We’ve had some key shifts in the tides on both sides of the 2012 election since the last time I touched upon it. Let’s look at some of those, but consider that we still have over a year until the election.
First, on the GOP side, three potential candidates, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, and Rudy Giuliani, finally declared once and for all that they are not in the 2012 race. This is a big deal because it finally firms up the GOP field. I can’t see any new entrants to the race. Michael Bloomberg is doing a lot to raise eyebrows and make people wonder, but with him, the question is whether he’d enter the GOP primary or the Democrat primary or set up a third party run. I was glad to see Palin decide not to run, as I’ve long held the opinion that her weaknesses, such as walking away from being the governor of Alaska after a half-term, far outweigh her strengths, like charisma. Also, on a personal note, I don’t think I’d be able to handle her back in the big spotlight. As for Christie, I was sad to see he isn’t running, but I can completely understand why. He wanted time to shore up his political resume to help him avoid some of the pitfalls Barack Obama has fallen into due to his lack of leadership and experience. I appreciate his demeanor and, barring some kind of career-ending scandal, I see him as a rising star in the GOP. Christie has also endorsed Mitt Romney. On Giuliani, I didn’t even know he was seriously considering running before his announcement that he wouldn’t.
The second shift on the GOP side has been the simultaneous rise of Herman Cain and fall of Rick Perry. The decline of Rick Perry doesn’t surprise me because, frankly, he’s been terrible in the debates. What does surprise me is the fact that many of the Perry supporters have jumped on the Herman Cain train. I would’ve expected Michele Bachmann to be the primary beneficiary of a weakening of Perry and I even suggested that Cain should bow out and consider his shot at being the vice president. Clearly, I got that one wrong because Cain is now leading in the polls.
I’ve also noticed the Democrats changing their campaign message a bit. The GOP wants to make people ponder the question of, “Are you better off now than four years ago?” For most Americans, it’s probably a no or a slight yes. The Democrats don’t want to talk in those terms. Indeed, they’re already shifting strategy to avoid answering that question and instead trying to make the case that Obama inherited such a mess that the fact that he was able to keep it steady was a miracle and expecting improvement quickly was unreasonable. It’s a more subtle version of the blame game (insert the target of your choosing, such as Bush Jr., the GOP, Wall Street, etc.). Regardless of how logically sound or flawed I think that argument is, it’s the dynamic I see emerging. Contrast that with Obama’s message of 2008 for hope and change. They’ve dialed back that rhetoric, and subsequently are attempting to dampen people’s expectations.
How about Democrat land? What’s changed there? In a nutshell, Occupy Wall Street (OWS). OWS will impact the GOP, too, but let’s look at the Democrats first. I touched on OWS a bit in my previous post outlining differences between OWS and other movements. Even before then, I mentioned the 1968 election when asking whether Obama will seek reelection. I still think he will, but the 1968 comparison is becoming more appropriate because now Obama has an insurrection or rebellion or civil war on his hands within the party. OWS has the potential to create a similar schism within the party, but OWS needs a leader to do that (imagine the irony if Michael Bloomberg, part of their ‘1%’ emerges as that leader). I somehow doubt merely being heard will be enough for OWS. The Democratic party must find a way to prevent that schism if they want to retain the White House in 2012 because history shows the divided party loses. The GOP and Tea Party (TP) were able to come together, but the combination of the differences between OWS and the TP I outlined before and the fact that the Democrats already hold the White House will make such unity a bit more difficult. It’s not impossible, but it’ll be harder. Even if they succeed, the damage may already be happening. Let’s look at the two scenarios, unification and schism of the Democrats real quickly.
If the unification occurs, I believe OWS will have a similar effect on the Democrats that the TP had on the GOP. The TP dragged the GOP further to the right and I suspect OWS will drag Obama and the Democrats further to the left, which would not be good for Obama’s reelection strategy. Remember, all along, I’ve been saying that Obama’s reelection strategy is founded on the principle that he must make himself appear to be a moderate centrist and make the GOP appear to be extreme radicals so he can pick up the Undecided, Marginally Attached, and Independent voters (UMAIs). The GOP is, of course, trying to do the same. It’s always the UMAIs that decide elections because both the left and the right have a base that will always vote for them, or at least never vote for the other party, no matter what. To court the UMAIs, the truth doesn’t matter. Perception is reality. It doesn’t matter if a candidate is truly an extreme radical if s/he looks like a moderate centrist.
It’s possible that Obama has realized that he’s going to have trouble with the UMAIs than initially expected and he thinks his only chance to win is to reenergize the liberal base. His poll numbers among independents have been pretty awful lately, so OWS could be part of his campaign strategy as I’ve theorized before. Either way, I don’t think Obama wants to be dragged further to the left because the foundation of the GOP’s offensive is portraying Obama as a radical leftist and this would play into the GOP’s hands. This will allow the GOP, if they’re shrewd, to turn the Democrats’ allegiance with OWS from a campaign asset to a campaign liability. The GOP has the playbook because it’s very much like what Richard Nixon did in 1972. The schism from 1968 was gone in 1972, as the Democrats rallied behind George McGovern.
If the Democratic party schism occurs, I don’t think it matters very much who the GOP puts up, whether it’s a a more moderate candidate (such as Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, or Gary Johnson) or a more conservative person (such as Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, or Ron Paul). Ideally, they put up a ticket that takes one person from both categories to create a balanced ticket that energizes the right wing base and appeals to the UMAIs. I question the wisdom of selecting two from the same subset. Either way, under this scenario, the GOP playbook becomes Richard Nixon’s 1968 election campaign and history is on the GOP’s side because the divided party consistently loses (1996, 1992, 1968, and 1912 being the most recent examples).
The 2012 election has gotten interesting with just over a year to go. The GOP field is firming up, the rhetoric is being retooled by both sides, and OWS has injected a major complication into the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment