“Electability”, according to polling data culled from both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, was the major reason that republican voters in those two states selected former Governor Mitt Romney. In other words, Romney won these contests, in large part, because he is seen as the candidate most able to defeat President Obama in November.
Really? If we’re to accept this concept, then we have to imply that a large swath of the voters in those two states likely sat some of their principles and personal beliefs on the back burner, perhaps even sacrificing their gut-feelings and preference for another candidate for the good of the country.
And if we accept that implication, then we’re doing this the wrong way.
We don’t see democrats talking about electability. Barrack Obama is their man. Even in some liberal circles, Obama’s re-election isn’t considered a lock. He is widely considered to be as vulnerable as George H. W. Bush was in ’92, and some consider him more vulnerable than Jimmy Carter in ’80. Yet, the DNC is intent on the President, walking in lock-step and speaking as a single entity in hopes of getting Obama to the promised land of a second term. The few who have questioned this, even to the point of suggesting Obama step aside for the “good of the party” have been ignored, rebuffed, and sent off to democrat purgatory, wherever that is.
So where did we get this “electability” thing? Almost as soon as the GOP contenders were set, conservative icons such as Sean Hannity and Mark Levin spoke confidently, and still do, that any of the potential nominees could beat Barrack Obama.
The answer is “Anyone but Obama”. Oft-heard in conservative circles, the mantra has inadvertently led voters to think about “Who can beat Obama?” instead of “Who is best able to guide the country out of this fiscal morass?”. The media, grinning ear-to-ear with glee, happily perpetuate the electability issue by touting polling data showing how independent and swing voters prefer Mitt Romney.
With this information firmly entrenched in their minds, republican voters now find themselves backing a candidate, not based on their views, but based on who they believe these independent voters would choose, and these swing voters are more comfortable with Governor Romney.
There is some validity to this notion. History shows that the American electorate, by and large, prefer a president who is easy on the ears; Soft-spoken types who can smile and give a speech that makes a nuclear holocaust sound like a stray firecracker being set off. It’s not like Americans can’t handle the truth, they just like it sugar-coated. Reagan wasn’t known as “The Great Communicator” for nothing. FDR was considered charming, even by his detractors. President Obama wouldn’t have gotten where he is today if it wasn’t for his oratory skills. In this, Romney seems to have the upper-hand. Newt Gingrich can say Obama is the “Food-stamp President”; Romney can say the same thing, but it takes him 7 paragraphs to do it.
In short, Gingrich comes across as your high-school civics teacher telling you how he wants a report written. Romney is like your father explaining why you shouldn’t talk to strangers.
Romney’s changes in belief over the years is widely considered flip-flopping for political gain by conservative voters, but these same voters perceive that independent and swing-voters see this as an asset rather than a liability. Would-be republican voters will tell themselves that independents like Romney for the same reasons they voted for Obama in ’08; Those pulpit-like promises of reaching out across the aisle, bringing the parties together, of compromise and transparency.
Republican voters, and conservatives in particular, need to stop thinking about this electability nonsense. Ronald Reagan didn’t win the 1980 election because he was perceived as the most able to defeat Carter. He won because he was most able to change the direction of the country. Swing voters, independents, and the “Reagan democrats” gravitated towards Reagan, not the other-way-around.
Don’t get me wrong. Romney may be an excellent President. Only time and executive decisions will tell. But if Mitt Romney is the most able candidate to defeat Obama, stop to consider that Romney likely faces the most uphill battle of any of the remaining candidates.
President Obama has been campaigning against Romney, albeit indirectly, for three years. Obama has spoken with nothing less than vitriolic hatred against the rich, against “fat-cat” entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who fly around in private jets, who think only of profit at the expense of American workers. For the Obama campaign, Romney is not only a rival, he’s a power-point visual aid, the embodiment of the tax-evading bogeyman that your president warned you about.
Obama gets help with this one. Romney’s competition, Rick Perry in particular, only serve to reinforce this. Obama doesn’t have to drive home the point with endless rhetoric, all he has to do is stand at his podium during a debate and say “Don’t take my word for it, his own party thinks he’s a vulture capitalist.”
Romney may win in November, if nominated, but my personal prediction is that the results will be closer and tighter than they have to be, all because republican voters in the primaries tried to select the best man for the job based on who somebody else thinks is the best man for the job.
And if Romney loses, then these same voters will have no one else to blame but themselves for going with “electability” instead of believing in in what they know is the right thing to do.
And that is what got us into this mess to begin with.