I've been saying for quite some time now that there is almost no chance that this country will have anyone besides Barack Obama in office after the next election. I still believe that my statement, and the logic behind it, is mostly true. But the evidence keeps coming in, and it is starting, ever so slightly, to push this situation into more of a coin flip, a horse race if you will. For those of you unfamiliar with poker terms, a horse race is a situation where you get your money in with almost even odds. Pocket 8s against Ace-King, for example. Until recently it appeared to me that unless something drastically bad happened Obama would be much safer than 50/50. That was quite the statement, given the historical nature of the struggling economy, which typically drags incumbents down.
I felt that this was true do to the fact that the Republican Primary field was generally uninspiring or even downright scary. None of that has changed. The Republican field is perhaps even more uninspiring today than it was three months ago, and every day that we move closer to the election their is less of a chance that the mysterious "candidate x" will rush into the race, make the Republican ladies swoon and the men well with pride. As I've said: there isn't anyone out there. And that has made Obama much safer than he should have been, given all the other complicating factors.
Still, a few things have shifted that are making this road look less and less certain. First, every issue has become a knock down, drag out political fight. It seems that nothing gets done in Washington these days with bi-partisan support, and it has begun to seem like there aren't even fundamental principles that these sides can agree on. The debt deal is a great example of this: Republicans rushed to politicize the issue, not because they were against it, but because they could and they felt it would help them in the next election cycle. And the sad thing is, were the roles reversed, I have complete faith the Democrats would have done the same thing. But, unlike an issue like abortion or gay marriage, issues we are used to being highly politicized, this was our nation's credit ... and default. The brazen nature with which the full faith and credit of the United States became a political toy appalled me.
But should it have? This is the same nation in which the greatest national tragedy of our time, September 11th, became the penultimate political toy of our time. Bush used it to define who loved America and who didn't, and then used that differentiation to win elections for he and his like minded colleagues, and then used their combined political capital to push through a wide variety of economic legislation that deregulated everything to the point that our fiscal system has been on the brink of collapse for half a decade now. And, because you have to play by the rules of the game, Obama was able to use 9/11 in a different way to defeat Hillary in the primaries, and to run an extremely effective campaign against George W. Bush ... thereby defeating John McCain ... who tried, but failed, to implement Bush's playbook ... which was based on 9/11. If our nation being at war ... our nation being attacked ... could be turned into a political issue, why should it shock me that the debt crisis was played the same. The rules of the game, right?
And so this brings me back to Barack. What to make of him? It's possible that he is just a dreamer with big ideas and soaring rhetoric, but without the necessary gusto to make things happen. It's possible that he's a centrist at heart who (operating under the rules of the game) ran to the left to beat Hillary, and now is being criticized for not pursuing a truly liberal agenda. It's possible that he just doesn't have the requisite experience to be President, but truthfully who does, and when was the last time someone seemed to have it in their first term? Maybe Nixon, who was corrupt but an effective politician well before winning the Presidency? Or maybe before that. Truman? Who knows?
But no matter the reason, Obama seems to be slipping in the one area he cannot afford to struggle with: his base. Politico reports that all signs indicate that the President's approval ratings are slipping from coast to coast in the bluest of blue states. Polls are just that, but it seems highly unlikely that he could be slipping across all these states and not have it be an indicator of some real issues in his brand and within his base. The article rightly asserts that the President need not worry about losing these Democratic strongholds ... I think New York and California will be safe ... but it questions what these numbers will mean for Obama in swing states. It's a valid question, and it deserves some analysis.
The good news for Obama is that the far left differs from the religious right in one major aspect, and it is the basis of Karl Rove's theory on winning elections (and, seeing as how he was two for two with Dubya, you can't really knock it or disprove it). Rove speculated, and polls and interviews have backed up, that the religious right is the most solidly Republican part of the country. He also postulated that there was almost no way for a Democrat to win their votes, which has also proven true. He furthermore acknowledged that there was not really a third party likely to split their votes off, like the Green Party had for the far left. They don't identify with the Libertarians too much, and last time I checked there wasn't much of a fascist party in the USA. But the real secret to Rove's theory (keep in mind this was pre-Tea Party) was that the religious right felt it had two options to choose from, even if it only had one party. They would vote Republican ... or they would stay home. While it's possible that this equation has changed some with the onset of the Tea Party (although I still don't believe they are a factor), Rove put it simply: fight for the religious right, win their votes, and win the Presidency. You cannot lose if you win the religious right. H.W. Bush didn't listen, refused to capitulate to the theory ... and lost to Clinton. Dubya bought it hook, line and sinker ... and won twice.
But for a candidate such as McCain, not readily identified with the religious right's values and aims, it was much more difficult to win, and he didn't. The good news in the polls for Obama is that the far left is much less likely to stay home, and the memory of Ralph Nader being blamed for Al Gore losing in 2000 is fresh enough that the party base is unlikely to stray too far. So if the fear isn't that he will lose the votes, what is the fear? Simply put, Obama has a tougher road to travel the more upset his base gets because he will have to spend more time appeasing them. And, by extension, less time running to the middle. Obama's ticket to reelection was always playing to the middle, and trying to convince independents that he was the good guy who was hamstrung by a liberal congress, then a non-negotiable conservative congress. "It's them, not me" if you will. And he can do that ... could have done that... so long as his own base was able to buy the argument.
Now, as we see subtle signs that his own base is saying "I'm not so sure anymore," Obama will be forced to run back to the left. As we established earlier, he doesn't have to do this so much to ensure their votes. He has to do this, instead, to ensure their money. No matter who he runs against, unless it's Michele Bachmann, Barack Obama will have to raise more money than ever before. Romney has strong business ties and will raise a ton. Perry has the good old boy network, and will raise a ton. Obama will need every penny to compete with the onslaught of ads he will be running against. He will need it so that he can level the playing field, and try to control the message.
The good news is that the liberal base hasn't decided it wants a primary fight yet, and as long as they avoid that colossal mistake they have the upper hand. But that grasp is fading, and based on the numbers we are seeing it is fading fast. Rick Perry's entrance into the race has actually been to the detriment of Obama as it has done two things team Obama did not want to see happen: it has marginalized Bachmann and solidified support around Romney. Perry is a powder keg waiting to explode, and when it does it will spew molten crazy all over. If that happens early enough then Bachmann can get back into the race; too late, and it will scare people right to Mitt. That's why you see Bachmann and Paul going after Perry as aggressively as they have been: they know it's now or never. Bachmann seemed incredibly strong in Iowa only a few weeks ago, but now it seems like the state is Perry's to lose. Iowa likes to buck the front runner, but it also likes to pick someone it thinks can be a winner. Bachmann was the obvious choice on the former point, but Perry fits both qualifications better. Unless Perry melts down, or we get concrete evidence that he is, in fact, stupid (as a number of articles have hinted at), he continues to make a three team race into a two team race. And it sets Romney up in the same position Obama was in 2008: he has to pander to his base just enough to split it, but can run to the middle in the Primary season as the moderate who can win, and he can build an independent base in doing so. I've said all along that Romney was the Republican with the best chance of taking down Obama ... and just when Barack is at his weakest point yet, things are turning in a positive way for Mitt. Needless to say, the long road to reelection continues to get harder for Mr. Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment