dagblog - Comments for "Why Obama Is Likely to Lose in 2012"

Karl Rove is a smart guy but

Orion — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 02:35:21 +0000

Karl Rove is a smart guy but I just don't get his certainty. Sure, the economy is hurting and sure Obama is not as popular as when he came in (they never are), but Rove is making things seem as if personality and narrative doesn't count.

The GOP has been completely flailing about in pinning any sort of narrative on Obama. It has ranged from the foolish to the offensive, saying Obama is not an American citizen or that he is the lovechild of Malcolm X. Republican candidates like Herman Cain are illustrating their economic policy by talking about cleaning Muslims out of government.

The only candidate who could take apart Obama, in my view, is Mitt Romney. Romney would have to be very precise and keep things on an economic platform, however, because he could easily come apart if health care or abortion is brought up.

Rove would also be well advised to remember the Roosevelt recession in 1937. It occurred right before he won re-election against Wendell Wilkey. Economics doesn't always carry the show.

Hey ... someone made me

kgb999 — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:22:23 +0000

In reply to If we accept the premise of

Hey ... someone made me appear not-illiterate! Awesome.

You know what, if Romney

brewmn — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:27:28 +0000

In reply to And remember, Romney has a

You know what, if Romney wants to turn his $300 million and that lake house up in New England over to me, I'll give him my job.

And remember, Romney has a

Michael Maiello — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:56:57 +0000

In reply to As I noted above, it seems

And remember, Romney has a strong bond with ordinary Americans, what with him being out of work and all.

As I noted above, it seems

brewmn — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:39:46 +0000

In reply to Are Republicans really going

As I noted above, it seems that Bush is still bearing the brunt of the blame for the poor economy (as well he damn should). And nominating a glossy-haired CEO type like Romney isn't going to make people forget that we gave all the tax breaks and all the favors to his class over the last ten years, and all we've got to show for it is this lousy pink slip and a foreclosure notice.

That said, on another site someone noted that the media seems to be pushing the "Obama is Detached From the Concerns of Ordinary Americans" meme pretty hard. If they can make that stick in spite of the almost-comical figure of pampered elitism that is Mitt Romney, then Obama may have harder sledding than I expect at this point. But I think that most LI voters will still be voting against Bushian economics in 2012, and romney is the worst possible candidate to run as a populist.

Rove is talking his book.

Michael Maiello — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:38:09 +0000

In reply to Why Obama Is Likely to Lose in 2012

Rove is talking his book. Yes, the president faces all of the headwinds that Rove talks about. We knew that. There's nothing new in it. I think, frankly, he had to contort himself to deal with the fact that Reagan was re-elected during a similarly high period of unemployment. Rove argues now, "but it was falling rapidly!" Well, yeah. But it also looks a lot like what Obama faced -- over 10% at the start of the term, maybe down to the low 8s by the end of it. If that's rapid for Reagan, it's rapid for Obama. Unless unemployment stays flat or goes up from here, it is not an election killer for Obama. About the only difference I see is that when Reagan ran, the American definition of full employment was a little more generous than it is now. The 90s taught us to expect 3-5%, not the 5-7% that people in the 70s would have been happy to see.

"Neither side is running on

brewmn — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:32:02 +0000

In reply to If we accept the premise of

"Neither side is running *on* anything. Unless something changes, both appear to be running *against* a carefully crafted [caricature] of the other. It's a weak-hand (or con-man) strategy - makes what the politicians themselves actually bring to the table irrelevant in light of the horror of allowing the opposing [caricature] to destroy America."

Well, it beats actually governing, I guess.

Are Republicans really going

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:20:27 +0000

In reply to According to the polling, a

Are Republicans really going to argue that the economy sucks because Obama didn't turn Medicare into a voucher program and cut taxes for the wealthy even further?

No, but they don't have to go to all that trouble. All they have to say is: Obama did his did and it didn't work. Time to give another "reasonable" person with some business background a chance. For a LOT of people, it doesn't go deeper than that.

No, but that wasn't my

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:07:37 +0000

In reply to Do you honestly think that a

No, but that wasn't my point.

I just think it was an effective ad.

I spend a fair amount of time on Facebook where I'm friends with a whole range of people, many of whom aren't particularly political.

I think that's important to do because it gives me an inkling as to how "ordinary" people think when they think about politics.

If we accept the premise of

kgb999 — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:31:00 +0000

In reply to According to the polling, a

If we accept the premise of low-info voters, Republicans don't have to claim better stewardship of anything. They just have to make sure people feel Obama is providing poor/ineffective stewardship.

Neither side is running *on* anything. Unless something changes, both appear to be running *against* a carefully crafted [caricature] of the other. It's a weak-hand (or con-man) strategy - makes what the politicians themselves actually bring to the table irrelevant in light of the horror of allowing the opposing [caricature] to destroy America. (News flash to politicos: Jason vs. Freddie was totally lame ... so was Aliens vs. Predator ... see a trend here?).

And while we're tossing truisms. The middle of the road is where a politician goes to get run over.

If the GOP screws up their campaign like they did in 2008 (that really was a stunningly bad campaign), I agree ... Obama in a walk. But not long ago, I was thinking Obama in a walk no matter what. I still figure odds are on Obama's side ... but I really don't think people drawing the conclusions you imagine. He still needs Nevada, right? IMO, he is approaching a colossal fuckup without some major adjustments.