PDA

View Full Version : Why Romney Has a Real Chance



Odysseus
04-19-2012, 12:09 PM
Why Romney Has a Real Chance (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/corner/296373/why-romney-has-real-chance-victor-davis-hanson)
By Victor Davis Hanson (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/author/79836)

April 18, 2012 9:49 A.M. (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/corner/296373/why-romney-has-real-chance-victor-davis-hanson)

The odds of defeating an incumbent president should be slim but they are in fact at least 50/50. Here are some reasons that this is true.


1) Romney is a more experienced and better candidate than he was in 2008. That often happens after a run or two. Nixon was tougher in 1968 than in 1960 in the way that Reagan was wiser in 1980 than in 1968 and 1976, and George H. W. Bush was better in 1988 than in 1980. McCain ran more effectively in the primaries in 2008 than he did in 2000. The Republican primary rough-housing sharpened Romney’s debating skills, and he seems far more comfortable than he was four years ago.


2) The old mantra that at some point the massive $5 trillion borrowing, the fed’s near-zero interest rate policies, and the natural cycle of recovery after a recession would kick in before the election increasingly appears somewhat dubious. The recovery is anemic, and seems stymied by high gas costs (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/#), fears over Obamacare, and a new feeling that lots of businesspeople with capital are strangely holding off, either scared of what more of Obama’s statist policies have in store for them, or in anger about being demonized by Obama, or in hopes Romney might win. The net result is that the recovery by November might not be as strong as was thought six months ago.


3) Romney is going to be a lot tougher on Obama than was McCain in 2008. For all the complaints against his moderation by the tea-party base (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/#), they will slowly rally to him as he makes arguments against Obama of the sort that McCain was perceived as unable or unwilling to make. So far Romney’s attitude is that he is in the arena where blows come thick and fast, and one can’t whine when being hit or hitting — a view far preferable to McCain’s lectures about what not to say or do in 2008. Left-wing preemptory charges that Romney is “swift-boating” or “going negative” will probably have slight effect on him. Just as Bill Clinton saw that Dukakis in 1988 had wanted to be liked rather than feared and so himself ran a quite different, tough 1992 race, so too Romney knows where McCain’s magnanimity got him in 2008. Romney won’t be liked by the press, knows it, and perhaps now welcomes it.


4) In 2008 Rudy Giuliani’s idea that Obama was out of the mainstream and a Chicago-style community organizer was not pressed in fear of the counter-charges that one was racialist or at least insensitive to the historic Obama candidacy. In 2012, there is a record, not an image or precedent, to vote for or against; and Romney will find it far easier to take down Obama than McCain found in 2008. That Obama did not reinvent the world as promised won’t mean that his supporters will vote for Romney, only that they won’t come out in the numbers or with the money as they did in 2008. There is no margin of error in 2012 and turnout will be everything for Obama.


5) The Republicans seem so far to have a lot more interest in defeating Obama than Democrats do in reelecting him. That enthusiasm level can change; but so far we are not going to see, I think, a lot of moderate Republicans writing about Obama’s sartorial flair and his first-class temperament, or screeds against a Republican incumbent. One meets lots of people who sheepishly confess they voted for Obama in 2008 but learned their lesson, less so those who regret that they voted for McCain and now promise to rectify that.


6) Obama is a great front-runner who can afford to talk of unity and magnanimity, but when behind he seems to revert to churlishness and petulance. The more he references Bush, the “mess” in 2008, tsunamis, and the EU meltdown, the more one wants to ask: When will he ever get a life? Them versus us is not “hope and change.”


7) Ann Romney, whether she is used in a more partisan style or more in the manner of a reticent Laura Bush, is an invaluable asset, both her narrative and her grace — a treasury really that somehow was under-appreciated in 2008 but won’t be in 2012.


8) Obama is becoming repetitive and tiring in his speechifying in a way that Carter did by late summer 1980 and George H. W. Bush did in 1992. Before he gets to the podium, Americans anticipate that he will blame someone for a current problem rather than introducing a positive solution — and they are beginning to get to the further point that they cannot only anticipate the villains of the hour, but the manner in which Obama will weave together the usual straw men, the formulaic “let me perfectly clear.” “make no mistake about it,” and the fat-cat (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/#)/pay-your-fair share vocabulary. The public finally grows tired of whiners and blamers.


9) Juan Williams and others have made the argument that race explains the disenchantment of the white male working-class voter. I think that is hardly persuasive: Give that clinger voter just a year of 5 percent unemployment, $2-a-gallon gas, 4 percent GDP growth, a balanced budget (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/#), and he would gladly vote for Obama. The better point is not that race is a determinant in 2012 but that the charge has lost its currency. The minority of working-class white male voters who voted for Obama in 2008 was vastly higher than the percentage of African-Americans of all classes and both genders who voted for McCain, a moderate Republican who one would have thought might have gotten a larger percentage of the black vote than did George W. Bush. Based on percentages in 2008, I think that one could logically infer that the number of blacks who did not vote Republican as they had once done in the past was larger than the number of white male working-class voters who did not vote Democratic as they had in the past. Playing the race card in 2012 will prove a boomerang, especially if the Sharpton-Jackson nexus turns the Martin case into a reverse O. J. trial, and if Holder or Obama editorialize any more, or revert to the exhausting “stupidly,” “punish our enemies,” “cowards,” “my people,” tropes.


10) It is no longer “cool,” the thing to do, neat, or making a statement to vote for Obama. The 2008 lemming effect is over; no one believes any more that he will lower the seas or wants to believe that he can. Michelle’s lightness/darkness biblical image is hokey not moving. The fading 2008 Obama bumper stickers are no longer proof of one’s noble nature.



Permalink (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/corner/296373/why-romney-has-real-chance-victor-davis-hanson)






National Review Online 2012. All Rights Reserved

Arroyo_Doble
04-19-2012, 12:25 PM
Not what I thought it would be when I hit the thread.

Janice
04-19-2012, 12:58 PM
3) Romney is going to be a lot tougher on Obama than was McCain in 2008.

This is the thing that worries me the most. From what Ive seen so far, Romney has been a lot tougher on his Republican rivals than he has been on 0bama. In fact I might even categorize it as somewhat 'milk toast' so far.

For some reason I just cant get out of my mind how viscous (and personal) he was against his conservative rivals... while he puts the kid gloves on for the Lord of the Flies. So far. Thats what Ive seen so far. Hopefully that changes ... sooner than later.

Arroyo_Doble
04-19-2012, 01:08 PM
This is the thing that worries me the most. From what Ive seen so far, Romney has been a lot tougher on his Republican rivals than he has been on 0bama. In fact I might even categorize it as somewhat 'milk toast' so far.

For some reason I just cant get out of my mind how viscous (and personal) he was against his conservative rivals... while he puts the kid gloves on for the Lord of the Flies. So far. Thats what Ive seen so far. Hopefully that changes ... sooner than later.

The president wasn't his primary rival at the time. That will change for the general election. I agree with the article on that issue; Romney (or his supporting Super PACs) will be brutal.

txradioguy
04-19-2012, 01:32 PM
Not what I thought it would be when I hit the thread.

Always a good day when you're disappointed.

Broward Guy
04-19-2012, 01:44 PM
This is going to be the biggest factor in the election. Obama had four years to fix things and he has failed.

Janice
04-19-2012, 02:18 PM
The president wasn't his primary rival at the time...


Well, thats the point. He (0bama) was in fact the primary rival, as he should have been.. until the all out assault against Gingrich began. Thats when it all started to unravel. That was when the candidates were side tracked from the primary focus against 0bama (Romney or whoever was the lead candidate, was a secondary focus) and they were forced to change that approach. And then it intensified, leaving 0bama basically off the hook, for the most part. Of course the media loved the misdirection too.

This election has to be about 0bama. Not anything else. Pure and simple.

From my perspective we are stuck with 3 huge problems where focusing the attack on 0bama is concerned:

1) 0bama himself. He cant run on his record so hes going to have to resort to demonizing his opponent so as to make the it seem like he is the lesser of the 2 evils.
2) The Media. They have been covering for this guy ever since they decided to dump Hillary for this guy. The media is a huge problem.
3) The GOP. They are 'William the Braveheart' when attacking conservatives. But they are McCain Inc. when it comes to exposing or attacking liberal democrats. They are more worried about offending the 'moderates' than appeasing the base of their own party. They will be the end of the Republican party if this continues.

So your right. The Media spin is that 0bama wasnt the primary target. That is ... after the Republicans led by Romney started to eat their own. So lets see how well Romney employs this 'tactic' against the anointed emporer. I'll be watching.

noonwitch
04-19-2012, 04:21 PM
Has a president ever won the general election without winning his "home" state? I'm pretty sure Romney will not win the election in either of his home states, MI or MA.

Michigan hasn't voted for a republican for president since 1988. I'll bet it's been even longer for MA.

Arroyo_Doble
04-19-2012, 04:59 PM
Has a president ever won the general election without winning his "home" state? I'm pretty sure Romney will not win the election in either of his home states, MI or MA.

Michigan hasn't voted for a republican for president since 1988. I'll bet it's been even longer for MA.

George W. Bush lost Connecticut.

Bailey
04-19-2012, 05:09 PM
George W. Bush lost Connecticut.

Wrong dummy he won Texas, your lame attempt at snark failed.

Zeus
04-19-2012, 05:14 PM
Well, thats the point. He (0bama) was in fact the primary rival, as he should have been.. until the all out assault against Gingrich began. Thats when it all started to unravel. That was when the candidates were side tracked from the primary focus against 0bama (Romney or whoever was the lead candidate, was a secondary focus) and they were forced to change that approach. And then it intensified, leaving 0bama basically off the hook, for the most part. Of course the media loved the misdirection too.

This election has to be about 0bama. Not anything else. Pure and simple.

From my perspective we are stuck with 3 huge problems where focusing the attack on 0bama is concerned:

1) 0bama himself. He cant run on his record so hes going to have to resort to demonizing his opponent so as to make the it seem like he is the lesser of the 2 evils.
2) The Media. They have been covering for this guy ever since they decided to dump Hillary for this guy. The media is a huge problem.
3) The GOP. They are 'William the Braveheart' when attacking conservatives. But they are McCain Inc. when it comes to exposing or attacking liberal democrats. They are more worried about offending the 'moderates' than appeasing the base of their own party. They will be the end of the Republican party if this continues.

So your right. The Media spin is that 0bama wasnt the primary target. That is ... after the Republicans led by Romney started to eat their own. So lets see how well Romney employs this 'tactic' against the anointed emporer. I'll be watching.

Media spin ? Obama isn't/wasn't a part of the Republican primary race. Sure he is the Opponent to whoever wins the Republican primary,which now apparently looks to be Romney. Primaries should be brutal and hard hitting,not so much as a eating your own, but to toughen up the eventual candidate. Whatever is exposed about the eventual primary winner can be dealt with and hopefully muted by the time the general election season comes about.

It's a given the media is in the bag for Obama so if Romney is smart he has had a team of researchers doing/done oppositional research on Mitt Romney and is ready for Obama and the media to drop bombs .

Odysseus
04-19-2012, 06:04 PM
Has a president ever won the general election without winning his "home" state? I'm pretty sure Romney will not win the election in either of his home states, MI or MA.

Michigan hasn't voted for a republican for president since 1988. I'll bet it's been even longer for MA.


George W. Bush lost Connecticut.

And Obama will lose Kenya. What's your point?

Starbuck
04-19-2012, 06:13 PM
The president wasn't his primary rival at the time. That will change for the general election. I agree with the article on that issue; Romney (or his supporting Super PACs) will be brutal.
Actually, it will be the super PACs and whoever is the VP nominee. Traditionally, the VP candidate is the attack dog..............personally, I can't wait!