The Romney-Obama matchup
WASHINGTON — The granting of Secret Service protection after Mitt Romney’s decisive Florida victory did not prevent him from immediately shooting himself in the foot.
“I’m not concerned about the very poor,” he explained. “My campaign is focused on middle-income Americans.”
It is problematic for a politician to declare any group of citizens beneath his attention—either the bottom 1 percent or the top 1 percent. But those in the top 1 percent, at least, can fend for themselves.
There are few things more powerful in politics than the confirmation of a stereotype, which is Romney’s main political risk. A wealthy man can prove that he empathizes with average people—see the examples of aristocrats such as Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt. But Romney has yet to prove it. He could start by making the economic advancement of the very poor a central concern of his campaign.
Republicans are still getting accustomed to Romney as their nominee. For many, the failure of Newt Gingrich was like sidestepping a falling anvil. It has inspired more relief than jubilation. Now Republicans are left to ponder the Romney-Obama matchup.
Romney’s strengths: His political skills—his mastery of policy details and his ability to extemporaneously explain his views—are superior to those of recent nominees such as Bob Dole and John McCain. He is seldom stumped or flustered. He learns from his mistakes. His initial responses to attacks on his personal wealth, for example, were poor but quickly got better. He eventually proved himself capable of tough attacks on Gingrich—a distressing but important qualification in a presidential contender. Romney is a fairly moderate candidate who emerged from a conservative primary process, giving him the ability to appeal to independents in the general election. He can claim the role of economic fixer in a time when there is much to be fixed. Solid majorities of registered voters view Romney as possessing the leadership qualities to be president and as capable of managing the government effectively.
His weaknesses: Romney has been consistently unable to manufacture excitement—the most important commodity produced by a presidential campaign. Romney himself can come across as formal and slightly plastic, particularly when compared to Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. (Given the fact that Barack Obama is also fuzziness-challenged, this comparison is more of a draw.) Romney has the aura of a 1950s TV father figure—upright, earnest, kindly, a little out of touch. This is not inauthentic—actually, it is admirable—but it is distant from our current cultural norms.
Obama will pound on Romney’s personal wealth and the rate at which he has paid taxes. Romney’s greatest vulnerability on this issue may be his own tin ear, displayed in his brush-off of the poorest. And Romney has earned a reputation for ideological variability—the unavoidable consequence of winning the governorship of a very liberal state before winning the nomination of a very conservative party. Any confirmation of this reputation would be damaging.
So how does the Romney-Obama contest stack up? Obama is a skilled but significantly weakened political figure. The facts of economic stagnation testify against him. He has been forced off the pedestal of great, unifying ideals and now pursues a base-oriented strategy of tax increases and complaints about economic unfairness.
Unlike the broad alliance of aspiration he assembled in 2008, Obama is rounding up the old Al Gore and John Kerry political coalition. Romney does not possess George W. Bush’s more potent appeal to conservatives, which was both religious and anti-elitist. But Romney has an easier case to make than Bush had in either of his elections. In 2000, Bush ran against a humming Clinton economy. In 2004, he was weighed down by Iraq. Romney has neither of these obstacles to overcome.
In this campaign, both candidates are generally viewed as skilled and qualified. Barring conflict with Iran or the collapse of the euro, the outcome of the election will be greatly influenced by the perception of economic conditions on Election Day—a bit of conventional wisdom that is conventional for good reason.
But this remains an evenly divided country on the presidential level, which means that political inevitability can be confounded by the smallest things: a serious gaffe, a stirring convention speech, a strong ground game in Ohio or Florida, or even the votes of the very poor.
Michael Gerson is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group; email michaelgerson@washpost.com.
Feb 6, 2012 at 4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Correction, had the people on the bottom (those who choose not to work or get educated or seek new training) made more efforts not to rely on those who choose to work hard, we wouldn't have to spend billions on picking up the slack these won't doers weigh bring on people's backs..."
-
Vato, you keep making the same stupid assertion so give us numbers to back up your claim. Provide a percentage of those in the lower income bracket that don't want to work. Offer some proof that of the millions collecting unemployment, how many Americans just want to sit around. Your comments are totally meaningless unless you're able to substantiate your claims.
Feb 5, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bellagio & whzbng,
Let's frame the argument a little differently. We don't always need the 1% & 99% numbers to drive the point home. Let's take the top 20% and bottom 80% instead. The top 20% of American households control 85% of America's wealth. Yes, they pay a lot more in taxes because they have nearly all the wealth. The lower 80% of American households share the remaining 15% of American wealth. Any tax rate that takes a significant percentage of the income from a household from this segment of America would have much more impact on that household's ability to get by much less stimulate the economy through participation in it. To defend the wealthiest Americans' "right" to a lower tax rate because they already pay the majority of them is a silly argument. They've always paid the majority of the taxes. During the Eisenhower administration the marginal tax rate for the very rich was around 90% and the effective rate was over 50%. Nobody's asking to go back to those rates, but the kind of wealth concentration that we have now, while it may be good for a few Americans, is not good for America. You saw it happen during the recent near depression that we're finally crawling out of. Unethical investment practices that relied on and encouraged predatory mortgage lending sunk the economy. Lot's of people lost money, but it was the very rich that had the most to do with causing the collapse that were least impacted by it. Those people are still very rich. People that have much less wealth ended up most impacted by the collapse. Many lost their jobs and their homes because of the economic downturn. We have to equalize the levels of wealth concentration in this country so that during an economic downturn, those that can most afford it are the ones absorbing the most impact of the crisis.
Feb 5, 2012 at 6:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
" but there certainly won't be the kind of obstruction and conflict that we've seen since 2010."
-
Do you mean harry and the senate will start doing their job?
Feb 5, 2012 at 6:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sure would be a great if our nations democrat leadership would pass an ANNUAL national budget, after all it has only been +1000 days since the last one.
Feb 4, 2012 at 1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweets, take more from the middle and poor? Explain your self.
The top 1% already pay 40% of the taxes.(fed) While the bottom 49% pay nothing.
Feb 4, 2012 at 12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Romney is not for the middle class, even if he says so. Obama is. For what I am seeing and hearing, if the Republicans get in, we are in for trouble. Look at overseas. The gov. made them so poor, they are fighting back. Obama is trying to save the middle income class. Republicans are trying to get rid of unions, so the Dems are going to have a tough time. Evil. It is already predicted, if Rep. get in, we will have a world war lll. There will be no medicare/medicaid or social security. We will end up having the same as other countries who are fighting. Their gov. is rich and the people are poor. The rep. do not want to sacrifice any of their money. They want to give more tax breaks to the rich and take more from the middle/poor. Is this what everyone wants? Time to wake up people.
Feb 4, 2012 at 10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
vato,
That gridlock that you seem to be a fan of will start to ease if our President is reelected. His reelection will signal that most people approve of the job he's done and will be unwilling to tolerate 4 solid years of not allowing more of his plans to come to fruition. Congress will be forced to comply (to a degree) for at least the first two years of the term. It certainly won't be like his first term with the Democratic majority, but there certainly won't be the kind of obstruction and conflict that we've seen since 2010.
Feb 4, 2012 at 8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Even if Obama wins, their will be massive gridlock because of Congress.....yes....
Feb 3, 2012 at 9:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Obama , Id bet the house on it. All you need to do is look at Florida/Ohio polls. Thes polls are close now, but wait till Obama money gets a hold of a weak candidate like Mittens, OVER!!
Feb 3, 2012 at 6:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Obama is a skilled but significantly weakened political figure. The facts of economic stagnation testify against him."
Mr. Gerson must have written this before today's jobs report came out. http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/news/eco...
IMO the graph is headed in the right direction. How can anyone continue to deny Obama's policies are working and keep saying the country is headed in the wrong direction, while the numbers prove otherwise. If you truly think the country is headed in the wrong direction are you saying you want to go back to 700K a month job losses? Just because the economy isn't recovering & growing quickly enough for some, doesn't mean it isn't happening. An economist on the news tonight said it will take 5 yrs. to recover from the hole we were in. At least now we are on the top side of the graph base line.
Feb 3, 2012 at 5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Romney just can't ever talk about money. As soon as he finishes saying he cares not for the poor, he accepts an endorsement from Donald Trump. What a bonehead.
.
Does Obama think he can win with Gore/Kerry teams in his corner? Didn't end well for either of them.
Feb 3, 2012 at 5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
This guy is pretty much on the mark on how the election will go. The problem I see is that there really isnt much of a difference, I am left with a guy that is making all the wrong moves in the present, or a new guy that will make many of the wrong moves in the future. I vote someone else.
Feb 3, 2012 at 4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
vatoloco, your insistence on denigrating the poorest and most vulnerable in our nation is missing the mark by a country mile. Our economic turmoil has been caused by the movement of trillions of dollars to overseas manufacturing and operations during the past 20 years by the interests of increasingly concentrated American wealth. More hard-working middle class Americans are falling into the ranks of the poor, and, unfortunately, this will continue for the forseeable future, given our corrupt political system that protects the interests of wealth at the expense of everyone else. Your 'blame the lazy poor' routine just doesn't hold any water.
Feb 3, 2012 at 4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
And Obama is a reality genius but a definite economic dimwit-give me the economic genius any day of the week over Obama
Feb 3, 2012 at 4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
All of a sudden WI is going downhill because of Walker...?
Wow just wow.....fear mongering of the premium kind.....
I guess I missed the utopian party during Doyles regime.........
Feb 3, 2012 at 3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
David G
Our nation would be a more resourceful nation had we not spent trillions on trying to solve society's problems by rolling out The Great Society programs brought to you by the party of food stamps. Why work when you can take other people's money....Obama has certainly been at the helm of such approach..it's never about picking up the slack but about taking from others to make things fair.
Feb 3, 2012 at 3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Had the very rich had to pay regular tax rates on income that the really earned, we would have a lot more cash in the bank."
Correction, had the people on the bottom (those who choose not to work or get educated or seek new training) made more efforts not to rely on those who choose to work hard, we wouldn't have to spend billions on picking up the slack these won't doers weigh bring on people's backs....
Feb 3, 2012 at 1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
A headline of "mismatch" would be far more appropriate. If Mr. Mitt would stop bashing the poor and saying that Americans are the only people on the planet who put their hands over their hearts when their anthem is played, I would bump his odds up to a 50-1 dog. This guy may be an "economic genius" but he is a reality dimwit!
Feb 3, 2012 at 11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
While Michael is correct in stating that this election will depend on how well we are doing on election day, it also will depend on how much people understand about why the economy self destructed in the first place. For a country to be swimming in debt while the GOP candidates really around a "cut taxes even further" banner, Romney is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Had the very rich had to pay regular tax rates on income that the really earned, we would have a lot more cash in the bank.
Feb 3, 2012 at 11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Obama by a landslide
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.