Now that Rick Santorum has finally accepted the reality that he'll not only never be President, but also never be his party's nominee, I'm positing my prediction for the 2012 election.
First of all, if we go to war, if the economy relapses, or if there is some other catastrophe or crisis, all bets are off. Barring that- assuming that the status quo, more or less, maintains between now and November (I understand it's a big "if"), but it is the most likely bet, even if its chances are only in the 60-80% range- barring that, Obama will be re-elected, and comfortably so, if not in a landslide. Here's why:
1. The American people like Obama. They may disapprove of certain aspects of his job, or the manner in which he does it entirely, but he's well liked, and always has been. And, even though his approval ratings haven't been impressive, they haven't really been anything to scoff at, either. They've been in the low 40s to low 50s most of the time- and in that same period, he's been the highest rated national politician. It's safe to say, that while he hasn't been the most popular guy, he hasn't been detested either.
2. The people don't like Romney. His approvals are low, and his disapprovals are through the roof, and rising- especially in swing states. It's also worth pointing out, that the more money he's spent in a particular state's primary, even though he may have eventually been able to win that state's primary, in nearly every instance, his overall disapproval has increased. And it isn't like Obama has to run attack ads. Thanks to the kind words of Mitt's primary contenders, the GOP has given him all the ammunition he needs, and since it'll have come straight from the mouths of such conservative icons as Newt Gingrich, moderates and independents will believe it. With friends such as those, who really needs enemies?
3. He's a flip flopper. This one's really self explanatory. Add to this his disingenuous personality and complete dearth of common touch, and it really makes some Americans question who Romney is. Personally, I think he's a guy who has a pretty good handle on contemporary problems and how to solve them. But he can't sell his solutions to the people, so he tells them one thing and does something else. I don't mind it. Too many Americans do.
4. What I'll call Romney's Dilemma. It goes something like this. George Bush left office with what amounts to a no confidence vote from the people. Even now, they blame him and his policies for whatever mess America may be in. Republicans will retort that he's been out 4 years and isn't on any ballot in 2012. The problem is that the policies that the conservatives would have Romney support are identical to and in some cases continuations of ones Bush implemented. In short, a vote for Romney would be a vote to return to the Bush years. But what if Romney bucks the GOP and turns out to be the moderate many conservatives suspect him to be? Well, the problem with this is that it carries the tacit admission that Obama wasn't a failure after all.
Conservatives love to quote Reagan. Too often, lately, they completely misunderstand him. They quote his "Are you better off..." line from the debate with Carter, and are convinced that Romney can beat Obama by employing similar rhetoric. Allow me to distinguish. First of all, while many conservatives like to think Obama weak, most Americans don't. He's been a strong leader- and Reagan was a strong leader. That couldn't be said of Carter, and Romney's disingenue leaves doubt. Also, Reagan was advocating something new; something that had yet to be tried. He said, "Well, if you think Carter's failed, let's try it my way. What could it hurt?" Romney doesn't do that. He critiques, but offers no solution of substance. Instead, he says, "Let's pretend the last 5 years didn't happen." With Reagan, America was lost in the woods, and Carter had yet to lead them out, so Reagan suggested taking a different path. Romney wants America to simply retrace its steps back to the point it realized it was lost. That isn't leadership. That's fear.
Unless, of course, Romney critiques Obama, on one hand, and on the other, suggests continuing along the path Obama's paved. In which case, many will say "If you'd have done the same thing, or could do no better, why switch?" Another way of saying, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it."
Now, if something dramatic happens, Romney will be able to play on voters' anxiety the same way Clinton did against GHW Bush. Of course, if the Dow Jones is trading in the high 13,000s or better, and unemployment drops below 8%, and gas gets back below $3.25, Obama wins regardless. But absent that, Romney can't simply give reasons not to vote for Obama. That's like the guy who sits at home on a Sunday and yells at his QB for throwing an INT. After about the fifth time that the guy says "I could do better that that," it occurs to retort, "Then why don't you?" Republicans have yet to really establish that any fundamental policy difference between them and Obama on a different issue would've yielded substantially better results.
Romney has to give America some compelling reason why America should give him a chance; some alternate course of action. It can't simply be reasons not to vote for Obama; it has to be more. And abaove all, he has to sell it. America already has buyer's remorse from Bush. Re-wrapping those policies won't fool anyone. Re-branding Obama's policies might work- and if Obama lets that happen, he'll deserve to lose- but he's too good for that.
Which leaves Romney in a bit of a spot: Return to the Bush policies America still loathes; or stay the course- which means keeping Obama. It's Heads Obama wins; Tails Romney loses.
