Well, I was wrong. Again. Based on the RealClearPolitics average of polls President Obama is up three points over Gov. Romney. That’s nearly the opposite of what I’d predicted (small bump for Romney, none for Obama). Other than Rasmussen which tends to be an outlier none of the major polls shows Romney ahead.
I’m still trying to puzzle it out. I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to have suddenly made up their minds about the president. If anything, he’s over-exposed. It may be that the more voters see of Mitt Romney the less they like him.
It also could be due to more strategic factors. The Obama Campaign has been advertising heavily throughout the conventions and in their immediate aftermath. The Romney Campaign has quite a fund-raising advantage over its opponents so I presume we will very shortly seen an enormous deluge of pro-Romney or anti-Obama television spots (particularly if “we” is defined as people living in the handful of battleground states, e.g. Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, etc.)
I wonder what they’re waiting for. Obviously, these are tactical decisions on the parts of the respective campaigns but at this juncture it really doesn’t look like the Romney Campaign’s gamble is paying off.
{ 74 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Have a nice day.
Sugar-coater.
Reynolds, my favorite thing about you is your consistency. We have a President who in over 3.5 years has completely failed to do a goddamned thing about the economy – unemployment officially remains above 8.0% and the only reason it is that low is because millions have given up looking or gone on SSDI fraudulently. During a three year long recovery (which you guys love to brag about) food stamp usage has soared. As a personal example, four of the eight houses closest to mine now sit abandoned – four years ago they were all occupied. My neighborhood has any number of abandoned houses now. It didn’t use to have any. And your President and your party thinks the thing to do is to announce an open-ended bailout of the banks that will run at least a trillion dollars a year.
Your President has overseen a situation that saw one of our ambassadors get killed, saw the hoisting of al Qaeda flags over our embassies, and his response has been to complain about free speech, send out the police on midnight raids reminiscent of the NVVD and complain that anyone that criticizes him is playing politics, as though he didn’t metaphorically cover himself in the blood of troops in 2008 to get his ass elected. (By the way, he still doesn’t know how to say corpsman, and apparently your party doesn’t know the difference between Soviet, Turkish and American hardware and insignia.)
And you consider all that the mark of a successful Presidency (B+ in your grading system!) and proof that your party should rule in perpetuity.
Question: Is there anything your party could possibly do that you wouldn’t cheer and say was proof of their excellence? Is there any failure that you wouldn’t claim as a success?
In the US, it is a binary choice. The party that created the problems and wants to return to the same policies, or the party that doesnt know how to fix things. Not an easy choice.
Could you cite Obama complaining about free speech. I havent seen those anywhere?
Steve
@steve
I must have missed the moral support for the Iranian protesters, but I am not complaining. I did see support for the Mullahs, and I am complaining.
I am unimpressed with Arab leaders or armies. Money and power will fix both. The House of Saud has never had a strong hold, and the Arab Spring is about to make a visit to Saudi Arabia.
I think President Obama was “dealt a bad hand”, and that “bad hand” was much worse than most think. He has made it worse, but he was never going to be able to fix it. In my opinion, President Obama thinks like a 5th grader about foreign policy. Mitt Romney thinks like a high school junior. He is better, but only relative to the other choice.
@michael reynolds
I’ve been staying away because I was starting to feel as if my one-sided feud with Icepick was dominating conversation to the detriment of the blog.
I enjoy the feuding, but I do not have much of a life anyway.
We disagree nor than we agree, but you have forced me to reevaluate some of my positions. This to me is more valuable than a love fest. I do get tired of the “opposition is evil” attitude, but that is applicable to all sides.
Just my two cents.
” I did see support for the Mullahs”
When?
” He is better, but only relative to the other choice.”
How so? Bombing Iran? Not pulling out of Afghanistan? Currency wars with China? Making Russia our number one priority? Opposing START II? Set aside what you believe, and look at what he has actually said.
I guess it would help if I had some context to understand. Do you really believe that we can turn Arabic/Persian countries into pro-Western democracies by meddling with their internal politics? How would we do this? Why should these countries be favorably disposed to our efforts? If you lived in Egypt, would you think more highly of the US because it supported Mubarak?
Steve
@steve
I should have added the neo-cons. They are in the other 5th grade class.
The Obama 5th grade class thinks the problem is that were are mean. The neo-con 5th grade class thinks democracy is going to solve the problem.
@steve
He has not been opposed to the Mullahs, and his attitude towards Iran has been strange. In my opinion, he needs the Mullahs for negotiating reasons.
Bombing Iran? – ain’t gonna happen
Not pulling out of Afghanistan? – He will not send more troops.
Currency wars with China? – China is dependent upon the US, but the China issue is going to take care of itself shortly.
Making Russia our number one priority? – Russia is a major problem for the US. Although, China may take that spot. China is on the move in the Pacific.
Opposing START II? – It is a silly idea. Russia and the US are not going to be using nuclear weapons any time soon. Nobody else is impressed with the US and Russia limiting their nuclear arsenal. This is how a 5th grader thinks.
I posted on the neo-cons, but if it is not clear, the democracy experiment was tried and failed. I am ready to go back to a foreign policy based upon money and power. I do not care about the internal problems of any country – Egypt, Germany, Brazil, etc.. I only care about how their external problems affect the US.
I would send a lot of food and medical supplies, but without a strong government, they will be stolen. This will not make the people love the US, but it will dampen their hatred.
Egyptians will now be able to turn their feelings for Mubarak towards the US. The anti US feelings will increase in all these new democracies.
Finally, I try to be a realist on things, and that is the context.
@steve
I was moving too fast, and I forgot to close the tag.
UPDATE (Dave Schuler): Fixed!
“I do not care about the internal problems of any country – Egypt, Germany, Brazil, etc.. I only care about how their external problems affect the US.”
I see a number of people say this, then they go on to say they wanted us to take a more activist position in Iran and Egypt, criticizing Obama for not doing more in these two countries. I dont think we even knew how to influence the activities in these countries to achieve an outcome we would want. I think there is considerable evidence we are bad at it, and are at least as likely to achieve the opposite of our intended effect. I think in those cases, relative inaction and laying the groundwork for better terms with the winners, as in Egypt, or letting it be known there will be chilled relations, as with Iran, is about the best you can do.
I note you do not say how Romney would be better. You do assume he is not going to do anything he says. I find that an odd basis on which to conclude he is better. But, since that is largely the basis on which people think his domestic agenda will be better, it is consistent.
Steve
TastyBits
“Unnecessary” should be “treasonous”.
Better wording, I agree.
I also think your assessment of both candidates is pretty honest — a 5th grader versus a high school junior.
When I think of obama winning my word association is ‘dire mistake.’ When I think of a Romney win it is ‘cautious possibilities.’ While I am obviously going to vote for Romney/Ryan, it is not because I think they will create an instant magical kingdom here. Mainly, I see them as being more reliable in putting on the breaks of what I view to be runaway debt and mounting governmental dependency.
How closely is America following this sequence of events?
@steve
I see a number of people say this, then they go on to say they wanted us to take a more activist position in Iran and Egypt, criticizing Obama for not doing more in these two countries. …
I am not a partisan. I spent last weekend at OTB defending a comment from various charges. In the end it was grudgingly admitted that I did not mean nor imply what they thought I did, but it turned out to be my fault because the way I composed my sentence fit their stereotypes. Furthermore, I will not be held accountable for anybody’s thoughts or actions. I ain’t taking the “Sarah Palin test” ever – no how, no way.
My position is “do not do something half-assed.” Bush’s Iraq was half-assed. Obama’s Afghanistan was/is half-assed. Obama’s Libya was half-assed. Obama’s Egypt was wishy-washy.
I would give Bush a slightly higher grade than Obama. Bush gets an F, and Obama gets an F-. If you want to give Obama the F and Bush the F-, it is not going to upset me. Anybody giving a higher grade than a D needs to put down the bong.
Influence can be achieved in several ways, but money and power are usually very effective. Pay whoever can keep their countrymen from becoming external problems, and when necessary, take direct action. It has been historically effective, and by historically, I mean more than the past 200 years.
… letting it be known there will be chilled relations …
This is silly. This is not high school, and these are not the “mean girls”. Not speaking to somebody is for children. It is scary that the “leader of the free world” thinks foreign policy is a popularity contest.
As to Romney, he gets a potential D, but I would not be surprised if he earns an F. He needs to end the childish policies of being nice or encouraging democracy.
As an experiment, move into a rough neighborhood for a few months and implement these policies. I would have a large caliber weapon, and it would look as nasty as possible – a Python or 686. I would have a respectful but “take no shit” attitude. You will have to establish that you really will “take no shit”. After that, you do not f*ck with anybody, and they will not f*ck with you. At least, this has always worked for me.
TastyBits, you sound a lot like Walt Kowalski in Gran Tarino.
I think President Obama was “dealt a bad hand”, and that “bad hand” was much worse than most think.
I don’t want to hear about the bad hand Obama was dealt. He wanted the job. And since he was sworn in that bad hand he was dealt has gone back into the muck, the cards have been shuffled and a new hand has been dealt – several times.
steve, every time some official from the Administration has discussed anything related to the protests & violence they have mentioned that movie (that basically no one had seen until about a week ago) and made a point of talking about how reprehensible the film was. When has it become their job to publicly make a point of siding with violent protestors in some other country (and who are opposed to OUR scared principles) about free expression from a private citizen* of this country? They are siding with the protestors as much as they can.
And was it really necessary to use the tactics they used to call the film-maker in for questioning? And was that really about a parole violation or was it about making a show of telling the assholes overseas “See, we’re doing everything we can!” and BTW letting them know where to find the guy so they can kill him.
How about a nice simple statement along the lines of “Our nation holds free speech sacred, it has been a hard won freedom, and we aren’t going to curb it because somebody got offended for any reason.”
* For that matter, I don’t care if the guy is a citizen or not. If he’s on our soil he’s got the right to free speech.
In other words, no weasel-words, no conditional statements, no condemnation for the speech of some third party, no apologies to people who’s feeling get hurt and then go on murder sprees.
I see a number of people say this, then they go on to say they wanted us to take a more activist position in Iran and Egypt, criticizing Obama for not doing more in these two countries. \
You won’t get that from me. Do I wish those countries would magically become liberal democracies? Sure. But it’s not my business, or our business, to make it happen. Obama stayed the Hell out of Iran – GREAT! Make that two things he’s done that I approve of. (Actually there are three, but the third was a minor bit of domestic policy that I can’t even remember these days. It was from early in his Presidency.)
Generally I think we should leave Egypt to the Egyptians. The days of the Cold War are over, we don’t need to worry about the whole damned world any more. But we have made a point of playing Great Nation foreign policy in the MENA, we have made a policy of making Egypt’s FORMER government an official ally, and as such we should have supported them. We sure as Hell should have supported them given what the likely outcomes of a revolution were.
Again, my preference is to get out. That leaves MENA to the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese. I wish them well of it. Since we’re not out yet I am in favor of supporting our allies and opposing our enemies. I also believe that we’d better not change any nation’s government (enemy or ally) unless we know damned well what comes next.
The first rule of a civilized man should be “Mind your own business.”
@Icepick
I don’t want to hear about the bad hand Obama was dealt. He wanted the job. And since he was sworn in that bad hand he was dealt has gone back into the muck, the cards have been shuffled and a new hand has been dealt – several times.
Presidents do aggressively compete for the job, but a lot of foreign policy goes back years. In very few cases is a new hand dealt. 9/11 was the result of years of blunders (or worse).
In my opinion, President Obama’s naivete built upon President Bush’s stupidity.
@jan
Two positive posts are going to get me into trouble over at OTB.
… Walt Kowalski in Gran Tarino.
I know what you mean, but I hate to be even close to a racist.
The movie seemed like it was written by somebody who had no idea of the actual substance. The dialog was off putting, and it had a cardboard quality.
When he says shovels, he means e-tools. They are quite nasty weapons.
@Icepick
Again, my preference is to get out. That leaves MENA to the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese. …
I am on the fence, but I am about to land on the get out side. If the US was/is going to stay, they need to start collecting strong men.
Egypt is broke, and they need food. Deal with Morsi. For the right amount of money, he will play. Figure out some way for him to grudgingly take the dollars. As long as he keeps the trouble makers on a leash, I do not give a hoot.
Figure out who the US wants in charge of Libya, and put him in charge. I would prefer the Europeans fix their mess, but they can pay for it by jacking up the price they pay for oil.
In Syria, let the Russians install their guy with an agreement to keep Iran on a leash. They get a twofer, but I would rather Putin’s strong man.
In Afghanistan, pay off the local warlords to police their areas. Let them deal with Karzai and the Taliban. If the Taliban are the power in an area, pay them off.
In Pakistan, get Musharraf to come out of retirement to run the place, or get him to name somebody who can. The ISI may have been working against the US, but now the entire country is.
Declare India the US’s new best friend. India should be a natural ally with the US.
Declare the Kurdish area of Iraq a protected area, and set up an airbase with drones and a lot of hellfire missles. Payoff the locals. The US now has “eyes and ears” in the region, and they can use force as necessary.
Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Somalia …
Somali pirates need to be given a list of flags to avoid. The US, India, the UK, Canada, and other friendly countries. Non-friendly countries can deal with the problem themselves, and these include Europeans – France, Spain, and the UK if they do not like the US.
Tell Israel that the US is working on the problem. If they keep making trouble, stop all arms sales.
The only rule attached to the money is keeping the country’s troublemakers on a leash.
“I am not a partisan.’
Didnt say you were, just cant figure out what makes Romney better, or Obama worse. I assume, maybe incorrectly, that you think we should have intervened to keep Mubarak in power. First, I dont think we could have kept him in power. I find it presumptuous to think the Egyptians would care what we think. The problem was not a shortage of money or arms. The problem was that a corrupt, authoritarian govt had reached the end of its lifespan. I put myself in the foreign policy Realist (big R, like Joyner), but I fully acknowledge that the weak part of that philosophy is the end game. When we support a dictator because he supports our interests, what happens when said dictator gets toppled? Add in our wars in the middle east and our history of meddling in in Egypt’s inner workings, and we dont have lots of credibility.
On Iran, I am not sure how money and power would influence the internal workings of Iran. What do you propose?
In summation, I think you are angry with Obama, but I dont hear what you think Mitt would have done better, unless you really think we could have kept Mubarak from toppling. On that we will have to disagree. It is worrisome since it suggests you are tempermentally disposed to think that we should and can successfully intervene in the internal politics of middle eastern countries when we have had so many problems doing so.
Steve
@steve
Obama and Bush looked at the world as a child would. One wants to be nice to people, and the other wants to help people. If Romney rejects these childish notions, he will earn a solid F+, and if he tries really hard he will earn a D. The nonsense that he spouts is nonsense, and if he does not understand this, he will soon learn.
It probably would have been better to keep Mubarak in power, but I am mostly agnostic. My only problem is that there was no position taken until the outcome was known. This is wishy-washy.
If the US wanted Mubarak to stay in power, they could have told him and provided additional funds later. Had he moved fast and hard, he would still be in power. Assad waited too long, and the opposition has been able to obtain outside support. Iran will not make that mistake.
Corrupt, authoritarian governments have been around a long time. Egypt has 5,000+ years of experience. For the vast majority of world history, one dictator is replaced by another dictator or junta. The instances where this is not the case are few. This is reality, and I do not expect it to change for another 5,000 years.
I would prefer the US to stop dithering. Staying out works for me. In most places, credibility is measured in the ability and willingness to inflict violence, and senseless violence is usually more convincing. Power is more than owning weapons. Fists at a gunfight will win if the gun owner will not use it.
If you think I am angry with President Obama, I would be interested to know where I have given that impression, but I am not going to structure my words to ensure that I do not fit anybody’s stereotype. I go out of my way to be respectful to President Obama. The instances where I do not include”President” are few.
What Mitt Romney could have done was nothing. He was not president. What he will do if elected is the only thing I have ever commented about, and I ain’t makin’ no friends with the pro Romney crowd. They tolerate me, but I am like the crazy uncle.
What we should do is different from what we could do. Americans do not want to be meddling in any other country, and this limits what any president can do. This affects what any president should do.
← Previous Comments