April – 2012 – RantAWeek
RantAWeek

Using A RantAWeek to clarify the complexities of news.

RSS Feed

Monthly Archives: April 2012

The Electoral College: Doing the Math

Comments Off

The Electoral College makes the rules for winning an election extremely clear: win 270 electoral votes, and the presidency is yours.  Because these electoral votes are allocated on a state-by-state basis, certain states are much more important than others.  These ‘swing states’ are the true deciders in American elections.  So, from a very preliminary glance at the electoral gameboard, with a focus on swing states, it is possible to gain some idea of how November’s election will turn out.

We will start with Mr. Obama.  From traditionally Democratic states, he will likely receive 227 electoral votes.  Unfortunately for him, that leaves 43 votes from uncertain swing states that he must win in order to reach 270.

Next, Mr. Romney.  From traditionally Republican states, I estimate him to earn an easy 180 electoral votes, 90 shy of victory.  This estimate means that Romney will have to win more than twice the amount of swing state votes than Obama, a possiblility, but by no means easy to do.

What are these swing states, anyway?  The list differs slightly depending on who you talk to, but in my opinion, FL, PA, OH, NC, VA, AZ, CO, IA, NV, and NH are all in play.  The swing states have been listed from highest to lowest number of electoral votes, meaning that the first few states are comparably much more important than the last few ones.

Only needing 43 of the 131 swing electoral votes, President Obama has a multitude of winning options.  Still, some paths to success seem more probable than others.  I for one feel that Obama will be able to win Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes, leaving him with 23 left to go.  But after Pennsylvania, states become much more difficult to call.  However, Mitt Romney’s disappointing performance in the Ohio primary makes Obama a slight favorite there, especially considering Obama won Ohio in 2008.  If Obama takes both Pennsylvania and Ohio, he could pick up the remaining five electoral votes he would need rather easily.  Obama won Nevada, Iowa and Colorado all by 9% or greater margins in 2008, and he would only need one of these states to secure victory given two wins in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

All those prognostications assume that Obama has lost Florida.  This is because (assuming Obama takes Pennsylvania) Florida is a must win state for Romney.  It would be mathematically impossible for him to gain a majority without it.  But even with Florida, Romney still needs 61 more  electoral votes for victory.  In a winning scenario, I can see him picking up Arizona, North Carolina and Virginia for 39 more.  But still 22 votes away, Romney would also need Ohio and one other state.

Wait, that’s a problem!  Ohio was already in the Obama totals.  A crucial state for both candidates, Ohio may be the deciding state for this election.  Then again, Obama is sure to fight a tough campaign in Florida as well.  What this means is that the two most important swing states are Ohio and Florida, and it looks like Romney will need both to win the election.  Obama, on the other hand, just needs one or the other.

Still, Romney has six months until the nation votes.  Preliminary electoral mapping gives us some ideas of how the election may shape out, but expect some surprises before November comes.  After all, the election season has just begun!

 

Filed under Domestic, Election 2012
Apr 27, 2012

Obama’s Battle for the Youth Vote

Comments Off

In 2008, Obama successfully won the support of the nation’s youth, including many first time voters, and used these votes to help him win the presidency.  The question for 2012 is whether or not he will have a similar success with young voters this time around.

If Mitt Romney’s polling data proves accurate, Obama shouldn’t worry about losing the 18-29 age group to the Republicans.  Exit polls from throughout the primary season have shown that Romney’s support increases with age, a stark contrast from Obama’s youth-heavy support.  Even considering their usual lukewarm attitudes towards Republican candidates, 18-29 year olds have been especially cold towards Mr. Romney.

As recently as the Wisconsin primary, when he was already considered the inevitable nominee, Romney was only able to garner 33% of the 18-29 demographic.  Considering that he won the state with 44% of the vote, Romney seems to be 25% less popular with youth than he is with voters overall.  While these numbers are specifically from Wisconsin, the general trend throughout the entire primary season was that Romney’s youth support was significantly lower than his overall support.

One eighteen year old and soon-to-be first time voter sums youth sentiments up quite well, “I think that most of [Obama's] youth voting bloc will stay with him mostly because the Republicans haven’t been able to draw much of the attention towards their side”.

Clearly, Obama does not need to worry about his rival stealing much of the youth vote.  Romney’s campaign has already demonstrated its failure at appealing to young voters.  Instead, what Obama needs to worry about is youth apathy.

After all, many young voters were allured in 2008 by Obama’s promises of change.  However, things are very different this time around.  The outsider in 2008, Obama must play an insider’s game in 2012.  Obama can no longer run on a platform of change and must now campaign based off his presidential record.

The status quo that Obama now offers is much less alluring than his fervent calls for change four years ago.  However, his healthcare bill, which extended the age that youths can stay on their parents’ insurance, may be a crucial achievement that brings 18-29 year olds back to the polls for him.  Then again, if the Supreme Court invalidates the law, youths may feel like they are back to square one and stay away.

Ultimately, Obama may face some difficulties bringing youths to the polls, but lack of competition from Mitt Romney in this demographic gives him the opportunity to focus on his successes and hope for the best.

Filed under Domestic, Election 2012
Apr 25, 2012

The End of Isolationism

Comments Off

1796: In his Farewell Address, President George Washington tells Americans that the nation’s foreign policy should be “to steer clear of permanent alliances”.

2012: The United States promises support to the nation of Afghanistan for ten years after our planned withdrawal in 2014.

Any contrast of these statements invites the criticism that our ten year pledge of support is not a permanent alliance but merely an extension of a current partnership.  The fallacy behind this argument is that our commitment to fighting terrorism keeps us continuously aligned with the Afghan government.  Even after those ten years have expired in 2024, we will still be forced to collaborate with the Afghans against the Taliban.  This means that while the U.S.- Afghan alliance is not technically permanent, it is indefinite.  Any arguable difference between indefinite and permanent alliances is simply a matter of semantics, as there is no difference in practical applications.  A necessary alliance without a foreseeable end forces the participating countries to accept the alliance as an unchangeable status quo.

So… why has the United States changed its position from shying away from permanent alliances to now accepting them?  The answer does not come from a radical revision of American foreign policy but instead stems from necessity.  When Washington published his Farewell Address in 1796, America had no vested interest in other countries.  The difference now is that a larger, more modern America has needs that force co-dependence.

The Industrial Revolution is largely to blame.  Washington’s America was a nation of farmers, and the agriculture industry did not require foreign trade.  However, our modern world requires a steady stream of trade to boost intercontinental economies.  Economic interdependence turns isolationism into economic suicide.  Even trade with countries when no alliances exist (formal or informal) leads to instability.  The search for stability is what has led the United States to pursue a wave of free trade agreements in recent decades, sacrificing George Washington’s principles for additional assurances about the strength of our trade networks.

Also stemming from the Industrial Revolution is a tremendous need for oil.  Oil powers everyday life in America, and our reserves do not cover our needs.  This has created a reliance America has on other nations, meaning that when the supply of oil is threatened, America has no choice but to intervene.  Washington’s more self-reliant America did not have these concerns.

Last but perhaps most importantly, additional technology has increased man’s destructive power, prompting mutual agreements that ruined America’s last chances for isolationism.  America did not join the League of Nations after World War I, but soon realized the consequences a lack of international dialogue could bring during World War II and became a founding member of the new United Nations.  After Cold War tensions and the threat of nuclear conflicts began, America took the unprecedented step of a mutual defense pact with Europe in the creation of NATO.

America’s growth, in addition to the growth of technology, has forced the doctrine of isolationism to yield to the new doctrine of interventionism.  And since ever-increasing globalization is causing more interdependence, the trend towards interventionism should continue.

The effects of our interventionism are varied.  The most obvious and straightforward effect has been the dramatic rise in our defense costs.  It costs about $700 billion a year to be the ‘world’s policeman’.  Even adjusting for inflation, defense budgets before World War II were a fraction of what they are today.

In addition, near constant interventionism has made America a divisive force.  Reactions are mixed to America’s often controversial actions.  America is now defined by the interventions it makes.

Lastly, America’s interventionism has caused the world as a whole to be distinctly more American.  The United States has a dominant role in world policy that causes the rest of the world to rely more than ever on American support.  This again increases interdependence, but the tide is shifting as China is beginning to make its imprint on world policy and expand its spheres of influence, proving interdependence is not a static relationship.

Our pledge to continue support for Afghanistan is expected.  It only continues on the path of increased interventionism that America has followed for decades.  The modern world has forced the U.S. to shed Washington’s idealism for a new reality.

 

Filed under Domestic, International, Miscellaneous
Apr 24, 2012

Cutting the Crust: Leading to the French Presidential Runoff

Comments Off

Today, France held its first round of presidential elections, with the unsurprising result of Francois Hollande winning. As we have previously discussed, this outcome was expected, and Nicolas Sarkozy placing second was also expected. In the few weeks before the election, it appeared as if Sarkozy might actually beat Hollande in the first round, and then lose in the runoff. However Sarkozy was largely hurt by the surprisingly large turn out for the far right candidate Marine Le Pen. So let us break down what these results actually mean for the May 6 runoff election, and what they mean for France’s future as a whole.

Probably the most surprising result of this race was Marine Le Pen garnering 20% of the vote. Marine Le Pen is a far right candidate from the National Front. The National Front is almost the equivalent of the American Tea Party. The National Front has very conservative economic views, meaning less government spending, less taxing and even calling for abandoning the Euro. Yet despite these views, the National Front began to focus on issues, as it always has, of immigration. Le Pen essentially advocated curbing all immigration coming into France. These views ended up attracting enough people to show Le Pen’s party’s growing popularity. While Le Pen will not make it into the runoff round, she still will likely have a large future impact on France.

After leading in polls for months, and then beginning to lose ground, Hollande won his ground back and garnered an impressive 28% of the vote. While this may not seem like much, when taking into account that there were 10 candidates in the race, 28% is an impressive amount. Hollande looks set to win against Sarkozy if the election were to be held right now, but Hollande is losing ground, and fast. Anything could happen over the next two weeks, and Hollande could lose. Hollande appeals to most voters because is a very strong advocate for social welfare programs to many, something the French hold very dear. He has vowed to lower the state pension age back down to 65 after Sarkozy raised it to 67, as well as lowering the retirement age back to 60 after Sarkozy raised it to 62. Sarkozy’s moves sparked large scale protests throughout France and even threatened to shut down the oil refineries in October, 2010. For this reason, Hollande’s vows are beloved. Yet his means of obtaining those vows may force more workers out of a job in the first place.

Hollande’s plan to obtain more money for government spending is solely through tax hikes. One of his key proposed tax hikes is a 75% income tax for the top bracket. While many French citizens usher this in as a plan to right income inequality, it will likely have an adverse effect on business. Tax hikes in and of themselves are rarely all bad, but this large of a tax hike will likely scare away business from an already business-adverse France. Business investment in France has been dwindling for years, but this large of a tax hike may drop it sharply. Investors and entrepreneurs will likely rather go to any of the neighboring countries with lower tax rates to start a business. Hollande promises great social welfare for the French, but his means of following through and cutting the budget deficit simultaneously is simply too drastic.

So while Hollande tries to win the presidency with too drastic of measures, Sarkozy will still likely lose, despite his fairly moderate conservative views. His position as the centre-right candidate would seem to indicate that he would have a nice mix of some tax hikes and spending cuts. Instead, Sarkozy is proposing just spending cuts. Which with rising unemployment, and more and more people in need of welfare, spending cuts will be increasingly unpopular. Hollande’s programs have many flaws, but they have behind them the mass appeal that Sarkozy lacks.

Hollande likely wins with a flawed plan, Sarkozy will not give in and Le Pen does well, but what does that mean for France’s future? Well, France can expect more taxes, less business and more welfare. It can expect a battle from conservatives against raising those taxes that would make the political climate much like the one in the US. And the far-right will see rising influence. Le Pen may not have come close to winning, but her supporters will get behind Sarkozy to put him closer to Hollande, but not close enough. But the rise of Le Pen’s party will make it increasingly hard for Hollande to pass his plans through parliament. France in the near future may soon be facing a stalemate between the right and the left much like the US has been facing since 2010. How it deals with it is anyone’s game.

Filed under International
Apr 22, 2012

Eurozone Debt Crisis

Comments Off

The Eurozone is experiencing financial difficulties once again, and this time problems appear to be spreading beyond chronically debt stricken Greece.  Other, much larger economies, are now in danger of dragging down Europe’s economic system.  While Greece still tops the list of nations that Europe’s leaders are worrying about, similar debt fears are beginning to manifest themselves in other Euro countries.

If Greece remains the number one concern, then Spain must be a close second.   Even though Greece presents a more immediate threat to the stability of the Euro, possible economic instability from Spain could have more drastic consequences than a Greek collapse.  This is because Spain’s economy (measured by GDP) is nearly five times as large as Greece’s economy*.  Potential economic fallout from a Spanish collapse can therefore be estimated to be nearly five times more dangerous than repercussions from Greece.

Unfortunately, Spain’s economic situation is becoming increasingly more dire.  Investors are growing wary of the nation’s debt, and ten year bond yields have been hovering around the uncomfortably high six percent mark.

If six percent seems relatively low, think about it this way.  The average mortgage rate in America is well below 6%, meaning investors have less confidence in Spain’s financial future than American banks have in the average American home buyer.  A country should be more economically stable than an average middle-class family, but in investors’ eyes, that may no longer be the case for Spain.

Spain is affected by underlying economic problems, not just a lack of trust from creditors.  While Americans have been complaining about an unemployment rate around 8%, the Spanish are experiencing unemployment rates approximately three times as high!  Worse, the Spanish economy is shrinking, complicating plans to lift the debt-ridden nation out of its financial woes.

But Spain isn’t the Eurozone’s only worry.  Italy’s finances also give member nations cause for concern.  Much like Spain, Italy is deep in debt and their bond rates have been spiking.  Even larger than Spain’s economy, any attempt to bailout Italy would be a huge sacrifice for the European economy as well.

Together, Spain and Italy pose a double threat.  If one’s economy collapses, debt contagion may cause the other’s economy to falter as well.  To protect themselves from this worse-case scenario, the region has been creating new lending institutions.  Both the EFSM (European Financial Stability Mechanism) and the EFSF (European Financial Stability Facility) have been set up to help troubled countries, and they will likely join to form one institution next year.  Whether or not the combined resources of these funds will be enough to successfully combat problems in Spain and Italy is unknown, but this move towards consolidation is certainly making the system stronger.

Consolidation itself seems to be a theme in Europe.  The seventeen nations that make up the Eurozone have been forced to work together while dealing with this mutual threat.  Weaker economies have needed support from larger, stronger economies in order to stay afloat.

As large economies go, the German economy is the powerhouse of the Eurozone.  Having invested heavily in the debt of their Euro brethren and not wanting trade to dry up, the Germans have taken a leadership role in combating the crisis.  But interestingly enough, trouble in the rest of the Eurozone is turning Germany into an investment safe-haven.  Even as bond rates have spiked across Europe, the cost of borrowing for Germany has actually been decreasing.  Germany has also experienced a significant drop in unemployment over the last few years.  And yet even Germany would be severely affected by a complete Eurozone collapse, so it is for this reason that German leaders are working diligently to solve debt-related problems.

The Eurozone faces difficult and dangerous economic issues, but the member nations have proven that they are willing to collaborate.  Since the possible economic consequences are dire, let’s hope they are successful.

 

* World Bank data (2010) - http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD

 

Subscribe to RantAWeek updates through our RSS and ‘like’ us on Facebook!

Filed under Economy, International
Apr 18, 2012

Letting Loose a Pressure Valve in Iran

Comments Off

After all the recent events in Iran, many see their downfall and the collapse of their nuclear programme as inevitable. After over 15 months of refusing to even start negotiations with the countries pressuring it to stop the nuclear programme, Iran seemed as if nothing could stop them. Then, the international pressures escalated, and the various powers started to hit Iran in the sweet spot: oil. Clearly, these efforts have been very successful as recently, Iran agreed to reopen the negotiating table, and met with six world powers (Russia, the US, China, France, Britain and Germany). Though there were no tangible outcomes of these talks, the talks were described as a huge leap forward. Not only did Iran open up, but they also agreed to meet again. Because of the agreement to meet again, most major, tangible decisions were postponed until then. Conversely, tensions may actually heat up because of the increased pressure to reach an agreement.

At this point in time, the US and her allies are moving to stop Iran from continually enriching Uranium. Most countries have no problem with Iran having Uranium for purely peaceful energy purposes. Yet, Iran has been enriching this Uranium to make it bomb-grade. They are only a few steps away from reaching this point, one which could spell catastrophe. Therefore the next round of negotiations, scheduled for May 23rd, will be the most important yet. The western world needs to convince Iran that nuclear energy is enough; Iran should have no reason to want nuclear weapons. At this point in time, however, it all appears up in the air.

There is no doubt Iran wants nuclear weapons, so the Western world will have to convince Iran that nuclear energy coupled with loosened sanctions is a fair exchange for Iran stopping its nuclear programme. However, Iran is putting down a fairly large bargaining chip: threat of attack. The likelihood of Iran attacking the US, Britain, France, Germany or any other western country is fairly slim, as these nations all have such strong militaries that Iran would never stand a chance. Instead, the most likely point of attack for Iran would be Israel, probably the strip of land that the western world is most proud of. If Iran should attack Israel, the entire western world would be at its back immediately. The western world is so fearful of Iran attacking Israel, that they may be willing to give up more to Iran than just loosened sanctions and nuclear energy. What else the western world has to give is not exactly clear, but they better come up with another bargaining chip, and soon.

While it is clear that these planned negotiations are a step in the right direction, and they prove that sanctions and embargoes work, this next month will also be the most tense yet. Not only is there the risk of one slip causing negotiations to collapse, there is still the risk of Israel attacking proactively, and the US having to be at its side. Furthermore, with these negotiations laid out, both sides will face loads of pressure from the outside world. Supporters of Iran will be pressuring the western world to give up a bit more, while Iran’s opponents will pressure it to give in more easily. With this increased pressure comes increased resistance. Each side will want to prove that it can give up as little as possible. But in the end, each side will find that it must give up more than it would like.

Ultimately, these negotiations are an improvement. The pressure will increase, but cooler heads will hopefully prevail. Both sides need to realize that although they may give up more than they care to, ultimately maintaining order within the region is far more important than an individual group’s needs and wants. We can only look on and hope that the leaders at the negotiating table will set their priorities straight and avoid any escalation of conflict.

Filed under International
Apr 16, 2012

Leaving Afghanistan

Comments Off

American troops are trying to get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. Not only do a majority of people in the US want to pull out regardless of how prepared they are, but Afghanistan seems ready for us to leave as well since NATO has caused more trouble than previously anticipated. For example, in January, American soldiers were recorded urinating on the Taliban fighters they had killed. Then, pictures emerged of Americans burning copies of the Koran in a garbage pit. Not only was all this embarrassing and avoidable, it has also caused protests all over Afghanistan, where many were killed or injured. On March 11th, an American army staff sergeant killed seventeen innocent civilians after suffering from severe mental problems. It is no surprise that more and more people in both countries are becoming critical about US involvement in Afghanistan; NATO could only apologize for the trouble we have caused.

As a result, the general agreement is to finish our responsibilities quickly and leave. In an effort to swiftly eradicate the Taliban, night raids led by US officials were established. These night raids consisted of troops breaking into homes in search for insurgents and were very unpopular among most Afghan citizens because the troops did not need search warrants to forcibly search through personal property. But the US insists on continuing them, claiming that they are the only way to find out enough information in order to capture Taliban commanders. Since the US usually gets what they want, the American-led raids continued.

Recently however, control over special operations missions, including night raids, was given to Afghan forces to expedite the transition of military charge over to the government. Even though Hamid Karzai’s political popularity has fallen since these night raids, the president has no other choice but to conform because Afghan troops still need American aid most of the time. One good thing that has come out of this transfer of authority is that the US no longer needs to worry about handling captured Taliban members. Instead of directly dealing with these prisoners, the US must teach forces in Afghanistan to respect human rights because evidence revealed that some of the detainees were often tortured while under Afghan custody. By doing this, American troops can take a break, Afghan security forces will improve, and the transfer of Afghanistan’s military power may run more smoothly in the future.

Although US aid in Afghanistan has led to a variety of unnecessary troubles, we have still done a fair job in helping Afghan forces get back on their feet. Some of our actions may be controversial, but hopefully, after teaching Afghan troops to become independent and establishing a secure foundation for the future, the United States can safely pull out of Afghanistan.

 

Filed under International
Apr 15, 2012

North Korea: Failing at Science Since 1948

Comments Off

North Korea Policy Discussion

Satellite Launch Consequences

                                 IF IT WORKS                                                                           IF IT DOESN’T

-The world will fear our mastery of 55 year old technology.  HA HA HA! -We will lose vital food aid needed to feed our starving citizens.

-We prove North Korea is incapable of launching an ICBM to the U.S., reducing bargaining abilities.

-We strain relations with our neighbors.

-We increase pressure by the international community on China to stop supporting us.

-We doom recent negotiations with the U.S., increasing tensions between the two countries.

-We make our provocations an issue for American elections.

-We embarrass our new leadership on a world stage.

-If news of failure leaks to our citizenry, the new regime may lose its legitimacy.

The choice is clear.  Let’s do it!

Filed under Miscellaneous
Apr 12, 2012

Syria Ceasefire

Comments Off

As the sun rose Thursday morning in Syria, a United Nations and Arab League backed ceasefire was scheduled to occur.  However, no one knew for sure whether or not the plan would be effective or if the fighting would continue.  Both sides, government forces and rebels, seemed hesitant to accept the plan and made it clear that they would still respond with violence if provoked into doing so.  Skepticism about the effectiveness of the ceasefire seemed to be everywhere.

Amazingly, throughout Thursday, violence was successfully reduced and the fighting had mostly subsided.  There were exceptions, and some skirmishes did occur, but these skirmishes luckily did not escalate to the point where the nationwide fighting resumed.  By and large, the ceasefire accomplished its main goal.

And yet, no drastic measures towards peace have been taken.  Both the government and the rebels still mistrust each other, blocking any peace negotiations.  Stopping the bullets is one step, but the creation of a peaceful solution to the violence is still a long way away.  Offering a helping hand, the United Nations wants to expedite the road to peace by sending in a team of monitors in order to watch over the situation and try to preserve the terms of the ceasefire.

Maintaining the present peace is important.  Syria is still extremely volatile, and the main reason for this volatility is that the Syrian government has not retreated their forces away from populated areas.  This failure to act by the Syrian government is sparking international concern that the ceasefire will not last for long.  One minor incident could disrupt the fragile status quo.

Another problem that the U.N. faces is internal disagreements over the endgame for Syria.  Many countries, including the United States, have stated that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad must vacate his office for peace to be achieved, but Russia and China have both used their veto power in the United Nations Security Council to stop any direct action against Assad’s regime.  No international consensus has been reached, and the current six-point plan that the United Nations is using to guide its actions does not specifically mention a change in leadership.

The question here is whether or not peace can be achieved in Syria with Assad still maintaining his power.  While the U.N. has vaguely asked Assad to address the concerns of his people, it seems doubtful that rebels will accept nominal change after risking their lives fighting government forces.  Through internal indecision and disagreement, the Security Council has complicated its hope for a peaceful path forward by not having a shared vision for Syria’s future.  Still, their successful ceasefire represents some progress.

But what if the ceasefire falls apart?  If the blame clearly lies on Assad’s forces, there is a chance Russia and China may yield to pressure and allow more stringent methods to be taken against Assad.  Then again, they may not, and the only result will be more bloodshed.  If the violence is restarted by the rebels, the situation will increase in complexity as the moderate support the rebels have enjoyed from the Arab League may evaporate, possibly throwing Syria into a full-fledged civil war.

A lack of international cohesion on a plan for Syria has created a complicated path forward.  Still, as long as the ceasefire holds, the U.N. will have an opportunity to attempt to sow the seeds of peace.

 

Filed under International
Apr 12, 2012

Rick Santorum Drops Out: What Next?

Comments Off

Before the primaries and caucuses even began, there was ‘probable cause’ to call Mitt Romney the inevitable Republican candidate.  However, during a long campaign that included noticeable losses in Iowa, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi, the evidence at times seemed to be merely circumstantial.  But since Rick Santorum has announced that he is ending his bid for president, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination.  Even though Mitt Romney does not yet have all the needed delegates to secure the nomination, his opponents lack any feasible means to prevent him from acquiring the rest that he needs.  It is now safe to call a wrap on this primary and officially move the focus to the general election.

Still, the primary season has left scars on Mr. Romney.  Even though he was able to outspend Santorum by large margins in key states, Romney had difficulty combating Santorum’s grassroots-based support.  The underlying theme from the primaries is that people are in no way ecstatic about Mitt Romney.  Even after the math showed Romney to have a clear delegate advantage that would likely carry him to the nomination, he still waged a relatively close battle with Santorum in Wisconsin.  The support Romney has gained in recent weeks has not been from a consensus that he is the best candidate but instead from a consensus that he is the most electable.  Romney’s victory involved outlasting his opponents through a process of elimination, not from being the outright most popular candidate.

Romney also suffered some demographics issues.  He did not poll strongly among blue-collar workers, and Romney’s supporters tended to be more well-off than those of Santorum.  Romney will have to undo his ‘rich guy’ image in order to better connect to everyday Americans.  Unfortunately, a series of gaffes during the primary season have etched this elitist image into his public perception.  Most memorably, Romney’s release of his tax returns quantified his wealth, showing a large gap between him and most prospective voters.

Even though the length of the primaries caused Romney to divert his attention from competing against President Obama and challenge members of his own party, the primary season was not all bad news for him.  Firstly, he managed to out-fundraise the other candidates by staggering margins, showing that his fundraising abilities may be able to match those of Obama.  The amount of money a candidate has to spend on advertisements can make or break a campaign.  In addition, Romney showed great strength in the state of Florida, a crucial electoral state that he won easily.  If Romney can show similar strength in November, President Obama will have a difficult time winning the 29 electoral votes the state doles out.

But we should not only analyze Romney’s future, as it is also important to think about Santorum’s path forward.  RantAWeek has previously concluded that it is a smart political move for Santorum to make peace with Romney by not extending his campaign to the convention.  This way, he may expect to receive some position in a possible Romney administration.  For Romney, having Santorum on his side may be crucial in attempting a win in Pennsylvania, another heavily populated state that could help him in the Electoral College.  Santorum’s campaign is over, but his campaigning (this time for Romney) may not be.

Mitt Romney has successfully outlasted his opponents to become the nominee.  Now we will see what he can do with this opportunity.

 

Subscribe to RantAWeek updates through our RSS and ‘Like’ us on Facebook!

Filed under Domestic, Election 2012
Apr 10, 2012

RantAWeek Archives

Categories