As John Edwards might say, there are two President Obamas. The first President Obama is a myth. The second President Obama is a man.
First, the myth. The latest polling from ABC News/WaPo on the president and the economy finds that Americans trust the president’s economic leadership over that of Republicans by a margin of 58 percent to 25 percent. By a margin of 62 percent to 32 percent, voters feel that Obama is a new-style, fiscally conservative Democrat as opposed to an old-style, tax-and-spend Democrat. That 58-62 percent economic approval rating is essentially the same as President Obama’s overall approval rating, which is hovering around 60 percent.
But when voters are actually forced to adjudicate President Obama the man, the results are far different. Voters choose new government spending over tending to the deficit by a slim margin of 49 percent to 47 percent. And the government’s overall response to the economic situation is approved by only 49 percent of voters, with 48 percent disapproving. President Obama the man is apparently favored by only that same 49 percent of voters who cast ballots for Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004.
The problem is that with the Republican Party in tatters, unlike in 2004, there’s nowhere for the remaining 51 percent of Americans to go. As the aforementioned poll demonstrates, only about half of that 51 percent approve of the current iteration of the Republican Party. The other half — fully 26 percent of Americans — disapprove of both President Obama’s policies and of the Republican Party. And a fair number of those voters have embraced President Obama the myth because of their hunger for a strong and popular leader, and because of the lack of a coherent, modern Republican response.
And who can blame them for not being persuaded by the second grade teacher schtick of Bobby Jindal, nor by the colloquialisms of Sarah Palin, nor by retreads like Romney and Huckabee and Gingrich — whose transformation into a culture warrior will work for Newt in 2012 about as well as it worked for Mitt in 2008 — nor by congressional Republican frat boys like John Boehner and Eric Cantor. The B-team is more impressive than the A-team. Pawlenty, Crist, and Sanford, among others, all bring to the table different kinds of Republicanism than the kind that wants to resurrect either 1980, 1994, or 2004. But to end the myth of President Obama that enjoys the support of 60 percent of Americans, and to bring Obama down to earth as a man whose policies are only popular with 49 percent of the nation, it will take a lot.
If the economy is still sputtering along in 2012, Republicans may find themselves in the same position that Democrats did in 1992. Then, Americans disapproved of President Bush’s economic stewardship but still didn’t trust the Democrats to run the country due to memories of Jimmy Carter and the angry, stale Democratic Party that ran itself into the ground during the 1980s. President Bush probably would have been reelected had it not been for both a modern, forward-thinking Democratic presidential nominee AND a self-financed third party candidate who was able to run as the fiscally conservative, good-government Republican in the race and steal a lot of voters who weren’t ready to pull the lever for another Democratic president. In 2012, the GOP is DOA if it nominates a candidate for president acceptable to and only acceptable to the quarter of Americans who still consider themselves Republicans. BUT if the Republican Party nominates the economically inventive Pawlenty or the socially modern Crist, and if that nomination is coupled with, say, a Michael Bloomberg third party run to rob Obama of DLC-style independents who don’t want to reelect the president but who also aren’t yet ready to put the country back in Republican hands, that combination could sink a president whose popularity exceeds his policies, whose reach exceeds his grasp.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Pawlenty is possible, if he can find a way to “wow” the electorate away from Dipshit Boy. But Crist is never going to get nominated. People think he is gay and so-cons, while not necessarily in a position to get their candidate of choice, certainly do at least hold veto power over those that don’t kiss their asses on the the G’s.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:12 pm
* on the THREE G’s (guns, God and gays).
March 31st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Did Gov. Crist supported Obama’s stimulus bill plan?
March 31st, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Actually Adam, I think abortion is more important to SoCons than all those gs. But than I guess that messes up the aliteration.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:22 pm
2012 is still a long way to go and who knows Republicans could be viewed more favorably by then and even by next year.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
John Mark,
Probably so. Still, if Crist or anyone else happened to have strong pro-life cred and waivered on the gay marriage issue or came across as light in the loafers there is no way he would be nominated. No matter what.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:25 pm
#3:
Actually, he not only supported Obama’s stimulus, he went to a rally in South Florida with the President in favor of it. Crist is a terrible Governor and would be a miserable President.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I’m with you on that Jonathan. Crist would just piss everyone off. The so-cons for reasons I already outlined, as well as economic conservatives. And he has no background as a defense hawk, so which constituency is going to be “rah rah” over Crist?
March 31st, 2009 at 3:30 pm
That’s a tough sell, saying that the B team of Pawlenty, Sanford and Crist, is more impressive than Romney – especially Crist, which is laughable. Of the 3, Sanford may have the most potential, but he doesn’t match Romney yet. His foreign policy is a little problem for many conservatives.
Palin’s misteps are mounting.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/28/politics/politico/main4900233.shtml
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/palins-problems-continue.html?wprss=thefix
March 31st, 2009 at 3:32 pm
6, Maybe, but considering not even California goes for gay marriage that’s not a bad thing electorally speaking.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:33 pm
#8:
The problem is that Crist knows how to campaign. He was “Chain-Gang Charlie” in the 2006 primary and positioned himself as the successor of Jeb.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:34 pm
With all this Pawlenty talk Matthew Miller has to be smiling somewhere.
Dave G, do you work at NPR by chance?
March 31st, 2009 at 4:44 pm
…told the St. Petersburg Times that he does not support lifting Florida’s long-standing ban on allowing gays to adopt children. “My position is the traditional family is the best to adopt,” Crist said.
…supported Amendment Two, which constitutionally banned gay marriage in Florida.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:53 pm
The poll numbers are plausible if you consider that “Obama” is different to “the government”. The latter includes the House of Reps & the Senate, while the former does not.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I don’t foresee a Bloomberg run against Obama. He’s also kind of the antithesis to the Ross Perot brand of moderate.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Semantically, sure, but their political philosophies and policy prescriptions are synonymous — a distinction without a difference, if you will.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
If Crist and Pawlenty are our only hope, we might as well rename this sight http://www.race42016.com now and save ourselves the disappointment in 4 years.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Huh, it seems that the above link actually works. Kavon’s ahead of us all as always.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
“economically inventive Pawlenty ” hmm…..anyone else come to mind?
March 31st, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Right now the Republican party is re-finding itself. Fragments of the party in many directions. Everyone trying to convince the other which ice cream flavor is better. At some point, if the Republican party is to have a chance in 3 years, someone will have to step forward that gets all the parties excited again. That is who will compete against Obama in 2012.
Right now not many of the names listed in the Republican party are exciting the masses, but as the Obama project loses it’s luster, you will see people start to get excited and our front runners will step forward and be obvious.
I disagree that the B team is better than the A team. I would say right now everything is up for grabs and it is just “the team” and will begin to focus depending on where the country is at in 2011.
I believe all the names Dave listed are specialists in some area whether it be the economy, foreign policy, charm, populism, etc. But none listed are the complete package (thus not yet exciting everyone together). The good news is America nominated a specialist in Obama (specializes in charm and teleprompting) so if the dream candidate that is everything to everyone doesn’t walk through the door, we will have a sliver of hope for our current candidates since they are solid candidates. And given 4 years of the trainwreck the current administration is leading, I think people will be more likely to work together for the cause of the nation and the best candidate will get nominated at that point.
Note: I tried to call George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, but their phones are disconnected.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Screw Jefferson. That overrated hack couldn’t motivate himself out his front door if he hadn’t developed a fixation on destroying Hamilton.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Palin ditched for Newt
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/31/republicans-disinvite-palin-major-fundraiser/
“The decision to book Gingrich instead of Palin seems to be indicative of growing discontent in the party with the Alaska governor and her potential ability to lead the GOP. And it’s the latest in a series of gaffes that have plagued her since the November.”
March 31st, 2009 at 9:04 pm
We may soon have a new top three. Romney, Huckabee, and Newt.
Newt can’t win the general, but he could possibly do well in the primary. He can hold his own against Mitt in the debates; no one else would have a prayer with those two on the stage.