Obama’s approval ratings took their biggest dip among independent voters, who could be crucial to the ultimate outcome of the election in November. Approval for Obama among independents fell from 48 percent to 35 percent. – Reuters (via Reuters/Ipsos survey)
President Barack Obama talks with Betty White in the Oval Office, June 11, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
GOP ANGEL SHELDON ADELSON just forked over $10 million to a pro Mitt Romney Super PAC. It comes amid a flurry of fundraisers from both presidential candidates this week and the day before Pres. Obama addresses the economy, in a damage control move in what’s become a brutal June. But from the scuttlebutt making the Washington circuit what he’s likely to say isn’t going to move the independent voter meter, because he’s evidently going back to the warnings of returning to George W. Bush economics.
Instead, he will make the case that he needs four more years to undo the damage left by George W. Bush, his Republican predecessor in the White House, and argue that a President Romney would bring back the weak financial regulation and budget-busting tax cuts of the Bush years.
One very big problem is Mitt Romney doesn’t come off like George W. Bush, so it doesn’t translate beyond the Democratic donor crowd, which is where Pres. Obama is trying out this patter. The problem is also far larger than Bush.
Where Obama needs to begin is with today’s global financial interconnection and where that intersects with austerity measures that have cratered Britain’s economy and put them into a double-dip recession. It sounds something like this: We’ve all seen the tremors in Europe, Britian’s in a double-dip recession due to austerity measures, because they tightened their belts too soon. Obama’s message: This is the Mitt Romney plan. It will come through Paul Ryan’s budget mumbo jumbo in Congress, which is why Obama needs Democrats in charge over there. It places the voter into the unknown, risky world of What Would Romney Do?, then answers it in the context of austerity that is frightening.
This tactic would have the added benefit of elevating Pres. Obama beyond the past Bush era and projecting him into the future, where voters minds are riveted, because they’re uneasy about what lies ahead. Relitigating Bush era economic blunders to get reelected is small politics and not nearly what Pres. Obama needs right now.
Mr. Romney must be seen as a bigger gamble than sticking with Pres. Obama who, whether you approve of his presidency or not, stopped the U.S. from a cratering depression, even if the stimulus was far short of what was required; a larger effort might have actually offered proof that reelection was earned, because better times were being felt by average Americans, instead of them having to be shown the progress in charts.
The reason Democrats are sounding the alarm is there’s a feeling something is setting in. No one can predict how long it will last, which is why the advice is coming in a cascade of web pages, but it’s easy to log the moment it began. When team Obama’s Bain attacks against Mitt Romney were met with a strong defense by Democratic hot shots, including Pres. Bill Clinton no less, but also progressive favorite Cory Booker. It was a tipping point that Pres. Obama and his team haven’t been able to set straight, perhaps because they didn’t have anything but Bain, which was their main attack and primary strategy.
They’ve got no plan B, as stunning as that is to grasp, but to go back to Bush.
As James Carville’s group Democracy Corps has warned, that’s just not enough.
With Wall Street in a swoon over Mitt Romney, which will become more and more obvious as CEO’s start singing his praises this fall, Pres. Obama needs to frame Romney as dangerous by attaching already failed austerity measures tried in Europe to what Republicans want to do in the future. It’s not hard, because Paul Ryan provided an austerity plan, which Mitt Romney has openly embraced, that should scare the hell out of everyone, including those fickle, finger in the air independents that no one can win without.
“Independents are especially susceptible to economic pressures, which is why we see them bouncing all over the place in their approval of the president,” Jackson said. “The finding that he is not doing that well with them this month is something for Obama to worry about.” [Reuters]
I believe I read earlier today that the demographics on the Reuters poll showed a +9 advantage for Democrats, which just is NOT going to happen this year. So Obama’s numbers are actually even worse.
RealClearPolitics has the Reuters/Ipsos breakout, to which you are referring, BethinsuburbanChicago.
You might have seen it at Hot Air.
LOL! Sometime I just laugh at your posts. Just clicked on the Reuters/Ipsos link and all those number say that the President is either at 50% approval or within the margin of error of 50%. Of course you picked the number the most unfavorable to the President as your headline (the 35% among indies) and ignored his overall 47% approval rating. Newsflash that number doesn’t automatically mean that the other 65% are going to vote for Mitt Romney. Not to mention that it also doesn’t mean that 65% of indies don’t like what he is doing. That number almost certainly includes people who do like what he is doing but don’t think he’s doing enough of it.
Do you think independent voters don’t matter to Pres. Obama’s reelection?
Did you read the entire comment?
My entire column revolved around dropping support from independents, which is why I used the polling, at a time when economic numbers went south, & Obama fumbled his message.
The entire column is about getting that message back, but you’re not interested in what I actually wrote about.
You’re too set on some perceived grudge match, solo.
The really deadly numbers for Obama are the right track/wrong track numbers which are two to one against Obama.
Again, you making this huge leap based on poll numbers that are the result of some very imprecise questions.. To get where you want to go one would have to ask those people Reuters poll far more detailed questions like how long do you think this country has been on wrong track and more importantly you do you hold responsible? President Obama, President Bush, Congress or all the above? Just because the right track/wrong track numbers are in the negative doesn’t mean all the people who said the country is on the wrong track plan on voting against President. If that’s what that meant well the President overall approval number would be anywhere near 50% like this poll says it is.
I think you need to accept that demographics are not in the GOP’s favor and as a matter of fact the Republican base is dying off. Obama’s problem is going to be lack of excitement among voters but it appears that Romney has the very same problem.
So you are capable of saying something that’s true!
What I do is call it like I see it. Just because you dont’ like what you “see” doesn’t make it “false”
Ga6thDem, your right demographics are not in the GOP favor, but they still have a few years before they have to get in panic mode, this is not the year they have to worry about that. They do have a FEW, diverse people, like Nikki Haley in South Carolina who is Indian American along with Bobby Jendal of Louisiana, Marco Rubio of Florida, among a few others. Its about swaying people to their cause.
Nikki Haley pretends she is not Indian American so I don’t know if you can count her. They should be in panic mode right now about all this. None of the people you listed really help the GOP at all. Haley because of the reasons already mentioned, Jindal because he completely dropped the ball when given a platform and Rubio only excites Cubans not any other Hispanics and as a matter of fact since he is Cuban probably drives Hispanics away. Now if they could find someone with Mexican heritage that might be a different story.
What would Romney do? What would Obama do? What is more known? What is more unknown? Kind of Rumsfeld-ic.
Taylor I thought you didn’t believe in quoting polls? Or is that only polls that make Obama look good?
Read the column, you’ll figure it out.
Instead, he will make the case that he needs four more years to undo the damage left by George W. Bush, his Republican predecessor in the White House, and argue that a President Romney would bring back the weak financial regulation and budget-busting tax cuts of the Bush years.
I have to admit, I have not fared that badly under Obama and a deadlocked Congress, so my dislike for Obama is actually more force of habit than anything else. In other words, partisan passion is not driving me when I say when an incumbent has to rally the troops around fighting the ghosts of administrations past, you really do have to admit he obviously isn’t carrying much personal confidence.
It’s been a refrain of theirs virtually since Obama took the oath of office. I’d say there’s lots of reason for apathy, what with them having largely not done what we sent them there to do, and done quite a few things we didn’t want, but they’ve spent quite a bit of time on that message.
Yet another way the Obama Administration resembles its predecessor: it’s blaming its problems on the previous President.
I’m not sure whether to be appalled that they’re doing this, or that it may actually work.
Pointing out the austerity fetish of the Republicans might be a more effective strategy, though I see little reason to think we won’t be hit with austerity no matter what the outcome of the election.
“I have squandered my resistance
For a pocket full of mumbles such are promises
All lies and jests
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest “…..Paul Simon’s The Boxer
And so it is with polls and opinion-swaying. I’m not sure it matters so much about “getting independents to make up their minds.” If people don’t know what the hell has been going on for decades by now, we’re doomed anyway.
Would a Romney presidency be a disaster? Of that I have no doubt. As chameleon-like Obama is, Romney is downright creepy. the dog on the car roof was one thing, but the impersonating a law enforcement officer is kind of sick. He was and is a bully, and nothing facilitates bullying like money.
On the other hand, what must be shown to Obama voters of 2008 that their buyer’s remorse will be alleviated by a second term? Is Taylor Marsh wrong in holding Obama’s feet to the fire? NO.. That USED to be the job of the MSM, which has become a pale fascimile of real journalism…high definition sock puppets for the oligarchy.
Pres. Obama (and the Democratic Party) made the fatal mistake of discounting everyone who is not wealthy. The ‘investing class” does not make an economy prosper, but rather speculates for financial gain. Worse, Pres. Obama made a decision from the get-go that facilitating the Titan of Wall St. would ensure a repeat of the 2008 fund-raising. He instantly became a member of what Michael Lind calls the “overclass.” He really thought by accomodating their penchant for corporate welfare at the expense of the untouchables (the bottom 80 or 90%) his reward would be mountains of cash.
They got most of what they wanted, but Pres. Obama never understood that much wants more, and nowadays, much wants it ALL. He might try reading as much as he can about Harry Truman instead of referring to Ronald Reagan so much. Reagan was a great head of state but a lousy head of government.
Like Reagan, Obams is sleep walking through history. It saddens and angers me because he had a once in a century chance to truly alter the ship of state. He’s blown it.
“It saddens and angers me because he had a once in a century chance to truly alter the ship of state. He’s blown it.”
I wouldn’t say “he’s blown it” just yet…but he seems to be working on it. It should be easy as falling off a log to hand mittens and the repugnantklan/teabagger assmonkeys their empty heads. HOW could one group possibly give you more ammunition and sound bites to crucify them with?!!!! But all he’s done so far is Bain. Now don’t get me wrong, Bain was and is a very heavey stick to whack mittens with…but there is so, so much more.
Would a Romney presidency be a disaster? Of that I have no doubt.
Here’s a great example of why I have not an ounce of fear of liberals figuring out how to win the long game and make my life miserable.
Ms. Marsh puts up a post about the Oklahoma City Thunder and she receives back an assessment of the New York Mets.
If the country isn’t working, are the non-partisan voters more likely to give the incumbent a mulligan or try out the alternative?
If Obama can’t face the electorate and say here is what I’ve done to earn your repeat vote, who besides his Last Supper dinner guests are going to be suckered in by “the other guy is a boogeyman” bumper sticker?
I don’t see your point. The comment you’re quoting from was mostly about the subject of the article, and the paragraph you quote from is just contrast. Maybe I need to translate the rest of that article from progressive speak. In that case, what the rest of it means is that it looks to us like a second Obama term isn’t going to be a whole lot better, so why should we care?
Fair enough. I jumped too hard on the one sentence relative to total context, but I still think you guys generally tend to see the election options too much from your own POV vs. the electorate as a whole. I should have waited for a more egregious example from which to pounce.
Mr. Pister can call me three derogatory euphemisms as punishment.
What I should have clarified is that the Obama administration has been a disaster. As Cujo says, it’s a choice between degrees of disaster. To this voter the tactic of instilling fear in me about a Romney presidency won’t work. As one who voted for Obama in 2008 I can list plenty of examples of how my vote has been betrayed. That is from my own perspective, which is what a voter usually has for reference.
On the other hand it can be truthfully said that Romney hasn’t betrayed me. Yet. What the Obama campaign must consider (but won’t) is that sometimes it’s better with the devil you DON’T know.
“On the other hand it can be truthfully said that Romney hasn’t betrayed me. Yet. What the Obama campaign must consider (but won’t) is that sometimes it’s better with the devil you DON’T know.”
As a human being and American citizen…a TAX paying citizen I can honestly say Mr. Mittens entire life of privilege, avoiding paying a fair share in taxes and predatory Darwinian economics coupled with his superstition based support for and attempts to deny individual and whole groups of people their constitutional rights HAS betrayed me.
I am really not sure Obama wants to win and Michelle seems worn out with it all.She was on a local NPR radio show yesterday via phone.Her topic was her move program. She was litterally phoning it in but figuratively too. It sounded like she was bored and when the connection broke for a few seconds she sounded annoyed when she came back on the air.
Anybody can have an off day and who knows what else was going on in her office but she is not as good at disembling as her husband.I would not blame her if she felt that way. I would want to to get my husband and kids out of that toxic town too.
Hmmm…that RA Jensen seems conspicuously absent in this thread.