Romney’s Battle Isn’t Over

The M1A1 Romney

A forecasting model at the University of Colorado at Boulder that has accurately predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1980 has predicted a Romney win. Additionally, it predicted that Obama will win only 218 electoral votes (leaving the remaining 320 for Romney or a third party candidate to pick up).

The forecast is fascinating, not only because it has accurately predicted the past eight presidential elections, but because it comes from an incredibly liberal institution.  Boulder is considered the most liberal city in Colorado, and CU-Boulder is a veritable haven of hippies, anti-corporate goons, and jocks.  I’ve visited the campus only a few times (thankfully) and the entire place reeks of marijuana and unsterile needles.

For a liberal institution — especially one as vocal as CU — to suggest that Obama is in danger of losing his “kingship” is quite startling, but also refreshing.  The model predicted that Romney will come out on top in nine of the 10 swing states, lending credence to the possibility that people are considering whether or not they’re better off than they were four years ago and coming to dismal conclusions.

But the battle isn’t over for Romney.  Ron Paul is still a potential presidential candidate (although his chances of winning are, unfortunately, minimal).  While his VP pick of Paul Ryan has seemingly energized the conservative base, he needs to make sure he doesn’t alienate potential voters, such as Ron Paul supporters who could just as easily write his name in anyway or direct their votes to third party candidates.

The main strategy Romney should maintain is an insistence to talk about real issues.  So what if some nondescript, practically unknown congressman from Missouri made a gaffe about the biological functions of women?  Sure, the guy may be an idiot, and Romney may  want to publicly denounce the statement, but he needs to stick with absolute focus on the facts — those pesky little tidbits of truth that Obama and his campaign committee are trying so hard to keep us from focusing on.

The Real War on Women

Like, for example, the real war on women.  Somehow Romney and the Republicans have allowed them to be painted as anti-women warmongers, when nothing could be further from the truth.  Why, then, aren’t they painting Democrats as man-haters?  Are Republicans still falling for the same tricks of political correctness?

If Romney continues to hammer away at the exploding deficit (and offering actual solutions that the public can buy), the war in Afghanistan (and how he plans to end it), illegal immigration (and how he will put a stop to it), and our ever-increasing nanny state (and how he intends to reduce its interference in individual lives), he’s got this in the bag.

He should certainly avoid topics like gay marriage and the war on drugs, unless he intends to take government out of marriage licenses and end the drug war.  Otherwise, he’ll simply continue to alienate voters who may have already turned away from the false prophet Obama.  Because let’s face it, gay marriage is being accepted by the general public and will likely be legalized within the next 10-15 years, whether conservatives like it or not.  Ideally, he would push for extricating government from what has typically been a religious ceremony.  But hey, he’s only a Republican, we can’t expect too much from him.

Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, the triangle of terror, will continue to use fear tactics and smear-campaigning to paint Romney as an evil corporatist whose only goal is the murder of old ladies and kittens.  But if he can continue letting these duds bounce off him and volley his own armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabots in return, Obama’s flimsy battle tank (a T-72 would be fitting) will be reduced to molten metal in a matter of months.

I would gain no greater pleasure than watching Obama pack his bags and step off the White House lawn for the last time.


2 thoughts on “Romney’s Battle Isn’t Over

  1. In a situation where Libertarians need to realistically think about who will REALLY be President in January, we’ve gone different ways. The question is, do you value fiscal conservativism or social liberalism more? You apparently would rather have someone fiscally conservative running the country, while I’m more interested in giving gays equal rights and keeping abortion, though a sensitive topic, an individual choice. There’s probably some personal satisfaction of “sticking it” to the conservative christian voting bloc thrown in, too! 🙂

    What bothers me about Romney is that we have no idea if he’ll even be able to deliver a balanced budget, even with Ryan as his VP. He’s very vague on his plans for the country and seems to be running on the ever popular “I’m-not-Obama” platform. If elected, will he just be a deer in the headlights for four years, not knowing how to solve the fiscal Rubik’s cubes this country has before it? I suppose time may tell.

    I’ll concede, though, that if Romney is elected, it won’t be the worst thing that’s happened to the country, regardless of what Blue states say. I couldn’t say that four years ago when McCain and that clueless Palin were poised to take the office.

    • I’ll admit that if I HAD to choose between Romney and Obama, I’d pick Romney (thankfully we have a Libertarian candidate out there!). Mostly, yes, because of the fiscal conservatism aspect, because it has become apparent that a welfare state is simply top-heavy and cannot thrive.

      In comparing Romney and Obama, there’s one major difference. Obama definitely will not be a fiscal conservative, whereas Romney might be. Not very reassuring, which is why I won’t vote for him — as well as the ever-obvious “I’m-not-Obama” campaign. Unfortunately it worked in 2008 when Obama ran as the “I’m not Bush” candidate, and we seem locked in this perpetual death spiral.

      I believe it’s possible to be simultaneously fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but perhaps in a different manner. If the government takes a step back and reduces its attempt to legislate the economy (as Democrats want) and morality (as Republicans want), the road to fiscal conservatism will be paved. And, in backing off, people will be free to do what they want (leading to more social tolerance, which this country is in desperate need of).

      This post is certainly not an endorsement of Romney (or Ryan, for that matter). It’s merely an observation, and suggestions of what Romney would have to do if he wanted to win. In a (somewhat) humorous twist, many of my Republican friends have been saying that I’ve been “too liberal” lately. If Republicans think I’m too liberal and Democrats think I’m too conservative, I feel like I’m sitting comfortably in the middle. 😉

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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