Dumping on Romney

Ok, he wasn’t the perfect candidate and frequently displayed a tin ear in phrasing his comments (e.g. describing himself as a “severe conservative” had an inauthentic ring to it).  Yet there is no denying that he worked awfully hard to win.  He should get credit for that no matter how disheartening, for us, was his failure.

Alas, Republicans, conservatives and others retain their apparent susceptibility for joining circular firing squads.

Since the election, Romney has come under fire from such conservative publications as the National Review, the Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, not to mention unnamed GOP operatives, etc, because the GOP standard bearer blamed his loss on the Obama’s campaign “giving a lot of stuff to groups”.

Here is a full account of Gov. Romney’s controversial remarks to a group of donors delivered a few days after the election. 

          "The Obama campaign was following the old playbook of giving a lot of stuff to groups that they hoped they could get to vote for them and be motivated to go out to the polls, specifically the African American community, the Hispanic community and young people.  In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups.”

One cannot be positive as to what exactly cost Romney the election.  But it is hardly outrageous or divisive to assign some blame to “gifts” from President Obama.  Can anyone seriously dispute that receiving something one wants (Dream Act for Hispanics or tuition aid for students) makes one more inclined to think favorably of the source?  Certainly, the Obama campaign thought so.

On the other hand, few people would admit to themselves that such presents influenced their vote.  Human nature inclines us all to think that what is objectively in our best interest is “coincidentally” the right thing to do.

Now, I also realize that we don’t like to be challenged on the legitimacy of our self-regard.   No one likes to think that he has been bought.  Rather than consider the merits of the allegation, people are more likely, in self- defense, to attack the accuser.

And so the ire directed at Romney’s political comments is understandable.  Those on the left can’t admit the motivation behind the “gifts”.  And those on the right (allowing the benefit of the doubt that they do understand that voters are influenced by government largess) are disassociating themselves not from the substance of Romney’s remarks but rather from their effect on already paltry support for Republicans among certain constituencies.

How Did Obama Win?

As discussed last week, Hurricane Sandy was a God-send to the president.  It allowed Barack Obama to act not only presidential but, thanks to Gov. Chris Christie’s bear hug, appear bipartisan, as well.  And, of course, the general media was on his team throughout the campaign.  (Remember how the final pre-election unemployment numbers were reported?  Although the unemployment rate rose from 7.8 to 7.9%, presumably a bad sign for the President, the media emphasis was on the report that more new jobs had been counted than expected.)

But some of the election and exit poll data is less obvious. 

How was it that this so-called most crucial presidential election in decades, one which would determine the path of America, attracted 4 million (3%) fewer voters than had gone to the polls in 2008?  And that the drop-off all came from Obama’s totals?

So why did the 4 million stay home?  Were they no longer enamored of the President but weren’t won over by the GOP candidate?  And why didn’t Romney gain significantly more votes than his predecessor nominee who was faced with a, then, highly popular opponent championing hope and change?

The assault on Romney in the swing states worked.  Taken together, he lost them by a 5% margin.  He lost the other states, together, by 2%.

The Republican candidate, by early campaign calculations, needed the independent vote to win.  He got it by a ten point margin (McCain had lost it by four).

The Democrats’ hope to use GOP Medicare revision proposals to scare older voters away from Gov. Romney did not work.  Exit polls from 2008 and 2012 showed a slight increase for the Republican ticket this year among those over 65! 

The gender gap cut both ways, although somewhat in Obama’s favor.  Romney had a 7% edge among men and an 11% deficit among women. 

“Hope” for Obama was very much alive, unsurprisingly, among blacks, with 93% in his corner, down slightly from last time.  (Considering that blacks, in particular, have suffered in Obama’s “recovery”, loyalty to party and race plainly trumped other considerations for this portion of the electorate.)

But the loyalty of the young voter was a surprise.  They, too, have inordinately suffered in the economy.  But they backed President Obama strongly, though support for those under thirty declined from 66% four years ago to 60% this time.  Evidently, the Obama aura, which Republicans thought had disappeared long ago, remains potent for many.  Their wish to believe obviously gave the President a pass on what others (such as this conservative) view as obvious short-comings.

Where do we conservatives go from here?  I will offer my thoughts soon.

Disappointed as we all are in the election results, we still live in a great country.  Our job continues to be to do what we can to keep it that way.  So in that spirit, I wish you a very Happy Thanksgiving.

 

Is God a Liberal Democrat?

I don’t know.  But one has to wonder, for Hurricane Sandy certainly didn’t help the Republican cause.  

According to CNN exit polls, 42% of those voting considered President Obama’s response to the East Coast disaster as an important factor influencing their ballot.  And those voters favored the incumbent more than three to two. 

What did the President do to receive such high regard?  He traveled to New Jersey to be bear-hugged by Republican governor Chris Christie, made promises of federal aid, and left promptly thereafter for a campaign event.

Whether Hurricane Sandy resulted in Obama’s re-election by a 51% - 48% margin, only He knows.

I cite this exit poll result to pour gallons of water on the post-election handwringing by those on the right and the mandate claims from the left. 

Whether an act of God cost Romney the election cannot be definitively answered by us mortals.  And the same can be said about myriad factors:  immigration policy, media bias, a slight uptick in economic news, the Democratic class warfare propaganda and the GOP’s lack of an effective counter, the President’s superior get-out-the-vote effort, etc.

What we do know is that the electorate remains closely divided and has been for decades.  In 2008, the Democratic nominee received 52%; President Obama got 51% this time.  In fact, the last time the Democratic nominee received more than 52% of the national vote was in 1964 (LBJ’s landslide).

So maintain perspective when evaluating the disappointing outcome.  It is doubtful that the results were a rejection of the conservative perspective or the dawning of a leftist America.  The impact of Romney’s loss, however, should not be underestimated.

The expansion of big government of the past four years will not be undone, taxes will go up, the economy’s recovery will remain anemic due to regulatory restrictions and the implementation of Obamacare, and our dependence on foreign energy will increase. 

Have a nice day.

The Demise of the Electoral College is Long Overdue

I’m writing this before the Tuesday election so that it is clear that my viewpoint was not colored by the results. 

It is ridiculous that a national election in our Republic is not decided on the basis of “one-man, one-vote” but rather on a majority vote in the Electoral College established by Article II of the U.S. Constitution. 

In 1787, the former colonies were distinct entities very aware – and protective – of their status as sovereign states.  But for the Constitutional Convention meeting in Philadelphia that summer, it was obvious that the failures of the Articles of Confederation mandated that the individual states surrender some of that sovereignty if the United States were too survive as a nation. 

So the States agreed to a grand compromise.  Each, regardless of population size, received two votes in the U.S. Senate and was given House of Representatives and Electoral College votes geared to their respective numbers, with extra votes granted to slave-holding states as part of the compromise. 

Since then, Americans have evolved into citizens of a nation instead of being, primarily, residents of sovereign states.

The outcome of the Civil War made clear, after all, that sovereignty for states was not to be equated with independence.  And the 17^th Amendment of 1913, requiring the direct election of U.S. Senators, eliminated the role of state legislatures as a local electoral college of sorts.

My point is not that states’ rights or federalism should be jettisoned as Constitutional precepts.  Rather, we should recognize that a vote for a national office should be treated equally with every other regardless of the state within which it is cast. 

Why are we absorbed with “swing state” polls?  Because the votes of undecided voters matter there matter much more than those cast in California or Kansas.  As a practical matter, a Romney vote in the former is as worthless as an Obama ballot in the latter. 

That’s simply not right.  More than fairness is involved.  The national unity, such as it is, will be subjected to further assault.  Although I surely approved of the outcome, Gore’s capture of the popular vote, but the Electoral College loss to Bush, understandably infuriated the Democrat’s supporters.  And it is highly likely that the bitterness that ensued contributed mightily to the hostility that they felt toward the Bush Administration.

As a partisan, I want Mitt Romney to win on Tuesday, popular vote or not.  But as a citizen, I won’t be happy with a popular vote loss.  That won’t be a fair and square victory.  I fear such a result will be bad for the country even considering that President Obama’s defeat in the Electoral College would also be very good for the country.