It's over! But it's just begun. There
must be multitudes of weary citizens who thought the Iowa caucus race
would never end. What does the outcome mean? Not very much.
Certainly not the electoral equivalent of the millions of dollars
spent and millions of words written and spoken in over analysis. So
just a very few more words. Essentially who wins or does relatively
well is less important than who loses or does poorly.
Past winners
were “uncommitted” ('72 &'76), Tom Harkin, Richard Gephardt,
Robert Dole ('88), and Mike Huckabee. These candidates won the
caucuses but failed to win their party's nomination. However, no
candidate who came in last or second from last except Michael Dukakis
('88, 3rd of 4) has gone on to win their parties
nomination since 1972. So doing poorly tends to narrow the field and
often severely diminishes the prospects for those at the bottom. In
this years caucuses, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry have fallen
into this category. Bachmann has dropped out and Perry is in all
probability next. He is currently polling 2.3% in New Hampshire and
has focused his energy and money on South Carolina where he currently
polling 5.7%.
So while co-winner in Iowa, Rick
Santorum, should get a bounce in New Hampshire from Gingrich,
Bachmann and Perry voters who will be swayed by the results in Iowa,
he still is a long shot in both the next two primaries, New
Hampshire and in South Carolina whose Republican Tea Party supported
Governor, Nikki Haley has endorsed Mitt Romney. Perhaps not in South
Carolina but soon, Santorum will have to broaden his appeal from his
anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage message that won evangelical votes
in Iowa.
Meanwhile, both the Romney and Obama
campaigns are gearing up for the national election. It has been the “conventional wisdom”
that the Obama 2012 campaign strategy will have two main
characteristics. This of course could change as circumstances
change, but for now the pundits have generally agreed that Obama
cannot campaign on his record although liberals give Obama credit for things
he didn't actually do; things he did that were flawed; and things he
did of which the nation as a whole disapproves. These would include
“leading from behind” in the NATO role in the Libyan revolution
which was led by a Canadian general and with most air support coming
from the British and French; the 700 billion dollar stimulus which
was supposed to create “shovel ready”jobs and thus stimulate
consumption, but which did neither because it was turned over to the
Congress which used the funds for parochial interests which were
mostly out in the future in terms of job creation; and the passage
of the national health care bill commonly known as “Obamacare”
which currently 53% % of Americans want repealed and only 39%
support and twenty-six states have sued to overturn.
However, in general it is Obama's
overall record on the economy that is his biggest political weakness. In his
2008 campaign he made significant promises which provide a stark
contrast to reality. Unemployment remains at just under 9% and
federal deficits and debt have reached historic and unsustainable
levels.
This has produced a political climate
that Obama will not wish to dwell on. In fact, seventy-one percent
of the nation believes “the country is on the wrong track”.
This leads to the second predicted
emphasis for Obama's campaign which is that he will focus on
attacking the Republican controlled House of Representatives for
allegedly blocking initiatives that would have energized an economic
recovery, as well as personal attacks on Mitt Romney who the Obama
campaign assumes will be the Republican nominee.
Congressional Republican bashing
however, while popular with committed Democrats, will not give the
American people as a whole, a reason to give Obama another four
years. There is also some evidence that liberal pundits and
Administration officials will try to provide more substance to the
campaign message by claiming success in foreign policy. This
however, will be a difficult argument and be mostly centered around
the claim that Obama killed Osama bin Laden which was a military
success but can hardly be called a foreign policy success.
In terms of actual foreign policy, the
Administrations “outreach” to the Muslim world has produced no
positive results. In a survey of seven Muslim nations (May, 2011)
only 25% of those polled had a “favorable” view of the U.S. and
only 29% had “confidence” in Obama.
He has provided no leadership and no
results in the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum, and indeed has
alienated both the government and population of Israel. His much
advertised “reset” of U.S.-Russian relations has resulted in a
cave in over the plan to station a missile defense system in Poland
and the Czech Republic, and the revised plan involving radar stations
in Turkey, Romania and Poland have resulted in threats by the
Russians to abandon the provisions of the recently signed START II
arms control treaty and to target the missile defense bases with their own missiles.
The Iranian nuclear program remains
intact while the government of Iran threatens to close the Straits of
Hormuz to both international oil transport and the U.S. Navy. The
Iraq war has been ended in a way that threatens to devolve into a
state of sectarian strife, if not civil war, while the Shiite
controlled government becomes more influenced by Iran. The critical
relationship with Pakistan has reached a new low which will impact
anti-terrorist cooperation and the conduct of the war in Afghanistan which drags on.
The only upside of these situations and
failures for the Obama campaign is that the American electorate is so
focused on domestic economic issues that interest in foreign affairs
is not a prominent election issue. That upside could disappear in
the Fall when the inevitable presidential debate over foreign policy
is staged.
With Obama's job approval hovering
around 46% and with the reality of these economic and foreign policy
issues providing the context for the upcoming political debate,
Obama's campaign strategists have turned to an electoral college
numbers approach to try and come up with a winning formula in what
promises to be a very close election, with Independent voters playing
a crucial role in the outcome.
The heart of the strategy, as recently
described by Obama campaign officials, is to start the electoral
college quest for the necessary 270 of 538 votes by winning the so
called “Kerry states”. That is, the eighteen states, plus the
District of Columbia, won by 2004 Democratic presidential candidate
John Kerry in his defeat by George Bush. These states are deemed to be “solid blue,”, or reliable
Democratic states no matter what the political climate. In 2004,
they provided 251 electoral votes for Kerry. Thus, under the
Democratic strategy, Obama would only need to pick up 19 more
electoral votes from the remaining 32 states to win reelection. Die
hard Democrats are optimistic given that Obama won 28 states with
365 electoral votes in 2008. However, times have changed as the poll
data cited above indicate.
First, the Constitutionally required
decennial census was held in 2010. The census provides the basis for
the reapportionment of state representation in the House of
Representatives based on population shifts over the previous ten
years. This process in turn, revises the Electoral College votes of
each state since that vote is based on the number of members of the
House from each state plus that state's two senators. The 2010
census reflected a mostly north to south population shift and
subsequent loss of one representative in each of five of the Kerry
states and a loss of two in one (NY) and a gain of one in the state
of Washington. Thus the 2012 Electoral College votes in the Kerry
states has been reduced from 251 to 245.
Taking a look at the strategy in the
face of these new numbers and changed political environment reveals
some real problems for the Obama campaign.
In 2008 Obama won nine states which
went for Bush in 2004. While this seems to provide a fertile field
for the search for twenty-five additional electoral votes, stated
differently, Bush won 13 more states than Kerry where the now much
discredited Obama must search for extra electoral votes.
First, a look at the current state of
Obama's support in the “Kerry states”: Simply speaking the
“Kerry Strategy has some dangerous holes in it. In seven of the
eighteen Kerry states, the President is “under water in terms of
job approval.
Poll date Approve/ Disapprove
Minnesota 10/26/11 41%/ 59%
Wisconsin 10/20/11 44/ 51
Michigan 11/13/11 46 / 46
Pennsylvania 10/30/11 37 -
NH 11/22/11 40 / 53
RI 12/15/11 44 -
New Jersey 10/13/11 43 / 52
These states have a combined total of
81electoral votes which are presently at risk of being deducted from
the Kerry total. To make matters worse the so called critical “swing
states” of Florida, North Carolina and Ohio with 62 electoral votes
all have Romney tied or ahead of Obama even though he is not yet the
Republican nominee. Obama's job approval ratings in these states are
45%/ 50% disapprove: 45%/50% disapprove: 47%/49% disapprove:
respectively.
Clearly Obama's campaign strategy is
built upon a shaky foundation. Much can change in ten months but
once a Republican nominee is chosen opposition to Obama will become
more focused and if Romney is the candidate, an appeal to the roughly
32% of the electorate comprised of self-described Independents
should be more effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment