Skip to comments.PANIC AMONG THE DEMOCRATIC FAITHFUL
Posted on 06/13/2012 8:05:49 AM PDT by kingattax
Democratic loyalists are beginning to panic about President Obamas re-election prospects, according to this report in the Washington Post. The latest cause for alarm is a memo from Democracy Corps, a research group headed by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and political consultant James (its the economy, stupid) Carville. Based on their analysis of focus groups conducted in late May among swing voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Greenberg and Carville say that the current campaign message which stresses progress made towards economic recovery is out of touch with the daily pain voters are feeling.
The authors urge Team Obama to switch to a new narrative that focuses on what Obama will do to make a better future for the middle class. Otherwise, they say, we will face an impossible head wind in November.
Greenberg and Carville are not alone in feeling pessimistic. According to the Post, eight other prominent Democratic strategists interviewed share that sentiment. They also view Obamas team as resistant to advice and assistance from those who are not part of its core.
My sense is that the panic of these Democrats represents a correction to the overly optimistic view most of them held earlier this year. Back in the days of when Republican candidates were beating up on Romney and Romney was struggling to connect with voters, it was easy for Dems to underestimate the task they would face in November. Now, with the Republican Party behind Romney as it was always going to be and the candidate hitting his stride, it is easy to panic.
The reality, I think, is that the odds of Obama winning in November are about 50 percent. Considering the stakes of the election, both sides should probably panic.
As for the notion that Obama should emphasize what he will do going forward, as opposed to what he has accomplished already, this may be naive. If voters dont believe that Obamas remedies have worked during the past three-and-half years, they arent likely to embrace claims that the new remedies he has in mind will succeed. In fairness to Greenberg and Carville, though, their focus groups reacted positively to ads that acknowledge the economic problems of the past four years and propose solutions like increasing taxes on people making more than $200,000 a year. Republicans underestimate the power of class warfare in a bad economy, I believe.
Ultimately, though, Obamas fate is largely out of his hands. His prospects depend primarily on how the economy especially the job market does during the next four months or so. Secondarily, they depend on how well Romney presents himself to the public.
The White House is coming to realize that it cant define how well the economy is doing. However, it would like to believe it can define Romney. To a considerable degree, this is wishful thinking. The public isnt likely to take Obamas portrayal of Romney at face value. What, after all, has Obama done to earn that level of trust?
However, the Greenberg-Carville focus groups show that Romney does have vulnerabilities. People in the focus groups tended to hold his wealth against him, believing that it makes him out of touch with their problems. And when they found out that Romney has embraced the Ryan budget, and that budget was described to them (in what manner, I dont know), they viewed Romney less favorably than before.
So Romney has no easy task when it comes to defining, or re-defining, himself. As I said, its anyones election and both sides have plenty to worry about
Paul Ryan was on “Fox & Friends” this morning responding to recent attacks by Obama. He pointed out the absurdity of calling something a “cut” when you are just not increasing it as much as someone else wants to.
Sounds like the “Rats” are starting to form a circular firing squad.
—Whats going on with Carville?—
The last five or six presidential election cycles I’ve noticed a tendency of the press to start writing the obituary of the losing party, only to switch the party name on the obituary four or eight years later.
Correct. And Reagan played that masterfully. Remember the first debate when Reagan and Anderson debated with an empty chair for Jimbo?
Then, having shown his gentlemanly sense of fair play by supporting Anderson's inclusion in the first debate, Reagan went on to clean Carter's clock in the next two.
Nevertheless, even if Jimbo had picked up every vote for John Anderson, it would not have even come close to changing the election results. At best, Jimbo would have picked up 2 or 3 more New England states.
>>He wrote a book, in which he wrote that Democrats were poised to rule for the next 40 years. Now hes one of the ones who is panicked about this election??? How can that be???
People only vote liberal after they’ve been through a decade of Pax Republicana.
As for the press, they will certainly do exactly as you say. They will deliver their drooling maniacal support on queue at the proper time. But by “turning” on Obama now, they can later peddle the lie that they are “objective.”
Also, by turning on barry now they can connect with the morons who can not help but notice that Obama is flushing this country down the toilet. If they only parrot Obama’s outrageous lies about the economy, there is a chance that even their lonely two little brain cells will recognize the monstrous disconnect between the White House message and reality. It keeps the idiots ready to believe the upcoming whoppers.
Barry will have an astonishing “come back” in the polls scheduled for September. Count on it.
Well, that opens up another issue. Americans, on average, don’t understand the nuances in democrat speak. To the dems, maintaining current spending levels is a cut, because they want an increase. It’s alright to point out this difference, but many Americans won’t grasp it.
OTOH, that also implies maintaining current spending levels may be all right with some republicans. And that’s its own problem. What we really need is deep cuts in spending, along with a reduction in taxes. But how many congressional repubs will go along with that?
If Democratic loyalists had any logic they would panic about hime being reelected.
Massachusetts was an extremely close Reagan win in 1980. Anderson may have made the difference also in Maine, Vermont, and Connecticut. Rhode Island went for Carter despite Anderson. New Hampshire went to Reagan by a larger margin than Anderson's votes.
What a campaign theme! “We’ll do better next time.”
He has one more: Race riots if he is dumped.
there are some posters [mostly noobs] who say they'll not vote in order to ... get this now... in order to minimize the mandate romney will claim after his win.
Considering the source and the timing I'd say you're right on the money. This is not the time for our side to lose steam and think we'll coast to a win. This will be a very close election.
The only way the Dem Elite could force Obama out of the election is with a bullet... And that is the scenario that scares me the most.
The lone assassin will, of course, be a right-wing racist nut and inspired by an atmosphere of hate.
Obamas stand-in will win in a landslide and have free hand to do what ever it takes suppress such hate.
Prayers for the vigilance and dedication of Obama’s security details...
So 0bammy will go from trying to kill off the middle class through class warfare to making a better future for it? Hussein is totally incompetent, a committed socialist and a liar. What makes the dim "braintrust" think ANYONE would believe his message?
Rush had a piece from the NYTimes months ago where it said ZEro was going to ignore the working groups and middle class and run to the extremes of poverty and wealth.
And his middle name will be "Earl".