Because his campaign has been so terrible and he's such an obvious shape-shifting chameleon with no character, I don't think a foreign calamity or crisis can put Romney over the top because he hasn't said enough to distinguish himself from Obama. He would appear to be a greedy opportunistic panderer (which he is) if something significant erupted and he tried to sell the notion it wouldn't have happened under his watch. I have to believe Romney's credibility with most true independents must be very low. Romney's "Hail Mary" chances come down to (1) the domestic economy and/or (2) some kind of major gaffe by Obama. Because of inertia and doubts about Obama, the race will tighten near the end if the wheels don't come off Romney's carriage. He needs to stay cool, calm and collected and learn from John McCain's mistakes 4 years ago. But the lack of focus and purpose just blows me away. You never know what he's going to say next. I completely overestimated Romney's competence in mounting a credible campaign. Romney has to find a groove, stay focused and hope Obama gets tripped up.
Not to mention the guy is just not likeable. I know that's really a shallow reason to support or not support a candidate, but I'm pretty sure subconsciously that we're probably going to lean toward the guy we can connect with more rather than the out of touch Mitt Romney; especially the independents. Its not like Romney's policies are so groundbreaking that we can disregard his likeability, because they are not. In all honesty that's what probably put Obama over. Obama was likeable, and while John McCain wasn't exactly unlikeable Sarah Palin was a complete ****ing moron. Now its the other way around. While I may completely disagree with Paul Ryan's policies he's far more likeable than Mitt Romney to independents and Mitt Romney himself is going to cost his own campaign. The Democrats on the other hand don't go around parading their weakest link: Biden. The campaign is all about Obama and Biden is simply just there to fill the slot.
The reason Romney is stiff and unlikeable is because he's never needed to rely on people liking him to succeed. He never needed to develop those sorts of skills. People are going to be around him simply because he's been insanely wealthy since the day he was born. Now it's biting him on the ass.
In all of these situations, voters would prefer the credible incumbent to the unlikeable, untrustworthy, untested challenger. On matters of defense, war and national security -- and on natural disaster -- it wouldn't even be close. Right now they're running even on economic issues. After the debates that's going to be a no-brainer for Obama too. A calamity can only help Obama's chance of re-election. First, I hope we don't have one. Second, the worst calamity would be a Romney win. But no matter because that's not going to happen.
He already shot himself in the foot with the flip-flops, lies and greedy character. It would take a major Obama melt down at the debate for him to have a remote chance but that probably won't happen. Romney's flip-flops will be exposed and undressed for the public and it will be ugly
I think shortly before the Dems took Congress in '06, we had a 100 casualty month in Iraq and Newsweek wrote some articles about the war. I guess that coupled with Katrina's mishandling affecting Red States is what did it, even in the absence of any kind of a recession. If there's another industry/market bubble ready to burst, gold, other commodities or government contractors (if that's even possible), then perhaps there's a sentiment to put in another guy and see if tax cuts and deregulation (?) work.
This is an insultingly simplified view of Mitt Romney. Why do we repeat that he's stiff and unlikeable so often? Is he a bad dancer? He's better than other former hacks like John Kerry, John McCain, and George Bush if you ask me. And then the money thing - the vast majority of all US presidents on both sides have been from well off families above the American average. It seems like the Obama campaign has succeeded in fabricating an unprecedented degree of indignation against the monetarily fortunate. And I'm not even talking about levying taxes or legislating against the rich, which I have mixed feelings about, I'm just talking about envy and malice on a social level. I can think of plenty of reasons to dislike Mitt Romney. Yet the one I hear quoted most often is that he is monetarily successful. Hmm. Because of Ron Paul's solid track record and consistency, I would have voted for him despite his fairly annoying voice, small stature, and general lack of charisma. Yet the world works the opposite way; suave people like Obama, Romney and Ryan rise to the top without a clear trail of consistent legislation and living up to promises. Am I the only one who thinks its sad that people value a leader's looks and voice over his ability to achieve his goals? In regards to the OP, it seems very sad that a president would win because of a calamity. But I know that's how it works. I'm still in denial about how intangible politics are.
Romney has been so inconsistent and hypocritical on damn near every major issue its going to blow up in his face. Obama campaign will do a summary of romney mishaps next month when people start paying intention.
I think it's more about how unrelatable he is with other people. The man makes a lot of offputting remarks. There were attacks on Kerry about his and his wife's wealth, but his character flaws were his flip floppery and stiffness, rather than Romney's quasi-austistic foot-in-mouth foibles. As for Romney's wealth, if elected, he'd be richer than the previous 8 combined. I disagree that it's solely about his monetary success. It's more about the Romney campaign's frame that his managing skills at Bain brings experience that can be applied towards saving the economy. So think about the 04 campaign. Some how public perception about a decorated Vietnam War vet's reputation and "patriotic duty" grew grossly lower compared to a draft dodger who flew circles in our own backyard as a reservist. Swiftboating is effective. Obama campaign knows that by attacking Bain, Romney loses focus pushing the economy while playing defensive about his management track record. I'd vote for Paul, if nominated, because the only voices he listens to are the ones in his head. The others have been long bought, which is why Paul will always be from the outside looking in. Keep in mind though that some of the man's ideas are genuinely crazy. You still got Biden... I just realized the irony that I detest Romney's sleezy used car salesman-like inauthenticity when Joe's campaigning 'blue collar' skills rip off several pages from his father, a used car salesman. But yeah, looks and voice has always been important. There's been observations that CEOs and other leaders are usually 6" or higher. The most notorious political case study was the presidential debates between Nixon and Kennedy. Those who bought those newfangled TV boxes thought Kennedy was the clear winner while others who listened to it through radio thought Nixon won. Totally important. It's hard not to get depressed about it while fighting off apathy. But it should be our duty to stay involved. My 2 cents...
My theory: Romney seems stiff and unnatural because he is running as a fictional character spouting off views favored by the current GOP base. Hard to act natural when you are a puppet with somebody's hand up your ass. I think he would have been better off vs Obama if he just ran as the real Mitt Romney, smart businessman and technocratic governor. Then again, that Mitt would ne er have gotten through the GOP primaries. One more note: all this talk about the Mitt camp "humanizing Mitt" seems counterproductive. I mean, it kind of implies he is not human and needs to be turned into one. Kinda creepy if you think about the phrase. Probably a bit late now to shift gears dramatically, but I would have advised Mitt to just talk policy and how he plans on go about governing rather than doing all this "humanizing."
I'll never understand why this anecdote is cited so often. I mean, the people on TV who thought Kennedy won generally thought their problem with Nixon was that he looked like an untrustworthy politician - which, with the benefit of hindsight, means that the guys who watched TV were actually correct.
Well remember that a financial crisis brought Obama into office. Without the stock market crash of September/October 2008, I don't see Obama winning -- too inexperienced, too many questions, too many shady dealings...the crisis took away all of those lines of questions and focused on removing the incumbent party (despite the fact that liberal policies and liberal subprime borrowers sparked the crisis). This time around, the Federal Reserve and ECB won't allow that to happen. The Fed has been propping up the stock market for 3 years now, and they have shifted into overdrive in the last few months. There are almost daily rumors coming out of the Fed trying to keep this market afloat -- I've never witnessed anything comparable. It scares me honestly, because once the political motivation to prop up the markets (and secure an Obama win) is over, then look out below(?).
