What a difference a week and the intervention of mother nature can make! Even after the second and third debates, both of which he dominated, the third quite convincingly, Obama was still unable to stem the “Romney-surge” that developed menacingly against him in early Oct after he had seemed to sleepwalk through the First US Presidential Debate. Even though he put his campaign officially “on hold”, the God-given opportunity for Obama to simply do his daytime job acting Presidential allowed him national visibility beyond compare, “Sandy” hamstrung Romney from equivalent primetime campaigning for three crucial days when he badly needed to maintain his momentum. Hurricane “Sandy” did considerable material damage in many of the States it made landfall, politically it slowed down the Romney tide. More importantly, during times of crisis Americans always unite behind their President.
“Sandy” underscored two issues evoking Romney cynicism during the campaign, viz (1) a comprehensive “climate change” policy and (2) the downgrading the role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (remarks made to CNN’s John King in June 2011) to the States. Former Governor of New Jersey Christine Whitman, Head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the Bush Presidency, criticized her own Republican Administration for its studied inaction, blaming the disaster wreaked by “Sandy” on the failure to address climate change. It did not hurt that one of his most vociferous and frequent critics, Republican Gov Christie of New Jersey praised Obama’s response to the disaster repeatedly, what price the “photo-ops” touring the disaster areas as President? Politically neutral New York Mayor and successful businessman Michael Bloomberg also came out with an Obama endorsement during this crucial period. The only thing really going for him till “Hurricane Sandy” came along was indefatigable former President Bill Clinton, a popular crowd puller, who made himself hoarse (“I gave my voice for the President”) campaigning in some of the critical battleground States for the President sequestered in the White House dealing with Hurricane “Sandy” and its after effects. If Obama wins, he owes William Jefferson Clinton big time.
Most polls call the race too close to call, Republican leaning “Rasmussen” says it is 51%-46% for Romney, Democrat-leaning Nate Silver (with a track record of calling it right) make it a “landslide” Obama 51% – Romney 46%. The national average ties it at 48% each. Under the US winner take-all electoral system, anyone winning a particular State takes all the electoral votes. With 538 electoral votes up for grab, whoever gets 270 votes in the Electoral College wins. Possibility that Romney emulates Al Gore winning the popular vote against Bush in 2000 but losing in the Presidential elections? Obama has 247 electoral votes locked up against Romney’s 190, 101 votes still “afloat” in the “battleground States”. Obama’s conceivably safe States are (electoral votes in brackets) California (55) Connecticut (7) Delaware (3) Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4) Maryland (10) Massachusetts (11), Michigan (16) Minnesota (10), New Jersey (14) New Mexico (5) New York (29), Oregon (7) Pennsylvania (20), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3) Washington (12), Wash DC (3), Wisconsin (10), 20 States for a total of 247. Romney’s safe States are Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Georgia (16), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Missouri (10), Montana (3), Nebraska (4), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3) Tennessee (11), Texas (38), Utah (6), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3), 23 States for a total of 190. Among the “battleground States” Romney will likely win Colorado (9), Florida (29), North Carolina (15) and Virginia (13), giving him 27 States for a total of 256 electoral votes. Ohio, presently leaning Obama’s way, remains in contention, Iowa (6) could go either way. If Romney wins in Wisconsin (hoping VP candidate Ryan will deliver as a favourite son), it makes him almost equal in electoral votes. Such a tight equation requires only one or two States to go for Romney to conceivably cross the 270 electoral votes threshold.
The White House does carry a lot of meaning for Pakistan, the changeover from Bush to Obama certainly giving us a great deal of hope. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton tried her level best to be even-handed, after the death of Richard Holbrooke, not an Obama favourite, this became a downhill battle. Some very “loyal” Pakistanis in critical State appointments helped in targetting the Pakistan Armed Forces for sustained US bashing, the ISI being everyone’s favourite whipping-boy, almost labelled officially as an out-of-control “rogue” organization. Whenever any of the Coalition partners runs into a problem in Afghanistan, Pakistan is blamed straightway, failure to go after the “Haqqani” network in North Waziristan shown up as example of our “perfidy”. While giving protection and support for the scoundrel Maulana Fazlullah, who targetted teenage Malala, Hamid Karzai sheds crocodile tears, this consummate hypocrite is the major reason why the US has no solution in Afghanistan. Any bets how soon Karzai heads for the several villas he and his family own in Palm Island Dubai after (or even before) the US and NATO troops leave? This continuous propaganda labels Pakistan a dubious ally, moreover “drone strikes” have increased manifold. While militants certainly need to be targetted (and being more precise than air strikes drones have certainly taken out a large number), the latitude given to the CIA is a matter of legal concern in international circles as a criminal act, their “kill” targets invariably include a disproportionate number of innocents as collateral damage, mostly older people, women and children. While in KPK Province itself, the resentment is boiling over, it has now force-multiplied substantially within the rest of Pakistan.
Obama carried the imagination of Pakistanis’ in 2008, and our hopes soared that we would be treated even-handedly as the nation that is suffering the most because of the US “war on terrorism”. Alongwith the many aspirations of the American people harboured in Obama, this for Pakistanis was also not to be. Democrats being far less inclined towards Pakistan than Republicans, we harboured overblown false perceptions about Obama. The fact remains that he did not have the courage to buck the real-politick that dictates US policy in contrast to their core principles. During the third US Presidential debate, criticising Obama’s handling Romney minced no words in clearly spelling out understanding and caution in dealing with Pakistan, a country he called a US friend and an ally.
In contrast to 2008 Pakistanis are ambivalent about Obama, a Romney Presidency will serve Pakistani’s interests far better. Will Iowa and Wisconsin be the surprises, or will Pennsylvania (or even New Hampshire) go Republican? The jury is out whether Obama could still squeak through on the electoral votes.
Obama inherited a horrendous economic situation and a military one because the Iraq War, and did manage to contain further damage. The focus on Afghanistan failed to bring the geo-political clarity required for the region. He promised change but become a “status quo” President. Therefore I will go with my good friend Frank Neuman who wants a Romney Presidency get a chance to rescue the US from the across-the-board mess it is presently mired in.
