Obama’s bad week: losing his turns
There have been a lot of articles lately about Obama’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week.
The “private sector is doing fine” remark seems to have been a catalyst, but there have been a host of other indications lately that the president’s campaign is beginning to unravel. I submit, however, that it’s not time to crow, although it is time to be optimistic. But it’s still a long five months to November, with many many many events that can happen to change things before then.
However, there does seem to have been a snowball effect. I think one of the things that’s occurred is that Obama has lost his turns. Whatever am I talking about? A dance analogy may be an odd one, but it’s the one that occurs to me:
Likewise with dancers. You can see them practicing their turns after class, over and over and over, looking in the ever-present mirror to see if they can detect that elusive flaw that’s spoiling their turns. Because when turns go, it’s not a pretty sight. Balance is a thing that’s either on or off; a person who could once do four flawless revolutions from a single push-off preparation will now have trouble getting around twice””perhaps even hopping to complete the revolutions or, (for a female) falling off pointe, which can involve an ignominious and dangerous pratfall.
Virtually all dancers know that losing one’s turns is a possibility every time they take the preparation for a turn (usually a momentary pause in fourth or fifth position with the knee bend known as a demi-plie, eyes fixed on something ahead for the “spotting,” arms poised to whip and then close in for a bit of added impetus. It’s a leap””well, not exactly a leap””of faith, a push into the unknown. Will the turn hold? The dancer has to have the confidence that it will, and relax into it, bringing together all his/her technique and knowledge without really thinking about it. It’s part of the dancer’s body memory, and trust has to enter into it.
Obama has long been an extremely confident man. Arrogant, even. That’s part of the problem for some of us, and part of his charm for others. But his confidence contributes to his—confidence. It’s a trait that feeds on itself, and when it’s lost, it’s hard to recover—even for a narcissist, who may cling ever more tightly to the illusion of confidence and yet find him/herself increasingly awkward and error-prone.
For the past few days, I haven’t been able to get the Beatles I’m a Loser out of my head. I’m hoping this little earworm will hop across the pond to Barry.
Obama’s “turn” is the media, and he’s definitely lost them. Dependably lovestruck writers like Maureen Dowd have become comfortable writing about his faults and errors. It’s hard to retain a crush once you realize the object of your affection is not perfect.
Probably for the first time in his life, Obama is beginning to realize that he can’t BS his way out of this situation. His top surrogates are losing their touch too.
Axlerod’s attempt to avoid answering the question about Obama’s “The private sector is fine.” statement (three times no less) was just transparent and silly. He was stuttering and stammering too.
“Obama has long been an extremely confident man. Arrogant, even.”
I submit that the difference between a confident/arrogant dancer and a confident/arrogant Obama is one of effort and results. A confident dancer has built that confidence out of hard work and practice, perfecting those turns until they can be done correctly and consistently even though she may occasionally lose her turns.
Obama’s confidence, OTOH, comes from consistently winning because he has caused his competition to be less competitve and fold. He is more like the dancer who is told by her stage parents that her form and motion is perfect, who has always competed with those of lesser skill, and who now sees her confidence betray her because for the first time she is engaged in a real competition with w/ dancers who are as good, if not better than she is.
This is precisely what usually happens to many “smart” kids in school when they finally enter the rough and tumble real world and find out that there are people out there who are actually “smarter” (Gasp!) than they are. To paraphrase Sarah Palin, the presidency is not a journey of adolescent personal discovery nor should it be.
Axlerod’s attempt to avoid answering the question about Obama’s “The private sector is fine.” statement (three times no less) was just transparent and silly.
Did a cock crow after the third time?
Staying with the ballet dancer analogy, the country has stopped buying Obama’s spin.
I know, I know it sounds crazy, but I think there is a narrow chance that Obama will find a way to drop out of the race. He doesn’t like to lose; never has lost really. If the SC overturns ObamaCare; if Holder gets stuck in F&F and leak scandals, where it becomes obvious he is in serious legal trouble (and maybe O too); if Europe/the Euro continues to disintegrate; and major Democrats continue to voice criticism of O to the point where it becomes standard knowledge that he is a very long shot, it is possible. Add to that that he may be forced to address the birth certificate issues (likely forced to come clean that he fudged his background to illegally get scholarships based upon foreign status), he may see little value in seeing it through in what may be a lopsided election. The 100’s of millions in earnings that will be his ex-president’s right will be hard to resist. I know it sounds like an absurd proposition, but can anyone really see him sticking it out through all of this only to be defeated? He’s calling it in now, imagine what it will be like in 3 months?
p.s. — the drip, drip, drip of Clinton-Carville-Booker-Rendell, and the like will likely accelerate until it starts getting floated that O will not only lose but will cause irreversible damage to the Democrat brand. It’s one thing to lose. It’s an entirely different thing to lose and become the next Carter, a punch-line and textbook example of political failure. Plus, bowing out in a way that seems statesman-like could preserve his legacy and avoid both parties from having to beat him up in the election.
“. . . can anyone really see him sticking it out through all of this only to be defeated?”
Jeff,
I understand the logic of Obama quitting rather than losing, but I think the one flaw in this logic is that he doesn’t actually think he CAN be defeated. I believe that his narcissism runs THAT deep and the bubble of his own perception of himself is THAT protective.
“. . . bowing out in a way that seems statesman-like . . . .”
Exactly what has Obama done to date that has actually been statesman-like? IMO it’s not part of his pattern or persona.
T-Says: I agree on both fronts — he doesn’t think he can be defeated and he is far from anything of a statesman. But my point was that if things continue to where it becomes common knowledge, his demeanor could change, e.g., MSNBC openly talks about his defeat and what went wrong before he even lost. When the narcissist realizes that everyone thinks he is far from perfect, he takes his ball and goes home thinking “why waste my time with these losers.” O will think that dumb America is just not ready for his brilliance. His arrogance will not allow him to lose legitimately, so I think that when defeat becomes practically inevitable, he’ll find his own exit plan. He’s too young to be thrown out of office in a landslide.
Neo,
The immortal Yogi Berra said it perfectly “You can’t hit and think at the same time.” A great dancer never thinks just does. Think once and you’re dead.
I could see Obama wanting to exit when it finally sinks in how badly he’s doing, but I don’t know how he could pull off unless he had something he could blame it on, such as a medical condition. He would have to find a way to save face, because his vanity won’t let him publicly admit defeat. I think he’d rather lose and then blame it on racism or voter suppression.
Unlike a dancer, who, at the time of performance moves solely by dint of his or her own effort, a politician’s performance is helped in countless ways by those who either fall for his or her charisma or who believe that either they and/or their causes will benefit from that politician’s success. Neither Obama nor Romney is in this by himself. To the extent confidence is a factor, each will be bucked up by his respective followers.
I expect in a few thousand years time, there will be a classic play in the tradition of the even mroe ancient Greek tragedies… it will be called The Obama, author unknown.
About a year ago I thought that he fits exactly the tragic character the Greeks knew so much about. The personality flaws are all there and it’s just a matter of time until the gods on Mt Olympus have their fun with him. I doubt he even knows who Euripedes or Sophocles are, so in the classic tragic storyline, he won’t know what hit him.
I know, not dance,… but this could make for some great theater in the coming months.
You give the man too much credit. He never had anything, at all. He was spoonfed to the voters by a doting, just as narcissist, media. What is failing is the media. It is no longer spoonfeeding the candidate. Nor, for that matter, is anyone else. For the first time in his life he can neither hide nor is anyone sheltering him, he has to stand on his own and he can’t do it. Turns? He can’t stand!
I’m almost thinking the media has a new, if more subtle, minority candidate. They do love nuance. (uhrm, that last… was snark)
Isn’t everyone overlooking one overwhelming fact. His approval polls have not budged in three years of being one of the worse leaders of a free people in world history! Those who like him are unaffected by silly statements, leaks that only seem to get foreigners killed, lousy economic policies and suicidal government debt. For some reason none of this matters to his supporters.
If you don’t believe me go to Gallup. His approval rating is going up!
Frankly, I wish someone would explain to me how is it that 48% of the public can’t see the obvious.
Bob from Virginia: you make a very good point, but I think (OK, I really hope) that those numbers are softer than they seem and that after Labor Day the numbers will really begin to change. People who aren’t paying attention still cling to their illusions about Obama, but even his biggest fans in the mainstream media who have to pay attention are finding it increasingly difficult to defend this guy.
What’s more, he never has understood that ever since he became president, over-exposure has had the effect of making him less popular, and his ads and TV appearances are already starting to over-expose him. By the time the campaign really starts going, people are going to be getting increasingly sick of hearing his voice or having to look at his face, much less all of the things he’s going to be saying.
While it is tempting to imagine him formulating a reason to drop out of the race in time for the Democrats to nominate someone else, I honestly doubt he possesses the self-awareness to recognize how unpopular he is becoming. While I hope that he goes down to a Jimmy Carter-style defeat in the fall, I suspect it will be a lot closer than that. Even if he does flame out with a large Carter-style loss, you can fully expect him to nurse his resentment and bitterness of the public at large much as Carter has for the past 32 years.
Little ole Lord Fauntleroy Obama has everybody getting his back, getting his back. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Does he realize how feminine and weak he appears?
One little ole comedian, Don Rickle, makes an insult. For crying out loud, he’s an insult comic. It’s an honor to be insulted by him. He’s insulted all the Presidents. But Obama can’t take it. And neither can his minions. All of Hollywood “has his back” and “gives him props.” One little ole man makes a joke and people gasp.
Time to quit gasping and start laughing, illiberals.
He’s choking; if this goes on, panic sets in. And that leads to the ever-popular going-down-in-flames.
I can’t help but wonder if this is what it felt like from the Democrat site in 2004.
.
Meaning did the Dems get this winning feeling before they lost in 2004?
InTrade still has Obama winning at about 53%. Now granted that has come down from 59% last I checked. But it still isn’t favoring Romney.
momo…I have had the same feeling. Scares me. But we still have the debates, conventions, and possibly more bad economic news to go. And as stock traders say…”The trend is your friend.”
An ability to BS only takes you so far.
He IS going down…for all the reasons above. He is, and always has been, a total house of cards. Once you kick one out it MUST fall. He has not a clue how to recover because he is a LIE…
Turns have to be learned and practiced, practiced, practiced.
Obama doesn’t possess the discipline for such practice and he’s never really learned how to do them, anyway. He’s gotten by on a combination of natural talent and attractiveness and having linked up with the right people who are basically just using him.
He has no turns to lose.
People, I am to repeat what I wrote above; his poll numbers have not moved down in three years. Frankly I can’t understand the whole Obama phenomena. He has proven a national liability again and again and 48% of the electorate could care less. It’s almost as though they become more steadfast followers with every screw up and betrayal.
I know part of the explanation is that Obama’s popularity was never based on logic. I suspect the only thing that could get his approval rating below 45% would be if he were to gain weight and become bald. Little matters like treason and gross incompetence simply aren’t that important in a world where real poverty and enslavement are inconceivable.
Bob from VA,
Another option may well be in play; how about the “Bradley Effect?” It may simply be that many people are reluctant to voice their disapproval/lack of support for the first black (actually mixed-race) president for fear of being labeled racist or for fear of having to defend that they are not.
Secondly, one must look very carefully at the polls. What is the sample weighting and how were the polls conducted (this latter usually never published).
Take PA as an example. If one looks at the county map
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html
one sees a state that is predominantly Red. If one polls primarily in the Phila area one will get a sampling that includes swing voters AND Republicans who are favorably disposed to Obama; poll in the outlying counties and the reverse is true.
Needless to say, the media (especially those that sponsor polls) will mostly report results that are liberal-leaning.
Obama is currently losing support; losing black supprot in NC (and if there, where else?), Jewish support across the country, and he’s seeing his support among women eroding. His 2008 campaign was based upon hollow platitudes with the cooperation of a compliant media; his 2012 campaign is no different. His 2008 campaign suceeded because he could pose as all things to all people. Now, he has a history and a record.
I wrote this back on June 3d. http://unapprovedthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/06/will-obama-meltdown.html
A few quotes: “I’m beginning to think that there is a distinct possibility that Obama completely loses it at some point in this campaign. I wouldn’t put it as likely, but definitely possible. Why? He’s a dishonest, thin-skinned, immature, boastful, narcissistic ego-maniac with a track record of failure and incompetence who is facing the first real opposition of his life….
…
he’s blamed Bush and cried about racism, while producing a record of staggering ineptitude. The only achievements are his record for numerous lavish vacations and the regularity of his golf outings. But this is what we should have expected from a man who thought himself worthy of an autobiography before he’d ever done anything, was unable to write it, used a ghost writer, and palmed off a work of fiction populated by imaginary characters. Obama is Gertrude Stein’s Oakland. There’s no there there. ”
Lots more.
How are polls and tissue paper the same?
When you more of them to do the job, they’re bad quality.
I learned a lesson from Wisconsin. Don’t let the polls over concern you. They are a device of the Left.
And “likability” polls do not directly translate into votes.
Well first of all his poll numbers have fallen from around 70% to where they are now. They were lower last fall floating between 38%-44%, now they float between 44%-50%, but generally move in a narrower range 45%-47%. He got a bit of a bump to 50% then fell back to 49% and will likely float back down. (Gallup 3 day moving average).
There is a very interesting phenomenon about the interaction between his approval rating and his head to head matchup with Romney. It’s a little tough to use gallup for this because the matchup poll is a 7 day moving average, but you can see it in other polling as well.
One would generally expect the spread in Obama’s support in the head to head poll to track his approval numbers. So for example if Obama’s head to head polling is 3% behind his approval they should rise and fall together. Generally they do not. On a number of occasions Obama’s approval numbers have bounced up to 50% but his reelect numbers against Romney have not held their spread. This is also true on the down side, even when Obama’s approval was at 44% his head to head numbers never fell below 44%. Lately Obama’s head to head numbers float between 44% and 47% averaging about 45.5%. This is very dangerous territory for an incumbent.
A number of recent national polls which publish internals have sampled various forms of a “deserves reelection” question. Even in polls which showed an approval rating of 49%-51% his reelection numbers were at or below 45%. The number among independents was much lower.
On the margins (among moderates and unaffiliated voters) job approval responses tend to be more sensitive to short term news. Killing a terrorist, or bad (good) job reports, or stock market shifts. The reelect question tends to measure voter sentiment about the over all record and performance of a president and his expected future performance.
So at least at this point, there is a significant chunk of voters (perhaps 5%) who may not be sure about Romney, but are sure they do not want a 2nd term, even when they approve of some recent action by Obama.
Unless he can produce evidence of an absolutely disqualifying issue, think inoperable brain cancer or perhaps a disabling accident, there is no way that Obama can step aside without the Democrats suffering a huge backlash among black voters. One that will last much longer than a single election.
No matter how eloquent is his announcement that he has decided not to run, the vast majority of black voters will treat this as being thrown under the bus. Black turnout will plummet, and some of those who vote will pull the lever for the Republican. A couple of dozen “safe” Democrat house seats will be lost, and the Republicans might just get to 60 in the Senate.
This reaction will continue into 2014 and probably 2016. It would be virtually certain that the Republicans would get to 67 Senate seats in 2014, and might even reach a 2/3 rds majority in the house.
Barring total malfeasance by the Republicans, the Democrats would find themselves a minority party for a generation.
They made their bed with Obama, and to door to the bedroom is locked tight.
Pertinent to the above discussion, you may all have heard that Rasmussen currently has Romney 47% to Obama 44% in Wisconsin.
Michigan will be interesting because although it is heavily Democrat and Obama has an edge with the auto bailout, Romney’s family has a legacy in that state. If coupled with dissillusionment in Obama, Romney could conceivably carry MI.
My interests lie in states that no one is currently discussing. MA, Romney is a resident and was gov. How well was he received by MA voters and would they back him in the upcoming? NJ, in the recent upswing in Chris Christie’s favorability, could those coattails carry enough pro-Romney influence that NJ could go red? (like PA, NJ did vote for a Republican gov) I’m not saying that either will go red, but even seriously wondering about two historically true-blue states says, I think, something about the tenor of the times.
uncleFred, you are exactly right.
uncleFred Says:
June 13th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Unless he can produce evidence of an absolutely disqualifying issue, think inoperable brain cancer or perhaps a disabling accident, . . .
———–
I won’t accept any sickness excuse note from a doctor in Wisconsin.
Even were Owebama to die before the election, I’d want the death certificate forensically analysed by documents experts. It not like Owebama has a track record with his produced documents and legitimacy.
There’s only one poll that really matters – the one in Nov. That is much more difficult to twist in terms of over sampling of dems, etc.
Also – Romney’s statements of ‘nice guy, but in over his head’, may resonate with voters. While anathema to hard-right Tea Partiers/Palinistas like myself, it gives people a “non-racist’ reason to not vote for him. They still can like him, but didn’t grow in office.
One reason why people tend to vote for the incumbent is that to do otherwise means they that they accept they were wrong, and people don’t like to be wrong. This statement gives them an out – *they* did nothing wrong, he did.
Psychologically brilliant, Team Romney.