Home > politics > Why I Predicted that Mitt Romney Would Lose the Election

Why I Predicted that Mitt Romney Would Lose the Election

I did too. 

I’m not going to claim superiority of some really complex, really interesting, but in reality really boring statistical model that I understood because I understood math. Nor am I going to claim psychic powers, because they don’t really exist. Nope, I predicted that Obama would win, as well as Kirsten Gillibrand (especially since I only discovered that she had an opponent the day of the election), Robach (my state senator), and Brooks for Congress (although that last one was a mistype, I voted for her opponent and thought she would win but I wrote down the wrong name for my FB post. Since there is no way that I can prove that, I’m going to just chalk that up as myself being wrong—in the interest of fairness). 

There were also some judges and such on the local level, but since I do not feel qualified to vote for judge I never do, thus do not make predictions. 

Anyway, the one that everyone cared about even though the president actually has very little influence on the average American’s day to day life, was that I knew Mitt Romney would lose. I didn’t base my conclusion on anything that the talking heads spoke of, it wasn’t the first/third debate, it wasn’t the storm, it wasn’t Benghazi; it was very simple to me that from day one he wasn’t going to be a winner. 

The reason: well before we get to that let’s do some history. I made my first presidential pick in 2000, when Bush won the presidency (He did too, that’s how the system works). Gore was too uptight, he distanced himself too far from Clinton who everyone liked and his ideas floated from being really complex and hard to follow to being too vague. There was no personality to him either. I didn’t feel he would win–I voted for Nader. 

Four years later there was a pretty reviled president on one hand, and people that really loved him on the other. This was my first experience with being an “Independent Voter” and Bush’s opponent, John Kerry, was the guy that the Democrats picked to be their guy not because he was the best candidate, but because he seemed like the guy that could beat Bush. Kerry was a disaster, but a predictable one. 

Then came 2008, in which a candidate for the GOP who was once pretty reasonable (and who would have had my vote in 2000) had to begin running to the right to appease a militant, zealous base of a party that thinks feelings trump reality. He nominates easily the worst VP candidate in my lifetime (which is saying something considering in my lifetime Perot was a candidate). If anyone thought McCain was going to win that election, I have a zombie survival kit to sell you. 

So finally 2012. See: 2004. I based it on the same reason. No one liked Romney, they just hated Obama. I still haven’t met someone that actually wanted Mitt Romney to be president. The year long primary season was basically an American Idol for the candidate that could accomplish two things: 1) beat Obama and 2) appease the American Taliban that is also known as the Tea party. What was forgotten, in my opinion, is that 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. That’s why we saw the rise and fall of so many candidates over the past year. They either satisfied 1 or they satisfied 2 but not both.

Take Rick Perry for instance, since he got the TIme Cover in the summer. Executive experience, check. Christian, check; really really Christian check, not an intellectual, check; against Obamacare, check. So far, he’s hit everything on the Tea Party list, he even brings that I’m one of you swagger that people liked in Bush. What was his problem? He kind of liked government to the point that when his state was made aware of an HPV epidemic he took steps to end it by instituting a mandatory vaccination protocol in Texas. A move that set aside politics for the common good. This was somehow seen as a weakness by the crazies, and especially their spokesman Michelle “I’m actually a lunatic” Bachmann who claimed that the vaccine made a child mentally retarded, despite medical science saying that it was impossible (Down’s Syndrome is genetic). They didn’t like that government acted for the common good and made people do something. Because, you know: freedom. His qualification at 1 folded when it became apparent that he was either laying the dumb on too thick or was actually too dumb, and couldn’t remember one of the three departments he would cut out of the budget if given the chance. Too effective for 2 too dumb-seeming for 1 (I actually have no opinion of the man’s intelligence but those are the only two options). 

It was like that for all of the candidates. Bachman, Santorum, Perry, Gingrich. The only candidates that were never given their fair chance were Paul and Hunstman. Paul, was never going to be it, his ideas are untenable for one but he also manages to piss off both sides at the same time. On the one hand he wants to cut the federal government out at the knees. On the other he also wants to end all foreign involvement by the US. I’m against both of those ideas, and do not get me started on returning to the gold standard or his economic ideas. I do think his foreign idea bears some debate, we could close too large bases on foreign soil given that Germany can fend for itself, and that I doubt China needs us to protect them from Japan. He was probably the best person for Romney to have picked for VP given that Paul really brings out the youth vote, but his whole, ‘let’s legalize all of the drugs’ idea doesn’t appeal to the tea party at all. 

John Huntsman, in my opinion, was probably the best guy to have beaten Obama. He was a better looking, less irritating Romney with none of the weaknesses: he didn’t create Obamacare, he had foreign experience as an ambassador in China, he didn’t run Bain capital, every single attack that was leveled against Romney couldn’t have worked on the guy. I’m sure that he had other issues, but those were big ones. His problem: he wouldn’t run to the crazy like Romney did. Huntsman made the error that he accepted science, which apparently is fatal if you are a Republican and that science doens’t come from the Discovery Institute. 

I’m not a politician, or a political analyst; but look at the path Romney took. He spent the entire primary season running to the right and then the last month running back to the center with all of this supporters shaking their heads trying to deny that he had flipped on so many issues that even an IHOP run by John Kerry would have rolled its eyes. When Akin and Mourduch said their shit about rape? Well Romney had courted that opinion in primary season. 

In short, Romney was merely Kerry eight years ago. That’s why I knew he wasn’t going to win. 

Categories: politics
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: