Good Things For And About Mitt Romney
I always believe in disclosure in all but the most private affairs, so I open this by disclosing that it is my plan to vote for Newt Gingrich in the Republican primary in Michigan this month, but to (probably) vote for Barack Obama in November–a major shift for me since I’ve voted for the Republican nominee in every election since 1996. Since 1984, my first year as a voter, I voted Mondale (D), then in ’88 for Dukakis (D), then in 1992 for Marrou (Libertarian), and since ’96 it’s been Dole, Bush, and McCain. That means if I vote for Obama in ’12, I will have voted for as many Democrats as Republicans in my lifetime. For President, anyway.
Why would I vote for Newt in the primaries if I would vote for Obama in November? Well that’s another discussion but it has to do with making the upcoming election a battle of ideas and the fact that I have more respect for Gingrich than for Romney. If we want to have a real philosophical battle of ideas–which conservatives have been claiming they’re itching for since Reagan left office–then let’s get it on. Also, I just plain don’t like Mitt Romney, for a bunch of reasons, some of which are the same as conservative objections and some not.
But this isn’t about all that. This is about why Mitt Romney looks attractive as a Presidential candidate, and why I think he has a good chance of winning in November.
I believe most people make their biggest mistake by looking primarily at how a Presidential candidate does in national polls. This is a terrible indicator for multiple reasons, but the biggest is that this is not how Presidential campaigns run. It is no mere “technicality” that you have to win the Electoral College, it is a firm reality that forces all Presidential candidates to run their campaigns a certain way: to conserve resources, they will expend little to no effort in states they think they have no chance of winning, a little but not a lot of effort defending states they believe they will easily win, and expend most of their time, effort, and money in states which might go either way. Love it this way or hate it, it’s the way it is. It is almost impossible for a Republican to win California and they know it; it is almost impossible for a Democrat to win Texas and they know that too. So they generally only put up a token effort in those places, and concentrate on the places where they know they have a decent shot at winning.
But Mitt Romney can change the game. He is a Republican who has managed to win in Massachusetts. Yes, everybody knows that a Republican may occasionally win there, but it’s quite rare. Normally, Obama would not have to spend much effort to win Massachusetts, but with Romney in the game he will have to try harder there. Furthermore, a Republican who can win Massachusetts can make other states that are normally pretty safe for a Democratic candidate look dicey; to cut right to it, any look at the electoral map should tell you that a Republican who wins California likely wins the Presidency, and a Republican who wins in Massachusetts could indeed win in California.
Before anybody squawks at me: I did not say Mitt Romney would win California. I said he could. I didn’t even say he would win Massachusetts. But Obama will likely have to fight hard in many states like this where he would normally have an easy win. On the flip side, it is almost inconceivable that Obama could force the same onto Romney; Obama has almost no chance of winning any normally-solid “red” state–thus putting him in a position to not just have to compete hard in the “swing” or “battleground” states that normally decide elections, but to simultaneously play heavy defense on states he would otherwise pretty safely assume would be his for the taking.
Obama is unlikely to find any “red” states that will choose him over any Republican. In theory there may be a little of that, wherein some states that only tilt Republican go for Obama just because dispirited conservative voters stay home rather than vote for Romney. But odds are that Romney keeps most or all the normally “red” states, stays competitive in swing states, and is able to stage a serious threat in waters that are normally very safe for Democrats.
Now, because a lot of conservatives don’t like Romney, the advantage to Romney isn’t completely overwhelming. Some conservatives will no doubt stay home in disgust, or lodge a third-party “protest” vote, unable to stand voting for either Romney or Obama. The fact that Romney appeals to some liberals and centrists will repel some of them.
Nevertheless, despite my own distaste for Romney I can think of several reasons why he might attract voters. Among conservatives, his chief advantage is that he is not Barack Obama. For centrist voters, well, the answer is obvious: Romney’s a centrist. And for liberals? Here’s the kicker: he created statewide health care in Massachusetts, and while he does not like Obama’s very similar plan as a national plan, he does say he wants to make sure every American has health coverage. Maybe you don’t believe him but some people will. And there is a certain zig-zag quality to American politics, which is that you are often more likely to get what you want out of a President of the opposite party. Democrats usually have an easier time pulling the country into a war or doing things like getting tough on crime or reforming welfare (you may recall that Bill Clinton did all three); a Republican who wants national health care coverage is more likely to get his party to simmer down and negotiate on the matter than any Democrat is. If you don’t believe that, watch as the odious Ann Coulter actually defends Romney’s health care plan.
Also, oddly enough, if you want to see us leave Afghanistan (I don’t, but what I want isn’t the issue), you’re more likely to get that out of Romney than Obama. Why? Because anti-war Democrats are afraid to attack Obama, and Obama fears giving hawkish Republicans a stick to beat him with. With a Republican in the White House, “anti-war” congressional Democrats will instantly feel emboldened, and the isolationists in Republican congressional ranks will also feel more prone to speak their minds.
In short, a Romney Presidency has the potential to reshape American politics in several important ways, both at the Presidential level and in how each of the two major parties defines themselves in the Congress.
Much is made in some circles now that Romney and Obama are pretty close to each other in national polls, but as I said those are almost irrelevant. Not only is election day 9 months away, but what’s really important is how each candidate will fight it out at the state level anyway. Furthermore, while Romney may be taking fierce criticisms from conservatives right now, most voters aren’t paying attention to that and won’t pay attention to it until after the national conventions this summer, and won’t really make up their minds until the last few weeks of October and early November.
To be clear, there are hopeful indicators for Obama. The economy is still terrible but many important trends are positive,and if they continue in a positive direction throughout the year he’ll be in pretty good shape. He’ll be able to proudly offer up to liberals what he’s done for them (a lot) and to middle class voters what he’s done for them. He’ll be able to paint Romney as a privileged rich brat who’s never really had to work a day in his life except as a Wall Street insider and tycoon, and Wall Street isn’t exactly popular these days. Romney can easily be seen as a plastic, wishy-washy, privileged elitist who does not care about ordinary people who are struggling and scared for their financial future.
Nevertheless it is entirely conceivable that we might well see a close race in the popular vote but a virtual slaughter by Romney in the electoral college, as Romney keeps all the traditionally Republican states, does well in the swing states, and even picks off a few of the normally Democratic states.
Anyone who thinks they know what will happen in November is fooling themselves. You’re only guessing. But Romney’s advantages are much stronger than most people seem to realize right now.
(This item cross-posted to Dean’s World.)
*Update*: Since I said the smartest way to look at the election is how it will play out at the state level–because it is–I would be remiss if I did not point out this excellent breakdown from the National Journal of Obama’s approval rating by state. Now that could change in the coming year–in fact it likely will–but this is how you want to look at things if you want some idea how the race is going to shape up. To win, Obama needs support in states he’s in trouble in now, and on the flip side, to win, Romney needs to talk those people who are unhappy with Obama into believing he’s a better choice. It’s 9 months until the election, so those polls are going to change, but if you really want to watch things as they shape up, forget the stupid national polls and look at the state-by-state polls. Because you can bet that’s exactly what each campaign’s staff is spending most of its time on, too.
14 Responses to “Good Things For And About Mitt Romney”
Great essay. I doubt Romney could win many traditionally blue states but even one may be enough.
To bad you(DE) weren’t a little older. Papa Romney’s successor is a Michigan Republican that got Reagan Democrats before Reagan even thought of being POTUS. This liberals favorite governor is Bill Milliken. BM is a Teddy Roosevelt type Republican that was pro business, yet reshaped the Michigan environment while Nixon created the EPA. I’d vote for a Milliken Republican over phony “Hope and Change” any day.
http://glenarborsun.com/bill-milliken-michigan%E2%80%99s-moderate-republican/
http://www.freep.com/article/20110417/BUSINESS06/104170477/William-G-Milliken-Milliken-s-Bottle-Bill-one-governor-s-forward-looking-environmental-policies
If the Republican’s keep up the union busting in the Rust Belt, Mitten’s may not even win Michigan. Florida may even swing Obamama’s way thanks to Rick Scott. If Charley Crist runs as an independent for Florida governor, BO may win on his coattails.
Hey Rudi: Yeah I’m too old to remember George Romney except from history, but in reading about him I have a little trouble thinking of him much in the Reagan mold and more in the old-school center/left Republican mold that was common back then but is pretty rare nowadays.
In any case, it’s Mitt running not his father, and not many people here even remember George Romney really. He only served one and a half terms and left in 1969. You gotta be well into your 50s to even remember the guy and probably over 70 to have any strong opinions.
I agree with you that Republican anti-union tactics don’t play well in Michigan, but, in Presidential elections most Michiganders in my experience vote the man not the party and Mitt isn’t known (so far as I know) as a union-buster.
On the flip side, I don’t think the fact that he was born here is going to do Mitt more than a smidge of good. People don’t care that much. In fact I’m on record as predicting that Newt Gingrich might just beat him in the primary here–it’s an open primary and while Mitt will do well among upper-class Michigan Republicans in places like Bloomfield and such, blue collar Republicans aren’t going to be that fond of a Wall Street guy, and rural Republicans in this state are a whole lot like the Georgians who sent Newt to Congress for 20 years. Newt may give him a hell of a fight here. But if Mitt wins the nomination (odds are he will, I put it at 75%) and it’s a head-to-head with Obama? I expect it to stay a battleground state and could go either way. (Newt wouldn’t carry Michigan in the general I don’t think.)
DE Look into your history books or Google Traverse City to look into Bill Milliken. He’s still alive and living in Traverse City area. He’s the Republican I remember. George Romney was before my time. Bill’s son lives in Michigan and continues to serve the state in the private sector. Love Milliken, indifferent to the Romney’s – none live in Michigan anymore.
More on Bill Milliken:
http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115456-fm.pdf
I don’t care about poor people because they won’t for me anyway. So I can’t wait until I am sworn in as President so I can fire them.
Oh I promise every American a foreign bank account where they can hide money to pay a lower tax rate here on the Mainland.
Think of the booming fees the European banks will earn. I’ll call it the Romney Plan to save Europe.
rudi
I’m not too old to remember both Milliken and G. Romney.
Maybe someone will someday make a breakthrough so we can clone servants like Milliken, Mike Mansfield, James Baker, Archibald Cox – the list is long.
Part of our malaise is our population is uneducated in what real patriots are and how they act.
@ohio
From your comments I take you to be center left. Yet, both of us have fond memories of Milliken. Why doesn’t any of the current Right except anyone left of center as “decent” politicians?
I think they are riding the tiger the extreme right has placed in the ring. They are so busy holding on that they haven’t time, or inclination, to look around at anyone or anything else. And the Tea Party is cracking the whip.
It would take a brave congressman to jump off and take a stand for the bi-partisanship needed in solving the very real problems facing us. It may be that the Gingrich candidacy will lance the boil of the politics of destruction much like when the McCarthy hearings finally brought the nation back to its senses.
We don’t know how the politicians I mentioned would fare in today’s climate. I doubt they would be as straight arrow as they were allowed to be back then. And I know of no way to correct the problem, but if it were possible to limit corporations spending in campaigns we might have a chance to see.
I also think our educators are failing to bring an understanding of the ethics needed in a free society to govern itself to their students. I trace the breakdown to the Watergate/Vietnam years when the young saw the very worst of governance. Those young people are parents and grandparents of the seemingly very confused portion of our population. Some of those young people then are Tea Party and militant leftists now, as are their progeny. Luckily, I was old enough to not be as affected by that chaotic malfunction of government.
Well, you did ask.
Dean wrote: “but it has to do with making the upcoming election a battle of ideas and the fact that I have more respect for Gingrich than for Romney. If we want to have a real philosophical battle of ideas–which conservatives have been claiming they’re itching for since Reagan left office–then let’s get it on. Also, I just plain don’t like Mitt Romney, for a bunch of reasons, some of which are the same as conservative objections and some not…But this isn’t about all that. This is about why Mitt Romney looks attractive as a Presidential candidate, and why I think he has a good chance of winning in November.”
having met newt in a green room some time far back when we were both on Good Morning America tv, I’d hope for far more re a ‘bring it on debate of true depth and insight’ than with what to me up close looked like a sweating anxiety ridden and inflated man who loves to preach at people and seems desperate for not attention, but adulation. Not a good sign. His civil war teachings are newt-like, not recognized by civil war experts/ historians. He is sort of thought of like the rich guy who takes a guest shot at pretend/conducting an orchestra, but is not a trained conductor who has nuance and inner sense highly developed. But he appears, from his bragging, to like thinking of himself as ‘expert’ regardless. Newt has many ideas, I’d even say a manic amount, and almost none has he ever brought to fruition, even when he had the power. None of us have ever come close to having the power he had. He squandered it. He is running for nomination on the ruin he himself partly made of the GOP. And his pique and fussy hissy fits on camera are more of the same in my .02. He cannot hold to being leaderly. The Newt who craves applause and to have people cheer for him acting out their frustration, is not a leader. His emotional lack of restraint in order to hold larger ideas, swamps him every time. Just my opinion. I dont want a me me me braggert for president, whether it was cain, or newt or anyone else. In fact in the me me me department, some of the recent gop candidates make Geo Bush look more humble than Mother Teresa in comparison.
Thanks Dean.
Newt has lots of ideas allright. They fly around inside his head like popcorn. Btw, speaking as a lifelong Michigan resident, I would take issue with any suggestion that people here won’t vote for Romney solely because of his connection through his Dad. Not that I don’t wish voters were deeper than that..
“Romney can easily be seen as a plastic, wishy-washy, privileged elitist who does not care about ordinary people who are struggling and scared for their financial future.”
This is because he is.
“The way it is” could change soon.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc