1996 Redux
We’re trying to make this 1980, when a hapless president was ousted by a popular Republican. They’re trying to make this 1996, when a popular Democrat was reelected over a hapless Republican.
Turning this into 1980 means making a case to the great center of the American electorate that government is too big (and getting bigger) and that the current president is a incapable of getting the country on the right track. Some of us are more hopeful than others about the prospects of this.
Turning this election into 1996, though, means following the Clinton strategy of a dozen or so mini-initiatives that appeal to the center. In the months leading up to the election, Clinton was whirlwind of silly-sounding – though effective – announcements: he put more cops on the street, he pushed school uniforms, that sort of thing.
It worked for him. And now Obama’s trying it on for size. From Politico:
Stepping firmly onto Republican turf, President Barack Obama announced Friday that he will ask Congress for the power to merge agencies to streamline government and improve efficiency.
The president’s initiative treads firmly on the Republican orthodoxy of reducing the size and scope of government and cutting waste. It’s not the first time that the White House has tailored a proposal that put the GOP on the defensive — the payroll tax cut fight forced Republicans lawmakers to choose whether to support the president or a tax increase.
First up on Obama’s list: the merger of the Commerce Department, the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade representative and other independent business agencies into a new, unnamed Cabinet agency to create a more efficient experience for businesses.
Yes, I realize this is really just a call for another cabinet post. But I also think it’s the overture to a winter and spring of Obama’s 1996-style makeover as a moderate, pro-business president.
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: 1996 Redux
The King Prawn
KayBee
FWIW, in today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank is trying on the argument that it is 2000 and Romney is playing Al Gore, at least personality-wise. Wish I could link to the article, but I can't--in spite of Claire's recent tutorial (which I also can't link to). · Jan 15 at 3:45pm
Done. · Jan 15 at 3:52pm
Thanks, King Prawn!
Aug '11
Re: 1996 Redux
I'm more concerned that some signs of recovery (desperately needed, and I'll never root against that) and an updraft from the media will make this a partial redux of 1984, when a sitting but not-exactly-popular president (Reagan's approval was in the 43-45% range, I believe) got a boost from better economic numbers and a hapless opponent. This economic turnaround is well behind 1983's because it's based on gridlock not policy, but it still makes me wonder if that's why so many of the stars the GOP faithful wanted to get into the race avoided doing so.
Aug '10
Re: 1996 Redux
In a note to a fellow Rico member yesterday, I said that the Republican Party is "on the Dole" train for this one, and now you confirm that.
The double entendre is worsened by the train metaphor, remembering that Nixon once said of Dole's appeal: "he couldn't sell cold beer on a troop train."
So picture Mitt with his case of beer slung around his neck, schlepping down the aisle, nope...it doesn't materialize , does it ?
uh oh.
Aug '10
Re: 1996 Redux
That was part of Stephen Harper's winning strategy in Canuckistan.
Voters had become tired of politicians with grand strategies to save the country, and platforms with dozens of promises to turn the land into a Utopia.
As such, the Conservatives put out a platform with "Five Priorities". Campaign workers were indoctrinated to repeat, zombie-like, "Five Priorities, Five Priorities, Five Priorities".
It worked. People recognized that the Tories were not trying to be all things to all people, that the Tories had a specific plan for what they wanted to do in power, and that it's easier to hold a government to account for a small number of promises than for a laundry list of promises.
Aug '10
Re: 1996 Redux
Back before the Canadian Alliance and the PC Party merged to become the Conservative Party of Canada, journalists liked to complain that the right-wing parties always took so long to release their platforms.
The reason they took so long was because the Liberals under Jean Chretien had an annoying habit of stealing all their best ideas.
Feb '11
Re: 1996 Redux
" But I also think it’s the overture to a winter and spring of Obama’s 1996-style makeover as a moderate, pro-business president."
Good point, it depends upon whether we let him get away with it. If our candidate does like McCain and Dole, refusing to critique a terrible record then it'll work. I think that this will be less effective for Obama than it was for Clinton for four reasons: one, Obama is brittle and inflexible, he only knows one direction in campaigning, full steam straight ahead; two, Hillary Care had just gone down to defeat and was safe and buried; three, compared to Obama, Clinton was more responsible about spending and more pro-business; and four, Dole was a Senator with no management experience and it showed with his campaign.
Edited on January 16, 2012 at 8:01pmApr '11
Re: 1996 Redux
At this point in the re-election campaign, Reagan's approval rating was already in the mid-high 50's, about ten points higher than Obama's.
Aug '11
Re: 1996 Redux
wmartin
At this point in the re-election campaign, Reagan's approval rating was already in the mid-high 50's, about ten points higher than Obama's. · Jan 16 at 12:35pm
And that's where my hope lies, although I do wonder whether the news/opinion-poll cycle moves more quickly now than it did back then.
Apr '11
Re: 1996 Redux
Steve Gigl
wmartin
At this point in the re-election campaign, Reagan's approval rating was already in the mid-high 50's, about ten points higher than Obama's. · Jan 16 at 12:35pm
And that's where my hope lies, although I do wonder whether the news/opinion-poll cycle moves more quickly now than it did back then.
Romney's approval rating is unusually low for a nominee at this stage. No one else in the race has as good an approval rating. Newt's, in particular, is stratospherically low. Obama's is lower than Romney's, but better than the other candidates. In other words, unlike 1996, this is going to be an almost entirely negative campaign. Thankfully, unlike 1996, the nominee will not be tied at the hip to Newt, unless he is Newt.
The other big difference with 1996 is that, assuming we're running our fund raiser extraordinaire, both sides are going to be rolling out unprecedented levels of propaganda, running organizations the size of large corporations. The ahemstorm is going to be genuinely different to any previous election.