I remember about half a year ago when I was forced to watch American Idol with my wife (who loves it), I noticed something interesting. Towards the end of the show, when only a few contestants remained, there were three African-American women who all had absolutely powerful and captivating voices, and in my opinion, were miles ahead of the bulk of the other singers in terms of raw talent. Despite their superiority in singing ability (again, in my opinion), all three of them were voted off the show in almost sequential order. I was flabbergasted by this trend that, to me, seemed unfair considering their ability and style that was a cut above the rest. The more I thought about it, the more I realized what had happened. Even though they were clearly talented, they all possessed a similar style, and therefore the viewers that enjoyed that particular style and type of voice were forced to choose which of the three to vote for. Obviously when the vote of a segment of the population is split three ways, it looses out to a segment that votes for a style and voice that is represented by only one singer. It makes me wonder if the winner of the show would have been different if those who voted for the three women previously mentioned had voted unanimously. This would have obviously taken a lot of organization and collaboration, but it would have produced a powerful influence and outcome. Logically, these voters would have had to decide which of the three women would be best to vote for. In doing so, I think that the most sensible criteria upon which they would base their decision would be to ask the question “which of these women will pull the most amount of votes from the rest of the population?” Evidently, this criteria would maximize the potential that their singer would win the whole competition.
So what the heck does this have to do with Mitt Romney?! As I see the pre-polls in Iowa, I am shocked that Mike Huckabee has surpassed Mitt Romney in popularity, and I think back to American Idol. To me, this sudden rise is popularity is due to the shift in votes from Evangelical Christians, which have significant representation in Iowa. This assumption is based on the fact that Huckabee is playing the “if you’re Evangelical, you should vote for an Evangelical” card, instead of encouraging voters to elect the best person based on pure merit. Apparently this strategy is working, but Evangelicals are making a huge mistake. In light of these recent happenings, the remainder of my post is especially meant for Evangelical voters.
This election must become a game of chess for Republican voters, not a game of checkers. In checkers, you try to jump over your opponent’s pieces as they become vulnerable. The game is basic and involves little strategy (some may argue with me!). However, in chess, the amount of strategy used in high-level games is mind-boggling. They say that a world-class chess player will think 17 moves ahead. Likewise a smart voter must think many moves ahead before making a rash, checkers-like, decision. The object of the game of chess is to put your opponent in “checkmate”. To Evangelicals, “checkmate” in the election is putting a President into office who will represent them, their morals, their views, etc. Some of the issues that deeply concern them are abortion, gay marriage and preserving family values (just to name a few). Just like the three similar sounding African-American women in American Idol, there are a few candidates that represent the moral opinions of Evangelicals running for the Republican nomination. Currently, the foremost of these candidates is Mike Huckabee, a former Evangelical minister, who is getting many votes because of the fact that he is Evangelical, just as Mitt Romney is losing votes because he isn’t. The irony of Evangelicals voting for Huckabee is that in doing so they are indirectly voting for Giuliani. This is like taking the opposite side’s queen in chess and thinking you have won the game, but what you have actually done in the bigger picture is given the opponent an easy opportunity to put you in checkmate (in this case being represented by nominee/president who does not stand up for any of the morality issues that you deeply value). Let us examine two “chess moves” that Evangelicals can make when they vote in Iowa (and later in other states) and then look ahead at the ensuing impact these moves will have on the big picture.
1) Move # 1- Voting for Mike Huckabee.
Admittedly, he would probably take Iowa and therefore get increased media attention that will help him in other states and allow voters to get to know him better.
His victory in Iowa and the resultant media attention will be deflated when Mitt Romney takes the second primary in New Hampshire, but he still may take North Carolina.
He will do well in states where Evangelicals form large portions of the population.
However, since Republicans vote on many issues besides morality and which religion someone belongs to, such as economic and social, for example, Huckabee will lose in many other states (including some of the bigger ones), where people don’t necessarily care if he was a Evangelical minister or not. Since he lacks a broad appeal and the experience to be an effective president, he will lose out to Giuliani, who doesn’t side with the Evangelicals on morality issues.
If by some miracle he wins the Republican nomination, he is too extreme to appeal to the masses in the presidential election and will almost certainly lose to the democrats.
2) Move # 2 – Voting for Mitt Romney
He will take Iowa and get a lot of much needed media attention. This will allow voters that don’t know how feasible a candidate he is to get to know him.
He will take New Hampshire and with the momentum from winning the first two states will have a great shot at taking South Carolina. With the momentum building, Republican voters will take a closer look at Romney, including Evangelicals, and see that he has what it takes to be president.
Admittedly it will be close between him and Giuliani, simply because of Giuliani’s overwhelming popularity as the mayor of NYC during 911. However, at this point Evangelicals, which have significant sway in the vote will realize that it boils down to someone who supports their views (Romney) and someone who does not (Giuliani) and this could give Romney the edge to win in the race for Republican nomination.
If Mitt wins the Republican nomination, it will be a tight battle, most likely with either Clinton or Obama, to become president. However, since Mitt has experience serving as governor in the bluest of blue states, has an unprecedented business background, amazing speaking abilities culminated with a presidential demeanor, has huge amounts of money behind his campaign for advertising and PR, experience fixing tough situations (Olympics, Massachusetts debt, failing businesses), and performs well on television and in debates, he will have a very good shot at becoming the next president of the United States of America.
This will undoubtedly be one of the most important elections in US history. China is surpassing the US economically, there is a mortgage crisis among other threats to the economy, the war on terror still rages, and the family unit of society is breaking down rapidly. In my view there is no other candidate who can effectively tackle these issues besides Mitt Romney, and he has the track record to back up this claim. However, without Evangelical support, it will be a lose-lose situation for him and them. He will lose to Giuliani and the Evangelicals will shoot themselves in the foot by electing a man who will not represent them well. To anyone who reads this, especially Evangelicals, remember that it is not about putting your opponent in “check”, it’s about putting him in “checkmate”.
Read more!
Just as the sea's waves violently crash against a protective wall during a fierce storm, so do Mitt Romney's opponents rise in the polls and seemingly out-muscle his campaign's success. Fortunately, once a wave crashes into the wall, however tumultuous its temporary effect may be, it is always deflected, only to retreat back to the turbulent sea, quickly replaced by the next big wave. When the storm finally calms, the waves lose their former vigor and all that remains is the wall. In a recent interview, Romney labeled his opponents' success not as waves, but as "surges" and claimed that they too come fiercely but quickly dwindle away.
