Obama Can't Tap Voter Anger Because It's Directed At Him

[dandi]

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Now that the voters in Massachusetts have put him on the ropes, President Barack Obama is spoiling for a fight. Speaking last week in Elyria, Ohio, the president, the New York Times reported, used some version of the word "fight" more than 20 times as he railed against the big banks, Wall Street, joblessness, and the economic downturn that has hit the nation hard.

As a newly-minted populist, Obama is hoping to win back the support of the independents and the "Reagan Democrats" who, over his first year in the White House, have become steadily less enthusiastic about his performance in office. The president, as the numbers reflect, has been losing the support of the center. On Monday, the Gallup organization released a new survey that shows the nation's first postpartisan president is an extremely polarizing figure despite an average job approval rating of 57 percent for his first year in office. Underneath that, however, is a lot of bad news.

He came into office seeking to unite the country, and his initial approval ratings ranked among the best for post-World War II presidents, including an average of 41 percent approval from Republicans in his first week in office. But he quickly lost most of his Republican support, with his approval rating among Republicans dropping below 30 percent in mid-February and below 20 percent in August. Throughout the year, his approval rating among Democrats exceeded 80 percent, and it showed little decline even as his overall approval rating fell from the mid-60s to roughly 50 percent.

The fact that the president continues to run strong among Democrats, which the White House political operation must certainly regard as good news, is tempered by his poor showing among the overall electorate. The latest Gallup presidential job approval numbers have the streams about to cross, with 48 percent of those surveyed approving of his performance and 47 percent disapproving.

Taking these two sets of data together, the high marks he gets from better than three quarters of Democrats means that, while retaining the support of the left, he is losing the right and, more importantly, the center.

The new populism unveiled in Ohio--which will almost certainly be a key refrain in Wednesday's State of the Union address--is an effort to win back the allegiance of those voters who have been deserting the president in droves. By positioning himself as someone who "fights" and will keep fighting for the little guy, Obama is attempting to tap into the anger among the electorate that helped propel Scott Brown into the Senate. The problem for Obama is that he fails to understand that much of that anger is directed directly at him.

It is now generally agreed that, as a candidate for president, Obama failed to define himself as a liberal--but it is as a liberal he has attempted to govern. He has attempted to tax, he has spent, and he has regulated in ways that threaten livelihoods and which run counter to Main Street common sense. The sense of alienation that produces among voters is not transient; it endures and it is costly.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to govern the country from either the left or the right alone. The center, as political consultant Dick Morris has written, is the "vital" part of the electorate. By losing it, Bush drove the Republicans into minority status. Without the center it is highly unlikely Obama can do much better.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/25/obama-cant-tap-voter-anger-because-its-directed-at-him.html

Not a bad article.  Unfortunately, the author (like most of the pundit class) completely misses the point of why Scott Brown won:  Clearly articulated Conservative Principles.

[littlelamb]

Scott Brown won because people wanted some new life in the state

[dandi]

Scott Brown won because people wanted some new life in the state

Uh, what?  Scott Brown won because he articulated common sense conservative values.  You know, less intrusive government, lower taxes, actually representing the people who elect you.

Do you honestly believe that the bluest of blue states in New England elected a Republican for something as myopic as "new life in the state"?

Really?

[Eupher]

I dunno, wasp69. It seems to me that voter anger has far more to do with Brown's victory than his articulated conservative principles.

That anger gave birth to the Tea Party movement and as long as the economy is in the shitter, the national debt has so many zeros behind it it's unfathomable, and the tax & spend crowd (including Republicans) can't see what's prompting that anger, it'll be there in spades. With luck it'll keep up throughout the rest of Lord Zero's presidency.

Interesting side note:

Mrs. E absolutely LOVES ABC, GMA, and that sort of liberal bias in her news. I got a whiff of that stink this morning when a sound bite was run of Lord Zero and his "exclusive" interview with Diane Sawyer. The interview is to soften the nation in preparation for SOTU tomorrow.

He said words to the effect that continued taxation can't be done with our weakened economy; that the spending freeze will help (mere billions against trillions? - keep trying, LZ...); and that he'd rather be a "good one-term president rather than an average two-term president."

WTF?   

Of course, Zero is all about rhetoric and short on delivery. Nothing he says can be accepted as the truth. But the fact he said those things is telling.

Might he actually be getting a clue?













Nah....didn't think so.....

[DumbAss Tanker]

Eupher, I think he's gettig a clue that he needs to talk about jobs and the economy more, but I don't think he's getting that coming at it from the far Left has Fail written all over it.

[dandi]

I dunno, wasp69. It seems to me that voter anger has far more to do with Brown's victory than his articulated conservative principles.

That anger gave birth to the Tea Party movement and as long as the economy is in the shitter, the national debt has so many zeros behind it it's unfathomable, and the tax & spend crowd (including Republicans) can't see what's prompting that anger, it'll be there in spades. With luck it'll keep up throughout the rest of Lord Zero's presidency.

I'm sorry, I disagree.  Scott Brown did much more than campaign on "I'm not a democrat".  He was able to get a common sense message across to a multitude of people.  The very same articulation and sentiment (coupled with a disastrous marxist President) gave us Ronald Reagan.  Had Reagan ran on "I'm not Jimmah", then he would have been a very mediocre one termer.  He didn't, he wasn't, and the rest is history.

Interesting side note:

Mrs. E absolutely LOVES ABC, GMA, and that sort of liberal bias in her news. I got a whiff of that stink this morning when a sound bite was run of Lord Zero and his "exclusive" interview with Diane Sawyer. The interview is to soften the nation in preparation for SOTU tomorrow.

He said words to the effect that continued taxation can't be done with our weakened economy; that the spending freeze will help (mere billions against trillions? - keep trying, LZ...); and that he'd rather be a "good one-term president rather than an average two-term president."

WTF?   

Of course, Zero is all about rhetoric and short on delivery. Nothing he says can be accepted as the truth. But the fact he said those things is telling.

Might he actually be getting a clue?

Nah....didn't think so.....

Narcissism like his has no room for getting a clue.  He's justified and always right and there is no other way than his.  His behavior after the election in MA was akin to a child throwing a fit and lashing out at everyone in every direction.

I had a wife like that once.  Needless to say, I got real tired of her shit real quick.  Kinda, it would seem, like the voters are getting with hussein.

[Eupher]

Eupher, I think he's gettig a clue that he needs to talk about jobs and the economy more, but I don't think he's getting that coming at it from the far Left has Fail written all over it.

What's telling here, IMHO, is that he's actually paying attention to what's being said, and commenting toward it (as pointless as that is), rather than blindly following his own far-left agenda. He's heard the arguments in the past, and either didn't mention any of that at all or blamed Bush in support of his horseshit agenda.

Oh wait - then there were the parties every 3 days. Silly me, I forgot.