The tone in this year's GOP primary season has consistently
been one of “Romney's not quite making the case.” I realize that the news
people have to find some angle to dish. But, I don't think it is correct and
it's becoming tiresome. (If he is the “establishment” choice that is being
forced upon the voters, I would think the establishment would quell all the
talk of the difficulty he has convincing the voters.)
Disclosure: I do have a dog in this fight. I think Romney is
the best man for the job and have made contributions to his campaign. I am LDS
(but, I didn't support Huntsman.)
Now, the race may be far from over. But, I've taken a look
at some of the numbers and am prepared to make a case: Romney actually had a
great night on Super Tuesday 2012; and he is arguably in a better position now
than McCain was last time at a similar juncture.
Three of the states Romney won last night, Ohio, Virginia,
and Vermont, he made HUGE gains in over his performance in the 2008 primary.
Last time around he only had 3%, 4%, and 5% of the vote respectively and placed
very low. Granted Santorum and Gingrich weren't on the ballot in Virginia last
night. But, that isn't Mitt's fault nor that of his staff.
Mitt may have only eeked out a win in Ohio (and earlier in
Michigan.) But, he won in the conservative parts of Ohio as well as in the liberal parts of Ohio.
He is way ahead of the game in the overall delegate count, and is way ahead in the overall popular vote count
(3,196,326 to 1,957,727 for Santorum.) I did an analysis of each of the
primaries as if the candidates were competing in the Olympics. I awarded them
Gold, Silver, and Bronze medals for their finishes. I also then calculated a
medal count score awarding them 3 points for a first place finish, 2 for a
second, and 1 for a third. Romney is ahead by 29% using this metric. An
interesting point: Ron Paul scored ahead of Newt Gingrich in this medal count
scoring.
Mitt has improved his performance in most states over the
2008 campaign. In those states where he hasn't done as well, it appears to be
Ron Paul and not Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich who is most often taking voters away from Mitt. The argument
could be made that, if someone should drop out of the race, it should be Newt
Gingrich.
This year's race is formatted to be drawn out longer than it
was in 2008. Last time “Super Tuesday” was on 5 February and they had completed
31 races by then compared to 23 this time (even one month later.) Mitt dropped
out last time on 7 February. If you look at 2008 totals, it looks like Huckabee
was the second place finisher. But, when Mitt dropped out he was second in the
delegate count. Huckabee gained 59 more delegates after Mitt dropped out. And,
after 5 February it was essentially a two-man race, with hanger on Ron Paul in
the mix until the very end.
By Super Tuesday in 2008, John McCain had completed 31
primaries and his “medal count” score stood at 61. (BTW Romney was dead even in
“medal count score” with McCain when he dropped out in 2008.) This time around
after only 23 races Romney's score is 58. John McCain was in better shape in
2008 only because he won California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey, all
with large delegate numbers, a total of 338. Those races have yet be contested
in 2012.
I might be cutting more slack for Romney than for the
others, I admit. But, I trust him...because I have a good idea what kind of a
person he is (his service in the Church is testament to that) and he has shown
many skills that this country badly needs. Many people are too young to
remember Reagan before he became President. We can look back and see that he
came off as conservative in the Presidency. And he was. But, much of that came
as he matured. And he didn't govern from the far right. I see some of the same
qualities in Romney. I have a very conservative outlook, and Mitt appears best
to suit my conservative principles. I expect he will appear more conservative
after he is elected and allowed to operate.
Mitt and his staff know that there is more room in the
middle for votes than at either end. I can draw an analogy from my kids'
sparring in Kung Fu. Often their Sifu will have them take on two people. The
first principle you use when fighting against two people is you position
yourself and move around such that one of your opponents has to fight through
the other opponent to get to you. The Santorum and Gingrich campaigns are trying to appeal to
the most conservative factions. But, when they go looking for more voters to
support them, the only place they can look to is in the middle. And, that is
where Mitt has staked his ground.
It's a little comical when Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul point
out that Romney has access to more funds than they do. In 2008 Mitt spent a lot
of his own money to campaign. That may be one reason he pulled out earlyish
when he was in second place. The bulk of his funds this time have come from
donors. That's another metric that looks a lot like the votes that the others
aren't getting.
He is a great analyst, decision maker, business leader. An
administrator, not a politician, the man we need to bring us back from the
brink.
Romneycare is arguably Romney's biggest problem. But, there
is more difference between the Massachusetts program and Obama's program than
even Mitt has noted. Once, he becomes the nominee, this goes away because Obama
is not going to attack him on it. That is the president's biggest piece of
political baggage. Once again Obama would have to fight through Mitt to get to
the voters he was trying to pick up, and upset his leftmost base in the
process.
The issue that will be the at the forefront between Obama
and Romney will be the 1% versus the 99%. This is the issue that leftists want
to campaign on. They think they can hurt Romney here. Don't buy into the establishment candidate argument. The left will try
to tell the country that it was establishment Wall Street who gave us
Romney. I don't think it will
work.
Posts
