What the 2012 Republican candidate for president is up against
I’ve got a new article up at PJ, entitled “Romney’s daunting challenges.”
My original title for the piece was the title I gave to this post, because I didn’t want it to be about Romney, but about what any Republican nominee would have been facing this year. Skimming the comments section to the article at PJ, I noticed some of the commenters there seemed to think I was concern-trolling, or saying “woe, all was lost!”, or that Obama is a brilliant campaigner.
Absolutely not. But I do think (as I wrote towards the end of the piece) that this election—and any possible Romney victory—will turn on turnout. And that Obama has the built-in advantage that comes from the MSM having turned into his very own propaganda machine, plus his propensity for using dirty tricks and/or the politics of personal destruction against opponents.
So get out there and vote in November, and convince everyone you know who wants to defeat Obama to do likewise.
A companion peice at pj media is Roger Kimball’s current article:
The link:
http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/09/22/president-dukakis/#comment-1017749
A great article. My way of saying it is “how can someone juggle some many horse shoes and not drop one, sooner or later?”
Almost, almost, but not quite it makes me change my prediction from “comfortable” to very, very close and there are two reasons: I think Mitt is a smart guy who will outperform Obama at the debates and the polls are unreliable. Oh, and yes, there still is that little thing we call the economy.
But I’ll take and be grateful for a very, very close win.
and Mitch Berg:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/22/the-bandwagoneers/
I noticed neo that lately there is a lot of transference lately in verbal and written communications.
For those interested in clarity out is extremely frustrating.
How can the commenters extrapolate what they are saying from what you said?
baklava: I have noticed that as well. Although I’m not sure it’s increasing; I’ve noticed for many, many years that, as Karl Popper famously said, “Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you.”
I’ve noticed that, especially on a general board such as PJ where people might not be familiar with my work, there’s even more misunderstanding, no matter how clear I try to be. It happens less often here on the blog, but it certainly still happens. I think people bring their preconceptions and emotions to what they read, and that increases the possibilities of misunderstanding (emotions are certainly high lately in politics). To a guy with a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Also, it’s impossible to always be precise enough. For example, in my PJ piece I wrote, “And after all, who among his previous supporters is going to turn on him and vote for Romney instead? Not the left, or most liberals. Not white voters who are inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on his record because they feel so good about themselves when they vote for the black candidate. Still others who probably won’t leave Obama are those low-information voters who might theoretically be swayed but who don’t like to dig too deeply into things and are pleased with Obama so far…”
I thought the antecedent “who among [Obama’s] previous supporters” made it clear I was then listing subsets among those supporters who were reluctant to leave him. So that would include those white voters who voted for him the first time and who still “inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on his record because they feel so good about themselves when they vote for the black candidate.” But in the comments section someone got his nose out of joint about that, and said:
Obviously (or at least I thought it was obvious) I’m talking about the subset of previous Obama supporters who are still reluctant to leave him and vote for Romney in part because they feel good about themselves in voting for Obama. Of course I know that the majority of whites aren’t voting for Obama (nor did they in 2008).
I could wade into the comments section and explain to that commenter (who also has no idea what percentage of white previous Obama supporters may or may not be sticking with him for the reason I state). But I think such efforts tend to be a waste of time. But that commenter’s misunderstanding of what I wrote is typical—and inevitable, because of what Karl Popper said.
Now of course, if you want to go to PJ and correct him, that okay with me :-). Sometimes I just get tired of explaining the obvious.
Oh boy. If you want a reason to go ahead and slit your wrists, see the comments on this thread.
I’ve been following it since last night and had held my tongue up until now, trying to find the right words. Tonight I thought about copying and pasting Rachel Peepers’ comment at PJM.
But finally I let loose.
I’m sure I’ll get flamed for it, but I had to do what I could.
rickly,
I read market ticker at least every few days, and while I agree with KD on most issues, I strongly disagree that ‘purity’ is a wise choice. Your post on the ticker was spot on.
I remain in good cheer, BHO is returning to Hawaii and will finish his 3rd autobiography-memoir before the end of 2013. Look for an Oprah appearance early in December, 2013 to pump up the Christmas book sales.
The working tittle is: I’m Sitting On Top of The World.
Marginal votes are the ones that will be depressed by this wave of gloom sweeping conservative partisans (I’m not talking about you here Neo; you’re the best).
People might think, “Well, Romney has no chance of winning. Might as well not vote, or at least, I’ll vote for the guy I really want.”
Even though I live in a blue state, I WILL NOT waste my vote on a third party candidate. As we’ve seen, results from prior elections are the basis for poll weightings and resource allocations for future elections. I want my vote to unleash as much hurt as possible on the Democratic Party and their media allies.
A vote for anyone other than Romney not only won’t do that but would be welcomed by the Obama campaign. When I think about that possibility, I can vividly see, in my mind’s eye, Obama coming to shake my hand to thank me for my help in his re-election. That makes me a bit ill.
Remember the danger of programs like Obamacare is not that the economy will immediately collapse or that the public will hate it upon implementation, but rather that we will become reliant on it much as the British are reliant on the NHS. A second Obama term will allow it to become as thoroughly embedded in our society as social security has become, and as difficult to reform.
Nice job at Market Ticker, rickl.
It disturbs me that people who are as well informed as those who read Market Ticker can be so bull headed about this issue. The only chance we have is Romney. It may be slim, but it’s a chance. With Obama – Zero!
I’ll treasure that quote NEO.
I won’t go into the comments section though 🙂
I was thinking about my difference in communicating when it comes to my girlfriend also. She exercises exactly what you are saying when she brings her feelings to the discussion and it is extremely difficult in MOST conversations to nail down clarity. But I do succeed. I do because we each expect due diligence from each other. Yes each conversation gets frustrating but i’m relieved when there is progress. There just isn’t enough time to give that much due diligence to people we don’t know on a blog. Especially when they give so little thought to their first comment. Laziness is an indicator.
I was so happy my younger daughter found a dress today at
Mostly he’s up against himself. As a multimillionaire businessman I expected him to be somewhat more composed and quick on his feet, but no. He gets absolutely blindsided by things even he arranged for.
Not to mention, he’s dealing with a GOP base which is completely allergic to the idea of governance. Romney’s in a bind: his base thinks government is the problem, so he can’t offer government based solutions, but only the government has the authority to make the reforms needed to get the economy where it needs to be. What a shame.
If he’d put together a coherent plan for the future he’d probably have a good chance of defeating Obama’s marginally passable performance over the last four years. But doing so would be impossible from today’s Republican party.
I was wondering if you read the blog that well-known cartoonist Scott Adams writes -Dillbert blog-. I have just read his very interesting assessmet of both candidates and have found it interesting:
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/picking_a_president/
He writes some original and thought-provoking posts, in my opinion.
Loyal,
Conservatives understand the common sense and logic that the government contributed GREATLY to the problems and that the reforms necessary is to greatly diminish government from the free market.
There is a lot of benefit you and liberals could stand to gain by researching Canada and the financial collapse our lack thereof.
Not one bank failure.
Not a home value collapse.
Research it. Otherwise you are negligent.
Hopefully, President Romney remembers that Mr. Fix it is Mr. Reduce it.
L. Achates…Not clear? Mitt’s commitment and specifics for bureaucratic-governmental reduction and clearing thousands of regulations barring businesses from starting up, much less prospering are out there aplenty. Apparently America’s middle class ‘get it’ and like it, as Politico’s newest polling has him 14%+among us’suns.