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

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.

Ad hominems are liberal arguments.

All I posted are a bunch of facts about The Won. Can he be beaten? I said as much in my post.

Will he be beaten? Most critically he and his have already started to work the 2012 vote in precincts locally...you can bet on it.

Most Americans would rather not have to be pre-occupied with politics. They have a life to live. For the Democrats, there is nothing else BUT politics in life. And they practice politics as a bar fight-not as a dispute over country club rules.

It really depends upon how badly Flyoiver COuntry decides they want freedom

You demonstrate a sharp contrast between 2012 and 1996.

Great analysis, which is something one doesn't get from the profesionals.

Compare your analysis to what a beady eyed, highly paid, establishment, "smart" guy thinks.

Obama's the new comeback kid: Post-election, he's made a record-setting sprint to the center

“Compare your analysis to what a beady eyed, highly paid, establishment, “smart” guy thinks.”

Thanks, FR. When it comes to Krauthammer, I cannot tell whether he really is slow on the uptake or whether he is just doing the bidding of his masters at the Washington Com-post. I do know this. For every worthy article he posts, there is another that has disinformation in it. Krauthammer is the classic sophist. He mixes truth with falsehood. I have criticized him and will continue to do so. I think many conservatives are waking up to the fact that he is not one of us, which is a positive thing.

I love how the Establishment punditry are always trying to fight the last war. They fail to see the changed circumstances. What I really like about Palin is that she does perceive changed circumstances and she acts upon them in really creative and innovative ways. She is light years ahead of these so-called “smart guys”. The Establishment is, and always has been, dead from the neck up.

May Obama and Meechelle live a very long and very close life together into their late 90s -
and beyond!

I could never figure out why Slick Willie, John Kerry, and 0pansy would resort to picking such lovely good-natured beauties and sell themselves out as bound-slaves for a lifetime

You cannot walk through a Target, Macy’s, or a WalMart store or most any mall without seeing one or more pleasant and pretty women -

I guess Clinton, Kerry, and 0pansy just put an extremely low price on their lives and futures -

“It’s morning Baraq! - Get your lazy vodka-soaked cokehead butt outta bed and bring me my hot fresh hazelnut blend coffee right now! - And don’t drink the Wild Turkey I want to add to my coffee!

- It’s morning in America FReepers!

- Aren’t you glad you married well!

- Or divorced well!

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.