A Little More Seriously (2012 Election)

Categories: InTheNews, Politics
Comments: 10 Comments
Published on: February 5, 2012

In June of last year, in a blog entry called Seriously? (2012 Election), I questioned whether any of the Republican candidates for U.S. President had any chance of beating incumbent president Barack Obama.

At the time, there were dozens of candidates, from the outright silly, to the questionable, to the few known and somewhat stable names. Since then, several big names (Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, to name a few) have dropped out, and others who haven’t officially withdrawn have become more irrelevant than they were in 2011.

Who’s left? The top four are Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick [expletive deleted]. Barring any last-minute surprises, one of the first two will be the Republican nominee later this year. And it’s becoming increasingly clear that the Republicans want to select their nominee based solely on the answer to this question: Who has a better chance of winning a head-to-head election against Obama?

Which is a form of what I asked in June. The only commenter who attempted to answer my question said: “No, I don’t see anyone with a big enough name to win, at this point.”

Of course, the names have gotten bigger in the past eight months — due to constant media exposure. Assuming name-recognition won’t be a problem for either Gingrich or Romney, can either carry the right-wingers to victory?

In other words, do either Gingrich or Romney represent the wants and needs and opinions of a large enough sector of Republicans? And, perhaps more importantly, can they win over a large enough sector of swing voters?

In any American presidential election, most pundits (and even regular people like myself) assume that a large block of Democrats will vote Democrat and a big portion of Republican voters will choose their side of the ballot — even if neither actually likes their own candidate. So what’s crucial to winning such an election is the following:

1) Getting enough of your own party members to the polls.

2) Winning over the voters in the margins (left-wing Republicans, right-wing Democrats, and independents/undecided folk like me).

Neither is easy.

Some folks think Obama won in 2008 because a higher percentage of Democrat-registered voters made it to the polls. The same (or opposite) could hold true for this election. If Republicans are really bothered enough by Obama and head to the polls in huge numbers, that could be enough. Or if Democrat-registered voters are worried enough about that happening, they might be the ones to swarm the polls again.

Winning over the middle-ground voters isn’t an exact science. But if you lean too far to the middle, trying to capture that segment of the vote, you risk losing the respect of your hard-line party members.

I also have noticed that candidates for both parties seem to stick to party lines pretty hard during the primaries, but then lean hard to the middle during the run-up to the general election. (Note how both McCain and Obama’s platforms became almost identical in the last couple of months before 2008′s election, compared to how widely they differed before being nominated.)

So, the new question is: can either Romney or Gingrich beat Obama in the general election? And which one?

10 Comments
  1. Richard says:

    Romney is brilliant but dogmatic on certain issues. Gingrich is a complete idiot. It is alarming and discouraging that the right doesn’t recognize this.

    “Mormons make great bosses.” -My boss.

  2. Wil C. Fry says:

    Thanks for the comment, Richard.

    I’ve never had a Mormon as a boss; only as co-workers and classmates. I often do wonder if the Mormonism will be a big issue for much of the conservative Christian (non-Mormon) part of the Republican party. Those non-Mormons that I know seem to not like it at all on a personal level, but they might be willing to vote for a Republican Mormon over a Democrat member of the Church of Christ. ;-)

  3. Shari says:

    I don’t know. Newt talks smart at times, but even then he’s irritating. And anybody with a memory of the 90s will have a hard time voting for him. Mitt? He’s so vapid; he’ll say anything people want to hear. It looks like he has a better chance against Obama, but I don’t think he’ll get my vote. (I’ll do a write in or third party again.)

  4. Wil C. Fry says:

    @Shari:

    Fortunately for Newt, few voters can remember what happened yesterday, much less two decades ago. I’m amazed every year at this chain of events:
    1. Politician does something stupid, or votes for terrible bill.
    2. Voter says: “We’ll get him out of office next election!”
    3. One year passes.
    4. Voter votes for politician again.

    Your impression of Mitt mirrors my own; his stances seem to change each day, depending on his crowd. However, this reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton’s election year tactics — he would change his stance during the same speech, knowing that various people in the audience held different opinions. And it worked…

  5. Richard says:

    >>his stances seem to change each day, depending on his crowd<<

    You have encapsulated the essence of politics.

  6. Wil C. Fry says:

    “You have encapsulated the essence of politics.”

    True. It just seems more obvious with particular office-holders…

    (I’m sure W changed his stance on several issues, but I never got the impression that he did it on purpose…)

  7. The GOP isn’t even going to be able to use the ‘are we better off than we were three years ago?’ question that has won them many presidencies. Is there any non-partisan measure that indicates we are worse off? Wars. Inflation. Joblessness. Deficit. Obama had to work without the cooperation of the Republican party on every issue. I wonder how much better off we would be if the democrats and republicans would have worked together. Which brings up what has to be the new Republican platform. ‘Democracy is about fighting for you ideals. Elect Newt. He’ll fight because he’s Right.’

  8. Wil C. Fry says:

    “Obama had to work without the cooperation of the Republican party on every issue.”

    It certainly seems that way. Even on issues when he took their side, they fought him just because it was Obama.

    “I wonder how much better off we would be if the democrats and republicans would have worked together.”

    It’s an amazing question, and one that I’d like to see answered (by action) in my lifetime.

    Thanks for the comments, Michael.

  9. Sharon says:

    Hi Will,
    I just saw this site. To put in my 2 cents worth of opinions on Romney:

    When he took office as our governor here in Massachusetts, he was given over a $100 million dollar surplus. When he left office, we were very deeply in the hole. And when he left office, he “got out of Dodge.” He left Massachusetts and our present governor had to pick up the pieces and make sense of the budget situation. He was a lousy governor and didn’t run for a second term because it was clear that he would’ve been defeated. He talks out of both sides of his mouth and when he ran against Ted Kennedy, he slung such awful mud. It got so disgusting that it backfired and the mud stuck to him.

  10. Wil C. Fry says:

    Sharon, thanks for taking the time to comment.

    I’ll admit I don’t know much of his history before his first attempt at a presidential run…

Archives
Welcome , today is Sunday, May 19, 2013