Will President Obama "Reset" His Message?

[Gaspar]

The Clinton Democratic stratagists are hitting the Obama campaign hard today, warning that if he keeps pushing the message that "things are getting better" he will fail.

http://www.democracycorps.com/focus/2012/06/shifting-the-economic-narrative/

"These voters are not convinced that we are headed in the right direction. They are living in a new economy – and there is no conceivable recovery in the year ahead that will change the view of the new state of the country. They actually have a very realistic view of the long road back and the struggles of the middle class — and the current narrative about progress just misses the opportunity to connect and point forward," they write. "While we hear some optimism, this is framed mostly by the sense that this has to be rock bottom."

They are trying to push two narratives that they feel the president must adopt to be successful.

1. That this is a "new economy" not subject to the economic rules of the past (this of course is bullshit).
2. That he must adopt the platform that we are not in recovery, but instead are at "rock bottom" because that's the only way to frame his position of moving "forward."

While I don't like Carville et. al. because he is a snake, I do agree that he is on point with his analysis, and if Obama wants to win this election it will be necessary for him to adopt some new BS instead of flailing around with re-invented slogans and poorly executed press conferences that serve only to separate him further from his constituency.

President Obama is lucky enough to have a portion of his base that are fanatically motivated, but for him to rely on them will be a mistake.  Fanatics make great voters but they can also serve to alienate rational voters who may find embarrassment at being associated with that degree fervor.

He needs to build his connection again to the independent voter, and as much as I hate to say it, Carville is right. 

[Conan71]

And I suspect they will keep frightening people via the blogosphere about an impending theocracy, war on women, war on race, war on culture, etc. or continue the tactic of trying to convince perfectly logical non-blacks they are racist if they disapprove of Obama's first term or oppose any of his policies.

Look at the message:

On Sunday, Angela Rye, Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus, told CSPAN that conservative opposition to Obama is rooted in racism.

"I think that a lot of what the president has experienced is because he's black," she said.

"You know, whether it's questioning his intellect or whether or not he's Ivy League. It's always either he's not educated enough or he's too educated; or he's too black or he's not black enough; he's too Christian or not Christian enough. There are all these things where he has to walk this very fine line to even be successful," she added.

Even the term "cool" is considered "racially charged," she argued, citing an ad by Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS super PAC.

http://www.examiner.com/article/black-caucus-executive-director-conservative-opposition-to-obama-is-racism

Tail end of another piece compiling racist memes:

03/27/12: Dahlia Lithwick, Slate: "And now we know the [Supreme] court is worried about freedom: the freedom to live like it's 1804."

06/04/12: Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Washington Post: "By attacking labor unions, flooding Wisconsin with outside cash and trying to cleanse the electorate of people who don't look, earn or think like him, [Wisconsin Gov. Scott] Walker has taken aim at more than a single campaign cycle or a series of policies; his real targets are the pillars of American progressivism itself."

06/08/12: Cassandra Jackson, Huffington Post: "[T]he war on affordable health care is a war on Blacks and Latinos."

And now, full circle, comes today's other installment, from our old friend Charles P. Pierce in Esquire magazine:

In so many ways, the path [Barack Obama] has to walk to re-election is similar to the path he has had to walk through his life. It was hard not to notice the subtext present in all those earnest warnings about hurting the fee-fees of our financial titans. The president was stepping out of his place. The president was being uppity again.

This is also the case with what is perhaps the most noxious idea out there: that Barack Obama "failed" in his promise to "bring the country together," and that he is now — Glorioski! — campaigning like he wants to be president all over again. He is engaging in politics. Mother of mercy, I swear David Brooks is just going to break down and go all to pieces on PBS some evening over the president's betrayal of his role as the country's anodyne black man and, of course, his upcoming role as black martyr to incivility and discord. It is his duty, dammit, to be all the things that people like Brooks wanted him to be so that he could lose, nobly, and then the country could go back to its rightful owners.

Still no convincing explanation for how the racist Teabagging Republicans could have fallen so hard for Herman Cain, but I think the most salient point is one noted by (gasp!) David Brooks: Barack Obama is consistently much more popular than his policies. Mitt Romney has been consistently less popular than his. That's a mighty odd way for a country to express its racism.

Two bits from me from the racially contentious late summer of 2009: "The Race War That Isn't," and "Are Tea Parties Racist?"

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/08/a-modern-timeline-of-liberals-claiming-t

And here's this gem of a reach-around published yesterday:

Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, doctoral candidate in economics at Harvard, has conducted researching on voting patterns and racial prejudice as revealed by Google searches. His goal was to find out how much racial animosity hurt Barack Obama's election results in 2008.

"I did that by measuring how much racial animus there is in different areas, based on their Google searches," Stephens-Davidowitz said.

In essence, he was looking for people searching for bad things about African-Americans.

"Usually jokes with some very strong language," he said.

He looked particularly at the "n-word" — searches containing the "n-word" — filtered geographically.

"I don't think anything was totally shocking," he said. "The number-one state in the country in the frequency of the search was West Virginia. See it a lot in the South as well, but I think it wasn't just a southern phenomenon at all. A lot of searches in the Northeast, Midwest, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc."

From there, he was able to convert the volume of those searches into maps that showed how racial feelings vary across the country. He based it on the percent of racist searches as part of the larger total of Google searches, to account for differences in population from state to state.

What he found was startling. In areas where racially motivated searches were most common in the years before Obama became a candidate, Obama almost always performed worse that John Kerry did in 2004, or at least worse when compared with gains by other Democrats in those areas.

Specifically, he points to Obama's performance in Denver, Colo., and Wheeling, W.Va. In both states, Stephens-Davidowitz wrote in The New York Times, Kerry received about 50 percent of the vote in 2004. But Wheeling had the seventh highest racially charged search rate in the country, while Denver was the fourth lowest.

Statistically, Obama should have won about 57 percent of the vote in both cities, based on the performance of other Democrats. That's exactly what he got in Denver. In Wheeling, his support actually fell to 48 percent — lower than Kerry even.

"In other words, racial prejudice gave John McCain the equivalent of a home-state advantage nationally," Stephens-Davidowitz wrote.

The same approach could be applied to feelings toward gays or lesbians — virtually any minority group.

"It's a very interesting view into the human psyche we don't normally have," he said.

He also cautioned against drawing overly boad conclusions from his research. It's not to say that everyone who is racist conducts these sorts of searches, nor that all who search using these words are motivated by racism.

"You aggregate what turns out to be millions and millions of searches and you get a great picture," Stephens-Davidowitz said.

http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/tt-google-searches-paint-a-picture-of-how-racism-still-infects-america-hurt-obama-10215.html

[erfalf]

Have any of these yahoos ever heard of "confirmation bias"?

[Gaspar]

At this point I certainly would not want to be President Obama.  He is facing an up-hill battle in convincing the public that nothing is his fault, and at the same time battling the Clinton machine, not knowing what advice to take and what focus group to look toward.

I agree with what Carville has to say, but then again, it may be set as an attempt to push him in a direction that the Clintons need him to go.  Either way, the advantage is not on his side.

[RecycleMichael]

It is funny that you republicans are so concerned with the "message" is or will be for the democratic candidate.

It once again confirms that you can't defend Romney and the only weapon you have is to attack Obama.

[Conan71]

It is funny that you republicans are so concerned with the "message" is or will be for the democratic candidate.

It once again confirms that you can't defend Romney and the only weapon you have is to attack Obama.

There's no need to defend someone who has actually:

-Created jobs in the real world
-Understands personal and corporate finance first-hand, not something he read or was advised on
-Has actually been a head of government
-Has shown he can work in a bipartisan manner when he was governor
-Is credited with authoring a healthcare program similar to Obamacare which should be a plus for you Obamacare fans.  At the very least, I think he might leave it up to the states to work out much like they did in Mass.
-Turned what was surely headed into being a bust into a huge success (SLC Olympics)

Those are all great examples of leadership. 

President Obama has charm and to some is a great orator.  He's not illustrated leadership, the economy is still in the tank (granted the president only has so much power over the economy but as a leader he can help inspire confidence and help with policies considered friendly to recovery).  By any measurable yardstick, I really don't see how Obama's first term can be considered a success unless him taking personal credit for an heroic Navy Seals operation or suddenly being for gay marriage when it was expedient are true successes.

Nope, the economy is not going to exhibit any more of a recovery than it has this year, so they have to obfuscate and turn the attention elsewhere.  That's the real issue impacting millions of Americans right now.  They need to try and get their minds off this reality or at least create a bogeyman Obama to protect them from.

[Gaspar]

It is funny that you republicans are so concerned with the "message" is or will be for the democratic candidate.

It once again confirms that you can't defend Romney and the only weapon you have is to attack Obama.

Defend him on what?

He hasn't changed his message, and his platform is rather simple.  His primary message is jobs and economic growth and it is based on reviving private sector growth.  His track record for doing this is "sparkling" to use a Clinton complement.

President Obama, on the other hand, continues to push the same platform of hype & blame with the head of Bin Laden on a steak as his only positive achievement.

I think a discussion of the policies of Romney vs Obama would be healthy and perhaps when we get an idea of what Obama's real message is we can cover that, but currently it's the same as it was in 2008. . .Rich people bad. . . .Business bad. . .Energy bad. . .Banksters bad (except for donors). . .Everything is someone else's fault. . .Entitlement creates opportunity. . .Government must grow.

If you wish to lob an attack at Romney, I suppose we could try to defend him.

[Hoss]

Defend him on what?

He hasn't changed his message, and his platform is rather simple.  His primary message is jobs and economic growth and it is based on reviving private sector growth.  His track record for doing this is "sparkling" to use a Clinton complement.

President Obama, on the other hand, continues to push the same platform of hype & blame with the head of Bin Laden on a steak as his only positive achievement.

I think a discussion of the policies of Romney vs Obama would be healthy and perhaps when we get an idea of what Obama's real message is we can cover that, but currently it's the same as it was in 2008. . .Rich people bad. . . .Business bad. . .Energy bad. . .Banksters bad (except for donors). . .Everything is someone else's fault. . .Entitlement creates opportunity. . .Government must grow.

If you wish to lob an attack at Romney, I suppose we could try to defend him.

Be tough to do; he has so many differing opinions.

On the same issues.

[Conan71]

If you wish to lob an attack at Romney, I suppose we could try to defend him.

He strapped a dog carrier to the roof of his car 29 years ago and might or might not have been involved in roughing up a schoolmate 46 years ago.  We aren't sure because the family of the fellow he supposedly roughed up pretty much rebuffed the story.

Those were truly moments to define a presidential bid.

[Conan71]

Be tough to do; he has so many differing opinions.

On the same issues.

So Hoss, are you going to vote for a formula which has proven not to work or someone who might actually know how to improve the economy?

[Gaspar]

He strapped a dog carrier to the roof of his car 29 years ago and might or might not have been involved in roughing up a schoolmate 46 years ago.  We aren't sure because the family of the fellow he supposedly roughed up pretty much rebuffed the story.

Those were truly moments to define a presidential bid.

What if he wears funny underwear?

[Conan71]

What if he wears funny underwear?

Oh damn, forgot about that.  He's also personally responsible for something Joseph Smith may have said in the middle of the desert a couple of centuries ago.  He's toast.

[RecycleMichael]

Be tough to do; he has so many differing opinions.

On the same issues.

That what I most dislike about Romney. It is hard to believe he is the nominee. I would have thought the republican party would not have fallen for a guy like him.

[Gaspar]

That what I most dislike about Romney. It is hard to believe he is the nominee. I would have thought the republican party would not have fallen for a guy like him.

Ok. 

But now after almost four years, it has been proven that you were right all along RM.  The man you didn't trust, that you warned us about, that your candidate, Hillary, warned us about, was exactly what you anticipated.

It seems that you were actually more successfully critical of Candidate Obama than you seem to be of Mitt Romney.

[Hoss]

So Hoss, are you going to vote for a formula which has proven not to work or someone who might actually know how to improve the economy?

Like I said in an earlier post, I'm not choosing this early.  We still have a WHOLE summer to see how this plays out.  Hell, I might abstain from voting for the Pres.

I sure won't vote for someone who constantly changes his views on opinions to suit his political whim.  Neither of them.  But the Etch-A-Sketch candidate is sure not looking any better than the current occupant.

Wasn't Dubya a businessman also?.....we all know how that one turned out.  Just because you are a businessman doesn't mean you know how to run the economy.  Look at Clinton.  A lawyer.  He left office with a surplus.