I know we’re all supposed to think that the primaries are poised to turn out a weak Republican nominee and that President Obama will swoop in this fall and carry the day with some brilliant pincer move that simultaneously dubs the Republican too extreme, too moderate, too boring, and too weird. And I suppose it’s possible that the president and his team will suddenly turn out to possess keen political skills they have been hiding somewhere for the past three years. But can we spend a moment pondering the approach that team Obama seems to be hatching so far? Looking at what the administration and the Obama campaign have been doing and saying in the buildup to the general election, it has been awfully difficult to find evidence of a plausible strategy.
Obama has some very daunting problems to contend with, of course. His record of accomplishments, amassed mostly in his first two years in office, is extremely unpopular and so could not be the centerpiece of a reelection campaign. He has presided over the largest deficits in American history and nearly doubled the national debt. He pushed through a large stimulus bill in 2009 that is taken to have been a failure (in no small part because the administration defined metrics for success, like keeping unemployment from rising above 8%, that have plainly not been met) and a health-care reform in 2010 that started out quite unpopular and has gotten only more so with time. Meanwhile the economy remains weak, unemployment remains high, and 80 percent of voters are dissatisfied with the direction of the country.
This has left the president in an exceptionally challenging political position in a re-election year. At the beginning of November of 2010, on the day Republicans took 63 House seats and 5 senate seats from the Democrats, Obama’s job approval in
Gallup’s daily tracking poll was 44 percent; today it is 43 percent. Party identification in November 2010,
according to Gallup, was 31 percent Democrat, 26 percent Republican, and 41 percent independent; in December 2011 it was 27 percent Democrat, 30 percent Republican, and 42 percent independent. Republicans held a
5 point lead in Rasmussen’s generic congressional ballot that November, and today they have a
6 point lead.
All this suggests there is no self-evident path to reelection for the president. He can hope for significant improvements in the economy to change his fortunes (although the unemployment rate is a good bit lower today than in November 2010 and that doesn’t seem to have done the trick), but he can’t run on his record or rely on some cushion of public confidence and satisfaction. He needs a positive strategy to improve his circumstances. But the campaign strategy his team appears to be putting into place would seem to be very poorly suited to doing so.
Based on what the president and his advisers have said and done in recent weeks, that strategy appears to consist of creating populist confrontations with Congress and then complaining that Washington is broken because Republicans won’t let the president have his way. That’s a strategy that tells the public that the current situation in Washington is untenable and change is needed. Is that not an odd way for a Democratic incumbent president (whose party also controls the Senate) to run against a Republican outsider? It first of all exacerbates the public’s mistrust of government, which tends to reinforce Republican policy proposals (since those generally aim to take power away from government) but to undermine Democratic ones (which generally aim to give more power to government). It also implies that President Obama is having trouble doing his job, which can’t be a great re-election theme. It says that the problem we have is the result of a conflict between the president and Congress in a year when the Republican party, but not the Democratic party, will be led by someone who is neither the president nor in Congress and so is presumably not part of that problem. And it argues (understandably) that things could only get better if the White House and Congress were both held by Democrats—but the last time that happened was when we ended up with those unpopular achievements of Obama’s first two years. Is he proposing to do more of that?
Indeed, the question of just what he is proposing to do raises another peculiar problem with this emerging strategy. The Obama team’s approach might make sense if the substance of their policy proposals were enormously popular, so that telling the public that these could be enacted if only Obama is given a few more years to push them might help his case. But what are those proposals? A payroll-tax holiday? Higher taxes on the wealthy? Is there anything else? Or to put it another way, why does the president want to be re-elected? To stop Mitt Romney? To implement Obamacare? What does he want to do with a second term? More of the same?
You have to assume that the Obama team understands how immensely unappealing the promise of four more years of the politics of the past three years would be to the public. Maybe what they have put in place so far is a predicate for some policy proposals—perhaps a comprehensive tax reform, or some entitlement reforms that might scramble the ideological mix a bit. But that would seem to be in tension with the goal of creating conflicts with congress over economically populist ideas, and in tension with the president’s recent actions, appointments, proposals, and tone. It certainly doesn’t seem like he’s still planning fundamentally to pose as a centrist who wants to work with Republicans.
Maybe there’s another attempted image transformation in the works, though the past ones clearly haven’t worked very well. Maybe there’s another shoe to drop in the president’s confrontational populist agenda, which will turn it into a workable strategy. Or maybe the president and his team are just not very good at this. The evidence of the past three years would certainly seem to support the latter view. While they were able to masterfully carry off a campaign of airy fantasy in 2008, Obama and his advisers have since failed fairly spectacularly to employ the power of the president effectively. They now seem to be engaged in trying to generate another dramatic narrative out of thin air, but a re-election campaign can’t be such a creature of invention: It must necessarily be grounded in the reality of the president’s record and buttressed by the able employment of the president’s power. If the Obama team thinks it can turn the election into a referendum on the Republican candidate then they’ve got another thing coming, and if they think Obama can mount an ugly campaign of character assassination against his opponent and come away unscathed himself then they haven’t stopped to consider that his personal likability is the only thing keeping him from a total meltdown. So what’s the plan?
None of this is to say that Mitt Romney or whoever is the Republican nominee will have an easy time, of course. He will have his own significant weaknesses and vulnerabilities, no doubt, and he will need to offer the public an appealing governing vision and plausible solutions to the daunting problems we confront. Incumbents have some natural advantages, too, which even a hapless political strategy cannot completely eradicate. But this will be a very challenging year in which to run for re-election, and success will require a smart and effective strategy and a powerful case to the public. It so far frankly seems like the Obama campaign is lacking in both of those components, and is flailing about in the hope that American voters have finally at long last decided that they really hate rich people—a false misguided hope that has cost the Democrats many elections.
The main problem with this analysis is a failure to acknowledge that the public blames the GOP for much of the problems we see today; polling is clear on this.
Regarding anger against 'the rich,' polling once again consistently shows that clear majorities feel that taxes on the rich should go up. The policies Obama is pushing aren't exactly unpopular.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(D)s have lost the majority of every state and federal election every year since Obama was inaugurated. Do you pay attention to reality?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis comment doesn't directly address anything I've written, so I'm not sure why you wrote it. You seem to be suffering under the mistaken belief that you can counter argument with completely unrelated points; but in reality, that does not counter an argument. It merely seeks to change the conversation to a topic you feel more comfortable with.
I rest on my earlier assertions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, what I wrote directly addresses it. The polls you cite are BS. Elections matter. If the 2012 elections are different, then THAT'S the poll you use in your arguments. The ones done by pollsters in between elections are, essentially, worthless. I don't care if you refuse to believe it. The reality is that the (D)s have gotten hammered every year in every state and federal election since Obama became president.
But congrats on yet another well-deserved thumbs up for you since it makes you feel better about the nonsense you put down.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight. Obama's strategy is to fan populist envy/resentment against the successful as a path to reelection. Why isn't he running on the major initiatives of his first term - Obamacare and the trillion-dollar stimulus? Answer: Because those policies are exactly unpopular.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease provide the polling data that shows "the public" blames Republicans for our current mess as opposed to generic "Congress." Who sponsored the poll?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe attacks against "the rich" are mostly a product of the occupy (fill in the blank) "movement." Other than the Dems and the MSM (but I repeat myself) who cares?
Tell you what. Do me a favor. Just as a purely intellectual exercise, calculate the net worth of the wealthiest 1% of American taxpayers, using the most current data you can find.
Now tax that net worth at 100%. Complete confiscation of all assets, which go into the government coffers. Apply that revenue to the current federal debt and share with us the new balance that results.
Two questions:
1) Is the new balance equal to or greater than zero?
2) How do you propose to pay off federal debt moving forward?
The fallacy that the 'rich' should pay higher taxes is only popular among the most petty and envious. Not the ambitious and hopeful.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama just needs to give a big speech explaining his plans. More cowbell!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the Republicans are smart, the will make this election 100% about Obama's record. And if they're brilliant, they'll start by positioning Obama as the high priest of crony capitalism and political payoffs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGive this man a cigar. And a gold star too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I know we’re all supposed to think ..."
Isn't that sad? That conservatives have been told by their establishment "keepers" that Obama is the most insulated pol since ____?
Yuval Levin has been the most consistent voice at NRO regarding the reality of Obama's utter lack of popularity with the polity, once the luster and new car smell wore off.
Too bad so many within the RNC are as afraid of Obama as Levin is undaunted.
To be undaunted in the face of Obama is not arrogance or laziness. It is precisely the tack the GOP needs to take.
Leftists thrive on intimidation. And the media's incessant insistence that Obama is formidable is a tutorial on intimidation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Obama team does have a plan. They have a very low opinion of Americans, and a high opinion of what the MSM will do for them (again). He spends the months when few people are paying attention to Dem-side politics signalling to the left that he is one of them. Around July he makes meaningless gestures to the center, and the MSM says "give the New Obama a chance!"
For example, he can signal approval of the pipeline (planning to kill it permanently later)without actually doing anything. He can announce future plans to fix Medicare, and make a half-dozen other moves that look centrist to moderate and independent voters (America's Brain Trust). Obama's campaign will be like Arafat, say one thing in Arabic (i.e. today) to supporters, and another thing in English (i.e. during the campaign) to people who need to be fooled.
By election day, any ray of economic sunshine will be played up as a New Dawn, and every dirty trick will be fair game. Too bad for BHO that Mitt has no divorce records, he'll have to make due with Mormonism and capitalism.
Obama is not going to run as a leftist. He's going to run the same scam as last time, in the same way, with the same helpers. But he's not going to pretend to be moderate before he has to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJohn Kass points out in today's Chicago Tribune that Bill Daley went home because they need to disassociate the White House from dirty Chicago politics. Discuss.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Daley went home because he was a little too pro-business/pro-jobs for the hard left extremists around Obama, who don’t care if poor people can’t heat their homes or workers have no jobs, as long as they can feel green and fuzzy—like bad meat in your fridge—over saving the world from global warming, which stopped in 1996. We were headed for the cliff anyway, but Obama floored it. Four more years will make a fiscal collapse, followed by political and social collapse, inevitable. I will link to this from my Old Jarhead blog.
Robert A. Hall
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAuthor: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic
All royalties go to help wounded veterans
For a free PDF of my book, write tartanmarine(at)gmail.com
You forgot to mention the casino-sized stack of race cards that will be played on anyone who even breathes the least hint of non-support.
All the people who decided Barry was a perfect way to get their, "I'm not a racist! I voted for Obama!", button and now regret it because he's been so terrible* are now facing being called RAAAAAAAAAACISTS if they don't stay true to the Emperor. Any legitimate concerns about his incompetence will be howled down with a mighty, "It's because you're RAAAAACIST!!! You're a frightened white person who doesn't like that his power is now in the hands of a noble, brilliant, elegant Black man!
You also will see continued myth-making from the JournoList media pushing the memes that Obama inherited eight years of Dubya's failure and is thus entitled to at least as long to undo the damage, that it's not Obama's fault that the whole world literally and figuratively collapsed due to Dubya's wars, Dubya's economic plans in Greece, and Dubya's natural disasters meant to kill women and minorities. And, oh yeah, you're RAAAAAACISTS!!!
* Face it, Jay-Z has more practical experience than Obama did and actually earns his living.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDont' forget, Obama has the brilliant David Axelrod, who said today that the problem with Jeremiah Wright was that his words were taken out of context. It's this kind of great thinking, plus Obama's own brilliance, that lead him to think he's likely to win all 57 states this fall.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAided and abetted by the MSM, the Obama campaign is deliberately trying to trick voters into believing that the GOP controls the Senate as well as the House. The GOP is going to have to work very hard to counter this misinformation. It is vile, it is deliberate, and we need to insist that the MSM tell the truth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou do your side no favors by understating Obama's achievements in office, especially since Democrats will be confronting you with them in the general election. YOU may think that the Obama administration boils down to nothing but Obamacare and deficits, but most Americans will remember the draw down of two unpopular wars, the elimination of Osama bin Laden, successful military engagements in Libya and off the coast of Somalia, implementation of a wildly popular regulations of the banking and finance industries, ending Don't Ask Don't Tell, signing a non-proliferation agreement, lifting restrictions on stem cell research, and many other things (those were off the top of my head). No doubt you will not agree that all of these things are positive accomplishments (though I suspect most NR readers applaud most of them), but the American people overwhelmingly support all or most of these items. To ignore them and tell yourself, "he's got nothing to run on" is to ensure your side's defeat.
The economy will undoubtedly be the single biggest issue, and I believe Obama can make the case that his policies prevented a depression, a case that is easier to make as the economy steadily improves...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObamacare is kind of a big deal. People are losing jobs and yes they are losing their doctor's over it. I just lost mine as they have closed their practice. Coincidence that this happens just before OCare goes into effect?
Of course the stem cell thing is really cool. That makes all the taxes and deficits and all the other OCare regulations and inconeniences worthwhile.
What have we cured with this new found freedom?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse