Can Obama win the election on social issues?
posted at 2:01 pm on June 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Team Obama may have given up hope for economic change in this election cycle, according to Politico. With the economy sinking further into stagnation, if not into a new recession, Democrats have begun to push social issues as the front for Barack Obama’s re-election, and think they have an edge that will lead them to victory:
Americans trust President Barack Obama over presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney on social issues, 52 percent to 36 percent, according to a new AP-GfK poll released Friday. …
Democrats are counting on the president’s edge on social issues to make up for a weak economy. The Obama campaign has emphasized Romney’s opposition to abortion rights as part of a broader campaign to woo female voters.
If they’re relying on the AP poll, they’re going to be very disappointed in the results. The sample D/R/I without leaners is 29/22/33, with Republicans absurdly underrepresented (the 2010 split was 35/35/30). With leaners, the split is 49/39/12. Even the 2008 race, with its Democratic wave, didn’t produce a D+10 turnout. And even with that kind of advantage, the main social issue on which Obama has explicitly campaigned — gay marriage — actually trails its opposition.
That would be bad news even if voters were focused on social issues in this election. A new Pew poll this week, though, shows that the two social issues on which Obama rests these hopes are the two lowest priorities for voters in this election:
Economic conditions are at the forefront of most voters’ concerns. When asked to name the issue they would most like to hear the candidates talk about, 56% mention one of three economic topics: the economy broadly (42%), the job situation (13%) or the budget deficit (4%). Health care is the only other issue garnering more than one-in-ten mentions (18%).
A separate close-ended question echoes these economic concerns. When offered six choices, a plurality of voters (35%) say that jobs will be the top issue in deciding their vote for president this year, followed by the budget deficit (23%) and health care (19%). Another 11% say Social Security will matter most to them, with relatively few citing immigration (5%) or gay marriage (4%) as the most important issue affecting their vote.
Jobs top the list for both certain Obama supporters (37%) and swing voters (38%), while certain Romney supporters are about equally likely to say jobs (30%) as to say the budget deficit (33%). Health care is more frequently named by certain Obama voters (26%) than either certain Romney (14%) or swing voters (15%).
Another interesting takeaway from Pew: independents favor Romney by five, 49/44. It shows Obama up overall, but as The Hill notes, Romney’s catching up by focusing on what voters find important:
New polls released this week reveal President Obama holds a very tight lead over Mitt Romney, but that the GOP nominee is closing the gap by focusing on economic issues.
According to a Pew Research poll released Thursday, 50 percent of registered voters support or lean toward supporting Obama, while 46 percent support or lean toward Romney. That’s a very narrow lead for Obama, with a margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the poll.
Some believe that Team Obama thinks it can run the 2004 George W. Bush playbook and win a base-turnout election by firing people up over social issues. That ignores two key differences in the two elections. First, liberals cannot win base-turnout presidential elections; their numbers are too low. They need to win independents, which means that the base-turnout strategy is likely to backfire. Second and more importantly, Bush could run that kind of campaign in 2004 because the economy was rapidly growing, and unemployment was at 6% and falling (with civilian participation rates stable). Pocketbook issues were nowhere near as urgent as they are in 2012. Trying to run the Bush 2004 playbook and focus on social issues in this economic environment will play right into Team Romney’s strategy of painting Obama as out of touch and out of ideas.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Incompetency is just a liable as Malevolence…
Doctors are held accountable for incompetence…so should those in Government.
workingclass artist on May 17, 2013 at 2:29 PM
Here is the crux of the matter. The Obysmal administration was so intent on portraying Libya as a great success in the flourishing of democracy and that Al Qaeda was “on the run” that they hadn’t prepared for the jihadists’ attack. Sending in help or a rescue might have cost even more lives, and they didn’t want the body count to even go higher. The O-team was content to keep the “collateral damage” relatively small for their own cynically political purposes.
onlineanalyst on May 17, 2013 at 2:31 PM
I consider them both but if they are publicly saying this as their excuse, then you can bet they are worried that the actual info is about to come out. For all those not paying attention, that would be Fast and Furious 2; The benghazi edition.
Boehner should step up and say, “ok, we are all in agreement that you are idiots, now we are going to find out just what the hell you were doing over there!”
can_con on May 17, 2013 at 2:32 PM
Do a google map search of Sigonella and tell me what type of aircraft (and the number) that you see there.
blink on May 17, 2013 at 2:41 PM
Regarding the Rush caller near the end of his program just now wondering why all the focus on the coverup of the Benghazi matter and not the cause of it: it’s because if you look at the factors that led to the attack you’ll find McCain, Rubio and Graham were promoters and the GOP establishment would prefer people only focus on the aftermath and Democrat coverup rather than the bi-partisan cause.
FloatingRock on May 17, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Their best defense: We’re horribly incompetent and shouldn’t be allowed to run a hamburger stand. But we still don’t think our incompetence caused anyone to die.”
And even there, we can point to 4 people who died, and many more that would have died if 2 of those 4 hadn’t responded without waiting for orders and staged a rescue action.
So it’s not really, “incompetence that didn’t cost any lives.” It’s “incompetence that cost 4 lives.
And this is their best defense. Which almost certainly means they’re lying, and there really was deliberate malice and/or neglect behind it.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM
Here’s a crazy thought. Earlier in the day, the Cairo embassy had been besieged. Why not put fast-response forces on standby THEN?
Basically the U.S. response on 9/11/12 was the same as a rabbit when it notices a nearby wolf. Hold very still and hope the threat passes by.
hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM
That’s definitely a non-zero number of aircraft. For that matter, I hear there are aircraft all over the world. I’m thinking if the US REALLY wants to get somewhere, we can probably pay enough to charter a flight/commandeer a helicopter, etc.
Too bad we don’t have any naval capabilities available in the Middle East. Or an air base in the Middle East. Or a friendly well-prepared regional ally who could send in some forces on our behalf.
hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM
Is that going to be Hillary’s campaign slogan?
Hillary 2016: “I’m Not Corrupt, Just Incompetent!”
AZCoyote on May 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM
“I can’t answer the god*!mn 3am phone call…cause I’m too drunk to find the f*#kin’ phone…@#$%&*$#@!!…” – Hillary Clinton
workingclass artist on May 17, 2013 at 4:18 PM
The GOP should use that quote in every political ad against Dems from here on out.
Of course they won’t…they don’t want to “alienate moderates” or something limp-wristed akin to that.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 17, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Who gave the ‘stand down’ order…?
Seven Percent Solution on May 17, 2013 at 4:33 PM
Weapons To Syria.
Libyan weapons to Syria, Mali and Gaza Strip – US Security Council Report.
We were in Benghazi for the weapons.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:39 PM
“US” – Should be UN Security Council
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:39 PM
Syrians squabble over Libyan weapons – Sept. 15, 2012.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:45 PM
So it seems that the real clusterfark of idiocy is that no accounting was made for how to deal with Libyan weaponry and we have essentially armed a whole region of
terroristsmilitias and rebels.oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM
Stevens was probably in Benghazi to review weapons “applications” from different bidders. As long as you didn’t have anything like “Tea Party” in your militias name, you could buy sell or trade weapons.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:55 PM
If I remember the logic puzzle correctly, the right question to ask would be something like “If I asked you yesterday whether you were an idiot or a liar, which would you have answered?”. Idiot still says “idiot”, liar would have said “idiot” yesterday, but must now lie about that so must say “liar”.
WTF, correct answer is “progressive”.
bofh on May 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM
WTF, correct answer is “progressive”.
bofh on May 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM
Oops.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM
When incompetence merges with complete corruption you have a perfect storm.
MaiDee on May 17, 2013 at 6:09 PM
Those maps are old, but ok, One sec…
Ok I did that. There are a number of jets on the tarmac. I knew there would be.
That was my point. Any adult would know this. There is no excuse for letting those men die.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:27 PM
We can either charter one or if necessary we have people that can borrow one.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:29 PM
I think “lying idiots” pretty well covers it!
Another Drew on May 17, 2013 at 6:35 PM
I keep going back to Hillary’s 3:00 A.M. Phone Call ad. It seems that everybody in the administration failed that test. They’ve sunken below even my lowest expectations, and I don’t see anyone in the GOP bullpen likely to rise above ideological squabbles and lead us out of this.
flataffect on May 17, 2013 at 7:06 PM
The challenge was issued above by an obvious Obama apologist, to look at a Google map of Sigonella and report whether any aircraft were seen there.
The question would be, “why not”. Actually, if there are no aircraft there now, there soon will be because the Italian government has just reported that 200 U.S. Marines plus two aircraft are being based at the joint U.S. Italian base at Sigonella, Sicily. (Just across a short stretch of water from Benghazi.) “Quick, the horse is galloping down the lane, close the barn door.”
Oldflyer on May 17, 2013 at 7:48 PM
This is why I do not believe it was stupidity. I believe whoever left the ambassador isolated, wanted to make sure he was not covered
I am a minority, but I believe there was to be an event to lead to a glorious hostage exchange – but it was foiled by the brave men who refused to stand down. Whoever started the evil chess game was left hanging and they had to run with the video fast, precisely because no one, no one, would be able to explain withholding cover from the victims. If I am right, I will never be vindicated, because the scandal will be too great so they have to fall back on stupidity
IMHO stupidity in such a case implies a total contempt for the lives of the victims. This is why we need an IRS scandal.
In any case, there is no way Obama can justify flying off the next day to a fund raiser. That in itself demands an IRS scandal. Since the Whistleblowers were coming, the guilty ones had to start a chicken dance, fast.
AP scandal was the one and only way to get the MSM willing to beat up on Obama’s IRS
entagor on May 17, 2013 at 10:11 PM
My vote goes to: you are lying idiots.
ghostwalker1 on May 17, 2013 at 11:18 PM
This is a theory that makes all the pieces fit. It’s true they’re incompetent, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t also up to no good.
Cara C on May 18, 2013 at 1:05 AM
Wonderful article by Sharyl A. The administration appears to be conceding they have lost the debate and are plea bargaining for the lesser charge of idiocy over malice. This won’t do. In the entire piece, no explanation was given for the arrival of the video onto the scene.
Don’t fall for that hangdog expression, Repubs. Those watery eyes are shifting about.
MaxMBJ on May 18, 2013 at 3:30 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2