Tag Archives: Romney
As one who writes about everything political, one of the downsides of living in a state that is utterly unimportant from the Electoral College perspective is the fact that you’re insulated from much of the advertising campaigns that ravaged the battleground states. (From the perspective of a normal person however, that would likely be a blessing…)
By now everybody knows about the results of Tuesday’s elections and we’ve seen tons of analysis. The predominant themes have been that only in hindsight did Romney run a horrible campaign, that the Tea Party extremism had been rejected by the voters, that this is truly Obama’s mandate, all of the Republican forecasting models were horrifically wrong, and that the Republican party’s only hope is to make drastic changes to its principles if it hopes to survive. Did I miss anything? It’s natural to knee jerk or overreact when something unexpected happens, so I have advice for both sides: don’t read too much into this election and base your next moves only on what happened Tuesday.
2012 will not be a reprise of 2000. Although Barack Obama is building an army / phalanx of lawyers to try and redirect the election to the courts with the hope that the justices will lean against throwing out a sitting president, it won’t happen. 2000 only happened because the election was so close, with a mere half percent difference between the candidates. In 2012 that will not be a problem. Of course that was all about electoral votes, not popular, but the two usually go hand in hand. Michael Barone does a good job of looking at the electoral landscape. I’m looking at the popular vote.
This is another one of those topics I’ve had kicking around for a while and since it will become irrelevant in 48 hours now seemed as good a time as any to wrap things up. This will be one of my posts that will give everyone something to hate. Most of this post is things I’ve been saying since 2009 – the subject has angered my conservative friends for obvious reasons, while the reasons behind my conclusions don’t go over well with my leftist friends. Since early in his presidency I have asserted that President Obama would get re-elected in 2012 no matter who he ran against, and regardless of how badly he does the job of president.
This post is for all of the lefties out there, or for anyone who has a favorite lefty friend still convinced that that an Obama re-election will ultimately make them happier than if Romney were to win on Tuesday. There are a lot of issues that are driving your decision to vote for Obama. We know that there’s the right to pay for the contraception for future one percenters, hating chicken sandwiches, making our country a welcome home to illegal immigrants, telling us how much salt or sugar we’re allowed to consume, or ensuring the right to cast fraudulent votes. Do you know why you care about these issues? Because you can.
Barring some unforeseen cataclysm, Mitt Romney will be the 45th president of the United States… and the vote will likely not even be close. His acceptance speech at the GOP convention last week did exactly what it had to do, it provided Americans who might have been sitting on the fence with the nudge they needed to climb down and pull the lever for him. If you had to distill his speech down to one line, it might have been “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. MY promise…is to help you and your family.”
Calling an upcoming presidential election the most important in our times has become a cliche, but this time I agree with it. The fact that the current election is expected to be close is disturbing at best, and terrifying at worst. The same people who decried George W. Bush’s economy and in 2004 were asking if you’re better off than you were four years ago then are now willing to overlook the fact that the economy is in far worse shape than it was during the Bush presidency.
An election is not about thanking someone for a job well done… or even the Alice in Wonderland perception of a job well done… but rather a Presidential election is about doing what’s best for the country over the next four years. If hiring a President was a reward for a service rendered, John McCain would be president. He served in the Senate for decades, he authored one of the most important (not to be confused with good…) pieces of legislation in decades and he proved his valor and mettle during five years in a North Vietnamese prison.
In business there is something called “sunk costs” which refers to funds that have been spent and are unrecoverable. At any given point sunk costs are irrelevant to the decisions going forward. An example of this would be a company that has spent a billion dollars building a plant and now has to choose whether or not to spend another billion dollars hiring staff and actually operating the plant. At the point of the decision the only thing that should be relevant to the decision makers is what makes best sense for the firm going forward. Does the company make more money by staffing and operating the plant or by selling it? The decision should be based solely on what’s best going forward, with no sentimental attachment to the billion dollars already spent building the plant.