Romney Redux

You may have heard it here first, or maybe not: Romney is running. There is a tweet going around claiming inside knowledge to that effect. And it tallies with his recent prominence in the media. I believe he will.

He should. For reasons noted here before. A lot of people feel remorse now for voting the other way last time, and would welcome the chance at redemption. After Obama, there will be a thirst for raw competence, for a steady hand at the wheel. Romney gives that sense more than anyone else who comes to mind. And having lost once helps: Romney's greatest liability has been that he seemed too perfect, as if he had never had to break a sweat over anything. Now he looks more human.

He needs more foreign policy chops. But that is true of any of his likely competitors as well. (I'm sticking with my prediction that Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee, but even if she is, her involvement with the Obama foreign policy will be a liability, not an asset.) He needs to get out in public talking about foreign policy right now--and that is exactly what he is doing.

Mitt Romney in 2016?

Mitt Romney in 2013: a little grey and frayed around the edges?

By this point, especially with the Obamacare rollout,  the hallmark of the Obama presidency is beginning to look like managerial incompetence.

By 2016, as an antidote, Americans are liable to be craving a figure of unquestioned managerial competence for president.

And when that is said, who in American public life comes first to mind? Is it not Mitt Romney?

Pity he is not running this time, instead of last time.

For some strange reason, it has become accepted practice that, although they can run several times for the nomination, candidates now get only one shot at the finals, the actual head-to-head run for the presidency. This was not always so: Nixon got two shots, and won in the second. Adlai Stevenson got two shots, as did Tom Dewey, and William Jennings Bryan.

Romney lost largely, in my opinion, because he seemed too perfect. It was hard for the average American to identify with him, and so to like him. But, having once lost a close contest, and getting a little old, could be his saving flaws.

He really ought to consider another run.

Romney Will Win

Ready for framing.

I think the 2012 US Presidential Race is over. Momentum should now carry Romney over the top. With two weeks to go, there are no more good chances to change it. I expect about a seven point win, comparable to Obama's win over McCain four years ago.

Romney's likability is now equal to or greater than Obama's, according to the polls. If likability is equal, the focus shifts to competence. Romney has an edge there, on the economy, and it's the economy everyone is concerned about.

Prediction for Second Debate

Lifelike image courtesy DonkeyHotey. CC license.

Since I did so well on my prediction for the First US Presidential Debate, I am emboldened to make a prediction for Debate #2.

I think Romney will win again.

It should not be as one-sided as the first debate—that win was historic. The odds are against that; though I think even this is possible.

President Obama will certainly try to do better this time; his pride is on the line. But if I am right that he fundamentally, in his heart of hearts, is sick of the job and does not want to be re-elected, he can be more or less counted on to self-sabotage in some way. Just as he seems to be self-sabotaging on the growing Libya scandal by trying to scapegoat both the Clintonian State Department and the intelligence community—two groups you really want to have on your side.

And I note with arched eyebrow that the debate prep this time is once again at a golf resort. Not the venue you want if you want Obama's full attention; sounds like another carrot for a reluctant horse.

Romney, on the other hand, won the first debate largely because he was so very well briefed. He is not going to become un-briefed. And as hard as Obama might be running now to catch up, Romney is likely to be running just as fast; he's not going to stop and wait for Obama.

I expect in any case that unless Obama scores a TKO, or Romney commits a gaffe, the news stories will be, at best, “Obama held his own.” Perhaps the news media would like the story “Obama closes the gap” better for partisan reasons, but it's really not as good a story yet as “wheels come off the Obama bus.” Problem is, there is hardly and gap to be closed yet. First they have to establish the gap. Obama has to go down further before his comeback becomes a good story.

I Called It, Didn't I?

Image by DonkeyHotey under CC license.

I've never seen a clearer morning-after consensus: Romney scored a TKO in the first US Presidential debate, it seems. I see comparisons to Kennedy-Nixon or Reagan-Carter, the two most decisive presidential debates in televised debate history. And more than one commentator has noted that Obama did not look as though he wanted to be there. I think it confirms my suspicions that Obama does not really want to be president any more.

The next debate should be tougher for Romney. Whether or not Obama still wants to be president, he has his pride. And he will be concerned about his legacy. He's going to come more pumped for the next one.

As to the narrative here, the best new story for now is "challenger closes the gap." However, since the gap is already pretty narrow, that will not do for long. And "Romney campaign collapses" has already been done to death. Ergo, if events make it in the least possible, the obvious "big news" story to come is "wheels fall off the  Obama bus."

Look for it.

I think Romney-Obama best compares to Reagan-Carter. Folks are dissatisfied with the record of the current president, but they had doubts about the challenger. The Obama campaign has hung their hat on that one by running lots of ads going after Romney, rather than talking about the President's record.

Now, just as Reagan did in the Carter debates, Romney has managed to come across as capable, presidential, and likable. This blows the heart out of the Democratic campaign strategy, so it may do maximum damage. They may have to scramble for a plan B. There may not be a good plan B available.

I think there is real potential for this to morph into "wheels come off the Obama campaign." Into a real poll surge for Romney.

The First Debate: Any Bets?

Kennedy debates Nixon. Nixon loses on makeup.

The first US Presidential debate is tomorrow. If I were a betting man, I’d bet Romney will be declared the “winner.” Here’s why:

First, the polls say people are expecting Obama to do better. That means Romney has a lower bar in order to impress. We also know that Obama’s record is not popular; people are looking for an excuse to back Romney.

Romney has had a lot more recent practice. The Republican primaries sometimes seemed like all debate, all the time. By contrast, Obama has avoided even any hard questioning for years. Indeed, it is usual for the incumbent to “lose” the first debate. Incumbents tend to come in to the first debate rusty and as if not used to being challenged. This is probably the nature of the job. And Obama is certainly capable of seeming distracted and unengaged.

Carter debates Ford: Ford loses on geography.

Obama is a good speaker, but he has never shown himself to be a particularly good debater. Romney’s performance in the past, on the other hand, has been pretty solid. I think overall he did second best in his field of seven, after Newt Gingrich, as a debater. And as Gingrich says, he seems particularly good when the chips are down.

We also know Romney has spent more time than Obama prepping for this particular debate.

But there’s more. I think it is interesting that Obama has retired for three days to what is essentially a luxury golf resort in Nevada in order to prepare for the debates. We know the President is an avid golfer. If he does not plan to play golf, this location is going to be a major distraction to his preparations. If he does plan to play golf, this location is going to be a very major distraction to his preparations. So why did his campaign choose this location? See my previous musings that Obama may not be all that driven to win a second term. He might find the chance to get in a little golf in the middle of the campaign more important than winning reelection. If so, not only will he enter the debate unprepared; he may enter the debate not entirely sure he wants to win the debate.

Carter debates Reagan: Reagan wins on geniality.

Finally, this time the press may not be on his side to spin things for him. Regardless of the press’s partisan bias, which is real, there is one thing above all else that matters to a journalist. That is maintaining a good narrative, finding “news,” keeping things interesting. What would be the biggest news that could come out of the debate? Romney campaign collapses? Nope; they’ve been running with that one for a couple of weeks now. At this point, it risks being boring. The best news angle would now be the opposite of that: Obama strikes out in first debate; can Romney close the gap? This is another reason why the incumbent is almost always seen to lose the first debate, and a reason why whoever is the underdog at this point almost always starts moving up. Accordingly, if the media are given an opening that allows it, they will be most inclined to spin this in Romney’s favour, even if they do all personally want Obama to win.

Romney debates everyone.

Is it possible the mainstream media are really so partisan they would refuse to do this if the opening occurred? Perhaps; but only if they are Democrats first, and journalists second.

Romney's Gender Gap

All the pundits, even on the right, seem worried about Romney's "gender gap": as I recall, he is trailing Obama by ten points among women.

Hmm--Romney and Obama are tied; women make up roughly fifty percent of the electorate; and Romney trails Obama by ten points among women. If I still remember my math, that has to mean Obama trails Romney by roughly ten points among men.

So why is it Romney who has the "gender gap" problem, and not Obama? Doesn't this assume that the votes of women are more important than the votes of men?

Why isn't sauce for the gander sauce for the goose?

Romney Up in Polls

The latest polls, coming out after Romney's supposed "gaffe" regarding the Cairo Embassy's apology, show his numbers up. This suggests to me that I was right: the public is too sophisticated any longer, in this Internet age, to be influenced by media spin. If I read the polls correctly, correcting for any apparent over-sampling of Democrats, they are really all showing Romney and Obama in a dead heat now nation-wide; with the trend in Romney's direction.

Media Bias Blowback?

The media attack on Romney for supposedly speaking out of turn on the Arab crisis is so weird that I wonder if it may discredit the media in this campaign. As Dan Rather's attack on Bush's military record discredited the media in the Bush-Kerry campaign. It may generate a sympathy vote for Romney, and may make some turn against Obama purely on the grounds that the media is so obviously for him. The hatred of feeling manipulated could come into play here, given the new Internet-driven rules of engagement.

There is no sign of it yet, mind.

Don't Blame Me, I Wanted Newt Gingrich

About the all-important likability factor and why Romney doesn't have it.

US Presidential Race Tied

Good looking, but not too good looking.

The US Presidential race seems for the moment to be uncannily close. The latest polls show a tie nationally, a tie in Ohio, a tie in Michigan, a tie in Virginia. This is a move up for Romney, who was trailing slightly.

Looks like a “Ryan bounce.” Will it last? Perhaps. Romney should get a bigger bounce from the convention than Obama, because he is less well known. It might be enough to take a slight lead.

In retrospect, Ryan seems to have added something crucial to the ticket that I did not foresee: likability. The importance of this cannot be overestimated. In my experience, the guy who wins the election is almost always the guy the voters feel most comfortable with, the guy they feel best about having appear in their living rooms regularly over the next four years.

Obama is strong on that score, and Romney has been weak—too perfect, too moral, too handsome, too rich, too self-controlled. But Ryan seems to be pretty good here. A lovable jug-eared geek. Good-looking, but in a goofy way. If he can remain a big part of the campaign, and Romney sits back as a kind of Chairman of the Board, or CEO to Ryan’s COO, it may be just what the Republicans need.

Good vs. Evil in Campaign 2012

Obama as the left sees him.

On reflection, I have a further point to make regarding the tendency for politics to replace religion for those on the left. For many on the left, conventional morality is replaced by the simple expedient of voting for a designated party and programme. The necessary corollary is that they must view anyone who does not support that same party and programme as immoral.

This explains the intense hatred of the right on the left, and largely explains why we have lost all sense of fair play, perspective, and honest discourse in the political arena. The left necessarily views the right as evil.

No holds are barred in such circumstances.

Romney as the left sees him.

Ryan's Fancies

Ezra Klein seems to share my misgivings about the wisdom of the Ryan pick.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-will-be-mitt-romneys-vice-presidential-pick-heres-seven-thoughts-on-what-that-means/

Romney's VP Pick

Now that Romney is about to name his choice for running mate, everyone is speculating about who it will be. So that's getting a bit boring. But more generally, who in the past has stood out as a good pick?

Is he still available?

In recent memory, Joe Lieberman stands out as a great one, one that really seemed to boost the ticket, even though it was not enough to win Al Gore the presidency. So great that McCain reputedly wanted to pick him again four years ago. Clinton's pick of Al Gore seemed similarly to give him a real boost. Reagan's pick of George Bush senior was seen as good at the time—though Reagan tried for something yet more spectacular, a ticket with Gerald Ford. Reaching back a bit, many believe that Lyndon Johnson made the difference in winning JFK the presidency. I think Mondale helped Carter, and Muskie helped Humphrey, significantly. Dukakis's pick of Lloyd Bentsen turned out to help when Bentsen did spectacularly well in the VP debate against Quayle.

Any idea who this is?

Which brings us to bad picks: Quayle seemed to diminish the Bush Sr. ticket. Yes, they still won—the first time, not the second. Geraldine Ferraro seems to me to have hurt Mondale, again diminishing his stature. Many say Sarah Palin hurt the McCain effort, but I really dispute that—the polls never showed it, but the reverse, and Palin's power is demonstrated by the fact that she has remained a major figure in political discourse since. Compare Ferraro or Quayle. Tom Eagleton hurt George McGovern, but that was a matter of unforeseen circumstances.

How about this guy? Any idea?

Here's the moral I take from this: a strong VP pick is a strong VP pick. That is, if a candidate picks a VP candidate who seems as qualified as he is or even more so, as much a leader as he or even more so, it looks good and helps the ticket. If not, not.

We are talking about someone who looks like a possible co-president; not a sidekick or a successor being groomed.

So who is available who would do this for Romney? Maybe David Petraeus. Bobby Jindal has the chops, but might look a little too young and adenoidal. Condoleeza Rice; but she seems to be out of the running now. Marco Rubio looks too young; so does Paul Ryan. Pawlenty and Portman look too much like sidekicks, too much like Romney.

Maybe Chris Christie. Or, actually, Newt Gingrich.

He's ba-a-a-a-ck!

The Case for Romney

Rumour at this point is that McCain has picked Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota.

McCain should pick Romney. It's not just that this gives the Republican ticket heft on the economy that the Democratic ticket, now known, cannot match—and the economy looks likely to be the main issue this fall. It's not just that Romney may move Michigan, land of his fathers and a whopping big state, into the Republican column. It's not just that Romney has the record and the gravitas to look like a fine president should anything happen to the aging McCain. It's not just that Romney would then be well-positioned to be a strong nominee in four or eight years—helping to secure the Republican future.

It's that choosing his top competitor would visibly unify the Republican party. This would make a nice contrast to the Democrats, who come out of their convention looking a little ragged and rumpled. It would send a message to the Hillary supporters: look, McCain chose his nearest rival. Why couldn't Obama?

Some have asked why Romney would want the job—after all, he should be front-runner next time regardless, while if McCain loses, he will be tarred with the loss. But this overlooks a critical point: if McCain chooses anyone else, win or lose, but especially win, his choice becomes a credible rival to Romney tomorrow.

Romney Takes Michigan

So far, the results of all the primaries and caucuses have been the same: nobody who had a chance to begin with has been knocked out. The result is about the same as if the next primary were the first to be held. Now Romney’s back in the hunt too.

If this holds up, expect Edwards and Thompson to win South Carolina, Giuliani to win Florida, and Ron Paul and Mike Gravel to sweep the board on Super Duper Tuesday.

Christmas is Coming; The Economist is Getting Fat

The Economist’s Lexington has the best line ever on Mitt Romney:

“Mr. Romney likes to claim that his views on topics such as gay rights and abortion have ‘evolved.’ But they have evolved in a direction that is strikingly convenient—perhaps through intelligent design. Can a party that mocked John Kerry really march into battle behind their very own Massachusetts flip-flopper?”

The Economist especially distinguishes itself in its use of charts and graphs. They currently feature a fascinating historical piece on the greatest charts and graphs ever made.

I can’t wait for my own copy of the Christmas edition. The year-end Economist is one of the great joys of Christmas.

The Republican Field

The US Republican candidates in snapshot, as they appear to me this December 18, moving up to the Iowa Caucuses:

Ron Paul

I’ve seen him interviewed a couple of times. I find him creepy. I saw a video interview with him in which, to a hostile audience including Whoopi Goldberg, he comes out against Roe v. Wade, and does it very well; so in theory I ought to warm to him. But then he ruins it by immediately trying to make me buy the contention that the US economy has been doing badly, and a stronger economy would solve the problem of illegal immigration. Similarly, lower taxes are going to restore manufacturing to the US that is now going to China. And, elsewhere, ending the war in Iraq is going to allow him to end income tax.

These are not solutions; these are slogans. He’s nothing but a snake-oil salesman.


Mike Huckabee

Huckabee is instantly likeable, and a talented, skilled, speaker; and that is an important qualification. But I cannot forgive him for what seem to have been anti-Mormon cracks against Romney; and for seeming to use his religion for political gain. If I am right in my impressions, that is the behaviour of a Pharisee.

As a Catholic, too, I wonder: if Mormons aren’t good enough for him, what about Catholics?

He also lacks foreign policy experience, which is probably the most vital experience for a president to have. His notion of abolishing the income tax is, again, snake oil, and makes me doubt his honesty.

As a tactical matter, too, I expect, if he were nominated by the Republicans, that he would be an easy target for the Democrats in a general election.


Mitt Romney

Romney radiates competence. He did an exceptional job in business, a fine job with the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, and a fine job as governor of a non-Republican state. He seems to be doing a fine job with his campaign. So it seems likely he would do a fine job as president. He seems to be a good speaker, and it does not hurt to look presidential.

One thing that troubles me about Romney is that he comes from a political dynasty. We have seen too much of that lately, in the US and Canada, and it tends in an anti-democratic direction. This is a minor quibble, but it is there.

And then there is the issue of his political views changing as required by his ambitions …


Fred Thompson

People complain that he doesn’t seem to really want the presidency. This is entirely in his favour. Not wanting the job is a strong qualification. Wanting it too much is scary. It suggests an abnormal ego.

People complain that he is lazy. The same could have been said of Ronald Reagan, or Winston Churchill. It speaks in his favour that he is not always charged up; he may simply have a healthy sense of priorities. And this may also be the artistic temperament—like Reagan and Churchill, Thompson has genuine artistic talents. Like Reagan and Churchill, he may be the strongest, most effective man in the room when the chips are down.

Being a skilled actor is also, make no mistake, a strong qualification for the presidency. The US Presidency is mostly smoke and mirrors, a bully pulpit; being able to persuade large audiences is its strongest power.

He has been ill-served by his campaign; that may speak to his executive ability.


Rudy Giuliani

Even before 9/11, he performed apparent administrative miracles in New York: fixing the budget, cutting crime. One of the most impressive performances by any CEO anywhere, anywhen. That earns him serious consideration for the presidency; it is an executive position.

And he will be associated forever with 9/11—he has already become a national symbol. This would help him a great deal as president. It almost seems almost morally wrong, after 9/11, to consider anyone else.

There has been a whiff of scandal lately with the NY books—but to my ear, Giuliani’s explanation sounds completely plausible. Anyone who has ever worked for a government or quasi-government agency knows that this kind of shuffling of papers is commonly necessary to get anything done. I don’t think the “scandal” would matter if it did not remind everyone of Giuliani’s rather untidy personal life.

And as to that—I don’t care a flip. It is just not relevant. A public official’s private life is just that, private.


John McCain

McCain was right on Iraq, from the beginning. He stuck to his guns and took the heat when it cost him politically. He deserves to get the credit now. He’s proven himself an honest man, he’s proven himself a brave man, and he’s proven himself to understand foreign and defense policy better than anyone. These are probably the three most important qualifications for being president.

McCain, at the moment, would be my first choice for Republican nominee. Giuliani would be second; Thompson or Romney even up at third. Huckabee fourth; I could not support Paul.