Obama's team: Spinning the path to winning

By Richard K. Barry

Greg Sargent at The Washington Post has a fascinating piece listing the reasons the Obama campaign is cautiously optimistic about its chances in November.

At the top of the list is this:

Romney cannot win over true undecided voters in the lopsided numbers he needs if he remains two to three points behind in the key battleground states.

People who pay close attention to politics understand that the numbers that really matter in presidential elections are the state-by-state numbers, and this is where Obama's team is feeling pretty good:

According to Nate Silver's projections, Obama has at least a three point lead in Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and Wisconsin, and nearly as big a lead in Virginia. The Obama team believes it holds leads in these battlegrounds; Dems think Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota are out of Romney's reach.

Beside being ahead in these key battleground states, the Obama team seems convinced they know who the undecided voters are and what motivates them and don't think they will go to Romney in sufficient numbers to overcome the two or three point deficit in key battleground states.

Sargent recounts this exchange with David Plouffe, senior Obama advisor:

"The question is, Is Romney going to get enough of the undecided vote to overcome a two or three point deficit in the battle ground states?" Plouffe told me. "Most assuredly not."

A related point that the Obama campaign is making is that there are fewer than three million undecided voters in battleground states who will decide the outcome:

Dems think they are disproportionately made up of independent women and college educated men under 40 who are also independents — two groups that simply won't break towards Romney in overwhelming numbers, given the Dem campaign's emphasis on women's issues, and core differences between the two candidates over issues that matter to college educated voters.

Another point is that Democrats think they have neutralized the attacks based on the lie that Obama wants to do away with the work requirement for welfare. Basically, their argument is that they don't think voters will ultimately believe it. I'm afraid I have to say that's a pretty weak argument.

On that point, Steve Benen has noted that the welfare attack ads and references in Republican campaign speeches have virtually disappeared. He postulates that, given the fact that they are based on a lie and are clearly racially charged, the Romney campaign may have decided they were too dangerous to continue. We'll see about that.

Finally, on the Sargent piece, he closes by drawing attention to a few other factors that may aid the Democratic cause:

This is only a partial list: Dems believe Romney will fail to significantly narrow the gender gap or reverse his historic deficit among Latinos, particularly with a Dem convention focused so heavily on those groups. Dems also believe Romney failed at his convention to articulate a clear case for what he would do for the middle class — a major error.

Many of these arguments seem plausible enough, though I do wonder why they are laying this out for reporters. They wouldn't be talking like this unless they thought it helped them in some way. Could it be that they are trying to appeal to the reasonableness of independent voters in these swing states, who they are hoping will swoop in at the last moment and save the day?

Whatever the reason, this is not chit-chat on the part of Obama's team just to pass the time.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

What's behind the improving polling results for President Obama?

By Richard K. Barry

President Obama hasn't had a lot of good polling news lately, but things might be changing.

According to a new poll by Quinnipiac University, Obama's approval / disapproval rating is running almost even nationally, up from a negative 41-55 split just a month ago. And perhaps even more important, his matchup numbers with potential GOP opponents is stronger as well.

As TPM reports:

President Barack Obama seems to be improving in voters' eyes almost across-the-board," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in a release. "He scores big gains among the group with whom he has had the most problems - whites and men. Women also shift from a five-point negative to a four-point positive."

He also leads all GOP challengers outside the poll's margin of error, beating Romney by a 47-42 margin and Perry by a 52-36 margin, and leading Cain and Gingrich by double digits.

TPM speculates that the improvement may have something to do with Obama's "heavy travel schedule" of the past month, during which he promoted his "major jobs package" in key swing states in the Midwest, South, and Mountain West:

When Congress stalled on the jobs package, the President moved on to “We Can’t Wait,” a series of executive orders that he says will help alleviate some of the economic hardship, from new rules on foreclosures to helping with student loan debt.

Okay, that could be a part of it. It's also true that the more America sees of the clowns running for the GOP nomination, the less impressed they are likely to be. Perhaps the Occupy Wall Street income inequality message is starting to resonate with more and more people. Maybe the President's foreign policy success in Libya is part of it -- or some not totally discouraging recent job numbers. Hard to say.

Whatever it is, it's good news for the Democrats, and I'm sure David Plouffe and company will take it. (If you don't know, Plouffe was the chief campaign manager for Obama in 2008, and he's back on the job. That's him pictured above).

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Unemployment matters, but Romney is still an idiot

By Nicholas Wilbur

I hate when Mitt Romney... speaks.

If he's not lying about a lie he lied about not lying about, he's either making shit up or flailing around like a walrus in a triple lindy competition.

Last Friday, he blessed us with this statement: "Just this week, President Obama's closest White House adviser said that 'unemployment rates or even monthly job numbers' do not matter to the average American."

The funny thing about Romney's crazy talk is that "Obama's closest White House adviser," David Plouffe, never said "unemployment rates or even monthly job numbers" do not matter. What he said was this:

The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers. People won't vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on: "How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?"

For the 90.8 percent of the American labor force that is employed, I think this statement is pretty accurate. And yes, it's still accurate even for the 9.2 percent who aren't. (Especially if they're Republicans, because Republicans don't believe it's the government's job to find Joe Six Pack a job.) But even Plouffe is only telling part of the story.

Everyone likes to cite facts and figures showing that no incumbent president (except for the Gipper and FDR) has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 6 percent.

Unfortunately for stupid people who believe the stupid shit other stupid people say, the unemployment rate actually isn't a dominant factor in the big picture of national elections.

What matters, as the Political Animal Steve Benen pointed out a month ago, is progress. If things are improving, if unemployment is falling, statistics are irrelevant.

Unemployment peaked at 10.8 during Reagan's first term, but it fell to 7.2 by the 1984 election. Unemployment grew to 7.8, up from 5.2, when George H.W. Bush sought re-election. That's why Reagan was re-elected and H.W. wasn't. And that's why Obama will glide to victory in 2012 while Romney will be stuck in the unemployment line during the day and burning unsold copies of his shitty book to heat his home at night.

After peaking at 10.1 in October 2010, unemployment fell to 8.8 percent by March 2011. Then the GOP took over.

We were promised big changes when Republicans won majority control over the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections. For six months now they've bitched and moaned and done everything they could to overturn every bill Obama has signed. What they didn't do, and what Democrats will surely highlight throughout the 2012 campaign, is create a jobs bill – or a job. Unemployment declined consistently for a year and a half until Republicans took over the House. Now, for two consecutive months, it has risen.

The obstructionists have entered the building.

Expect mass evacuations sometime around November 2012. 

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

Huntsman the Formidable

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It is being reported that former Utah Gov. and U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman will enter the Republican race for president as early as next Tuesday.

I have described him before as an incredibly formidable figure, the Republican Obama should be worried about, or would be if it were, say, 1996 instead of 2012 and if the Republican Party hadn't become an increasingly extremist right-wing party that has essentially left the likes of Huntsman behind.

Here's what I wrote about him back in May '09:

I tend to agree with Obama campaign guru David Plouffe that Utah Governor Jon Huntsman (who makes Plouffe a "wee bit queasy") could be a formidable Republican presidential candidate in 2012. Bucking the rightward shift of his party, and avoiding its drive for ideological purification, Huntsman is actually something of an independent-minded figure, a moderate, relatively speaking (that is, by Utah standards), with potentially broad appeal beyond Dear Leader Rush and the right-wing echo chamber. (I have previously posted on his admirable support for gay civil unions and his admirable dismissal of Congressional Republicans.)

But I also wrote this:

Huntsman may make us all a little queasy, but, thankfully, Republicans are just too stupid to know what's good for them.

That's right, however formidable he may be, or could be on the national stage, he just isn't what Republicans are looking for these days, which is someone well to his right, someone rigidly ideological. As Hot Air's Allahpundit put it a while back, dismissing Huntsman altogether, "he's going to try to be an even more sensible 'sensible centrist' alternative to Romney, Daniels, and the rest of the moderates in the field." Yes, to conservatives, Huntsman, like Romney, is moderate and therefore un-Republican. And it's much worse in Huntsman's case because he actually worked for Obama. No matter that he's appealing and electable, and hardly a liberal, and working hard to show us all his conservative bona fides.

It's hard to imagine he'll make much of a dent in the current field. But you never know. Maybe there's room for him, maybe he runs a great campaign, maybe he emerges as (and surpasses Pawlenty as) the candidate who can potentially unite the party, something Romney can't do, something an extremist like Bachmann can't do. Or maybe he just has too much baggage and too much of an independent mind, and maybe his unorthodox record, his dissent from the current Republican mainstream line, proves too much to overcome -- after all, it's hard to see the right-wing Bolsheviks who run the party now forgiving him his various sins.

But, again, there's no denying he's an awfully impressive man. I might even go so far as to say he could very well be Reagan 2.0, or if not that, given how transformative Reagan was for movement conservatism, at least a leading Republican in the Reagan mold. He just seems to have it all, even the somewhat more tolerant and even liberal positions on some social issues that show him to be a man of the times, not a man against the times, a conservative who is open to progress and change while remaining committed to his fundamental beliefs. Perhaps he could be zeitgeist conservative, the forward-looking proponent of conservatism at a time of massive global change. But not likely, not in today's Republican Party, which would likely rather expel him that have him as its leader.

Yes, Republicans really are too stupid to know what's good for them. Which is good for us, but not good for Huntsman, who will have to wait until 2016, or forever, to make his mark in a party that has abandoned him and all those like him.

(photo)

No 50-state strategy for Obama in 2012

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Interesting piece up at Roll Call yesterday on Obama's likely strategy for 2012:

Democrats evaluating the 2012 map are confident President Barack Obama can win enough battleground states to earn a second term, but via a far less aggressive path than what he forged in 2008.

Party strategists, Obama aides and top Democrats see multiple routes for the president to reach the 270 Electoral College votes that he needs on Nov. 6, 2012. But some Democrats splash cold water on the big talk of outreach in all 50 states, saying it is obvious the president will focus on traditional swing territory.

*****

A Democratic official familiar with the still-forming re-election campaign told Roll Call that the focus will be on holding the 2008 pickups of Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina, winning over Latino voters in the West and flooding the traditional swing states of Ohio and Florida with resources. The Democrats feel good about winning New Mexico and Nevada, especially given the population growth among Hispanics.

Makes sense.

It won't be the all-out offence we saw from Obama in 2008, but, then, he can afford to play a bit of defence now, particularly if he's able to win independents and women, if there's significant turnout among blacks and younger voters (as in 2008), and if he's able to secure the growing Latino vote -- all of which appears likely given where things stand today. (I'm trying not to be delusionally optimistic about not just Obama's chances but the Democrats' generally, but who am I to doubt the apparent genius of David Plouffe?)

And of course if the Republicans nominate someone utterly unelectable...

Plouffe challenges Trump, who lashes out at Obama with unbridled idiocy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Donald Trump -- if the media and especially the (heavily right-wing) business media are to be believed -- may be the most amazing man in American history, the glorious personification of all that is good and decent with America, but he sure has a thin skin:

The White House stopped just short of dismissing Donald Trump as a clown Sunday - calling him a "sideshow" act with "zero chance" of becoming president.

Chief Obama adviser David Plouffe unleashed a barrage of stinging comments on Trump, who has recently trafficked in fringe conspiracy theories about Obama's place of birth while taunting America with hints of a presidential run.

"There is zero chance that Donald Trump would ever be hired by the American people," President Obama's chief adviser David Plouffe told ABC's "This Week with Christiane Amanpour."

*****

Trump countered that he represents Obama's biggest nightmare in the 2012 race and that the White house is running scared.

"I know for a fact that I am the only candidate they are concerned with," Trump told The Daily News. "They are very concerned because I am challenging him as to whether or not he was born in this country where there is a real doubt."

"He should focus on properly dealing with the Chinese, the Saudis and all of the other nations that are ripping off the United States instead of making up quotes about Donald Trump," the "Apprentice" host blustered on. "Barack Obama has done a terrible job as president."

Oh... where to begin?

First, Trump can't know that for a fact, because it isn't a fact. There's no way the White House is concerned about a Trump run. Trump is simply full of shit. The question is whether he believes his own shit.

Second, there's no legitimate issue about where Obama was born. He was born in Hawaii. We have the official documentation to prove it (statement of live birth). Trump has taken up the Birther cause, and is running wild with it, but it merely destroys what little political credibility he had.

Third, you can't really be a good Republican if you're not kowtowing to the Saudis and the Chinese, mostly for business-related reasons. They have the oil (Saudi Arabia), the lucrative export market (China), and the keys to America's economic future and fiscal well-being (China).

Fourth, how exactly has Obama been so terrible? Well, of course, I assume that Trump would rather not extend health insurance to tens of millions of Americans most in need, given how little he cares about those lower than him on the wealth scale, but bailing out Wall Street? Really? Trump opposed that? Given how many times Trump himself has been bailed out over the years, after failure upon failure, he should have a little more appreciation for government handouts to the banks, particularly with so few strings attached. Of course, it's hard to know what exactly Trump thinks about anything given how insanely partisan his rantings are and how he has embraced the crazy conspiracy-mongering of the far right.

Fifth, it is embarrassing, and that's putting it nicely, that anyone takes Trump seriously, particularly those in the media who, if I may give them some undeserved credit, should know better. And yet all we seem to get -- just watch any Trump TV appearance -- is a revolting display of sycophantic fawning. And all because he has money, which buys you credibility in America's depraved political and media culture, and has successfully cultivated the mythology of himself as all-American success story.

But you know, I have to disagree with Plouffe. Trump doesn't have "zero chance" of becoming president. He has a less than zero chance. He's that much of a sordid, massive sham.

The real fight

By Carl 

The drums have been beating for months over this fight, ever since the GOP took back the House in November. This week, they get much louder. The time is at hand:

"Obviously, we need to look at all corners of government," said Obama senior adviser David Plouffe in announcing the speech on NBC's Meet The Press. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., on Fox News Sunday, said, "we've had to bring this president kicking and screaming to the table to cut spending."

Obama's forthcoming plan to reduce the government's red ink will also re-frame a variety of budget-related political battles. 

Cantor's comment is particularly irritating, since Obama's original budget proposal cut $33 billion dollars, which is eerily close to what Boener caved in on for the continuing budget resolution.

But I digress...

What this week's battle will really be about is the debt ceiling. Approve it, and the nation can go on and try to get a handle on the bills. Turn it down, and the nation will instantaneously lose any and all credibility in the world, becoming no better than Uganda or Zimbabwe or Myanmar or Greece or Portugal, or any number of nations who have repudiated or otherwise abrogated their responsibilities to the world.

Like those other nations, we will have sold out to tyrannical dictators, only ours won't be in office, only the men behind the curtains.

The Republicans have already signaled they will agree to the raise, but in exchange they want spending cuts.

Um, duh. Then ur doin et rong, if you're going to play brinksmanship without the very real threat you'll go over the edge. After all, what's the thrill in seeing someone swim in the Niagara River if he's tied by a rope to the mainland? It just amounts to an exercise in exhaustion.

What this really amounts to is the Bush tax cuts, which will expire next year after an extension... again... in 2010. Allowing these to expire would of course immediately cut the deficit and the growth of the debt, but it would also inflict pain on the überrich and the corporatocracy.

Pain, in this case, being defined as the bite of the mite that sits on the gnat that's piggybacking on the mosquito on the collective butt.

The rest of the debate is really just smoke and noise and amounts to next to nothing in terms of cuts... no one seriously thinks Paul Ryan's plan is worth the paper it's printed on... and really is just the GOP saving face from the charge of being the Party of No.

Which they are. You really ought to embrace your inner hater, boys.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.) 

Addendum: I just wanted to add my voice to those who are expressing their regrets over the loss of one of our very best and brightest here at The Reaction.

Creature, in your retirement, may you find the thread you believe you've lost and come out fighting again really soon. You will be missed.

Putting his long pants on

By Carl

One of the reasons I endorsed Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in the primaries two years ago was my concern that Obama might not have the ability to put up a tough enough fight, whereas Clinton was battle-tested.

Apparently, Obama himself has come to that realization:

WASHINGTON—Coming off one of the most difficult weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has beefed up his political staff and is expected to deliver an uncompromising State of the Union address. Aides said Sunday that the White House wasn't making any abrupt policy shifts, even as the message was retooled to focus more sharply on job creation.

If anything, an unfinished agenda from 2009 will grow larger as, in addition to tackling health care and unemployment, the president presses for a bipartisan commission to tackle the budget deficit against resistance from Republicans.
White House officials said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe would be brought on as a political consultant as the White House gears up for the midterm elections.

The president's party is facing a stiff headwind from an electorate angry about high unemployment and what they see as ineffectual government, White House officials said. Republican Scott Brown's capture of the Massachusetts Senate seat Tuesday was a first shot in what Democrats worried would be hard-fought contests in November.

Now, I can't really argue much with Obama's decision to try to be bipartisan and conciliatory. After all, we just spent sixteen years dealing with an uberhostile Republican party that was soundly and thoroughly drubbed for two straight election cycles. You'd think they learned their lesson.

Too, he was... different... to use a euphemism, so his entire administration was going to be viewed thru a lens different than any other president's would be. He had to grab hold of the same courage that Jackie Robinson did, and be above reproach.

But circumstances changed as the economy dropped into the toilet, and the political dialogue of this nation was shaped by a relatively small band of extremists known as Teabaggers. An astute politician would have sniffed the change and changed his strategy. Obama did not, but it might not be too late.

And that whole "above reproach" theme, while noble, was shattered as the Teabaggers became more noxious, uglier and more strident in their approach, particularly after lifting Glenn Beck up on their shoulders and carrying him around.

Barack Obama came out of the Chicago school of politics, which might actually be nastier and more brutal than its school of economics. I have little doubt that when he decides to roll up his sleeves and stop playing nice in the sandbox, mudpies will be flung. Bringing in David Plouffe, who managed Bob Toricelli's Senate campaign. Toricelli, who came up thru the New Jersey political machine, was a tough-as-nails politician who had no problem in playing dirty.

The sense I get from the Plouffe return is President Obama, who has been willing to let things hatch out, looking longer term, needs someone in place to get him to the next step in his vision. Plouffe is a plain-spoken, bare-knuckles, no nonsense type of guy who can do that.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)