I'm Calling It: Romney Wins In 2012

I hate to start this piece with a disclaimer, but I do reserve the right to modify my prediction in the future if something bizarre happens. For now, I'd like to make the case as to why I believe Mitt Romney will be elected president in 2012.

Of course, there are two major hurdles to overcome. First, he has to win the GOP nomination. After that, he'll still have to beat a well-funded incumbent president. I'll start with the second obstacle. Next time, we'll look at the Republican nomination.

While there are many issues that decide presidential elections, the one that seems to override all of them is a bad economy. When people are working and not afraid for their financial futures, other issues rise to the top. Barring a major national security crisis, the economy will be the most important issue in this election, just as it was in 2008. Not only is the economy in terrible shape, it appears that President Obama doesn't have a handle as to what to do about it.

Now, I don't believe that Obama is some kind of radical socialist intent on destroying capitalism. I just don't think that he has the experience or knowledge of how the economy works to know how to make things better. Blaming Bush makes him look weak. Let's face it, if Bush had done a better job managing the economy, there is a good chance that John McCain would be president right now. The way I see it, unless there is a dramatic improvement in the economy or a major national security crisis, I can't see how Obama can win a second term. The last three presidents to lose re-election: Hoover, Carter and Bush (41) all lost because of a bad economy and the perception that they were unable to fix it.

This president was elected because the American people felt that he was the person who could get the economy turned around. After billions of dollars were borrowed and spent on a failed stimulus plan, people are beginning to lose confidence in Obama. This new jobs plan he proposed seems more like class warfare than anything that will actually create jobs.

The rap against Romney is that he is a flip-flopper on social issues. This is true, he was once pro-choice, now he is pro-life. The same is true on gay rights. If this election was about social issues, like it tended to be in 2004, Romney wouldn't even be on the radar. The thing about social issues is that when the economy is strong, people look at a candidate's stannce on "God, gays and guns;" but when people are worried about whether or not they will have a job next month, they tend not to care if two guys want to get married. Remember, one of the nations most socially conservative state, Indiana, went for Obama in 2008.

The other rap on Romney is Romneycare in Massachusetts. How can one criticize Obamacare when they invented the prototype for it? Simple, as Romney said, as the governor of a state, he responded to what the people of his state wanted. He's been pretty clear that it would be a bad idea to impose it on the other 49 states.

Amazingly, the issue of Romney's Mormon faith is still being brought up by some pundits as a weakness to his candidacy. Again, go back to the economy. In 2008, nobody cared about Obama's church (remember Rev. Wright?). Nobody cared about his lack of experience or his ties with political radicals like Bill Ayres. After all, what does a 60's radical have to do with repairing the economy? Let's be brutally honest, I think we all know a lot of Epton Democrats that voted for Obama in 2008.

I believe that in 2012, voters are going to want a president that actually participated in the private sector economy. Now, Mitt may have to explain some of the things he did as a businessman. It's hard to succeed in business if you've never cut a job or outsourced work overseas. There's a reason that most of our presidents have been governor; voters want someone who has actually run something successfully. Mitt Romney has done that in both the public and private sectors.

In 2008 we hoped for change.

Something tells me that in 2012 we'll hope for change. Again.