campaign ads

Via Ezra Klein, you can see a Mitt Romney ad.

And then watch Ronald Reagan's 30-minute ad for his successful 1966 run for Governor of California.

No Coasting in 2012

Dave Brockington is right to be worried about Obama in 2012.
Unemployment is bad. And it is downright terrible among those who do not have college educations. These voters tend to vote Democratic. Plus, the Republicans who have taken over the key state of Florida are suppressing the very votes Obama needs to win. Ohio is moving to suppress the youth vote, too.

Moreover, when people lose their homes due to foreclosure, that can create confusion about their voting addresses--which is another opening for Republicans to contest the eligibility of people to cast ballots.

Citizens United has burst a dam for money to buy nasty campaign ads, that will drag him down.

There needs to be a serious effort by every progressive-leaning person to reach out to everyone, to have conversations over coffee, at the watercooler, at the lunch truck convince other voters that Obama shares their values and needs their vote.
Oh, yeah, same goes for the progressive candidates running in primaries for Congress.

More needs to happen that just that--but at the very least, progressives need to get Obama to win.

Giuliani

Really, why wouldn't Rudy throw his hat into the ring? Sure he's a total failure. But is he more of a total failure than Newt or Mittens? For any well-known Republican, why not give it a shot?

I Don't Matter in 2012

I already pretty much knew that, but this Los Angeles Times editorial essentially sums up why: President Obama has been a disaster on environmental issues. He also realizes that environmentalists have nowhere else to go. So he's completely marginalized us and is catering to polluters, hoping to pull in campaign donations.

But those are moral and financial reasons to regulate, not political ones. Here's an argument Obama and his political advisors might grasp: It's possible for a president to so alienate his base that it fails to show up on election day. Something to keep in mind before November 2012 rolls around. 

That's true, but Obama is clearly confident that the base is going to come out. I probably will, even begrudgingly. Of course, he also thinks that he's going to reignite the movement that got him elected, but that's not going to happen. So maybe he is miscalculating. 

We are a long ways from 40 or even 20 years ago, when being an environmentalist was a ticket to electoral success. On the environment, things are much, much worse now than they used to be.

The Threat of Mittens and White Resentment

I have thought all along that Mitt Romney was dead in the water as the Republican nominee in 2012. His health care bill, his utter vacuity, and his flip-flopping should make him anathema to Republican primary voters. I still more or less believe this. But someone has to win, don't they? I simply cannot believe it will be Gingrich. Jon Huntsman has no chance because he is not insane and hasn't learned to pander well enough. All signs point to Pawlenty.

However, if Romney somehow manages to pull this out, I do believe he will be a formidable opponent for Obama, presuming there's no serious third party challenge by Ron Paul or some other teabagger that might draw 5% of the vote. Robert Reich suggests one reason why--Romney seems presidential. He has a moderate history, he has good hair, and importantly, according to Reich, he's white:

But I suspect something else is at work here, too. To many voters, President Obama sounds and acts presidential, but he doesn't look it. Mitt Romney is the perfect candidate for people uncomfortable that their president is black. Mitt is their great white hope.

I don't know how persuaded I am by this given that Obama managed to sway a lot of white voters in 2008. But if enough of those voters in key states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, states where Obama has struggled and states with older, white working-class populations, identify with Romney based on race, this could be quite consequential. After all, in the American electoral system, it only takes a relatively small number of voters in the right states to decide an election. And would it really surprise anyone if whiteness was the issue that swayed 2012? Not me anyway.

This also reminds me of the recent findings that a whole lot of whites believe that anti-white bias is a bigger problem in America than anti-black bias. This is, of course, absurd. It's not that hard out there for a cracker after all. But for a struggling white working-class, linking economic problems with white ideology is hardly unusual in American history. This helped seal white supremacy in the late 19th century South, despite some attempts for cross-racial solidarity. It helps us understand the appeal of George Wallace in the North in 1968 and the Reagan Democrats in the 1980s. White Americans have often blamed non-whites or immigrants for their economic problems, opening space for racist politicians to take advantage. And while I'm not going to call Romney racist, I am happy to call the Republican Party racist. Republicans are salivating over playing the race card as strongly as they can in 2012; it may  not be 1952 anymore, but between veiled racism toward blacks and open racism toward immigrants, Republicans have gone all-in as the White Man's Party. Long-term, this is a disastrous strategy. Short-term, there are enough older whites in key Midwestern states that this strategy could work wonders.

Are Progressives Fucking Retarded?

This was the famous question Rahm Emanuel asked in 2009 when progressives questioned Great Leader Obama's capitulation to conservatives.

The answer is, of course, no.

But Steven Hill makes some really good points in his review of the question and why progressives put so much hope in a clearly centrist Obama.

During the presidential campaign, while Obama deployed the lofty rhetoric and vision in his speeches that became his stock in trade, some of us were pointing out that there was nothing in this former state senator and then-U.S. Senator’s unremarkable record that indicated he was a strong or reliable progressive. Sometimes he had progressive tendencies, other times not. A friend of mine from Chicago who had Obama as a law professor presciently predicted that an Obama administration would be characterized by “ruthless pragmatism,” not progressive idealism.

But many progressives believed, quite fervently, that in the course of finding that ruthless pragmatism, Obama would cleverly figure out how to lean strongly progressive. There was always a nod and a wink coming from the Obama movement that seemed to say, “Don’t worry, he’s more progressive than he’s revealing. That’s what you have to do to get elected president in the United States.” When some of us continued to express doubts, these Panglosses got upset. Very upset. “It’s time to get on board,” they said. And I felt like Bongo, the one-eared rabbit in Matt Groening’s Life in Hell cartoon, shut up and gagged in a detention room.

How can so many brilliant people have fallen for so much hokum? That question is not an easy one to answer. Perhaps at some point Arianna Huffington, Robert Kuttner, Michael Moore and other left-ish pundits will engage in a bit of self-criticism and enlighten us as to how they were hoodwinked so easily. Because here’s my fear: Progressives don’t seem to be learning from their mistakes. Right before Obama’s inauguration, Huffington wrote, “Now, more than ever, we must mine the most underutilized resource available to us: ourselves… It is not just the Bush Years that should be over on January 20, but also the expectation that a knight in shining armor will ride into town and save us while we cheer from the sidelines. Even if the knight is brilliant, charismatic and inspiring. It’s up to us—We the People.”

Yet that’s exactly what so many did—they invested their hopes and aspirations, their passion, activism and money, in a shining knight for whom there was scant evidence of his progressivism or legislative accomplishments. Was it their desperation to see the GOP run out of town and the Bush legacy overturned? And the Clintons too? Was it their desire to see an African American elected president? Kuttner, author of Obama’s Challenge: America’s Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency and co-founder of The American Prospect, wrote about a friend who said, “I so wanted to be supportive of a great progressive president this time instead of being back in opposition.”

I've probably shared this story before on the blog, but in during the 2008 primaries, my students asked me who I supported. I said, "I'm ready to be disappointed by someone new." Quite clearly, there was little in the way of policy difference between Hillary Clinton and Obama. I thought Obama would be a little better than Hillary on foreign policy, though that difference has been heavily mitigated by her appointment as Secretary of State and the bizarre Libyan action. I figured Hillary would be better on health care. I was worried that Obama wouldn't do as good a job fighting against the Republicans as Hillary. I knew she would disappoint me and that 4 more years of Clintonism would not be a good thing.

So I voted for Obama in the primary. And I drank a little bit of that kool-aid as well. But its effects wore off very quickly. Obama is as disappointing as Clinton ever was. That's not Clinton nostalgia--Clinton sucked. But so does Obama.

And I am very unenthused for Obama's reelection. Obviously, I'll vote for him. I have no doubt that the next 18 months is going to create a Nader-nostalgia movement, when we again hash over whether Nader did the right thing in 2000 and whether we need a similar movement today. Of course, that was a complete disaster. Whoever wins the Republican nomination will be dangerous for the country. The only other option is to vote for the ever-rightward shifting Obama.

That's obviously distressing. And we need to have discussions about how we can escape this horrible cycle of evil Republicans and caving Democrats. But I do want to make one thing very clear--there is no progressive out there who should expect anything at all from Obama at this point. Anyone who thinks he will advance a progressive agenda on any but the most noncontroversial issues is completely delusional.

And this leads to what will be one of Obama's biggest challenges in 2012--the people who worked the hardest for him in 2008 are almost all totally disillusioned. They'll come out and vote. But will they give money? Will the volunteer? I doubt I will.

Obama's Band

Nancy Scola asks an interesting question, wondering whether Obama can put the band back together again, by which she means the media team that created the stellar 2008 online campaign.

It's worth reading, but I don't think it's the most important question. This kind of article places credit for Obama's victory in the hands of him and his campaign workers. And that's important. Certainly in the primary, they deserved tremendous credit.

But the "band" here is not the media team. It's the broader support Obama received in 2008. Obama's grassroots support came from millions of Americans seeing him as the personification of their hopes for change. And while it was unfair for any of us to put that much weight on Obama from the beginning, he certainly has disappointed virtually every progressive in the country.

I have no doubt that Obama will have a first-rate media team surrounding him. But how much will it matter? While I'm sure a lot of progressives will end up voting for Obama, the idea that the media team created his fanatical support completely misunderstands the relationship between media and people. All the geniuses in the world aren't going to recreate 2008, not because they aren't skilled but because very few people are going to be super excited about voting for Obama. He's no longer the face of our hopes and dreams, partly because such a thing is impossible in the long-term and partly because he openly rejected a lot of those hopes and dreams.

That's then the biggest question we can ask about Obama and his media team in 2012--can they even vaguely recreate 2008? If they can, then they truly are brilliant. Because I think it's just not going to happen.

Joe Klein on the State of the Republican Field

Joe Klein is pretty awful in general. But ouch.

This is my 10th presidential campaign, Lord help me. I have never before seen such a bunch of vile, desperate-to-please, shameless, embarrassing losers coagulated under a single party's banner. They are the most compelling argument I've seen against American exceptionalism. Even Tim Pawlenty, a decent governor, can't let a day go by without some bilious nonsense escaping his lizard brain. And, as Greg Sargent makes clear, Mitt Romney has wandered a long way from courage. There are those who say, cynically, if this is the dim-witted freak show the Republicans want to present in 2012, so be it. I disagree. One of them could get elected. You never know. Mick Huckabee, the front-runner if you can believe it, might have to negotiate a trade agreement, or a defense treaty, with the Indonesian President some day. Newt might have to discuss very delicate matters of national security with the President of Pakistan. And so I plead, as an unflinching American patriot--please Mitch Daniels, please Jeb Bush, please run. I may not agree with you on most things, but I respect you. And you seem to respect yourselves enough not to behave like public clowns.

Now, the idea that somehow Daniels or Jeb would be above this kind of pandering is the Beltway mindset in action--there's always a good, strong Republican out there to lead us!--but outside of that, this is a dead-on summary of the Republican field.

I want to especially agree that having one of these jokers actually get the nomination is a disaster, even for Democrats. Because if Gingrich and Palin and Huckabee are the new mainstream of the Republican Party, they pull that party ever farther rightward. With Klein himself, among many other Beltway people, fetishizing a glorious but never stable center, this also moves American politics to the right. And that is not a good thing. Even if there's a 90% chance Obama wins, that 10% chance is a 10% chance for the American apocalypse.

Huntsman

There's lots of discussion about what Jon Huntsman is doing by resigning his position as Ambassador to China and preparing to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. See here and here. Some feel that his strategy is to get his name out there now and then be a front-runner for a more moderate Republican Party in 2016. I think the first side of that equation is true--we'll have to see whether the Republican tradition of anointing the next candidate comes true this year, but there's no question that name recognition is central here. Huntsman doesn't have it and needs to run in 2012 to fulfill his hopes in 2016.

As for the supposed moderation of the Republican Party after another defeat for Obama, doesn't this seem very unlikely? Rather, running in 2012 with an eye toward 2016 gives Huntsman extra time to distance himself from his moderate history. Look to see him embrace his inner wingnut more closely with each passing month.

I don't think this strategy is going to work. But if he wants the big job, and clearly he does, this is probably his best path at this point.

Perry for President!

Oh please, please, please, please, please!!!!

I actually think Rick Perry could win the Republican nomination. He moved far enough right to win the Republican nomination for governor, something that was in question for awhile. So he's probably not going to be out-righted in a national primary. He comes from Texas, which Teabaggers love. He's completely insane, which they also love. Of course, he has the hair. He has the ambition almost for sure. He might even be able to unite the Republican Party more or less.

Of course, he's almost completely unelectable. This would be the greatest campaign ever, maybe even better than Palin. A Perry-Palin ticket would be the greatest gift I've received since the Yankees traded Jay Buhner to the Mariners for Ken Phelps.

And I know I can't wait for Perry's forthcoming book, which I'm real sure he wrote himself!

Gingrich

There's been a lot of talk about Newt Gingrich running for president in 2012.

He's an interesting candidate. He might be the only legitimate candidate able to unite the disparate elements of the Republican Party. He could probably keep the Teabaggers in line (in his mouth?), could convince the super-wealthy to play along, and appeal to the racists and social conservatives. Certainly he can raise a tremendous amount of money. He is charismatic enough to be in Obama's league. He has huge name recognition.

So Gingrich could be formidable. However, I feel there are 2 big strikes against him becoming the Republican nominee. First, he shares a big similarity with Sarah Palin--both have used their conservative credentials to become very rich. Does Gingrich want to give up the business side of his life in order to run for president? He's talked about running for president ever since 1996. And it's never happened. Why? You can't tell me the timing was never right--it was in 96 and it was in 08. So I'm not convinced he'll do it despite his frequent dropping of hints.

Second, Gingrich has no discipline. He makes Joe Biden look Obama-esque by comparison. Gingrich has remained in the public eye by saying a lot of outrageous things. If he does win the nomination, how will him calling Obama's administration "secular-socialist" go over? I'm not sure that kind of rhetoric is going to serve him well in a general election. Gingrich recently compared Obama to the Nazis, which not only makes no sense, but is greatly insulting to everyone who suffered under that horrible regime. Even Republicans called him out over it and now he's been forced to back down. I think we can all expect a great deal more extremist rhetoric coming from Gingrich's mouth before November 2012 that will make him unelectable, at least barring a second economic collapse.

There's also the fact that he was one of the most ineffective and disastrous Speakers of the House in history, but that's another story altogether.

Petraeus No Longer a Threat

Despite all that's happened, I remain confident that Barack Obama will be reelected in 2012. That's because I still can't see who on earth the Republicans have who can beat him. I was kind of worried about David Petraeus, but his ability to win a Republican primary are clearly compromised. A couple of times in the last couple of weeks, he's come out against Republican orthodoxy. Yglesias notes that Petraeus told the Senate that tensions between Israel and Palestine is a major problem for American foreign policy in the Middle East. While this might make perfect sense to you and me, and even for moderate Republicans, because it's not completely insane, it dooms Petraeus in the Republican primaries.

I still have trouble seeing anyone but Mitt Romney winning the nomination in 2012. No one really likes him, but in the upcoming Republican civil war, I don't see another legitimate candidate that all sides might agree on. I am at least curious about what former New Mexico governor might do, but since he's an actual libertarian who supports drug legalization instead of a fake one like most Republicans, I don't see him taking the nomination. Then there's Palin, Huckabee, Pawlenty, and the other expected customers, none of which seem to have much of a chance to garner enough delegates.

Republican Candidate, 2012

It's worth looking ahead to who the Republican presidential candidate might be in 2012.

You might ask, "This is so far away. It's a pointless exercise."

If we were talking about the Democrats, you'd be right. Who could have projected the Obama, Clinton, or Dukakis nominations 4 years before they happened? A few were talking up Obama, but it seemed like 2012 at the earliest. Even John Kerry was far from a given.

On the other hand, when have the Republicans nominated someone outside of their inner circle of expected candidates? McCain, W, Dole, Bush Sr., Reagan, Ford, Nixon, etc. All very expected candidates. I don't quite know enough about the Goldwater candidacy to know whether that is the last time someone came out of nowhere. If not Goldwater, we are looking back to Willikie or Landon. And that's a long time ago.

So who then are the top 5 candidates for the Republican nomination:

5. Bobby Jindal. Oh pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease. The governor of Louisiana, Jindal is a real loon and is totally unelectable. Some Republicans think he's the answer to Obama. That's because he is not white. The similarities end there. This is a man who claimed to run exorcisms in college. Yes, he is the Exorcist. He is a real extremist. The fundies love him. I place him relatively low though because they love Palin more. If Palin really loses her credibility with the base, look for Jindal to rise to #2 on this list.

4. Jeb Bush. Don't count out Jeb. At this point, his name is his biggest negative. How that will play in 4 years remains to be seen. By all accounts, he's a lot smarter than W. He is also fluent in Spanish and has a Latina wife. This would likely bring his numbers up among Latinos, making him a much better candidate in the West than McCain. I'm sure there are those in the party apparatus who would like to see this. Still, the Bush name is a huge negative and although Americans have short memories, it's hard to see him overcoming this.

3. David Petraeus. I don't actually think this will happen, but Petraeus could potentially be the candidate to unite all wings of the party. I don't even know for sure that he is a Republican, though I can't imagine that he is not. Still, unless he really establishes himself as a social conservative, I don't think the evangelicals would go along at this point.

2. Sarah Palin. The base loves her. Bill Kristol, Rich Lowry, and the punditry are in love with her. She has great appeal to the redneck side of the Republican electorate. On the other hand, her political reputation is almost beyond repair with everyone who doesn't love her. And that's like 80% of the nation. If she is the nominee, I fully expect a spate of Republican fundraisers and power brokers to openly support Obama and the electoral map to look like 1964. This is what Rob predicts but I don't think she's likely to win the nomination.

1. Mitt Romney. Romney is going to be the nominee. He's going to have support of all the money. The only way he is not the nominee is a full revolt from the base. Either way, Romney is not a scary candidate because the base is going to be dejected with Mittens and scared of his Mormonism. He is also as exciting as paste. What we are going to see in the next 4 years is a Republican civil war between Romney and Palin. It's going to be fun to watch.