Obama Sinks His Party

Intrepid reader Erik reminds me that "It is still a long way to November. ;-)" I cannot disagree, especially with the tongue in cheek emoticon. I do not know what will happen next November, but I know all too well how wishful thinking can color my judgment.

Still, it is hard not to think that the Democratic Party is now too deep in the poop to climb out. John B. Judis at the New Republic offers compelling evidence that the root cause of the Democratic decline is the President.

I continue to hear people saying that Martha Coakley's defeat in Massachusetts had nothing or very little to do with the approval of the Obama administration in that state. For those who continue to adhere to this opinion, let's look at some other states where the decline in a candidate's polls can't be explained away by the Democratic candidate's ineptitude. What you find in those states is that in polling for the 2010 senate and gubernatorial elections, the Democrat was initially ahead but began to fall behind at roughly the same time as Obama's approval ratings also began to fall.

Judis illustrates his argument with a series of charts from Pollster.com comparing election polling in a series of states with Obama's approval rating in those same states. I won't reproduce any of this here: go to the link above and look at it. He pretty much nails down his conclusion:

I am not saying that in all these cases, the Democratic candidates didn't stumble, or that the Republican didn't shine, but viewed as a whole, they present a picture of a national decline in public support for Democratic politics and for the Obama administration radiating outward from Washington and threatening Democratic candidates in states that Democrats must generally win to carry national elections.

Since the decline is clearly national, it can't be just bad local candidates. So what is it? The national economy is clearly one drag on the party that controls the White House and both houses of Congress. But it has also been exacerbated by the fiscal policies of that same party and by the unpopular health care legislation. Maybe that's enough to explain it. But I think there is something else.

Bob Herbert, whose loathing of Republicans would win a gold medal if that were an Olympic event, thinks the problem is "Obama's credibility gap." From the New York Times:

Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.

Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won't be able to close it.

The only thing in that passage that is questionable is the word "always" in the penultimate sentence. The President has, as I have said before, made promises promiscuous without bothering to wonder if he could keep them. On one important issue after another, he has blithely ignored his own word.

The economy is one thing dragging the Democrats down, but it would do to remember that, in 1994, the economy was in robust recovery. Bill Clinton was nonetheless so unpopular that the Republicans captured both houses. Then, as now, a deeply unpopular health care adventure tarred all Democrats.

Slick Willey came back, in part because he was slick. He may have been unscrupulous and empty of any real principles, but he was a consummate political actor. He could play any role the script required. Obama may be just as empty, but without the ability to appear as anything other than Obama. If Americans have lost faith in his leadership, it is difficult to see how he fixes that.

Comments

[da]

the problem is that everyone keeps couching all of this in Republican/Democrat, or Right/Left. the results we are seeing are not based on that at all. tea parties are not right or left, despite all the chatter about "right-wing teabaggers". tea parties are attended by all parts of the political spectrum with a single unifying thread -- total disgust with the "political class" that we have allowed to erupt in our States and in DC. let's call them "anti-politicals" instead of the now-biased "tea partiers." the elections are seeing the impact of that anti-political thread. Bob McDonnell beat Creigh Deeds last fall because Deeds had a particular set of philosophies he was known for in his home district - he dumped them to try to get to Richmond. the anti-politicals voted against him. very similar case in NJ. they voted for a relative outsider. same thing in Massachussetts -- Coakley was a party-line candidate above all, and the anti-politicals stepped in to tell her "no". this should not be a surprise. it is how Mr. Obama became President. he was not elected because there was a wave of Democrat or Liberal Progressive feeling across the land, mandating the imposition of a grand progressive agenda. he was elected because when he said "hope and change", and because he was such an unknown quantity, the anti-politicals incorrectly read that as "end of the political class," and voted for it. they were wrong, they should have known better, but there should be not surprise about it, and there should be no surprise about the more recent events.

[Lynn]

As a proud member of the 9.12 groups and the tea party movement, the above statement is right on. We oppose expansion of gov't control and programs, excessive gov't spending, higher taxes, all of which Obama personifies and believes in, as do Pelosi and Reid. The results of the last elections do illustrate this point exactly - voters are sick and tired of politics as usual, big and increasing gov't, wasteful and excessive spending, corruption (remember Pelosi's promise to "clean the swamp"?), lies, etc. And Obama et all just don't get it; he promised to continue on the same as before. I don't think he has seen anything yet as far as the angst of the voters whom he disregards completely.

[Erik]

KB: Thanks for the mention--if only as an emoticon ;-) Here are my thoughts, how about the Tea Partiers as Populists? Maybe Perotistas? Let's not forget that Perot was able to tap into Populist outrage very well in '92, if memory serves, he was even *leading* well into the summer before the strangeness of his dropout. And in terms of big issues, he got one (deficit reduction) and lost one (NAFTA). As you know, populism runs deep in our culture and perhaps a strategy would be to tap into that and tack to the left economically (of course, as a lefty I *hope* he does that). There has to be a slice of Tea Partiers that will be willing to support a stronger populist economic message?

[dezmembrari auto]

Do not know if Obama's policy is just as bad. I think it still should expect to see effects. A bit of patience not hurt.