This year's coverage of the 2012 GOP presidential nomination process has indicated to me that for all these pundits’ seeming affection for the excitement of an intense contest, they could really stand to learn a few things from sports. Here are a few suggestions:1) A win is a win is a win. On Super Tuesday, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney won six of the ten states holding contests. This was double the spoils of his nearest opponent, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, but most commentators, pundits, editorialists and bloggers were quick to downplay these victories. They glossed over or ignored Romney’s blowout wins in Massachusetts and Idaho, while posing such questions as “Why can’t Romney win big?”
Sports commentators like to talk about style points, but at the end of the day what all sports fans realize is that a win is a win and a loss is a loss. Period. You won’t earn a bid to the postseason by losing 70-90% of the games you play. Mitt knows this, and this is why he continues to win.
2) You can’t move the goalposts. Few things are more frustrating for sports fans than a referee that inserts himself into the game, distracting from the athletic competition on the field and drawing attention to his own weaknesses and biases. Transpose this analogy to the rhetoric we hear from pundits today. With each new primary and caucus the multitudinous talking heads clamor to be the first to raise the stakes for Romney. Michigan was a must-win. Mitt won it, but not by enough to impress the critics. So Ohio became the next must-win, which Mitt also won by a solid, yet narrow, margin. The critics were once again nonplused. Almost entirely absent in discussion of these contests was any mention that in winning each of these states, Romney had managed, in a matter of only a few days, to come from well behind the primary opponent Rick Santorum for the win. Like a skilled quarterback, Romney continues to move the ball and his team down the field, but each time he picks up ten yards, the pundits spot him short of the first down.
3) It’s about matchups. In pro football, my favorite team is the Washington Redskins. I’ve been a fan of the Skins since I was a kid growing up in the DC area in the 80s. The Skins have fallen from favor in recent years, struggling to win games in their Division, to say nothing of advancing to the playoffs. We finished with a 5-11 record this year. We did, however, manage to beat the Giants twice. That’s right, those Giants: the Super Bowl Champion New York Giants. Somehow both times that they played us this year the Giants lost, but they still managed to win the league title. That’s because in sports, as in politics, it’s about matchups.
How many times have commentators chided Romney for his inability to beat the guy that lost to Obama? How many times have they criticized him for failing to receive as many votes this time around in the same states that he won convincingly in 2008? What these so-called “analysts” ignore is that 2012 isn’t 2008, and Romney isn’t campaigning against John McCain. It’s a completely different time, and he’s competing in a completely different field. The matchups are different. The results will differ as well. It is possible to lose to the guy who lost to Obama, and still be the guy to beat Obama. Just ask the Giants.
4) Don’t hate the player, hate the game. Life isn’t fair. Sports isn’t either. Many international soccer leagues, notably England’s Premiership and Spain’s La Liga feature Goliaths like Manchester United and Real Madrid who do battle with a consortium of Davids whose real opponent each year is the threat of relegation to a lower league. New York’s Giants were recently valued as the 4th most valuable team in the NFL, behind the Cowboys, Redskins and Patriots. New York is also home to the 3rd most valuable sports club on the planet, Major League Baseball’s Yankees.
One of my favorite moments from watching the Super Tuesday returns last night was listening to the CNN commentators talk about how despite vastly outspending his opponents, in early returns it was clear that money was not buying victories for Mitt. Then, as the picture became more clear, these eggheads were forced to revise their earlier statements to account for the fact that yes, money had in fact been a positive factor for Romney in winning key states. Of course, then the line of criticism switched to the morality of it all, and the seeming ineffectuality of a candidate so dependent upon money to prop up his campaign. Sports fans often complain about the Goliaths in their sports, particularly if, like our own Utah Jazz, our team hails from a small market. But you truly cannot fault a candidate for playing by the rules, and maximizing those rules for their campaign’s benefit. Romney has proven to be light years ahead of his peers in terms of fund-raising and campaign organization. That is a strength for Republicans, not a weakness, and regardless of that fact, the reality is that he’s doing it all by the rules. Complain all you want about this, but don’t hate the player: hate the game.
* * *
This has been an exciting campaign, but the media’s non-stop attempts to downplay Romney’s achievements as front-runner do little more than damage those critics' own credibility. Give credit where credit is due. Romney is not just winning: he is dominating the field. Stop pretending otherwise.
