Comments on: A Couple Of Quick Thoughts

By: Anymouse

Anymouse — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:39:55 +0000

To misquote Whitman (with tongue fully in cheek):
Carpe Diem! Seize the moment, seize the hour, seize the day! Santorum Paul 2012!

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:23:42 +0000

AD, whether you are impressed was not at issue. What was at issue was whether the contraception mandate announcement had decisively and for the worst changed public perception of the president among swing voters. During the time in question his RCP average approval rating has fluctuated between 46-49, and for the later part of the period has been closer to 49%. I don’t make a lot out of it other than to note it hasn’t decisively turned the swing voters as a group against him (and there are confounding variables), though I think that the issue has the potential to hurt him depending on how the Republicans make the argument and tie it to other issues of limited government, individual freedom, the deranged policy priorities of the administration.

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:16:22 +0000

Olaf, I wish that were true, but his approval ratings have been stable during that period and his polling against the announced Republicans has improved.

1. ‘Stable’ is in persistently unimpressive. Bar one three week period, he has not had the approval of the majority in 21 months. It usually takes our heads of state 4 or 5 years to irritate people in this manner. There are exceptions: Lyndon Johnson after the number of soldiers’ deaths made it into the five digits and after the number of urban riots came to be numbered in the scores; and Jimmy Carter.

2. We have poll data on 11 men in that office. His mean rating is lower than eight and higher than two.

3. One of the two he exceeds (Gerald Ford) had poll ratings which had been on an upward trajectory for 20 months at the time he had to stand for election and were (in the eventuality) above water.

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:41:53 +0000

Stipulated, though one could write a thousand word or more essay on all the things that was wrong with it. I happen to think that a modulated, incrementalist social conservatism would be good for the Republicans this year, especially if it takes into account the electorate’s, at the moment, much greater interest in economic issues. Then let the Democrats be the party of partial birth abortion and forcing Catholic Charities to pay for morning after pill. That’s pretty good policy and pretty good politics. Daniels was also really good on CNN yesterday – including on the contraceotion mandate.

By: Peter Lawler

Peter Lawler — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:46:14 +0000

Let’s all grant that the truce comment wasn’t so great.

By: Mick Lee

Mick Lee — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:25:06 +0000

Mitch Daniels has been great for Indiana and is widely regarded as one of the best governors we have had in a long time (I am a Hoosier native and voted for Daniels twice.) I believe a President Daniels would be great for the nation as well. But on the matter of social issues, Daniels is mistaken.

Mitch wants a “truce” for the sake of tackling America’s massive debt because he sees the debt crushing us unless we attack it now. The truth, however, is that social issues will never be put on hold because the Left will never observe such a truce. The debt may be crashing down America’s last line of defense and wreak any chance of recovery, but the Left will still insist on full funding of Planned Parenthood.

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:09:45 +0000

Olaf, I wish that were true, but his approval ratings have been stable during that period and his polling against the announced Republicans has improved. I don’t make too much out of that (some good jobs news, the cumulative impact of the Republicans attacking each other) and the pattern could very easily reverse itself. The contraception mandate (which I strongly disagree with) could be turned to a kind of Republican advantage (unemplyment over 8%, a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit and he is focused on getting Catholic Charities to pay for the morning after pill? sick and absurd), but it is trickier than it sounds and works best if a critique of the mandate is quickly and effectively transitioned to and linked to discussion of higher salience issues.

By: olaf

olaf — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:18:07 +0000

I think your characterization of swing voters WAS correct until three weeks ago when the mask slipped.

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:58:12 +0000

Olaf, a presidential candidacy (and we are talking about a notional and unlikley one) can flop for any number of reasons. It is tough to play at that level. Given Daniels’ past experience with national issues and his public commentary over the last several years, I think Daniels wouldn’t have the same trouble talking about national issues as Perry did, but any number of other things could trip him up. No guarantees of anything.

I don’t doubt that, if the electorate were confined to those who believed that Santorum “embodies everything Obama is trying to destroy” Santorum would win. I think that the swing voters more think that Obama is basically a good guy who probably isn’t doing the best job under the circumstances.

By: olaf

olaf — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:13:33 +0000

Pete,
For all any of us know, Daniels could turn out to be another Perry. Santorum is the perfect candidate to run against Obama because he embodies everything Obama is trying to destroy. This election has turned into a highly symbolic contest. People respond to symbols more than anything else in times of danger. Churchill was so highly effective because he was primarily a symbol to which the people could rally. Santorum could be the same.