Slip, Sliding Away
Does President Obama need to shore up the liberal base? That’s what John Fund argues in today’s WSJ:
But Mr. Obama’s tone makes more sense when one realizes that his sinking poll numbers also indicate an erosion in support with his liberal base. Only about three-quarters of self-identified liberals approve of his job performance, a number that has drifted downward since Mr. Obama compromised on tax cuts and decided to keep Guantanamo open. His latest budget deal with House Republicans only further confused his base. “I have been very disappointed in the administration to the point where I’m embarrassed that I endorsed him,” one senior Democratic lawmaker told the Daily Beast last week.
It seems likely, especially given the next graf:
Mr. Obama is also hurting with another key element of his coalition: Hispanics. His job approval with them is now only 54% in the latest Gallup poll, down from 73% two years ago. Similarly, voters under the age of 30 give him a tepid 55% approval rating.
Obama’s problem with his base isn’t that he might face a serious primary challenger next year. That’s the case Roger Simon (not our Roger Simon) made over at Politico last week — but it’s just silly. Primary challengers almost never win. Primary challengers short on money and winning electoral experience, up against someone who has both and the minority vote locked up in a party heavy with minorities… fuggidaboudit. Howard Dean’s next stop would be oblivion, not the nomination.
No, Obama isn’t worried about a primary challenger; he’s worried about dispirited liberals and progs staying home on November 6 for the general election. But there’s another problem: It’s the middle of the electorate that will determine the outcome of the race. How much propping up can the President do to his left before completely alienating the middle?
That’s a tough tightrope act for anyone, and the best chance it has for winning is the GOP nominating a real loser. Which is probably why the smart money is still on Obama.
Does President Obama need to shore up the liberal base?
Nah.
1) it’s all smoke and mirrors. All you need to do is whisper “Sarah Palin” and the liberal sheep will trot obediently to the polls in huge numbers, ready to vote in herds for their Democrat Overseers.
2) it doesn’t matter who wins next year. With Barry Lackwit’s debts crushing the dollar, and Congress completely unable to do anything about it, along with skyrocketing prices for food and energy, a complete financial collapse is only a couple of years away.
“it doesn’t matter who wins next year.”
You may be right. Even if O is re-elected, the reality on the ground remains the same, and just as intractable. Whatever political delusions the isolated, pampered Washington elite might subscribe to, it’s reality that governs the lives of the rest of us. If I were a savy, street-smart Democrat, I might just vote for the opposition. Sometimes it’s better to lose an election and survive to win another day. Presidents last 8 years at most, but political parties are around a long day, and have a habit of re-inventing themselves as needed. Maybe I’m wrong, but I really don’t see party stalwarts falling on their swords in blind loyalty to one bumbling president. If things don’t change soon, Democrats are going to have this economy like a millstone around their necks permanently, and it might just put them out of business.
I don’t think the dems can reinvent themselves while I prefer to refer to them as Bolsheviks, nearly perfect accept for the fact that we don’t speak Russian, I don’t think anyone can dispute characterizing them as Social Democrats. They have relied on all of the fringe left constituencies for so long they have no moderates left at the national level. Before the soviets fell the mainstream unions and their members kept the democratic party centered. Now each of their member constituencies supports the other elements no matter how extreme causing a race to the left shedding more reasonable rank and file.
And why, pray tell, is the MSM holding up ‘The Donald’ as a contender? And stuffing us with stories about how ‘Romney is FRONTRUNNER!’ while ignoring Sarah Palin’s barnstormer of a speech in Wisconsin? If we once again let the media pick our candidate for us, like they did with Juan – Sorry- John McCain, they will attempt to foist off a loser to keep “The One” in office.
How Obama wins is very simple. Trump runs as a third party canidate, probably on Soros’ dime, after damaging the Republican party as much as he can.
Obama can move probably 10-15 million people from “non-voters” to “D” by coming out for Marijuana legalization.
And Republicans need to stop shooting themselves in the foot with overly-restrictive abortion legislation in the state legislatures. Those measures, whether they pass or not, wind up raising tons of money for Obama- every time one of those is in the news, it equals a fundraising blast for NARAL and Planned Parenthood. In fact, it probably benefits Obama and Democrats in blue states than it does Democrats in whatever state passes it.
Maybe pro-choice, gay-marriage-neutral, agnostic-and-atheist-tolerant Republicans should figure out a name for ourselves — something we can shout back every time someone says “RINO.” It would be a start.
Back when he was sane, Sullivan suggested “Eagles” for pro-liberty, pro-defense types.
Me likee. It would also go with my last name.
Better there than in Congress. The libertarian argument against Roe v. Wade would be a federalism argument that the Court went too far in striking down all abortion laws in a case challenging only the most restrictive one of the 50.
To the extent abortion is a divisive national issue, it’s because of that one aspect of Roe, nationalizing what should have been a state-level issue.