Back from the SS National Review’s tour of the eastern Caribbean to find the WaPo’s Chris Cillizza making the same point I made on board ship to cruisers and fellow speakers alike: You may think Obama is eminently beatable, but unlike Mitt Romney, he has a solid base that is a dead-certain lock to be there for him next year:
Everyone knows that President Obama has a problem with his political base heading into 2012. Except that he doesn’t.
. . . an examination of the polling data among key subgroups that constitute Obama’s base makes clear that he has as much support from them as any modern president seeking a second term.
“There is one immutable fact about President Obama’s reelection chances: Nobody has a more solid 44 percent base than he does,” Democratic pollster Peter Hart wrote in a not-entirely-uncritical memo assessing the state of political affairs a year out from the election.
Meanwhile, “electable” Romney stays moored at around a quarter of the GOP primary electorate, and as a “frontrunner” has been happily chucked overboard for every not-Romney flavor of the month, including Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and now Mr. Newt. Head-to-head with Romney next year, Obama will sink him handily.
Obama starts with a rock-solid 43 to 44 percent of the vote and that the focus of the next 11 months is almost certain to be on improving his numbers among independents in states such as Colorado, Florida and Wisconsin.
“Is the president’s base upset? You bet, but they aren’t upset at Obama,” said Cornell Belcher, who conducts polling for the Democratic National Committee. “They are in fact sympathetic to what Obama is trying to do and what he is going through.”
And Hart wrote in his year-out memo: “His base will be invaluable, and this has been underestimated. It should not be.”
Meanwhile, Say-Anything Mitt has no home port and is unlikely find one beyond the generic anti-Obama vote. Which, alas, will not be big enough or motivated enough to evict Cap’n Barry from the White House bridge as he madly steers the ship of state into the iceberg. Indeed, the campaign will begin and end with this photograph.
Sorry, but that’s the truth. Say what you will about Sarah Palin, but she would have brought a super-energized base of productive taxpaying citizens with her that might have competed favorably with the Obamabots. But she broke their hearts — and damaged herself — by teasing and then not running, leaving the GOP bereft of a candidate who could match BHO II’s charisma.
What can be done at this late date, I have no idea. And neither do the Republicans.
Anyone who thinks Sarah Palin would have outperformed Mitt Romney is so utterly deluded that they should get out of the pundit biz as quickly as humanly possible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you missed the point, Rook.
"she would have brought a super-energized base of productive taxpaying citizens with her that might have competed favorably with the Obamabots. But she broke their hearts — and damaged herself "
Walsh pre-emptively agrees that Palin damaged her own ability to run by spending too long "thinking" about a run, and not declaring for a run. He does NOT declare that she would have "outperformed Mitt Romney," but he does point out (see above) that she has(had?) a base of very dedicated supporters that Mitt Romney does not have.
Truthfully, has anyone ever come up to you and told you how excited they are that Mitt Romney is running and they can't wait to vote for him this year? Did that ever happen with Sarah Palin? Do you understand why the contrast in those two events is related to the post at hand?
Walsh doesn't say a dedicated base = a win. I read the article as saying, essentially, "running an essentially unprincipled Republican Doppleganger against the quintessential liberal extremist isn't a matchup that favors the GOP. One side gets everything they want and finds it easy to vote for their guy, even if they're unhappy with some of the things he's done. The other side is stuck with voting for Mr. I-Might-Be-What-You-Want,-But-At-Least-I-Ain't-HIM, which isn't what gets people jumping out of bed on November 2nd."
Walsh is saying that, before she strung her nomination bid out overlong and in the end declined, she had the chance to be the Republican version of Obama. The extreme conservative that some of the base would vote for happily, and that plenty of conservatives would grit their teeth and pull the lever for in the end because it would be better than having the other guy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSarah would have gone the way of Rick Perry and the rest... she looks good until she runs... do you remember how awful she was? Please.
And yes, I and many many others are very happy with Romney, and very excited to vote for him.
In fact this is the litmus test that the rest of the party better pass if it is too be relevant in the future.
We are sick of the nuts running this party. If Any one but Mitt gets this nomination the party will be done in the West... and let's see how many elections Republicans win with 75% of their numbers now.
I am sick of the crazies thinking they are somehow morally superior. You moral reprobates can look forward to a lonely lonely little parade. We don't need the government to tell us how to live, we can live how we want no matter how socialist it gets on the outside. Because we actually have a core we don't need a political party for that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is painful to say, but I think Rook's blunt honesty should be a wake up call for Mr. Walsh.
Really, the Walsh offering was rather deluded... unless one hopes to enshrine some support from the Palin faithful.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've always agreed that Obama is eminently re-electable. There's a certain huge percentage that thinks he's done an outstanding job at what he was elected to do, which of course has to do with growing the State, expanding central planning, and redistributing more wealth.
Romney's not going to be able to turn out conservatives. People like me will not vote for him, other people like me won't even go to the polls at all, and many other conservatives will vote for him but with hold-your-nose enthusiasm that's simply not enough to push him over the top. Obama's base is going to be ridiculously passionate and active; with Romney as the nominee, the Republican base won't be the same.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell that is silly, not voting for Romney over Obama is like shooting yourself in the stomach with a shotgun.
About as wise as a Democratic Partisan posing on a conservative website to try to sway.
It only ends up a mess...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are no "undecideds" about Palin. Everyone knows her but half the country hates her. She was the only good move McCain made and the only reason I could hold my nose long enough to go vote. Sorry, but her best role is as an advocate for the nominee, even if it's Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow will Obama appeal beyond that 44% solid base? Are Republicans really not going to vote for Romney? Are the conservatives going to stage an Occupy the GOP next November....if they don't have the perfect candidate they're not going to vote? I find it interesting that so many pundits talk about how conservatives won't be energized by a Romney nomination and don't even consider that the less ideological voters may not vote for Gingrich, Cain, or one of the others.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn light of the GOP history going back to 1988, I think conservatives have every right to reject what they party has given them. The Republican Party was given several oppurtunities to forge conservative agendas (1988,94, 2002, and 2004), and instead adopted mainly Progressive ideals. Conservatives have had to back Dole, both Bush's, and McCain over the last 2 decades; I think that has come to an end. The difference between most of the Establishment picks and Democrats are differences of degree and not kind. A vote for Mitt is a vote for Obama. Ditto for Huntsman. Why vote for Mitt, when at the end of the day, you will get Obama Lite?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I think conservatives have every right to reject what they party has given them.."
Jesus, this is such a tiring line. The Party doesn't give conservatives or anyone else anything; voters do. If you want a "real" conservative to win the party nomination, maybe you should do what you can to find one who string more than two sentences together before getting lost in their own head.
"Why vote for Mitt, when at the end of the day, you will get Obama Lite?"
Absolute, unadulterated stupidity.
You're saying that President Mitt Romney is going to be vetoing the same legislation that Barack Obama will SURELY be vetoing next term. Do you have any idea how idiotic that is?
Mitt Romney is not going to veto a SINGLE piece of legislation. It ain't gonna happen.
Presuming that the GOP somehow manage to take back the Senate while losing the White House - which would be unprecedented in the last 100+ years - Barack Obama is going to be wearing veto pens out. Then what? Gridlock. And, we know how much the schizophrenic electorate loathes gridlock. Obama would be the first incumbent president in 50-years or more to pick up seats in his second mid-term. Why would Obama pick up seats? Because if nothing else, the electorate has demonstrated a real "throw the bums" out appetite.
"Conservatives have had to back Dole, both Bush's, and McCain over the last 2 decades"
Why was that? Here's a hint: The country doesn't want a conservative agenda. It also doesn't want a liberal agenda. It wants a middle of the road agenda with a government that operates effectively and efficiently.
Ronald Reagan won overwhelming victories in 1980 and 1984. And yet, in each mid-term, Reagan suffered losses in both houses of Congress. Why was that? Because the electorate like moderation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's no point in trying to talk sense. I have seen the most inane and asinine arguments in this primary election from wing-nuts...I mean, Palin, really?! When did the Repub party become the low IQ party?
Most of these "I'd rather stay at home than vote Romney" clowns are in red states which won't matter in the general anyway. If Romney wins the nomination, then it's going to be a battle for Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Virginia. Perhaps the author should check how Romney polls head to head with Obama in those states. Oh, he's winning in Pennsylvania? He's got a shot at turning Michigan red? Virginia is in the bag?
Geez, get a clue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt has never been about the base. It has been and always will be about the Independents. The 10% of the electorate that are true independents, unsettled in their worldview that they never took the time to figure what they really believe and stand for.
Mitt doesn't scare them the way Perry, Paul, Palin, or Newt do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhich explains why the well-vetted moderate McCain beat the leftist Obama in a landslide?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMcCain lost because purist conservatives stayed home, which is exactly the same scenario that will play out if absolutists insist on their own individually "ideal" candidates. Perry, Cain, Gingrich will NOT get the independent vote they need to beat Obama, and if the purists stay home, Romney will not win either. If that happens, you can all keep your yaps shut about 4 more years of Obama. This country cannot afford it--look at what it has cost us in the last 3 years. Stop with the tantrums and be realistic--it's not a perfect system and you can't always have exactly what you want but ANYBODY is better than Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgain, you folks simply have no concept of the term "leftist".
Many (perhaps even most) leftists in America hate Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut Enlightened Michael Walsh said Obama is essentially a lock:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Don't let anybody fool you. Conservatives will vote for whoever, including Mitt, gets the nomination. For us, it's all about making sure Obama loses his job. Then the recovery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHer dead wrong. Lest u forget, Clinton was believed to be toast in 1996 and he won handidly. This article is a wake up call to the elite. It's time for GOP to wake up. It is Newt or Bob Dole... Your choice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpeak for yourself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Conservatives will vote for whoever." How many times has the Republican establishment brandished that throwaway line and taken the pro-family, pro-life, pro-freedom (and anti-birpartisan hot tub) voters for granted.
In 2004, Karl Rove went around the country assuring pro-family groups that "after the election," their turn would come. It did not, of course.
So Jimbo, in 2006 did "conservatives vote for anybody" so Pelosi wouldn't be Speaker? In 2008, did they vote for "anybody" to keep the Holy O out of the White House?
They stayed home, Jimbo. It's been happening since 1960, and it will happen again, and again, and again (Oh, that was 1940).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse