In his column today, David Brooks asks why President Obama is doing so well in the polls when the fundamentals in the country are so bad. “The key,” according to Brooks, “is his post-boomer leadership style.”
Brooks adds that “the secret to his popularity through hard times is that he is not melodramatic, sensitive, vulnerable and changeable. Instead, he is self-disciplined, traditional and a bit formal.” While declaring that “Obama is a slight underdog this year: the scuffling economy will grind away at voters,” David concludes that Obama’s leadership style “is keeping him afloat. He has defined a version of manliness that is postboomer in policy but preboomer in manners and reticence.”
There’s something to Brooks’s argument. The president, after all, is higher in the approval ratings than objective circumstances would warrant.
On the other hand, the fact the Mitt Romney is ahead of Obama in several polls, even after a bruising primary battle, and that Obama is only drawing 43 percent support against Romney in the most recent CBS News/New York Times poll has to be a source of concern for the president. Many people forget that Jimmy Carter was ahead of Ronald Reagan in the Gallup Poll just a week before the 1980 election–but independents and undecided voters broke in massive numbers toward Reagan in the end. It’s usually the case that a challenger wins most of the late-deciding voters (especially in an economy this weak), and in all likelihood that will be the case in 2012. The polls will be relatively close for the next several months, with some fluctuations, but if Romney heads into the last week of the campaign tied or with a slight lead, he’ll win by a comfortable margin.
This election, like most elections, will be decided on substance, not style; on objective circumstances, not ginned-up attacks. Which is why Mitt Romney is extremely well-positioned to become the next president of the United States.
"This election, like most elections, will be decided on substance, not style" n nThis is not even close to being accurate. Obama was never elected president because of substance! nHe captured the grand prize because so many guilt tripped white voters wanted to prove they were not racists. It is also the number one reason why his current poll numbers are still rather high.
This is only the beginning. Those of us who want to get rid of Obama better not start to rest or we will the election. Don't be cocky. Keep focused.
David – Mr. Wehner does say "most elections". I suspect he'd agree with your analysis of 2008. But looking at the larger point, I think this commentary is superb, though I'd argue that Brooks's analysis is, as usual, silly. Obama " is not melodramatic, sensitive, vulnerable and changeable." What the heck? He is all of those things quadrupled. On the gay marriage issue alone he's demonstrated all of them in spades. Brooks may be a smart guy, but man is he an idiot.
Brooks should just buy a pair of kneepads and get down to business. He may have to elbow Chris Mathews and George Clooney out of the way.
"Giving kudos to the undeserving is a form of idolatry" Talmud nCue Brooks licking Barry-boy; cue Wehner sucking on Brooks!
Funny how a guy who was once a member of the George W. Bush administration (and presumably witnessed the 2004 election up close) should write ignorant stuff like that! n nBrief recap: n* In 2004, Bush was personally popular, especially with his own base, although his job approval in May was no better than Obama's current figures. The opposition did loathe him, and Bush failed to win a majority of independents despite narrowly winning the election (including a majority of undecided voters) in the end. n n* The main challenge of the incumbent was to persuade the electorate he deserved another four year despite anemic economic growth and doubts about his policies. So the main argument was, things would be worse if Kerry were in charge. n n* Bush's challenger was sitting pretty in May 2004 (Kerry led most of the horserace polls at this stage) but was also regarded as a somewhat uninspiring and untrustworthy candidate. Voters found him less likable, the race remained tight until the end until election day when the incumbent's superior ground game proved decisive. n
I agree with the previous comments. And especially that Brooks' always gets it wrong. BHO is everything Brooks says he is not. But then again he was quite in awe of BHO from the beginning.
David Brooks ? Are you kidding. He was last years news.r nHis opines are worthless. Trash them