Palin politics: Mistaking the little pond for the big pond

By Richard K. Barry

Although Sarah Palin is remaining coy about her intentions to run for the Republican presidential nomination, many of us continue to talk about her. I suppose that is a part of her grand strategy, which is, we must admit, working. I mean the part about us still talking about her.

Given the fact that she is doing none of the things a candidate conventionally needs to do to run a credible campaign, people who understand how it is typically done are raising questions.

Maybe this means she has no intention of running, but what if she does?

As evil as Karl Rove may be, no one disputes his experience as a campaigner. When asked if Palin could wage a non-conventional nomination campaign with any degree of success, his response was:

Her people think so.

They've talked with people about it, whom I talked to, and they've been explicit about it - that she doesn't need to go to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, press the flesh and go to all these local events in order to cultivate local leadership. She can talk to people over that. She doesn't need to cultivate the fundraisers and the bundlers, because her mere presence in the race will generate the cash needed for the campaign.

Rove added, rather ominously, that she was ignoring the "niceties" at "her own peril."

Scott Conroy, however, at Real Clear Politics takes issue with Rove on this, claiming that doing things the old-fashioned way in Iowa may not matter that much. Consider, he says, that Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich are getting praise for their organizational efforts there yet going nowhere in the polls. Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and even Chris Christie, none of whom is even declared, are doing better.

This, he suggests, tells a different story.

First of all, if we are just talking about Iowa, Conroy might be right. Although I was always of the impression that Iowa was all about retail politics, that in smaller races like this it was all about meeting people and pressing the flesh, maybe Palin's brand is such that she can get away without all of that in Iowa. I might even cede the point.

But is there any way a candidate can run a credible campaign for the nomination across the country by running a top-down effort that does not rely on strong organization?

All of Karl Rove's experience tells him that it is not possible. There is just too much work involved, too many fundraising bundlers to organize and stroke, too many opinion leaders to lobby, too many volunteers to care for and feed, too much effort required for a successful "Get Out the Vote" campaign, and on and on.

Maybe that's Palin's problem. She has never been good at understanding the scale of things. Iowa may be an important race in the early days of the GOP nomination, and if she got in she might do well there, but America is a much bigger country and doing things the old-fashioned way in primary after primary is probably still necessary.

Relying on your brand alone to win in Iowa, where a lot of GOP voters may already love you, is different than winning over the long haul.

This is classic Sarah Palin politics: mistaking the little pond for the big pond.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Karl Rove's delusional wishful thinking

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove's columns in The Wall Street Journal, like his various public utterances (usually on Fox News), are for the most part a hilarious litany of shameless spin. While they often provide useful insight into mainstream Republican thinking -- and, if you read carefully (as Jon Chait regularly points out), between the lines, insight into Rove's own partisan agenda, trying to push the party this way or that, while also trying to be as optimistically pro-Republican as possible, the facts be damned -- it's awfully hard to take them seriously at face value. Because they amount basically to a huge quagmire of bullshit.

Well, Rove was at it again yesterday, arguing/"arguing" that Obama is "likely to be defeated in 2012." Why is that, you ask? (You did ask, right? No. More power to you.) Oh, well:

The reason is that he faces four serious threats. The economy is very weak and unlikely to experience a robust recovery by Election Day. Key voter groups have soured on him. He's defending unpopular policies. And he's made bad strategic decisions.

But is that all true? And will he really be brought down? Well, the economy is certainly a potential problem politically for Obama. No one denies that. But actually Obama is not nearly as unpopular as Rove suggests, and it's very likely that core Democratic (and pro-Obama) constituencies will return to the polls in 2012 after sitting out in 2010, letting (pro-Republican) older white voters dominate the midterms.

Ah, but Rove notes that Obama's support among those core Democratic constituencies -- Latinos, young voters -- has effectively collapsed since his inauguration, while blacks may not vote in the numbers they did in 2008 (potentially turning swing states like North Carolina against him) and while, overall, Obama's approval has collapsed pretty much across the board.

Uh-oh.

But not to worry. Rove is just trying to fool us with numbers. They actually mean far less than he claims. As Chait explains:

I really enjoy the use of statistics here. Rove begins by announcing that Obama's approval has dropped since his inauguration -- when it was an obviously unsustainable 67% -- to 45%. (Which puts Obama very close to an even proposition for reelection, not the likely loser Rove paints him as.) A drop from 67% to 45% is a decline of 22 percentage points. Rove adds more numbers as if these are additional revelations, each one a fresh nail in Obama's reelection coffin: He's dropped 25% among men! 24% among the elderly! 23% among independents!

This is how Rove's delusional "analysis" works (though surely he himself knows better). We're meant to think, reading Rove, that Obama's popularity is collapsing, but really his numbers have simply come down to a normal level from their Inauguration highs. That was bound to happen, not least with the economy struggling (what with the mess he inherited from Bush), the tough struggle over stimulus, the bailouts, and health-care reform, Republicans engaged in an all-out campaign of obstructionism (no to all compromise) and propaganda (Birtherism, etc.), and, yes, his own errors and missteps (because no president is perfect and everything is magnified).

So, actually, even 45 percent isn't bad. It puts him in a strong position, not least given the horribly weak Republican presidential field. (He won't be running against, say, an Eisenhower or a Reagan).

Could he lose? Of course. But is it "likely," as Rove suggests? Not even close.

Karl Rove doesn't like Donald Trump -- imagine that

By R.K. Barry

Need any more proof that Donald Trump is the gift that keeps on giving to Democrats?

All you need to know is that a Donald Trump candidacy, with its whack job birther nonsense, scares the crap out of Karl Rove.

As ThinkProgress put it: 

By firmly planting his flag on the right-wing birther conspiracy, real estate mogul Donald Trump is single-handedly driving a deep wedge into the Republican party. His improbable popularity in the polls has motivated some high-profile Republicans to jump on the birther bandwagon while leaving others fighting to deny him any future relevance. President Bush's former adviser Karl Rove let Fox News' On the Record host Greta Van Susteren know that he falls squarely in the second camp. Utterly aghast at his full-time peddling of the birther conspiracy, Rove labeled him a "joke candidate" of the "nutty right" who will never be elected by Republicans or the American people.

The only thing I can say about this is: who among us would have thought that it would be Donald Trump, of all people, who would drive the wedge between crazy right-wingers and the more pragmatic, effective and campaign savvy elements of the GOP? Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann? Sure. Donald Trump? Wow.

It's actually kind of fun to watch Rove's disgust as he talks about Trump.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost)