COLUMN: Presidential campaign views change

    Last semester I predicted a general election between Barack Obama and Rick Perry, with President Obama winning in a landslide. Thankfully, I was pretty far off. Either I needed more faith in our voters, or less in Rick Perry.

    In my defense, however, I was right about why Perry would lose: He’s an idiot, and it was only a matter of time before voters saw this.

    Now the race is between Obama and Romney. While the campaign landscape has changed quite a bit over the past months, my prediction hasn’t. The race will be much closer with Romney heading up the GOP, but it’s still Obama’s to lose.

    The strongest predictor for the 2012 election is history. Incumbents rarely lose elections. When they do, it’s usually because a third-party candidate steals their votes, or they botched the handling of some national crisis. Neither is true of Obama’s second-term bid.

    Many – myself included – thought the recession would be Obama’s botched crisis that cost him the election. Yet, as the election unfolds and we begin to move out of the crisis, it looks as though the economic woes will hurt Romney more than Obama.

    The majority of voters don’t view the recession as being the president’s fault. If anything, the GOP will shoulder more blame from voters due largely to the Occupy movement. Fair or not, wealthy businessmen like Romney have been demonized as the cause of the recession.

    Romney’s lack of oratory skills has only solidified this in the mind of voters. Phrases like “corporations are people,” “creative destruction” and statements about how he likes to fire people have made Romney seem out of touch with the economy. The economy was Romney’s one shot at the White House and he butchered it.

    Obama has the edge in marketability as well. Should this matter in a presidential race? Of course not, but it matters enough to make Obama the favorite.

    Not only is Romney seen as too stiff, dull and phony to win over enough independent voters, but his Mormonism will cause many staunch, religious-right voters to simply stay home.

    Obama, while not the phenomenon he was in 2008, is still the Bin Laden killing, Nobel Peace Prize winning, face of the U.S. who delivers fiery speeches and mobilizes the youth. His foreign policy has been solid in the eyes of most, and voters don’t like the idea of someone as “weird” as Romney representing them abroad.

     There is still a long election road ahead, and Obama’s victory over Romney isn’t as guaranteed as his victory over Perry would have been, but the odds are in his favor.          

     If Romney hopes to win, three things need to happen. First, stop saying stupid things. Oratory skills are important for a president.

    Second, the Supreme Court needs to strike down Obama’s unconstitutional health care law.

    It’s never a good thing when the bill tagged with the president’s name is labeled unconstitutional during an election year. This may not be enough to tip the scales in Romney’s favor, but it’s certainly a giant step in the right direction.

    Third, Obamacare is rightfully struck down. Romney needs to have a viable and highly marketable alternative prepared. If struck down, the president has little hope of regaining public trust with regard to health care. Romney must capitalize on this if he hopes to have a shot.

    While possible, the odds that we see a Republican in the oval office are slim. Count on Obama for another four.

­­- Mike Burnham is a junior majoring in international relations and economics. Comments can be sent to him at mike.burnham@gmail.com.