This is intended as a running commentary on each party's 2012 strategy, my thoughts, and hopefully those of others.
The Democratic Spring Offensive. Obama and the Dems seem to be making the first tentative jabs, centered around three concepts:
1. We Killed Bin Laden
2. Gay Marriage a/k/a civil unions (aren't those called marriages?)
3. Romney is bought and paid for by Big Oil
4. Did we mention we killed Bin Laden?
They will move off all of these themes in short order, because none of them will gain any political traction. It is mid-May, the time to experiment with dumb political ideas, especially when you have $1B plus to spend, as Team Obama (TO) does. They're the Google of political campaigns... money, ambition, and simply not enough work to do.
Bin Laden. Granted, TO is being VERY, VERY careful about how they approach this. Their ad is carefully worded to give credit to "our greatest heroes", but within the context of our last 3.5 years of triumph. This is the political equivalent of trying to get a pat on the back for getting to work on time. What voter doesn't think Obama did what he was supposed to do in this situation? Who really gives him credit? No one. A lot of people did a lot of hard, dangerous work to facilitate Mr. Bin Laden meeting his just end on this planet, Obama just wasn't really one of them.
There is some danger here for Romney, though, if he takes the bait and engages in any sort of discussion on Bin Laden. He's done so once, and it was very, very stupid.
Gay Marriage. Obama has chosen spring 2012 to state the obvious, that he favors gay marriage. While repackaged and re-marketed as "civil unions," TO is probing for something here. In addition to the Biden/Obama stuff in D.C., Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper has forced a special session of the legislature to take up the issue. Hickenlooper is the very definition of centrist, but he's also the very definition of a guy who wants a major role in a second Obama term. The only logical explanation for what is going on in Colorado is that TO wants a preview of how the issue will play in a swing state, and how the Republicans will counter.
Romney - Big Oil. The Dems want to see if this issue has any legs. My guess is it doesn't. Americans want energy independence, and they are, in growing numbers, associating the lack thereof with bad government (i.e., denial of Keystone) rather than evil oil companies. I doubt Romney is terribly frightened by this line of attack.
The Dems will bring out the big guns later this summer, and expect Bain Capital to be the biggest. The argument they're going to need to make, though, is a little nuanced. As Newt discovered, it is easily twisted into an attack on capitalism itself, rather than an attack on a sleazy subset of venture capitalism that has more in common with the mob than any other type of business. We'll see if Obama can thread the needle. He may not need to take the risk if his numbers hold.
For those of you playing in the political markets, Romney is trading at $3.65, or a 36.5% probability he will win in November. I doubt this number will down before it goes up, I'd be a buyer at that price. All of the geopolitical and domestic risk favors Romney at this point -- the likelihood we'll see any real economic change that will support Obama is non-existent, and there is a very real chance the markets, and voters, will get spooked by Europe, Iran, or China before November. By at $3.65 and sell on a spike above $4.50.
Print
Email
Comments for "The 2012 Election - Strategy"
Working for a business that serves the rural Midwest I have really noticed nearly everyone turn on Obama. Even if he wins the election, I suspect he will lose many states in the Midwest by dramatically larger margins than he lost them in '08. The question is, what does that mean from key swing states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, etc? Is that traditional base of white "Reagan Democrats" eroding enough, given the changes in demography, to cost him the election?
I fear that the Republicans selected someone who is uniquely qualified to lose this election because of his religion. Sure, the Republican base is fired up and contributing untold billions to super-PACs, but will that translate into votes by swing voters in swing states, mostly white working class people with Christian values? I don't know.
To your point about the changes in the Democratic party, I think it's funny that there has been this massive campaign by the media to make the point, and even try to quantify it, that the Republicans have moved much further right and the Democrats have basically remained a "centrist" and "moderate" party. What a bunch of nonsense. Regardless of political persuasion, we all have to acknowledge Stephanie's point that the Democrats have gone to a very different place over the past 20 years. All that's changed with the Republicans is that they suddenly have gotten a little more hawkish on the budget. Consider the following evolution of the parties' positions from the 1980s to now:
Taxes and Regulation. Democrats have always been pro-regulation but a large group of Southern Dems were economic conservatives, favoring lower taxes, oil exploration, and the like. Those voices are gone now. The Democrats are now uniformly in favor of higher taxes, bigger government, more regulation, solar/wind subsidies and anti-oil. Consider that the "Bush Tax Cuts" were a reversal of the tax increases Clinton pushed through in his first term.
Foreign Policy. An argument can be made that the Republicans have become much more interventionist and meddling post Bush 41, but that essentially means Bush 43. The irresponsible rhetoric on Iran and China, in particular, during the Republican primary suggests a real move to the right. However, Obama has turned out to be a pretty ruthless character himself where it counts. Perhaps both parties have moved right.
Social Issues. Republicans have always opposed abortion, still do. Always favored prayer in school, still do. Always opposed gay marriage, still do. Democrats have gone from split on abortion to less so. The absolutist position on separation of church and state is now Democratic gospel. A party that almost universally opposed gay marriage shifted to tacit support to outright support.
The Deficit. Until the Obama administration, the deficit was this sort of predictable dance, where the Republicans squawked about cutting domestic spending and the Democrats accused them of hating women, children, minorities and the poor. Republicans by and large parried these attacks by... surrendering. Bush 43 was the master at this and took the strategy to its logical end. Secretly, though, Republicans wanted to balance the budget. It was just an inferior priority to defense spending and tax cuts, and got bargained away. The Democrats were divided on the deficit, and there were always voices like Warren Rudman around. Today, they don't exist. There is zero challenge to the Obama trillion dollar deficits, QE, and Operation Twist. Considering how dangerous this stuff is, that's pretty scary.
If you ask me, the Democrats have become radicalized on the key issues. And they are getting their way right now. The white middle class, middle America voter is responding accordingly.