Why the White House pre-election spin does not help Dems

posted at 12:33 pm on September 14, 2010 by Karl

Facing a projected GOP wave in the midterm elections, the Obama administration and its flacks (official and unofficial) have been trying to scare the Democratic base into voting in November with a series of boogeymen (and a boogeywoman). These efforts are at best ineffectual and at worst counter-productive for the administration.

The White House has tried making fmr. Pres. George W. Bush the boogeyman, arguing that a Republican House of Representatives would return us to the failed policies of the past. As Brendan Loy notes, this is a risky messaging strategy: “[I]f they’re creating a narrative whereby a vote for the GOP is a vote for the past, and a vote for the Dems is a vote for the future, aren’t they creating a near-100% certainty that the ‘past’ will be perceived to have won? Don’t they risk constructing an artificial ‘mandate’ for what they would view as reactionary policies, or at least for ‘no more change’ for a while?”

The White House has tried making House Minority Leader John Boehner the boogeyman. As Chris Cillizza notes, few people can pick Boehner out of a police lineup. The usefulness of this attack is in trying to create a bad first impression of the the likely Speaker of the House in 2011. However, in the short term, it is an attack that is unlikely to gain traction among swing voters and reeks of defeatism, implicitly conceding that the White House has to worry about Boehner.

The White House’s latest tack is to invoke the Unholy Trinity of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. This is a bit of a summer rerun — Obama & Co. have been trying this one for almost a year and a half, to little effect. Even online sock-puppeteer Glenn Greenwald dismisses it as: (a) likely ineffectual as a scare tactic; (b) fueling voter cynicism; and (c) an admission Dems need to distract from their own record. Greenwald means that last as a criticism from the Left, natch — but with most Americans disapproving four out of five of the Dems’ major pieces of legislation, it is easy to see why the White House would be looking for distractions.

The temptation to try to energize the base — or to depress turnout of swing voters with a toxic political atmosphere — is likely irresistible. Yet the White House’s best tactic might have been to shut up. After all, it is the GOP that stands to benefit from nationalizing the midterms. Having the Gibbses and Axelrods and Plouffes out pontificating may not help at-risk Dems trying to keep politics local. The Obama apparat could have focused on low-profile help — fundraising and get out the vote efforts. Instead, senior Dems are privately fuming that Obama took more than half of the party’s entire budget for 2010 to help… Obama in 2012.

Blowback