In the middle of John Heilemann entertaining feature on the 2012 election, this paragraph stood out:
“Romney really, actually thinks that if you just take care of the folks at the top, it’ll trickle down to everybody else,” says another Obama operative. “But no one believes that stuff—no one! And once you puncture that, there’s nothing left. He’s not likable. He’s not trustworthy. He’s not on your side. You live in Pittsburgh and you’ve got dirt under your fingernails, who do you want to have a beer with? It ain’t fucking Mitt Romney. You’re like, ‘Shit, I’d rather have a beer with the black guy than him!’ ”
I've always been interested in how this question- which guy would you rather have a beer with?- has loomed so large over recent presidential elections. You could make a case that the winner of the last five elections- dating back to Bill Clinton's victory in 1992- would have won the proverbial "beer election", too. The metaphor reached its peak in 2000 during George W. Bush's campaign against Al Gore. It wasn't uncommon then to hear people on television say a variation of the following:
"Yeah, Gore might be smarter, the better politician, and probably even the better leader- but you wouldn't want to have a beer with him".
On the face of it, this concept is absurd: very few people get to actually drink beer with the president of the United States, so why would it matter who would be more up to the task? The answer is that people tend to drink beer with people they like and can relate to, and people correspondingly prefer a president with those qualities, too. In 2000, even Al Gore's voters found him stiff and unappealing; something of a moralizing policy wonk. He had none of Bush's easy charm on the campaign trail. Given how close that election turned out to be, the Bush "beer factor" (ironic considering that Bush himself is a teetotaler) may have played a decisive role.
Ditto 2004, when John Kerry came across to voters as being something of a haughty, wind-surfing aristocrat while Bush (the actual aristocrat) slipped comfortably into the role of the man of the people.
Now let's turn to 2012, when the beer-summit holdin' President Obama is facing up against Mormon Mitt Romney. As the afore-referenced article says, the election promises to be a close one. Polls show a dead heat, and Romney seems to be gaining momentum. Unless the economy suddenly and conspicuously begins to pick up or collapses Greece-style, it's difficult to see either candidate winning in a landslide.
The beer election, though, won't be close. Has there been a candidate in memory you'd less want to drink beer with than Mitt Romney? Never mind the fact that Romney doesn't drink. His social awkwardness alone would turn away even the most ardent Nick Carraway among us. The Republican primary wasn't exactly loaded with heavy personalities: Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul wouldn't exactly comprise a knee-slapping Thursday night poker group. But each of them would probably win the beer election over someone as unlikable as Romney.
So does Romney's ascent mean that the beer election is finally meaningless? For the sake of the country, it's probably best that the less affable candidate wins some of the time. But in 2012 I sincerely hope the results in the actual election mirror those in the beer election to a tee.
