Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
Toby Harnden of the Mail Online thinks so, and he's backed up the proposition with a pretty interesting analysis.
First, let's get this crack about how compliant Republicans are out of the way:
Despite the very recent and ugly and negative primaries, Romney's struggle with conservatives and the relative difficulty he had in overcoming a lacklustre field, Republicans - who tend to fall in line more readily than Democrats [emphasis mine]- are already uniting behind him.
If only! I'd say Democrats are much more conformist than Republicans. Who is the serious third party candidate threatening Obama's re-election chances, hm? Is Ralph Nader making noises, as if it would matter? Meanwhile, we've got the "I won't vote for a statist" Gary Johnson supporters. The "end the fed!" Ron Paul supporters. And the "anyone but Romney" dreamers, which was my affiliation until recently.
No, Herndon has this exactly backward. Left-wingers are famous for their group-think, while mouthing campaign slogans about the revolutionary "Change!" they envision. What they mean is, by some miracle of human agency, they're going to change immutable human nature. Meanwhile, their policies amount to nothing which wasn't tried under Wilson, or Roosevelt, or LBJ. "Let's change by trying this all over again!"
Really, I think whichever party is out of power has an easier time uniting, but it's still significantly harder for Republicans than Democrats.
Back to Obama's "deep trouble:"
Drill down into the numbers of the latest CBS poll and there are ominous signs for Obama. Only 33 percent of Americans believe the economy is moving in the right direction. A mere 16 percent feel they are getting ahead financially. Some 38 percent think their situation will get worse if Obama is re-elected, 26 percent think it will get better. [emphasis mine]
Only 16 percent of Americans are completely out of touch with reality. This is bad news for Obama. The rest of us understand that when the Treasury spins roughly 7 trillion dollars off the printing presses like Rumpelstiltskin's room full of straw-spun gold, except without the added value, you're lucky to be maintaining the value of your assets. And -12 on "will you be better off if Obama is re-elected?" is a pretty steep incline for Obama to overcome, no matter how much assistance he gets from the media in fabricating a recovery. People live in the real world, not the one made up by the New York Times.
Herndon does a brief analysis of incumbent versus challenger history, concluding that Obama will try to do to Romney the supposed "Swiftboating" job Bush did on Kerry. I'd say he's half-right. Obama will do anything to try to impugn Romney's character.
Obama will keep trying to talk about something, anything other than the economy - contraception and dogs being the most recent examples - but Romney has the relatively straightforward task of being disciplined enough to talk relentlessly about jobs and the economy.
However, I think the distinction he tries to make between Bush's victory over Kerry and Obama's campaign against Romney is a distinction without a difference. He suggests that Bush beat Kerry because he managed to make the race about Kerry's (deeply?) flawed character rather than a referendum on Bush's record. But, really, it's always about the incumbent. Voters elected Bush in 2004 because they didn't believe he was a bad as liberal media portrayed him, making Kerry an unnecessary change of leadership.
The inverse applies to Obama, which Herndon understands.
If you viewed all this solely through the prism of media coverage and listened just to Washington pundits, you'd conclude that Obama has about an 80 percent chances of victory. In reality, his chances are much closer to 50:50, perhaps even with Romney holding an advantage (though many things can and will happen in six months).
Obama isn't as good as the supine media believes. And with Romney's turn-around record and the nation's economic reality being lived by the voters, together with the basic decency of the man, I think voters will see Romney not just as an acceptable alternative to Obama, but a necessary one.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
Western Chauvinist:
Back to Obama's "deep trouble:"
Only 16 percent of Americans are completely out of touch with reality.
I don't think it's a matter of 16% being completely out of touch with reality. I'd say 16% +/- is the percentage of Americans who are:
A) Federal non-military employees
B) the Uber-Rich with strong contacts to the President
C) Hardcore Democratic base who'd vote for their child's murderer if (s)he had a (D) after his/her name on the ballot; or
D) the permanent underclass who are content with their status.
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 5:30pmDec '10
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
Bluenoser
A) Federal non-military employees
More like Federal non-military, non-DoD blue collar employees.
Dec '10
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
Oh, yeah. I agree Bluenoser [er, edit. sorry]. I'm just a little surprised that something like 35% of income in the US is in transfer payments and yet only 16% think they're getting ahead financially. Obama's promise of a brighter future in his second term depends on people believing wealth transfers get them ahead. I think the 50/50 proposition Herndon finished with is about right, but maybe the anti-incumbent sentiment among not-A-B-C-D, will put Romney over the top.
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 8:55pmAug '10
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
It was a bit more than that. Most of Bush's biggest public blunders did not happen until his second term; his approval ratings were still high (though trending down); and the conservative backlash against his first term policies had not yet picked up. 2004 was 100% about Bush, and the nation simply hadn't decided to hate him yet.
Obama has made his biggest plays already. He rammed through Obamacare, "reset" our foreign diplomacy approaches, and he's poking every non-progressive group in the eye at every opportunity. In 2008, using only the weak threads of racial guilt and empty promises, he tied together a bizarre coalition of radical leftists, squishy conservatives, the super-rich and the people who loathe the rich. He then spent 4 years making none of them happy.
Apr '12
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
Interesting but social issues appear to get Americans out with their big signs saying hands off my body, gets them all feeling revolutionary which is a big part of getting votes. The exhilaration of telling those horrible Republicans off makes them forget that the economy is their responsibility too. Much easier to tell the rich to stop being greedy and pay some tax.Voters have ADD. Romney needs to reach the soccer mums and get them having tax refunds for getting their kids exercising, eating well, doing math coaching outside of school, and a long list. Change the conversation to positive talking points soccer mums understand and for stay at home mums and working mums. Tax breaks for nannies and cleaning services are popular in Canada and this is what our conservative politician discussed. Personalize it to that soccer mum, do not talk economy. Who liked economics 101? Damn few, except for Econtalk podcast of course.
Dec '10
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
BlueAnt
... Most of Bush's biggest public blunders did not happen until his second term; his approval ratings were still high (though trending down); and the conservative backlash against his first term policies had not yet picked up. 2004 was 100% about Bush, and the nation simply hadn't decided to hate him yet.
Obama has made his biggest plays already. ... In 2008, using only the weak threads of racial guilt and empty promises, he tied together a bizarre coalition of radical leftists, squishy conservatives, the super-rich and the people who loathe the rich. He then spent 4 years making none of them happy. · 2 hours ago
You and I are in agreement, Blue Ant, you just said it better. Your last point is excellent. I'm getting more hopeful by the day.
Dec '10
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
I get what you're saying Alainnah, but I'm not sure I agree. I have an allergic reaction to Republicans divvying people up and offering them favors based on group identity, even if I'm one of them.
Dec '10
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
I would agree that Romney needs to connect emotionally. However, he should do it by persuading soccer moms, stay-at-home moms, and even transfer payment recipients that everyone has an interest in a growing and prospering economy. And the best way to make that happen is through free-market entrepreneurialism.
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 9:12pmApr '11
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
First, Republicans are more cohesive in the face of a Marxist with a penchant for income distribution. It tends to really focus the mind when your life savings and assets are a mere sliver of what they once were.
On the second point, I have felt for a while that Obama could be in trouble; look at the lengths he has to go to to get his base to continue to support him. I haven't seen any coverage on this but I would find it interesting to know how older voters who recently retired or who are planning on retiring shortly are feeling about Obama. Baby Boomers began turning 65 last year and with more in the pipeline the current economy is not what one wants when you decide to stop working and live off your nest egg. This group is a reliable voting block; they will show up and they will vote, unlike the young voters who last time were enthused about Obama. I think the old could very likely turn out against Obama and the young have become disillusioned and will likely stay home as usual.
Aug '11
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
Okay, I will raise my hand. I am a recent convert to the Romney camp. However, I do so mostly because it is so imperative that the GOP moved Obama out of the White House that I will lay down my "other candidate" banner and provide my vote and support. Lest we not forget...we need to keep the House and take back the Senate and if/when the GOP does this wondrous thing...they actually need to DO SOMETHING this time. No more rolling over and playing dead to the DEM's. No more kicking the can down the road for the next generation to fix.
Dec '10
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
There are apparently a fair number of Progressives who've decided that Obama is indistinguishable from a Republican and who've decided that Ron Paul is America's only hope. It remains to be seen, therefore, what will happen to Democratic unity once someone other than Paul clinches the Republican nomination. I suspect the lefties I know who've declared they can never again vote for Obama will, in fact, vote for Obama, but it's possible they will vote Libertarian or some other obscure party (or not at all).
Mar '11
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
Mr Harnden is one of the best commentators on US politics (I'm maybe biased because he is a fellow UK ex-pat, now US citizen) - I agree with him more than I do Rob who, maybe because of the air or water in Venice Beach, still agrees with the supine media about Mr Obama's invincibility.
He is very vincible.
Edited on April 22, 2012 at 3:23amApr '11
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
"I think voters will see Romney not just as an acceptable alternative to Obama, but a necessary one."
Amen, sister. Amen.
Dec '11
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
My take is that both parties suffer for different reasons. The Republicans have to deal with multiple camps of thought (as you pointed out) but Democrats have, at least, as difficult a problem.
There are two types of Democrats: intellectuals (the far-left base, that you usually see), and the consumers (those who benefit from the Left's policies, but have little loyalty to anything else). The intellectuals are all united in thought (which is why saying Obama is a typical Liberal and a radical is not a contradiction), but the majority of people who vote Democrat only do so because it benefits them (almost always in an economic sense).
Naturally, this loose coalition of dependents is tough to hold together, and as far as I can see they only have two strategies: promise more stuff (increasingly becoming more difficult) and smearing Republicans as crazy/evil/etc. (also, increasingly becoming more difficult).
Personally, I would not want the Republicans to have their problems.
Aug '10
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
I am extremely hopeful. Obama suffering three messaging setbacks in as many weeks will do that for me.
The lame attempt by Ms Rosen to cross the streams of the "Republican War on Women" (Message 1) with "Romney is out of Touch" (Message 2) was glorious to behold. Both messages are in the process of failing.
They tried to resurrect Message 2 with the Seamus affair and were countered by Pres Obama recounting, in his own words, how he ate dog. Debunkers, aiming to to show how common dog-eating is in Indonesia instead found out that one had to work pretty hard to find consumable canine and so we are left with dogsagainstromney.com vs the catchy bumper sticker "I'd Rather Ride on on Romney's Roof than Pass through Obama's Colon"
Retread message number 3 - "Silver Spoon". Ann Coulter was all over that one, again going to President Obama's book for the details, reports that the Won doesn't transfer from Occidental (where the Won spent his time smoking pot) to Columbia without the affirmative action assist.
Three up, Three down - I laughed all week.
Say, don't women like men who make them laugh?
May '11
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
Any analysis that is not state-based is useless.
There is no possibility Obama loses certain states: DC; MD; CT; NY... keep going until you draw your line.
At some point, you get to the states he theoretically could lose. Then ask whether he has a viable strategy to win enough of those. Think of all the available forms of vote fraud in the historically purple states! Think about how an anti-Mormon campaign will play in certain red states!
There's a reason he's leading on Intrade.
Mar '11
Re: Is Obama's Re-election Bid Already in "Deep Trouble?"
Romney's strongest argument and also his biggest problem. "Vote for me because the other fellow is a disaster.", is this enough to win an election? Apparently we shall see.
This analysis does not particularly impress, as ctlaw notes it ignores the all important state-based angle and even more it rather glibly dismisses Obama's strategy for re-election.
His campaign is not wasting any time on his record or even issues really, they know the road to victory. Liberal supporters are very dispirited while opponents are angry and motivated, remove that advantage. Negative campaigns always reduce voter turn out, so start slinging mud hard. Level the playing field and then simply insure the most committed parts of the base show up. Expect to see more stirring up of racial tensions and "War on Women" rhetoric in the days ahead.