Obama: to quit or not to quit
Despite Cadell and Schoen’s recent column suggesting to Obama that he announce he won’t run in 2012, Byron York doesn’t think Obama will listen, and neither do I. It’s not in his nature, nor is it to his advantage.
And since when has Obama ever followed any advice Caddell and Schoen have ever given him?
On the other hand, the events of the last few months and especially November have dealt many blows to Obama’s substantial ego. And just because an ego is substantial doesn’t mean it’s not brittle at the same time. Too many blows and it might shatter.
This would not be a good thing. Until now, I have thought Obama impervious to setbacks. And perhaps he is. But the terrible week he just had on the international scene is a different story; it may have hit him where it hurts.
[NOTE: It should not escape notice that Schoen has been an adviser to both Bill and Hillary Clinton in their campaigns.]
Neo, was “quite” a typo or a play on words?
Mr. Frank: oops! Just a garden-variety typo. Will fix.
…Byron York doesn’t think Obama will listen, and neither do I. It’s not in his nature, nor is it to his advantage.
I agree with your conclusion, Neo, but IMO the following scenario is at least worth a mention: if Obama quits in an artful manner, he can spend the next twenty years being “urged” to run for his second term.
To a limited extent this may also apply to Palin’s situation.
Remember when the experts were whining that the Democrat primary season was going to be a coronation because Hillary was inevitable?
My completely unqualified opinion is that Obama’s ego, while huge is, in fact, extremely brittle.
By comparison, I think G. W. Bush’s ego is large, but is also quite supple and resilient. In truth, you could probably say the same for any person who aspires to a position such as the Presidency, then successfully weathers the consequences. I think Bush keeps a tighter reign, so as to maintain a healthier perspective, with the result that his ego is more subordinate than that of some others –Clinton, for instance.
It has been less than two years, but the strains on Obama are evident. This is not a prediction; but, it would not surprise me at all if Obama opts out. In fact, it would not surprise me if his departure was rather messy. I can visualize a crisis.
I do provide these consultations gratis to selected audiences.
Oldflyer,
I agree that an opt out would be messy. Obama doesn’t have the class to do it well. He would probably rather be able to say I told you so.
Does anyone besides me see the possibility of the Republican vote being split between a right-winger only the tea party wants and a mainstream center-right candidate? This could re-elect Obama with just over 40% of the vote, which he already has.
Obama is down, he is far from out. If I had to bet I would give a 55% chance of winning precisely because I suspect the Republican party will move too far to the right. Look at what happened in Alaska, Delaware and Nevada.
BTW, true believers do not opt out, and Obama is definitely a true believer in his own immaculate conception. He will not quit because he is a man of destiny, and, of course, he is nuts.
My betting is that Obama will not run for a second term. He’ll want to, but I think by early 2012 his ratings will be soooo low he will know he doesn’t have a chance. He will face a challenge from the left from Jerry Brown (who will be desperate to escape his sinking ship in California), and from Hillary Clinton, who will go for it as soon as she thinks she can win.
At this stage it looks like coming down to those three:
Obama might get it together, but its hard to see how at this stage. He’s no Bill Clinton, and I would expect the economy to worsen over the next year.
Jerry Brown would be a disaster for the Democrats, while Hillary would be a real wildcard. I think her performance at Secretary of State has been awful, and its hard to see her regaining the momentum she had in 2007/2008.
It will also be interesting to see what the African-American vote would be like without Obama. Any Democratic candidate who challenges and beats Obama will almost certainly alienate them (just as Obama appears to be alienating Clintonistas), while if he simply decides not to run, they will be mightily disheartened.
I also think the Democratic financial base will come under extreme pressure, and this will make it tougher for Obama to run again.
Fox has started going after George Soros, and I simply do not think he can survive the sustained scrutiny (I’d also expect in 2011 a deeper examination of a number of Obama’s other unsavoury friends, including Bill Ayers). Unions should also come under intense financial pressure with their underfunded pension funds, a situation that is hard to justify given the hundreds of millions they spend on political campaigns. With a fairly clear mandate to reduce government spending, its hard to see the Republican House moving to bail the unions out. At some point, I should think investigations into the fiduciary responsibilities of the collective union leadership will have them scurrying for cover.
Of course there are two sides to any contest, and the Republican nominee could lose an unlosable “election”, and Sarah Palin is the scariest candidate. She is the most exciting and dominating possible candidate (at least at this point), but also potentially the one most likely to alienate swing voters.
I actually think the times might just suit Palin. A bold and clear message, from someone who has shown they have strength and resilience, might just be what the electorate is calling for by the end of 2011.
Bob from Virginia Says: Does anyone besides me see the possibility of the Republican vote being split between a right-winger only the tea party wants and a mainstream center-right candidate?
Yes.
This could re-elect Obama with just over 40% of the vote, which he already has.
The scenario of the 2012 election being thrown into the House is even less likely than the one you describe, but I don’t completely rule it out either.
We just received this week’s Newsweek, on the cover of which (in case you’ve somehow missed it – I heard about it before I saw it) the idea is floated that the Presidency is now too big for any one person. Funny how that change occurred JUUUUST at the cusp between the ignoramus Bush and the Vulcan Obama.
Yes, I’m aware that those who actually believed Bush was an ignoramus – pardon, an evil ignoramus – also believe that he didn’t “do” the Presidency – that either Cheney did the heavy lifting (still can’t credit how anyone really believed that) or nobody at all had hands on the wheel. But I just can’t get through the cognitive dissonance concerning Bush’s stupidity and his malevolent effectiveness in destroying all our civil rights, our standing in the world, our economy, and the global environment.
Disclaimer: I haven’t read the Newsweek article yet.
Me either, and I probably won’t for awhile. I just had my annual checkup at the doctor’s office last week, and my next dentist appointment isn’t for another month.
Jamie,
As one who tries his hardest to ignore Newsweek (even the front cover), I had not heard of this article. But, it does not surprise me. Deja vu. Similar arguments were made in the late 1970’s when Jimmy Carter was flailing. Then, Reagan palpably demonstrated that, yes, one person can indeed handle all the duties and power of the Presidency, and can do so very effectively.
It seems that whenever a liberal president is tanking, left leaning journalists trot out the tired argument that being president is just too overwhelming for one mortal. Nonsense! The reality: it is very hard to be effective as a liberal Democratic President of a center-right nation. But don’t expect Newsweek or any like-minded souls to acknowledge that fact any time soon. Rationalizations are so much easier
Jamie Says:
November 16th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Since you’ll probably read the article before I do, let me know whether they address the possibility that government has become too big and tries to do too much.
So what is Newsweek suggesting? A triumvirate, as in the late Roman Empire?
If they’re advocating one President for the East Coast, one for the West Coast, and one for the entire rest of the country, I might be able to get behind that. I may have to move, though.
I think he will quit.
There is nothing left in him. His spell was his sonorous rhetoric, which beyond empty right now and has gone over into grating. Besides the fact that no one wants to hear him, he has nothing to say.
There is no great policy he wants or could push through.
All he could possibly do is to openly destroy America, but he senses he is in danger now, and he is a coward so he won’t try anything more.
he wants to retire. I can sense it. He wants to play golf, and be a sports fan. He wants to be inducted into some Hall of Fame or other, and fly around the world and be treated as a very, very important and consequential person.
But he does not actually want to be consequential. He has discovered that being a real person is not to his liking. Not enough unconditional adulation.
I think he will declare victory , cite family concerns, and bow out.
I am actually wondering if he will be the first president to commit suicide. It really isn’t an ego thing. Much of his ego is based on being told he was great. Finally realizing he was being advanced like a retarded child for reasons he probably cannot yet admit, it has to have hit him by now. His ego remains, the shell that it is and always was, keeping him from some of the knowledge that he is inferior. But that is not why I suspect he may commit suicide, soon or late.
I think the reason he might go south is because he couldn’t do what he wanted. He found out that he personally and the office of the president is not what he thought it would be. He has no power, actually, as he considers power. Maybe not, but… we will see.
I think a little much is made of the idea that the “right wing” will keep the GOP from winning in ’12. In fact I will suggest that this is a straw man concocted by Dims.
First, Sarah Palin has stated that she would consider running, if another alternative did not emerge. I take her at her word, and am not at all convinced that she will run. More importantly, I do not consider her a rigid ideologue. She supports life, but has not really made it a political wedge issue. She supports smaller, less intrusive government. She wants to control illegal invasion of the country. Any candidate who does not support these propositions, would fit better on the Dim ticket, and certainly does not interest me. The field is wide open, with as much attention given to Pawlenty, Romney, Huckabee, and even Thune, as to any other. None of those are exactly rampaging Huns. Nor is my man Haley Barbour.
The Tea Party as a whole is having a bit of debate about how much to emphasize social issues. Despite attempts by the media to dilute their message, they have focused on the same issues I noted above.
In my opinion those are winning issues.
I’m just a bit too young to remember the political climate in which LBJ decided not to run so this is something new to me. I know there was opposition to Ford and Carter seeking another term but I can’t recall (Carter better than Ford) anyone making a serious case that they shouldn’t even bother running again. That the idea is even coming up in somewhat serious publications indicates to me that it’s probably 50-50 wether Obama runs again. I agree that it will hinge on what he thinks his re-election chances are. Unless we get a rather rapid turnaround in the economy I think it would be a tough run. After the repudiation he and the Democrats got on Nov 2 ‘Hope and Change II’ isn’t going to fly. He certainly seems to have peaked on 1/20/2009, if not a couple of months before. He will always be the first black President but I don’t see him wanting to be the first black President to lose re-election. It wouldn’t take much for his current explaination for his party’s defeats (the dumb voters just don’t understand all the good things I’m doing for them) to morp into ‘the country just wasn’t ready for me (a black man) to be President’.
Doom Says:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Wow. I was just thinking of that earlier today.
And boy, wouldn’t that send the conspiracy meters to 11.
“Does anyone besides me see the possibility of the Republican vote being split between a right-winger only the tea party wants and a mainstream center-right candidate?”
Ah, yes – I can certainly see that. Indeed, we saw it many many times in this current election and we saw in 2008. McCain swept the elections with his appeal to the center and of course no one but the Tea-party wanted any of their candidates this time. So obviously my only two choices are “right-wingers that only the tea-party would like” and “center-right that everyone else thinks is great”.
That is like asking “do you want tails I win, heads you loose”. There is no way to answer that without agreeing that the tea-party people are “right-wingers” (and that belief is what still has so many baffled as to how to address them – they aren’t even really liberal or conservative either). Instead lets ask: “Does anyone besides me see the possibility of the Republican vote being split between a candidate that the tea party wants and a mainstream center-right candidate?”
Probably, it was split down that way this election, just there aren’t that many people who are more aligned with the liberals but still want an “R” after the name (otherwise known as Center Right) for some reason. I just do not think it will be that much – I think enough have realized what running McCain meant now.
To me the bigger question is will the new “tea-party” elect republicans be a Reagan type Big-Tent conservative or not? If they are and we can get a candidate that is, then it will go well. If not then the new Republicans are still going to have to do exceptionally bad for Obama to re-win.
My guess is run someone who looks like Obama, talks like Obama, but has an R after his/her name (other wise known as “center-right republicans) is more likely to get that voting scenario than most “tea-party” candidates would. There are certainly some “tea-party” candidates that would not do well (there were a few this election cycle), but for the most part they ran on “big-tent conservatism” and fiscal responsibility. If that is a “right-winger” then yep, I see it being split and the “mainstream center-right” finding itself as mainstream as McCain showed them to be.
My brain short circuited at the idea of a Brown vs Obama primary. That sounds like something Onions are made of.
The smart way to handle the Tea Party vs centrist split is for a strong candidate to assemble a competence team encompassing both elements and the show that he can pick the best ideas and merge them into a coherent platform based on priorities.
Yes it would, rickl. *evil grins* *pinky in mouth*
But uhrm, he still would not gain martyrdom. He would be flushed from history as fast as the left, right, and conservatives could flush. The useful idiots of no import would try to hang on to it, but would be labeled by it and side-stepped like dog leavings. Or, to put it another way, they would be indulged silently but not allowed at the “adults table” for any event.
Please see the most recent episode of the Rangel circus for possible insights into this topic. Or seek the opinion of Obama’s aunt. Obama is owed a second, if not third term, despite whatever the future holds.
Obama won’t commit suicide alone. He’ll try and commit America’s. Just like Hitler considered that the German people “betrayed” him, so will Obama consider he has been betrayed. Revenge, hot and burning but best served cold: Not because he was defeated by racism or bitter clingers although those will be identified. The true roots of revenge lie in Obama’s early childhood.
Doom and rickl, the same possibility had occurred to me. I don’t think it’s likely, rather a huge longshot, but for the first time it’s no longer inconceivable.
But uhrm, he still would not gain martyrdom. He would be flushed from history as fast as the left, right, and conservatives could flush.
Gotta disagree here. He’d join the pantheon of liberal heroes struck down by The Man for trying to help The People, and take his place alongside JFK, RFK, and MLK. Inner cities would erupt, conspiracy theorists would have a field day, liberal commentators would be tut-tutting and pointing fingers tirelessly and anyone who ever breathed anything less than fulsome praise for him.
Look at the beatification of JFK, objectively a mediocre President who was worried about losing in 1964 – hence his trip to Dallas. Now his Presidency was Camelot, a golden era where it only rained at night and dogs and cats lived together in harmony.
PS: All it would take to beatify Obama would be one Oliver Stone movie, the script of which is probably already half-written.
Occam,
You are living in a dream world that used to be and is no more.
Oliver Stone could make Obama? Not even a snowball’s chance in hell.
Oliver Stone is two decades ago, and he was old and feckless then.
Obama would never commit suicide; remember in his world it is everyone else who is in the wrong (remember that quote from DSM-IV about how a narcissist fails to understand criticism). He would expect everyone else to commit suicide for denying him.