How Republicans cost Romney the Election

Barack Obama has been racking up interesting endorsements as the election draws to a close. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent cited global warming as his motivation for endorsing the president. Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey and strong Romney supporter praised Obama extensively for the president’s response to Hurricane Sandy. Yet one of the most fascinating endorsements came from British magazine The Economist, which offered prickly-at-best support for a second term, despite Obama’s “patchy” record and numerous “shortcomings”.

The Economist endorsement reveals the current dismal state of the Republican Party. Barack Obama was the first incumbent The Economist has endorsed in the past 30 years. Incumbents have a laundry list of foibles for The Economist to pick on. Previous endorsements have consistently criticized the incumbent, questioned the ability of the challenger, and then argue that the challenger “should be given a chance” (the phrasing for the Clinton endorsement). The Economist retains this theme in their latest endorsement. It is clear that the magazine does not approve of the job Obama has done and claims it would endorse a moderate Republican (or Ronald Reagan). The reason The Economist feels compelled to recommend Obama is that the Republican Party has drifted so far to the right. Ultimately, a Romney presidency is only desirable if Mitt does not listen to his own party. Given his inability to maintain consistent, principled positions, The Economist concluded taking such a risk would be foolish.

Obama has numerous problems. He has been extremely divisive, in contrast to his bipartisan message. The economy remains poor. In a normal election, Obama should be losing badly. However, throughout the campaign, the Republican Party has gotten in its own way. First, during the primaries the Republicans fielded a set of buffoons, and the few credible candidates such as Jon Huntsman got slaughtered. Romney won almost by default. A stronger candidate would have a much better time against Obama. Meanwhile, in other races Republican candidates have also been incompetent nincompoops. Todd Aiken threw away a likely senate victory in Missouri by making astonishing stupid comments about “legitimate rape”. In Indiana, Richard Mourdock appears to have cost himself a senate seat by claiming pregnancy from rape was God’s decision. Republicans’ out of touch positions look like they will cost them the senate.

An Obama victory is extremely dangerous for the Republican Party. Barring some unforeseen calamity, the economy will continue improving and will recover. The past two democratic presidents will be remembered (fairly or unfairly) for vitalizing the economy and the memory of Reagan will grow ever more distant. A Romney victory with a Republican legislature would give the party a chance to demonstrate that it can handle the economy and allow the Republicans to take credit for the likely coming recovery. When centrist publications such as the Economist view a party to be so toxic that they are incapable of endorsing that party’s candidates for fear that they will adhere to the party platform, one knows that the Grand Old Party has gone horribly awry.