Obama's Two Step Strategy to Defeat Palin and Why It is Doomed to Fail

1/07/2011 | Brices Crossroads

[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.

[katana]

The following is a serious question ... what were Obama's "numbers" among independents in January 2007? A lot can happen in a few months much less a year and 10 months. Granted, she may be damaged goods as opposed to a complete blank slate like the "clean and articulate" One.

Look, if she runs she will be on stage with all the other candidates and will do one of three things, outshine them all and prove just how thoroughly the press has been lying about her for the last two years, or stumble a bit, get pounced on and joked about even worse, and be defeated in the early primaries, or fall apart completely and not even come close. Personally, I think the woman is hugely underestimated and that alone makes things interesting for both the primaries and general election.

I do see your point about "true believers" (a'la the Perot example) not recognizing what an uphill fight she would face. But the expectations for her have been set so low it's hard to say what would happen of she gets a chance to connect with people who have been told she's a backwater "moron" or how women will react if they empathize with her (hate to use this word) "victimhood".

[Leonard210]

Gee, I didn’t think I’d have to qualify that any better than I already have. I was clearly speaking about the press. Why didn’t you object to the statements about Bush, Dole and McCain.

[Al B.]

Outstanding analysis, BC. Thanks.

[JPG]

I hope that Sarah reads your excellent posts.

[nopardons]

Without trying to engage in a mutual admiration society, I really like your critique; it's spot on!

We are in complete agreement, re Governor Palin.

With a cold eye, no emotion, and a firm/full knowledge of history and politics, it is blatantly obvious ( to all except those who refuse to see reality ), there truly isn't anyone named or even unnamed, who could be the GOP presidential candidate, in '12, and beat Obama.

A black GOPer ? No way! And for the Herman Cainites........he's a black version of Ross Perot, except he did once do a political run and lost badly.

Some mostly/completely unknown Congress Critter, new governor, or far too well known hack pol? It is to laugh! Perry, Christie, and Jindal have all said, repeatedly, that they are NOT going to run. DeMint has also said that he is NOT in the running. Pawlenty, Pence, and Ryan? Oh please.........no no more damned Congress Critter no name recognition, with no executive experience!

Newtie, Mitten, and the Huckster? You wanna talk about even more baggage than Sarah has and NO real following? LOL

And the canards that Sarah can't win the primary/won't run, are patently ridiculous!

[Brices Crossroads]

“I hope that Sarah reads your excellent posts.”

Thanks. Very kind of you.

Whether she reads them or not she is herself following a winning strategy. My observations are really nothing more than summaries of her own actions and her (or I should say, OUR) adversaries’ reactions to them, against the backdrop of political history. I think she has read a lot of history and political history, particularly of the 1980 campaign.

[Brices Crossroads]

You are right, nopardons. To most of us here at FR, it is self evident that she is the right candidate, a once in a generation if not half century phenom.

By a process of elimination, however, you prove to the doubters that Palin is the only one because they have no one else who is a) running; b) a real conservative; and c) has the political talent to dislodge a sitting, elected President.

Defeating an elected, incumbent President has only been done only twice since World War II, and in each case it was done by a candidate (Reagan and Clinton) who had remarkable forensic political talent, or charisma. Among the current crop, it is self evident that Palin is the only one who possesses such talent. And she has double fist fulls of it.

[LibLieSlayer]

Your post got me to thinking... obama got elected because:

1) Any republican was seen as an extension of Bush... and Bush's numbers were in the tank.

2) America wanted change... they were tired of hearing about the threat of terrorism... they were tired of Iraq and Afghanistan... they wanted “change”.

3) obama did not run his main campaign on his leftist ideology. he promised America another Ronald Reagan... he quoted Reagan... he referenced Reagan in every debate... he gave America kruchev... he promised Reagan.

he did tell the left exactly what it was that he was going to do. He promised to disarm us... break the rich... cut out all of our nukes... drive coal out of business... universal health care... reparations, declared thet the Constitution was "Fundamentally flawed" and that he was going to change that... one way or another... "transform" he would state... and along with those he promised hundreds of other leftist wet dreams. The press refused to cover anything bad about him or truthful for that matter... because... drum roll...

4) he was black, clean and articulate... according to biden.

LLS

[onyx]

RASMUSSEN'S POLL: 52% of Voters Say Their Views Are More Like Palin’s Than Obama’s

Whose views are closer to your own? Palin/Obama

Overall: 52/40

Male: 55/37
Female: 48/43
White: 58/35
Black: 5/87
GOP: 84/9
DEM: 14/81
INDY: 59/27
Conservative: 80/12
Moderate: 28/61
Liberal: 14/85

[Brices Crossroads]

Sarah Palin is like Katherine Harris? That is a stretch, even for you.

In 2006, a huge Democrat year, Katherine Harris—a badly flawed candidate— ran for the Senate and lost by 22 points. The same big Democrat year—2006—Sarah Palin ran against and defeated an incumbent GOP governor in the primary, the went on to defeat a two term Democrat Governor in the general election by 10 points.

They are both similar because they are attractive women. There are so many differences, including the fact that Harris is prochoice, that I am not going to list them for you. Look them up.

You look silly. As usual.

[Polybius]

First of all, Ross Perot was a THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE! Sarah Palin has said that she wouldn't run as some fringe party candidate.

I hate to break the news to you but, nowadays, the Republicans ARE the "Third Party".

Independents slightly outnumber Democrats and both the Democrats and the Independents outnumber Republicans. Even if Sarah Palin got every single Republican vote, it would still leave 71% of all voters outside of her Fan Club.

Of that 71%, Sarah Palin's poll numbers with Indepedents are lower than whale scat at the bottom of the ocean and Democrats will not vote for her.

That is why the latest polls show Sarah Palin trailing Obama by 22%.

Sarah Palin can win a Free Republic popularity poll running away and she can even win a Republican nomination by winning over the 60% of Republicans who call themselves conservatives.

That, however, (60% of 29%) only gives her a solid base of less than 18% of all voters.

A solid base of only 18% of all voters with a negative rating in the latest polls of 50% of all voters will be a guaranteed electoral disaster of Biblical proportions in the general election.

[hattend]

Black: 5/87

Just... wow

[org.whodat]

Too much bs• here to haul in one load, may take several trips.

[Brices Crossroads]

Your post misogynistic and disingenous post 87 went away, courtesy of the mods. Why don’t you follow suit?

Your early polls are so boring. I can show you polls from 1979 showing Jimmah beating Reagan 57-35. Do you really think you are convincing anyone? Go back to Mitt Central.

[Brices Crossroads]

“Too much bs• here to haul in one load, may take several trips.”

Well, it is a short trip from the end of your nose.

[Orbiter]

That last sentence gasps for air.

[onyx]

Yeah! Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Represenative’s Scott and West, Justice Clarrence Thomas... etc.

[onyx]

Well, it is a short trip from the end of your nose.

ROTFLOLOL.

WHACK!

[onyx]

fyi - 4 OF 10 DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS TEA PARTY VOTERS [aka] SARAH PALIN VOTERS.