
Well, X, I can't do any better than that. Great comments.
It is just the party line over at Romney HQ. For some reason Newt scares the heck out of those guys.
But, I also think it's just the piling on syndrome. They knew that Newt had been pilloried by the mainstream conservatives, the elite conservative columnists and NR and so it's easy to blame all their problems on Newt and they know that not many people will defend Newt. This is very common in the field of human interaction. Newt is used to this. It's the price that a unique person of great accomplishment pays. Geniuses like Newt are very atypical and they often don't play by the rules and they often try to change the rules.
Most Republicans docilely accept the rules as laid out by the left wing elites. It's the system that they have grown up in. They don't know how to change it nor do they know how to fight it. They just try to curb its excesses. This is co-dependency -- plain and simple.
But, let's wait and see what Romney and his staff can do.
Apr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
Larry Koler: Well, X, I can't do any better than that. Great comments.
It is just the party line over at Romney HQ. For some reason Newt scares the heck out of those guys.
Larry, have you looked at the chart, and will you take the bet I offered? I'd happily reduce it to $10, or to a drink when we meet if it's the size of bet that's the problem.
Jun '10
Re: Why Romney Will Win
James, I'm not ignoring you. I've just been traveling a bit.
I have a little trouble interpreting graphs where the percentage exceeds 100% -- unless the same people are both favorable and unfavorable at the exact same schizophrenic moment.
Please explain this:
Apr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
I agree that the chart has some very odd shapes in it, but until late March it's pretty accurate. If you look at the figures (below the chart), you'll see that the numbers there were steadily closing on the ~-5% he's at now. If you don't trust the chart, go through the numbers yourself. You'll find that they tell a clear story of Newt costing the party a significant margin for November, and doing it at the cost of self-destruction.
Jun '10
Re: Why Romney Will Win
How much did Mitt damage Newt's numbers? And his personal reputation?
At what cost to the party, also? How do you quantify that?
All's fair in politics. It's extremely silly to pretend that this only goes one way. When you throw rocks you have to expect return fire.
Regarding your bet, you must surely acknowledge that polling volatility is greater in the early primaries than at any other time. It's silly (again) to think there is a way to compare the variation that will occur in the numbers of Obama - Romney to Gingrich-Romney at completely different phases of the election.
Apr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
Larry Koler
How much did Mitt damage Newt's numbers? And his personal reputation?
At what cost to the party, also? How do you quantify that?
All's fair in politics. It's extremely silly to pretend that this only goes one way. When you throw rocks you have to expect return fire.
Newt's reputation was destroyed by Newt. The crescendo of conservative disapproval didn't come out when he was ahead before Iowa. It came out after King of Bain (although the Ryan Plan and other, more routine, attacks on the party didn't help). Mitt's attack ads targeted Iowa, New Hamshire, Florida and South Carolina, but Newt's reputation died across the country.
He claimed, through dishonest but highly emotive images and interviews, that Mitt was terrible for jobs and communities. Not only did he help make this a major part of how people view Mitt, it entrenched that view. It was easy to convert people about that, but the film makes it virtually impossible. It's also a confirmation of a stereotype about Republicans, much like his "social engineering from the right" line about the Ryan Plan.
Even in war, some acts constitute atrocities.
Apr '11
Re: Why Romney Will Win
Larry Koler
Regarding your bet, you must surely acknowledge that polling volatility is greater in the early primaries than at any other time. It's silly (again) to think there is a way to compare the variation that will occur in the numbers of Obama - Romney to Gingrich-Romney at completely different phases of the election. · 18 minutes ago
I agree that people are more vulnerable during the primaries. This was part of why I said that Newt harmed Mitt more than Obama would do. Volatility isn't a strong defense, though; the numbers stayed down, and the specific attacks remain key weak points today.
If you don't think that Obama will damage Mitt's favorability numbers as much in a durable manner, withdraw your claim to the contrary. If you do, accept the bet.
Jun '10
Re: Why Romney Will Win
James Of England
Newt's reputation was destroyed by Newt. The crescendo of conservative disapproval didn't come out when he was ahead before Iowa. It came out after King of Bain (although the Ryan Plan and other, more routine, attacks on the party didn't help). Mitt's attack ads targeted Iowa, New Hamshire, Florida and South Carolina, but Newt's reputation died across the country.
He claimed, through dishonest but highly emotive images and interviews, that Mitt was terrible for jobs and communities. Not only did he help make this a major part of how people view Mitt, it entrenched that view. It was easy to convert people about that, but the film makes it virtually impossible. It's also a confirmation of a stereotype about Republicans, much like his "social engineering from the right" line about the Ryan Plan.
Even in war, some acts constitute atrocities.
Atrocities! This whole line of reasoning is too silly to go into. I'm sorry to say that this seems childish.
The back and forth of the episodes you recount here hardly interested me at the time and even less now, but evidently you got more involved.
Jun '10
Re: Why Romney Will Win
James Of England
Larry Koler
Regarding your bet, you must surely acknowledge that polling volatility is greater in the early primaries than at any other time. It's silly (again) to think there is a way to compare the variation that will occur in the numbers of Obama - Romney to Gingrich-Romney at completely different phases of the election. · 18 minutes ago
I agree that people are more vulnerable during the primaries. This was part of why I said that Newt harmed Mitt more than Obama would do. Volatility isn't a strong defense, though; the numbers stayed down, and the specific attacks remain key weak points today.
If you don't think that Obama will damage Mitt's favorability numbers as much in a durable manner, withdraw your claim to the contrary. If you do, accept the bet. · 12 hours ago
To bet or not, to climb down on my claim (which claim was that? I forget) or my option: to not bet and not climb down. I choose number 3.