Prediction: Obama loses November 6 election making Romney next president

Shades of 1980. We have a weak Democrat incumbent up against a hard working Republican challenger.

Although I hate to predict election results, I am going to predict that:

Barack Obama will lose the November 6 election.

Note that I am not saying that I predict a Romney victory. I do predict an Obama loss. My reasoning is as follows:

Win, lose or draw, Barack Obama has run one of the worst, if not the worst campaign I have ever seen. The Obama campaign is characterized by:

1. Providing no reason(s) to vote for Obama; and

2. Ridiculous attacks on Romney.

The result has been that the all of the 2012 Presidential election campaign has been about Mitt Romney. What about Mitt Romney? Well the gist of it has been:

1. Romney has offshore bank accounts (especially in Switzerland)

2. Romney won’t release his tax returns

3. Romney doesn’t pay enough tax

4. Romney made his money running Bain capital and Bain capital is evil

5. Romney wants to cut taxes for the rich (I think)

6. Romney is rich

7. Romney is successful

and the list goes on.

Furthermore, the Obama campaign has demeaned the “office of the presidency” with his t ad hominem attacks on Mr. Romney. Unless, I am mistaken, the Romney campaign does not contain equivalent kinds of attack ads.

The Obama campaign has said nothing about Barack Obama – nothing at all. The reason is that there is really nothing to say.  Well, that’s not quite right, the Obama campaign has attempted to capitalize on:

1. Osama Bin Laden was killed during the Obama presidency (one would think that Obama pulled the trigger himself)

2. Obama made the decision to pull US troops out of Iraq

3. The US auto industry is prospering

4. Bill Clinton promises that the economy is sure to improve.

Barack Obama is a “media creation”. In 2008 he was the perfect candidate. Because he had no past record, he was free to say anything he wanted. And say anything he did. Stand for anything he did. Four years later he has to run on his record. The problem is that there is no real record to run on. This is a fact and the problem with the “Making of the President” in 2012.

The content and format of the Democratic convention was proof positive that the Democrats see Obama as a candidate of little substance. It was skillfully organized to create a “wall of substance” around a candidate utterly devoid of substance. The worship of Obama during the Democratic convention reminded of the deification of “Great Leader” in North Korea. For good measure, the Obama Campaign brought in Bill Clinton  to create substance around a candidate that has no substance at all. Even Mitt Romney, noted that a few words from Bill Clinton could do a candidate a lot of good.

It appeared to be working until the first debate. Debates are only partially about the debate. They are also about being able to see the candidates together, in the same place and at the same time. The debates allowed people to see:

1. Whether the Obama characterization of Romney was reasonable; and

2. How the candidates compared to each other.

Candidates do NOT win or lose debates. Their debate performances do  advance or hinder their campaigns.

Here is my perception of the debates at least so far:

Debate Number 1

It was a disaster for Obama. Why? The American people were able to see that Obama’s characterization of Romney was an “Obamination”. Romney was organized, articulate, and passionate. Obama was none of these things. In fact, (although I will admit to having a strong dislike of Obama), Obama was incredibly weak on any and all matters of substance. (I actually felt sorry for him.) But what really happened in debate number 1 was that:

– the Obama characterization of Romney was shown to be wrong

– Romney projected himself as a strong candidate who seemed very presidential

– Obama projected himself as a weak candidate

The polls reflected this. Interestingly, the next day Obama (with the comfort of his teleprompter) said:

“Last night I met a spirited individual who claimed to be Mitt Romney”.

No Mr. President that was Mitt Romney. The time has come for you to deal with Mitt Romney as he is and NOT as your campaign team wished he were.

Summary: Debate number 1 advanced Mr. Romney’s campaign and hurt the President.

Debate Number 2

The Obama campaign team still does not get it. They focused on Mr. Romney’s “binders of women” comment. Anybody who saw the debate understood Mr. Romney to mean “binders of profiles of women candidates”. But, once again, the Obama campaign is NOT about promoting Barack Obama. It’s about attacking Mitt Romney.

The second debate was interesting for a more important reason. Obama came out with more energy and focus. But, in so doing, he sacrificed the dignity of the “Office of the President”. He interrupted Mr. Romney, he attempted to taunt him. His body language and facial expressions lacked the dignity one would expect of a president.

Bottom Line: When Mitt Romney is around, Barack Obama does not look very presidential. This cannot be good for the President.

Summary: Debate number 2 advanced Mr. Romney’s campaign and hurt the President (although not as much as in the first debate).

In the 1980 election, Carter and Reagen debated a few days before the election. At that point, the momentum was favoring Reagen. Just prior to the debate, one commentator said:

“If Mr. Reagen can look presidential this evening”, there’s a good chance he will be president.

There is an analogy to 1980 here. The final debate is Monday October 22. If Mr. Romney can continue to look presidential in this debate (so far Mr. Obama has not), he could very well be President. We will see.

People are likely to vote for somebody who stands for something (little as it may be) than somebody who stands for nothing. After two presidential campaigns and four years of being president, it is hard to know what Barack Obama stands for. (Other than class warfare of course.)

That is why I predict that Barack Obama will lose. The automatic result of an Obama loss is that Romney will be the next President of the United States. Does that mean that he won the election? I wouldn’t go that far.

Updated October 23 with thoughts on the October 22 debate:

The debate was about “foreign policy”. Although, President Obama’s showed that he had more experience with “foreign policy”, Mr. Romney did look “presidential”. Furthermore, Mr. Romney projected himself as a person who was NOT enthusiastic about war. By continuing his condescending attitude toward Mr. Romney, President Obama continued to demean the Office of  the president. By continuing his attacks on Mr. Romney, the President continued to make the campaign about Mr. Romney.

Where does that leave us?

Mr. Romney has passed the “could he be seen as president test”? Mr. Obama continues to be an incumbent president who is not particularly popular.

_______________________________________________________________

Afterthought:

Romney has worked hard to become the POTUS. Here is an interesting video of some of the more entertaining debating moments:

As an example of the new low that this campaign has reached, check out the (this site was not directly linked to the Obama campaign, but it is consistent with it’s spirit) site Romneygirl.org

Where is RomneyGirl.org ? What happened to it? For a possible explanation see: http://www.twitter.com/realromneygirl

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Prediction: Obama loses November 6 election making Romney next president

  1. Thatisme

    Sorry to say. The world will be a dangerous place with this bully around. And people will suffer in the USA, all in the name of business.

    Reply
  2. renounceuscitizenship Post author

    Thanks for your comment. I take it that you are referring to Romney as “this bully”. The truth is that until “Democracy in America” evolves to a point where politics are not dominated by the two main parties, people will suffer in the US and beyond. The best candidate (Ron Paul) was marginalized by the two major parties.

    I would NOT be too quick to pre-judge Romney. I see a man who is fundamentally a pragmatist. Assuming the presidency defaults to Romney, you may be surprised.
    What I do believe is this:

    If Romney becomes president it will be primarily as a result of hard work on his part. He is in no way the “media creation” that Obama is. Whereas Obama became President owing everybody, Romney doesn’t seem to me to have many political debts. It was hard for him to get the nomination of his own party. There has been no media love affair with Romney. If he wins, there will be NO landslide. Romney would start his presidency owing very few people anything.

    Let’s see.

    Reply
    1. Thatisme

      I respect your views. And of course we do have an important thing in common: the problems of Americans Abroad (including dual citizens and greencarders). Yes, I see Romney as a spoiled bully. He represents the extreme right in America and willmove back all progress that has been made for the well being of the American people. But you are correct. Let´s see. Sometimes I am not right.

      Reply
      1. renounceuscitizenship Post author

        Well, I respect your views as well and I appreciate your comments – so keep them coming. When it comes to the problems of Americans Abroad, I believe Obama has proven himself to be the worst president, in part because he is an unbelievably weak leader. There is no guarantee that things will be better with Romney, but things could not be worse. At the very least, Romney understands there is a world beyond America, and I think may at least understand how the citizenship-based taxation (individuals) and the way the US taxes companies is hostile to long term US interests. Obama has never run a business and never had a job in the private sector. I seriously doubt that he has the life experience to even begin to understand these concepts. Assuming he is intelligent (which is highly overrated anyway), he just can’t understand the effects of these things on everyday people and US companies. Then of course, we have these life long public charges (I am thinking of Carl Levin) who are just plain stupid and too old to learn anything.

        I am not sure what you mean by “all progress that has been made for the well being of American people”, but if the US does not start moving in a new direction, it is going to implode under the weight of its debt, partisan gridlock and overall Congressional stupidity. In other words it won’t exist anyway.

        On the issue of Tax Reform (which is vital for the well being of the American people) both Obama and Romney are off track. The both seem to define tax reform in terms of tax rates. That is part of the issue. But the real problem is different. Here is what I think.

        There are two ways of making money:

        1. People making money; and

        2. Money (capital) making money.

        Obviously proceeds from both need to be taxed. As more and more wealth moves to a smaller number of people, more and more income comes from capital. Therefore, it becomes more and more important that the proceeds of capital be taxed. I don’t think that Obama has any concept of this at all – just plain zero. I was watching a man in the first debate who was clearly a child having to have an adult debate. He doesn’t have the life experience to participate in the discussion. Romney understands the basic issues, but is not serious about taxing the proceeds of capital. This talk about zero taxes on dividends and capital gains is to say that proceeds of capital should not be taxed.

        Todundsteur, one of my favorite contributors at the Isaac Brock Society, made this point very succinctly in a recent comment. He also pointed out that FATCA is really aimed at being able to tax capital which is highly mobile. The difficulty of taxing capital is the reason why the world as a whole is moving toward a “FATCA like” world. Okay, but it is very difficult to both use citizenship-based taxation and FATCA where other countries don’t use citizenship-based taxation. Why? It means that all FATCA deals that the US makes with other countries are extremely one sided. Therefore:

        I am of the opinion that citizenship-based taxation may have to go in order for FATCA to stay. Why? Because by having both the US has elevated citizenship-based taxation to a possible human rights issue. Furthermore, the rest of the world is helping the US without getting anything in return.

        November 6 will be interesting. If Obama comes out tomorrow night without looking and acting like a president (something he has not yet done) I don’t think he will make it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.