David Brooks suggests Obama's poll numbers should be bottomed out, somewhere near the sucking drain, given the fundamentals (I agree). Yet, the president seems to be able to hold about even with Romney, even though only 36% of Americans believe Obama has a plan to secure our future. Brooks theory:
Normally, presidents look weak during periods of economic stagnation, overwhelmed by events. But Obama has displayed a kind of ESPN masculinity: postfeminist in his values, but also thoroughly traditional in style — hypercompetitive, restrained, not given to self-doubt, rarely self-indulgent. Administrations are undone by scandal and moments when they look pathetic, but this administration, guarded in all things, has rarely had those moments.
I’d say that Obama is a slight underdog this year: the scuffling economy will grind away at voters. But his leadership style is keeping him afloat. He has defined a version of manliness that is postboomer in policy but preboomer in manners and reticence.
This, I'm not too sure about. What's the conventional wisdom here at Ricochet? Why aren't Obama's poll numbers more in-line with his performance?
Update: Whoa, whoa, whoa! Bill Whittle has a refinement on Brooks' theory. I think he'd say Obama's polling success is due to his alpha-male veneer on his beta-male character.
"Which is why kids, it's so mind blowingly awesome to be a conservative! Why not do yourself a favor and become one today." -- Bill Whittle