One way to learn more about a candidate is to see how well he or she is doing in the polls for the state where he was born and grew up and/or the state where he served as an elected state and/or US official.
Mitt Romney was born and raised in Michigan where his father served as governor (1963-1969). Because his father was the 43rd governor of Michigan, one would think the state’s voters would favor the son.
However, in Michigan, Obama holds a 4 point lead in the polls and 48.8% of voters say they will vote for him compared to 44.8% that say they will vote for Romney.
Then Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts (2003 – 2007), but Romney is losing the state to Obama. As a newly elected governor in 2003, Romney had a 61% approval rating but by 2007, that approval rating dropped to 34%. In addition, in 1994, when Romney ran for the US Senate in Massachusetts against Edward Kennedy, he had trouble establishing consistent positions. For example, his views on abortion kept shifting—something we have witnessed in the presidential election.
Fifty-six percent of voters in Massachusetts say they will vote for Obama but only 39.7% say they will vote for Romney.
Historically, states tend to favor presidential candidates that served or lived there, so why has Massachusetts abandoned Romney?
Now, how about Obama’s home states of Illinois and Hawaii?
In Illinois, where Obama served as a State Senator (1997-2004), than a US Senator (2005-2008), his average in the polls is 15 points ahead of Romney and 50.5% of voters say they will vote for Obama but only 35.5% say they will vote for Romney.
In Hawaii, where Obama was born and then later raised by his grandparents, his average lead in the polls is 30 points above Romney and 60.5% say they will cast votes for him while only 31% say they will vote for Romney.
If we must choose between two candidates by voting for the lesser of two evils, what is the best way to discover who is the lesser of two evil? I think one answer is knowing who exaggerates and/or uses false statements the least.
Final Malarkey Score from all Four Debates Combined
Romney and Ryan = 37 or 70%
Obama and Biden = 16 or 30%
In the 1st presidential debate, Fact Check.org caught Romney spouting malarkey almost twice the number of times Obama’s made exaggerated and/or false claims. Fact Check.org listed nine for Romney and five for Obama.
In the vice presidential debate, Ryan, Romney’s running mate, was caught by Fact Check.org spouting malarkey eleven times, and I found two more boosting Ryan’s use of malarkey to thirteen. Biden was only called out for three claims that were malarkey.
In the 2nd Presidential debate, Romney was called out by Fact Check.org for eleven examples of malarkey (exaggerations and/or false statements) compared to Obama’s three uses of malarkey.
In the 3rd and last presidential debate, Romney again won the malarkey contest by making six misleading and/or false statements to Obama’s four.
In conclusion, what is it that Romney has going for him to explain why he is running almost equal to Obama in the polls?
Is it the fact that Romney and Ryan have exaggerated and used false statements 233% more than Obama and Biden?
Has it been proven that politicians that exaggerate and lie more always win?
You may be surprised to learn that it worked for Thomas Jefferson in 1800 when he ran for president against John Adams. The key difference between the two politicians was that Jefferson hired a hatchet man named James Callendar to do his smearing for him. Adams, on the other hand, considered himself above such tactics.
To Jefferson’s credit, Callendar proved incredibly effective, convincing many Americans that Adams desperately wanted to attack France. Although the claim was completely untrue, voters bought it, and Jefferson stole the election. Source: Founding Father’s dirty campaign-cnn.com
My final question: Will Romney steal the 2012 election based or malarkey, or will the lesser of two evils win?
Discover these posts if you have not seen them:
- First 2012 Presidential Debate
- Two days after the first 2012 Presidential Debate
- The Malarkey Score for the 2nd Presidential Debate
- Malarkey for the third Presidential Debate of 2012
His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.
And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.
To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”