As US Presidential Election Enters into Its Final Stage, What Are the Odds for Romney?

Published in Southern Metropolis Daily
(China) on 3 July 2012
by Souther Metropolis Daily (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Lanlan Jin. Edited by Tom Proctor.
Romney is a very strong candidate whose views on foreign and economic policies are both moderate and intelligent; however, Romney’s pragmatism does have a negative effect, for no one can determine his true position.

The six-month-long U.S. presidential primaries drew to a close on the evening of June 26. The end of the primaries signals that the real contest and clash between U.S. president Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is now in full swing.

The Associated Press recently released a poll that indicated that support for Obama and Romney was at 47 percent and 44 percent, respectively. With the election less than five months away, Obama and Romney are going all out in election rallies, mauling and bickering at each other in their speeches. What advantages and challenges does Romney have when it comes to economic and social issues? As a representative for the wealthy, how will Romney win the support of rural and blue-collar white Americans?

1. The Economy: “One Cannot Only Attack Without Countermeasures”

Having experienced the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, the American public is now extremely concerned with economic issues. Seizing the voters’ dissatisfaction with reality and their anxiety over the economic outlook, Romney has decided to play the economy card as the main focus of in his campaign. “The more the economy declines, the more favorable it will be for Romney,”* said Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Dyson when interviewed by a Southern Metropolis reporter.

A recent poll jointly produced by the Associated Press and the GfK market research group showed that the gap between Obama and Romney is shrinking due to the sluggish economy and other factors. With the election less than five months away, the percentage of voters who have expressed that they will vote for Obama or Romney were 47 percent and 44 percent, respectively, with Obama leading with only three percentage points.

The survey found that the economic downturn and persistent high unemployment rate are the major barriers to Obama’s re-election, with 55 percent of the public in disfavor of Obama’s approach to the nation’s economic issues. About 40 percent of people believe that their standard of living is worse when compared to four years ago, while only 30 percent of people believe they are better off than four years ago.

Some Americans have mocked the Republican camp for reducing the economic problem to “Obama’s fault.” “Yes, we are indeed dissatisfied with Obama’s economic policies, but that rich Republican guy doesn’t necessarily have any better ideas. Therefore, we might as well vote for the current president,”* said Dyson.

The New York Times' analysis refers to Romney as a very strong candidate whose views on foreign and economic policies are both moderate and intelligent; however, Romney’s pragmatism does have a negative effect, for no one can determine his true position. Independent voters can accept that the Republican candidates have used radical speech in the past to win votes, but they need to be able to trust the future president on important issues. Romney has released long-winded statements on economic policies, but the details of their implementation have remained elusive. No one knows exactly how he plans to reform the costly U.S. health care and pension system, and his view on solving the problem of the U.S.’s 12 million illegal immigrants is equally obscure.

Therefore, a chorus of dissatisfaction with Romney has began to surface within the Republican Party. Some Republicans have complained that Romney needs to establish his own unique and detailed points in the campaign rather than “burying” himself in wait for news of bad economic downturns to surface and relying on external groups and super political action committees to fight the battle for him. (The so-called super political action committees are private political organizations that support the presidential candidate; their main task is to donate money to businesses, interest groups or individuals via TV advertisements and other forms of political elections and legislative processes.)

2. Immigration: “Policies Regarding Ethnic Minorities Warrant Adjustment”

While the economy is the commanding issue in this election, the debt crisis in Europe has rendered the U.S.’s economic recovery extremely weak. The Associated Press polls show that many people think that neither Obama’s re-election nor Romney’s White House aspirations will improve the American economy. Thus at this stage, no matter how valiantly the two candidates are promoting their policies, the voters are growing tired and perhaps even increasingly pessimistic. Under such circumstances, social issues have become the new battleground for both sides to wrestle with, among which illegal immigration is a problem that carries major influence.

On June 15, Obama issued an executive order to stop the repatriation of law-abiding young illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. as children and to issue them work permits. This policy, nearly the equivalent of amnesty, is going to benefit nearly 800,000 people, a majority of whom are of Hispanic decent.

Following this, Bloomberg released a poll showing that the policy has gained 60 percent support, while Obama’s support rate rose to 53 percent, marking a significant lead over Romney’s 40 percent support.

Dyson expressed that the competition for Hispanic support is a big challenge for Romney. USA Today recently analyzed that the sharp decline in Hispanics’ support for Romney is not only due to Obama’s “move,” but also stems from Romney himself. In October of last year, Romney vehemently attacked the DREAM Act, which was signed by Rick Perry back in 2001, saying that “Perry’s signage of the bill is simply an act providing bait for illegal immigrants.”* The bill would allow illegal immigrant students to attend public universities at Texas residents’ tuition rates. Romney also said that if he is to become president, he would not have allowed the passing of the bill. These created the conditions for Obama’s “amnesty” gesture.

Facing Obama’s “move”, Romney has not been able to furnish specific reform policies and has even refused to comment on whether or not he will overthrow Obama’s “New Deal” that has suspended the deportation of these illegal immigrants.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and other Republican heavyweights have repeatedly warned that Romney needs to adjust his immigration policies and proposals. They are worried that losing the votes of ethnic minorities would mean that the Republican party will not only lose this election, but also lose the “future”, and Romney cannot afford the consequences of alienating Hispanic groups.

This uneasiness is not unreasonable, since America is a nation of immigrants. In the existing U.S. population, whites account for about 64 percent, Hispanics 16.3 percent, African Americans 12.6 percent, and Asian Americans 4.6 percent. Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority in the U.S., accounting for approximately a sixth of the total population. In the past four decades, immigration, especially illegal immigration, has become a tough problem. It has become the biggest issue plaguing the government and the main topic of debate between liberals and conservatives. USA Today analyzes that in the early November presidential elections, minority votes will have a decisive effect.

This is the main reason behind Romney and Obama’s trip to Florida to attend the the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference. On June 22, Obama delivered a speech at the event--Romney had delivered a speech at the same occasion just a day prior. More than ever before, ethnic minorities have become the object of competition between the two presidential candidates.

3. Rural Voters: “The Electoral College Game Changer”

In addition to the immigration issue, winning the votes of rural and blue-collar Americans presents both a challenge and an opportunity for the rich’s representative, Romney.

As we all know, should Romney be elected, he will become the richest president in American history. According to Forbes magazine, Romney’s assets are estimated to be as high as $250 million, with an annual investment income of $21 million currently.

Romney’s father was the president of the American Motors Corporation, the 43rd governor of Michigan, a candidate for the Republican nomination for president, the Secretary of Housing and Development during the Nixon administration and a renowned politician. Romney himself was a honors student at Harvard who was been thoroughly engaged with the financial sector after graduating. He is known for turning losses into profits and displaying no hesitation during streamlined layoffs, to the point that his political opponents claim that his success is built on the basis of masses of unemployed workers. The Obama campaign has therefore been bashing Romney as a ruthless capitalist.

“As a millionaire, Romney has spent most of his time in big cities. If he wants to win the presidential election in November, he might need to 'head into the countryside' and make contact with working-class voters, for face-to-face communication will enhance the voters’ understanding,” said Senior Political Analyst for The Washington Examiner Michael Barone to reporters at Southern Metropolis. “Votes from rural voters might be the tipping point between success and failure.”*

Obama achieved great success canvassing in rural areas back in 2008. His rallies in the Iowa, Colorado and North Carolina regions laid the foundations for his victory later on. Romney’s campaign team is also aware of this. Romney recently visited small towns in six Midwest states to amass support for the general election.

Barone analyzed that in order to get the support of rural voters, Romney needs to set forth an easily comprehensible and convincing economic plan in which individual initiatives and the limiting of governmental regulations are encouraged. He needs to commit to the implementation of energy independence policies, including those for gas, coal and natural gas, etc. He needs to interlace the military with patriotism, since many rural families have family members who have participated or are currently in service. He also needs to show the electorate that his commitment will extend from his election day to the very last day of his four year term.

“If he can accomplish all these, and if he can win the votes of the majority of the rural voters, the situation will parallel when George W. Bush opened up a vote gap between himself and his rivals back in 2004 and make rural areas 'the electoral college game changer.'”*

In addition, “blue-collar” white voters are also not an ignorable force and can exert great impact on the presidential election. In the 2004 presidential election, blue-collar white voters accounted for 43 percent of all voters, and former president G.W. Bush defeated John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, precisely due to support from “blue-collar” white voters. Voting statistics analyst Ron Brownstein from the National Journal wrote on June 11 that to win the election, Romney must get the support of two-thirds of all blue-collar white voters.

The good news for Romney is that in recent years, the support rate for Republicans amongst blue-collar voters has hovered around the said rate. In 2008, Republican candidate John McCain won 40-58 percent of blue-collar whites’ vote. The current polls show that Obama has only a 33 percent support rate from blue-collar whites.

Brownstein comments in his article that Obama’s support for gay rights will not increase the rate of blue-collar whites’ support, and his initiative to suspend the repatriation of some illegal immigrants has likewise been upsetting to the blue-collar white voters. Thus, this segment of voters is a must-win ground for the Republican Party, and Romney should spend the effort necessary in order to win these votes.

*Editor's note: the original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.


美国大选进入最后决战 罗姆尼暂落后胜算几何

6月28日,美国共和党准总统候选人罗姆尼在国会大厦前讲话。(来源:南方都市报)
  罗姆尼非常稳健,他在经济和外交政策上的观点温和而又明智;不过,罗姆尼的实用主义也有负面作用,没有人能够确定他的立场。——《纽约时报》

  长达半年之久的美国总统初选6月26日晚落下帷幕,初选的结束意味着大选的真正较量时刻到来,争取连任的民主党籍美国总统奥巴马和共和党准总统候选人罗姆尼之间的正面对决全面展开。

  美联社近日公布的一份民调显示,表示将投票支持奥巴马或罗姆尼的选民分别为47%和44%。在距离大选不到五个月之际,奥巴马和罗姆尼均全力以赴为大选造势,并在演讲中相互抨击大打“口水仗”。罗姆尼在经济、社会议题中有哪些优势和挑战?作为富人代表的他,如何能赢得美国乡村选民和“蓝领”白人的支持?

  1

  经济:“不能光抨击而无对策”

  经历过上世纪30年代“大萧条”以来最严重经济危机打击之后,美国民众空前关注国内经济问题。抓住民众对现实的不满和对经济前景的焦虑,罗姆尼在竞选中主打经济牌。“经济越是下滑,对罗姆尼越有利。”美国乔治敦大学社会学教授迈克尔·戴森接受南都记者采访时说。

  美联社与捷孚凯市场研究集团最近联合所做的民调显示,受经济持续萎靡等因素的影响,奥巴马和罗姆尼的民调差距正在缩小。在距离大选不到五个月之际,表示将投票支持奥巴马或罗姆尼的选民分别为47%和44%,奥巴马仅领先3个百分点。

  调查发现,经济不景气、失业率居高不下仍是奥巴马寻求连任的最大包袱,有55%的民众不赞成奥巴马处理国家经济的手法。约有40%的人认为自己的生活水平比四年前差,而认为现在生活较好的只有30%。

  这对共和党来说似乎是令人振奋的消息。但戴森表示,罗姆尼不能指望通过批评奥巴马的经济政策失败就可以赢得大选。他不仅需要争取那30%的认为现在生活比四年前好的选民,而且还需要给那40%的认为自己生活水平较差的民众提供有说服力的论证,证明自己有能力让经济好转。

  有美国民众戏谑,共和党阵营把经济问题简化成“全是奥巴马的错”。“如果罗姆尼不能给民众一个更佳选择,这40%的民众也许会这么想:‘没错,我们的确对奥巴马的经济政策不满,但那个有钱的共和党家伙也不见得就有更好的想法。因此,我们还不如就投给现在这个总统吧。’”戴森说。

  《纽约时报》分析指,罗姆尼非常稳健,他在经济和外交政策上的观点温和而又明智;不过,罗姆尼的实用主义也有负面作用,没有人能够确定他的立场。对独立选民而言,他们可以接受共和党人为了赢得提名说一些过激的话,但他们必须在重要问题上信任总统。罗姆尼发布了一段很长的经济政策声明,但他对如何落实其中大部分内容讳莫如深。无人知道他想怎样改革美国昂贵的医疗和养老保险体系,他的关于如何解决美国1200万非法移民的观点同样让人费解。

  因此,共和党内部慢慢开始出现了对罗姆尼不满的声音,一些共和党人抱怨称,罗姆尼需要在竞选中树立他自己的一些独特、具体的观点,不要只“埋头”坐等经济形势变糟的新闻出现,依靠外部团体和超级政治行动委员会来为他搏斗。(所谓超级政治行动委员会,是支持候选人的私人政治组织,主要任务是向企业、利益集团或者个人募集捐款,以电视广告和其它形式影响政治选举和立法进程。)

  “他最终或许可以通过这种方式赢得大选,但此时距离大选还有很长时间,未来几个月里可能会发生一些能影响总统大选的重大事件,”戴森说,“因此罗姆尼亟须提高在经济议题上的竞选策略,不能光抨击奥巴马的经济政策而不提出更大的愿景。”

  2

  移民:“需调整少数族裔政策主张”

  经济固然是本次大选压倒一切的议题,然而,受欧洲债务危机影响,美国经济复苏乏力。美联社的这份民调显示,许多民众认为,不管是奥巴马连任还是罗姆尼问鼎白宫都无力改善美国经济,所以现阶段无论双方如何卖力地宣扬自己的经济主张,都已经让选民感到倦怠甚至是更加悲观。在这种情况下,社会问题又重新成为双方博弈的战场,而非法移民则是其中影响较大的一个问题。

  6月15日,奥巴马颁布一项行政令,停止遣返儿童时期进入美国的部分守法年轻非法移民,并向其发放工作许可证。这项几乎等同于“大赦”的政策将使80万人受益,这其中很大一部分是拉美裔。

  彭博新闻社随后公布的一项民调显示,这项政策赢得64%支持率,同时奥巴马的支持率更是上升至53%,大幅领先罗姆尼40%的支持率。

  戴森表示,如何争取拉美裔选票对罗姆尼来说是一大挑战。《今日美国》近日分析称,罗姆尼在拉美裔选民中的支持率大幅下跌的原因不只是奥巴马“出招”,还有一部分是他自身的原因。在去年10月的共和党总统候选人初选中,罗姆尼猛烈攻击得克萨斯州州长里克·佩里2001年签署的“梦想法案”,说“佩里签署这样的法案简直就是为非法移民提供诱饵”。该法案允许非法移民学生按照得州学费就读公立大学。罗姆尼还表示,如果他是总统,绝不同意该法案通过。这些都为奥巴马的“大赦”政策创造了条件。

  面对奥巴马“出招”,罗姆尼却拿不出移民改革具体方案,甚至不肯就如果当选总统是否会推翻奥巴马暂缓遣返非法移民的“新政”表态。

  佛罗里达州前州长杰布·布什等支持移民改革的共和党重量级人物多次提醒,罗姆尼的移民政策主张需要调整。他们担心,失去少数族裔选票,共和党不仅会输掉本届总统选举,还会丧失“未来”,罗姆尼承担不起疏远拉美裔群体的后果。

  这种担心并非没有道理。美国是一个移民国家,在美国现有人口中,白人约占64%,拉美裔为16.3%、非洲裔12.6%、亚裔4.8%。拉美裔是美国第一大少数族裔,占人口将近六分之一。在过去四十年里,移民问题特别是非法移民问题,成为困扰美国政府的一大政治难题,也是自由派和保守派辩论的主要话题之一。《今日美国》分析,在11月初举行的总统选举中,少数族裔投谁的票,对结果举足轻重。

  这也是罗姆尼和奥巴马相继前往佛罗里达州拜访“全国拉美裔当选任命官员协会”的主要原因。6月22日,奥巴马在该协会发表讲话,而此前一日罗姆尼在同一场合演讲。少数族裔,与以往相比,更显著地成为两党总统候选人的争取对象。

  3

  乡村选民:“选举团游戏规则颠覆者”

  除了移民问题,如何争取乡 村 选 民 和“蓝 领”白 人 的支持,对富人代表罗姆尼来说,既是挑战也是机遇。

  众所周知,罗姆尼如果当选,将会成为美国最富的总统。据《福布斯》杂志估计,他的个人资产可能高达2.5亿美元,如今每年投资的收入高达2100万美元。

  罗姆尼的父亲是美国汽车公司的总裁,密歇根州的三任州长,一度竞选总统,后出任政治对手尼克松政府中的住房部长,是全国知名的政治家。罗姆尼本人是哈佛优等生,毕业后一直投身于金融界,他善于将企业扭亏为盈,不惜精简裁员,乃至政敌称他的成功是建筑在大量工人失业的基础之上。奥巴马竞选团队于是对罗姆尼发起了猛烈抨击,将其描述成一位冷酷无情的资本家。

  “作为一个亿万富翁,罗姆尼一生中的大部分时间都是在大都市里度过。但如果他想在11月赢得总统大选,恐怕得多‘ 下乡’与劳工选民接触,面对面的交流有助于增进选民对他的了解,”《华盛顿审查者》特聘高级政治分析师迈克尔·布朗对南都记者说,“农村地区的选票可能是成功或失败间的差别所在。”

  奥巴马2008年竞选总统时曾在乡村拉票大获成功。在爱荷华、科罗拉多和北卡罗来纳 州 的 重 要 地 区 的 造 势 为他后来的取胜打下了基础。罗姆尼 的 竞 选 团 队 也 意 识 到 了 这一点。罗姆尼近日前往美国中西 部 地 区 六 个 州 的 乡村 为 大选造势。

  布朗分析,如果想得到乡村选民的支持,罗姆尼须列出一个容易理解的、有说服力的经济计划,在计划中要激励个人主动性、限制政府管制;要承诺实施能源独立政策--包括石油、煤炭和天然气等;要将军方和爱国精神联系到一起———许多乡村地区的家庭都有成员曾经或正在服役;还要向选民表明,他的承诺将会从大选日一直延续到四年任期结束之时。

  “如果这些都能做到,如果他能得到大部分乡村选民的支持,能像2004年时任总统小布什那样与对手拉开乡村选票差距,美国乡村地区可能真的会成为‘ 选 举 团 游 戏 规 则 颠 覆者’。”布朗说。

  此外,“蓝领”白人的选票也是不容忽视的一股力量,对总统选举有重要影响。2004年总统选举中,“蓝领”白人选民占全部选民的43%,前总统小布什正是依靠“蓝领”白人选民支持,击败当时的民主党总统候选人约翰·克里。投票统计分析员布朗斯坦6月11日在美国《国家杂志》撰文称,如果想要赢得总统大选,罗姆尼必须要得到三分之二的“蓝领”白人支持。

  对 罗 姆 尼 而 言 的 好 消息是,近年来“蓝领”白人对共和党 的 支 持 率 都 在 那 个 水 平浮动。2008年,共和党候选人约翰·麦凯恩获得了40%-58%的“蓝领”白人选票。而目前的民调显示,奥巴马在“蓝领”白人中只获得33%的支持率。

  布朗斯坦在文中说,奥巴马对同性恋的支持并不会增加“蓝领”白人对他的支持率,而他宣布停止遣返部分非法移民的举措更是不得“蓝领”白人的民心,因此这部分选民是共和党的重要争夺对象,罗姆尼应尽可能争取他们的选票。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Poland: Los Angeles Riots: Battle for America’s Future

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Venezuela: The Devil in Los Angeles

Topics

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Venezuela: The Devil in Los Angeles

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Poland: Los Angeles Riots: Battle for America’s Future

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy

Taiwan: The Beginning of a Post-Hegemonic Era: A New Normal for International Relations

Related Articles

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem