Handicapping Election 2012

It's hard to believe, but in a little less than two months, we'll know the answer to the question of who will be president for the next four years. Will it be "golden boy" Mitt Romney, whose life has been a chain of largely uninterrupted successes? Or will Barack Obama, who shocked the world in 2008 by completing his meteoric rise from state senator from Illinois to the White House, be able to hold on to his job?
   Looking at this objectively, I'd say we have a fairly even race between two appealing, well-financed candidates. So who wins in November? That's the question I'm going to attempt to answer. Let's get started with the challenger.
   Mitt Romney: Romney would appear to have it all. He has the pedigree. His father, George, was the governor of Michigan in the 1960s, as well as a former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He's been a successful businessman, with a current personal worth of almost $200 million. He helped turn around the ailing Salt Lake Winter Olympics in the 1990s (though some say the games weren't in as much trouble as he claimed.) And he managed the near impossible feat of being elected governor of Massachusetts as a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. From that position, he showed an ability to govern from the political middle. He even managed to pass health care reform similar to "Obamacare," which he now says he wants to repeal. In fact, the only glitches on his otherwise sterling resume are a failed U.S. Senate run against Ted Kennedy and a failed presidential bid four years ago.
   This year was ripe for a Romney run. In the early going, he stood out, head and shoulders above a field of glaringly weak candidates composed of no-names (Herman Cain, John Huntsman) and has-beens (Newt Gingrich). In the Republican debates earlier this year, Romney appeared the most presidential and the most prepared. He even managed to cast himself as the most moderate of the candidates.
   So could he beat Obama? Most definitely. Romney's biggest strengths are his business acumen, his ability to raise funds (he has often ranked among the leaders in fund-raising in other races) and his ability to appear moderate. In fact, he has shown he has the ability to govern as a moderate when called upon (or when he's forced to -- see Massachusetts). That ability to govern from the middle may represent the biggest threat to Obama, since it will certainly appeal to undecided and "swing" voters.
   But as much as Romney brings to this race, his weaknesses are just as glaring. Chief among these is his tendency to change his mind on positions important to the GOP. Romney was a pro-choice Republican until 2005, when he had a change of heart and became pro-life. While governor of Massachusetts, he declared that he was against gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions. In fact, he even ordered the county clerks of his state to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Now, he has cast himself as being against both gay marriage and civil unions. While I understand that people sometimes have changes of heart (it happens to us all), these "flip-flops" on important positions strike me as disingenuous at best, blatantly opportunistic at worst. Whether he intended it or not, Romney has made it appear as if he has no core convictions of his own, that he simply adopts the position that is most popular at the moment, and that will help him get ahead. That's slimy. And it makes it hard for voters to know what Romney will do if elected.
   Romney's other glaring weakness is his pick for vice president, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. As I've noted before, Ryan is an extremist of the worst kind. He has shown that he doesn't like women, having voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, declaring that he is against all abortions, even those that result from rape or incest, and wanting to deny over-the-counter status to emergency contraception. His forte is supposedly the budget, but his proposals would damage both Social Security and Medicare. Ryan's nomination will likely appeal to the most hardcore, radical parts of the Republican Party, but it will do nothing to burnish Romney's reputation as a moderate who can govern from the middle. When it comes to making that case, Ryan is a definite liability.
   Barack Obama: Obama's biggest strength is, ironically, also his biggest weakness. Obama is the incumbent, and historically, incumbents are extremely difficult to beat. Being the incumbent means that Obama has a built-in bully pulpit to get his message out to voters that Romney doesn't have. When Obama speaks, everyone stops and listens. But that is also his biggest weakness, since Obama now has a record he has to defend to voters.
  In grading Obama's first term, I think he deserves credit on two fronts. First, Obama has largely lived up to the promises he made to voters four years ago. Obama promised to put an end to the unpopular Iraq war, and he has done so. Although we still have troops in Afghanistan, we now have a timetable in place for bringing them home.
   Obama promised to put an end to the misguided "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military, and he did so.
   Obama promised to pass health care reform, and he did so, even though "Obamacare," as it is derisively called by Republicans, has now become a rallying point for the GOP in this election.
   Obama deserves credit for thinking outside the box. Whether you agree with his health care plan or not, and it is by no means perfect, it is at least something markedly different from the status quo, which has been proven not to work. And if the Republicans don't like it, where's their plan? It's not enough to just criticize Obama's plan to fix health care. If the GOP succeeds in repealing the Affordable Care Act, then what's their plan? To go back to the status quo? That's hardly progress, and it would be unacceptable.
   Obama's weakness, of course, is the economy. While the stock market has recovered nicely in the past four years (remember it was down below 10,000 when he took office), and while certain key indicators have bounced back, the truth is, unemployment has remained largely unchanged. There are still millions of people out of work, or who have just given up on even trying to gain employment. Voters tend to "vote their wallets," so if job growth remains stagnant, Obama could be in serious trouble. If, however, voters perceive that, though the economy isn't full recovered, it is headed in the right direction, they might be willing to give Obama four more years to see what happens.
   So to the big question: Who wins in November? For myself, I hope Obama gets another term. Sure, he hasn't done everything he promised. In some ways, he's been a disappointment to those of us who bought into "Hope and Change" and "Yes, we Can!" But I don't think he's done enough wrong to justify a change, even though he hasn't accomplished everything yet.
   Who do I think will actually win? At this point, I would give the slightest edge to Romney. I think people are angry. They're tired of government spending and deficits and debts. And they're worried about employment and the continuing lack of jobs. I think Romney will take advantage of that, just as Bill Clinton did in 1992, when "it's the economy, stupid" became his rally cry.
   If Romney manages to unseat Obama, he will face a stiff challenge that will require every bit of his business acumen and diplomacy. He has shown he has the ability to govern from the middle when he needs to. The question is, will he? Or will he kowtow to the most extreme elements of his party? I remain hopeful, but only time will tell.