Getting Romney Elected will be No Easy Task

Conservatives in general are not happy with the choice they have to make in November. The majority can be expected to turn out and vote for Romney anyway because the alternative is viewed as much worse. But some conservatives will not vote for Romney. Several commenters here have said the best thing that can happen for true conservatives is four more years of Obama. Libertarians are fed up with the Republican party as much as they are with the Democrats and will vote for Gary Johnson. This election, in my opinion, will turn on which party does a better job of turning out the vote.

Obama and the liberal Democrats have already staked their ground. Ironically, the least moral of the American populous will do what they are so skillful at doing and claim the moral high ground. They will claim that their policies demonstrate that  they are for the poor, for the working class, for women, for the elderly and the sick, for blacks and Latinos and for the gays. Of course they will paint Romney and the Republicans as being against all those groups and as being for the rich and powerful and Romney as the poster boy of the 1%.

Recent polls show Obama with a double-digit lead over Romney. This gap should close quickly once the Romney campaign turns their fire-power against Obama. This will be the most negative presidential campaign we have ever seen. It may just be me, but I sense that negative campaigns do a better job of turning out the vote for the Democrats than they do for the Republicans.

There are a handful of swing states that will decide this election and it is in these states that the Romney campaign will focus their energy. In my opinion, Romney will need to balance his negative campaign with a strong positive message. He will win or lose these states on whether not he can turn out the middle-class undecided voter. I think these middle-class blue and white collar voters will be looking for a positive reason to vote for Romney. These are the folks that have suffered the most from the financial collapse of 2008. They still have a bad taste in their mouths for G. W. Bush and the Republicans. Motivating them to come out and vote for Romney will not be easy but there is no way Romney can win without them.

Team Obama is a professional campaign machine. The will turn out the feminist, the black, the Latinos, the gays and, the union labor voters. Romney’s positive message on what he can do to improve the economy and jobs, will have to be bold and ring true with the middle-class voters; to the point of really getting them excited. Otherwise, these voters will stay home or stay with the devil they know.

Good luck, Mr. Romney! Good luck, America!

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Getting Romney Elected will be No Easy Task

    1. I think they will, Kurt. I’m thinking they need to do more than that. Romney is going to have a hard time connecting with the people on Main Street if he doesn’t have a convincing plan for the economy.

  1. Jim, you are generally right about your assessment of the electoral prospects for November. As you suggested, poll numbers are meaningless at this stage of the game when the Republicans are having to deal with the cry-babies of the party while the President is making campaign speeches and campaign policy decisions every day with taxpayers’ money.

    However, I do not believe that Obama will attract the same numbers that he attracted in 2008 among Hispanics (specially if Marco Rubio is in the ticket), women (as long as Santorum is Not in the ticket), and the young (who most likely will have higher absentee numbers due to disillusion).

    But ultimately the election will be won or lost on the economy. If the economy improves substantially and the jobless rate goes down to 7.8 or below, Obama will win. I do not think that that will happen. Unemployment will stay above 8% passed November and GDP is bound to slow again mid-year. These are not predictions out of a hat, but I cannot explain in this commentary. I will be publishing some of the individual analysis on the economy separately in my blog during the year.

    Conclusion: Romney has a very good chance of winning in November. The right-right of our conservative brothers is too pessimistic now because they are embroiled in an emotional internal squabble – which they are losing – of who is more conservative and so on. After they are done throwing their tantrums, all but the most stubborn will see the light – and the alternative!

  2. The nice thing is that Obama is really a pretty easy target. He’s such a liar (that’s a word I don’t like to throw around casually, but in this case it’s provably true) that a series of ads that have his statements, followed by actual facts could be devastating. For example, take what he’s saying on energy right now. Picture him claiming credit for more drilling, then simply show the chart of declining permits and declining production on the federal lands he controls. I’d go all the way back to his promises of transparency, putting the health care debate on CSPAN, then show a closed door representing how negotiations (that did NOT include Republicans) went down. Show him talking about bipartisanship and then the way he told Republicans that they’d have no input on the stimulus because, as he said to John McCain, “I won.” Show the deceptive cost estimate of Obamacare and all of the promises he made about it and then what the reality reflects. Hell, you could even show the jobs numbers the White House puts out, then do a side-by-side graph that slowly adds in all of the things they don’t talk about that reflect reality, like adding back in underemployed and discouraged workers.

    Romney should be able to bring a positive message that includes the distinction between the character of the USA that Obama wants (dependent, controlled by a central government) and a free market vision where opportunity is expanded and upward mobility is again the norm.

    I will never understand the “we’d be better off with four more years of Obama just wrecking the country so we can rebuild.” First of all, it assumes that the damage will either be reversible, or that it will be so complete that people will have an epiphany and suddenly all become libertarians. History would indicate that collapse is not generally followed by libertarianism, it’s followed by fascism–a charismatic leader being given great power OVER the people with the promise of leading them out of misery. MORE government, not less. After all, the first thing to do is to restore order. Short of collapse, the damage Obama can do could be irreversible. He can change the Supreme Court, for example. We’re already holding our breath to see if Kennedy will vote with the conservatives on Obamacare, or with the obvious lefties on the court. What if Obama got to replace one of the conservatives? All it takes is a heart attack, cancer, or someone falling down a flight of stairs. What is the direction the bureaucracies are going and how far will their rule making go in the next four years leaving an even larger mess to untangle? Beyond all of that, the trajectory under Obama is down. We all know it. We’re talking about people’s lives. Even if the best you can come up with is that you’re choosing the lesser of two evils, isn’t the rational and humane choice to actually choose the lesser evil? Even if you think Romney will be only marginally better than Obama, only buying us time, not fixing the core issues, isn’t the buying of time a good thing, enabling people to muster the resources to counter-attack so that we can make the fundamental changes needed? It just doesn’t make sense to me at all. Then again, the kid on the playground that didn’t get his way so he took is ball and went home always pissed me off even when I understood why he felt that way.

    1. Pat, you said, “I will never understand the “we’d be better off with four more years of Obama just wrecking the country so we can rebuild”” , that makes two of us.

      Following that false logic, conservatives will be even better with 8 years of another Obama, then they practically will be in heaven with another 16 years of another Obama. The sophistry of the argument should land its practician a job in the Obama campaign.

    2. “The nice thing is that Obama is really a pretty easy target”

      So is Romney.

      “Romney should be able to bring a positive message that includes the distinction between the character of the USA that Obama wants (dependent, controlled by a central government) and a free market vision where opportunity is expanded and upward mobility is again the norm.”

      This is where he is going to have find the message that will connect with the middle-class. Team Obama will be playing hard ball; making Romney out as someone who only cares about the rich.

      1. The framing of the arguments will be crucial. Obama will argue that Romney is only for the rich. Romney has to hit back with two things. One is that Obama’s dependence culture provides no way up, making people wards of a state that is already out of money, and as a consequence of the spending, hurting the economy so there is no way for the productive sector of the economy to pick up the slack. The other is that Obama’s policies actually hurt the poor and middle class. For example, the green energy “investment” at the lack of conventional energy production at the federal level driving gas and electricity prices higher. Burdensome regulation and programs like Obamacare that keep companies spending money on compliance and keeping it on the sidelines until they can figure out if it is safe to invest in expansion and hiring. Spending at a rate that will inevitably collapse the economy, driving everyone to the poor house at exactly the same moment when the government has no resources to help anyone. Ignoring the unsustainability of Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security which will in fact have those programs collapse, likely taking the economy with them, again leaving people much poorer at the same moment when the government cannot help because it has collapsed. Romney also has to make clear what we all know, because we read conservative blogs: You can’t tax the rich enough to close the deficit. Literally, they don’t make enough money to offset deficit spending even if you take far more of their income than Obama is proposing, which means that the broader base of the middle class will have to be taxed more too. He’ll have to be willing to make the argument that it really is the “rich” who provide the investment money to create new jobs that employ people and make the things that make our lives better. He will have to find an elegant way to make the old saying known: “I never got a job from a poor man.”

        I have a feeling that gas prices will be Obama’s demise anyway. The poor and middle class are being hammered even at today’s prices. I’m actually having to consider whether or not to go to my son’s away game (he plays baseball for his high school team) today because it’s a 3/4 tank of gas trip. I have NEVER missed one of my son’s games. Obama can talk about “get a more fuel efficient car” all he wants, but the truth is that the poor and middle classes are stuck between a rock and a hard place: can’t afford the gas, can’t afford the new vehicle either. Keep in mind, it is the hero of the poor and middle class, Obama, who is so out of touch that he doesn’t understand that simple concept.

  3. “Ironically, the least moral of the American populous will do what they are so skillful at doing and claim the moral high ground.”

    That’s what frustrates me the most! That the people who actually care the least about solving the problems are the ones that point the finger at those with a different opinion on how those problems should be solved. They don’t really care about solutions. All they care about is the method. Their goals are simply to implement the methods that may or may not solve the problem. To them, it is irrelevant whether it works or not.

  4. The Super pacs should get started now. No reason to wait until we have a candidate. There is plenty of ammo, and by doing it now, they have no one to return fire on directly.

  5. I just want to add one thing that Andrew Klavan’s column at PJ Media reminded me of. One of the things Thomas Sowell and Friedrich Hayek mention a lot is that, while we may know what spending on one thing will do (or at least we can make projections), we never know what that money spent on something else might have done. It’s the basic argument for not taxing away too much money–you don’t know what you’ve lost in terms of opportunity to use that money more productively doing other things.

    I think this same principle applies to this election and, especially, what I mentioned above regarding the “I’ll stay home, or cast a (meaningless) vote for a third party” types. While allowing Obama to collapse the country, you have to think of the lost opportunities… opportunities that might be possible even if all Romney does is “give us more time.” We can all reasonably argue that the tech boom under Clinton, something that changed the way we do business, made possible all kinds of new and innovative businesses, was largely made possible by Reagan policies that helped capital formation and investment. What if Carter was re-elected and instead of the brighter, innovative future Reagan saw we had four more years of admitting that we were a nation in decline and wearing sweaters in our own homes and waiting in gas lines?

    I’m not saying Romney is Reagan (that would be heresy!). What I’m saying is that we do not know what might happen if all we do is slow down what now looks like inevitable collapse (and would more likely be collapse with four more years of Obama). Saying that faster destruction is better than slower destruction (the ripping off the bandaid approach) neglects to take into account the opportunity costs, the possibility that something unforeseen and positive, could happen if only the rate of decay had slowed. It could be something political… a tea party candidate emerging that has both the policies and the personality (combined with the desire) to lead a reformation. It could be as simple as getting Congressmen and Senators elected that push everything to the right. It could be a technological breakthrough that has an enormous impact on growing the economy. It could be a lot of different things or different combinations of a lot of things.

    The point is that opportunity costs are always unseen. The only way to know what they were is to not block them.

  6. I have not yet decided if I can vote for Romney, but the thought of Obama having two SCOTUS nominations will probably push me into his camp, although his judicial nominations as governor leave something to be desired.
    It is a sad state of affairs and I am not sure there is really all that much of a difference between Romney and Obama, neither will do what is really needed to save this country.

      1. A very good point Jim, in the end I most likely will vote for Romney. It is easy to say I won’t now, but I said the same thing about McCain in 2008 before pulling the lever for him. I realized back then how dangerous Obama was and he has done nothing but confirm my concerns. In the end ROmney won’t do what is needed to turn the country around, but he will slow the decline down and that might just be enough to buy us time until someone comes along who will solve the problems, but if Obama is elected the decline is complete.

  7. The worst thing to happen to conservatism would be 4 more years of Obama. His program is to get as many people as possible dependent on the federal government, and he’s well on the way. We simply can not have another 4 years of him.

    1. So you think four more years of President Obama will destroy, cripple, or eradicate Conservatism, and all shall be lost? Has it come to that? Are Conservatives that fragile?

      I’m looking at 2012 – 2015 as three years of organizing, solidifying, uniting, and removing all fake Conservatives from the American landscape once and for all.

      You think we can’t handle another four years of President Obama, but I would disagree. I can handle another four years. I know many who can handle another four years. I am saddened that you say you cannot.

      1. No, conservatives are not fragile. However, many will hang it up and making our case to independents and even liberals will be much harder when, conceivably, more than half of the country will be in one way or another dependent on the Federal government. If Obama is reelected we might have single payer healthcare, for instance. That’s usually the end of it.

      2. I hear what you’re saying, edge. But allow me to ask bluntly: If I, as a Conservative, were to ‘hang it up’ if President Obama wins another four years, then how deep was my commitment to begin with?

        I see it as a win-win, in that light, since his winning will thresh the floor and eliminate the weaker-minded and the spineless from our midst.

        True, true, this battle can get tedious and quite disheartening. To be sure. But, speaking for myself, I shall not waver, falter, stumble, or doubt the truth of proper governance through True Conservatism, no matter what the situation appears to be.

        Please do not take my words as a rebuke! I would highly and strongly encourage any Conservative to stand firm, stand strong, do not waver or doubt, and stay focused on The Big Picture, no matter what the horizon looks like.

        Thanks for the polite dialogue, edge! Long Live the Republic, indeed.

  8. I suppose I’ll vote for Romney (I’m not going to throw my vote away by voting for a third party candidate.) But Romney has his work cut out for him. Compared to the ruthless Democratic/Obama machine he’s a babe in the woods.

  9. I’m writing in Ron Paul if I have to. NO ONE else gets my vote.

    Romney supported TARP, the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, etc.

    Santorum, Obama, Romney, Gingrich ALL supported these and ALL offer MORE war, MORE debt, MORE government, and LESS FREEDOM.

    RON PAUL 2012-2020

  10. Aren’t any of you so tired of voting on this ‘party’ lines’ crap? Ron Paul is the ONLY choice for fiscal responsibility and true Conservatism.

    Ron is the ONLY candidate talking about the Fed…that almost exclusively private banking cabal that controls all…even our politicians. Its all about the money. Not Romney, not Santorum, not Gingrich, nor Obama will address the CANCER (the Fed) in this country.

  11. Conservatives on Fire. Your title should read: “Getting Romney elected will lead to TARP II”

    Take a look at Romneys TOP contributors aka the FED!!!
    Goldman Sachs $535,680
    JPMorgan Chase & Co $375,650
    Morgan Stanley $323,800
    Credit Suisse Group $299,160
    Citigroup Inc $282,765
    Bank of America $277,850

    Looks eerily similar to the Obama 2008 contributors…TARP II anyone?

    Romney/Obama two puppets…SAME MASTER opensecrets.org

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s