Mitt Romney 2012 - achievable or impossible?

Ben Plummer 27/09/2012 Mitt Romney has been running for President for the best part of a decade, and finally has the opportunity to prove that he has the necessary credentials to lead the country back to global prominence. Taking into account all factors, this post will dissect the obstacles facing both candidates and evaluate to plausibility of a Romney White House becoming a reality. This Election has issue issues There is now under 6 weeks left until voting Americans will have to consolidate all of the information put to them for the larger part of this year, and make a decision as to which candidate can improve their lives and get or keep their country on the right track. The election has been in full flow for the best part of 5-6 months, and was finally framed by Mitt Romneys acceptance of the Republican Nomination at the RNC last month. Of course, we all knew Romney had secured the nomination a long time prior to the convention, but now it was finalised. Now the choice in there for all to see, and the candidates make their respective cases. I think its fair to say that, in general, elections will always be based on the standard of living that the American people are granted, which translates fairly simply to quote James Carville and President Clintons 1991 election-winning campaign slogan: Its the Economy, stupid. Unless you are strongly driven by a separate issue, i.e. the environment, religion, gun laws etc., the economy usually takes precedence especially living in a post 2008 world. In 2012, however, this has been confused by the countrys economic performance under Barack Obama. Things could have been much worse, the President argues, but it also could have been a boatload better, say his opponents. No one side will ever be proved right, no matter what their opinion, but what it leaves voters with is a guessing game. The last guy crapped it up pretty badly, but this guys not done much to help, seems to be the consensus among those make a living off of the finer details which such sensitive issues require, so what do we do? Give the job to someone new who promises more? Or leave it to someone who at the very least looks like he wont let us descend into another crisis? This is fascinating, because it almost negates the dominant issue in the minds of the public. True, it comes down to the individual and their situation (if youve been unemployed for the last two years, it doesnt take a genius to vote for change), however for an average American, just about making ends meet with no serious financial worries and a relatively stable income, what drives you to vote for a candidate? It cant be the economy, because there are those worse off and those better off as there always will be, and its unlikely to affect you that much either way. Which means it comes down to a huge range of other issues, none of which (Gay Marriage, Immigration etc.) are likely to have a lasting impact on the outcome, historically speaking.

The Presidents economic performance can probably be rated a B-. If you asked a nonpartisan voter to give their opinion on the development of the economy in the last 4 years, the answer would in all likelihood be Meh. My theory is that this almost, paradoxically, negates the issue. I dont say this flippantly; card carrying voters will vote for the colour which is on their card regardless, as will those at each spectrum of the income bracket, but the ones in the middle are left to debate amongst themselves as to what else they really care about, because, despite its importance, the economy is not swinging dramatically in either direction. Unlike 1984, when the country was galloping away from recession under Reagan, or in 1992, when his successor was presiding over a fresh one, the decision is not an easy one. Normally this would be decided by the political mood of the country (which would almost certainly be seen as centre-left, depending on how realigning you think 2008s realigning election was), but this is a far from empirical way of assessing things, leaving us with issue issues. What will decide this campaign? The hollow candidates The candidates themselves are integral to winning an election. The have a beer factor, while an incredibly stupid logic upon which to base your voting decision, will always play a part in determining a winner. Just ask Al Bore. Thus, both candidates have made a substantial effort to come across as likeable and friendly and as someone who will make you laugh at the pub appearing on all manner of chat shows, talk shows, radio shows and any other medium they can scrape out of the barrel in order to reach out to (generally) unintelligent, uninformed independent voters, who are going to vote for the good looking one. This has diminished the amount of time both Obama and Romney are willing to devote to serious policy discussion, meaning that specificity has dwindled. It could be argued that, as President, Obama has laid his cards on the table and everyone knows what the next 4 years will look like if he is re-elected. He has also promised an extension of the Bush tax cuts, except for those with an income of 250,000, not to mention the establishment and development of Obamacare, which will continue to exist in its current form. These, while being mostly vague and short-sighted, still count as policies. On the other side, it seems as if the Romney camps game-plan is to avoid any specific strategy discussion whatsoever, aside from generic placatory promises of tax cuts, smaller government, and using not apologising for America as a replacement for Foreign Policy. This way, he can continue his current tactic of bemoaning the Presidents performance as terrible, and hoping that it sticks. There is no hiding that he is currently running a very poor race. But lets look at their potential for exploiting the situation facing them and grabbing America by the Voting Arm. It is generally accepted by both sides of the political aisle that Obama is a fantastic candidate. His election in 2008 broke all kinds of records, and yielded the highest percentage turnout of voters since 1960. He rode into office on a wave of unprecedented optimism, and a new kind of politics that would unshackle Washington from its partisan shackles. With hindsight, it is very easy to say that this was never going to happen. But people genuinely believed that he could, and that was only achievable through the frightening organisation that the then-candidate Obamas campaign was famed for. His grassroots fundraising, made possible through tactful use of social networking meant that the average amount he spent per vote amounted to $10.94, almost doubling the previous 2

record of $5.67 per vote achieved by Ralph Nader, and his 2008 opponents number of $5.97. This is not something that one achieves by accident. All of these things combined seem to have carried over into the 2012 race. The utilisation of social-networking is still in place to great effect, and a distinct emphasis has been put on new voter registration, partly in order to recruit younger voters who so adore Obama, and partly to encourage minorities to fight the new draconian registration process for groups like Hispanics, who are also an essential demographic for the Democrats. This time around is of course much more difficult for the President, as the euphoria that came with his first victory was never likely to have carried over, and the Bush 43 factor has all but diminished after four years of economic standstill, and a struggle to change the tone of Washington a key promise of Obamas that he has unquestionably failed on. And so, despite what state the country is in, Romney knew that he had, at the very least, an impressive candidate to beat, probably a better candidate than a President, as many would assert. However, his failures as Commander-In-Chief gave Romney an enormous Achilles to work with. The general consensus is that Romneys job was simple: convince the country that Obama had been an ineffective leader, and the booming economy of days gone by would remain a memory as long as he was in office. Given the evidence before him, and the ferocity of the opposition that the President has faced (all the way from a stubborn Republican Congress, through to the growing influence of the Tea Party movement, which has produced both fiery politicians and wild-eyed fanatics with picketsigns), it seemed as though Romney had a solid message to run on, and the backing to achieve victory in November. This belief was solidified by numerous polls at the time which suggested that a generic Republican candidate would have the beating of Obama if the election were tomorrow. Though as the election has drawn closer, this has proved a more intricate task than Romney (or anyone, really) had assumed. At the time of writing, his candidacy has descended into (almost) complete disarray, for numerous reasons. An important factor which has been analysed more and more as people look to diagnose the apparent collapse of Romneys operation is the impossible demands of a party which has internal factions who wield differing amounts of power. The GOP, after the disastrous tenure of George W. Bush, decided that it needed a radical overhaul in order to distance itself from their last White House occupant, as well as find an argument against the current administration so that they would have some semblance of an effective political standpoint. As a result, an apparent polarisation (as discussed in my last post) of both elected politicians and the electorate has been an issue which both parties have had to deal with. Obama has been declared an unapologetic socialist on numerous occasions, which has forced Republicans all over the country rightwards, so as to appear the antithesis of a President who has stymied a strong recovery and weakened the countrys global standing through weak foreign policy. This was never more evident than during Primary season, where Romney had to fight off challengers such as Rick Perry (who really should have taken the nomination with ease given his positive gubernatorial record in Texas, as well as being an avowed champion of strict conservatism), promising unrealistically low tax rates, forceful immigration policy and (misguided, in my view) social policies which favoured the religious right, such as the reinstatement of Dont ask, dont tell and federal pro-life legislation, along with Ron Paul who was on his quadrennial crusade against the federal reserve, and Michelle Bachmann, another tea party darling. As a result, in order to garner the love and support of his party, Romney had to hold his moderate record as Governor of Massachusetts at arms length to say the least, and created all kinds of problems for himself as he shifted from the shelter of his own party to the scrutiny of being in the national spotlight. 3

Now, Romney a renowned problem solver from his time at Bain has the practically unsolvable problem of keeping the promises made to the powerful right-wing forces of the GOP, while outlining policies that would ultimately fail were they to be installed as legislation were he to win his tax promises were declared mathematically impossible, to quote Washington post journalist Ezra Klein, by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Centre. This has led to Romney promising much but specifying little, in effect keeping the nation guessing. The devil's in the details. The angel is in the policy he has been quoted as saying this week on CBS. This has stretched the generic Republican strategy to almost breaking point, as America demands more particulars about how he would run the country. Ill tell you what Im going to do once Im elected does not send a positive message to the electorate, and positivity has been at a premium, as without good ideas, the only way to go on the offensive is to denounce the other guys ideas. He is left with little option but to run a negative campaign, which is inherently unappealing. Now weve established that the choices available to Romney were few and far between, it must be said that his performance as a candidate has been clumsy at the very best, and rankly incompetent at worst. He constantly stumbles over himself, refusing to get out of his own way. As a very wealthy gentleman coming from a privileged background, being seen as out of touch with the middle-class is a very easy perception to adopt, an opportunity which the Obama camp has seized upon with relentless campaign ads denouncing Romneys time at Bain Chicago style (read: ruthlessly). However, he has on numerous occasions unconsciously solidified these accusations in the mind of the voters. The number of mini-gaffes about his wealth is impossibly big for anyone running for President of the United States. These include making an astronomically large bet of 10,000 dollars against Rick Perrys claim that his stances on the individual mandate were inconsistent with those in his book, stating while making at appearance at a NASCAR race that, although not a fan, has some great friends that are NASCAR team owners", and the now infamous behind closed doors Florida Fundraiser during which he claimed on website Motherjones hidden camera that he will never convince 47% of the country who receive federal aid to take responsibility for themselves and that they will always vote for Obama. There are many more, but you get the idea. He has repeatedly taken opportunities to do Obamas job for him, which affords the Democrats the comfort of simply staying on message without having to do anything creative to edge ahead in the opinion polls, all the while sitting back and looking on at the self-destruction that Romney is constantly leaving in his wake. So, taking into account all of these factors, where does this leave the Electoral College, and where does the easiest route to the White House lie?

How can Romney graduate from the Electoral College? The Electoral College at the time of writing, according to CNN (based on their Poll of Polls system which analyses opinion polls from trusted news sources across the country), looks like this;

Key Red: Safe Romney Blue: Solid Obama Pale Red: Leaning Romney Pale Blue: Leaning Obama Yellow: Toss Up

Calculating the solid and leaning states for both candidates, the map grants Obama 237 votes and Romney with 191. The total at which a candidate becomes unsurpassable is 270. Already it seems that Romney has an uphill task in beating the incumbent. This makes the bellwhether states incredibly important in this race, perhaps more than ever before. Conventional wisdom supports this. From a historical viewpoint, Nevada, for instance, though with a comparatively small 6 votes, has voted for the winning candidate every year since 1912 except for 1976, making it successful in predicting the winner 96% of the time. From an electoral standpoint, Ohio, with a large 18 votes, has voted for the winner every year since 1960, the longest any state has gone without getting its way in the presidential election, with a success rate of 93.1% since 1896. The previous election was said to have realigned the country in making the general political wind blow leftwards, and this is reflected fairly well when analysing the map. So in order for Romney to win, he will need to carry most, if not all of the biggest swing states to beat Obama.

His chances do not look good. The following are some plausible scenarios; Romney takes Ohio and Florida- his best/only chance They are two of the most hotly contested states every four years and rightly so. This is due to their varied electorate; Ohio has an average unemployment rate of 7.4%, and consists of a 12% black population, who nationwide voted 95% (!) in Obamas favour in 2008. But a low average income of $45,151 while having 22% of inhabitants living in rural areas suggests that Romney has a strong chance. If he reconsolidates his stance as a champion of job-creation and lower taxes, it is possible that he can claim the 18 votes the state holds. Florida also presents Romney with potential in-roads, with a higher than national average unemployment rate of 9%, many Floridians will be eager for a fresh economic approach. However a 91% urban population, and the highest Hispanic populace in the country (a demographic which has been foolishly alienated by the Republicans and their inflexible immigration policy) at 22% mean that it will be difficult for the Romney camp to hit the allimportant 50% mark. That being said, Florida is historically more red than blue, and is currently within the margin of statistical error in most opinion polls, making it a decent proposition. Should Romney take Ohio and Florida, he is then on a level ground with 238 votes to Obamas 237. Focus will then be on states such as Virginia (10 votes) which until 2008 hadnt gone to a Democrat since 1964, North Carolina (15 votes), which Obama won by just 0.33% last time around and had chosen the Republicans every year since 1976, along with Wisconsin (10 Votes), a state in which the Republicans made huge gains in the 2010. So, a late Romney rally taking those mentioned and practically any of the other swing states will result in a Romney victory. Obama takes either Florida or Ohio Romneys worst nightmare Should Obama take either of the largest swing state totals, Romney would have to win in every other swing state. This, needless to say, is an almost impossible challenge. A win in Ohio would take the President to 255 votes. A win in Florida would elevate him to 266. This would be disastrous for the Republican, and would render him helpless. Unless he manages to pry some of the battlegrounds from Obamas grasp which even with the current state of his campaign notwithstanding looks daunting at best. A 269-269 tie All hell breaks loose Romney takes Ohio and Florida, the race is back on, Obama 237-238 Romney. He clinches Wisconsin and Nevada, but loses Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire and Colorado, bringing the grand total to 269269: A dead heat. Uproar, confusion, and desperation reign supreme, and the electorate just sit and wait, now powerless over the outcome. Bush V Gore 2000 looks like childs play. In such an event, we look to the proper constitutional process, which is as follows; the election of the President is put to the House of Representatives, however each state is afforded only 1 vote. Should the any states delegation be split evenly, it abstains. The position of Vice President is left to the Senate, wherein each Senator gets 1 vote. Before you ask, yes, it would be possible to have a President and Vice President from different parties absolute insanity! This outcome leans heavily on coming elections of both the Senate, where 33 of the 100 seats will be contested (in which all of Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin are involved), and the House of Representatives, where all 435 seats will be up for grabs. At this point in time, the GOP hold a 6

majority in the House and the Democrats narrowly hold the Senate, meaning that in all likelihood, Vice President Biden would be answering to President Romney. Conclusion Uphill and unlikely, but not implausible Wherever Mr Romney turns, it seems that there are significant obstacles in his way. He is yet to overcome the first and most important himself. The Republican Party is unrelenting in its pursuit of radical conservatism, and the negative public opinion that he has generated for himself leaves little room for political manoeuvre, no matter how slight and savvy he can make it, which judging by how his campaign has been run so far, is not very. Obama however, is renowned for being unflappable. Even at the best of times, it is a difficult task to lure the President out of his comfort zone, who is well versed in facing opponents of an extremely high calibre, such as his nasty primary bout with Hillary Clinton, and the subsequent election against a highly volatile Republican party behind John McCain, not to mention his schooling as a Junior Senator in the brutal world of Chicago politics. It has to be said that, without a significant reversal of fortune and aptitude, it would be a brave man who would bet against President Obama at this stage. But the incumbent is far from invulnerable. There are questions that can and should be asked of the current administration, such as a perceived weak foreign policy that has been criticized for leading from behind, an aloofness when dealing with Congress which some blame for the apparent lack of cooperation and constant gridlock in Washington, and most of all his failure to ignite the economy and reduce the unemployment rate, a promise broken as long as it remains above 8%. If Romney and his team can turn his public standing around by outlining policies that promote opportunity for a struggling middle class and energise a tired, weary generation of voters who long for their working life that is currently blighted by lay-offs and filled vacancies, and portray their candidate as a capable statesman rather than a blundering, privileged hopeful, then it is entirely possible that we see the Republicans reclaim the White House; no mean feat considering the disaster that was their last President.

Sourcing credits go to Washington Post, CNN U.S., 270towin.com, Bloomberg View, NPR.org, presidentelect.org and theatlanticwire.com.