Glenn Thrush’s piece on President Obama’s reelection strategy shift is full of campaign pollsters and consultants expressing their exasperation that the president waited until this point to release a second-term agenda. But it’s easy to see how these same strategists may have led the president astray throughout this election season.
The Obama campaign’s decision to rely almost completely on the politics of personal destruction, and attack Mitt Romney viciously and unrelentingly throughout the summer, didn’t end up sealing Obama’s reelection. That’s not a surprise, since the public is understandably put off by a president running as if he’s the challenger who hasn’t been in charge of the economy for four years. But even those who tell the president to adjust his strategy largely miss the point. Here’s a good example, from Thrush’s story:
“The Obama organization did the single best job of destroying a candidate I have ever seen in my career, from May to September,” said pollster Peter Brown, who conducts the Quinnipiac University poll of battleground states.
“But that all went out the window when Romney showed people that the caricature of him as a clown was false. … Now he’s got to make the case for himself. If he was ahead now, my guess is he wouldn’t have taken the chance of putting all of this out now.”
“Destroying” Romney? I do not think it means what they think it means. If Romney could dispel all the personal caricatures contained in the Obama ad blitz by simply showing up, he wasn’t “destroyed.” And that’s because Romney is so obviously not who Obama said he was. The Obama campaign’s attacks were so inaccurate that Romney’s performance in the first debate probably also drained Obama of some of the credibility he previously had with the electorate. And that has left its mark on the campaign, whether Obama pivots or not.
Later on in the article, we get more indication of where Obama’s been getting his terrible advice:
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said the president’s standard whistle-stop speech contained more detail than Romney’s written proposals. “Every voter has in hand what the president’s outlined on the stump throughout the campaign,” LaBolt said.
That may be true, but Democrats, led by Carville and his friend, the pollster Stan Greenberg, have been churning out polling data for weeks showing that Obama was in danger of making the same mistake Romney did — allowing the opposition to define him as a candidate.
How, exactly, do you define a sitting president just finishing up a full term before he defines himself? The problem for Obama is that he’s been running as if Romney is the incumbent, but Romney isn’t returning the favor. Romney isn’t trying to portray Obama as the challenger without a record—just the opposite. Romney has been telling anyone who will listen all about Obama’s first term.
It just so happens that the state of the economy Obama has been presiding over isn’t favorable to the president. Romney isn’t “defining” Obama by pointing out steady 8-percent unemployment. And Obama’s first-term accomplishments aren’t very popular. Obamacare has polled badly from the beginning; the auto bailout was broadly unpopular and only began returning better poll numbers in the Rust Belt; and the stimulus was an ineffectual liberal wish list that failed on the president’s own terms.
Romney isn’t seeking to define the president at all. He’s just trying to help the president take credit for the last four years.
"Romney isn’t seeking to define the president at all. He’s just trying to help the president take credit for the last four years." n nTruly excellent! Bravo! Mr. Mandel.
Who thinks Republican PACS should start hammering at Obama with his 2007 speech to Black Pastors? n nThe one where he accused the Federal Government of racist motives in how it dealth with Katrina, and where he put on a southern black accent and said the Feds asked Louisiana 'Whez yo Staffudh dollah?', after Obama himself had voted to deny Louisiana exemption from having to make Stafford payments. n nThat truly was execrable behavior on the Obama's part. n nWould it play in Ohio? n nLooks like Ohio really is ground zero. n n
I live in Ohio and I think it would be a mistake. The economy is a strong issue and Romney has powerful ammunition. Start making an issue of the 2007 speech and we open the door to: n1) Distracting arguments over what Obama did and did not say, and what he did and did not mean, and whether or not he is being misquoted. n2) Charges that the GOP is being racist and is and always has been the enemy of black people and minority groups. Rachel Maddow already laid the groundwork for this when she said that Republicans were showing the tape to emphasize BHO's accent and the fact that he is black. n3) Distracting people from the strongest point we have, which holds true whatever your stand on Israel, the middle east, foreign policy, health care, gun control, abortion or same sex unions – Obama has had 4 years to fix the lousy economy he inherited and all he did was make things worse.
When Senator Obama sought the presidency, there was little of him to scrutinize. He had almost no voting record, save for often voting present; he was only a state senator for a short time and he spent most of his U.S. senate term running for president. His work history, meager as it was, did little to illuminate the man. Plus the press did their best to hide any negative aspects and relationships of Mr. Obama. n nMr. Obama has a real, concrete record to see. His last four years have been a disaster for our nation and his achievements, as Seth notes, are nothing the electorate wants. He has little to show for living in the white house these past four years. So, is it no wonder he wanted to demonize Mr. Romney, after all, what else could he do? n nWhat's most interesting about the president's strategy is that he chose to attack Mr. Romney on a personal level and tried to level the charge that Mr. Romney was some sort of kook and warmonger. However, Mr. Romney has his own record (unlike Mr. Obama, by the way, Mr. Romney actually ran a business, ran a state, and has experience dealing with other parties). I can't recall anything negative about Mr. Romney's tenure as governor that has stuck. If Mr. Romney is such a bad choice, wouldn't we hear more ads about his time as governor? (Also interesting is that Mr. Romney did not take a salary as governor. Not that he needed it, but to forgo it reflects well on him.) n nIf Mr. Obama were ever qualified for the executive office the nation would have seen evidence of that, if not four years ago then by now for sure. That we have not seen such evidence just shows how little there was then to Mr. Obama, even less now.
Good distinction between "defining" as in constructing a spun version of someone and having a candidate be understood and perceived by his record, action and inaction.
Obamacare: my brother-in-law's little software outfit has been employing 15 – 25 employees since its founding in the 80's, he also provides insurance. But no more insurance if Obama gains his second term. Reason: insurance cost is much higher, he is not going to provide Flukies with condoms, he has less than 50 employees so he will not be fined for not providing insurance. His employees? Well, Obama cares.
The only person who actually believes in Romney's caricature is Obama. He was shell shocked when the real Romney showed up in the First Debate, n nAs they say, the rest is history.