Stuart Stevens served as Mitt Romney’s chief strategist during the campaign. He has taken a lot of blame for the shortcomings of Romney’s effort, but he took to the Washington Post to defend himself, Gov. Romney, and the campaign they ran. One thing he said stuck out for me.
There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and a media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate?
There is a bunch wrong with that paragraph but I want to focus on the last sentence. How easy will it be to replicate the success of Barack Obama’s two presidential campaigns without Obama as the candidate?
I think the likelihood of replicating those efforts depends on a few factors, but the only one that Mr. Stevens correctly identified as a problem is Obama’s unique charisma. His charisma, discipline, and skill as a candidate cannot be replicated. However, he didn’t win because he had a billion dollars or because the press went easy on him or because he’s black or because his policies were liberal. And, while I’ll concede that the lack of a primary helped him this time around (although not in the first debate), his rough and tumble competition against Hillary Clinton may have been a necessary component for preparing him to beat John McCain in 2008.
On the subject of Obama’s race, rather than determining whether he won or lost the last two elections, it had more of an effect on the shape of his victories. I do not believe that states like West Virginia, Arkansas, and Missouri that were friendly to Bill Clinton would have turned so sharply against the Democratic Party if Hillary had been the nominee and president for the last four years. On the other hand, Obama many have run stronger than Hillary would have in some states with heavy black and Latino populations. If we’re talking 2008, Clinton might have won Missouri and lost North Carolina, for example.
But we are talking about the future, and after eight years of having a black family in the White House, there has been some reshuffling of the two parties’ brands. The GOP is whiter than ever and the Democratic Party is more identified with the changing demographics of the country. Both changes are alienating people and growing the polarization between the parties. It may be that a 2016 campaign by Hillary Clinton will discover that Arkansas doesn’t love her family anymore, and that West Virginia and Missouri are not going to come back into the fold. On the other hand, it could be that Obama’s race is disguising the true weakness of the Republican Party. It could be that a 2016 Democratic candidate who is seen as a sound bet to continue Obama’s policies and solidify his legacy will have no trouble holding onto his coalition, but will also find a much bigger pool of white working class voters willing to give their candidacy a look. Honestly, I suspect that the GOP is only hanging on as well as it is by fueling itself on the fumes of racial fear and resentment.
If the GOP doesn’t adapt to appeal to a larger and more diverse segment of the electorate, I don’t think the Democrats will need a terrifically charismatic candidate to replicate Obama’s victories. They won’t need a billion dollars. They won’t need to worry about primaries. And they won’t be reliant on a sympathetic press. All of those things can be helpful, and it’s very important that the Democratic Party keep and build on the outstanding organizational effort of the Obama campaigns, but I don’t think Mr. Stevens has correctly diagnosed what went wrong for him and his candidate.
Despite a bad economy and a polarizing candidate, the Democrats won fairly easily. A better question is whether the Republicans can keep it as close in a better economy with a less polarizing candidate to run against. I don’t think they can.
And Kos just took apart Stevens’ trash over at TGOS. Just a brutal takedown. Stevens is a clown show. He’s like the Democrats version of Mark Penn.
Wow, Stevens prevaricates and distorts in that article in a way that reminds me of . . . guess who. No wonder Romney elevated this guy to manage his campaign and kept him in that position long after it was clear he was not up to the task. What an ugly little hemorrhoid Stevens is. Let’s hope we’ve seen the last of him on the national stage.
It is amazing that here we are almost a month out from the elections and the repubs are still lying to their base.
In this I totally agree with Booman. I don’t think it would’ve matter in the least who the Dems ran as long as it was a viable candidate (Palin need not apply). The emphasis here is on VIABLE. That is, someone who won’t talk about “47%”, hasn’t got a picture of him and his boys with $$$ hanging out of their pockets and someone who will impose policy discipline on their staff.
The R’s weakness is that they have no strengths. Racism is not a strength. A racist can become non-racist, but it rarely happens the other way around. They have no strength at all after the misogyny and racism is ground down to a bitter white dust left after the glaciers come thru.
Right. I enjoyed reading Booman’s post and like you, I am in complete agreement. But I have read so many of these “What the Republicans have to do now is . . . ” And I just say, right. but how can they?
There are only two ways I can see, or more likely some combination of these two:
(1) Fake it.
(2) Democrat Lite.
As for (1), that was SOP for them up until 9/11. After that, you no longer heard any “morning in America” stuff. Fear and hatred was in the driver’s seat. They can’t fake it. Too many people don’t trust them.
As for (2), who needs Democrat Lite when you can have the real thing?
Of course, Democrats could always screw up, but that won’t happen under Obama. If there comes an election where the Dems run a Romney and the Republicans run a Reagan, and times are good, policies won’t matter.
You know what I think the Democrats’ greatest strength is? It’s the fact that the Republicans have brought this country so far to the right that there’s a long way to go in a leftward direction before you even get back to center. As the Dems bring in policies closer to sanity and people grow more complacent, the Republican Party, if it still exists by then, will find new opportunities to fuck things up all over again.
Some additional thoughts: I can’t help noticing the Huntsman “buzz” over the last few days, and of course that’s no accident, we’re supposed to notice, Huntsman is positioning himself for 2016. — I have to admit, he’s playing it very well. And in hindsight, you can see how his 2012 candidacy, though in appearance extremely unsuccessful, was an essential part of the strategy.
By now everybody knows who Huntsman is, and that he’s THE “reasonable” Republican. I have seen a lot of comments elsewhere to the effect that he is nearly a liberal, why doesn’t he go Independent or even Democrat? People who say this just don’t get it. First of all he’s not remotely a liberal. Secondly, his stock in the GOP right may be very low, but nationally he could easily become the most respectable Republican in the country, if he isn’t already. He sticks out like a well thumb. Huntsman is betting that at some point the GOP will need him very much. So why should he leave?
I admit — Huntsman is NOT faking anything, and he’s NOT “Democrat Lite” except maybe in a superficial sense where libertarians can resemble liberals.
Huntsman is showing the way forward, but the question is, how long will it take the GOP to accept him or someone like him? Not until the Koch Bros. and the Republican base are cut back to size. Cut could the Republican Party survive that battle? If it could, Huntsman would be a formidable candidate.
“He sticks out like a well thumb.”
Ha! Nicely done.
Let’s put Stevens’s post mortem in the Mark Penn Gallery of Political Analysis.
It’s a certainty that Hillary will not carry Arkansas, but she will carry New York in the general (and possibly in a head-to-head with Cuomo in a primary) if she runs.
One of the things that Democrats need to do is recapture the farmer part of the farmer-labor coalition that Roosevelt built with the New Deal. Racial resentment is built in areas where the economy continues to stagnate. Figuring out the infrastructure investments that allow these areas to become prosperous along with the rest of the country could be what brings rural states back to the Democratic Party. Kennedy captured West Virginia in part because he focused specifically on the issues facing Appalachia. Bill Clinton’s bus tour re-emphasized the problems of the Ohio and Misissippi Valleys during the 1992 campaign and framed his proposals for economic recovery.
Candidates are only part of the positioning of a party. The Democratic Party has traditionally framed itself as the party of the 99% from Andrew Jackson forward–even when it dramatically wasn’t. Now is the time to grow a little more into that role.
I don’t know if that’s possible.
Urban locales are the party’s strength. They are more efficient, more creative, and the economic engine of the country. It’s a simple fact that farming as it is done in the rural states (in the main) wastes a lot of water and produces lots of carbon and makes us more susceptible to disease (animal antibiotics).
In short, I don’t see how we can make life better for the populace as a whole without making life harder for farmers. Cracking down on the Monsanto types (who are pure evil) might help, but what administration can manage that with twin guns of lobbyists and IP law ranged against them?
Rural African-Americans, rural Hispanics, and rangeland and desert Native Americans are also the Democratic Party’s strength. And not a few leftover yellow-dog white Democrats.
I don’t understand what you mean by this. They have to deal with monopsonistic buyers in the futures markets and monopolistic sellers in the supplies and equipment markets. Global climate change is going to be felt on the farm much more consistently before it is felt in most urban areas, even the coastal ones.
And disarming the twin guns of lobbyists and IP law has to be done for other reasons. And would have broad public support. So maybe that is the first new idea prior to 2014 to drive the conversation. Right now, the farm programs do something, but from a policy standpoint I’m not clear what that something is and whether is benefits farmers or just the 1% through corporations.
Also infrastructure is a biggie for remotely distributed settlements. And with increasing privatization, logistics infrastructure to serve these communities has gradually withered. And the postal service cutbacks will shove many communities over the cliff. With peak fossil fuel energy situations, transportation and heating become more expensive even as incomes are stagnant or falling. Also education and health care facilities in reasonable distances.
Since the US is 82% urban, the cities are 82% more important as a strength. Obviously I don’t want to write anyone off. But. I live in a rural state (though not in one of the rural areas) and I think it might be better to simply let those communities die whenever possible. Spend the money on assisting their residents to find homes and places in more efficient communities than to prop up an outdated vestige of the past.
And really it’s more than climate. We need to reduce the amount of antibiotics we use on animals, we need to reduce the prevalence of GM crops, we need to prevent the inefficient use of water for farming (agriculture is a much bigger user of fresh water than individuals). All those things will make things more expensive and difficult for farmers and yet it needs to be done to improve quality of life as a whole.
articles about the election completely ignore why Obama won.
In the exit poll, Obama’s job performance number was 54 positive, 45 negative.
That is why he won. Full stop. People approved of the performance of an incumbent politician, and so he was re-elected. It is not complicated.
Will this be repeated? It depends entirely on whether people regard Obama as a success. This means the economy has to improve – because in four years blaming Bush won’t work. It means that Obamacare needs to be regarded as a success.
I note in Steven’s article that he ignore’s Obama job approval – because it is something that the Republicans just cannot acknowledge.
What amazes me is how few articles from the liberal blogsphere make mention of this fact.
Hindsight is always 20/20 and things always seem obvious in the rear view mirror, but there was vulnerability with the economy as weak as it was. Obama and his lieutenants were afraid of Huntsman. I think he would be just as scary in 2016; maybe more so (depending on the state of the economy and who the Democrats nominate). Fortunately, there’s no way the Republican party will coalesce around the guy. Perhaps in 2020 after Jeb or Rubio or Jindal or some other clown is upended in 2016. The naval gazing on the right has not even scratched the surface. In the mourning process, Republicans are still somewhere between denial and bargaining. Wake me when they get to anger and depression.
If Stevens is busy crowing about how Romney won “every over $50,000” but they were swamped by the poor.
Perhaps if Republicans hadn’t done their level best to increase the number of poor for the 35 years, they would be doing better now.
Barack Obama has class, and it’s usually on display. How he holds himself, how he speaks, what he says, how he thinks.
John McCain has none, and that was always obvious. Ditto for whats-his-name.
Hillary’s got it too, hence the wild primary back in ’08.
I don’t see much in Rubio, and forget about old blue-eyes.
Jon Huntsman definitely. And Tom Cole.
Mitch McConnell’s got his own strange version of it, but somewhat limited in demographic range.
No on Boehner, and most of the Republican governors that make the rounds on the morning shows.
Jeb sometimes pulls it off, but not back there with Terry Schiavo … that was creep level.
I think Hillary would do well against any Republican that comes to mind, with the biggest problem being Jeb, if he can keep it together for the long haul.
The thing about Jeb is that he often comes across as stiff, and maybe not all that comfortable being Jeb.
I bet he too suffers from wishing his party wasn’t quite so nuts.
We’ll see if he can thread all those needles.
That other lizard in the Terry Schiavo travesty, Bill Frist, Senate majority leader and heart surgeon, had no class whatsoever.
Michael Steele is another classy Republican … too bad he’s not a Democrat. They have no idea how to use him, because he often speaks the truth, which makes him a loose cannon within their orthodoxy.
Third Millenial Republicanism and its coalition has become like the confused seas where oceanic tide-rips meet. Grab the Marezine and hold on to the rails.
The Great Karnak sees the tea-patriots bursting out of the belly of the GOP just as sure as HR Giger’s nightmare burst out of John Hurt on the Nostromo.
Republicans tend to represent a disparate coalition of old money and rural poor. Knowledge economy workers, on the other hand, tend to vote Democrat. As the economy transitions from rural agriculture, old industry – mining, oil, low skill manufacturing – to urban high education science based production and knowledge based services, the electorate should naturally trend Democratic – quite apart from any demographic – aging, race, or religious/ideology trends.
A bad candidate/campaign could of course screw up despite this naturally occurring tide in their favour. A less polarizing Dem candidate could broaden the coalition even at the cost of some intensity. Would a “white Obama” have won by more in 2008/12? . Which means the Republican’s problems in 2016 may only grow even with a better candidate.
Possibly not in 2008. Obama, at least partially due to race, energized a lot of first time voters. In 2012, quite possibly. In 2016, barring a meltdown, almost definitely yes.
A weak candidate at the top of the party ticket can overshadow many advantages. Just look at all of the factors working in the GOP’s favor this year: economy, tea party resentments, incumbent’s mediocre approval ratings. But Mitt Romney was the least awful candidate available and he couldn’t capitalize on Obama’s weak position.
Same thing can happen to the Dems. We can be right on a whole long list of things, but if we don’t have a strong candidate leading the ticket, we can be beat.
Way back in 2004, Obama caught fire with his speech at the DNC. So who we got in the pipeline?
Elizabeth Warren.
Clinton is too old and too polarizing, period. I’d vote for her, but only because whomever the Republicans put up is almost guaranteed to be terrible. The only reason I voted for Obama was that I absolutely loathe oligarchy and aristocracy. I’ll vote against a Bush any day of the week, and if anyone decent is running against a Clinton, I’ll vote for them too.
Warren is an actual progressive, has written extensively on income inequality, and just won a Senate seat in Massachusetts.
Stick a woman at the top of the ticket. Energize more new voters. Stick a decent candidate as VP, maybe a hispanic, just to make the fascists’ heads spin, and ride that from 2017-2025.
Seriously, I won’t vote for Clinton unless she’s the candidate. And enough people have heard the name Clinton that they’ll either not want to vote for her, or will be likely to vote against her.
Warren’s just a couple years younger than Clinton.
Elizabeth Warren is not a particularly good candidate. She lacks the warm, approachable, personable, regular-folks persona of a John Kerry.
She is also extremely polarizing. I’ve seen Republicans saying all sorts of nice things about Hillary Clinton for four+ years now. I’ve yet to hear any of them anything nice about Senator-elect Warren.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is now the most popular political figure in America.
Even if what you say is true, which personally I don’t think it is, but for he sake of argument let’s say you’re right — Warren hasn’t even begun her senatorial career yet. I expect she’ll do some good things. Give
her a chance.
Let me point out that if the Dems compromise on the fiscal cliff by endorsing Simpson-Bowles then the economy will tank. This is the first hurdle that we face. You don’t balance the budget in a recession with 15% unemployed. Not unless you want 30% unemployed.