In just the latest indication of the direction his campaign will take, President Obama used a fawning interview in Rolling Stone to make it clear that he thinks his re-election will depend on mobilizing his liberal base. Because he must try to find a way to motivate erstwhile supporters who lack the enthusiasm for him that they showed during his 2008 victory, the president is counting on a twin strategy of demonizing Republicans and tilting to the left on domestic issues.
The starkest illustration of this came in his answers to questions about climate change in which he promised to make this article of faith for the left a central issue in the coming campaign. This may play well for the readers of Rolling Stone. But given the growing skepticism among ordinary Americans about the ideological cant on the issue that has spewed forth from the mainstream media and the White House, it may not help Obama with independents and the working class voters he needs as badly in November as the educated elites who bludgeoned him into halting the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. This conflict illustrates the contradiction at the core of the president’s campaign.
The president’s campaign staff is correct in their estimation that he cannot be re-elected without energizing the liberal base and generating better than average turnout rates among the young voters and minorities who put him in the White House. These voters are understandably disillusioned with a presidency that has had few achievements and disappointed with the fact that Obama kept in place many of the Bush administration security policies. Convincing them that the “hope and change” they expected in the last four years will come to life in the next term is no easy task. Because he cannot run on his record, the president’s only hope of bringing out his supporters is by making the election a referendum on the Republicans, who must be portrayed as ideological extremists while Obama gives indications that although Guantanamo is still operating, he’s still the same liberal they voted for in 2008.
That’s where the climate change issue comes in. By promising to make it a central part of his campaign and saying “I will be very clear in voicing my belief that we’re going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way,” the president is seeking to show his base that he can be trusted — as he proved when he blocked the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline — to bow to their ideological prejudices even when doing so may negatively impact the economy and fuel prices.
But doing so places him in jeopardy on the main issue for the rest of the electorate: the economy. At a time of rising gas prices and with even his liberal cheerleaders in the press acknowledging that the recovery the administration touted as being an indication that his policies worked has more or less collapsed, tilting to the left on climate change may alienate more voters than it will secure. President Obama believes he can exploit Mitt Romney’s contradictions on the issue. But deriding his opponent as a member of the Flat Earth Society doesn’t address his main problem: how to explain a stagnant economy that has grown worse on his watch and which most people believe will be damaged further by policies dictated by environmental extremists.
Though he needs to wave the green flag for the left, doing so reminds centrist voters that their jobs and rising fuel prices are being held hostage by a president indebted to the left. Obama may need those liberals to turn out, but the price of securing their renewed enthusiasm could cost him the election.
Contradictions in your campaign strategy don't matter when (a) the media does not report the existence of the contradiction and (b) people are not capable of seeing a contradiction or don't care even if they do. The belief that policy and logic are still important is quaint and wrongheaded: if policy and logic really mattered, the country would never have elected–and STILL STRONGLY SUPPORT–a man like Obama.
The last Democrat to run as an unabashed liberal was Walter Mondale. Since then they have had to use words like "hope" and "change" to get themselves elected. Candidate Obama was very effective in 2008, especially aided by the media, at energizing the liberal base and duping the independents simultaneously. Abandoning conventional wisdom that has held true for the past six election cycles with a strategy of steering to the left will be political suicide. There are no indications of a sea-change in perceptions or expectations of what the electorate seeks from government. The implosion of Obama continues.
What you don’t realize is that Obam does not have to choose between a “steer left” vs. “steer to middle” strategy, as you wrongly assume. With media help, he can simultaneously (a) appeal to the hard left and (b) appeal to the center/indendents. It is quite a thing to behold, but he can (and is) doing it.
> The implosion of Obama continues. n nUm, where is the evidence Obama is "imploding…?" n nIf we look at his job approval, Gallup claims he has been gaining for six months(!) now and the other daily pollster (GOP leaning Rasmussen) reports Obama's approval is holding steady. As of late April Obama's job approval is much better than that of Carter or H W Bush at the same point. n nHorserace polls are not that relevant six months before the elections, but it's still interesting that Romney isn't gaining despite having secured the nomination more than a month ago. THE WEEKLY STANDARD's Jay Cost notes that political polarization means 90% of voters probably have made up their minds already so large popularity swings may be a thing of the past. n nMARCU$
But he can have it both ways: be liberal to the base, and centerist to the center. The idea that people pay attention and hold politicians accountable for inconsistencies is absurd. People don't pay that much attention, and when they do, they are easily deceived by rhetoric that smooths over the contradictions. Basically, Obama can have his cake and eat it too. You think this is the first time he has done this? This has been his style from day 1 and it keeps working. If people actually paid attention to his contradictions, lies and inconsistencies, he'd have a 0% approval, but it is actually quite high. That should make you and Tobin rethink your thesis.
He has to appease the green party to keep them from fielding a candidate with name recognition. With their disappointment in him on so many other fronts (economy, Libya, drones, Gitmo, privacy, transparency, Iran war drums), they'd likely flee him altogether unless he stood firm on green policies. Even then, the failures of Solyndra and other green projects has to dampen their confidence in his ability to pick the "correct" winners in renewables.
It's possible Obama's strategy can succeed (but, hear me out, what makes it possible also works against it). When only 50% of eligible voters turn out (maybe as many as 60% in a Presidential election), inspiring your base can make a difference. That might even be especially true of Democrats, since I believe the things I've read on turnout indicated to me that an awful lot of those who do not vote are the poor and the working poor and students who have more immediate interests. What works against this strategy is that of the 40-50% who don't turn out to vote, many wouldn't support the Democrat — and he may accidently get them motivated to turn out and vote for Romney. And Romney might inspire them himself by being positive!
I think Obama's election strategy is inevitable, since had already decided not to triangulate. He is not comfortable seeking the center, so he is doing a Rove: motivate the hell out of the base and ignore the undecided. He should blame the Tea Party for wrecking the economy and run against the rich in a Trumanesque fashion. The challenge will be doing this in a way that doesn't provoke the GOP base. He should choose media and venues that are narrowcast to the left. The MSM will do what they can to help, but the GOP base is quite plugged in these days with talk radio, FOX and the blogosphere.
The fact that Obama is trying to gin up his base, tells me that Obama is in trouble. I talk with people from around the country for business reasons, i'm hearing a lot of negativity towards Obama. I think he's toast no matter what.
As BDZ says, with the media on his side, he makes out quite well (except he can't shut up and his negatives with the public come from that). That is, I hope he keeps it negative. But, one problem is how what he says is presented on the news. On a Toledo station his speech to college students not only embraced the strawman argument, the local anchor saying that Obama was speaking to get Republicans to stop blocking the renewal of the low interest on student loans, but then went to a clip of Obama saying that the [2007 program signed into law by Bush] was a program Obama brought in when he became President. That's what Romney's up against — but if Romney keeps the Republican base motivated, it could be a landslide!