1. News & Issues

Obama-Romney Game On, But Obama Has Huge Advantages

By April 16, 2012

Follow me on:

"Game On!" declares The Economist this week about the 2012 presidential election between President Obama and the presumptive Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

I disagree with this respected news weekly, though, when the editorial staff opines, "Barack Obama leads in the head-to-head polls. But there are still seven months to election day, and Mr Romney has a fair chance of victory in November."

Given the present state of issues and related political theater, I believe that incumbent Obama has scant chance of losing to national political office neophyte Romney for four main reasons:

  • 1. Women. In 2008, women comprised 53% of presidential voters; 56% of those women cast their ballots for Democrat Obama. Recent 2012 polls of the "gender gap" give President Obama a 16-point lead over Romney with women voters.

  • 2. African-Americans. In 2008, African-American voters comprised 13% of those who cast presidential ballots; 95% of ballots cast by African-Americans were for Obama. "African-American women were the demographic with the highest percentage of electoral participation in 2008," per a Rutgers University professor.

    By all accounts, African-American support for Obama remains sky-high and energized in 2012, despite dismal unemployment rates continuing within the community.

  • 3. Hispanics. In 2008, Hispanic voters represented 9% of those who cast ballots for the presidency; 67% of those ballots were cast for Democrat Obama over Republican McCain.

    While the Hispanic community is universally disappointed with President Obama's failure to make inroads in reforming U.S. immigration laws, Mitt Romney is stunningly unpopular with this demographic group because of his rigid opposition to liberalizing immigration for 12 million undocumented workers and their families. "A recent Pew survey found less than a quarter of all Hispanic voters would back Romney in a general election," per NPR.

  • Conservative evangelical voters. It's no secret that Rick Santorum's social-conservative followers are not enamored of Mitt Romney. They don't trust that flip-flopper Romney really, truly agrees with them on abortion, access to birth control, gay rights, gay marriage and the like. And they are wary of his religious allegiance to Mormonism, which they deem to be a non-Christian cult.

    In 2008, just 34% of all presidential election voters identified themselves as "conservative." Of those voters, 78% cast their ballots for Republican John McCain. Conservative evangelical voters certainly won't vote for Obama in 2012. But if an unenergized fraction of socially conservative Republicans... say 25%... don't vote in 2012, that would radically erode Mr. Romney's chances of winning the White House race.

Do the math. As is in April 2012, the numbers just don't add up for a Romney victory in November.

The game may be on, but the Democratic side has an ace pitcher in President Obama and crucial demographic advantages that make likely a lopsided victory in November. Barring a national catastrophe, I don't see this changing.

Comments

April 16, 2012 at 8:39 pm
(1) cigam_mai says:

Here’s a shocker… I disagree. The election is a ways off, and history may have something to teach you about trumpeting victory too early; remember “Dewey Defeats Truman”?

I don’t have all the poll numbers that Democrats and Republicans are constantly shoving down our throats, but I do listen to people in the workplace, at the movies, at the pump, at church, at Starbucks, and at the grocery store. I’ve been at ground zero of the economic meltdown for the past 3 ½ years, and I can tell you that most people, from engineers to truck drivers, recognize that a lot was said about the economy by the White House, but little was done. Analysts generally agree that the economy is gradually healing itself… with no help from our leaders, be they President, Senators, or anyone in the Congress. All of us are doing less… with less. A gradual healing is what is happening. Expect it to take at least another 4 years no matter who wins, so Obama can’t take any credit. Oh, speaking of credit… has President Obama decreased our dependence on foreign oil… decreased our huge trade gap with China… brought health costs down… or do anything but make most of us tighten our belts?!? We drive less, buy less, travel less, eat less (OK… that might be a plus for me), and for many… work less.

What we do more of is continue to fight the world’s wars, dole out billions to ungrateful nations and people around the globe, and our broken political process is happy to merely squabble and bicker, all the while producing nothing, and leading no one.

I admit, this might be an oversimplification of our current state of affairs; maybe. My point is that there is a leadership vacuum right now. The first candidate that steps up and demonstrates a real willingness to lead will get the lopsided win… no matter how much money political parties pour into the race.

BTW, get ready for the next big Wall Street meltdown… when Boomers cash in their 401k stocks to fund their retirement… and growing healthcare costs.

April 19, 2012 at 5:18 am
(2) David Osborne says:

I totally agree with the article ! Only twice has an incumbent President been defeated in the last several US Presidential elections! Ford was never elected, and doesn’t really count! In both cases the incumbent faced charismatic opposition! Reagan vs Carter and Clinton vs Bush 41′,
and Romney is no Reagan or Clonton!

President Obama can press his suit of choice for inaugural 2013!

May 25, 2012 at 5:18 pm
(3) invest in silver says:

Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a very well written article.
I will be sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your useful information.
Thanks for the post. I will definitely comeback.

Leave a Comment


Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.