Edited by Janie Boschma
Eight Reasons Why Romney Can Beat Obama
The poor economy, a hard campaign and Romney’s wife are but a few of the reasons why the odds for a Romney victory should be low, despite all the advantages a sitting president has.
Defeating a sitting president is difficult and rare. Since the early 1900s, only four incumbents who have gone up for re-election have lost: William Howard Taft in 1912, Herbert Hoover in 1932, Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1992. An important reason behind Taft’s defeat was that Teddy Roosevelt ran as a third-party candidate and split the Republicans. The Great Depression sank Hoover. Carter was injured by Ted Kennedy’s challenge in the primaries. Bush was shaken first by Pat Buchanan’s challenge in the Republican primaries and later by Ross Perot’s third-party candidacy in the presidential election.
Romney’s campaign benefits from the poor economy and high unemployment. However, no third-party candidate is going to turn up and divide the Democrats. The four presidents that defeated an incumbent, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, were all formidable politicians. They challenged not only their opponents policies, but even broke with their parties’ immediate past and succeeded in convincing voters that they could tackle the new challenges the country faced. The question is whether Romney can manage to do the same and join this exclusive club.
Everything indicates a close election, and here follow eight reasons why the odds for a Romney victory ought to be set low despite all the advantages a sitting president has.
1. Romney is a significantly better and more experienced candidate today than he was in 2008. The Republicans often give losers a second chance. Nixon was tougher in 1968 than in 1960, Reagan was wiser in 1980 than in 1968 and 1976, and George H.W. Bush was better in 1988 than 1980. John McCain was decidedly more effective in the primaries in 2008 than he was in 2000. The tough primaries have damaged Romney’s image but, on the other hand, made him a more formidable candidate.
2. The Democrats were hoping the enormous stimulus package and the central bank's low rates would lead to clear signs of economic recovery before the election. It is not at all certain that we will see any such signs. The recovery is sluggish, unemployment is high, and the high gasoline prices have an inhibitory effect. There is also uncertainty surrounding Obama’s health care reforms. Will the Supreme Court stop it? Companies refuse to invest in this climate but would rather wait in the expectation of clear information. There is even widespread uncertainty and fear for what Obama will come up with if he is re-elected. Many financially strong individuals and firms are also upset over how Obama portrays them, considering that class struggle is a central narrative in his re-election campaign. Thus, there is a risk that the recovery of the economy will neither come about nor be presented as being strong, and this favors Romney.
3. Romney will tackle Obama in a way that McCain didn’t in 2008. Although Romney has received a lot of criticism from the tea party movement for being moderate, its members will gradually side with him when he intensifies his attacks against Obama. In the primaries, Romney has shown himself capable of both giving and taking blows, even below the belt. McCain didn’t want to attack Obama, believing it would backfire. It is entirely possible that this analysis was correct in 2008. It is not today.
Bill Clinton understood that one of Dukakis’ mistakes in 1988 was that he would rather be liked than feared. Therefore, Clinton drove a hard campaign in 1992. In a similar way, Romney understands that McCain’s magnanimity in 2008 did not yield results. Romney will receive a lot of negative press, and he knows that the majority of the media corps supports Obama. But in this election, there is a chance that this will not be as devastating as it usually is, seeing that the Republicans recently have made the media itself an election issue. For tactical reasons, Romney will not make any sallies against the media. He will openly show magnanimity, but the more negative press he receives, the more he will allow his campaign to address the issue of bias in the media.
4. New York’s former Republican mayor, Rudy Giuliani, in 2008, championed the idea that no one openly dared say that Obama was an extremist whose opinions were alien to ordinary Americans due to fear of being accused of being insensitive to Obama’s historic candidacy or, at worst, for being a racist. Now Obama has been president for four years, and there is policy to evaluate, not just a name and a historical candidacy to vote for or against. Thus, it is significantly easier for Romney to criticize Obama than it was for McCain. Obama also struggles with the problem that he hasn’t lived up to expectations. After his incredible election campaign in 2008, it was obvious that he never would live up to them and that he never again would be as popular as the day he was sworn in. This does not mean that Obama’s supporters will vote for Romney, but it means that they are no longer as enthusiastic and that they will neither vote nor donate money to the same extent as in 2008.
5. Thus far, it seems that the Republicans have a stronger common interest in defeating Obama than the Democrats have in re-electing him. The enthusiasm level may change, of course, but for now, there are few moderate Republicans who have anything positive to say about Obama, unlike in 2008, when many of them paid tribute to him. There also seem to be significantly more people who admit that they voted for Obama in 2008 but have now reconsidered and regretted it than there seem to be those who voted McCain and who now promise to correct their blunder by voting for Obama.
6. When Obama stood for election in 2008, he gave a magnificent speech about unity, bridging gaps and transcending conflicts. Now his rhetoric is not quite so high-minded. The election will reflect party polarization and be very dirty. The message of hope and change has lost its attractiveness and is now more soberly regarded as the effective campaign slogan it was, but not much more. The polarization and the fact that Obama will soon have been president for four years means there are no conditions on which he can formulate a new message with similar appeal.
Obama’s speeches no longer rouse any great enthusiasm and more often contain a catalogue of problems and obstacles than positive solutions. It is very common that many become tired of their leader after a while, and Obama is no exception. He no longer surprises anyone, and the reporting of his activities are barely sold in the same manner as during his first year as president.
7. Romney’s wife has proven to be an invaluable asset during the campaign. She is a skillful orator and has a life history that appeals to many. Besides, she makes up for Romney’s nerdy and robot-like personality through her spontaneity, style and finger-on-the-pulse. She can attract female votes that Romney on his own never could.
8. The historic factor is gone. In 2008, there was the possibility for the country to vote for their first African-American president. It is unclear exactly what significance this factor had, but most seem to agree that it played some role.
When Obama won in 2008, the young voted like never before. The difference in image and symbolism between the young, style-conscious African-American and the over 70-year-old Caucasian former soldier, McCain, was enormous, and there seemed no doubt who this group could relate to most. Voting for Obama was cool, and overall it was probably harder to be a young McCain supporter than it was to be a young Obama supporter. This coolness factor is greatly weakened, and Obama is not going to win the youth vote to the same extent as four years ago.
This does not mean that Romney is going to win. He faces a difficult task and also has several specific disadvantages that McCain did not. The economic situation in the U.S. does not look good for Obama, and he has lost much of his luster and allure. But he also has several advantages that he didn’t have in 2008. Just now the odds look even!
Defeating a sitting president is difficult and rare. Since the early 1900s, only four incumbents who have gone up for re-election have lost: William Howard Taft in 1912, Herbert Hoover in 1932, Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1992. An important reason behind Taft’s defeat was that Teddy Roosevelt ran as a third-party candidate and split the Republicans. The Great Depression sank Hoover. Carter was injured by Ted Kennedy’s challenge in the primaries. Bush was shaken first by Pat Buchanan’s challenge in the Republican primaries and later by Ross Perot’s third-party candidacy in the presidential election.
Romney’s campaign benefits from the poor economy and high unemployment. However, no third-party candidate is going to turn up and divide the Democrats. The four presidents that defeated an incumbent, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, were all formidable politicians. They challenged not only their opponents policies, but even broke with their parties’ immediate past and succeeded in convincing voters that they could tackle the new challenges the country faced. The question is whether Romney can manage to do the same and join this exclusive club.
Everything indicates a close election, and here follow eight reasons why the odds for a Romney victory ought to be set low despite all the advantages a sitting president has.
1. Romney is a significantly better and more experienced candidate today than he was in 2008. The Republicans often give losers a second chance. Nixon was tougher in 1968 than in 1960, Reagan was wiser in 1980 than in 1968 and 1976, and George H.W. Bush was better in 1988 than 1980. John McCain was decidedly more effective in the primaries in 2008 than he was in 2000. The tough primaries have damaged Romney’s image but, on the other hand, made him a more formidable candidate.
2. The Democrats were hoping the enormous stimulus package and the central bank's low rates would lead to clear signs of economic recovery before the election. It is not at all certain that we will see any such signs. The recovery is sluggish, unemployment is high, and the high gasoline prices have an inhibitory effect. There is also uncertainty surrounding Obama’s health care reforms. Will the Supreme Court stop it? Companies refuse to invest in this climate but would rather wait in the expectation of clear information. There is even widespread uncertainty and fear for what Obama will come up with if he is re-elected. Many financially strong individuals and firms are also upset over how Obama portrays them, considering that class struggle is a central narrative in his re-election campaign. Thus, there is a risk that the recovery of the economy will neither come about nor be presented as being strong, and this favors Romney.
3. Romney will tackle Obama in a way that McCain didn’t in 2008. Although Romney has received a lot of criticism from the tea party movement for being moderate, its members will gradually side with him when he intensifies his attacks against Obama. In the primaries, Romney has shown himself capable of both giving and taking blows, even below the belt. McCain didn’t want to attack Obama, believing it would backfire. It is entirely possible that this analysis was correct in 2008. It is not today.
Bill Clinton understood that one of Dukakis’ mistakes in 1988 was that he would rather be liked than feared. Therefore, Clinton drove a hard campaign in 1992. In a similar way, Romney understands that McCain’s magnanimity in 2008 did not yield results. Romney will receive a lot of negative press, and he knows that the majority of the media corps supports Obama. But in this election, there is a chance that this will not be as devastating as it usually is, seeing that the Republicans recently have made the media itself an election issue. For tactical reasons, Romney will not make any sallies against the media. He will openly show magnanimity, but the more negative press he receives, the more he will allow his campaign to address the issue of bias in the media.
4. New York’s former Republican mayor, Rudy Giuliani, in 2008, championed the idea that no one openly dared say that Obama was an extremist whose opinions were alien to ordinary Americans due to fear of being accused of being insensitive to Obama’s historic candidacy or, at worst, for being a racist. Now Obama has been president for four years, and there is policy to evaluate, not just a name and a historical candidacy to vote for or against. Thus, it is significantly easier for Romney to criticize Obama than it was for McCain. Obama also struggles with the problem that he hasn’t lived up to expectations. After his incredible election campaign in 2008, it was obvious that he never would live up to them and that he never again would be as popular as the day he was sworn in. This does not mean that Obama’s supporters will vote for Romney, but it means that they are no longer as enthusiastic and that they will neither vote nor donate money to the same extent as in 2008.
5. Thus far, it seems that the Republicans have a stronger common interest in defeating Obama than the Democrats have in re-electing him. The enthusiasm level may change, of course, but for now, there are few moderate Republicans who have anything positive to say about Obama, unlike in 2008, when many of them paid tribute to him. There also seem to be significantly more people who admit that they voted for Obama in 2008 but have now reconsidered and regretted it than there seem to be those who voted McCain and who now promise to correct their blunder by voting for Obama.
6. When Obama stood for election in 2008, he gave a magnificent speech about unity, bridging gaps and transcending conflicts. Now his rhetoric is not quite so high-minded. The election will reflect party polarization and be very dirty. The message of hope and change has lost its attractiveness and is now more soberly regarded as the effective campaign slogan it was, but not much more. The polarization and the fact that Obama will soon have been president for four years means there are no conditions on which he can formulate a new message with similar appeal.
Obama’s speeches no longer rouse any great enthusiasm and more often contain a catalogue of problems and obstacles than positive solutions. It is very common that many become tired of their leader after a while, and Obama is no exception. He no longer surprises anyone, and the reporting of his activities are barely sold in the same manner as during his first year as president.
7. Romney’s wife has proven to be an invaluable asset during the campaign. She is a skillful orator and has a life history that appeals to many. Besides, she makes up for Romney’s nerdy and robot-like personality through her spontaneity, style and finger-on-the-pulse. She can attract female votes that Romney on his own never could.
8. The historic factor is gone. In 2008, there was the possibility for the country to vote for their first African-American president. It is unclear exactly what significance this factor had, but most seem to agree that it played some role.
When Obama won in 2008, the young voted like never before. The difference in image and symbolism between the young, style-conscious African-American and the over 70-year-old Caucasian former soldier, McCain, was enormous, and there seemed no doubt who this group could relate to most. Voting for Obama was cool, and overall it was probably harder to be a young McCain supporter than it was to be a young Obama supporter. This coolness factor is greatly weakened, and Obama is not going to win the youth vote to the same extent as four years ago.
This does not mean that Romney is going to win. He faces a difficult task and also has several specific disadvantages that McCain did not. The economic situation in the U.S. does not look good for Obama, and he has lost much of his luster and allure. But he also has several advantages that he didn’t have in 2008. Just now the odds look even!