THE STRONGEST "ELEPHANT"

Meet Mitt Romney … 

Politics is in his blood, his father was governor of Michigan and a candidate for US president. The first Mormon candidate in US history, Romney was a missionary in France in the 1960s and later became a pastor in his church. Before becoming governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney amassed a huge fortune in the stock market.

On the one hand, his success in business and finances plays into his hands, as he shows that he has extensive experience in the field of economy and can lead America's ailing economy out of the crisis. For this reason, Romney can win over the voters who have lost their jobs, among whom Obama is not very popular. But, on the other hand, it is also important that he represents financial circles, which a significant part of the Americans believe are the main culprit of the economic crisis. Many feel rather uncomfortable, suggesting that a rich man like Romney may have little understanding of the livelihoods of ordinary Americans.

Particularly important is his affiliation to the Mormon church, which is traditionally considered to be an alienated sect. Considering the fact that the last election was won by a candidate of African descent for the first time in US history, this election may also be one won by a Mormon.

Mitt Romney is not as conservative as other former "elephant" candidates. He is considered a moderate conservative and Republican. He was governor of a state that is traditionally considered to be the stronghold of the Democrats. Today he opposes many of his own ideas, such as healthcare reform in Massachusetts, which lay the basis for the one that President Obama is trying to implement across the United States.

For conservative Republicans he is too liberal, and for liberals he is too conservative. But despite this, the reluctance to see Obama in the Oval Office for a second consecutive term has forced the Republicans to nominate a single candidate in the person of Romney, because for them even the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat.

Economy is most important 

According to experts, the most important and defining factor that may influence the outcome of the US presidential election is the poor state of the economy and the proposals and platforms of candidates for its improvement.

It is no secret that the responsibility for economic difficulties is always placed on the incumbent authorities. Since it is Barack Obama who is president today, the brunt of the crisis lies on his shoulders. In this regard, the upcoming election is seen as a kind of a referendum on the performance of the 44th president. And Obama's results are not particularly impressive even considering his routine arguments about the "legacy" inherited from George W. Bush. On top of that, economic reform is also hampered by the difficulties associated with the passage of his draft laws through Congress. According to Democrats, while economic measures should also be political, the Republicans are trying to prevent further tax increases and public spending.

Thus, we can say that Obama's biggest headache is the economy. American history shows that none of the former presidents were reelected during an economic recession. A striking example is the 1992 election when it was due to the economic problems that Bush the elder lost the election to Bill Clinton.

According to PBS TV surveys, 55 per cent of the Americans are dissatisfied with the current economic situation and the way Obama is handling it.

At the same time, since 1948 no US president except for Ronald Reagan has managed to retain his post with a level of unemployment higher than 7.2 per cent. A recent report by the US Department of Labor says that unemployment has risen from 8.1 to 8.2 per cent. Given the regular pattern described above, Obama's chances for re-election are quite slim. It will be the fluctuations in the unemployment rate that will be the determining factor.

Another problem for the American economy is the country's public debt. According to a forecast of the US Congressional Budget Office, if the government continues to pursue the current tax policies and spending of budget funds, the national debt may reach 200 per cent of the GDP in the next 25 years. For comparison, Greece, a country the debt crisis may force out of the euro zone, predicts external debt at 160 per cent of the GDP this year. But Congressional Budget Office figures did not help resolve the differences between the Democrats and Republicans on the issues of taxation, economic development, spending cuts and other aspects of the financial market. If Obama and his party consider preservation of tax cuts a short-sighted and irresponsible step, Romney argues the opposite: lower tax rates can be saved if the Congress cuts the cost of some government projects such as healthcare program for the elderly and low-income Americans.

In this respect Obama is behaving like a European socialist who believes in the key role of the state in the economy and considers it the principal regulator in addressing social inequality. He is ready to continue to pursue the policy of eliminating social inequalities, in contrast to most previous party colleagues. Romney is still positioning himself as a traditional supporter of free markets. He prefers to cut spending and not to raise taxes and also focuses on his entrepreneurial experience when he had his foundation and was able to achieve good results. According to him, this is what differs him from the incumbent president. Obama is a man who knows how to regulate the economy, while Romney knows how to achieve real economic growth that would serve the interests of all.

It would be a mistake to think that domestic policy issues are a priority in the US presidential election. In the present context, the US economy and the welfare of its population are directly proportional to the situation in the global economy. For example, if Greece decides to withdraw from the EU and the economic crisis in Europe gets out of control, it will affect the entire world economy, especially the USA. In other words, even the post-election situation and the position of Greece may affect the outcome of the US election. On the other hand, which seems to be diametrically opposite, the situation in the Middle East is directly linked to energy prices and also has influence on the election. In this context it is important to analyze the foreign political stance of both Romney and his team.

The king is made by his entourage! 

Mitt Romney's entourage is basically a group of neoconservatives who were formerly part of George W. Bush's team. Mitt Romney is at the center of a renaissance of neoconservatives who have left a vivid imprint on American history and now want to leave an even more striking mark. They are responsible for the war in Iraq which, according to unofficial sources, has killed half a million Iraqis. So even if Romney is not a radical conservative and is not particularly aggressive, the same cannot be said about his surroundings.

Romney's chief adviser on foreign policy is Robert Kagan, one of the main ideologists of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now in Iran. In his statements he describes Russia and China as the main adversaries of the United States. Robert Kagan's wife, Victoria Nuland, is the official representative of the US Department of State. Romney's team of advisors also includes Leon Aron, a renowned expert on Russia, Condoleezza Rice and other "hawks".

From the American political elite, Romney was supported by Rand Paul, the son of one of his main rivals in the primaries Congressman Ron Paul. Analysts believe this is the result of "tacit collusion between Paul and Romney" and predict the nomination of Ron Paul or Rand as vice-president in the event of Romney's victory.

From the financial community Romney could win the support of mainly billionaire Donald Trump who himself is going to start an anti-Obama campaign, as well as many major manufacturers who traditionally support the Republicans.

In addition, in terms of individual donations Romney has overtaken Obama. In May, his campaign headquarters raised about $77 million versus $60 million collected by Obama's team.

Not content with this, in order to attract funds for their campaigns, both candidates have resorted to extreme measures. The Russian service of the "Voice of America" has recently announced the list of services that both President Obama and his opponent Romney can provide. For example, by writing a check in the amount of $1,250 to $35,800, one can hear the President in a gala concert in Los Angeles, shake hands and be photographed with Obama and talk about politics at a private "roundtable". Mitt Romney is offering sponsors the opportunity to hear his speech live, presence at a public dinner, a souvenir photo and a personal dinner - all depending on the amount of donations from $2,500 to $50,000.

Romney's foreign political course

Romney has repeatedly stated that the concept of his foreign policy would resemble that of Reagan's, i.e. "peace through strength". For Romney, a "strong America is the best deterrent to war that has ever been invented in human history".

He believes that if "radical Islamic jihadists" want "to destroy freedom-loving nations", it is necessary to strengthen the intelligence and the US Army by supplementing their ranks with hundreds of thousands of new recruits.

Under Romney, the US budget for foreign aid would be significantly reduced. As he himself once said, "I will not send money to any country that can take care of itself. And there will be no support for countries that oppose the interests of America."

For Mitt Romney, Barack Obama's policy on Iran is nothing but a "failure". Romney's statements on US policies with respect to Iran almost always refer to a military option.

Mitt Romney is also in favor of increasing support for the dissidents and opposition to the Iranian authorities and the tightening of sanctions against Tehran.

But if these measures prove futile, Romney says it is necessary to begin military operations to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Romney's advisor Richard Williamson, confirming the threat against Iran, has said that if Romney wins he will arm Syrian rebels and pay a visit to Israel.

Criticizing the Obama Administration's weakening support for the Israeli government, Romney says he is a supporter of aid to Tel Aviv which he believes is the main US ally in the world.

The main point of Romney's position on Afghanistan is criticism of President Obama's approval of the date for US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014, as this will simply allow the enemy to wait for the time to start an offensive. But Romney himself does not have a clear and precise plan on Afghanistan.

Much more clear is his views on the future of Russian-American relations in the event of his victory in the presidential election. After the microphone scandal in Seoul, where Obama promised to Medvedev some flexibility on missile defense, Romney said in a CNN interview,

"Russia is certainly America's first geopolitical adversary. They have always supported the worst in the world." Despite his team's attempts to mitigate the situation, it is clear that his position is different from Obama's, whose name is associated with the "reset" in US-Russian relations. Romney suggests that instead of the "reset", the Obama Administration should follow a strategy aimed at "preventing the aggressive and expansive behavior". According to experts, Obama's positions in foreign affairs are still stronger.

By keeping his promise to withdraw troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 and setting the date for a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, Obama took a more pragmatic and balanced stance. Staying away from a direct military intervention in other countries and showing a more flexible and restrained attitude towards Syria and Iran, Obama succeeded in stopping coffins with the bodies of American soldiers coming into the country, which is of great importance to society. But the changing situation and the balance of power in the presidential campaign may lead to more drastic measures to raise the popularity rating.

A distinctive feature of the current presidential race is not only the fact that it will go down in history as the most expensive campaign, but also how multiple factors both within the country and abroad can influence its outcome.