Your editorial “‘Potential’ to Probable’” on Wednesday concluded that Mitt Romney will be the probable winner of the Nov. 6 election. I respectfully disagree. First of all, since Woodrow Wilson presidents have tended to be re-elected except under unusual situations.
Your argument that since Romney passed the “plausibility” test, he will be elected implies you view this election as parallel to 1980. In that election Carter had double-digit inflation and interest rates, not to mention Iran hostages and a highly publicized failed rescue attempt. For 2012 the inflation rate is 3.2 percent and interest rates are under 3 percent. Also, no embassy employees are being held hostage and our nemesis, Osama Bin Laden, is dead. Also, unemployment rates have been declining since an Obama budget had an opportunity to affect them.
Therefore, Romney had to do more than appear plausible. He had to appear as someone who could do better. In the debate, since he agreed with all of the president’s foreign policies, he did not achieve that goal on the foreign policy front.
On the economy, he provides a plan that creates an additional $7 trillion deficit over 10 years with no way of paying it or for paying off the existing deficit. This is not a creditable alternative. Unless something changes, Obama will win a second term.