Now that Mitt Romney has won both the Iowa Republican caucuses and the Presidential primary in New Hampshire, virtually every voice I have heard is quite convinced that, excluding a wholly unforeseen event (such as a death or personal catastrophe), Romney will be running against Obama for the office of President this coming fall. As of last evening, Intrade gives Romney an 85% chance of winning the Republican nomination.
A major decision both Obama and Romney will face is the choice of their Vice-Presidential running mate. For Obama, the question is whether or not to keep Biden on the ticket. It seems obvious to a number of observers that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would strengthen the Obama ticket considerably. As for Romney, names which I read mentioned as running mates include Senator Rubio of Florida, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, and Condoleezza Rice. In my opinion, Rubio or Rice would most strengthen the ticket. But then, according to studies, the choice of vice presidential candidate historically has little effect on the ticket's success or failure.
Without declaring my own preference, if I had to bet on whether Obama would be reelected or not, I would give him better than a 50% chance. In fact, I think that defeating him would be a most difficult task for anyone. I give several reasons:
1. First, Obama is the incumbent, and Americans nearly always re-elect the incumbent as President (Carter and the elder Bush were the only two exceptions since Herbert Hoover).
2. Second, President Obama has amassed an enormous "war chest," and has access to vast financial assets for his campaign.
3. Third, a liberal Democrat can count on winning nearly 200 of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory from the first day of the campaign. It is highly unlikely that Obama would not carry California, New York, Illinois, and just these three states together have about 100 electoral votes. But there are other highly urbanized states that are virtually beyond Republican grasp at this time of our history. Of all the states rich in electoral votes, only Texas is highly likely to go Republican. Presently, rural and small town America tends to be much more Republican, and urban America tends to be much more Democratic; and by far, most Americans live in large urban areas, or their suburbs.
4. Fourth, with the exception of Fox News, I cannot discern any significant news network on American TV that has not displayed a clear preference to support Obama's first election and his Presidency. It may be that mass media are not significant now in moving public opinion, but given what occurred in 2008, it is evident that many media voices were not only friendly to Obama, but openly enthusiastic about his "historic candidacy." I have not seen evidence of a change in this regard.
5. Fifth, as things now stand in the U.S. economy, there are a number of signs to which Obama can point to say--and with some good reason--that "our economy is improving," and no doubt he will say, "and it has happened on my watch." If the unemployment rate continues to fall, historical evidence strongly suggests that the incumbent President will be re-elected.
6. Sixth, Obama will have little difficulty ridiculing Congress as the source of all sorts of problems in our political culture, especially given the public disrespect for Congress. That Democrats have controlled the upper house, the Senate, throughout Obama's first term, and that Democrats controlled the House for Obama first two years will be silently ignored. Congress will be a whipping boy, and the boy in this case will have the face of an elephant.
7. Seventh, Many Americans have been proud to have elected a minority President, as it has so often been called "historical." Indeed, given the history of race hatred and tension in our country, there is a good deal of truth to this claim. Hence, many voters may be reluctant to vote against the man who broke through significant "race barriers" in getting elected President in the first place.
8. Eighth, Romney has some baggage which will be used against him repeatedly and no doubt effectively:
(a). First, that Romney has "flip-flopped" on significant issues, depending on which voters he was appealing to (for example, being pro-choice in Massachusetts, but pro-life when running in Republican primaries.). The "flip-flipper" charge has already been heard repeatedly.
(b) Second, Mitt Romney is LDS ("Mormon"), and although many will not say so publicly, a sizable number of self-professed "evangelical Christians" either would not vote for a "Mormon," or would do so very reluctantly. Exit polls in New Hampshire, for example, showed that conservative Catholic Rick Santorum relatively out-performed Romney among self-described evangelicals, but Romney out-performed Santorum among Catholics. Evangelical Protestants, most of whom have been voting Republican, may boycott voting for Romney in sufficient numbers to cost Romney such states as Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Iowa, and others. The "Mormon factor" could be decisive. (Note that states with high proportions of LDS citizens are among the strongest conservative-Republican strongholds in the country: Utah and Idaho, mainly.)
(c) Third, Romney comes from that now infamous "1%" of the population that Obama and the "occupiers" have roundly stigmatized. Americans have a strongly egalitarian bias in our culture, and it is easy to re-awaken dislike, hatred, or envy towards the richest of the rich. Class envy and hatred are at least as real in America as race hatred. And not only is Romney from the "money class," but he made vast sums in what Governor Perry keeps calling "vulture capitalism," that is, private equity, which could be seen as an extreme case of Wall Street power and money gone amuck. Given the "Wall Street bail out" that infuriated many Americans in the past several years (including many conservatives, by the way), to label Romney as a "Wall Street banker" could be a kiss of death. And the label will stick, because of his years of running Bain Capital.
Just as I finished writing the previous paragraph, I saw a commercial on TV sponsored by the Democratic Party, featuring Romney saying, "I enjoy firing people." And so it will go.
A major decision both Obama and Romney will face is the choice of their Vice-Presidential running mate. For Obama, the question is whether or not to keep Biden on the ticket. It seems obvious to a number of observers that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would strengthen the Obama ticket considerably. As for Romney, names which I read mentioned as running mates include Senator Rubio of Florida, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, and Condoleezza Rice. In my opinion, Rubio or Rice would most strengthen the ticket. But then, according to studies, the choice of vice presidential candidate historically has little effect on the ticket's success or failure.
Without declaring my own preference, if I had to bet on whether Obama would be reelected or not, I would give him better than a 50% chance. In fact, I think that defeating him would be a most difficult task for anyone. I give several reasons:
1. First, Obama is the incumbent, and Americans nearly always re-elect the incumbent as President (Carter and the elder Bush were the only two exceptions since Herbert Hoover).
2. Second, President Obama has amassed an enormous "war chest," and has access to vast financial assets for his campaign.
3. Third, a liberal Democrat can count on winning nearly 200 of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory from the first day of the campaign. It is highly unlikely that Obama would not carry California, New York, Illinois, and just these three states together have about 100 electoral votes. But there are other highly urbanized states that are virtually beyond Republican grasp at this time of our history. Of all the states rich in electoral votes, only Texas is highly likely to go Republican. Presently, rural and small town America tends to be much more Republican, and urban America tends to be much more Democratic; and by far, most Americans live in large urban areas, or their suburbs.
4. Fourth, with the exception of Fox News, I cannot discern any significant news network on American TV that has not displayed a clear preference to support Obama's first election and his Presidency. It may be that mass media are not significant now in moving public opinion, but given what occurred in 2008, it is evident that many media voices were not only friendly to Obama, but openly enthusiastic about his "historic candidacy." I have not seen evidence of a change in this regard.
5. Fifth, as things now stand in the U.S. economy, there are a number of signs to which Obama can point to say--and with some good reason--that "our economy is improving," and no doubt he will say, "and it has happened on my watch." If the unemployment rate continues to fall, historical evidence strongly suggests that the incumbent President will be re-elected.
6. Sixth, Obama will have little difficulty ridiculing Congress as the source of all sorts of problems in our political culture, especially given the public disrespect for Congress. That Democrats have controlled the upper house, the Senate, throughout Obama's first term, and that Democrats controlled the House for Obama first two years will be silently ignored. Congress will be a whipping boy, and the boy in this case will have the face of an elephant.
7. Seventh, Many Americans have been proud to have elected a minority President, as it has so often been called "historical." Indeed, given the history of race hatred and tension in our country, there is a good deal of truth to this claim. Hence, many voters may be reluctant to vote against the man who broke through significant "race barriers" in getting elected President in the first place.
8. Eighth, Romney has some baggage which will be used against him repeatedly and no doubt effectively:
(a). First, that Romney has "flip-flopped" on significant issues, depending on which voters he was appealing to (for example, being pro-choice in Massachusetts, but pro-life when running in Republican primaries.). The "flip-flipper" charge has already been heard repeatedly.
(b) Second, Mitt Romney is LDS ("Mormon"), and although many will not say so publicly, a sizable number of self-professed "evangelical Christians" either would not vote for a "Mormon," or would do so very reluctantly. Exit polls in New Hampshire, for example, showed that conservative Catholic Rick Santorum relatively out-performed Romney among self-described evangelicals, but Romney out-performed Santorum among Catholics. Evangelical Protestants, most of whom have been voting Republican, may boycott voting for Romney in sufficient numbers to cost Romney such states as Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Iowa, and others. The "Mormon factor" could be decisive. (Note that states with high proportions of LDS citizens are among the strongest conservative-Republican strongholds in the country: Utah and Idaho, mainly.)
(c) Third, Romney comes from that now infamous "1%" of the population that Obama and the "occupiers" have roundly stigmatized. Americans have a strongly egalitarian bias in our culture, and it is easy to re-awaken dislike, hatred, or envy towards the richest of the rich. Class envy and hatred are at least as real in America as race hatred. And not only is Romney from the "money class," but he made vast sums in what Governor Perry keeps calling "vulture capitalism," that is, private equity, which could be seen as an extreme case of Wall Street power and money gone amuck. Given the "Wall Street bail out" that infuriated many Americans in the past several years (including many conservatives, by the way), to label Romney as a "Wall Street banker" could be a kiss of death. And the label will stick, because of his years of running Bain Capital.
Just as I finished writing the previous paragraph, I saw a commercial on TV sponsored by the Democratic Party, featuring Romney saying, "I enjoy firing people." And so it will go.
