Since the beginning of the 2012 horserace, no segment of the politically active population has been more eager to add new names to the field than members of the media terrified of having to spend an entire presidential cycle covering someone they find as uninteresting as Tim Pawlenty. They desperately want someone who can sell magazines, who can be controversial, who can incite the left and the right into the sort of scrap that makes for a great fun time for all the rubberneckers.
Alas, their dreams have been squandered – Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, John Thune and Paul Ryan have all passed up the opportunity to spend a year as the bad guy in their morality play. Even Mitch Daniels, a fallback for most in the media – but still someone they think of as an interesting guy, who’ll say some rousing, controversial, or surprising things before conveniently losing to Obama (their best case scenario) – has now decided against a run.
These writers desperately hold out hope for a late entry from someone controversial who could credibly be the nominee – building shrines to Sarah Palin, prodding Chris Christie, trying to play up the prospects of the thin-necked Jon Huntsman or the rabble-rousing Michele Bachmann – but they know these are unlikely. This is a media nightmare – think Walter Matthau offering a choice of “liverwurst, liverwurst, chicken, or liverwurst.” How unsexy. How dreadfully boring. Who will watch?
Some on the right, perhaps fearful that no one in the current field values them as a mentor, hope someone will get in to make things more interesting – Bill Kristol claims there are better than 50-50 odds that both Ryan and Perry will ultimately enter the 2012 race – but this is just baseless conjecture laughed at by staff for both men.
If this is the field as it’s almost certain to remain, the right should not feel particularly sorry about boring the media with it. They have for years decried the horserace they covered for its lack of policy discourse, for its dominance by unqualified personalities and absurd fluff over true leadership and forthright debate. Congratulations, media members, you’re about to get your wish.
It already appears that the framework of the 2012 conversation is being set: it will be a Show Me election, as in Show Me the Recovery. And in this circumstance, President Obama will face more challenge than many in the Beltway bubble seem to think.
The odds still favor Obama’s re-election – by broad amounts if you ask virtually any Washington insider. But it’s more of a coin-flip proposition when you examine his poll numbers, particularly his weakness on the economy, his sub-50% ratings, and his lack of support among Americans over thirty. His cult of personality is considerably diminished. His namesake health care policy remains decidedly unpopular. His policy team is fractured and full of backbiting. His political team, which leaned so much on inspirational propaganda, must find a way to turn hope and change into more of the same and motivate a base whose enthusiasm has markedly diminished. Without the advantage of a scandal-plagued or controversial figure on the right to demonize or denounce – though he and his allies can sling mud with gusto – Obama could face the first election in his life where where his policy views must stand on their own right for voters to evaluate.
So here’s the scenario: an incumbent president who’s squandered broad popularity gains a reputation as an out of touch elitist with distance from main street problems. While his defense policy is considered a success by many on both sides of the partisan aisle, he has a depressed political base tired of his broken promises, sloppy Congressional tactics, unrealized opportunities and domestic policies that aren’t showing results. Facing poor economic numbers, rising unemployment, inflation and commodities issues with scattered cabinet and an embarassingly foolish veep, he’s hampered by a perceived lack of pro-growth vision. His aging political team, which has never won an election where they weren’t pitted against a completely incompetent (indeed, historically bad) campaign organization, or a general election that wasn’t defined from beginning to end by the man who preceded him for eight years in the office, believe they’ve dodged a bullet when prominent governors, senators, and House leaders decide to sit the election out.
Of course, this scenario has some differences. In 1992, the unemployment rate was just 7%.
Benjamin Domenech ([email protected]) is a research fellow for The Heartland Institute.
