A little history can be a dangerous thing, and in advance of Tuesday’s State of the Union Address by President Obama, political commentary will be focusing on Obama’s ability to replay 1995-96, when President Clinton rebounded from a similar rout in the midterm elections to more or less coast to re-election (while Clinton finished below 50% of the popular vote, it was only a “coming home” of Republicans in the campaign’s closing weeks that averted a more lopsided result; the outcome was not seriously in doubt).
Undoubtedly, Obama will have the opportunity to take advantage of many of the same dynamics that favored Clinton’s re-election, and he may succeed for those and other reasons. But history never repeats itself precisely. It is worthwhile to reflect on the many things that worked to Clinton’s benefit that Obama can’t count on:
1: The Democrats Still Hold The Senate: Clinton lost both Houses of Congress in the midterms, the third president of the past century to do so, the others being Truman in 1946 and Eisenhower in 1954. Both were re-elected; Truman used the GOP as a foil to confront, Eisenhower showed he could cooperate with the Democrats, and Clinton did some of both. Each was able in one sense or another to run on the same divided-government rationale that had helped them lose Congress in the first place.
Obama won’t have the same crisp contrast with Congress; the unpopular Harry Reid is still running the Senate, and sooner or later it will become impossible to conceal that fact. History suggests that this can matter: Obama’s the third President in the past century to lose only the House and keep the Senate in the midterms, and the other two – Taft and Hoover – both got slaughtered (Hoover carried just six states and drew 39.7% of the popular vote, Taft carried just two states, finished third in a three-way race and drew just 23.4% of the popular vote).
2: The GOP Candidate in 2012 Will Not Be A Leader of The GOP Congress: A hugely underrated factor in Clinton’s revival was the fact that his opponent was also one of the leaders of the Congressional Republicans across the table from him; in addition to Bob Dole’s other flaws as a candidate (his age, his status as an ideas-free compromise-driven moderate, his lack of executive experience), Dole couldn’t run a campaign independent of Newt Gingrich and the rest of the Congressional GOP, which not only tied him down on particular issues but also diminished him in the eyes of the public, as Clinton alone would negotiate with – and face down – a team of which Dole was only one representative. Whoever the GOP nominates in 2012 will have the ability a presidential candidate usually has to declare some level of independence from his or her Congressional party.
3: Obamacare passed; Hillarycare didn’t: As unpopular as the Clinton Administration’s health care plan was, it wasn’t a major issue in the 1996 campaign because it had failed and, with Republicans controlling both Houses of Congress, it wasn’t coming back. (Ditto Clinton’s destructive BTU tax). Not so Obamacare, which remains very much a live issue. There’s clearly a decisive majority supporting repeal right now in the House, and possibly a majority could be mustered in the Senate (certainly if the GOP gains more seats in 2012), but obviously not enough votes to override Obama’s veto. Unless Mitt Romney wins the nomination, the GOP will almost certainly run a presidential candidate who can and will mount a full-throated campaign in favor of repealing the bill. The same will be broadly true of a number of Obama’s big-spending, big-regulating initiatives.
4: The Economy: The unemployment rate is the most obvious of numerous economic indicators showing the U.S. economy in bad shape in 2011: unemployment, as low as 4.3% when voters elected the Democrats to control Congress in November 2006, was 6.5% when Obama was elected and 8.5% when he was inaugurated, and he expended much political capital arguing that his “stimulus” package would fix this with federal spending on “shovel-ready” projects; instead it peaked at 10.6% in January 2010, and remains above 9% a year later. These are very high numbers historically; since 1960, the unemployment rate has been above 6% on election day five times, and the only time the party in power wasn’t booted was 1984, when the 7.2% rate was the lowest it had been since before President Reagan took office and had plunged more than three points in two years. By contrast, the unemployment rate in 1996 was 5.4%, down from 7.4% when Bill Clinton was elected. If Obama can’t make the argument that Presidents Reagan and Clinton made – that they were not only making major headway on unemployment but in better shape than they were when elected (in Reagan’s case, the slight drop in unemployment was accompanied by an enormous drop in interest rates and inflation and a stock market boom) – he’ll face an electorate that is much more suspicious of entrusting him with the economy for four more years.
5: War: It is little remarked today, but a significant factor in Clinton’s loss of prestige in 1993-94 was as a result of his obvious unreadiness to be Commander-in-Chief and resulting series of fiascos in the deployment – or not – of American troops. The timeline of that period shows a straight line from Clinton’s indecsiveness in Somalia (the “Black Hawk Down” battle of Mogadishu) to the ignominious withdrawal of U.S. assistance from Haiti in the face of opposition armed mainly with machetes, to the genocide in Rwanda that followed when it was apparent that the U.S.-led “New World Order” would not have the will to back up its own rhetoric.
But to Clinton’s good fortune, other than the situation in the former Yugoslavia (the massacre at Srebrenica took place in July 1995), the overall global situation was unusually peaceful in 1995-96, as the world continued to reap the dividends of the end of the Cold War and associated boom in international trade. Even longstanding hotspots like Northern Ireland, Palestine and South Africa were making efforts at peace; it would be a few years before it was obvious to casual observers that the September 1993 Oslo accords were not a plausible foundation for peace. Most importantly, by 1996 there were few American troops in harm’s way. And the differences between Clinton and Dole on overall national security strategy were not dramatic. The election was fought almost entirely on domestic policy.
This will not be the case in 2012. America is still at war in Afghanistan, as well as maintaining a significant presence in brittle Iraq. It is possible that tensions with North Korea and the strategic rivalries with China and Russia could calm down, but the multifaceted issue of what do do about the threat of the political project of radical Islam remains a divisive issue, and the war in Afghanistan is specifically divisive within Obama’s party in a way that no foreign policy question was in 1996. It’s premature to predict how the national security issues will play out, but it’s hard to imagine them being as completely secondary as they were in 1996.
6: Money: In 1996, Bill Clinton was able to raise a massive warchest and start spending it very early, famously deploying direct TV ads in battleground states as early as July 1995. Obama, who is expected to raise a billion dollars for his re-election, will have no trouble doing the same, but ironically, the Republican nominee in 2012 may be helped at the front end by the chaos of the presidential field; it will be more difficult to hammer one front-runner with ads the way Clinton did to Bob Dolegingrich (as you’d have thought his name was from the ads). And it seems unlikely, in the current environment, that the opposition will simply run out of money the way Dole did between wrapping up the primaries and launching his general election campaign. I’ll be very surprised if the Republicans are as hobbled by a financial imbalance as they were in 1996.
7: Obama’s Not Clinton: This should be an obvious point. Obama has his strengths as a politician, notably his ability to deliver prepared speeches, but he lacks Clinton’s gifts as a retail politician, he’s prickly when questioned, and of course unlike Clinton – who learned triangulation as a way of regaining the governorship of Arkansas after his 1980 defeat – Obama has no real experience of moderate governance to fall back on. Clinton signed a longstanding conservative policy priority (welfare reform), and didn’t campaign against it; Obama’s most significant nod to the center so far was signing a temporary extension of the Bush income tax cuts, but he has promised to run against them.
8: No Oklahoma City: One of the fortuitous events that played into Clinton’s hands was the Oklahoma City bombing, and while Tim McVeigh was not in a conservative of any stripe, Clinton was able to slow the Right’s momentum by blaming Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh for encouraging “anti-government” sentiment. Obama’s allies tried the same thing with the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, but their palpable desire to score political advantage from the tragedy, combined with the fact that the shooter turned out to be a left-leaning nutjob with no connection whatsoever to conservatives, fatally undermined that argument, as subsequent polls have shown that solid majorities don’t blame political debate for the shootings.
All of this is before we observe other features of the landscape not existing in 1996, like blogs and the Tea Party movement, as well as the possibility that John Boehner, having lived through 1995, will not repeat all of the same mistakes made by Newt Gingrich. As I said above, none of this is an argument that Obama is necessarily doomed or can’t repeat some of the aspects of Clinton’s revival plus some new tricks of his own. But treating 2012 as a straight replay of 1996 is not just bad punditry, it’s bad history.
Moe Lane
PG DeFreese
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Dan Spencer
I would look at 1984 as opposed to 1996
Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 1:48PM EST (link)for a better potential comparison. Everyone will agree that if the unemployment rate is still 9%+ then Obama is toast almost no matter who the GOP runs, while if that rate has (and is) declined (declining) rapidly (say down to the low 8′s or high 7′s), then it may be much more akin to the Reagan re-election of 1984. The stock market may also have a big impact here, as if we continue to get good returns (along with an improving employment picture), it will again be even harder for the GOP candidate to pull off a win. Following this deep recession, I am of the firm belief that the entire 2012 election is going to be a referendum on the economic situation as of say August/September of 2012 and someone will win in a landslide.
That is exactly what I was thinking
kyle8 (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 1:52PM EST (link)In the mid 1980′s we had plenty of government, but it was not taking over everything, we had taxes, but they were low, we had plenty of regulations, but they were not choking off all commerce.
That was a great and prosperous time for America, I would love to return to those levels of government.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
Demographics
Dan McLaughlin (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 2:00PM EST (link)In some cases, the 80s were better simply due to demographics – it’s the aging of the population that has made the entitlement crisis so much worse, in addition to Medicare Part B, Obamacare and runaway state pension spending.
“No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong.” – Winston Churchill
This is the big one
Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 2:03PM EST (link)In the 80′s, we were able to use the newly raised social security taxes to offset what would have been obscene peacetime deficits (at the time), while now more and more of the ss revenue has to be actually paid to recipients. Also (and possibly more importantly), the boomer generation was just entering their peak spending phase, while now they are starting to retire (and presumably cut back).
I'm not sure I agree
ihateliberals Tuesday, January 25th at 11:23AM EST (link)with the perception of the ’84 or the ’96 elections. I was running a company in 1984 when Reagan was reelected. I wasn’t concerned with Deficits or government spending I was thinking of the low employment rates and the fact that i had money to spend not only in my business but personally. I felt good about our government and the direction of the country. Just to hear Reagan’s vice was uplifting. I was good to have a President that made you knew loved this country and everything it stood for.
After Reagan the Republican party under the leadership of George Bush moved towards the center. He broke promised made during his campaign and Clinton used that to his advantage. to be elected. Then in ’96 Bob Dole who was a RINO in most ways was not a good conservative and was too old to be being elected for a first term President. Clinton had moved far enough to the Right and the economy had rebounded from the Bush caused recession that he drew off the enough Republicans to be re-elected. Reagan in 1984 took 49 of the 50 states only the second president to do so while Clinton only took around half of the 50 states. Not the landslide that Reagan enjoyed. People felt the could trust Reagan. When he said he was gong to do something he did it. None of his predecessors have done that and especially Obama. Obama lies on a perpetual basis.
I believe that when push comes to shove the 2012 election will hinge on Obamacare first and then the economy to include a demand for a much smaller unemployment rate. I don’t believe that deficits and spending will be a fore front issue. While some of the things will appear to be the same as 1996 for Clinton barring a MAJOR disaster or Terrorist attack Obama won’t have that to help him overcome Obamacare. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will also play a big role against Obama.
All of this is assuming Obama wins the Democratic nomination. His running is not a done deal. If Hilary or a Moderate Democrat wins the nomination all bets are off.
I might add though
ihateliberals Tuesday, January 25th at 11:35AM EST (link)if the Republicans continue to let RINO’s runt he party Obama or whoever the Democrat is will win. The reason will be that the Republican Party will split into the Republicans and the Tea Party. Conservatives are feed up with the moderate Republicans and the move of the Party to the center. If the Tea Party had not come about withthe conservative people having hope the Republicans would not have taken the house or improved it’s holding in the Senate. The Republicans will have to embrace the Tea Party to even hold onto the House in 2012. If they don’t then even the House will be lost and so will America as we know and love it. BTW – I apologize for my misspellings in my above Post.
Possibly
Dan McLaughlin (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 1:57PM EST (link)As I note, the drastic drop in inflation and interest rates, combined with a booming stock market and lower tax rates, meant that most Americans felt a lot wealthier in 1984 than they did four years earlier. And of course, Reagan – in addition to being Reagan – was running against his predecessor’s VP.
“No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong.” – Winston Churchill
Obama's chances are also enhanced due to Dem race paranoia
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 2:00PM EST (link)He should have several challengers in the primaries like Carter did, but given the Dems identity politics I doubt anyone has the courage to challenge him.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. Obama will
kyle8 (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 2:07PM EST (link)be difficult to defeat. All we need is a very slight improvement in the economy, which will probably happen.
Now, if the economy goes into a double dip recession, then all bets are off.
But he still, as of now, has high personal ratings. He won’t be a push over.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
And at this time is 1983
Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 2:01PM EST (link)(the equivalent of where we are now in the cycle) the unemployment rate was 10.4% and Reagan would not have won re-election either. 22 months is a long time in politics.
Economy will still be in the crapper
haumea (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 3:36PM EST (link)Gas prices, baby.
but if we returned to the mid 1980's policies
kyle8 (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 5:04PM EST (link)then that means domestic production would take off, and Energy prices would also be low like in the 1980′s.
Perhaps not ever that low again, but most of the increase we have seen is not intrinsic. It is because one of the worlds major energy producers (the united states) has been hamstrung by politics.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
What Bill Clinton Did, Was Remarkable Once. And Then Unremarkable the 2nd Time.
Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 2:09PM EST (link)Since WWII, we’ve had the following incumbent POTAE run for reelection (in inverse order): GWB, Clinton, GHWB, Reagan, Carter, Ford(?), Nixon, Eisenhauer, Truman. I note that n=8 (or 7 if you don’t really count Ford). I note the failure rate was 3/8 (2/7).
Clinton bucked the odds winning in 92, he rode them winning in 96. It will require more than just wathing U3 and hoping ObamaCare is the fiasco we believe it is to prevent BHO from winning a 2nd term.
Mr. Obama is pretending that an economic “recovery” is underway when he knows damn well that the banking system is just blowing smoke up the shredded *** of what’s left of that economy – James Howard Kunstler
Wow.
earlgrey (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 2:28PM EST (link)Outlook is not encouraging. If Obama does get a second term than it looks like we will be stuck with Obamacare. I don’t see how it gets repealed if he comes in again.
I wonder also if they will stall having the legal challenges in the Supreme Court to wait until Obama can name another Justice.
Then Consider This:
JX12 (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 12:25AM EST (link)It was reported in 2008 that roughly 20% of people who self-identified as conservatives voted for Obama. They didn’t stay home and abstain – they went out and cast a vote FOR Obama, presumably to teach the GOP a lesson for nominating a RINO. Somehow I’m thinking those voters will be back in the fold in 2012. Worst case, they’ll stay home, but I doubt they’ll actually cast another vote for Obama.
Secondly, there were a lot of people voting for Obama for no reason other than to be part of history, or to prove they weren’t racists, or whatever. Now that they’ve done it, there’s no need to feel obligated to do it again. They can happily vote guilt-free for his opponent – or not at all – this time around, and I suspect many of them will do just that.
Thirdly, a lot of people who honestly expected change for the better are quickly finding out that they were fooled. They’ll be hard-pressed to trust Obama again this time around.
This – in addition to the things Dan pointed out in the main post – make me feel fairly confident about 2012 – even if Democrat voter fraud is thrown into the mix.
What about the Internet?
msctex (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 2:34PM EST (link)No one ever seems to fully acknowledge the economic impact of online sales. If you wanted a thing, for the first time it was at your fingertips, instantly, with no need for a car trip nor possibility of it slipping your mind. Clinton was in the right place at the right time for probably the greatest sales innovation in generations.
Well, perhaps, but
Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 2:39PM EST (link)they were pretty insignificant during his presidency.
Clinton's Massacre & Church Burning
devan95 Monday, January 24th at 2:38PM EST (link)Clinton used OK City bombing to nullify what he did at Waco. Not even conservative commentators, as in the above article, mention Waco as Clinton’s most agregious act and one for which he should have been tried for crimes against humanity. Remember:
The Waco Massacre and church burning was the most brutal, heinous violation of civil, human and Constitutional rights in this nation’s history. Innocent men, women and children were attacked with tanks, poison gas (CS gas turns to cyanide when heated) and burned alive. Those who ran from the church were machine-gunned as documented in the movie “Waco, The Rules of Engagement.” If you doubt how bad this was consider that you never hear the left stream media talk about it. They want it erased from history but this memorial site will remain forever: http://www.wizardsofaz.com/waco/waco2.html
And if that weren’t bad enough, Clinton’s thugs then stuck a machine gun in the face of a 5 year old boy and sent him to the communist gulag known as Cuba: http://www.therealcuba.com/elian_gonzalez.htm
Let’s hope Clinton isn’t teaching President Prompter too many of his old tricks!
No doubt the machine gun stopped Gore
JoeG Tuesday, January 25th at 12:46AM EST (link)All it would have taken is a few hundred votes the other way in Florida and it would have been president Gore.
That photo with Elian crying with a machine gun pointed at his face by a federal agent most certainly cost thousands of votes.
I would like to know
annas Monday, January 24th at 2:43PM EST (link)WHAT it is that is driving his poll numbers up? Nothing has changed! He is “pivoting” to the middle for the campaign. NOTHING has Changed about him-nothing. Are people really this stupid?
apparently. nt.
earlgrey (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 3:15PM EST (link)I would like to see a poll....
gekster (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 3:20PM EST (link)where they post the questions asked,
and who and where they were asked.
I think that would explain alot about
these polls and thier numbers..
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
Bad polling or statistical noise...
haumea (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 3:33PM EST (link)I doubt very much this is a sustained improvement…
He hasn't done much lately
Dan McLaughlin (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 3:39PM EST (link)his poll numbers always go up when he’s not doing anything.
“No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong.” – Winston Churchill
great point and great blog Dan, as usual...and pitchers and catchers report in a few weeks! - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 4:01PM EST (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Jay Cost looked at this . . .
EcH90 Monday, January 24th at 4:33PM EST (link). . . a couple times, like here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/plurality-americans-see-obamas-administration-failure_536842.html
Yes ...
cam1 Tuesday, January 25th at 9:20AM EST (link)they are, and they have been warmed by the photo op of BO an MO at the Tucson Lolapalooza for the shooting frenzy that was caused by callous right wing hate speech. BO is now a uniter not a divider. It is that simple and yes, people are that stupid.
The 2012 Election Will Be Decided...
tsquare (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 2:44PM EST (link)… by powers, forces and events outside the control of this or any other White House.
That said, these powers, forces and events are far more likely to reflect negatively on Obama than positively. Now this negatively could and will take many, many forms… from ‘Obama just didn’t look good’ to ‘boy he really messed that up’
Add to that, this time Obama has a record this time around.
Add to that the demographics of re-appropriation (all things equal Obama is down 7 EV right now) and that to win he must get both the far left base and the minorities that turned out in record numbers to do so yet again. (two ‘historic’ turnouts in 4 years)
Add to that the fact that Obama didn’t win in 2008 by 8,542,597 votes… he won by 954,000 votes across 7 states (for a total of 96 EV) This will be very hard to do a second time given the states on that list coupled with the EV swing. (Indiana North Carolina,
New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia)
Anybody want to put money on Obama carrying ALL those states again in 2012?
Money on BHO carrying those states??
dbkohl Tuesday, January 25th at 5:15AM EST (link)Barring some act of God, I don’t see Obama taking Ohio again. We mvoed back to the right in 2010 with a Clean Sweep of the Statewide offices, both houses, an increase in US House Reps and the US Senate seat. Ohio was/is o disinfranchised with the left/Obama I see us staying alinedto the right for a few more election cycles.
The economy was good in 96
smitch61 Monday, January 24th at 3:18PM EST (link)Nobody much cared about politics. The economy is in bad shape now, people are most definitely paying attention.
Besides, Clinton never said the American people “were going to create STUFF”. What president uses the word stuff? In a speech no less?, He has no chance in hell next time around, no matter how they try to sugar coat his missteps.
I generally agree that Obama has so alienated too many of We the voting People to win
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 4:04PM EST (link)re-election both by his proven failed policies; his delay in advocating true stimulus for job creation and in his arrogance in looking down on ordinary Americans and in taking the side of foreigners and the left against American exceptionalism, that he can’t beat a dead cat in 2012. Add to this all the whites that voted to purge their white guilt since McCain sucked and that have now seen gates-gate beer summuits and black panthers, and voila…he is unelectable…passing polls be damned.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
The problem, of course
aesthete (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 5:03PM EST (link)being that the supposed “frontrunners” for the GOP nomination fall several measures below “dead cat” in attractiveness.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
I share your pessimism about the 2012 field - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 5:57PM EST (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
lets wait and see
kyle8 (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 5:59PM EST (link)we really don’t know who is in or out yet.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
yes, and even former candidates and present ones can improve and look
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 6:41PM EST (link)much better down the road.
Now, there are many that I think would be good conservative presidents, but they all seem to have a negative or are perceived as too obscure or unknown etc
Yes, I am a patient man and actually do self limit myself on presidential election chatter this far out even after non-tea party wave elections and just now and for most of this year, my focus is 90% on getting the current congress to actually pass laws that help speed recovery and repeal Big Govt as much as possible. I think constant pressure on congressmen is required to get anything good done. Electing the “right” person is vital, but everyone we elect is or will soon be of the political class before the next election. All of them!
except for Sessions, DeMint and not many others…
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
I don't worry that much about electability negatives
kyle8 (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 6:47PM EST (link)unless they are really huge. Every candidate, as you say, has them including Mr Obama. What I worry about is that even a very modest economic improvement will make him very very formidable, no matter who runs against him.
Incumbents have tremendous advantages, and he never totally lost his likability ratings.
On the other hand, if the economy dips even more, then any prominent Republican could beat him.
And no, I am not hoping the economy is bad, that would make me like a liberal.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
agreed, we can't know who is unelectable until they lose
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 6:54PM EST (link)I don;t share your level of concern over slight improvement in the economy making it significantly easier for Obama to win given how bad things have become under his policies that, given the wave election, indicates the re-education of so many in lib policies and in it being identified with Obama and the Dems.
But you are right to warn of the danger, and thus the imperative to choose the best candidate for political and substantive purposes.
Yes, my desire for correct policies that will improve the economy is paramount even to keeping Obama from being elected and I do think we should say yes, one issue bill at a time, and if the economy improves greatly, then he should share credit and so under those circumstances, it would not be as bad if he were re-elected.
Even if I do despise him and do think their a great danger to America if he stays in and we can’t repeal ObamaCare in toto…more later
great discussion here
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Thanks for the thumbs up to Sessions...
Melody Warbington (rwm52) (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 1:05PM EST (link)We have a few in our local Tea Party who do not give him nearly enough credit for being a solid conservative. Sure, he’s had a couple of votes I didn’t agree with, and he’s been around a long time, but we need to keep a handful of folks like him who know how things work.
The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. (John 4:25)
yes, there were conservatives long before tea partiers that "got it" sooner and
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 1:09PM EST (link)deserve respect.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Do not count out two things. The first is the power of
davesinsanantonio (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 6:07AM EST (link)incumbency tied with the power of the “bully pulpit”–and Obummer seems to know how to use both. The second is the power of the spineless RINOs to push one of their own into the candidacy. The RINOs campaign history has been to all gang up on the front runner until he falls aside, then to gang up on the new front runner until he falls aside, etc. By doing this, they almost guarantee a weak RINO candidate, because all the strong ones have fallen by the wayside. The exception to this was Reagan, who had spent years building up his grassroots support and those delegates held faithful through the convention.
So, what we need to do is encourage real conservatives to run, and stop backing any RINOs in the (especially early) primaries. We can support a RINO in the general if that is what happens, but let us at least try to find one candidate who will be GOOD for this country, not just less bad!
No third party.
bjf182 (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 3:57PM EST (link)There doesn’t appear to be another Ross Perot on the horizon for Obama either.
I think they were trying to put Bloomberg in that spot.
earlgrey (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 4:46PM EST (link)He got “snowed in”
Start up the misery index, here comes inflation.
morstar150 (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 4:21PM EST (link)Obama will have to face the electorate with high unemployment and inflation flashing its ugly head. The deficit will not go away either. No one in the Senate has the guts to cut social security or medicaid, two of the biggest entitlement programs.
It doesn’t look good for Barry!
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil, in its worst, an intolerable one. (Thomas Paine)
Inflation, if it rears its ugly head, will be more of a factor
davesinsanantonio (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 6:14AM EST (link)than unemployment. It was the inflation (morphed into the misery index) that did Carter in. That and the fact that he kept bad mouthing America. Obummer seems to keep his anti-Americanism in check, at least publicly. I guess we can always hope for an open mike and a videotaper nearby. His arrogance will cause him to say something he really means–lets hope we can turn that into an internet moment.
The only parrallel I see to 1996 is
Change Jar Conservative (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 4:58PM EST (link)that only a flawed candidate will make us lose.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, regardless of what you think of Palin, she is the most likely candidate to hand the election to Obama with Huckabee being 2nd (Palin because of the number of Republican and independents who won’t vote for her … and frankly, I know 10 to 12 myself … several of whom always vote Republican / and Huck because his big government conservtism is not going to serve as foil against Obama on the top issue).
I honestly believe the GOP would win with any of Romney, Guiliani, Daniels, Pence, Gingrich, Thompson, Huntsman, Barbour, etc.
********
Formerly know as “Oz” in these parts
Very Winnable Race, But Not 1980
victrola Monday, January 24th at 6:45PM EST (link)My fear is conservatives will think 2012 will be like 1980, where essentially ANY Republican running wins handily, or like 2008 where ANY Democrat could have won (as we saw)
Here’s my fear, even with nearly 10% unemployment, Obama would win today against any potential Republican (if the polls are accurate) He has over 50% approval ratings despite the worst economy in several generations. My guess is the economy will be better in two years, at least on many fronts. If the economy is looking optimistic, he’ll be in an even stronger position.
In 2012, we’ll probably have around 8.5% unemployment, and gas will be $4.00 a gallon. Obama is definitely vulnerable, but you’re going to have to get a candidate that can win over independent voters, not just the base. Almost all of our gains in 2010 were because independent voters backed the GOP, it was not from a groundswell of conservative base voters.
Had Republicans called Obama’s bluff on the tax deal, however, and Obama was forced to raise taxes, he would have been a dead man walking.
And we need to find a candidate
rickbull Monday, January 24th at 10:14PM EST (link)who doesn’t refer to himself in the third person. I have nothing but love and admiration for Bob Dole, but he creeped a lot of younger voters out (and some older ones, too).
We need a candidate with charisma who can sway the all generations with a positive message.
In short, we need to find the Ronald Reagan of the 21st century. And that is going to be a TALL order.
I thought at one time that we had that with Fred Thompson, in 2008, but Fred didn’t have the drive and ambition the was needed — or at least he didn’t show it.
Reagan was the dark horse candidate in 1980. Maybe we can find another dark horse with what it takes in 2012. I’m still looking.
WE ARE THE 53% (who actually pay taxes).
I'll beleive that when I see a candidate walk into Iowa and call Ethanol a boondogle
Next93 (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 11:40PM EST (link)And I don’t expect that to happen.
Obama was The One in 2008.
He’ll be a BIGGER one in 2012.
re: the economy
Next93 (Diary) Monday, January 24th at 11:39PM EST (link)I’ve noticed that already, there’s not one “positive indicator” that’s too obscure for the alphabet media to pick up on. We keep being told that the economy is on the rebound and that things are about to get better, but somehow the unemployment rate isn’t getting any better, and the price of gas and food has already started to climb.
I suppose the thinking is that if they keep telling us that the economy is getting better, we won’t notice gas hitting $5.00 and bread hitting $7.00, and we’ll forget about all the people who’ve been out of work for years.
Remember, we’ve ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.
Obama was The One in 2008.
He’ll be a BIGGER one in 2012.
Economy vs the Dollar
dbkohl Tuesday, January 25th at 5:40AM EST (link)The weak dollar is part od th problem with the increase in the cost of gas and food prices. Both are traded heavily internationally. Both are either high (Ag commodties) or going up (price of oil/barrel) right now. I don’t see either coming down much in th next 20 months.
Add the effect of the defict dircly on the dollar,things wil get wose before they get better I’m afraid. (Even if Congress does the right thing and slashes spending.)
You left an obvious one out
bgwinnett Tuesday, January 25th at 6:57AM EST (link)Ironically you left out the fact the we now have news sources like Redstate to get out a conservative message vs 1994. Fox News, the internet, etc. will make this a totally different environment for the President to to try to triangulate.
Barak will not have some 2008 advantages
maddog (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 7:38AM EST (link)Look at all the advantages that Barak had in 2008. Most of these he will not have again.
•Historically low approval ratings of opposition party President
•Worst financial panic since the Great Depression
•2 wars
•Democrats enjoyed 8-10% advantage in generic Congressional ballot leading up to the election
•Historic pattern of party in power rarely winning third term (GHWB was the second in 100 years- I exempt FDR because that was unusual case with 4 terms, WWII, Depression, etc)
•Dispirited, demoralized opposition party
•Opposition party had oldest nominee in the history of the republic which contrasted with the rock start aura of BHO
•Opposition party base not solidly behind nominee
•Opposition party nominee ran lackluster and at times ineffective campaign
•Opposition party nominee chose public funding and to hamper himself with the regulations and limitations that come with it.
•Fundraising ran circles around opposition nominee and set records
•Outspent opposition party nominee 7-1 in final month
•Ran on vague warm, fuzzy “hope and change.” Next time around he won’t be able to evade specifics and will actually have record to defend. He didn’t have much of a record in 2008 and what little he did, the media never held him accountable. Not so next time.
That is a long list. Yet despite all of those major advantages, Barak managed to just eke out only razor thin wins. Look at some key states. NC was 50-49 in Obama. That’s only 14,000 votes out of 4.4 million cast. Now that’s a mandate if I ever saw one . Voter turnout increased by a hard to replicate 20% in order to slip by with 14,00 votes. Barak won OH and FL with 51%. VA was the Obama’s biggest “thumping” in my small list of key states with his staggering 53% “blow out.” Those 4 states account for 75 electoral votes. A minor change of 2-3 percent (not a whole heck of a lot in the grand scheme of things) suddenly brings Barak’s Electoral College margin down to 278- perilously close to the 270 minimum required to win. These are Republican states that have consistently voted Republican. Then there’s reapportonment causing some EV loss.
Virginia’s 2009 republican sweep cannot be encouraging for BHO. Ohio in 2010 was a bust for dems.The gulf spill is bound to hurt him in Florida
My whole point is Barak did not win by much. He had a lot of wind in his sails in 2008 that he won’t have in 2012. 2008 was no landslide. He can and may very lose 2012. No margin for error.
Two others that Barak won't have
Change Jar Conservative (Diary) Tuesday, January 25th at 9:29AM EST (link)1) White guilt. I’ve spoken to several right-of-center Independents who voted for Obama to show people that “America wasn’t racist” and because they didn’t think there would be much difference between McCain and Obama.
That group isn’t going to vote for Barak a second time.
2) The “wouldn’t it be neat” group which is related to the first in that they wanted to elect a Black president but not so much out of guilt as out of novelty.
********
Formerly know as “Oz” in these parts
9. The Enemy
nunleigh Tuesday, January 25th at 8:03AM EST (link)I never thought Bill Clinton disliked me personally. When Obama mocked American patriots by waving an imaginary teabag in the air at a Townhall meeting way back in March 2009, I knew he was not the President of all the people. From there, it only got worse. He saw We the People as his enemy, clinging to our religion and guns. We should have been thanking him instead of questioning his big spending policies. Now, we are to believe he is suddenly President of all the people. Fool me once, same on you…fool me twice, shame on me. I will not be fooled again.
I hope you are right
annas Tuesday, January 25th at 8:59AM EST (link)..that Obama’s negatives remain high. This morning Powerline says his comeback is real and public opinion is likely to morph into a “benign neglect.” IMO this is the worst president EVER–after only two years. How can people not see he is all smoke and mirrors? We don’t even know his history or background as it is so hidden! I thought November was a turning point…now he is the comeback kid?
MSM GOP vs poor attack
talgus Tuesday, January 25th at 12:50PM EST (link)As the cry of the GOP taking everything from those that can’t is proceeding the SOU address, it is time to set the record straight. DEMs have been on the side of the needy since Roosevelt. Dems have improved what? They need you as a voting block. Just why do you think they want you to stop being NEEDY?