The Financial Times recently published an interesting article that provided some detail on the overarching theme President Obama’s re-election campaign has begun to adopt:
With the US economy suffering through its deepest slump since the Great Depression, the Obama administration has designed a political strategy to match, with echoes of the campaign rhetoric deployed by Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.
…The White House strategy will make the 2012 election a generational test of the Republican push of the past three decades for cutting taxes, in ways their critics say have been constantly skewed towards the highest earners.
…“In normal circumstances, this pitch might be suicidal. But these are not normal circumstances,” said William Galston of the Brookings Institute.
Mr Galston has been reading the speeches of Franklin Roosevelt’s winning campaign for the 1936 presidential election and finds striking comparisons to the emerging line from Mr Obama.
“Roosevelt wasn’t just saying: ‘I am fighting for you.’ It was: ‘I am fighting against them,’” he said.
…Mitt Romney, the frontrunner in the Republican race to challenge Barack Obama in 2012, has taken to saying that he is standing up for the “middle class” because the rich “can look after themselves”.
For the White House, this is just the terrain that it wants to fight on. “The Republicans want to give the average millionaire a $200,000 tax cut, while the middle class is struggling,” said the White House official.
This certainly should not come as a surprise. With very little positive to show on the domestic front, President Obama’s re-election pitch will essentially boil down to leveraging his still highly positive personal favorability numbers and foreign policy accomplishments to argue that while things haven’t improved much since he took office, they would vastly deteriorate if Republicans had their way.
The looming class warfare from Team Obama has to worry Mitt Romney. Of all the Republicans, the “us vs. them” sentiment would prove most salient against Romney. And while this may infuriate right-of-center individuals, we mustn’t underestimate the effectiveness of soak-the-rich rhetoric; after all, poll after poll has shown that when it comes to reducing the deficit, most Americans would prefer spending cuts (not, however, to their precious entitlements or other programs that directly benefit them) to broad tax increases, but they would prefer even more to hike taxes on upper income earners.
With this in mind, it becomes easy to imagine a campaign platform revolving around ensuring the solvency of entitlements and reducing the deficit by increasing taxes on the wealthy, while maintaining the current rates or even lowering them on middle- and upper-income earners and selectively using American military force to achieve high-priority foreign policy goals, while also ostensibly reducing overseas obligations (read: bringing troops home from Iraq) winning over many of the low-information independents who cast their votes on the basis of subjective opinions of candidates formed from soundbites, stump speeches, and headline-driven news stories.
Contrary to what many Republicans may think, the 2012 election will prove to be far from a walk in the park that any candidate can win. President Obama and his fellow Democrats appear committed to, at the very least, make things excruciatingly difficult for Republican candidates.
October 29th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Problem is, Obama and his ACORN trained fecal matter protesters ARE them. So, us againt ourselves, is kind of his theme. Utter chaos. This is about as thrilling to discuss as Rush Limbaugh’s self absorbed musings on whether he should make a career change and start his own version of Glenn Beck TV. Yawn.
October 29th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Anthony,
Good post. I agree.
I think there is a dynamic at play here that I haven’t seen get much play in the punditry universe. For many Americans, the question is NOT so much “who can fix the economy, and create jobs” but rather, “who is going to look out for MY interests.”
In other words, I think an increasing number of Americans have resigned themselves to a New Realty. In such case, we aren’t going to argue over how and who can increase the pie, but rather who gets to cut the static (or shrinking) pie.
To use another metaphor, many people may have given up on saving the ship, and just want to make sure they get a seat on a lifeboat.
For those folks, class warfare will work, even if they consider Obama an incompetent boob.
October 29th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
It strikes me that if this is what the left is going to do, Huckabee would be a strong VP choice for Mitt. I’m not a huge fan of Huckabee, but I do think that he is effective at connecting with the middle class voters that Obama will be trying to scare to death.
October 29th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Ryan,
I agree with that. I think Huck as VP is a no brainer for Mitt. If this is our electoral scenario, at least working class voters would see Huck as an “ally” in the White House.
October 29th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
A lot of winning an election is a matter of luck. The candidates start out years in advance. McCain ran on Iraq and it was basically irrelevant by the time the election came around. It was all about saving the economy, which wasn’t Obama’s forte either. His is class warfare. Mitt’s running on jobs but the powers that be have managed to push forward the class warfare narrative. The smart white rich guy with perceived Wall St. ties: Hmm….. It’s gonna be a problem.
Cain is folksy but his rhetoric will kill him in the general. He’s slammed the OWS crowd for not having jobs and has said he wants abortion illegal even in the case of rape and incest. Already there are cartoons showing little pregnant girls with teddy bears and Cain showing them no mercy.
Newt is a smart white rich guy w/a spoiled-looking wife who goes on Greek cruises and spends half a mill @ Tifanny’s.
Never mind that Michelle Obama spends a bundle on herself and her infamous vacations. Or that Roosevelt prolonged the Depression. The Republicans have their work cut out for them.
I agree with Ryan; Huckabee could go a long way to help neutralize the class warfare war.
October 29th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
I don’t think it will work – simply because, when it comes down to it, Obama has not been able to present a clear case that we can substantially improve the position of the majority by taking away from the higher earners.
Its the basic case of “we’ve tried that, and it didn’t work”
October 29th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Romney is getting flack from Rush and Levine and the Tea Party for saying he was standing up for the middle class and the rich can take care of themselves. When in reality he was disarming Obama and the Democrats from saying Republicans only care about the rich…..
Brilliant move by the Romney camp!
October 29th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
6 Matthew,
That would assume that these low-information Indies think rationally. Their recent behavior has convinced me otherwise…
October 29th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
The Democrats have from the beginning of time played the class warfare card….When a Democrat just said the word “Fat Cats” it was a given they were talking about Republicans….
But, nowadays there are a lot more millionaire and billionaire Democrats in the USA than there are Millionaire and billionaire Republicans, so to use the class warfare is a gamble.
October 29th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Mitt positioned himself well as fighting for the “middle class” if voters listen to what he says rather than looking at him and seeing a smart, rich white guy who wants to screw the poor.
IMO it’s going to come down to a fight between Romney and Obama and there’s a lot of ammo against Obama on how he actually hurt people by his ineptitude and slavish adherence to his idiotic ideology.
October 29th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Huck received trade union endorsements and, while I’m no fan of the teacher unions, Huck’s “weapons of mass instruction” line at the NEA will make it harder for them to demonize Mitt/Mike.
October 29th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Huck’s an interesting guy. I wonder what motivates him. Money, to some extent. Ego, to some extent. Enjoying his life, to some degree. Following God’s plan, to some degree. Having fun on FOX. Definitely.
Being a pundit is easy for Huck; would Huck the anti-Mormon good old boy leave his comfort zone and join up with Romney the Mormon robot to help save the country?
I’m curious as to what their relationship is these days. Mitt’s been going around meeting in private w/a bunch of people and it seems he’s more impressive in person and has people supporting him. Huck has called Cain DOA: the damage is done. Huck’s no friend of Perry.
What will Huck do? I believe it’s important.
October 29th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
A Mitt/Huck ticket is plainly and simply unstoppable.
Huckabee is popular with low income voters, rank-and-file workers, Evangelicals, and he’s likeable.
If Huckabee can join Mitt to take down Obama, why couldn’t anyone else? Huckabee and Mitt had some bad blood, but if Huckabee can make a solid case that he trusts Mitt, I think others may be convinced.
October 29th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
#13 I believe you are 100% correct on that. Huck seemed very conciliatory toward Mitt on this show; gave Mitt every opportunity to express his views on abortion, etc. in a positive light. Huck’s no fool even if Rush, Levin, Geo Will, Red State and others are proving to be IMO.
Would Huck agree to be VP? He’s only 55. He would be early 60′s in 8 years. He would have the inside track to the POTUS if things went at all well. He’s a gifted speaker; good politican. He would be a great asset. Whoever is the next POTUS is going to need a VP who can step and and actually help. Not just milque toast place holder.
October 29th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
KG, Huck has his share of faults, but he has a lot more virtue than you’re willing to give him credit. There have been a lot of stories where he demonstrated humility on the campaign trail and throughout his life.
October 29th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
#15 I didn’t mean to put him down; just trying to analyze how he might see things vis a vis supporting Romney or agreeing to run with him.
I believe he would do it–and yes, out of humility and love for the country–if he saw it was the right thing to do. I’m just curious to see how he would see it and play it.
Both Mitt and Huck might have some faults, but I believe both men to be men of virtue, intelligence, maturity and good will. Their personalities compliment each other. Neither are crazy bomb-throwing ideologues.
Running together would unite the party–and I believe could be a great force for good in the country. Mitt has had the money, drive, connections and motivation to run a hard race in the face of a bunch of caca from all sides. It appears Huck didn’t really want to do it (don’t blame him). But if he could get on board and just run along side of Mitt, I for one would like to see him do it.
October 29th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
16. Agreed!
October 29th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Here’s what I don’t know about Huck agreeing to be Mitt’s running mate: It’s the dang religious thing. What are Huck’s true feelings about the CJCLDS? Could he, in good conscience run with Mitt, lending his considerable credibility to something he believes is the work of the devil?
Richard Land supported Mitt last time, but it’s not exactly the same as running along side of him.
October 29th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
18. I do believe Huck can, in his mind as well as in public opinion, separate church and state and thus support and even run with Romney.
But, I’m not convinced he would find VP an attractive change. He’s got it pretty good right now.
October 29th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Am I the only one who thinks Rush, Levin, et al are actually doing Mitt a favor (possibly even intentionally) by slamming him as not being conservative?
It will be much harder for Obama to paint Mitt as a right wing extremists when all the right wing extremists have been slamming him as not being one of them.
Hmmm…
October 29th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
How many millions does it take until you are no longer considered one of “us” according to this Obama strategy? Obama’s networth is around $11M. Sure, nowhere near Mitt’s 200M+, but still rich by most measures.
Our “best” candidate to counter this would be the “poor” Rick Perry with only around $1M known net-worth.
This is a hypocritical and ingeunuine strategy, but as posted, one that resonates with way too many people in spite of its hypocrisy. If B.O. and the other elitists were to take all their “excess” wealth and start handing it out to the Occupy people, then they may gain some credibility on the genuine scale.
October 29th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
I know that many of you on this site are huge and spirited supporters of Romney. I understand that you are trying to balance out the ticket with Huckabee being a VP choice for Romney to compensate for the Obama message of us versus them in class warefare. The problem with your line of thought is that a VP nominee will never be the reason people will vote to defeat the oppositions nominee for President. The head of the Republican ticket most be one that nuetralizes the message of the opposition while advancing our own message. You are on the right track though. Huckabee is the solution to beating Obama. I challenge to look at the link below as to why Huckabee should be encouraged by all others within the party to run for POTUS and unify this party that has been so divided into so many factions. The bitter infighting I believe gives Obama better chances of getting re-elected. Something that our Nation can not afford to have happen. Huckabee/Ryan 2012. Here is the link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUxLKBs3JhY&feature=share
October 29th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
19.
“I do believe Huck can, in his mind as well as in public opinion, separate church and state and thus support and even run with Romney.”
Agreed.
“But, I’m not convinced he would find VP an attractive change.”
Disagree, he’s already said that VP is a job that no one (except maybe Rubio) turns down.
October 29th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
22.
I’m a huge Huck fan and wish he would’ve run, but it’s too late. Huck is a national figure with a large following that can help Romney consolidate 80+% of the GOP without alienating independents for the general. When Rubio, Christie and McDonnell, all of whom owe Mitt and Mike big time for their electoral success, get out and start campaigning for Mitt/Mike, the GOP will unite to beat Obama.
Ryan will also work hard for Mitt/Mike.
October 29th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
#22 Mitt has done the dirty work of getting money, going to the debates, rounding up support, laying the ground game, taking all the flying caca. Huck didn’t want to do that bad stuff.
In general you might be right about the VP, but in this case Huck could be a force for good both on the campaign trail and in office.
Huck does unite the base, helps Mitt with some of his deficiencies in personal warmth and connecting with the common man. Huck is smart, not a doofus like Biden. He would be a real asset. I like Rubio, but like he and everybody else says, he’s only been in the Senate a very short time.
Huck would fulfill the first requirement of a VP; be ready as POTUS on day one. Huck would fulfill the second requirement of helping Mitt fight the class warfare war.
October 29th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
People don’t vote for the VP, but the VP can be a serious asset if the right one is selected.
Running mates help shape a message and bolster a ticket’s cred.
Having Huck on the ticket signals unity of purpose. It screams “Let’s put aside our differences and beat Obama.”
October 29th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Here’s what I don’t know about Huck agreeing to be Mitt’s running mate: It’s the dang religious thing. What are Huck’s true feelings about the CJCLDS? Could he, in good conscience run with Mitt, lending his considerable credibility to something he believes is the work of the devil?
K.G. There has been a lot of warming up of the evangelicals to the LDS church in the past few years, partly due to the Mormons taking most of the flack for proposition 8. Huck having Mitt on his show was a huge step to helping show that he is open to Mitt.
One more thing, K.G.- you said something about Mitt’s personal warmth deficiencies. I think people are wrong about Mitt. It is the media and detractors who have painted him that way because he is good looking, smooth (polished) and rich. When people meet him in person, they all find him to be warm and likable.
October 29th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
In that last post, I was quoting K.G. at the beginning.
October 29th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Not really, we’ve got at least 2 guys running on a flat tax. Perry’s plan essentially cuts the taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and most people say Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would raise taxes on the lowest income Americans.
October 29th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Mr. “Hope and change” has certainly kept his promise of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” and people are keenly aware of it.
His “personal favorability” will die at the polls if Romney is the candidate.
October 29th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
#27 I agree that people who meet Mitt in person seem to like him fine. But in a society where most voters are on a 8th grade level, they seem to need someone who could win the 8th grade class president election. Someone who relates personally and entertains. Mitt on TV is not that person, IMO.
October 29th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
K.G. I think you are right about a society where voters are on an 8th grade level. Sad. Really sad.
I hear people say they want someone they can have a beer with, and I think “REALLY?” Mitt does come across as presidential, intelligent, and competent. I know he is also warm. Somehow the campaign needs to put out that message.
October 29th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
#27 Why is Herman Cain doing so well in the polls in spite of no political experience, some nutty gaffes which render him unelectable in the general and little money?
Personality, personality and personality. People like his personality so they are blinded to the reasons he cannot and probably should not win. People don’t relate as much to Mitt (doesn’t have anything to do with what the media say) so they find reasons NOT to vote for him even tho there are many more reasons why they should.
Why is Perry so low in the polls? Not because of his stand on tuition breaks for illegals or something written on a rock years ago, but because in the debates he displayed a lousy personality and seemed not very bright.
Romney does not have a winsome public personality and that’s a lot of his problem.
October 29th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Mitt does comes across as presidential, intelligent and competent. That’s why he’s stayed as steady as he has in the polls. This time around he’s played to these strengths and not tried to be someone he’s not. But it wouldn’t hurt for him to have a VP that might help compensate for Mitt’s inability to emotionally connect w/voters.
October 29th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
I have not been a Huckabee fan since his pre-Iowa “lie” and his 2008 antics. I have observed that he seems to be beyond that and trying to be more uniting and not divisive w/Mitt. I appreciate that. I do agree that Mike would offer alot and since I believe he does love our country as most of us love America……I could certainly support a Romney/Huckabee ticket. Wouldn’t that be something after 2008?!?!
October 29th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
I watched Huck on FOX today. I dunno; he seems pretty laid back and comfortable in this setting. He doesn’t seem up for a fight to me.