Not since Herbert Hoover has a party out of power had such an opportunity to run against everything that troubles the American family—prices, interest rates, unemployment, taxes, or the fear for the future of their old age or the future of their children—than is now presented to the Republican Party.
The Republicans, however, haven't figured this out. This is their basic problem. They have no strategy for defeating an Obama administration that is highly vulnerable on both domestic and foreign policy.
That's the conventional wisdom in a nutshell, isn't it?
It will come as no surprise that these words appeared in a Feb. 29 column in the New York Times. They are reproduced here exactly as written, save for one small adjustment.
The president whose failings they describe is Jimmy Carter, not Barack Obama. The lines were written in 1980, not 2012. The author was the then-dean of conventional wisdom, James "Scotty" Reston. The headline was "Jimmy Carter's Luck," a reference to Reagan's victory in the New Hampshire primary three days earlier.
This is an excellent article written by Bill McGurn. Like Matt keeps hammering home, "don't let the media define our candidate"; I'll just expand on that to say let's not allow them to damper our enthusiasm either for our choice among the current hopefuls to take the White House. Read it all here in the WSJ online.
Between now and November is a great deal of ???.
ReplyDeleteWill the economy tank? Will it roar?
???
Whatever happens, in hindsight, it will look obvious.
IMHO there are enough uncertainties that it could go either way. I think the first predictor is the economy. The reality is that it is _possible_ that it gets better and better from here, and that _relative_ momentum will carry Obama.
Or not.
Thanks florrie; the article was excellent.
ReplyDeletePalin is rumbling about throwing her hat in the ring. West is rumbling about accepting a VP slot. The two together could be a formidable (pipe) dream team. But...back to reality.
I'm thinking it will be Mitt/Rubio. Or ???
I'm praying for Rubio as VP. I think he and Mitt would clean the floor with the JEM.
ReplyDeleteI also pray Palin does *not* get in; she's simply too divisive. Why on earth would she get in? She and her husband apparently don't even have enough influence in their own state to have their candidate win AK's caucus. I have yet to hear anybody on FNC ask her what her thoughts are on that (Gingrich came in 3rd, oops). She's still yakking about the candidates "vetting each other" and how this is such a great process. Well, believe me, the media will vet Mitt and his choice for veep like over-zealous proctologists. I'll be happy when we have a candidate we can get behind. I'd also love to see West as a VP prospect. I think we definitely need one of the "young guns" on the ticket.
In other news, Romney is up 9 points on the latest Alabama primary poll. The media must be tearing their hair out :-D I haven't seen a current poll for Mississippi but if Romney is leading there and takes those southern states, the funding for Gingrich and Santorum will probably dry up.
I honestly don't see how the President can lose this election.
ReplyDeleteEspecially, and amazingly, with ALL leading Republicans now calling for not one but two more wars in the Middle East.
I would be hard pressed to come up with a sure-fire loser than that as an election issue.
Jourdan - I don't see how Barry can win. I literally do not know a single person, outside my own family, who will vote for him.
DeleteAt this time, PA Governor Corbett is trying to pass a law that allows the Electoral College vote in this state so that those of us in the rest of the state will not be over-ridden by the welfare vote in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and a couple of idiot collegiate enclaves.
Also Rasmussen's latest weekly polls show Barry losing to both Romeny and Santorum.
I still cannot do a link in comments, but:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Only 30% of the country feels we are heading the right direction, and those who 'strongly disapprove' of Barry are almost double those who 'strongly approve'.
Of course, polls are not subject to the vote cheating that will be rampant thie election, or to before-the-fact media lies, so it is still very possible Barry will win, but it will not be honestly.
DWT, you are right, in the sense that the President in not very popular and widely disliked. To the extent these polls capture this sense, the outcome is not as strongly anti-Obama as one would expect. Then, there is the matter of the actual campaign. Any analysis of the November vote has to assume: 1) strong MSM support for the D; 2) 95%+ Black support for Obama; 3) 65% support for Obama amongst Latinos; 4) 70% support amongst college students.
DeleteWe can beat that. Now. Give it another 20 years along current trends, and the U.S. is a single-party state, and the Ds will break up into ethnic spoils blocs like many Third World polities. But, that is a different story.
Today, we can beat that.
However, we cannot beat that with NOTHING.
The Rs must run someone against all that. And what do they have?
Romney is a deeply disliked candidate. What is the story on Romney to date? I think we can agree it goes something like this: "Republican front-runner finding candicacy a tough sell amongst Republicans."
Add to this the inherent disadvantages of Romney: 1) 5% of hard core conservatives won't vote for him, period; 2) Christians and others will have difficulty supporting a Mormon, and, yes, the "this guy thinks when he dies him and his wife and children get to be as unto gods in an alien planet" stories, not run now, WILL be run; and 3) lower class and middle class Rs, the Reagan Democrats, won't vote for him, they know a rich guy when they see him.
Obama 55, Romney 45.
But, enjoy it while it lasts. The U.S. will be like Calif. in a few more voting cycles.
Well, at least Univision's broadcast is more interesting then the lame network news casts.
I honestly don't see how the President can lose this election.
ReplyDeleteWell, we'll just have to wait and see what happens in November :-)
I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul has not called for 2 more wars. Are you talking about the other 3 supporting Israel if she strikes Iran's nukes? I'm happy and relieved that they are steadfast in their support of Israel. As for Syria, I haven't heard any of them calling for war. I have heard republican partisans berating Obama for not coming to the aid of the Syrian rebels. I find it infinitely more concerning to hear Panetta saying (3 times! I think he means it!) that we need permission from an international source to send our military to the ME as part of a coalition.
Anyway, whoever the candidate is will not make foreign policy their main campaign issue, it will be the economy. Hands down. Good thing, I paid $4.08 for gas yesterday.