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.
Look at the mix of voters in the polls. The NYT/CBS tracking poll has Romney leading among independents by six points but losing overall by three. Which means that they’re assuming more Dems than Reps will vote, and by a decent margin. That seems very unlikely.
Gallup is using registered voters.
Democracy Corps has a -16% gap on the Right Track/Wrong Track vote. They also use a 41% Democrat versus 30% Republican model. They also skewed Democratic when respondents were asked who they voted for in 2008: 51% Obama versus 41% McCain. Actual totals were more like 53% to 46%. So they’re skewing at least three percentage points more Democratic that the 2008 election results, which basically means they’re lying a tremendous amount to skew results their way.
Fox News uses registered voters, with a likely voter subset for some results. Their poll is a pain to read so I’m not going to look at it in depth.
The Esquire Yahoo! poll is likely voters, and has Obama with a ELEVEN point among independents! But he only wins by four points? This poll is too stupid to consider. (Check out some of the topics if you don’t believe me.)
Reuters/IPSOS is all adults and skews heavily Democratic. A Likely Voter subset has Obama leading by three. The party mix of likely voters isn’t clear, but they under-sampled independents in their overall poll if I’m reading it correctly.
WaPo/ABC News used Registered voters. The mix party mix looked much more believable as far as Independents goes, but still seems to skew a bit heavily Democratic over Republican, which is expected in a Registered voter poll. I assume that accounts for the difference between the RV versus LV polls. Romney only trails by 1 percent in the Likely Voter subset. (Romney trails by six among RVs.)
The CNN poll has Obama favored by six points among LVs. This really looks strange. They also have Obama having a +1% advantage among likely MALE voters, which traditionally skew Republican. Something is wrong with CNN’s sample, or Romney is going to need a lot of luck to win Utah. Somehow I don’t think Romney is losing worse than Mondale did in 1984. Not clear what party mix they’re using. (Alternately, I missed it.)
Investor’s Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor/TIPP Poll used Registered Voters, and has Obama with a 2% lead. RV polls tend to favor Democrats, so this one might be worrisome for the Dems.
Now for the Rasmussen poll. Honestly I’m having trouble sussing out information on what they did, so I’m not trusting their result any more than I am any of the others at this point.
But it is interesting to track the partisan makeup of the polls. As the race goes on, the polls have moved from D+3, the historical average, to and lately past D+7, the 2007 wave election. Lately I am seeing polls in the D+10 range, which is astoundingly unlikely. So basically, the race is staying even or slightly leaning to Obama, but the sample sizes are increasingly D. If the electorate has not become suddenly and unprecedentedly Denocratic, the race is likely moving slightly towards Romney in reality.
The problem is, this creates a potential crisis of legitimacy for Obama if he wins: combined with the potential for vote fraud (in Ohio, as many as 1 in 6 registered voters may not be eligible to vote), there would be a plausible claim of fraud and conspiracy. With Franken’s probably fraudulent election (known fraudulent votes, by criminals in this case, exceeded the margin of the election), this was a small story outside his home state. If it were to happen on the presidential level, a lot of our already bent political accommodations would break wide open. It would be as bad as or worse than 2000.
Now for the driving around Orlando observations. We’ve seen two more Obama bumper stickers in the last week. Both were one vehicles that cost more than $70,000. Saw one more Romney bumper sticker and one Romney yard sigh.
I have yet to see an Obama yard sign this year, and damned few for Romney. I’m not sure but the one the other day might have been the first. There’s a candidate for a local office named RONNEY, and his yard signs look a helluva lot like Romney’s campaign stuff. The sign the other day was seen by my wife, and she insisted it said RoMney and not RoNney.
Overall, there’s less obvious support for candidates down here than there was in 2008, and much less than in 2004 as well. I think this probably favors Romney, as the anti-Obama Tea Party crowd is very organized and very determined down here. They might not put up Romney signs but they will sure as shit get out there and vote against Obama.
After 2008 I just don’t think the Obama followers are that committed. Back then there were booths selling Obama merch on corners (I remember the one at North Lane and Pine Hills Road being the biggest I saw), and this time there’s nothing. Bob Marley merch still sells at roadside stands, though. Remember that I live in a predominantly Black part of town, so the lack of enthusiasm for Obama here probably means it’s even worse elsewhere. Incidentally, I haven’t seen any new Obama stickers here in the hood in recent weeks. The new stuff was all out in Winter Garden, Ocoee (!!, but I won’t explain why at this point) and Maitland. I AM seeing lots of yard signs for local races here in the ‘hood. I have no idea why the Property Appraiser’s and Election Supervisor’s races have garnered interest here, but whatever.
Incidentally, I drive around a good chunk of Orlando in a given month. Recently I’ve been down in Bay Hill (twice), down to Disney, down to International Drive, I’m regularly in Winter Garden and Ocoee (regular shopping), I’m up through Maitland regularly (the missus works up there), I’ve been in Winter Park a lot lately and over towards the east end of town (doctors, lawyers and sundry well-paid riff-raff, as well as friends), and up into Altamonte (shopping and play dates) and Casselberry (networking). I was even down in south Orlando the other day shopping for something particular. I would really like to consolidate my life, but that just isn’t possible unless we move out of the ‘hood or set our sites for our daughter much lower. Orlando’s just one of those areas where you have to drive to get to everything, unless you’ve got a lot of money and want to live in one of the towers downtown.
icepick, that’s a lot of polling analysis from a disgruntled non-voter. It looks to me like Obama poll advantages have been consistent, but also consistently within the margin of error.
Illinois just had a poll of registered voters, and Obama is winning 47.1% to 33.8%, with 16.0% undecided and 3.1% voting for someone else. I’m not sure what’s more surprising, that Obama is under 50%, or that there are that many undecideds.
icepick, that’s a lot of polling analysis from a disgruntled non-voter.
Still interested in what happens, and interested in what’s happening and why.
They’re not undecideds. They’re “None of the aboves”.
Also I just look at what’s happening and how campaigns are responding.
I remember campaigns (with greater or lesser degrees of clarity) back to 1980. In that time frame, when the country has been in a bad mood it has switched Presidential parties. When times have been positive the country has generally stuck with the party in power. (The one exception was in 2000, and we all know how close that was.)
The country seems deeply pessimistic to me at the moment about everything. That doesn’t bode well for Obama’s chances.
The other thing to do is just look at the campaigns, how are they acting and reacting? Obama’s campaign looks like a loser. They’ve made one crazy accusation after another about Romney (including, but not limited to, that Romney wanted to party while black people drowned, that Romney wanted to give everyone’s wife cancer, that Romney single-handedly fired every single steel worker in American and laughed when he did it, that Romney is a felon that ought to be in jail, et cetera), they’ve done everything they can to avoid talking about the two big issues (unemployment and the economy), they’re having to move into smaller venues because the crowds aren’t turning out, they’ve been using shaky fund-raising techniques and so on.
Romney has looked somewhat confident but also exceedingly cautious. They’re acting like a team that’s trying to run out the clock. That doesn’t actually scream WINNING to me, but it looks a good deal more positive than the Obama campaign. Romney’s big problem is that he is basically another technocrat – he’s not running on ideas so much as he is on the idea that he’ll be more competent. But he’s stuck because his base (Drew & jan, for example) don’t want him to do the same shit Obama’s doing but better, they want him to shift directions. So his campaign doesn’t ring true.
All in all this has been as disappointing as any campaign I remember and makes me yearn for the halcyon days of 2004 with the sharp, confident campaigning of Bush and Kerry.
I’m not interested in digging into the details of this one, but this looks pertinent to the discussion at hand.
My interpretation of that is a bit different. For many of the leadership of the groups in the Democratic coalition the election is, almost literally, a matter of life and death. At the very least for their livelihoods. I don’t think that’s nearly as true for the groups that comprise the Republican coalition.
Plus the Republicans screwed up really, really badly from 2001 through 2006, the period during which they really held the reins of power in DC. People are wary about trusting them again and with good reason.
The salvation of the Republican Party is that from 2007 through 2010 the Democrats screwed up almost as badly.
My interpretation of that is a bit different. For many of the groups in the Democratic coalition the election is, almost literally, a matter of life and death. At the very least for their livelihoods. I don’t think that’s nearly as true for the groups that comprise the Republican coalition.
You clearly haven’t been following talk radio and probably don’t know many Tea Party types either. A lot of them think this is the last chance to save the Republic. And I do not think the talk radio guys are just putting on a show, and the Tea Partiers I know certainly aren’t.
Interesting that you bring this up, though. I’ve been thinking the amount of vitriol in this election has been really high, far higher than should be warranted given the lack of difference between the candidates. It makes me think the people at the top think a real epochal crisis is about to hit and they want to be certain they’ve got their greedy little paws on the reins of power when it hits. It’s like they’ve never heard of Louis XVI or Nicholas II.
Icepick, are you getting a lot of phone calls from pollsters? I’ve received three in the last week – somehow they got my cell phone number.
Just to state the obvious, but I think this election will be decided late by whichever campaign is better at getting the vote out along with the relatively small number of people in a small number of states who are “none of the above” but will still do their civic duty and pull the lever for whatever they consider the lesser evil.
That’s my data-free analysis anyway.
Like Icepick says, I think that’s probably true on the GoP side, but how many people are we really talking about? The liberal base is small, particularly in the states which will decide the election. How many Tea Party people are there really? I think both groups are desperate and so they will turn out, but they are also comparatively small.
For everyone else, I think this is a “lesser of two evils” race given the flaws and weaknesses of each candidate.
People are wary about trusting [the Republicans] again and with good reason.
Agreed, though oddly enough the Drews and jans of the world don’t see it that way.
The salvation of the Republican Party is that from 2007 through 2010 the Democrats screwed up almost as badly.
Almost? They’ve doubled down on the foreign policy blunders, added some of their own, and have been even more egregious in their contempt for civil rights. And the only reason the economy isn’t swirling down the drain is because the drain is clogged and the toilet’s overflowing. The bullshit’s piling up so fast we’ll need wings to stay above it.*
* Apologies, sort of, to John Milius.
Icepick, are you getting a lot of phone calls from pollsters? I’ve received three in the last week – somehow they got my cell phone number.
I’m getting a lot of calls, and at least some of them are pollsters. But I mostly don’t answer my phones unless I know who’s calling. If it’s something really important they can leave a message.
…
Also, how useful are these damned polls anyway? Anyone remember the Carter victory in 1980? The Mondale and Dukakis landslides from 1984 and 1988, or Kerry’s win in 2004?
“Plus the Republicans screwed up really, really badly from 2001 through 2006, the period during which they really held the reins of power in DC. People are wary about trusting them again and with good reason.
The salvation of the Republican Party is that from 2007 through 2010 the Democrats screwed up almost as badly.”
I think this is exactly correct. The Republicans lost their way, and As I have said before, began behaving like Democrats. This was disastrous, and the only reason I can think of that Obama isn’t getting slaughtered in the polls right now.
Watch the current Bill Moyers Show to see how Karl the Beast Rove
neutered the Tea Party and bought the nomination for RINO Romney.
… People are wary about trusting them again and with good reason.
For most of these people, President Bush was really bad, but President has turned out to be 2+ times as bad. The anti-Obama vote is still anti-Bush, but they are now more anti-Obama. They are not staying at home. If you see the polling places with long lines, they will be the pissed-off voters making sure they get to vote.
I think if you look at the other categories in the polls they are oversampling. The black and slacker vote was at historical highs. There are a lot of people not answering the phone. Answering questions about politics reminds them they are pissed-off.
The only voters possibly in play are the Clinton Democrats. If Bill Clinton can convince the to vote for President Obama, he may win, but if they vote Romney, it will be a landslide.
Without a major event I think Barack Obama will be the next president. Over the last two weeks I’ve watched Team Romney engage in fuck-ups galore, giving me the impression they honestly think the election is a lock for them and therefore it doesn’t matter how “presidential” Romney does or does not look. I expect the debates will only move polls further in Obama’s favor as Romney is thoroughly unimpressive as a public speaker.
… The Republicans lost their way, and As I have said before, began behaving like Democrats. …
The polls showing Republicans down are due to Republicans being pissed-off at Republicans.
Romney hasnt given people much reason to vote for him, just against Obama. I think that’s a little uncommon. I think it will be a turnout election and/or one altered by some last minute event(s).
Steve
Over the last two weeks I’ve watched Team Romney engage in fuck-ups galore….
As opposed to the President’s outstanding achievements in the Muslim world, and here at home trying to make some unknown film-maker the scapegoat for his own problems?
Yeah. Questions: How many ambassadors and other US foreign service personnel have been killed because of Romney’s fuck-ups and arrogance? How many US Embassies have had the black flag of Al Qaeda hoist over them because of the incompetence of Mitt Romney?
And now for the Big One: When does this President start taking responsibility for something other than his goddamned golf scores and bowling?
Romney is relying on the state of the economy speaking for him. Joe Klein pointed out this morning that the economy is not bad enough for that. Klein said the voter has a job, though his salary has stagnated, the voter’s home has dropped considerably in value, but he can see the value starting to turn around, and the voter’s 401k is going through the roof.
That somewhat took me aback, is that the voter? If that’s the voter, he also has refinanced his home in the last few years at once-in-a-lifetime rates, he’s bought or traded in a new car with zero or near-zero percent financing, and if he’s a careful shopper, he’s been able to take advantage of a lot of recession-induced sales and discounts. If this voter limits his exposure to high gas prices, he probably has increased purchasing power since the recession, and at least some debt reduction. But is this the voter? I’m skeptical.
@Icepick
The host nations are responsible for diplomatic security. There’s nothing Obama could possibly have done if those governments wouldn’t allow it. I’ve never been shy about attacking the President’s policies on this here blogs, but this isn’t something to blame him for.
Speaking of how well things are going, the next door neighbors directly east of us are getting evicted from their house. They moved in back in 2000. For whatever reason, they can’t make the house payments, so some bank is taking over the house.
So that house will be abandoned. The house directly behind it is abandoned and has been for about two years. The house across the street from the folks getting evicted now is currently abandoned, although I have hopes the owners may rent it out again soon. (It has just been bought AND FLIPPED in the last three months by two real estate management firms.) And the house directly east of it is also abandoned and has been for several years.
Up at the end of the street sit two more abandoned houses. There are more around, too, but I don’t go around looking for them. There are at least three I drive by every time I leave the neighborhood that I haven’t mentioned.
I’ve decided to mow the yard of the house next door and trim the hedges once the neighbors are out. Hopefully I can keep drug dealers and users and other riff-raff from noticing the house is empty. Alternately I’m getting fire arms for Christmas.
So this may explain why people here in the hood aren’t THAT enthusiastic about Obama. I’m sure those that vote will all vote for him, and I imagine a fair number will. But they won’t all be turning out in the numbers that marked 2008. (For one thing the numbers aren’t here: All those abandoned houses are also households that just don’t exist any more.) These marginal downturns will not help Obama, but the real problem is the fact that I am right next door to four abandoned houses, and there are several others within a five minute walk of my house.
There’s the election analysis that matters. Or perhaps I should say, that is the analysis of the our current direction that matters.
Ben, Obama gave tacit support to having an allied government overthrown to be replaced by … a non-allied government. Except that technically they ARE allies, even though the President didn’t know that and had to have his own White House distance him from his own remarks. Truly, the White House having to distance the President from his own remarks shows that the man that has the office now is either a total moron or, at best, a lazy incompetent.
State Department employees have responded to rabble rousing mobs by apologizing for the existence of that pesky First Amendment. Eventually the Administration had to distance itself from the statements of it’s own officers.
There is no reason that embassy guards should not be armed when on Embassy soil. That is a decision of the Administration.
The Obama Administration helped overthrow the government of Libya, and in its place helped install – oh, they didn’t do ANYTHING about what was done after Qaddafi was killed. So we have chaos there (and elsewhere) and the US Ambassador gets less security there than Valerie Jarrett gets when she vacations in Martha’s Vineyard. (Although I’ve heard the Vineyard can be rough. Occasionally someone serves the wrong wine. Have they no shame? Have they no sommeliers?) If the President and State couldn’t get the Libyans to provide or allow more security, our personnel should have been pulled.
The Libyans have claimed that they gave us a security warning three days beforehand. Our government has said, “No you didn’t.” Our government is also claiming that a random mob armed with rocket launchers just happened to show up randomly and kill our people, randomly of course. There were no security breeches, couldn’t possibly have been a security breech. After all, Ambassadors get killed everyday and have their bodies paraded around town for sport. Even in my neighborhood you’ve got to order rocket launchers ahead of time.
The President and the Administration COULD have stood up and declared that our clearly delineated principle of free speech is sacrosanct, and that the Mohammedans should just get over it. Instead they have made a point of asking Google to take the offending video down, which does not exactly speak to the cause of freedom of speech. Fortunately Google for once had an attack of principle (I suppose it has to happen from time to time) and the Harlequin told the Tick-Tock Man to “Get stuffed.”
That not being enough they had the perp picked up on suspicion of parole violations. They had a non-violent parolee picked up in the middle of the night by at least four Sheriff’s Deputies in the picture I saw. (I’ve heard there were more.) Whether or not the man should be questioned for parole violations is one thing. But staging a media event in the middle of the night to drag him off (not to mention that advertizing his location puts him and his neighbors at risk) NKVD-style at the very least makes it look like Obama DOES have the power to censor speech. Again, the guy was a non-violent offender. Appearances matter, and Obama and his Administration have given themselves the appearance of jack-booted thugs who side with camel-fucking savages against the principles we hold dear.
On the other hand we have a statement that may or may not have been released too early. Clearly advantage Hussien over Willard.
The host nations are responsible for diplomatic security.
So the Marines at the Embassies are there for show?
@Icepick
… Alternately I’m getting fire arms for Christmas.
I would suggest “primarily” instead of “alternately” and Columbus Day instead of Christmas.
So the Marines at the Embassies are there for show?
Without amm0, yes, but Marine dress blues are “da bomb.” On the other hand, it is not a good idea to f*ck with a Marine armed with an e-tool.
There are other explanations. Here’s mine. He likes the sound of his own voice a bit too much. That’s practically a job requirement (“the bride at every wedding, the baby at every baptism, and the corpse at every funeral”).
nd now for the Big One: When does this President start taking responsibility for something other than his goddamned golf scores and bowling?
Never. It’s not his nature. And he is being enabled.
… When does this President start taking responsibility for something other than his goddamned golf scores and bowling?
11/06/2012
“State Department employees have responded to rabble rousing mobs by apologizing for the existence of that pesky First Amendment. ”
I read that statement. It was not an apology. Poorly worded in some ways, but not an apology. On this point, I think Obama got it right. He said we should cut the guy some slack. I agree. If you have ever been responsible for the lives of other people, or had your own life in immediate peril, you work in real time and you have to make decisions others second guess. It is seldom perfect.
Steve
I think the Obama Administration handling of the problems in countries that happen to have Muslim majorities has been ham-handed, but luckily Team Romney has indicated that they will grasp the ham and carry on.
He likes the sound of his own voice a bit too much.
He’s also the Diplomat in Chief. He ought to be able to take a little care with his words, especially as he is supposed to be THE GREATEST ORATOR OR ALL TIMELINES.
But how does your explanation explain corpsemen?
11/06/2012
Clever, but we’ll see.
Icepick
I’ve enjoyed your polling comments. You’ve done a lot of research into numbers and such
“People are wary about trusting [the Republicans] again and with good reason.
Agreed, though oddly enough the Drews and jans of the world don’t see it that way.”
Regarding your response about trusting republicans again: I don’t view as my personal options either ‘not voting,’ nor ‘voting 3rd party.’ I’ve tried the latter in a presidential election once, and found no sense, in the election aftermath, of moral superiority for this symbolic vote of conscience.
Consequently, in the current election for POTUS the choices are between Obama and Romney. I’ve lived through one term of an Obama presidency, and found it to be utterly devoid of economic and Middle East policy wisdom. So, I’m willling to give Romney a chance, and feel pretty good about doing so as at least he has a business brain and experience in the private sector. As for his foreign policy…I don’t think he will blow up the world any more than Obama has done. And, hopefully he will have better people around him advising him on these decisions.
And, while people are finding fault with any substance in Romney’s foreign and domestic policies, what is there in Obama’s that is any more substantial as to what he will specifically do, other than fully implement the ACA, the best he can?
I think the Obama Administration handling of the problems in countries that happen to have Muslim majorities has been ham-handed, but luckily Team Romney has indicated that they will grasp the ham and carry on.
True dat.
Also, love all the pig references. “Yeah, but bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good.”
I’ve enjoyed your polling comments. You’ve done a lot of research into numbers and such.
Thank you, but really I just skimmed the reports from the RCP links. I’m just used to looking for the problems with data.
I’ve tried the latter in a presidential election once, and found no sense, in the election aftermath, of moral superiority for this symbolic vote of conscience.
jan, my problem is that by voting for these clowns I am giving my explicit approval for moral and other forms of rot.
“I think the Obama Administration handling of the problems in countries that happen to have Muslim majorities has been ham-handed”
How so? What should have been done differently?
Steve
On this point, I think Obama got it right. He said we should cut the guy some slack. I agree. If you have ever been responsible for the lives of other people, or had your own life in immediate peril, you work in real time and you have to make decisions others second guess. It is seldom perfect.
Wait, I thought the non-apology was issued before any shit hit the fan. Therefore why did this functionary think his words held the fate of lives? Was it because he knew that any time some Mohammedan gets his knickers in a twist he’s likely to start killing people? Then given the constant flow vitriol against any and all religions in this nation (including government funded art designed solely to denigrate any conception of the divine), perhaps this individual should have had his “talking points” for a defense of free speech ready. Alternately, he should have found someone higher up the food chain who was capable of finding their own ass with two hands.
After all, diplomacy and representing the interests of his nation are his job, why should I cut him any slack for fucking up royally and making it look like Obama and the government hate that damned pesky First Amendment?
If the functionary can’t function then fire him. After all, he’s responsible for the lives of others.
How so? What should have been done differently?
How about, for starters, not supporting the overthrow of a friendly government when the likely successor government will be inimical to our interests? How about not supporting the overthrow of a government when you have no idea about which, if any, government will arise from the wreckage of the one removed? For all the talk of the lack of planning for post-war Iraq, that looks like the best planned operation in the history of planned operations compared to what was done for Libya. I mean, at least we had an army on the ground in Iraq. But we destroyed the government in Libya without any thought or care for what would follow, and without any intention of doing a goddamned thing ourselves.
It’s not like there haven’t been nasty human rights abuses by the people we gave all out support to in Libya.
Hey, here’s my best idea yet! Before getting into bed with a bunch of people, find out what kind of scumbags they are before having unprotected relations with them!
I think Mitt Romney lost the election tonight.
In other news, our Afghanistan strategy just collapsed.
Have a nice day.
The timeline is muddled. However, I think the apology was issued before anyone knew that the Libyan ambassador and three others had been murdered. Some of the info coming out is that the U.S. had been warned about tensions ramping up and that security was at risk in these area — and it was ignored — similar to how the green movement in Iran was passed over and not supported by this president. It was interesting, though, how Obama and Hillary Clinton were highly visible in the Arab Spring, and seemingly ready to recognize the Muslim Brotherhood as the new rulers in town.
In the meantime, IMO, Obama failed at both his delayed messaging (15 hours after the fact) and his detached way of handling this sudden crisis (continuing on with his campaign plans in Vegas). When Bush had the 9/11 event whispered in his ear, while he was reading a book to young children in Florida, he was roundly criticized for not jumping up and addressing the problem immediately. But, very much like Obama did when he was in Hawaii, during the underwear bomber episode, it took him an unimpressive amount of time to take charge and respond to these violent acts….and the MSM just accepted it without question.
Even now, Obama seems kind of rote and removed in his anger about a prominent ambassador being taken out by a terrorist act. It goes along with his bland and sometimes subservient way he deals with dictators and terrorists abroad, whether it’s Castro, Hugo Chavez, or Ahmadinejad. His Cairo speech lives on as being a tepid, conciliatory way to initiate relationships with cultures who respond more favorably to strong men, and takes advantage of ones who act ‘womanly’ like Obama’s behavior was considered to be in the Islam world.
Basically, all those ‘hate America’ performances, being shown by the media, demonstrates that ‘leading from behind’ does not necessarily invoke respect from your enemies, or even your allies. And, that’s what I find fault with Obama’s foreign policy.
Personally speaking, I find Obama to have been an inexperienced man coming to the office of POTUS and being given an enormous amount of power to implement his ideology. IMO, he has been more self-serving than American-serving, dithering on important decisions on one hand, passing blame for policy failures onto his predecessor, and taking the oxygen out of the room for himself, regarding anything that was measured as a success. His administration over-emphasized the killing of OBL (to the detriment of the Seal Team involved with the mission), divulging the ‘kill’ lists personally overseen by Obama seemed inappropriate, various security leaks including the U.S. involvement with the Stuxnet virus were unnecessary, whose main purpose seemed to be only the augmentation of Obama’s own presidential legacy.
In this latest Libyan debacle, Obama’s people are holding a youtube film as the source inflaming violence in the Middle East — at least this is the narrative being peddled by Susan Rice last Sunday. However, Obama himself welcomed film makers into the WH and War Room, giving them coveted info about the OBL killing in order to make a realistic Hollywood movie, to be released now in December, instead of the original pre-election date in October. However, if one little old youtube, homemade video is said to incite this kind of violence, what will a blockbuster movie, made by a liberal academy award winner director, do at the end of the year! None of it makes any sense.
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.
But I have to drop by to say: I am now totally on-board with Drew. Mitt Romney is a genius! I’ve never seen a better-run campaign in my life. How could I have failed to see this guy’s brilliance? You can tell he’s brilliant because he brilliantly held a frantic, sweaty 10 PM press conference tonight to tout his . . . um, let’s call it his “economic plan.” That’s the sign of a really confident and competent campaign.
Mmm. Genius! A giant among men. Totally not a complete douche nozzle. I smell Romney landslide, baby!
@Ice- I guess I follow different foreign policy readings than you do. Maybe I have a different POV from having been over there. That said, I dont think our support or lack of support had much to do with what happened in Egypt. Authoritarian, brutal dictators always go down, eventually. I think it is sheer hubris on the part of Americans who think that we can dictate to other peoples their own internal politics.
Libya. I guess I should tell you to go read Pat Lang. I dont think we had a good answer for what to do in Libya. Did we stand aside while another Rwanda happened? Organized by the guy responsible for a lot of American deaths? Beats me. What I do know is that our allies, the real kind who fight and die with you asked us to get involved. How far do you need to go to support those kind of allies? Pretty far I think. As to the results, we just dont get certainty in the Middle East.
As to the green movement, numerous spokespeople from the greens asked us to not get involved. If they were seen as American stooges, they would have had no chance of overthrowing the existing regime. Many people have noted the following, but it is worth repeating. How can we expect a govt that has trouble balancing its own budget, to successfully intervene in the complex, internal politics of another country. We just arent that good at it.
@jan
“In this latest Libyan debacle, Obama’s people are holding a youtube film as the source inflaming violence in the Middle East — at least this is the narrative being peddled by Susan Rice last Sunday.”
That is not what she said. Go read it. On the apology, I must ask you if you actually read it. I also find that it kind of pisses me off that people want to jump on the foreign service officer who released it. He was on the ground and made his best judgment. You, in the safety of your own living room, now accuse him of apologizing. It takes a pretty partisan interpretation to turn it into an apology. It takes a very callous, cynical and hateful approach to the situation to dump on someone in that guy’s situation. I could never treat another American like that to score political points.
Steve
@Icepick
… (including government funded art designed solely to denigrate any conception of the divine) …
Christ, your getting a little pissy.
To me, President Obama did not want to get involved with Egypt or Libya. In Egypt, the neo-cons were pushing him to toss Mubarak for democracy. This was so effective in Iraq they wanted to do it to Egypt. President Obama seemed to move towards the “people” when Mubarak was teetering. The Facebook and Twitter usage seemed to draw them to the “people”.
In Libya, the Europeans wanted the oil, and the neo-cons wanted to bring democracy to another country. President Obama got dragged in by both.
Libya is Europe’s responsibility. They broke it. They need to fix it. If they cannot, the US can retaliate against Libya by bombing the oil infrastructure. (When the Libyan crisis began, it took a week before the oil speculators noticed. Raise the margin limits, and that problem is solved.)
In Iran, moral support should have been given. The US does not have a good record of supporting people it urges to overthrow their government, but there was no need to support the Mullahs. This was another instance of the neo-cons urging democracy.
In President Obama’s defense, he did not start this “bring democracy to the Middle East” policy, but his “can’t we all just get along” policy is just as bad.
If the US is worried about terrorists getting nukes, why the f*ck is Musharraf not in charge of Pakistan?
@jan
… act ‘womanly’ …
This should be “act like a bitch”.
… various security leaks including the U.S. involvement with the Stuxnet virus were unnecessary …
“Unnecessary” should be “treasonous”.
“In Iran, moral support should have been given. ”
It was. Cautiously, as you would expect if you remember our history in Iran. Read the media that comes out of the Middle East. The US is part of everyone’s favorite conspiracy theories. You just dont see Arab, or Persian, politicians lining up to say they are buddies with the US. Even Saudi Arabia plays both sides of the relationship.
Steve
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 “treasonousâ€.
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 handâ€, 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.