Posted on 01/07/2011 1:05:49 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
Barack Obama is, I believe, crafting a two-fold strategy to defeat Sarah Palin in the likely event that she secures the GOP nomination in 2012. Of course, his path to reelection would be made exponentially easier if she is not nominated, but it is becoming increasingly clear to him that she will be the nominee. Both components of his strategy hearken back to past campaigns, one rather distant and one quite recent. Both are, in my judgment, destined to fail.
The first component of this strategy is his so-called move to the center, by which he hopes to replicate Bill Clinton's victory of 1996. There are obviously many distinctions between 1996 and 2012, but both Clinton faced and Obama is facing a GOP controlled House, after an historic repudiation of his policies. However, Clinton's signature accomplishment--Hillarycare--went down in flames, so he was free to face down the GOP, which had a general notions of cutting government but no coherent plan to do so and certainly no concrete program to aim at. Obama, on the other hand, jammed through his signature accomplishment, ObamaCare, in spite of its wild unpopularity, and he and his allies in the Senate will have to oppose repeal. Indeed, in 2012, the GOP is almost certain to make even bigger gains in the Senate and to take control, which means that Obama's veto pen would be the only obstacle to repeal. Having thus succeeded with this and much of his statist agenda, Obama is not free to move to the center as Clinton did. He must stand athwart history, veto pen in hand, yelling at the GOP in Congress, "Stop!" Thus the policy atmospherics of 2012 are distinctly different than those of 1996.
And not just the policy atmospherics, but the likely political atmospherics as well. In 1996, the GOP nominated the quintessential big government, Establishment Republican, the ancient Bob Dole who even his ideological first cousin, George H.W. Bush dubbed in 1988 the "tax collector for the welfare state." The big government, lackluster Dole (aided by a capitulation to Clinton by the Gingrich-led House on spending and the government shutdown) generated a third party candidacy by Ross Perot which garnered 10% of the vote, permitting Clinton to win an easy plurality victory. If the GOP nominates one of Palin's likely three major competitors--Romney, Gingrich or Huckabee--all of whose big government bona fides are beyond cavil--Obama could well ride the 1996 model to a second term. This is the reason for the all out effort to destroy Palin and to dissuade her from running. With Palin in the race, there will be no third party, at least not of the Perot variety, which is the only kind which could significantly damage her. A third party by someone like Bloomberg would damage not Pain but its intended beneficiary, Barack Obama. Hence, you will not see one.
The second leg of Obama's anti-Palin strategy recognizes the flight of white voters away from the Democrats and seeks to staunch the bleeding. The so-called Colorado model, seeks to employ a strategy similar to that of the winning 2010 Colorado Senate race, in which the winner lost blue collar white women by double digits and blue collar white men by more than 2-1, but held his losses among college educated white men by single digits and won college educated women by more than 2-1. Ron Brownstein writes in the Natinal Journal:
"More specifically—and perhaps more revealingly—Axelrod also has his eye on the Colorado example, where the exit poll found that Bennet lost blue-collar white women by double digits and blue-collar white men by more than 2-to-1. Yet he prevailed by amassing strong support from young people, Hispanics, and other minorities; holding his deficit among college-educated white men to single digits; and routing Buck among college-educated white women. A similar formula, Axelrod suggests, could be available to Obama in 2012, especially if the Republican presidential primary process, as he expects, tugs the eventual GOP nominee toward the right. “The Bennet thing was particularly instructive,” Axelrod said. “They made a big effort there not only among Hispanics but women. The contrast he drew with Buck was very meaningful. That’s why I say the gravitational pull of those Republican primaries is going to be very significant.” "
http://nationaljournal.com/magazine/in-2012-obama-may-need-a-new-coalition-20110105?page=5 LINK
Leaving aside the obvious distinctions between Colorado and other states in which this strategy might be employed, the "Colorado model" explains a lot about Obama's obsession to demonize Palin and to do all he can to see that she is not the GOP nominee. This protracted "two minutes of hate" so reminiscent of Orwell's 1984, which has been leveled at Palin, is aimed chiefly at educated voters and, if she is the nominee, it will have to be undertaken with even more ferocity with the likely result being a backlash against Obama by the very same white women he needs to target. (Many of the educated white women in Colorado may have voted against Buck because they perceived him to be misogynistic, not because of any affinity for Bennet).
Palin's nomination will pose a very real threat to the Colorado model, however. First, her percentages with blue collar whites will be even higher against Obama than Buck's were against Bennet. More to the point, however, the attacks on her intelligence and competence may eventually wear thin with the demographic to which they are designed to appeal: educated white women, many of whom have felt the sting of misogyny up close and personal.
In 1980, the Carter-Mondale campaign launched a number of attacks on Ronald Reagan. Two of the most salient were: 1) Reagan is going to cut social security and throw grandma out into the snow; and 2) He is too old and senile to be President. These attacks, particularly the social security canard, seemed to have gained real traction against Reagan according to the polls. I remember reading about him answering a question at a gathering of senior citizens about the so-called threat he posed to social security, Reagan gave a standard policy answer and, I suppose, saw he was losing his audience. He just stopped and in his "aw shucks" manner, said, "Hey. I am one of you." In 1980, in spite of the virulent age driven attacks on Reagan, he carried voters over 60 by 54-40 (Anderson got 4%), whereas Gerald Ford had won them by only 52-47 in 1976.
When Barack Obama ramps up his "Colorado Strategy" and stands on the debate stage with Palin, an accomplished, self reliant woman who has spent her whole career deconstructing "the good old boys" network, he had better hope that his target audience---educated white women---don't turn en masse to one another and say, "She's one of us."
If (or should I say, when) that happens, it will be "Katy bar the door" for his Presidency.
How can I get a hold of that $495 ‘66 Mustang?
Do you have Mit’s phone no?
Most of you Palin supporter, remind me of the Ross Perot supporters of 92.
How so Perot? Didn’t have half of the enthusiasm or base that Palin does. Perot was never taken seriously as a leader of the conservative movement whereas Palin has big bonafides with the Tea Party that swept the GOP into power in 2010.
You cannot see the real world, because your view is blocked by your fixation on the person.
Wrong Wooly! we’re tired of supporting lackluster milquetoast candidates such as Romney and Bush. We are tired of having Presidents who pretend to be conservatives but then go back on their promises and use their “compassionate conservatism” or “bipartisanship” that screws us and America over. By the way talking about fixations you and all the other PDSers on this site seem to have a very unhealthy obsession with Palin and why she shouldn’t run or be POTUS maybe you should stop being obsessed with thwarting her support and just see what happens in two years.
Sarah Palin’s poll numbers among Independents suck and she cannot get elected without them.
Obama’s losing indies left and right it’s not a big stretch to think that if Obama and Palin were to go head to head that she couldn’t capture a lot of these indies Obama lost. Especially, if the economy is still in bad shape.
The news media will tear her apart which will drive potential crossover voters away. You may not trust the MSM, but a lot of older voters still do.
Bo freaking hoo. I’m so tired of the LSM picking our candidates. The press tried to destroy Reagan and he played them like a fiddle and won the Presidency, Palin can do this as well. And she has been doing this through interviews, tweets and her Facebook. Boy I would love to see the damage Palin could do when she’s in 2012 mode.
It is a fact that like good ole Ross is gonna show’em, she cannot get elected in 2012.
Says you, she has an excellent shot for POTUS. You can’t determine who the nominee is going to be or the President in 2012. So maybe you should stop trying to convince us that she can’t get elected? What do you have a crystal ball?
Phooey on youey!
Lunacy,,,the comfort of “white man” rule you speak of is EXACTLY why we have Obama now. With the exception of Reagan, we have had about 40 years of white guys that are elitist wusses who mostly excel at giving the finger to average Americans. Carter, BushI, Clinton, Bush2, Dole, etc etc,,.
Obama was elected because people know that something is very wrong. 30 years ago we had a debt limit of ONE trillion, now it is up near 15 Trillion. Obama seemed like an outsider. All anyone know about him for sure is that he WASNT from inside the beltway. So they followed their emotions. (incidently, this was Carters main asset in 76)
He has had his chance and failed. Like 1980, Obama and the Repub establishment will be repudiated for someone who loves America and AMERICANS first.
She already has the support...Cheneys; Von Susteren; etc.— money, money, money.
Megadittoes to you and this post!
Wow.
Yes, Obama has been good for D.C.
D.C. is a tiny fraction of the voting populace.
Did you sleep through the mid term elections? Have you heard about the Tea Party movement?
History is being made and some of you people are clueless.
Sarah is going to walk away with the nomination and win the White House in a landslide. Just watch.
This guy proves the old adage:
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
“Clueless” doesn’t begin to cover people like this.
“The news media will tear her apart which will drive potential crossover voters away”
And they WON’T tear apart Huck,,the fat guitar playing preacher with his fat kids? They WON’T tear apart Romney who cannot possibly criticize Obamacare, likes abortion, and is a scary “mormon”? etc etc,,,
If you are picking candidates by trying to decide who the mainstream media won’t “tear apart”.. you are exceptionally naive. McCain was their boy,, their “maverick”, until of course, he got the nomination, at which time he magically turned into a senile old man.
Lots of people are totally wrong about things they are very sure of.
And I think the idea that because Obama is a black man people won’t vote for a white woman is wacky. I’m quite sure, for example, that Obama’s Democrat detractors by and large would vote for Hillary.
I hope more and more people keep saying she “can’t”. And I “can’t” wait to watch MSNBC the night she wins.
“the downside to the second strategy is spot on. my wife was all for Al Gore vs. Bush...until the debates were over.
she saw Gore as a condescending jerk with his eye rolling\sighs\talking down...”
I think Obama’s elitism is going to bleed through. Biden didn’t come of as an elitist with Palin but his are blue collar roots. Obama is an elitist, a Hyde Park leftist and it shows. It is going to be very off-putting.
Very cogent analysis. Gives one hope.
BTTT
Thanks for the excellent post and for amplifying on what I was getting at.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.