Eight weeks from today, 140 million people will go to the polls to elect a president. According to the most confidently expressed theories about this election, the result is already determined. It is the operative theory at Romney headquarters that their man is going to win because the economy is so sour, two-thirds of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and the small number of undecided voters will break for Romney three-to-one and he’ll edge across the finish line in first place.
The Obamans appear to believe that their man is going to win because he was ahead in the polls after the conventions and the candidate ahead after the conventions usually wins (except in 2008, when John McCain was ahead, but whatever). He has a four point lead today in the Real Clear Politics average and, as former George W. Bush pollster (and later political turncoat) Matthew Dowd said today, “A 4 or 5 point lead in this environment is as significant as a 10-12 point lead 15, 20 years ago.” Polls suggest voters like Obama more than Romney; there’s even a data point on one today about whom you would like by your bedside when you are sick, a question the very existence of which indicates we are halfway on the road to Idiocracy. One eager-beaver website has even already declared Romney the loser of the debates.
So here’s my question: Why campaign at all? If it’s all baked in the cake, why will the candidates travel relentlessly, spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and wake up in cold sweats five nights out of six?
Because, of course, it’s not.
The problem with all these theories is this kind of determinism serves as crazed comfort to those working on these campaigns when things may be going wrong with their strategy. I suspect that is true of the Romney campaign, which is relying to a strange extent on the presumption that its leader can win without giving people much of a reason to vote for him. I expand on this point in today’s New York Post. Suffice it to say that if the panjandrums in Boston are relying on the voters to make up their own reasons to vote for Romney, they might be on the way to making the biggest political blunder in our lifetimes.
Why, explain to me why, you think a reason to vote FOR Mitt Romney doesn't already exist? What exactly would you like him to say that he hasn't already said, either in this election or the last one? "I promise to help you and your family." "I'll create 12 million new jobs." "I'll make America energy independent." "I'll repeal and REPLACE Obamacare." "I'll institute a fairer and flatter tax system." "I'll build up the military." "I'll make the 21st century an American one." "I'll fix Washington." You can believe his promises are impractical, illogical, or just plain wrong; but you can't believe he hasn't made them. Why do you insist that he hasn't made any?
Isaac Asimov wrote a science fiction story in 1955 which posited a future in which a massive computer selected one citizen to represent the entire country and answer questions about his opinions, which would allow the coputer to predict the outcome of the presidential election. the story was titled "Franchise".
John, you're partially right. I think there is another problem with Romney's candidacy: he's not giving voters strong reasons NOT to vote for Obama.
If Barack were white the Republicans would go after him more. When you don't treat someone the same as anyone else, that's racist. When they've thrown in the towel on going after Barack's likability factor which is also strongly tied to his race, that's racism. Reverse racism is racism. n nI've been going after his likabilty factor in the Alinsky manner for years. I've given people a road map. I was the one who came up with I'm The Fourth Best President and popularized his feet on the White House furniture but the Republicans have been awol. I'm sick of racism coming or going. I'm sick of political correctness. n n Maybe living among lefties and gays for 45 years makes me unintimidated. They're really not that special. If we lose in Nov I'm going awol.
In other words Granny Jan, Republicans are racist, either way.r nr nI have to agree.
With all due respect to Podhoretz his premise here is fantastic. The idea that the pros in the campaigns are in effect riding a “baked in the cake” vehicle to election day is preposterous. They each are doing all they can, as they see matters, dynamically to win votes where they feel they can and must.
What Podhoretz is saying is that the Romney campaign is staying light on specifics to let the voters fill in the blanks with their own beliefs about him, according to their own views. He is saying that just not sufficient to win. As for the polls being more accurate as to outcome from late September onis true. However there is always potential for a wild card event that challenges the Romney candidates. Depending on how the candidates respond could change the trajectory of the campaigns. The events in Libya could be that wild card. So far Romney is blowing it big time.