The Republican Party, like all parties out of power, sought to portray the 2012 election as a referendum on the performance of the President. The President's approval ratings are now positive because the economy, on average over the last 3 months, has been creating 250,000 jobs every month. Nevertheless, it favors the person representing the party out of power to represent an election as a referendum upon the incumbent. This is because the weaknesses of the other candidate, the one representing the party out of power, are not relevant if it is simply a referendum on the incumbent. It is the same reason why an incumbent typically trails the generic candidate of the other party. That person is the Republican or Democratic Jesus, impeccable, without sin or flaw. And the incumbent has a record to run on. Undoubtedly, it cannot be a perfect record since the incumbent is human.
Thus, this is the best way to frame an election: As a referendum upon the performance of the incumbent. And tonight, in his election speech, Mitt Romney stated, "Elections are about choices." . He just brought in his own record into the mix. He tonight just rejected the referendum frame.
This election is about choices: the choice of President Barack Obama, who fights for and represents the 99 %, or the Mitt Romney, Mr. 1 % whose only core belief is that he deserves to be President.
Good job, Mitt !
Lolz ! What a bad candidate !
7:30 PM PT: If Romney gets to 1144 delegates and wins the nomination, then if / when he tries to tack back toward the center, won't he lose the skeptical members of the party base that wanted somebody else, somebody with a more consistently conservative record ? And in the age of you tube and digital media, he won't be allowed to move to the center, in any event.
What would, for example, the members at Red State say if Mitt said that he would keep Medicare as it is instead of turning it into a voucher program ? Would there not be an exodus of Republicans ? Would it not depress turn out among them ?