h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why would anyone vote for Mitt Romney? And would it actually matter if they did?

Please explain this to me and help me understand American elections.

B

I think I may have voted for him when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts. He's honest, cheerful, and very bright. His health plan was so well-constructed and successful that Obama used it as a model for the federal version. Romney said something to the effect that he didn't want to be thought of as the sort of public official who wouldn't at least try to meet pressing social needs of his constituents.

That was then. This is now. Although I can't point to any specific thing he has said, I imagine his view is that the federal government should defer to the states on health care matters. Obviously, Obama disagrees on this.

On the downside, Mr. Romney has never struck me as a natural politician. His recent comments about the 47% who depend on government entitlements hurt his cause a great deal, it seems to me. I think he has a good nature, but relatively little insight about how his comments will be received by other people.

I'm grateful to him for *wanting* to be President of the U.S. Because of his presence in the Republican primary race, some seriously frightening candidates were *not* nominated.

Romney is far from perfect, but he's the least insane of the choices that were on the Republican primary ballot. His father, George Romney, was a respected governor in the state of Michigan in the 1960s. George Romney ran for president in the 1968 Republican primary. His prospects looked favorable until he confessed that he had been "brainwashed" into supporting the Vietnam War by military officials. This struck the wrong chord with many people who felt that the country needed a president who would not allow others to dupe them.

dupe "him", not "them."

> Why would anyone vote for Mitt Romney?

Because he isn't the black guy.

I have a few family members who will, sadly, be voting for the guy. (Even sadder is that at least one or two of them are otherwise reasonably intelligent and decent people). They repeat the usual rhetoric. Some claim it's about the economy and unemployment (never mind that a man who ran a company which specialized in leveraged buyouts, outsourcing and running sweatshops and who refuses to pay his fair share, or anything near it, of income tax, is in no way a "job creator"). It's because the Dems want to take away all their guns, force them to have gay marriages and abortions, establish the New World Order and turn us all into Muslim Communists.

But really, it all boils down to this: Obama's the black guy.

Not that I think Obama's perfect- and how much could he do with a Tea Party majority in the House?- but Mittens lacks intelligence and integrity, and his running mate is a despicable Rand fanboy. I'm actually kind of glad they were nominated: putting such extremists on the ticket should alienate a significant number of the moderates.

>And would it actually matter if they did?

That would depend on how many electoral votes he got. I won't even try to explain how that works (other than to voice my opinion that it doesn't work like it should, if at all). Here's a link: http://www.thisnation.com/question/051.html

Paul, you forgot to mention that Romney Senior (señor) was born in Mexico and bragged about it when campagning, arguing that he had known hardship during his childhood south of the Rio Grande.

And, Romney señor, while Governor of Michigan, called out the National Guard on the African-American citizens of Detroit.

End with a song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPXL3iEVnCM

Because Americans have an unmatched sense of humour.

But that was only the answer to the first clause of the first question.

~jwf~

"Paul, you forgot to mention that Romney Senior (señor) was born in Mexico and bragged about it when campaigning, arguing that he had known hardship during his childhood south of the Rio Grande. And, Romney señor, while Governor of Michigan, called out the National Guard on the African-American citizens of Detroit." [Anhaga]

I mentioned George Romney's tendency to make ill-fated statements because I think he passed the trait on to Mitt. Maybe he also passed on the insane notion of running for President as well.

As I get older,I have less and less patience for ideologies. Politics becomes more about how I feel when I see public officials. I don't feel good when I think Obama is scolding me. I also don't feel good when exposed to Romney's smugness. Does that explain why I wouldn't have watched tonight's debate even if I had been free to watch it?

"Not that I think Obama's perfect- and how much could he do with a Tea Party majority in the House?- but Mittens lacks intelligence and integrity, and his running mate is a despicable Rand fanboy. I'm actually kind of glad they were nominated: putting such extremists on the ticket should alienate a significant number of the moderates." [Psychocandy]

When Romney first became governor of Massachusetts, I read with great interest his plans for the state. What I saw was a man of prodigious intelligence in some areas, and negligible intelligence in others. I'd prefer to see someone with a better balance in the White House. However nice Romney's blueprint for the state might have looked on paper, it had no chance of getting through the legislature. In order to have gotten it passed, Romney would have had to be a master of politics, which he has never been and probably will never be.

The so-called Wall Street Republicans like Romney because he's a true believer in the religion of Free market economics. I have friends who are also true believers. I would have as much chance of getting them to see errors in their thinking as I would of getting chosen Pope.

So, fine, they're nice people and good friends, but I prefer not to see them put in charge of running the world.

"His recent comments about the 47% who depend on government entitlements hurt his cause a great deal, it seems to me."

This is what really puzzles me. Romney can presumably claim that he was talking about campaign strategy rather than his political philosophy, but it seems to be that any UK politician who got caught making a remark as inaccurate and contemptuous as that would have been finished.

This may help non-USAsians get a handle on what the candidates stand for - http://www.isidewith.com/

Who's Gary Johnson

Standard reasons for voting for Mitt Romney:
1. he ain't black.
2. he's an American.
3. he's not a Muslim.
4. he's gonna look after the rich folks, so when I make my millions he'll be looking out for me.
5. my daddy voted Republican and his daddy before him.
6. I ain't a Boddamn commie.
7. he is tall and has executive style hair
8. Obama promised "change" but things got worse
9. Romney will invade Iran, which will be cool
10. I agree with him on most of what he says, I want abortion stopped, gays prevented from marrying, taxes cut, benefits cut and business deregulated further.

How many reasons do you need? Something I think many Europeans just don't get about America is how very different their mindset is from ours. We in the UK are lulled by the common language into thinking they're like us, where in reality we have far more in common temperamentally, economically and politically with, say, the Germans.

Would it matter if they did? Hard to say. There are dire predictions of the terrible things that will ensue if Romney gets in, but Obama has presided over a massive increase in UAV strikes on countries with which the USA is nominally supposed by allied.

As for understanding American elections, good luck - I'd conservatively estimate that 75% of Americans don't understand them, so what chance do you have?

When you make your first million, save me some champagne.

Why, is simple. Neoconservatives have inculcated a careful propaganda campaign for decades to paint all liberals as "the enemy". With Obama they've amped that up quite a bit. With the current political climate, the conservatives do not even care if their charges have any semblance of validity. They've shown they are quite hostile toward truth. Just look at the birthers, creationists and climate denialists. That a major party in the US can so wholeheartedly embrace demonstrable hogwash like this should frighten everyone. As a group, they've had a break with reality and they don't want to come back.

As to Mitt Romney himself, I don't believe his such an ideologue as he'd have everyone believe. His entire career has been characterized by "flip/flopping". I believe that he will just simply do and say anything to get elected. Last night's performance at the first debate was a masterful denial of much of the core values of the entire campaign before the primary. He repeatedly denied he wants to lower the taxes on the wealthy and we all know, and he has repeatedly stated that is exactly what he plans to do and that is what Paul Ryan was brought on to do. He doesn't care if his words today are diametrically opposed to his words yesterday. He will tell whoever he's speaking to exactly what he thinks they want to hear. His remarks about "the 47%" were spot on to a crowd that just spent $50,000 dollars for lunch. What I fear is that he may actually believe, for that moment, every word he says. If the next moment calls for a different stance, well, so be it.


Now, as to what difference it would make if he were elected... That's hard to tell. I personally think it would get a LOT worse economically, but I also think that may be a good thing in the long run because it would put to rest, at long last, the idea that giving tax breaks to the rich at the expense of the middle and working classes creates prosperity. What creates prosperity and what creates jobs, is the great consumer power of strong middle and working classes.
But in the grand scheme of things, it probably won't make that much difference because every politician at the national level is corrupt, is bought and paid for by the plutocrats and the companies they represent. No one gets into congress or the White House without vast corporate and special interest funding, it's impossible to do so. And so our choice is really just about which flavor of plutocracy do we want.



btw... Mitt Romney was not the least insane of all the Republican primary candidates, not by far. John Huntsman was quite willing to state that he believes in science, in evolution and in anthropogenic global warming. He didn't stand a chance.

I'm glad you've asked this.

I've been wondering the same thing. Everytime I see Mitt Romney on the TV, the internet or on twitter I think 'seriously, you aren't going to vote for this guy are you? He's the sort of person who should be limited to writing letters to the Daily Mail in green ink'. It's very interesting to get USAian perspectives on Mitt.

Last night's debate was being discussed on another website I'm on, which is primarily US based (My FitnessPal).

There was previously a long thread criticising Obamacare: the very idea that people should be forced to do something, and the ensuing "sameness" as opposed to variety and choice goes right against the grain for many USAians.

The feeling was that Romney won the debate, but most people already knew what way they were going to vote.

Will it matter? The US fiscal cliff is a huge problem, and whoever gets to be President will face a mammoth task in dealing with that, so I suspect either incumbent will have trouble retaining popularity due to the tough economic measures which will need to be taken.

I spent some time chatting with a few Yanks in a bar in Jersey City in 2006. The single most shocking thing for me was talking to a youngish bloke, under thirty I'd guess, who was intelligent and articulate... and had voted for Bush. I had to ask him why, and he didn't seem offended by the question. Depressingly, I can't remember the details of his answer. What remained with me though was that he'd THOUGHT ABOUT IT. And he'd concluded Bush was his man. And given what I knew of Bush, this entirely baffled me. I concluded two things - we get a VERY narrow, practically caricatured picture of all American politics. And Americans really do think very, very differently than we do. So what's new?

I don't think you'll find many Romney supporters here on h2g2, but if you did I suspect that, as has been suggested already, they'll be voting AGAINST Obama rather than voting for Romney.

Obama did himself no favors last night by trying to appear restrained and cordial last night. He should have called Romney on his B.S. He should have brought up his 47% statement. He should have asked Romney about his refusal to release his tax returns and his penchant for foreign tax shelters. (I suspect, as others do that Romney may have taken advantage of the UBS amnesty for folks that had illegal offshore accounts.) Obama did try to get Romney to give some details to his plans and Romney mostly sidestepped all such queries. Obama definitely should have come back at Romney when he hypocritically used that line about not getting to choose your own facts, something Romney and Ryan repeatedly do.

( took too long to finish this.)

It is being universally acclaimed that Romney gave
a better performance than Obama. And that is the crux
of the matter. A performance. A bit of theatrics. A set
of lines designed to appeal to a wide audience.

Obama wasn't 'preforming' in that sense, he was working,
doing his job, being Presidential and Professorial and
being very thoughtful. Which doesn't make for good TV.

It was boy band Mitt versus a Bach fugue Obama and the
classics aren't big in the US especially on TV which is
pure pop culture. Pretty faces (preferably white) big
shiny white toothy smiles, pretense, bluff and huff and
complete authority of insincerity. Mitt was the perky
game-show host with promises of wonderful prizes and
Obama was the old professor or doctor lecturing on a
closed circuit education channel.

Romney pwned the medium. And sadly, American elections
are popularity contests.


~jwf~