Democrats are now thinking about the vice presidential debate a bit differently than they might have expected just a week ago. Rather than Vice President Biden being given the task of merely not losing ground to Paul Ryan, he is now being asked to win it so as to offset the impact of last week’s disastrous showing by the head of his ticket in the first presidential debate. It remains to be seen whether that is likely or even possible, and we’ll have more about the veep matchup later today and tomorrow. But whatever winds up happening tomorrow night, placing this much emphasis on a Biden win puts the Obama campaign in a tight spot. It also raises the question of how they will react if, as is most likely, that debate, as well as the two presidential confrontations that will follow, doesn’t produce a clear-cut victory for the incumbents.
Both in 2008 and throughout all of 2012 up until this point, the president has had the luxury of running ahead of the competition. If the current trend, in which the national polls are now showing Romney with a slight lead in the race, continues, we will find out how he does when he is trailing. Based on the evidence of the past week as the Romney surge began, that is not an encouraging prospect for the Democrats.
It should be remembered that the president’s greatest strength doesn’t come from spinning weak economic statistics or from attacks on his opponents. His election in 2008 was the product of harnessing the positive feelings of Americans about an inspiring challenger whose victory would go some way toward righting the historic wrongs of the country’s legacy of racism. It is that historic status that is the foundation for President Obama’s positive personal image and a major deterrent to wavering independents and disillusioned Democrats crossing over to the GOP.
The remnants of the sentiment that drove that “hope and change” election dovetail nicely with the Democrats’ attempt to place the blame for a poor economy on George W. Bush rather than on the man who has been in office for four years. But it is far from clear if that rather flimsy argument will work as well for a candidate who is faltering as it does for one who seems in command.
Though the Democrats have been running a breathtakingly negative campaign against Mitt Romney all year, they’ve turned up the heat in the days since the debate. The barrage of ads calling Romney a “liar” because a liberal journalist quotes a liberal think tank that believes his tax plan will somehow require a middle class tax increase, even though there is no such provision in it, is one example. The one about Romney wanting to kill Big Bird is another.
The problem with these ads is not just that they are inaccurate but that they reek of desperation. This sort of heavy-handed sliming is intended to reduce the GOP candidate’s favorability ratings, but they may also have the unintended effect of making Obama look scared and nasty. That is exactly the sort of sentiment that is likely to kill any remnant of awe for the president’s historic status that is essential to his re-election.
Far from such tactics erasing Romney’s bounce, it is this sort of thing that may help transform it from a momentary surge to a fundamental change in the dynamic of this election.
In 2008, Obama showed the country that he knew how to play when ahead as he avoided mistakes and complacency and cruised to a most decisive victory. But by showing up unprepared in Denver while Romney demonstrated his command of the issues, the president put himself in a position where he may well have to spend the next month trying to catch Romney. That is a very different skill and requires drastically different tactics than the ones the Democrats have so far employed in this election.
While this situation may well be altered in the coming days and weeks, if both the candidate and his campaign are temperamentally unsuited to playing from behind, the debate loss may turn out to be a bigger problem than the president could ever have imagined.
The new editors of The New Republic endorsed Obama in the new issue , titled "Why Obamaism Must Live" with this key point: n"…Nor, crucially, has he crafted a sustained argument that might help erode the American aversion to government. …" n nWill someone please turn THAT into a thought-provoking discussion? n nIs not the role of Federal Government the major difference between the two parties? n nbtw, most of us disillusioned dems are fiscal conservatives who were thrown under the bus by P-O-R in 2008. And, as to the "historic" nature of Obama's candidacy in 2008? Explain why voter turnout in New York was 50% in 2008. THAT should have been a clue that the only people pushing the post-racial presidency in 2008 was Doris Kearns Goodwin. n n
There is an issue over the role of government but not that big of one between these two candidates. Romney is not anchored to the extreme right and, I’d equally argue, Obama is not anchored to the extreme left. They are both incremental centrists, cautious, deliberate and pragmatic. It’s just that they come at governance from different angles of emphasis along a spectrum of left liberal to right conservative. Anyone expecting some major shift in the role of government, save with new crises, financial or otherwise, will have his expectations dashed by either of these guys coming into power–and that view takes into account the passing of Obamacare, still rooted as it is in for profit provision of health care.
Obama is not anchored to the extreme left? Well, maybe he is not anchored o the Socialist Workers Party or Progressive Labor. But he's certainly playing to the more extreme left elements within the Democratic Party, and far to the left of the Great Society or New Frontier liberals of the 1960s.
The passage of ObamaCare and the Stimulus (taxpayer bailout for government workers) pretty much destroys your arguement that Obama isn't wedded to socialism as "a government mandated economy "- private or public.
I don't know what you consider extreme left, but Obama is the farthest left president you will ever see. No one could get elected being as lefty as him if people knew it up front. I doubt anyone that far left will be able to fool the people again for a long time.
Biden in debates just lies. It will a long stream of lies. Remember, this guy has been charged with being a pathological liar because of all those instances of plagiarism in his past. He will lie with a smile for 90 minutes.
Don't worry. He's not going up against a lightweight neophyte like Sarah Palin this time. Paul Ryan will pick him to pieces.
The Benghazi stuff just gets worse and worse. n nThe Admin knowingly lied, they arrested an American citizen in the middle of the night because he made a silly short film, with a full press posse on hand to witness it, allegedly for the crime of using a computer and so violating his parole, in order to appease Islamic mobs or perhaps convince Americans there was some wrongdoing here that justified a police-state type of arrest. They ran ads in Pakistan with the same goal. n nEqually disgusting, they promulgated the lie of the video during the reception of he victim's bodies, when they already knew the victims did not die because of a movie. In so doing they showed enormous disrespect to the victims and their families, desecrating the purpose of their deaths and the ceremony with lies. n nAnd then, the Obama, Mr. Cool, stating 'Obviously, our hearts are broken.' n nWhenever someone says 'Obviously', as Mark Steyn said, its not obvious at all, and probably untrue. n nA fiasco from A to Z. n nRomney should tear him a new one with this stuff.
Oh, and the Ambassador was not just killed, but was, by some reports, tortured and raped before being killed. How come no one talks about that? Probably for the same reason no one talked about the sodomization of Gadaffi before he was killed. Too politically incorrect to point out the sexual proclivities of Muslim fighting men? n nDoes anyone have confirmation of this rape story? n nPerhaps it was not talked about because it would have further enraged the American public, who might start asking questions, like 'What sort of foreign policy are we running here? It doesn't seem like world loves or respects Obama . . .' n nI wonder what Lara Logan thinks?
From what I have seen online terrorists made this claim, but the security forces who arrived on the scene do not verify this and nothing has been released pointing to torture or sodomy in medical report so I'm hoping this is a terrorist lie.
Several points in response to Jonathan's post. Negative, even strident ads, work. One of the weaknesses of the Romney campaign was not to respond effectively to the Obama ads that defined him as a rapacious Wall Street type. In other words, one of the most important rules in campaigns is not to permit the opposition to define you. The Romney group fell down on this one and Obama's ad savaged him. Don't underestimate how they can continue to do that. n nThe public does want to give this president the benefit of the doubt. Racial guilt is one. Bitterness toward W another. I"m sure readers can come up with several more. n nThe Republican brand is off-putting to many. As a Republican, Romney has to rise above this label which is difficult to do without alienating the base. n nWhy, then, if these negatives are significant, is the race so close? Well, simply, there's a flip side to this, of course. One part of that is the atrocious record of Obama. This race is far from over and I suspect that it will be determined by the remaining debates, including the VP.
Negative ads only work if you are successful in defining your opponent as result of them. Mitt Romney, by virtue of his demeanor and performance last week, totally obliterated six months and millions of dollars worth of negative ads that had been run against him. By now, people are numb to them. n nAt some point, if it's discovered by the voters that your opponent really isn't the spawn of Satan, you have to give people some good reasons to vote for you rather than simply against the other guy. That's why the Obama campaign is in serious trouble.
Pretty hard to come from behind when leading from behind is your standard playbook. Obama is finished. Only his most ardent supporters will think otherwise. n nThe Right has ALWAYS been onto him but now so is the Middle and even the Left is starting to look at Mr.Cool and question whether it makes sense to sheild him in the face of all of his grotesque machaniations and lies. He has ZERO credibility. When your own sycophantic media and celebrity supporters turn on you you're toast. n nIf Biden is one of their last, best hopes then they really are desperate and have got no chance at all; Biden's been marginalized even worse than Obama. Let him try to explain the Libya debacle and coverup tomorrow night…people want REAL answers and all we hear are lies. In fact they lie about things we have them on video saying…it's breathtaking to witness! Audacity is the one word that descibes this administration to a T, the other is corrupt. n n
And with the schism between O and Hillary (she is trying to save any remaining shred of credibility while they throw her under the bus) my guess is Bill Clinton won't be touting Obama going forward-he'll just turn out as a supporter for state candidates. n nThe fall is legendary and it's long overdue. n
This is a mirror of the Republican primary. Romney played from behind & gradually ran away with it.r nr nI voted Obama 08 I am switching to Mitt in 2012.
I hope you live in Ohio.
Off-putting to NYC, DC, LA and SF elitists you mean? THESE are the only folks wanting to give "Obama the benefit of the doubt"…..What is specifically "off-putting" about the republican "brand"???? I guess you would be shocked to realize MANY Americans equate "Democrat" with international weakness, entitlement (Obama phones, Unions, etc,) and a painful sense that they have the market cornered on representing all that is "cool" (you don't.) We'll see how this goes in November, "racial guilt" is a double edged sword.
Paul Ryan has a nasty job ahead of him. Biden will be well primed and will have not only years of involvement but have information that Ryan doesn't (yet) have access to. It could get really messy. Biden may have foot in mouth disease but he is not stupid – just VP to the wrong person.
There are way too many people willing to believe the Democrat mantra "Romney lied". Of course the messiah only tells the truth and can do no wrong. Will the MSM ever gain some pride and hold all accountable?
I think you can make the case with the rise of the Big Bird ad – post disastrous-debate-defeat that Obama is running the most unserious campaign for President. Ever.
"The Republican brand is off-putting to many." n nI believe you are letting your New York slip—or equivalent—show beneath your hemline. I grant you, between Riverside Drive and Central Park West and from 96th St. to Lincoln Center, Republicans are in bad odor. But coming from a district that sent Bella Abzug and Jerry Nadler to Congress, while serving as Ruth Messinger's reliable political base, slurs on Republicans seem like back-handed compliments to me. n nThere are vast areas of the country where the "Republican brand" is quite well received, thank you. For example, here in Wisconsin, Republicans are rather more approved of than not, as was evident in Scott Walker's two victories, the second, on June 4th, by a greater margin than the first; and the first MoV was pretty good. n nOn the other hand, I have known many, many life-long Democrats (most of my family, on both sides, in fact) whose attitude towards Democrats AND Republicans is that, while both parties are run by criminals, the Democrats can be counted on to share the loot more broadly. The Republicans I have known since joining the party 20 years or so ago have been far less cynical about political preferences, in my opinion.
I am amazed that those on the Left are not embarrassed by the Obama campaign tactics — the pathetic desperation of Hussein Obama, Plouffe, Axelrod, and Gibbs makes me cringe.
It is time to redress one of the last vestiges of institutional racism in America. It is disgraceful that we don't have at least ONE black ex-President.
Anadessma, I'm sure you know as many Ds and liberals as I do, and have read the same poll results attempting to quantify attitudes toward parties. The latter do indeed show that the Republican party label is held in ill-repute. As far as personal anecdotes go, your experiences must differ considerably from mine. I'm usually called by liberals "a conservative Republican(and Jewish on top of it)who is not the same; different from the rest." It's so amusing because I'm about as predictably conservative(on policy) as one can get. Even my daughter, whom I love dearly and reciprocates that love, says that about me(and her mother). My daughter takes the attitude you mention and believes both sides are "criminals." Fortunately, she feels so estranged that she doesn't vote at all.
My background is Italian, working class, Buffalo. Nuff sed on that. My father was—what else?—a gardener and, when he could get the work, a welder. He also "lifted for the city," which in 1950s Buffalo meant "picked up garbage" (just like Tim Russert's dad; Russert and I went to the same high school, though I graduated the year he started). n nSouthern Italians of the era of my grandfathers (arrived here in 1902 and 1904) had an easy tolerance of corruption in government. The Democratic Party of Erie County, in its many failings from the standpoint of your average "honest" citizen, was, let us say, a comfortable fit for them and not too unfamiliar. Republicans were usually marginally more "honest," in their world view, but that was only because they (Repubs) had all the advantages and could afford to be offended by honest graft (also, very few were Italian, which was as decisive as it was circular in reasoning). My father, mother, uncles, and aunts inherited the attitude, and I would have too, I suppose, if I'd stuck around. I went off to college and grad school in New York and Providence, however, and nothing I observed in either city, you will readily understand, changed my opinion about the parties. No. It wasn't until I had lived in Eugene, Oregon, a few years, where I had followed my wife when she returned to grad school, that I became a Republican. Out of sheer contrariness, I now think. If you know Eugene or Oregon west of the Cascades, you know exactly what I'm talking about. n nOne of my brothers and my son believe as does your daughter, but with this difference: they can be depended on, not always to vote, but always to vote Democrat.
Anadessma, very interesting background. There's a great deal in it that I'm familiar with, including some of your geographic references. I was too general. Given that we try to be brief in these posts, I didn't explain further the why and which groups Americans hold Republicans in ill-repute. What is troubling about that fact is those groups that do, tend to dominate America's communicative institutions: the media, academia, mainline religions, foundations, and entertainment. They have enormous influence on a daily basis and make it difficult for someone with our views to overcome their dominance and agenda. When I was taking political science courses in college, political scientists lectured Republicans that they had to reach out to ethnics in order to expand their support. Well, since then, many ethnics(Jews the exception)have become more Republican, but now, to the left, they don't count because they are substantial enough in numbers to threaten liberal electoral hegemony. If you control the tempo and rhetoric, as these institutions do, we have a real fight on our hands, in spite of how good our candidates are, or how obviously more preferable our policies are for a free and prosperous society. That's essentially the second point I made in reference to Jonathan's post. As far as children are concerned, my angst with my aforementioned darling daughter's political views is neutralized by my son: a voting, committed conservative.
So far, Obama has played The Behind, and did that very well.
The Liberal press never vetted Obama and feed American voters a media created idol instead of a person with no experience that spend his life trading on his color while being tutored and educated by Marxist, racist and blame American first Liberals.r nr n As a consequence we elected without a doubt one of the laziest, most incompetent, American hating President in American history!
Who knew when we were watching Obama get blown out last week that he would turn into the biggest whiniest poor loser in the history of the Presidency? For a week he and his campaign have behaved like a nasty spoiled 5 year old child. "Daddy….that bad man lied and beat me, he beat me because he was a liar daddy, wahhhh! That and the Big Bird nonsense. UNEMPLOYMENT, DEBT, the Murder of our Ambassador, a Failing Economy? All of that and Obama has spent a week crying that Romney beat him up by lying and whining about Big Bird? Obama even stole Big Bird, without authorization, for his silly Big Bird ad. The Sesame St folks had to ask him to cease and desist. Obama is quickly becoming a humiliation to himself and the Presidency. The debate blow out was bad enough, but his behavior since then is even worse!
I knew. You want to see a spoiled loser? Wait till he gets defeated in November. He AND his wife. It will be an ugly, ugly sight to see, I'm afraid.
It will be ugly – but I will enjoy every minute of it. Watching the suffering of the liberals all around me will only add to my glee. nI am not a very nice person, I suppose.
I think the humorous reference to eliminating Big Bird was a good idea. It portrayed Romney's strength at understanding budgets. He said his method would be to ask himself if paying for Big Bird was worth borrowing the money to do so from the Chinese. I think we could use more thinking like this, and I suspect that lots of Americans agree.
If this article is correct, and the reason Americans elected Barack Obama to the presidency was to assuage their latent guilt for our history of racism — to which very few of the voters were personally guilty of contributing — then surely the past four years of utter misery have been adequate atonement. This country is in trouble. We need to vote based on what we need in the future, not what we feel sorry about from fifty years past.
> the national polls are now showing Romney with a slight lead in the race, n nThere is less to this than meets the eye, if you start examining the recent state polls. n nThe RealClearPolitics and Pollster averages do suggest Romney and Obama are now running even in FL, VA and CO as Obama's lead has evaporated there. But Obama is still in the lead in OH, NV, PA, NH, IA, WI, MI if you look at the latest _post_debate polls. In fact, recent polls from Oct 8-10 by GOP friendly Rasmussen Reports still give Obama a 1-2 point lead in virtually all battleground states (including CO). n nConclusion based on the recent polls: *If* last week's debate proves to be Obama's nadir in this campaign, he will probably still win in the end provided there are no further major setbacks.
He's led from behind many, many times…why not add playing from behind all the way back to Chi~town while he's at it?…lol