Obama a Sure Winner Only in Sweden
Published in Svenska Dagbladet
(Sweden) on 24 September 2012
by Roland Poirier Martinsson (link to
original)
Beyond the spotlights, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama travel the country, eat dinners, shake hands and allow themselves to be photographed — the objects of their attentions are the donors who give millions of dollars to their campaigns. Here, the candidates dare to speak with a little more freedom; the script can even occasionally allow for a little improvisation.
So things can sometimes go completely wrong.
Obama’s most notorious blunder was in April 2008 when he, in a private meeting with progressive millionaires in San Francisco, described people in rural Pennsylvania as bitter losers who “cling to guns or religion.” It was a telling example of Obama’s condescending opinion of people who do not share his worldview and could have been damaging had he gone up against a stronger opponent than John McCain.
Last week, Mitt Romney had his moment when he, in front of a group of donors, dismissed 47 percent of voters as narrow-minded due to their dependence on government aid. Just as before with Obama, Romney’s comments are damaging because they seem to reveal what he really thinks. However, as with Obama, one cannot rule out the possibility that Romney will become the ultimate winner when the votes are counted. The reason is, in this case, the same: His opponent is so weak that Romney can afford to make mistakes.
After having studied reports in the Swedish media covering the American presidential election in recent weeks, it is obvious that Swedish journalists are on the way to committing the same mistake from 2004, when George W. Bush wholly and expectedly defeated John Kerry — a result that shocked those who had followed developments from Sweden. I then lived in California and was contacted by a Swedish TV channel. The anchor’s opening question was priceless: "Roland, you were one of the few who believed that Bush would win. How did you guess?" I didn’t get it. I did not know anyone who had believed in Kerry.
The following summer, I was in Sweden and ate lunch with the then ambassador from the U.S., Teel Bivins, who was on his way home to his beloved Texas. I asked him if he would take any particularly strong impression home with him from Sweden. “The reportage of the presidential election,” he answered. “It was like living in a parallel universe.”
So here, then, is what is going on in this year’s election. Barack Obama is a weak favorite; polls show that he leads by approximately 2 percent; his voter support and approval ratings are at a standstill at under 50 percent. The U.S. economy is regarded as the most important election issue and confidence in Obama in this respect is measured at well below 40 percent. Enthusiasm among those who vote Democrat is clearly weaker than among Republicans, the reason being that Obama’s four years as president have been a disappointment.
Obama may continue to be a saint from a Swedish perspective, but for the American voter, the halo has long since slipped askew. It may be that he wins despite his difficult starting position — not even Romney is entirely convincing in the voters’ eyes — but do not think that it is settled. It is only in the Swedish parallel universe that Obama is invulnerable.
So things can sometimes go completely wrong.
Obama’s most notorious blunder was in April 2008 when he, in a private meeting with progressive millionaires in San Francisco, described people in rural Pennsylvania as bitter losers who “cling to guns or religion.” It was a telling example of Obama’s condescending opinion of people who do not share his worldview and could have been damaging had he gone up against a stronger opponent than John McCain.
Last week, Mitt Romney had his moment when he, in front of a group of donors, dismissed 47 percent of voters as narrow-minded due to their dependence on government aid. Just as before with Obama, Romney’s comments are damaging because they seem to reveal what he really thinks. However, as with Obama, one cannot rule out the possibility that Romney will become the ultimate winner when the votes are counted. The reason is, in this case, the same: His opponent is so weak that Romney can afford to make mistakes.
After having studied reports in the Swedish media covering the American presidential election in recent weeks, it is obvious that Swedish journalists are on the way to committing the same mistake from 2004, when George W. Bush wholly and expectedly defeated John Kerry — a result that shocked those who had followed developments from Sweden. I then lived in California and was contacted by a Swedish TV channel. The anchor’s opening question was priceless: "Roland, you were one of the few who believed that Bush would win. How did you guess?" I didn’t get it. I did not know anyone who had believed in Kerry.
The following summer, I was in Sweden and ate lunch with the then ambassador from the U.S., Teel Bivins, who was on his way home to his beloved Texas. I asked him if he would take any particularly strong impression home with him from Sweden. “The reportage of the presidential election,” he answered. “It was like living in a parallel universe.”
So here, then, is what is going on in this year’s election. Barack Obama is a weak favorite; polls show that he leads by approximately 2 percent; his voter support and approval ratings are at a standstill at under 50 percent. The U.S. economy is regarded as the most important election issue and confidence in Obama in this respect is measured at well below 40 percent. Enthusiasm among those who vote Democrat is clearly weaker than among Republicans, the reason being that Obama’s four years as president have been a disappointment.
Obama may continue to be a saint from a Swedish perspective, but for the American voter, the halo has long since slipped askew. It may be that he wins despite his difficult starting position — not even Romney is entirely convincing in the voters’ eyes — but do not think that it is settled. It is only in the Swedish parallel universe that Obama is invulnerable.