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.
Dean Esmay is the author of Methuselah’s Daughter. He has contributed to Dean’s World, Huffington Post, A Voice for Men, Pajamas Media. Neither left nor right wing, neither libertarian nor socialist.