Thursday, January 5, 2012

Is Romney the “Electable” Candidate?

With nothing left in Iowa except the flights out, we have a better picture of what the rest of this primary season has in store for us and what will take place in November. It appears that we’ll have a battle between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney with Newt Gingrich using what money he has left to throw mud at Romney. There’s also Ron Paul in the mix, but we’ll get to him later.

Each of these three real candidates are attracting different crowds. Rick Santorum is getting people who are looking for the conservative candidate. Ron Paul is getting a rather mixed crowd. Mitt Romney’s supporters are suggesting that he’s the most electable candidate. I’ve had trouble swallowing that last one. As I’ve had the day to digest the results of Iowa and consider each candidate more thoroughly, it becomes very clear that Mitt Romney may not be the most electable. In fact, he may be the least electable of the three.

Now what I’m doing with this article is more of a mental exercise than a flat out statement that I’m right and anyone who disagrees is a moron. But if Romney supporters are going to say he’s the most electable, they need to back it up. Right now, everything I’m seeing is either irrelevant or contrary to that argument.

I’ll start out this mental exercise by bringing up the recent news that 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain came out and endorsed Romney following Iowa. I would like to remind everyone that this is the guy who lost in 2008 by a final score of 365-173. In other words, he didn’t even get half the score of the opposition. He lost Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, and Indiana. All of those are states that President George W. Bush won in both 2000 and 2004.

2008 was an embarrassing year for the Republican Party. We can point to the fact that Bush wasn’t too popular and the fact that Obama was practically the rock star of the political world in 2008, but that’s ignoring the fact that McCain wasn’t someone that got people excited. If Obama was the rock star, McCain was the old man shouting “Turn down that music!” Nobody wants to be associated with that guy. Conservatives wanted a country star to go against the rock star.

Losers aren’t known for picking winners

A lot of parallels can be drawn between McCain and Romney, which is why it makes sense that this endorsement took place. McCain was viewed as the candidates who could win. McCain wasn’t Obama. McCain was viewed as the one who paid his dues. McCain was viewed as being moderate enough to pull in the independents. McCain had a number of liberal policies under his belt. One of those policies even had his name (McCain-Feingold). This kept the conservative wing of the Republican Party from getting behind him.

Ask a Romney supporter why they’re backing him and it wouldn’t be uncommon to hear that Romney can win. Romney isn’t Obama. Romney paid his dues. Romney’s moderate enough to pull in the independents. This, all despite the fact that Romney has a number of liberal policies under his belt. One of those policies even has his name (RomneyCare). This is why the conservative wing of the Republican Party is backing another candidate.

McCain had all the characteristics that people claim to be a credit to Romney. And yet, he lost in an election to Obama. Why would it be a different story for Romney, or as I call him, McCain 2.0? 

I did always get a laugh out of the “Paid their dues” argument. Because that clearly mattered in 2008 when the nation elected a candidate who didn’t even serve a full term in the US Senate.

I find these similarities funny since I’ve seen Romney supporters like former Michigan Republican Party Chair Saul Anuzis sharing an ad by the RNC using Obama’s own words against himself. The ad ends with Obama saying “This country can’t take four more years of the same failed policies. It’s time to try something new!”

Shouldn’t we try something different?

This country can’t take four more years of the same failed policies. It’s time to try something new to keep Obama from winning a Presidential election.

Sure, there are probably a few differences between Romney and McCain. But the perception is still what it is. Romney is getting much of the same reaction McCain got from the whole political spectrum. The fact that Romney has welcomed McCain’s endorsement further established the perception. Some conservatives in ‘08 had a hard time getting behind McCain. Romney’s not changing that. The best thing Romney has going for him is the fact that Obama’s been a really lousy President. If he was just okay, I promise you that 2012 would be an exact repeat of 2008.

Now Romney supporters have provided some evidence to back up their “Electability” claim. It’s not all talk. The main thing I’m seeing people point to is a recent national poll that shows that Romney ahead of Obama. That’s great and all, but there are two problems with that poll.

Problem #1: It assumes that the election was held when the poll is taken. Between now and then, there will be debates, TV ads, and news coverage regarding the eventual Republican candidate and Obama. A lot can and will change between now and then. To base a decision today on a poll taken in December about an election in November is a bit foolish.

Problem #2: It’s a national poll. We don’t select our President by a popular vote. There’s this thing called the electoral college. Maybe you’ve heard of it. I’m sure Al Gore is well aware of it. If Romney polls better than Santorum or Paul in California, big deal. I’m pretty sure that that state is going blue November 6th. But what about those states Bush won in 2000 and 2004 but McCain lost in 2008?

But there’s still the possibility that Romney is more moderate and has a better chance of pulling in the independents. Well if that’s the thinking, why aren’t Romney supporters backing Paul?

I’m dead serious about that one. In Iowa, the people who were first time caucus goers or weren’t registered Republicans prior to caucus week tended to side with Congressman Paul. I’ve talked to people who supported Obama in 2008 but now they’re supporting Paul. I’ve seen others on Twitter or Facebook that never had any interest in politics but now they’re supporting the Congressman. “Paulbots,” despite the mocking they receive (and many times, rightly so) are incredibly passionate. It seems like Paul is doing a significantly better job of bringing people into the Republican Party than Romney is doing.

Does Paul’s foreign policy upset a number of Republicans? Yes. I’m deeply disturbed by his refusal to talk tough with Iran (See Jimmy Carter, 1980, for reference on how that works out). Do I have concerns about his drug policy? I can’t say “YES!” loud enough. But the guy does have a lot of conservative ideals (lower taxes and less government) and there’s no doubt he’ll do all he can for those causes.

Now I’ve gone over the reasons why Paul can’t win in November before. This isn’t my call for everyone to support him. But if the one thing a voter is looking for is someone who’s going to bring in more than just the Republican establishment, then the logical and proven conclusion they need to come to is Ron Paul.

If anything, Ron Paul is proof that it’s possible to take a VERY right-wing approach on a number of issues and actually attract people from the whole political spectrum.

“But Dan! He’s the only candidate that has consistently been polling high!” Yes. There’s a reason for that. The rest of us (read: The conservative/paleo-con wing of the Republican Party) have been looking for our candidate. After all, that was the purpose of all of these debates we’ve had up to this point. First we thought it was Rick Perry. Then we learned he couldn’t even make his way on to a junior high debate team. Then we moved to Herman Cain and we eventually learned he had so much baggage even Southwest Airlines would have to charge him. We then bought into Newt Gingrich’s conservative rhetoric until we realized it was just rhetoric. That brings us to now rest on Santorum. That’s why he’s come out of nowhere.

So I’m listening, Romney supporters, why are you backing this guy? I’m not seeing many good reasons.

If Romney get the nomination, I’ll vote for him. He would be better than Obama. There’s no doubting that. But to call him the “Electable” candidate is something that currently appears to be very far from the truth. If Romney’s going to run on that principle, he’s going to need to do a better job of proving it. Right now, I’m just having flashbacks to 2008 and I’m feeling that tug to vote 3rd party or stay home. I’m certainly not very motivated to go out and campaign for him.

And one more thing regarding the “Electability” aspect of Romney. The DNC has put this video out.

This really helps me love Romney

This ad is well done. It features Brit Hume and Neil Cavuto. Both are people in the news media that conservatives love. And then there’s a short clip of Ronald Reagan. It almost appears like they’re going against Romney.

Then there are clips from some late night hosts. That suggests the people who influence the moderate crowd are going to bash Romney from now until November.

The goal of this ad isn’t to get people to go from Romney to Obama. The goal is to discourage conservatives from going to the polls in November at all. That’s the key to get Obama a victory. McCain’s wishy-washy record kept the conservatives home in 2008. If the DNC can expose Romney’s similarly wishy-washy record, they may be able to accomplish the same thing. If only the DNC believed in the “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it” approach to running our country…

I seriously ask Romney supporters to watch that ad three or four times in a row and then tell me it’s not a bit discouraging—because that’s what’s going to happen in September and October. The DNC will run a similar ad at every turn if Romney’s the candidate.

Can the DNC produce similar attack ads for any Republican candidate? Yes. But this one’s a bit like being told that Santa Claus isn’t real. It shatters everything. The person goes to look for evidence to the contrary, but it’s all gone. All the evidence supporting the argument is wiped away.

With other candidates, there are at least some things that can’t be questioned. I challenge the DNC to do this with Paul’s domestic policy or Santorum’s stance on social issues. We can at least hang on to those nuggets no matter what. Conservatives can go to the polls and know that they’re at least fighting for a President who will follow the Constitution or the right to life. They can completely destroy almost every single thing about Santorum for me, but I’ll be able to go into a voting booth and vote for him because at the very least, I’m voting for a solid pro-life candidate.

This is a very important thing to keep in mind with this election, largely thanks to Obama. Because the economy is so poor and we have so many people that are unemployed or underemployed, people have less disposable income. That means they have less to give to a campaign they don’t really believe in. On top of that, who’s going to stand in line for an extended period of time (potentially in the cold in a number of battleground states) for a candidate they don’t really believe in?

“But Dan! He’s not Obama! People want that guy out of office! People will donate and stand in line to make Obama a one term President!”

If that’s the case, and that’s the end of the arguments for Romney, tell me why that doesn’t apply to Paul or Santorum?

Monday, January 2, 2012

Why Rick Santorum Can Win in November

As we approach the Iowa Caucus, there has been a lot of talk regarding the recent surge of Rick Santorum. Santorum was in the single digits for most of 2011, but as we enter the new year, the former Pennsylvania senator has jumped up with some polls having him in 3rd place and a real chance to win on Tuesday.

But the question that’s holding Santorum back among a number of voters is if he can beat President Barack Obama in November. Doubters are everywhere. Candidate Rick Perry even said that Santorum loses elections. I think these people forgot what really happened in 2008. “Obama fever” was running all across the country. People were convinced that he was going to be different from typical politicians. He was practically viewed as a savior. Glenn Beck even put this little song out there.

Our Savior!

The reality of the Obama administration has told a different story. He hasn’t fixed our economy. It’s gotten worse. Our debt is out of control. His healthcare plan isn’t very popular and might be tossed out as the Supreme Court is going to take a look at it. The only thing he can really hang his hat on is that during this time in office, we’ve gotten our troops out of Iraq. And there’s not much to say that that wouldn’t have happened under different leadership.

McCain was also a terrible candidate. While I’ve been a conservative as long as I can remember, I couldn’t bring myself to vote for him. He was too moderate. He had to bring on Sarah Palin to encourage the right-wing part of his base. That felt like pandering to some out there. It’s probably safe to say that the majority of people who voted for him did it just because he was the Republican candidate. McCain did about as bad as a Republican candidate could do in an election with no incumbent with a spectacular history.

So how would Santorum do? Well let’s start with the 2008 map. After all, if he’s going to do as poorly as some are suggesting, we might as well start with the most recent election with a lousy Republican candidate.

But before we do that, we need to consider one thing. We need to change the values of the states on the map as they’ve changed since 2008. A number of states that helped Obama in 2008 aren’t as valuable in 2012 and a number of states he lost gained votes. Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, Utah, and Arizona are all worth more this time around while Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and Ohio all lost votes. So before we do anything, we have to take Obama down a peg from what he accomplished in 2008.

After adjusting the map to 2012 numbers, Santorum gets 179 votes instead of the 173 McCain got. Again, this is assuming that he will do just as well as McCain did in 2008 – and I’ll say it again, that was pretty poor. While 179 isn’t enough to win, that’s just the beginning. So let’s start looking at how Santorum in 2012 is different from McCain in 2008.

Santorum is from Pennsylvania. On top of that, Pennsylvania is a state that, in 2010, elected Republican governor Tom Corbett. Also, Obama had 55% of the vote in that state in 2008. So between the fact that Obama’s approval rating is down, the latest state-wide election went to a Republican, and that Santorum is from that state, there’s a good chance he’ll win it. There’s another 20. That means with Santorum as the candidate, he’s at 199. Still not enough to win. But we’re not done.

Pennsylvania wasn’t the only state to get a Republican governor in 2010. Ohio did as well with their election of John Kasich. While it was a slim margin of victory, it does suggest that that state is more conservative than it was in 2008. Let’s also keep in mind that Obama only had 51% in that state in the last election. So there are another 18 votes. That brings Santorum to 217.

Wisconsin did the same as Ohio and Pennsylvania. Their economy is actually on the up-and-up under their Republican leadership. That could mean 10 more votes for Santorum. Make it 227.

North Carolina was practically 50/50 in the last election. The fact that that’s part of the “Bible Belt,” Santorum’s strong stance on social issues could appeal to the voters of that state more than McCain and Santorum could pick it up. Count another 15. We’re now at 242.

Virginia was 53/46 for Obama in 2008 and is in the “Bible Belt” as well. So they’re not too different from North Carolina. That’s another 13 votes, bringing the total 255.

Indiana is also in play as Obama only got 50% of the vote in that state. With Obama’s drop in popularity, Santorum just has to do as well in that state as McCain did. That’s 11 more. We’re at 266 now.

Florida’s another state that has the potential to be in play. Obama had 51% of the vote there. With Marco Rubio’s name being tossed around as a potential VP candidate, that state could be won as well. That could help out in Florida. The 29 votes from that state push him to 295, well above the 270 that’s needed.

There are other states that it’s questionable if Obama can win this time around for no other reason than the fact that he’s not the “Messiah” he was in 2008. He had less than 55% of the vote in Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Virginia. They total 43 votes. These states come into play just because people are starting to notice that Obama is "The Emperor with no clothes.”

Another state that has a slight chance of going to Santorum is Michigan. That state, like Ohio and Pennsylvania, went from a Democratic governor to a Republican governor in 2010. While it would be tough for Santorum to win there, a strong showing could force Obama to invest resources there that might have otherwise gone to other states. And if Romney was the VP selection instead, that would make the state even more likely to go red in November. That’s 16 votes.

The only areas where Santorum might do worse in 2012 than McCain did in 2008 are places like Hawaii, Washington, California, DC, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. But none of the candidates are going to win those states.

He might also not fair as well in Arizona as some of the other candidates. McCain most likely won that state since he’s from there. But then trading Arizona for Pennsylvania is a gain for the Republican Party (Arizona is worth 11 votes).

At this point, some people may think I’m being overly generous to Santorum in some of these cases. But let’s not forget my starting point: McCain in 2008, a horrible year for the Republican Party.

If Santorum won every state that he has the potential to win, that’s 354 votes (for those doing the math at home, I’m also adding in the one vote Obama got from Nebraska in ‘08). That’s 84 more than he needs.So even if we toss out some of these states where him winning isn’t very likely, he can still win the overall election.

As I suggested earlier, Santorum also can do something that McCain couldn’t and a number of the other candidates haven’t been able to do: Energize the conservative base. Romney’s record takes him left of what many had been hoping for in the Republican candidate. Conservatives detest Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Newt Gingrich has so many skeletons in his closet, he has all he needs to start a haunted house. The fact that McCain couldn’t get conservatives excited is the biggest thing that hurt him. They didn’t want to go out and vote for him, donate to his campaign, or volunteer. That’s not the case with Santorum.

Let’s not forget that it was the efforts of the Tea Party that helped the GOP gain control of the House and gain seats in the Senate in 2010. Were they looking for “Electability” or “Middle of the road?” Nope.

Can he appeal to the middle as much as some of the other candidates? No. But will the middle donate to anyone that’s running? Probably not. Keep in mind that with the economy like it is, disposable income is down, meaning a person would really have to believe in a candidate to donate.

Will the middle just vote for Obama instead? Given how I have people who volunteered for the Obama campaign in 2008 telling me there’s no way they’ll vote for him now, I wouldn’t bet on it. The middle will most likely stay home or give the Republican candidate a try for the sake of change.

The fact of the matter is that Rick Santorum can win an election against Obama in 2012. If a person doesn’t like something about his platform, that’s one thing. But saying he can’t win just isn’t a good excuse for supporting another candidate.

Besides, if “Electability” and “Caters to the middle” were the most important characteristics, McCain would have won in 2008 and Ronald Reagan would have never gotten a second term in 1984.