Relax. Romney is Going to Win

Relax. Romney is Going to Win August 24, 2012

Analysis method right in every election since 1980 says Romney will win…


To all those panicked by the fact that a vanishingly insignificant Catholic blogger is pointing out that Romney is signaling loud and clear that he means to take your vote and then leave you high and dry when it comes to abortion and repealing the HHS mandate: Chill.  Your guy is going to win.  It’s in the bag.

Because it’s in the bag, you should–if you really intend get involved in these elections because you care about religious liberty and human life–therefore direct every ounce of heat and pressure toward making sure the guy you are electing does the job you are electing him to do.  And you should do it now–while he is most vulnerable to such heat and pressure.  Exactly what you should not be doing now is directing all your heat and pressure toward getting people to shut up when they note that Romney is signaling loud and clear that he means to take your vote and then leave you high and dry when it comes to abortion and repealing the HHS mandate.

"Hey Mark! You got $250 mil laying around?"

The Feast of the Holy Child ..."
"I have had a question for quite a while, and since your comment is quite ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Mark, in charity, perhaps you should try. It's clear how frustrated you are. And it ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"The whole course of Christianity from the first ... is but one series of troubles ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Spot. On. Infinity.

  • Sam Wood

    I’m voting for Ron Paul if we can write someone in. I’m sick of this COMPLETE AND TOTAL WASTE OF TIME, MONEY, AIRWAVES, BYTES, FACEBOOKING, ARGUING, FRETTING AND APPEALING TO IDIOCY!! I’m going silent politically. I’m focusing on being a grace agent for transforming people, one person at a time. I don’t care about this stuff anymore.

    • ashley

      If you’re gonna vote for Ron Paul, just keep your stupid ass at home. It will either be Romney or O’Asshole. I am not a Romney lover, but I will be DAMNED before I will vote for an American destroying, Islam loving, ba$tard. YOU are part of the problem.
      Obama appreciates your vote, idiot.

    • Alex

      Just like Ashley, I am not a huge Romney fan either, but to write in someone else other than voting for Romney is basically a vote for Obama. Right now, Obama is the problem! We need to work an getting Obama out of there, and to do that vote Romney/ Ryan 2012! The future of our country is at stake!! You have to decide now whether you want to keep your freedoms, and live in a capitalist/ free market economy. Or do you want to live in a socialist society, losing your freedoms and living under an ideology that has NEVER succeeded. Just look at satellite pictures of North Korea (socialist/communist) and South Korea (capitalist) together at night. All of the poverty in North Korea, isn’t it sad??

  • I’m with you! Totally agree.

  • Whoops, that comment was in agreement with Sam Wood.

  • Frank Weathers
  • Mark

    Doubt it. Gary Johnson will probably spoil the election by taking a sizable portion of the Ron Paul constituency.

  • David

    If its true that you are a vanishingly insignificant blogger, then at least you are Our vanishingly insignificant blogger. Keep up the good work, Mark.

  • Jay

    Frank Weathers, thanks for that link. For those of us who don’t want to throw up our hands just yet, but want to take one more shot at working with the system to correct things — in other words, those of us who are considering voting for Romney — our actions will only be meaningful if we make our voices heard. Don’t be silent. Contact Romney and his staff. Tell them, with polite but firm language, that they will only get your vote if they will act with real principles. Be unequivocal about repealing the HHS mandate, for starters.

    Giving up accomplishes nothing. Trying to work with Romney may be a long shot, but it’s not impossible. God has done great things with people *much* worse than Romney.

  • Richard Johnson

    Well, it’s in the bag. Cardinal Dolan is giving the closing blessing at the GOP convention. It’s all over. Rest easy.

  • Rev Michael Ishida

    can you lay out a case for romney leaving us high and dry….. I’m not a huge romney fan but would like a case made for this….

  • Rev Michael Ishida

    on secondthought I saw the ewtn interview….. no need to lay out the case.

  • Observer

    I think MarkShea’s point is when Rom is prez, you will get the same results he had when he was a gov running against a Majority Dem state legislation. Sure, he does practice a pro-l.i.f.e habit and cares for his family (and wouldn’t interfere with American’s caring for their own.) However, he has many obstacles which he will be faced and may not be able to get all the major relig. and family matters taken careof right away. More so, he may bend to the other side to keep some cooperation.

    Also, I’ve read the transcripts of his interview with Raymond and found Rom’s main concern is economic security and securing tax-payers social security so they can have a decent living upon retirement. So, yeah, Rom’s aims are not entirely for relig. liberty and family.

    Thus, the victory will go to Rom not because the Dems have fought a hard and long battle for the genuine concern for civ-rights and liberties (which includes protecting people from the faulty man-dates), but rather because their own prez has casted the election more favorably towards his opponent.

  • obpoet

    Have you visualized the repeal of abortion? What does it look like? How does it happen? Hint: it’s not the President.

    • Rosemarie


      True. The best a POTUS can do for the pro-life movement is 1) issue executive orders defunding and limiting abortion in certain circumstances, and 2) choose Supreme Court justices that will hopefully vote the right way (though you never really know how those SCOTUS types will vote until they’re in). If Romney does that then I’ll basically be pleased since I don’t expect any politician or political party to end abortion. Doesn’t work that way.

      So I don’t understand this whole “I won’t vote for a candidate unless he is 110% pro-life and genuinely promises to single-handedly end all abortion after taking office” argument. The whole checks-and-balances system alone limits even the most pro-life POTUS’s ability to do that. The best we can hope for is a POTUS who will tend to hinder abortion rather than avidly fostering and defending it, then get out of the way so that pro-lifers can work to change the culture.

  • Mary

    Question: I’ve never been on this site before. Are you mostly independents or republicans. I’m a democrat & of course I’ll be voting for Obama. I just wondered. Thanks.

    • Rachel K

      Mary, commenters here run mostly conservative (especially culturally) but not necessarily Republican–we’ve got diehard Republicans, reluctant Republicans, libertarians, people who are culturally conservative but fiscally liberal and don’t feel at home in either party, etc. Not many Obama voters, though–the people who aren’t voting for Romney are mostly voting for libertarian-leaning third party candidates like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. Hope this helps. 🙂

  • Mary

    And if you are independents, I urge you to make your vote count and vote for Obama. Tx.

    • No fear, Mary. Turns out a vote for one candidate is a vote for every candidate!

    • Bill

      and I am saying (which is not at all an endorsement for Romney)

      awww, hell no!

    • Jared

      Hahahahahaha, no.

    • ashley

      NOT ON YOUR LIFE, MARY. Obama HATES America, its people, and ESPECIALLY Christians. Do some research — he is a MUSLIM, my dear. He has already appointed 3 people into his administration who are members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Look it up on and Google. It’s all there. An ex-CIA operative talks ALL about it. If you are Catholic and vote for Obama, you are actually voting for someone who HATES YOU! Obama is a DISGRACE and NEEDS TO GO!

      • Alex

        I AGREE with you Ashley

  • Well, it is nice to be fairly certain that Obama is going to get his you-know-what kicked, even if that means the nearly identical empty suit/rombot is going to win. I also don’t feel any regret voting third party now.

  • Peggy Hagen

    The then/now pictures are quite the commentary on what four years has done to Obama.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      Now, let’s be fair. Four years in the White House has done that to pretty much every president. Look at before and afters of Bush and Clinton. Being the president it taxing (pun both intended and not).

  • Joannie

    This election season is NOT like past election seasons so this thing about the 1980 pattern means very little this time around and I am not going to buy it. Why? Because we know that there has been massive election Fraud since the start of the Campaign. Secondly like I have pointed out Ron Paul is still a factor in this election year even though he is not being talked about and the reason he won 5 states so his name is going to be up for nomination at the convention, and lastly his 250 or so delegates are going to demand that they vote for who they want not the RNC who has been breaking their own rules in the last several weeks. Both parties could care less about the people and what they want and I can’t support someone who is trying to buy his way into the Presidency. Sorry. Ron Paul is being asked by his supporters to run as an Independent rather than a Republican

  • I think we should start a movement to pray and pressure Paul Ryan to insist on no exceptions for rape and incest, and if Romney doesn’t heed him, to drop out of the race. He could then get together with Ron Paul, have a Ryan/Paul third-party ticket or write-in campaign.

    Now, there’s not a lot of chance he would win. However, it would throw an incredible monkey wrench into Romney’s plans, and galvanize the pro-life movement. Who knows? In four years maybe a viable third party could emerge, build around a true attempt to implement principles of subsidiarity.

    • Irenist

      Starting a third party based on the principles of respect for life, subsidiarity, (and solidarity, if I may add that) is a fine idea. So is attempting to move the G.O.P. further in that direction. (I’d say it’s by far the more promising of the two parties right now for such a project.)

      But successful third parties (and movements to reclaim one of the two major parties for some constituency) start at the grass roots and build incrementally toward the marquee federal elections. Don’t start with the Presidency, start with your local school board. Consider running yourself, Rae: you sound like you have great priorities.

    • Jared

      Question about that. Exceptions for “rape and incest”….how often does non-rape incest…? Y’know what, I probably don’t even want to know.

  • Irenist

    If the political scientists’ model is new, then they haven’t really successfully “predicted” anything yet in the colloquial sense. What they’ve done, I suspect (without, admittedly, having read their paper) is use an evolutionary algorithm to cull software encoded with predictive models until one that correctly predicted the existing 1980-2008 dataset emerged. The ubiquitous pitfall of such algorithmic “postdiction” is overfitting the data points. (To illustrate how this can happen: It’s probably the case that some peculiar variable–price fluctuations of head cheese in Ohio, say–correctly predicts each election in the 1980-2008 just by chance correlation.) Until the Coloradans’ model has successfully “predicted” an election or two in advance, I’d be more inclined to stick with Nate Silver, who is quite aware of the overfitting problem and tends to calibrate using only broader economic measures. He correctly called 49 of 50 states in advance in 2008 (he incorrectly called Indiana for McCain). Right now, he has Obama ahead. Maybe the Coloradans’ model will turn out to be better, but “predicting” past elections is not a test of it. The political science journal literature is littered with the graves of such models, all overfitted to “predict” past election data, all failures in their first actual predictions.

    None of this, btw, vitiates Mark’s main point: if pro-lifers are to pressure Romney, or civil libertarians and anti-poverty advocates are to pressure Obama, the election is the point of maximum leverage, after which all these constituency become taken for granted stepchildren of their coalitions. Even if your preferred POTUS isn’t a sure thing, now is the last best opportunity for four years to make the party elite *listen.*

    • Ha! I thought the very same thing.

      Also, I seriously doubt Romney is going to win.

  • Kim

    It’s been reported that several of Mr. Romney’s grandchildren were born via the IVF Method. The last time I checked, this method goes against Church teaching. How are Catholics suppose to handle this one? I know Mr. Romney isn’t a Catholic but are we to have two sets of standards: One for Catholics and one for Non-Catholics?

    • Richard Johnson

      More immediately, are we to have two standards for Catholic politicians: one when they run for President/Vice President, and one for when they serve in the legislative branch?

      “When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death.”

      Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life 2002), no. 4

      It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. {emphasis added}

      Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion, November 18, 1974, nos. 19-22

    • Andy, Bad Person

      It’s been reported that several of Mr. Romney’s grandchildren were born via the IVF Method.

      Um, is Mr. Romney morally responsible for the actions of his children?

      • Kim

        No, he’s not responsible for their choices and it appears that he doesn’t have a problem with it. But The Church does and feels it’s evil, no matter how well-intentioned the couples who undergo it are. I heard today that both Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney have been asked to clarify their positions regarding IVF and at the time of the broadcast, neither had responded. So again, how are Catholics suppose to respond to the Romney/Ryan ticket regarding this matter? Do we “cherry pick” the issues, e.g. as long as they’re against abortion, we’ll vote for them? What about IVF and artificial contraception?

        • Thomas R

          I don’t know that Catholics precisely want IVF banned. I mean maybe, as it often involves abortion of “excess embryos”, but I’m pretty certain being Catholic doesn’t mean you want every sin to be a crime. I think we’re also aware members of other religions do things we deem wrong, (use condoms, remarry after divorce, eat meat on Lenten Fridays, etc) but have to be allowed that to avoid a greater evil.

          Romney is not Catholic so I’d be surprised if his own lifestyle entirely comports to Catholic teaching. Ron Paul’s likely doesn’t either.

          • S. Murphy

            I wonder how many average- Joe and Mary Catholics know the Church opposes IVF? I mean, there are those who use NFP or just welcome any kids the Lord sends, and understand *Humanae Vitae;* but do those who just show up once in a while even know?
            In any case, it doesn’t seem like it’s been part of public discourse at all – I see it in the Catholic blogosphere and hear puff-pieces about 45- year-old brilliant professional women having their first child with eggs they stashed in a freezer 15 years ago; but I don’t hear any public controversy. Do we need to persuade more people of the wrongness of ESCR – of embryo exploitation in general- before making the case that IVF is bad because it makes extra embryos to be frozen, implanted and aborted, etc? I think the general public would react to some Catholic pol, bishop, or whoever saying “IVF is WRONG!” as follows: “huh? What? Why would you want to tell people they can’t have kids? That’s so mean. I thought you wanted everybody to have kids! The Church must really, like, totally be trying to control people’s lives, especially women’s.”

    • Mark Shea

      Why should he be held responsible for what his kids do?

  • ChrisB

    I wouldn’t count the professors’ model working in 2012. For one thing, American politics is polarized around race, so having a black candidate throws a spanner in the works.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      I don’t think race will play nearly as much of a factor this time around. The black vote has gone overwhelmingly Democrat for much longer than Obama has been around, and whites will likely vote more along party lines than racial ones this time. You can get away with playing the race card only once.

  • Thomas R

    Nah, I still think it’s pretty unlikely Romney will win. At the very least it’s nowhere near “in the bag.” The times I’ve checked Real Clear Politics and Obama’s still doing better.

    I could see how historical norms would indicate Obama will lose. When a President starts with an unemployment rate of 8% it pretty much always goes down in his first term. (Although it seems like 1984 had only marginally better unemployment than 1980) In the case of Obama it hasn’t so that should sink him. Then there’s the deficit, etc. But elections aren’t just calculations of previous factors.

    People still list Obama as more likable than Romney. Indeed on most issues people like Obama better than Romney. The two exceptions are huge ones, economy and the deficit, but I don’t think it’s enough seeing as people just don’t like Romney. In addition the Republican “brand” has not seen much improvement since 2008. It’s closer to the Democrats than it was due to Democratic popularity decline. So there’s forces pushing people away from Obama, but I think you need more of a pull to Romney to win. I don’t think that’s likely.

  • Kurt

    You can make a strong case for a Romney win based on economic factors and historic voting behavior. Of course, from a Catholic pastoral standpoint, that doesn’t mean alot (well, it means who the leader of the country is, which is significant). Where are the Catholic faithful? Not at all with Romney. I’m talking pastorally and I’m talking about the faithful. All but two public polls have surveyed likely voters; as they should as good stewards of the monies of those paying for the polls. These are commissioned by politicans and journalists to look at the election.

    But add in those not likely to vote, not registered, or not eligible (which two polls have done just for giggles) and Catholics prefer Obama by 2:1. Politically, this doesn’t matter because it includes non-voters. and unlikely voters. But it says something about the laity in this country.

    It is also why any parished based voter registration drive helps Obama.

  • ashley