May 9th Prediction: Obama or Romney?

[Jacob]

The Central Democrat Party Directorate requires you to raise your pom-poms higher, DGuller.

As if the Democrat has any kind of central structure capable of that sort of control

[CountDeMoney]

All the talking heads over the past week and this weekend have been doing a lot of bemoaning over the President's perceived "negative campaigning".

Give 'em hell, Barry
That liberal fag from WashPost, E.J. Dionne

Progressives have yearned for President Obama to follow Harry Truman's strategy from the 1948 campaign by giving his Republican opponents hell. Now that Obama is doing just that, his critics say he's not looking presidential.

As a longtime advocate of the Truman approach (and a fan of Give 'Em Hell Harry and his way of doing politics), I think Obama is doing the right thing. Critics of the battling style miss what Obama needs to get done in this campaign and also ignore the extent to which so many of his foes refuse to treat him in a presidential way. Far better for him to be a fully engaged fighter with passion for what he's saying than a distant, regal figure pretending that the other side is playing by a dainty set of rules.

But if 1948 is to be the model, what can we learn from Truman's experience, and how does that election relate to the one we're having in 2012?

The similarities are important. Truman in 1946, like Obama in 2010 (and, for that matter, Bill Clinton in 1994), suffered a severe setback in midterm elections that substantially strengthened the hands of his congressional adversaries. Truman's opponent, Thomas E. Dewey, was a Northeastern Republican governor who, like Mitt Romney, was not a favorite of the most conservative wing of his party. But unlike Romney, Dewey was a genuine moderate trying hard not be ensnared in the agenda of the GOP Congress.

For Truman, tying the "do-nothing" Republican Congress around Dewey's neck was essential to reminding the many New Dealers in the electorate of the identity of FDR's true heir. Dewey spent the whole campaign in a box. If he danced away from congressional Republicans, he looked unprincipled. If he embraced them, he put himself right where Truman wanted him.

To the extent that Romney can be tied to an unpopular Republican House and an obstructionist minority in the Senate, their unpopularity will rub off on him. But unlike Dewey, Romney has largely endorsed his congressional colleagues' agenda. Obama's task is to argue that whatever moderate sounds Romney made during his career in Massachusetts politics, these are irrelevant to how he would govern with the GOP likely to be in the congressional saddle. Obama wants to paint Romney as someone who would be a pawn of a runaway right-wing Congress, thus challenging both Romney's strength of conviction and his ideology. As Truman did with Dewey, Obama wants to offer Romney the unpalatable choice of offending his party or offending swing voters.

There is also an advantage in Obama directly taking on Romney's background in private equity at Bain Capital. By raising these questions himself, Obama signaled that he would not let criticisms from such Democrats as NewarkMayor Cory Booker force him to back down from a challenge he knows he needs to lodge against Romney's claims as a "job creator." By the end of last week, Booker had eased off while the Bain issue was still alive, to the point that even Rush Limbaugh was forced to acknowledge that private equity was about profit-making, not job creation.

And if Republicans wish to argue that Obama's vigorous anti-Romney campaigning is un-presidential, they have to answer for George W. Bush's unashamed attacks against Democrat John Kerry in 2004. Sara Fagen, an adviser to Bush in that campaign, recently told Peter Baker of the New York Times that Bush "almost never mentioned" Kerry, "certainly not this early."

The truth of this depends on what the meaning of the word "almost" is. In February 2004, for example, Bush mocked Kerry — he referred to him as "one senator from Massachusetts" — as being "for tax cuts and against them. For NAFTA and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq and opposed to it." The next month, Bush accused Kerry by name of being "willing to gut the intelligence services" with a "deeply irresponsible" proposal to cut intelligence spending. There is no record of Republicans complaining that these political assaults were beneath a president.

Like Truman — and, for that matter, like Bush — Obama confronts a sharply divided country, the need to rally his own supporters and the imperative of convincing undecided voters that electing his opponent would be a dangerous risk. What Truman taught is that Americans would rather see a president with the strength to fight than a politician with such sensitive sensibilities that he leaves all the tough stuff to others.

[DGuller]

I wish there was no need for negative campaigning, as it's the most disgusting and devoid of information kind of campaigning imaginable.  However, it is also unfortunately the most effective type in US, so eschewing it is akin to unilaterally disarming.  It seems like Obama has finally learned the lesson that unilaterally disarming against an opponent waging total war on him is a strategy with some downsides.

[Phillip V]

All the talking heads over the past week and this weekend have been doing a lot of bemoaning over the President's perceived "negative campaigning".

Bill Clinton praises Romney's business record.

"I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say 'This is bad work. This is good work,'" Clinton said. "The man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/clinton-romneys-business-record-sterling-124980.html

[Ideologue]

Well if he truly is running a dreadful campaign it could be down deep he just doesn't want another four years.

But then you are hardly a fair analyst of Democratic politics.

Neither am I to be fair.  I hate American liberals.

And I hate dumb British Tories.

[Ideologue]

I hate American liberals.

They are a thoroughly smug and repulsive group of people.

  Considering their inherent superiority to conservatives on every trait that counts, I'd say they have been the model of modesty.

I know I have.

[CountDeMoney]

Bill Clinton praises Romney's business record.

"I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say 'This is bad work. This is good work,'" Clinton said. "The man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

What, one caretaker President sees caretaker qualities in another?  That's just super.  I'm sure Mittens would've been a great Presidential nominee in 1996, but not now.

[Phillip V]

However, my assessment has been that the economy will stagnate or slow down going into summer and fall, so that may have a downside for Obama. Many close Senate contests such as Massachusetts (Scott/Warren) and Virginia (Allen/Kaine) will depend on the strength of Romney and Obama at the top of the ticket.

I think the economy will have to show clear signs of turning around before late summer, or the perception that we're in a bad economy will be stuck in people's heads come November.  Still, although it's a tossup in the polls right now I'm still considering it Obama's election to lose. 

'The U.S. economy added 69,000 jobs in May, well below expectations, in a further indication the economy has lost momentum. The jobless rate rose to 8.2%.'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303552104577440023931752902.html

[CountDeMoney]

'The U.S. economy added 69,000 jobs in May, well below expectations, in a further indication the economy has lost momentum. The jobless rate rose to 8.2%.'

Consumer spending numbers were released: rose in April rose by 0.3 percent, and personal income up by 0.2 percent.

In short, the same people that are out of work are still out of work, companies that have contracted are still staying contracted and not hiring, and everybody else with a job has their fingers crossed while they go to Best Buy.

[Neil]

Bill Clinton praises Romney's business record.

"I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say 'This is bad work. This is good work,'" Clinton said. "The man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

What, one caretaker President sees caretaker qualities in another?  That's just super.  I'm sure Mittens would've been a great Presidential nominee in 1996, but not now.

Hey now.  Clinton had a lot going on in his first term.

[Sheilbh]

And I hate dumb British Tories.

Don't worry I hate the Tories too

'The U.S. economy added 69,000 jobs in May, well below expectations, in a further indication the economy has lost momentum. The jobless rate rose to 8.2%.'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303552104577440023931752902.html

I thought the US had decoupled from Europe and would, as has happened in the past, drag the rest of the world up.  Maybe not.  Europe's staring into the abyss - it'll be far worse than 2008 if the Euro implodes - India's GDP growth is down very sharply and there's increasing warnings of a hard landing in China.  Worrying times.

[CountDeMoney]

I thought the US had decoupled from Europe and would, as has happened in the past, drag the rest of the world up.  Maybe not.  Europe's staring into the abyss - it'll be far worse than 2008 if the Euro implodes - India's GDP growth is down very sharply and there's increasing warnings of a hard landing in China.  Worrying times.

US and TNC businesses are sitting on massive piles of cash reserves, and profits are way up; these numbers here in the US are nothing more than hesitant panic and fear of the market, and business is reticent on expansion.

And so much of the unemployment % are the chronically unemployed--and the chronically unemployable.

[derspiess]

business is reticent on expansion.

Thanks to your mom jeans-wearing prez.

[CountDeMoney]

business is reticent on expansion.

Thanks to your mom jeans-wearing prez.

Presidents can't force companies to invest and grow.  Only CEOs can do that.

Oh, wait.  I was just downsized to increase shareholder value nvm.

[derspiess]

business is reticent on expansion.

Thanks to your mom jeans-wearing prez.

Presidents can't force companies to invest and grow.  Only CEOs can do that.

Oh, wait.  I was just downsized to increase shareholder value nvm.

No, they're scared to expand, hire, invest, etc. because of the uncertain business climate fostered by your Prez who wants to raise taxes on TEH RICH, many of whom are small business owners.