In his lovely retelling of the Arthurian legends, The Once and Future King, T. H. White
imagines Merlin preparing the young Arthur for his future role by turning him
into a wide variety of natural beings, living and dead, so that "Wart"
can learn to see the world from every possible perspective. When Arthur is turned into a mountain, he
gains insight into the eons-long succession of eruption and erosion that shapes
a mountain's life.
By contrast, political commentators have the attention span
of Mayflies. An hour for them is a
lifetime, a day an eon. All of them are
obsessed with a question that will, after all, be decisively answered only 101
days from now: Who will win the 2012
presidential election? You might think
that a touch of gravitas, if not simple
prudence, would restrain them from making predictions that risk almost
immediate refutation. But since all they
have to offer is their opinions, they must forge on, announcing with conviction
what the morrow will bring.
As a blogger, I am structurally committed to the role of
commentator on the passing scene. Accordingly,
I hereby lay down my marker: Mitt Romney
will not win the presidency [and Obama will be re-elected.] What follows is an analysis based in part on
the work of others, in part on my own idle reflections during the long flight
from Heathrow to Raleigh-Durham that brought Susie and me home on Sunday.
To win a presidential election between two candidates, one of
them must amass 270 electoral votes.
Nothing else matters. It is
generally agreed that Obama is certain to take some states [New York,
California, Massachusetts, for example] and Romney is certain to take others
[Texas, South Carolina, Utah, Georgia, etc.]
Analysts have slightly varied lists of these sure things. Some actually give Obama enough states to
yield more than 270 electoral votes, but most think that he can count on
perhaps 250 to 260. Romney is thought to
be able to count on between 190 and 210.
The remaining states, usually referred to as "Battleground
States," will decide the election.
Obviously, the challenge facing Romney is quite different
from that facing Obama. Obama need
merely win one or two of the states that are up for grabs, in a number of which
polls now show him with small leads.
Romney, on the other hand, must run the table. Even if he wins Florida and Virginia and
Ohio, which would be an extraordinary accomplishment, he will lose if he lets
Michigan or North Carolina slip away.
What does Romney have to offer voters that will persuade
them to give him this sweep of the battleground states? Well, if we remember that most Americans pay
very little attention to politics and public affairs [forty percent were quite
unaware that the Supreme Court had even handed down a ruling on the Affordable
Care Act, let alone how it had decided], I think we can confidently say that Romney
has available to him just four arguments, each of which is simple enough to put
on a bumper sticker: He was a governor,
he is a rich businessman, he is a Mormon, and he looks presidential.
Romney's service as a governor has been ruled out by the
unfortunate fact that he was, as governor, the pioneer in the health care
reform that yielded Obamacare. Too much
attention to his governorship will alienate his base, whose enthusiastic
support he needs if he is to have any chance of winning.
Romney cannot run on the fact that he is a Mormon [as Mike
Huckebee ran for the nomination in 2008 on the fact that he is a born-again
Christian], because Mormonism is actually, when you look at it, a rather weird
and creepy sect that denies some of the central tenets of Christianity. Most American know nothing at all about Mormonism,
and pretty clearly Romney's electoral chances depend on things staying that
way.
Romney does really look presidential. He would be perfect in a rightwing version of
West Wing. But you cannot win the presidency merely by
looking like a president.
So that leaves Romney's great financial success at Bain
Capital, the company he founded and ran until -- depending on which documents
you look at and whom you listen to -- 1999 or 2002. Romney's entire case for his candidacy can be
summed up in four simple sentences [as many other people have pointed out]: The American economy is a mess. Obama has not fixed it. I am a successful businessman. I can fix it.
The Obama campaign, which understands all of this far better
than I, and has understood it for as long as Romney was even a speck on the
horizon, has poured all of its efforts and much of its money into attacking
Romney's tenure at Bain. And they have
been successful in this sense: they have
made his record as a businessman a matter of controversy.
It really does not matter whether you think the Obama
campaign or the Romney campaign is winning that argument. So long as they have made Romney's one claim
to fame a matter of controversy, Romney is not going to be able to run the
table by winning virtually all of the battleground states.
I conclude that it is virtually certain that Romney will not
win the election, which means that Obama will.
15 comments:
Because of the seeming inescapability from his Bain problems, I don't regard it as implausible that Romney's puppet-masters will seek elsewhere in time for the convention.
I agree with you (and hope we're both right). Although since it doesn't look like the dems will do well in the house or senate (and barring the sudden emergence of a popular leftist third party, I might as well root for them), I'll continue to be worried.
Talk is cheap. Care to bet on that? https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=84326%3C%2Fa%3E+and+continue.&hmHash=550acceb03d7e0fa8b265a8967a24031&hmExpiryTime=1342584717090
"The remaining states, usually referred to as "Battleground States," will decide the election"
Would I be right in assuming that these states rarely fluctuate? That the same decisive seats are contested time and again, whilst the majority vote as their parents did; who in turn, vote as their parents had too.
Another question, do those in power constantly change the constituency area as they do here? Manipulating the boundaries to their advantage?
Apologies for ignorance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ-HwS9-5Ho&feature=related
Really funny sketch on 'Rotten Boroughs'
Does Romney really look Presidential? Rather he looks to me like a gifted and handsome actor in late middle-age, turning in a bravura performance as a shifty and dishonest Presidential candidate.
Does Romney really look Presidential? Rather he looks to me like a gifted and handsome actor in late middle-age, turning in a bravura performance as a shifty and dishonest Presidential candidate.
While we are in the business of making predictions, I predict that the next Tom Tomorrow comic will illustrate your point precisely,
I'm surprised to see you write that "Mormonism is actually, when you look at it, a rather weird and creepy sect." Do you really want to insult an entire denomination, a worldview, a set of deep commitments held by a great many people? That does not seem consonant with the generally high tone of your blog.
Perhaps you meant to say that Mormonism seems creepy to enough American voters that Romney cannot make it a centerpiece of his campaign. That might be a defensible claim. But the insult?
Full disclosure: I'm entirely non-religious, and so I'm not defending my faith here. I don't have one. I'm trying to defend the civility of discourse.
I think it's just too early to say that 250-260 electoral votes are assured. So much of this will come down to the state of the economy and voter turn-out. If gas goes back up over $4, if the DOW drops under 12,000, in unemployment rises, etc., it's a completely new ballgame. And, with uncertainty in Europe, at least some of these things may well happen.
Obama is more likely to win, and something has to change for Romney to win. But that change has less to do with either of the candidates than it does with exogenous factors. For now, I'd say 75% chance Obama wins, and I'd bet on him to win. But it's just well too early to be sure.
Concerning Blattner's sanctimonious comment: Does the question of the TRUTH of Bob's claim not precede the question whether it is insulting? It's almost as though you think that the claim that "Mormonism is actually, when you look at it, a rather weird and creepy sect" is self-evidently false since you provide no evidence whatsoever that it might be.
This is, however, pretty obvious: the mere fact that something is "a worldview, a set of deep commitments held by a great many people" has absolutely no tendency to make the "worldview" true.
You left out the attempts at blocking the vote of those likely to vote democrat.
There is also the huge amount of money pouring into the race. That has to have an effect somehow.
I never want to jinx it by calling it although my gut feeling is just as yours is. But then I remember how Bush won a second time and all my confidence goes out the window.
I would like to agree with you, for so many reasons, but Romney has various businessmen donating hundreds of millions of dollars destroy Obama. Don't forget the 'Swift Boat Veterans' lies turning a draft-dodging deserter into a president over a decorated front line foot soldier.
In response to Aliyah, yes the question whether a claim is true does precede the question whether it's insulting. But "weird" and "creepy" do not strike me as descriptions that admit of evaluation in terms of "true" and "fase," at least not easily and without a lot of preparatory work. That's why I characterized them as "insults," rather than "descriptions." And as indicated, deploying mass insults directed at a religious denomination does not seem to me to be the sort of discourse for which Wolff has stood up in this blog, namely, reasoned and civil discourse.
Right, so Wolff's blog has maintained this "high tone", consistently deploying "the sort of discourse for which Wolff has stood up in this blog, namely, reasoned and civil discourse". Then Wolff makes a single comment that upsets your tender sensibilities, and you respond pompously and passive-aggressively. (I mean these descriptively.)
Wouldn't inductive reasoning suggest that Wolff's comment is not after all really an exception, but that he intends it to be understood the way people generally understand his commentary (i.e. as reasoned and civil)? Instead, you instantly assume the worst, ask a rhetorical insulting question ("Do you really want to insult..."), and condescendingly suggest a way for Bob to redeem himself ("Perhaps you meant to say...").
Do you actually know anything about Mormonism? Does it not seem possible that it essentially involves beliefs and practices that would count as "weird" and "creepy" compared with normal beliefs and practices? For instance, they believe the east bluffs above the Grand River in Daviess County, Missouri is where Adam and Eve lived after being expelled from Eden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam-ondi-Ahman). Also, they've taken to posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims, such as Simon Wiesenthal's parents (for which BTW they've apologized: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/15/mormons-apologize-for-posthumous-jewish-baptism/). Perhaps this is the kind of thing Bob had in mind?
Want to maintain the "high tone"? Here's what you should have said. "Could you please explain what you mean by saying that 'Mormonism is actually, when you look at it, a rather weird and creepy sect'?"
Post a Comment