Most polls have Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in a dead heat. At this point, Romney stands a fair chance of winning the White House in November. In fact, for all of his supposed deficiencies, he has done quite well to reenergize his campaign with the Paul Ryan pick while maintaining a steady line of attack against Barack Obama’s economy. This week, an average of the nation’s major polls finds Obama and Romney tied at 46.8%. The gap has slowly been closing over the past few weeks, and what were originally thought to be solidly blue states have now jumped into the swing-state column, with more likely to join the latter. In other words, Mitt Romney is slowly but steadily doing what John McCain stumbled and bumbled over doing in 2008—methodically finding a way to challenge Obama.
But let’s assume for a moment that Mitt Romney has already won the presidency and that it’s November 7, 2012—not for the sake of premature celebration, but rather, to entertain the nature of the liberal response to a Republican victory.
You see, Romney did not win because he garnered a higher percentage of the popular vote and more electoral votes than Barack Obama.
He did not win because he convinced voters to cast their choice for Romney-Ryan and their plan to stop America short of jumping over the fiscal cliff.
He certainly did not win because he was the better candidate.
Not in the least.
Romney won because of the money. The money always takes front and center with Republican victories. Never with Democratic wins though. Romney won because he raised and spent more money than Obama; because Republican and conservative SuperPACs outspent their Democratic and liberal counterparts; arguably most significantly, because the Wall Street fat cats fed into the Romney treasure chest.
Romney won because he lied to voters. You see, you were actually fooled into casting your ballot for Romney-Ryan.
Romney won because he gamed the system. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and never had to work one bit to get to the presidency. Everything just fell at his feet because he was successful and knew the right people.
Let’s start with the money. Conveniently, liberals will fail to mention that Obama outspent McCain in 2008 by about $400 million. In fact, in 2008, McCain was the candidate who decided to retain public financing, while Obama chose to go the other route in order to raise and spend more money, particularly from outside private sources. Liberals will not tell you that Obama in 2008 had raked in more money from Wall Street than any politician in the previous 20 years. You name the bank, Obama had it in his pocket: JPMorganChase, UBS, Citibank, and yes, Goldman Sachs. And the oft-repeated claim that Obama raised most of his money from small donations? An utter lie. Obama received about 80% more money from large donors (those who gave a total of more than $1,000) than from small donors.
Now about lying to voters…To say that Obama lost because he spoke the truth and nothing but the truth would be a craven lie. These are some of his falsehoods: He claimed that Romney-Ryan planned to raise taxes on 95% of Americans. He claimed that his administration increased oil production in America to the largest quantity in eight years. He claimed in 2011 that the border fence along the U.S.-Mexico border was ‘basically complete.’ In fact, Homeland Security checked up on that quote and found that only 5% of the fence was complete. Obama claimed that Romney opposed letting gays adopt children. Etc., etc., etc.
The majority of Americans vote according to their beliefs, values, and ideology. Americans are conservatives, liberals, and libertarians; a smaller percentage fall under the “other” category. Some Americans vote on wedge issues— abortion, gay marriage, etc. Many vote almost purely on political affiliation. In other words, the majority of Americans are not swayed by the campaigns—TV ads, lawn signs, opposition research, etc.—of a presidential candidate, save for the independents and the small portion of swayable Democrats and Republicans. So even if a candidate lies (All of them do—over and over—at convenient points in time), those lies likely did little more to manipulate the feeble minds of these voters than some arbitrary variable.
And gaming the system? Let’s talk about gaming. Obama is forever engrained in the minds of many as the valiant community organizer. He was the young man of mixed race who stood up for the trampled and the voiceless, all the while struggling mightily to sustain himself and Michelle, his wife. Yet, closer scrutiny paints an entirely different picture. Obama is no example of a man who climbed out of hardship. He attended the Punahou School. He graduated from Columbia. He graduated from Harvard Law School. His grades are difficult to find, and not many can recall how he became president of the Harvard Law Review. He worked at a fancy law firm. And as a Senator, he bought a $1.65 million mansion of more than 6,500 square feet in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. Let’s be honest. This was far from the hard life that our president claims he suffered through.