“They” say Romney is grasping at straws; another “they” says Obama spends far too much time in some states to indicate those electoral votes are safely tucked away. I have no idea; I know what I want to believe. And it isn’t my impression people are flocking to become Democrats.
I remember 1972, though, and despite the impending landslide few candidates acted with greater insecurity. (1960 might – understandably – have prompted paranoia.) Just saying.
On the other hand, of course, does anything from the economic news to the president’s speech at the UN & handling of Benghazi to such projects as the “Obamaphone” to his energy policies to his attitude toward small business . . . indicate that a sane person would vote for this man? Perhaps I’ve built a Pauline Kael world (but a sane one) about me.
And Romney, well, Romney’s solidity attracts; he may seem stiff but he does seem real. And what he’s done is real. He doesn’t see himself as “eye candy” – he wouldn’t; he’s husband and father, boss and worker. His instincts about business and people seem good – he chose Ryan; Obama chose Biden. Doesn’t that, in a sense, sum up the difference? One acts (and explains well) and the other speaks (and not too coherently). Obama molded ACORN, Romney molded the Olympics and led it to solvency.
(Okay, another rant. Perhaps I should stop – these don’t add to the dialogue & attract trolls, but it does help my blood pressure.)