Obama's Mythical Skills Won't Save Him

[Politico]

Last year, President Barack Obama issued a warning to Republicans. They had been "politicking" instead of "governing," he said. "Well, we can politick for three months," he said. "They forgot I'm pretty good at politicking."

That was in August 2010. At the end of those three months, Republicans controlled the most seats in the U.S. House since the 1940s. Republicans did well for a lot of reasons. One of them was that the president is wrong: He isn't all that good at politics.

He can be forgiven for thinking otherwise. He won the top prize in American politics, after all, and many people have talked about him as a phenomenal political talent. He had beaten the mighty Clinton machine in the Democratic primaries, which many people had considered impossible. And when he took office it wasn't uncommon for liberals to compare him to Ronald Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt or even Abraham Lincoln. His speeches sent thrills up liberals' legs. It was only natural that superlatives would be attached to someone who managed to go from being a state senator to president-elect in four years.

But take a closer look at Obama's rise and a hole in his resume quickly becomes apparent: Obama never had to fight for and win the votes of people who don't agree with him. Both his biggest political setback and his biggest political accomplishment -- his defeat by Bobby Rush in a 2000 U.S. House primary and his victory over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 -- came during struggles within a liberal universe.

Many of Obama's predecessors had to learn how to appeal to broad electorates before they became president. George W. Bush had to beat an incumbent Democrat to become governor of Texas. Bill Clinton had to market himself in not-so-liberal Arkansas. The two recent presidents who most resemble Obama in not having had to prove themselves in this way are Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. Neither is a happy portent, both having lost re- election bids.

A talented politician -- like Reagan or Clinton -- can instinctively grasp public sentiment, move public opinion and reframe arguments. They rally popular support. They command the moment. Obama does none of these things.

Even his most vaunted gift, that of oratory, has done him little good as president. He gave speech after speech about health care, including an address to a joint session of Congress. None of it made the public like the Democrats' health- care plan more.

Republicans don't need to worry that voters will be seduced by Obama's charisma.

Liberals have been slowly waking up to this fact. Increasingly they've been asking what's wrong with him. Is he too aloof? Too conciliatory? Some liberals would be dissatisfied with Obama even if he delivered single-payer health care. But part of their disappointment is that they expected Obama to usher in a new liberal era. Now they see that it's not to be.

The problem isn't that Obama has lost his touch. He didn't have it in the first place.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/10/25/bloomberg_articlesLTLBBI1A74E9.DTL

[Politico]

I think you have missed a bit here... and there.

So is this what we're to expect from you until Nov 5 next year?

I thought it was a good article. What is it missing? Obviously I did not want to post the entire article.

It is really easy to overlook the fact Obama has never had to fight for a general election campaign. It is actually amazing when you consider that he is POTUS. Gerald Ford is the only other person I can think of who never had to fight for a general election campaign yet ascended to the presidency. The 2008 race was gift-wrapped by the financial crisis (even McCain's woeful selection of Palin may have not sunk McCain if not for the financial crisis). Everything that could have gone right for Obama went right. The 2004 Senate race was a cruise after the GOP's frontrunner was embroiled in a sex scandal. The fact remains that Obama has never won a general election campaign that he really had to fight for.

All I can say is good luck because Romney is going to eat him for breakfast. He's not taking any prisoners next year. Neither a sex scandal nor a financial crisis nor a woeful VP selection is going to save Obama this time around. And after watching Romney debate all year, I am convinced he's got Obama soundly beat next year. The numbers might be close up until the very end of the campaign, but the debates are going to have a Reagan/Carter like effect on the electorate. I am expecting anywhere from 300-450 EVs in the Romney column.

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was one of the things you left out.

Cute.

I could not print the entire article, and had to focus on its main premise:

- Obama's political skills are vastly overrated

- Obama has never won a general election campaign that was not handed to him with a bowtie

- Obama is almost surely toast

Yes, almost anything is possible including the re-election of Obama due to a recovering economy and/or an electorate that is unwilling to hand all three branches of the federal government to the Republicans again. I suspect the electorate is not sophisticated enough to care about anything other than the economy, and I do not foresee the economy recovering enough to lower the unemployment rate significantly between now and November 2012. In other words, just because a scenario is theoretically possible does not mean such a scenario is likely enough to warrant highlighting.

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was one of the things you left out.

Cute.

I could not print the entire article, and had to focus on its main premise: Obama's political skills are vastly overrated, he has never won a general election campaign that was not handed to him with a bowtie, and he is almost surely toast.

Did God give you and all the journalists some special pair of eyes that lets you see things happen thirteen months ahead?

No, it's called every single economist on the planet NOT predicting the economy to miraculously produce 500,000 jobs a month every month next year. There is not a single economist who is predicting unemployment to drop dramatically over the next thirteen months. The median forecast is the most probable outcome, and it ultimately amounts to a forecast of continued malaise.

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was one of the things you left out.

Cute.

I could not print the entire article, and had to focus on its main premise: Obama's political skills are vastly overrated, he has never won a general election campaign that was not handed to him with a bowtie, and he is almost surely toast.

Did God give you and all the journalists some special pair of eyes that lets you see things happen thirteen months ahead?

No, it's called every single economist on the planet NOT predicting the economy to miraculously produce 500,000 jobs a month every month next year. There is not a single economist who is predicting unemployment to drop dramatically over the next thirteen months. The median forecast is the most probable outcome, and it ultimately amounts to a forecast of continued malaise.

And?  That only moves the race to a toss-up, especially if Romney loses the nomination, which is more likely than you think.  This "300-450 EVs" crap is just wishful thinking, on your part.  You don't know what the hell is going to happen.

The fact that some Republicans think 2012 is going to them on a silver platter doesn't help them, in the long run.  They think they can nominate virtually anyone, and the White House will be theirs.  Why else would we have jokes like Santorum and Bachmann and Cain and the like up there?  The 2012 race is not something that either party should be making early projections about.  Multiple factors make the outcome.

As James Carville once put it, "it's the economy..." And that's certainly the case now more than in 1992. There is just no way this race is a toss-up with unemployment at 9%. The only way it could move into that category would be by removing the incumbent, and even then you have to favor the non-incumbent party for the same reasons Obama/Biden had the edge in 2008.

Incumbents in the modern era just do not win re-election when the unemployment rate is about 50% higher than the rate people consider to be "good" (i.e., about 4-5% nationally). Throw in an incumbent who has NEVER won a general election campaign he had to fight for, and how in the world do we come to the conclusion this is going to be a race?

All signs point towards a landslide loss to Romney.

[Politico]

We need Romney in order to beat Obama. I really don't see how he's going to get past the health care thing, but given his intelligence I'm sure he'll be able to come up with something

He is already way past that: Romney did what his state wanted him to do, but he is not going to force that upon every state and it is not right to do that. Every state is different and only each state knows what is best for their state. There is no one-size-fits-all plan for that issue, or many issues for that matter. Besides, if Romney did not sign that healthcare law in Massachusetts there were enough votes to override his veto. In retrospect, perhaps he should have went that route. But oh well.

[Politico]

What is the point of this thread? Sounds like some overconfident, yet shaky dream.

The point of it is to troll.

Absolutely not. The point is to show how powerful denial is. But you do not understand that, of course. Not yet, anyway.

[Politico]

With unemployment hovering  just under 8% vs. Romney

It isn't quite "Mission Accomplished", but it is clearly in the right direction.

No mythical qualities needed.

This is bookmarked for November 2012.