What About Bob?

When I was growing up in Arkansas, the Arkansas Gazette — which was, at the time, the oldest newspaper west of the Mississippi — would run editorials endorsing candidates in various races during the campaign and then would publish a list recapping those endorsements in the days just before the primary or election.

I knew people who would cut out that list and take it with them to the polls so they would know who not to vote for.

Now, I grew up appreciating the writing in the Gazette — and I was proud to work for the Gazette for nearly five years — but I would be the first to tell you that the Gazette's editorial board and its readers seldom saw eye to eye on the candidates and issues of the day.

Even when the candidates who were endorsed by the Gazette actually won, it often seemed that, when the voters went along with the Gazette's choices, they did so grudgingly — as if they really had no alternatives. That wasn't true, of course. There were almost always other choices, but sometimes they were so objectionable that even voters who habitually voted against the Gazette's selections really could not rationalize voting for them, even out of spite.

The Gazette went out of business nearly 20 years ago, and sometimes I wonder what some of those Arkansans do for political guidance now.

I can't provide them with a website or the name of a local publication that can fill that particular void.

However, if they are looking for a crystal ball in reverse, I'd like to point them in the direction of Bob Shrum, a Democratic political adviser.

In The Week, Shrum writes of his concern about "the emergence of a consensus that Barack Obama could lose next year."

Until recently, Shrum writes, his perception was that there was sense of "a gradually strengthening if not yet popularly perceived recovery" combined with "a weak Republican field most notable for those who opted not to run," all of which indicated that Barack Obama was on course to win a second term next year.

But some clouds have appeared on his sunny horizon — in the form of the latest unemployment report, an article in the New York Times that points out that no president since FDR has been re–elected when unemployment was 7.2% or higher and a Washington Post/ABC News poll that shows disapproval growing over Obama's handling of the economy.

But not to worry, Shrum assures his readers, even though he acknowledges that the "bump" in popularity that Obama enjoyed after the killing of Osama bin Laden disappeared almost as quickly as it came.

"[M]uch of the new mood is too instant, too superficial, and too casually ahistorical," Shrum writes.

And I will admit that he makes a good point when he says that perception is really what matters when voters go to the polls — not necessarily those troublesome facts.

When Ronald Reagan — who was re–elected with a 7.2% unemployment rate in 1984 — won his second term, Shrum observes, "joblessness was almost exactly the same — only one tenth of a point lower — on Ronald Reagan's 'morning in America' [as] it had been on his inaugural morning four years earlier."

In the interim, "the rate spiked to 10.8 percent; what Americans believed and felt when they re–elected him was that the subsequent decline proved the economy was on a steady upward trajectory," writes Shrum. "That's what counts, not any absolute benchmark for jobs or growth."

We'll see if Shrum is right. After all, this is the guy who assured Democrats last fall that they would retain control of the House.

And history tells you how accurate that prediction turned out to be.

The Great Tragedies in Life

---

"There are two tragedies in life. One is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it."

---

There is an ongoing debate among scholars concerning who first said or wrote this.

I have often heard it attributed to George Bernard Shaw, and, indeed, it did appear (in a slightly different form) in his play "Man and Superman," which was written in 1903.

But the line, as I have entered it above, appeared in an Oscar Wilde play that was written more than a decade before. Based on that, I would have to give Wilde a pat on the back for it.

It's such a good line, I can understand why the devotees of both Wilde and Shaw would want to take credit for it. Yes, it's only a couple of brief sentences, but it says so much, though, doesn't it? What is implied is very thinly veiled.

And the essence of the truth it speaks should be kept in mind as one watches Barack Obama in the homestretch of the midterm elections — and his sprint past the finish line into the race for 2012.

Recently, writer Bob Woodward said the possibility of Obama replacing Joe Biden with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the 2012 ticket was "on the table" — something both Biden and Clinton denied.

(This is not new. I wrote about this possibility more than two months ago, when Doug Wilder proposed the same thing as a way to energize Obama's base.)

And tongues started wagging. Has Obama written off the midterms, abandoned his fellow Democrats and shifted gears in anticipation of his own re–election campaign? I think that, perhaps, he has, but — but, unlike many folks who are shocked! shocked! to find there is gambling going on in here — I don't think it is a recent development.

Woodward's "trial balloon" on the Hillary–for–veep question appears to be only the latest manifestation of a self–centered mentality in this White House. More than seven months ago, I wrote about Politico's own observations about Obama's 2012 preparations.

That was long before the primaries really began — but only weeks after Ted Kennedy's Senate seat had been lost to the Republicans. Following that, Obama suggested he got the message and was embarking on a new phase of his presidency in which he would emphasize job creation constantly, every day.

That, of course, didn't last.

Congressional Democrats insisted that they had gotten the message — and that they couldn't possibly be caught flat–footed, the way they were in 1994, because they had plenty of advance warning and could start preparing an effective counter–attack.

That, too, didn't last.

But it all told me a lot about what really motivates this president.

Which brings me back to the Oscar Wilde — or George Bernard Shaw, if you prefer — quotation I cited above.

It seems to me Obama is betwixt and between the two tragedies in life. In 2008, he got what he wanted. And, if his party loses its grip on legislative power, the rest of his presidency may be in jeopardy, and he may very well lose his bid for re–election.

It's nothing new, of course, for a president to see his fondest achievement slip through his fingers. Other presidencies have gone through this Shakespearean tragedy.

But perhaps the real tragedy for Obama would not be for his party to lose control of Congress — and, consequently, give him the kind of political ammunition that was handed to Bill Clinton, who could rail against an obstructionist Republican majority in his campaign for re–election — but, rather, for the Democrats to retain a slim majority in one chamber — or both — and thus be denied an obvious villain if (or when, depending upon your point of view) conditions don't improve.

That would be very similar to the Jimmy Carter years — during which Carter was swept into the presidency on an anti–Republican wave but rapidly lost voter support, then managed to retain reduced congressional majorities for his party in the midterms but was overtaken by events and went on to a resounding rejection in his re–election bid in 1980.

That is radically different from the scenario I hear many Democrats muttering about today. Obama can be an early 21st century Clinton, they say, bouncing back from a disastrous midterm to win a second term in the White House.

And perhaps he can. But there are many differences between now and the mid–1990s. For one thing, unemployment wasn't nearly as severe in 1994 as it is today. It's closer, actually, to what the country experienced in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Regardless of the barriers to legislative action that exist (i.e., the filibuster) that would take on greater significance with a reduced Democratic advantage, the voters in 2012 could look at the recent past and say that Democrats had been in the majority in Congress for the last six years, and a Democrat had been in the White House for the last four. If they don't see much change by that time, the story of Obama's presidency may look an awful lot like Jimmy Carter's.

And what about ... Hillary?

Well, Robert Shrum says observers should relax and take a deep breath. "Hillary won't venture a coup," he writes.

That comes to you from the same man who, less than two weeks ago, assured anxious Democrats that the Republicans will not gain majorities in either chamber of Congress.

See, Democrats? Nothing to worry about.

Pollyanna, Please Consult Your Answering Service

Do you recognize the name Robert Shrum?

He's a speech writer and a political consultant. In fact, his greatest claim to fame may well be the memorable speech the late Ted Kennedy delivered at the 1980 Democratic National Convention.

Throughout his career, Shrum has worked for mostly Democrats — I suppose an argument could be made over his first speechwriting job, which was for New York Mayor John Lindsay, who famously switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party in the early 1970s.

In his career, he has worked for practically a who's who in Democratic politics — Kennedy, Ed Muskie, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter (briefly), Dick Gephardt, Bob Kerrey, Al Gore, John Kerry.

So I guess it goes without saying that he leans toward Democrats, even in times such as these — and even though he has compiled a dismal track record in presidential campaigns.

All things considered, you might want to take his assessment with a grain of salt.

Anyway, Shrum says, "I now think the Democrats will hold the Congress —yes, the House as well as the Senate — and turn back high–profile Republican challengers in California and elsewhere."

As Arte Johnson used to say on Rowan and Martin's Laugh–In, "Very interesting ..."

Shrum contends that the seemingly dormant Democratic base is "stirring" and that, in true Karl Rovian fashion (circa 2004), it will rise from its slumber and save the Democrats in next month's midterms.

On what does he base this reasoning? Well, a few things, actually.

For one, he asserts that recent polls, like Gallup's generic congressional ballot, have been tightening because "African–Americans and Hispanics are re–entering the likely electorate."

Now, let's be clear about a few things. Black voters have long supported Democrats, by wide margins, in good times and bad. So the real question is not whether black voters will support Democrats — they will. The real question is how many will show up to vote without Barack Obama at the top of the ballot — and the best guess that I hear from most observers is "not that many." At least, not enough to make the kind of difference Shrum thinks it can.

It reminds me of something my Democratic friends repeatedly told me in the weeks before the 2008 presidential election. Barack Obama's presence on the ballot, they told me, would motivate so many black voters that they would put Southern states that hadn't voted for a Democrat since Carter or Lyndon Johnson solidly into the Democratic column.

And, to be fair, states like Virginia, North Carolina and Florida did vote Democratic — but none of the other Southern states, even the ones with extraordinarily large black populations, voted Democratic. Black voters were clearly enthused in 2008 — but they were outnumbered at the polls.

As Gallup's poll observes, the current enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats is still in the 20–point range. Democrats would need a virtually unanimous turnout from all blacks who are old enough to vote — and many of them aren't even registered.

And, while Hispanics are the fastest–growing demographic group in America today, their participation in elections has been sparse in the past. Perhaps, in House districts that lie along or near the U.S.–Mexican border — where immigration debates have been the most intense and Hispanic populations tend to be larger than they are in many places — Hispanic turnout may be higher than it has been in the past.

But, nationally, even fewer Hispanics (proportionately) are registered to vote than blacks. And, considering the meager Hispanic populations in many states that are north of the border, it's hard to see how they can have that much influence.

To capitalize on those two groups, as Shrum apparently thinks Democrats will, would require a massive national registration drive (and I have neither heard nor seen anything that suggests something like that is in the works) followed by a massive get–out–the–vote effort on Election Day.

Both require more motivation than I have seen from most Democrats this year.

Anyway, this inexplicable surge in black and Hispanic voters in which Shrum places so much faith apparently will be responsible for saving Sen. Barbara Boxer and former Gov. Jerry Brown in California.

But how much of an accomplishment would that be? California voted Republican in presidential politics when Californians like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were running, but it's been in the Democratic column for the last 20 years.

And Californians haven't sent a Republican to the Senate since 1988. So the fact that Boxer is leading in recent polls shouldn't be a surprise. What has been a surprise is the fact that her race against former Hewlett–Packard CEO Carly Fiorina was ever close enough to be considered a tossup.

If Boxer wins another term, it will not be remarkable that she was triumphant. That was expected all along.

Likewise, Brown — whose eight–year tenure as governor predated the passage of the state's term limits law — had to be the favorite in the governor's race. At least, I always thought he would be the favorite over former eBay CEO Meg Whitman.

True, the incumbent governor is a Republican. And, since World War II, Republicans have been more successful in California's gubernatorial races than its Senate campaigns. But Brown is the only Democrat to be elected governor of California twice in the last 40 years.

Perhaps it is that reputation that prompted Shrum to speculate that Brown " has pulled ahead" of Whitman. Or maybe he's seen a poll that I haven't. The results I have seen indicate a still–volatile race. In recent days, a survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California shows a deadlocked race — which is, essentially, what Rasmussen Reports and the most recent Field Poll were saying.

Maybe Shrum is writing about the CNN/Time poll that was released around the same time. It shows both Boxer and Brown leading their Republican opponents by nine percentage points among likely voters.

But that seems like an awfully wide margin in a race that most other polls have found to be much closer. And, whether fairly or not, CNN's poll has been accused in the past of a Democratic bias. So there is reason to be suspicious of its results.

Shrum also is encouraged by his belief that Washington Sen. Patty Murray "strengthened her position" against her Republican challenger, businessman Dino Rossi.

But this is truly a baffling conclusion. I mean, Murray led by nine points in an Elway Poll in early September and a CNN/Time poll in mid–September, but since that time, a SurveyUSA poll shows her lead at two points — and Rasmussen Reports actually shows Rossi in front.

Then Shrum asserts that the Tea Party is "the gift that keeps on giving" — and it may turn out to be precisely that, but Shrum's arguments sound screwy when compared to poll findings.

"The tea–imbibing Republicans are a twofer for Democrats," Shrum writes. "They scare mainstream voters and motivate the Democratic base, too."

While Christine O’Donnell may be "unelectable" in Delaware, as Shrum suggests, his faith in the Tea Partiers to unite Democrats and mainstream voters seems a bit misplaced.

After all,

• he writes that "the ultra–conservative Pat Toomey ... has suddenly hit troubled waters" in Pennsylvania. Really? He's been consistently leading by 5–7 percentage points in recent polls.
  
  But Shrum points to a single exception — the Susquehanna Polling & Research survey from Sept. 23–26 showing Toomey's lead down to three points
  
  "A race that was written off is winnable," he claims — yet he ignores a Rasmussen Reports poll in which Toomey's lead is nearly double digits.
  
  And a Franklin & Marshall College poll showed the same margin in favor of Toomey — albeit with nearly one–third of respondents undecided.


• and Shrum writes that, in Kentucky, "Jack Conway's making his case for [Democrats] to come home. Or perhaps [Tea Partier] Rand Paul is making it for him."
  
  Paul's lead is within the margin of error, he asserts, but the left–leaning Daily Kos/Public Policy Polling survey in mid–September showed Paul leading by seven points and a recent Rasmussen Reports poll found Paul was leading by 11 points.

He gets around the polls that don't conform to his particular world view by telling the readers, "I'm dispensing in every race with the riotously Republican Rasmussen surveys, which are the psephological counterpart to the Laffer Curve on a cocktail napkin."

Problem is, it isn't just Rasmussen that is reporting findings that contradict his conclusion.

Nevertheless, he says, "So I believe the Senate's safe. But what about the House?"

He asserts his unfounded confidence that "[t]he change in the makeup of the electorate can close the gap in the generic vote and let the Democrats inch ahead — but the base has to continue tuning in and then it has to turn out. That depends on President Obama — and on progressive Democrats deciding that right now the stakes in this campaign are more important than the reflex instinct to complain."

Happily — for Shrum — "[t]he Obama of 2008 has returned with a message and a mission," which is tax cuts for the rapidly vanishing middle class as opposed to retaining the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy."

Admit it. You knew that, somehow, he'd find a way to work in Dubya. Yep, he doesn't like it when voters "complain" about Democrats who are in office right now and must defend their turf in a hostile environment — but it's OK to keep flogging a former president who has been away from Washington for nearly two years.

On top of that, though, I am skeptical of the coalition that Shrum is relying upon — minorities, liberals ... and the young, who Obama has been courting lately but who remain unpersuaded of the need to return to the polls to help people they just elected two years ago. Shrum concedes that they "haven't yet followed Hispanics and African–Americans into the likely voter column."

Shrum's problem is that Hispanics and African–Americans haven't arrived in that column yet, either.

"Obama can change the political weather by a few degrees," he writes, "and that might be just enough. In the process, he has to inspire and not just scold disappointed progressives."

That's another substantial "if." Scolding has become SOP for the parental/professor president.

Frankly, there are too many "ifs" and not nearly enough time — particularly when the overall objective can be summed up this way: Victory is possible "assuming Democrats, especially the young, are sensible enough to understand that we are past the excitement of 2008. There is more to achieving change than standing, cheering, and voting for it once, and then standing aside."

Pollyanna, please call your office.