May the Least Objectionable Candidate Win

Many Germans are now faced with a mystery. Nine days until Americans go to the polls to elect a president and Mitt Romney is leading in national opinion surveys. The chances of German favorite Obama winning a second term sink lower with each passing day. How can that be possible? If Germans could vote in the U.S. election, more than 80 percent of them would choose Obama. Have Americans gone crazy or been stricken with amnesia? From the European viewpoint, it seems impossible that a majority of conservatives would be willing to give the Republicans another chance a mere four years after George W. Bush’s administration.

Most attempts at an explanation center around the disastrous October 3 debate, but that’s not the key. Sure, media-savvy rock star Obama looked uncharacteristically weak debating Romney in that outing. Up until then, many had considered Romney to be a humorless number-cruncher. But the Republican came off looking as though he enjoyed that mano-a-mano contest more than Obama did. He was better prepared and spoke calmly and to the point.

Obama, on the other hand, seemed tired and avoided looking directly into the camera or at his opponent. His gaze was directed downward — but at what, exactly? Viewers could hardly tell by the image on their screens since the camera focused mainly on them from the waist up. But Obama wasn’t looking at the floor in embarrassment; he was taking copious notes while his opponent spoke because Romney was doing a breathtaking about-face on many of his own positions — such as his previously announced tax policies. Before the debate, he had constantly promised to cut taxes across the board. Now he was saying that under his administration the wealthiest Americans would see no reductions in their taxes.

But how could a single televised debate in which Romney looked good and Obama seemed lost change the entire election dynamic? Obama had been clearly leading in national surveys up to that point and came out of the Democratic convention with the wind at his back, something denied to Romney by the Republican convention.

If a single debate were sufficient to put Romney on the road to victory, that begs the question: Why didn’t the same thing happen in the wake of the two following debates? Why didn’t the trend swing in Obama’s favor? He was, after all, considered the winner in the last two debates, so the score should have been 2-1. But there was no turnaround; Romney has been rising in the polls throughout the whole month of October.

Why Most Americans Don’t Want to Vote for Obama Again

On closer inspection, that’s not the whole story. The psychology of the electorate in this unusual election year is more complex. The simple mechanism wherein one candidate’s losses are the other candidate’s gains doesn’t apply here. A majority of Americans want neither Obama nor Romney. Neither one has a majority of voters behind him, finding support only by a 48 percent plurality of voters at best.

It’s been known for over a year that Obama didn’t have majority support. He may not have caused the economic crisis — having inherited it from George W. Bush — but he was elected in 2008 on the promise of getting the economy moving toward growth and increasing employment once again. By American standards, he was given a large majority to do so, but he failed to fulfill expectations.

That said, however, in order to vote an incumbent out of office American voters need to have a preferred alternative. Romney thus far has failed to convince a majority of voters that he is that person; he also falls short of the 50 percent mark.

The election depends not on which of the two candidates is most popular with a majority of voters. Such a candidate doesn’t exist in 2012. The question essentially is which candidate incites the most doubt among voters. His opponent leads in the polls not because he generates more positive feelings about himself personally and his platform in general than his opponent does.

Obama and Romney have internalized this constellation and are running their election strategies accordingly. They campaign in surprisingly small measure on their own personal strengths. Their precise plans for stimulating the economy, reducing unemployment, cutting the national debt and increasing America’s competitiveness if they are elected remain nebulous. They toss around slogans and generalities: cheaper energy, lower tax rates, investment in education and infrastructure. What’s missing are the verbs and the details that would make a complete and comprehensible plan.

Both Candidates Resort to “Negative Campaigning”

Instead, a large part of their messages rely on warnings about threats to the nation should their competitor win the White House. Even their million-dollar television advertising campaigns consist, for the most part, of slandering their opponent. Obama even resorted to calling Romney “a bullshitter” in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine.

Obama had success with negative ads at first. In the early phases of the campaign, Mitt Romney was engaged in the primary election process, trying to win his party’s nomination to run against Obama. The primary candidates tried to outdo one another to prove how true they were to the party line on subjects such as outlawing abortion or rejection of same-sex marriage and managed to drive themselves to the extreme right, thus helping create the image Obama was building — that the Republicans had degenerated into a party of radicals.

Using this strategy, Obama was able to shape the election as he saw fit. It was a success for him, but he had actually lost the election before the election year even began. In the fall of 2011, 75 percent of those polled said they thought the country was on the wrong track. Obama’s negatives continued to mount throughout the whole year. One can’t win an election with such numbers. But by going on the offensive, the president was able to use that to his own advantage. The mood during both party conventions favored Obama. It was obvious Romney generated little enthusiasm at the Republican convention in Tampa, where he received only polite applause. Those speakers who went negative on Obama got standing ovations. Hatred of the incumbent proved more mobilizing than pride in their own candidate.

More enthusiasm was apparent among Democrats at their convention. They were relieved that the election hadn’t yet been lost; their enthusiasm carried over to supporters across the country. By early October, Obama had a 3.5 percent advantage in the national opinion polls.

October can be a grim month in politics. The “October surprise” — reversals due to unforeseen circumstances — is a well-known political phenomenon. The first of the 2012 debates was just such an event. Speculation as to the cause of Obama’s poor showing made the rounds. He was exhausted and not accustomed to Denver’s mile-high altitude, said many. Others speculated that the outbreak of hostilities on the Syrian-Turkish border were to blame. Obama’s concentration was broken due to the many telephone conferences necessary during that crisis, while Romney was able to prepare for the debates with no distractions.

Whatever the cause, the results are irreversible. The decisive question remains: Which candidate is the most dubious? The debates changed popular perceptions. Romney appeared confident. Some voters thought that perhaps he wasn’t as bad as the Democrats claimed after all; they’re now willing to give him a second look before deciding. Now the doubts are directed toward Obama; that caused him to lose ground in the ensuing weeks. Not even good showings in the last two debates were able to restore his aura of invincibility.

Romney Deftly Maneuvered Toward the Center

This dynamic is strengthened by Romney’s surprising push toward the center. At the outset, he presented a rhetorical image of being to the extreme right in order to win over the Republican base. Now he’s modifying his image to appeal more to the moderate middle. His tax policies will not protect the wealthy after all. Where he previously threatened Iran with invasion and war, he now praises diplomacy as the way to go. China is no longer an enemy, but a partner.

Under normal circumstances, such philosophical changes would be risky. Romney already has been tagged a “flip-flopper,” changing his beliefs according to whatever seems most opportune. But since his new persona comes just at a time when Obama is beginning to raise doubts among the voters, it looks as if perhaps Obama had exaggerated Romney’s character flaws. Could Romney actually make an acceptable president?

Nine days to the election and survey results are inconclusive. Romney leads the race for the popular vote but Obama has more electoral votes. In the United States, each state tallies its number of popular votes; whoever wins gets all of that state’s electoral votes. Obama leads in this race — albeit by a slim margin — but that could change should the trend toward Romney continue.

The world should get used to the idea that America could end up with a President Romney. What would change? The serious ramifications would not be in the area of foreign policy. Europe need not prepare itself for changes in relations with the superpower. Wars or an expansion of targeted drone killings won’t automatically follow. Romney is a technocrat without deeply held ideological convictions. He will pursue whatever is in his nation’s best interests.

The major challenges lie in the areas of financial and tax policy. U.S. debt stands at $16 trillion. That’s more than the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and exceeds that of the Eurozone. If one includes state and municipal debt, the United States is approaching conditions in Greece. The question then becomes, who pays for the debt reduction — the wealthy through increased taxation, as Obama proposes? Or the poor through cuts in the social safety net, as proposed by the Republicans? That’s not entirely dependent on who wins the presidency, but also who controls Congress. Winning the trifecta — Republican president, Republican House of Representatives and Republican Senate — would place extreme pressure on Mitt Romney to carry out his promised changes: less government assistance and every man for himself. If the Democrats win one or two out of the three, it would be seen as a mandate to seek compromises.

America’s most urgent task is similar to that of Europe: economizing without causing a recession. That’s the greatest immediate threat to the United States. The Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of the year; that will take purchasing power away from consumers. The nation has to drastically curb spending on social programs and defense alike, again taking purchasing power out of the economy. Businesses will bear the burden of expiring reduced rates for Social Security. If all three measures take effect, it will reduce the GDP by roughly 3.5 percent. That’s called the “fiscal cliff” in America; Congress will come up with ways to avoid that. But that, in turn, means budget consolidation will have to be delayed.

The next president is not to be envied. What an irony it would be if America elects a Republican president because he promises growth and debt reduction but instead leads the nation into recession during his first year in office.