Mitt Romney isn't losing the election - yet

Despite a narrative emerging of Romney's failure, Obama remains weak on the economy.

A new narrative is taking shape just over 40 days before Election Day: Mitt Romney is losing. That's expected as well as premature, but it's easy to see why so many on the left and right are calling this a wrap.

Romney's polling numbers stayed essentially flat after the Republican convention. Ditto after he picked US Representative and self-styled "fiscal hawk" Paul Ryan as his running mate. Romney looked like an craven opportunist after the ambassador to Libya was killed. And a video showing him despising and dismissing half of America as victims, moochers and ne'er-do-wells inspired one Bloomberg columnist to write this headline: "Today, Mitt Romney Lost the Election."

President Barack Obama, for his part, has enjoyed a steady rise in his favorability ratings since the Democratic convention, a marked turnaround from the last year. Since the DNC, Obama has raised the idea that a second term would mean less intransigence from Congressional Republicans. He told supporters in Wisconsin recently that reelection would "break the fever" of partisanship and that "only you can break the stalemate," according to the LA Times. Wishful thinking perhaps, but not inconceivable if he wins by a landslide.

There is evidence to suggest as much.

Obama is widening his lead swing states like Ohio. Even if Romney wins all the other states won by George W. Bush in 2004, if he loses Ohio, he'll only have 263 Electoral College votes (you need 270 to win).

Moreover, Talking Points Memo's poll tracker shows Obama with 328 Electoral College votes while Romney has 191. He broke 200 for the first time last month, but Obama has remained over 200 for months.

Nate Silver, of the New York Times, gives Romney 228 Electoral College votes, but only a 22 per cent chance of winning. For Obama? Silver gives the president a more than 77 per cent chance. Silver also says the probability that Obama gets 330 Electoral College votes is nearly 17 per cent. That Romney gets 270? Slightly more than zero.

All of which is why conservatives, not for the first time (I have lost track of how many times), are exhibiting a crisis of confidence in Romney. The more that Romney trails Obama in the polls, the more the GOP's radical conservatives want him to take the gloves off. And the more they want him to take the gloves off, the worse it gets for Romney, because middle-of-the-road voters don't like the GOP's radicalism (eg the American Association of Retired Persons booed Paul Ryan for vowing the repeal "Obamacare"). Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, the state Ryan represents, gave voice to the crazies when he said:

I thought [picking Ryan] was a signal that [Romney] was getting serious, he’s getting bold, it’s not necessarily even a frustration over the way Paul Ryan’s been used but rather in the larger context. I just haven’t seen that kind of passion I know Paul has transferred over to our nominee, and I think it’s a little bit of push-back from the folks in the national campaign. But I think for him to win he’s gotta [do] that.

TPM's Josh Marshall summed up the effect:

[T]he drip drip drip of casual disrespect for Romney from supposed supporters and the assumption that he’s a bad candidate who’s destined for defeat is no joke. It sows bad morale, becomes an intra-party distraction and source of conflict and confirms the settling idea that Romney’s a loser.

That makes it harder for Romney to turns things around, Marshall says, but maybe he doesn't want to. "[His campaign] doesn't need a turnaround," he told 60 Minutes over the weekend. "We've got a campaign which is tied with an incumbent president to the United States." He added: "I've got a very effective campaign."

Well, that's debatable given all of the above, but what's more certain is that Romney has a point. He is tied. Despite all the polls showing him behind the president, the two daily tracking polls - Gallup and Rasmussen - show that Romney remains in a tight race with Obama. Both are within the margin of error. Granted, the popular vote, which the tracking polls attempt to measure, is not as important ultimately as Electoral College, but that tightness suggests that all the drama over Romney's losing the race is overblown. And Mitt isn't losing. Yet.

Which shouldn't be surprising. The economy remains Obama's biggest weakness. It is improving, yes, but too slowly to matter by November. Voter suppression, in the name of preventing voter fraud, meanwhile threatens Obama's chances in Pennsylvania and Florida. And Romney has a lot more money than Obama, as do his Super PAC buddies.

This is why the Obama campaign is worried. Not so much because it can't surmount these obstacles, but because voters might become complacent if this new narrative about Romney's losing takes hold.

As Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, recalled saying:

Ignore the polls. There are always going to be polls showing us up. There are always going to be polls showing us down. None of that matters. What matters is your voter contacts in your state.

 

Mitt Romney. Photograph: Getty Images

John Stoehr teaches writing at Yale. His essays and journalism have appeared in The American Prospect, Reuters Opinion, the Guardian, and Dissent, among other publications. He is a political blogger for The Washington Spectator and a frequent contributor to Al Jazeera English.

 

Getty
Show Hide image

The English left must fall out of love with the SNP

There is a distinction between genuine leftism and empty anti-establishmentarianism.

After a kerfuffle on Twitter the other night, I am all too aware that writing something even mildly questioning of the SNP government is the British equivalent of approaching a lion pride on a kill. Nevertheless, seeing the almost hero-levels of mental gymnastics tweeted by Mhairi Black, in the week of the Hillsborough inquiry whereupon Nicola Sturgeon posed with a copy of The Sun endorsing her re-election, prompted me once more to consider just how spectacular the distance has become between the SNP that stood against Ed Miliband versus the SNP today and in government.

Mhairi tweeted: “So Kezia wants to put up the taxes of Scottish people to subsidise Tory cuts that her party supported in Westminster?”. Confused? So am I.

This follows in a series of SNP revisionism on what austerity is and the excuses the SNP has hidden, not quite so conspicuously, up its sleeve to not act on its new tax powers, so as not to break its bond with Middle Scotland. They insist that Labour’s plans for a penny tax are not progressive, and have framed it in such a way that an anti-austerity plan has now become a subsidy for cuts Labour actually haven’t supported for more than a year now. Just like that, the SNP is a low-tax mimicry of Toryism.

But it isn’t ‘just like that’. The SNP have governed from an economically cautious stance for seven years. For a brief period, they borrowed Ed Miliband’s clothes. But once the Red Wedding had been completed, they returned back to where they started: as successors to New Labour, though that is hardly fair: they are far, far less redistributive.

So why is it, in the 2015 election, and even today, many of us on the left in England still entrust our faith in SNP rhetoric? Still beat the drum for an electoral ‘progressive’ coalition with a party that doesn’t seem very happy to embrace even the concept of higher taxes?

My theory is that the SNP have successfully, indeed more successfully than any party in Britain, adopted the prime hobby of much of the Left: ‘againstism’.

‘Againstism’, clumsy I admit, is to be against everything. This can include a negative framing of being anti-austerity but not pro-anything in its place. But in this instance, it means to be anti-establishment. The latter, the establishment, is what Labour as a party of government always has aspired to be in competing to be the national government in Westminster - which is why elements of the Left will always hate it and will always vote against it. In a way, some of the left is suspicious of governance. This is occasionally healthy, until it prevents real progressivism from ever being elected.

While in government, Labour could be seen as sell-outs, rightly or wrongly, because they became the establishment and had no one but themselves to blame. The SNP are the establishment, in Scotland, but can nevertheless exercise ‘againstism’, even with new tax powers. They always will so long as Westminster exists, and so long as their main motivation is independence. This is why the bogeymans that sustain nationalism are not natural allies of social democracy; to achieve social democracy would be to remove the bogeyman. This means that the Lesser New Labour tradition within which they govern will continue to go unnoticed, nor be doomed to eventual death as New Labour itself suffered, nor be looked back on as an era of neoliberalism. The SNP can just avert attentions back to the Westminster establishment. ‘Againstism’. Paradoxically, the way the SNP have managed to come to exploit this is because of New Labour's devolution. Devolution has created, for the first time, the perfect environment for an establishment in one part of the country to blame the establishment in another. It has allowed for the rise of an incumbent insurgent. The SNP can campaign as insurgents while still being incumbents. It is a spectacular contradiction that they alone can manage.

Insurgency and anti-establishment politics are not, of themselves, a bad thing. We on the Left all dip our toes in it. It is a joy. It is even more fun for us to be successful. Which is why the celebratory mood that surrounded the SNP gains in Scotland, a paradigm shift against one incumbent for another, is, objectively, understandable. But these insurgents are not actually insurgents; they are the illusion of one, and they have had the reigns of power, greater now for the Scotland Bill, for seven years. And they have done little radical with it. The aim of an anti-establishment politics is to replace an establishment with something better. All the SNP have done is inherit an establishment. They are simply in the fortunate position of managing to rhetorically distance itself from it due to the unique nature of devolution.

This is why some of the Left still loves them, despite everything. They can remain ‘againstists’ regardless of their incumbency. They do not have the stench of government as a national Labour government did and inevitable would have. So the English Left still dream.

But now, with this mounting evidence and the SNP’s clumsy revisionism, it is up to the English Left to distinguish between genuine leftism and empty anti-establishmentarianism, and to see the establishment -via governance- as something to define for itself, to reshape as something better, rather than something to be continuously against. This is, after all, what Attlee's government did. The SNP have not defined the establishment, they have continued someone else's. It's up to us to recognise that and fall out of love with the SNP.