Reading Ezra Klein's article about Obama's speech tomorrow on a jobs plan makes me think people upset with him now will be no less upset tomorrow.
The White House believes two things about the next 14 months in American politics: With more than a year to go before the election, they can’t simply stop governing and start campaigning. That means that whatever they propose needs to attract bipartisan support. But with barely more than a year to go before the election, they can’t pretend the campaign doesn’t matter. That means whatever they propose needs to help win over the independents who will decide the election.
As the administration sees it, both projects point toward the same sort of plan: a package of job-creation ideas that are thoroughly bipartisan and clearly popular, and a package of deficit-reducing offsets that show that they are willing to make hard choices, and even anger members of their own party, in the name of fiscal discipline.
People will be upset that the plan is not progressive enough and that he is deferring too much to the GOP and independents. That the strategy of appealing to independents is losing his base and that he should make policy that appeals directly to the Left.
However, if this is your view, ask yourself if this election strategy applies in all cases, even those where you don't agree with the policies being supported.
There is a dilemma here of what kind of election strategy is effective and how much you should appeal to your base.
It's said that Obama is losing and 'doesn't get it' by looking to be the deal maker, the compromiser. That he should be 'more progressive'.
Yet when talks on DKos comes around to the GOP/Tea Party, the belief is that their almost fanatical adherence to their position is driving them to political exile. Michelle Bachman has not retreated one inch and has huge support among her base, but she is regarded as unelectable in a general Presidential race. She seems to have done all the things people expect of Obama. She's made bold, partisan statements, pushes very GOP policies, and doesn't back down. Yet common wisdom is that she's not electable.
So why does common wisdom say that? and why if that's the case, should it be any different for Obama?
I didn't watch the GOP debate, but this article says Romney defended Social Security and Perry called it a ponzi scheme. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/...
Who played to the base in that ? and who do you think came out looking better ?
If you ask Talking Points Memo, Romney came out better.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/...
But on balance I'd say this was a strategic victory for Mitt Romney, even if it doesn't show up immediately in the polls. Mitt didn't do anything that amazing himself. But Perry doubled down, maybe tripled down on his frontal attack on Social Security and science in general. Romney moved in, in essence, to egg him on in that process. And the Romney press office let loose a fusillade of attacks in emails to the press.
Again, this stuff doesn't hurt with base Republicans necessarily, certainly not the folks who show up at debates. But these are real problems in a general election. And the Romney campaign will us these quotes to make the case against Perry on the grounds of electability.
But there seems to be a lot of people who want to seem Obama make that kind of Rick Perry double down to the Left.
And it doesn't matter that their policies are crazy and the Left's are enlightened. I agree with that statement, but it really doesn't matter. If you make things all about your base, then you will get all kinds of love from your base, but you're not going to get much from outside. You'll be happy but not elected. If it were otherwise, Bachmann would be an unstoppable juggernaut as would certain people on the Left, but neither are.
This is why up to the campaign and probably beyond Obama will not make you happy. But when it comes to being a President, being well liked may not be what it's cracked up to be.