網路城邦
回本城市首頁 時事論壇
市長:胡卜凱  副市長:
加入本城市推薦本城市加入我的最愛訂閱最新文章
udn城市政治社會政治時事【時事論壇】城市/討論區/
討論區政治和社會 字體:
看回應文章  上一個討論主題 回文章列表 下一個討論主題
2012歐巴馬敗選可能性分析 -- M. Dowd
 瀏覽1,239|回應10推薦1

胡卜凱
等級:8
留言加入好友
文章推薦人 (1)

胡卜凱

What Could Cost Obama a Second Term?

Matthew Dowd, 04/01/11

A failure in a complex system almost always involves a combination of factors that feed on one another to cause a breakdown. As we watch Japan's tragic nuclear-plant situation, I am reminded of the near-catastrophe at Three Mile Island in 1979 and what the postcrisis analysis showed.

Recall that the Three Mile Island nuclear plant contained sophisticated safety measures and safeguards, and engineers considered a catastrophic event highly unlikely. But a reactor meltdown nearly did happen. Why? Because of a mixture of engineering flaws, human error, and bad luck.

The same is true for much of what happens in life -- whether it's an airplane crash, a disaster in a far-off corner of the globe, a medical error, or even a personal relationship gone bad. The loss we suffer in divorce or at the end of a relationship usually doesn't result from any one thing going wrong, but from a series of underlying issues that the couple never adequately addressed. These "hidden" issues can be inside our partner's heart or history, or they can be in our own. Some event or series of things happens that allows us to see one another and ourselves more clearly. And a loss is the result.

So what combination of factors in this complex system of politics must come together to cause a catastrophe for Obama politically that would result in his defeat?

I see three, and all have to be in place and reinforce each other for Obama to lose.

First, the economy in 2012 has to be either stagnant or in decline in the 10 or so key electoral states (especially the ones in the Midwest) as he heads into the election. This would mean that the economy is creating very few net jobs in 2012 and that prices (including food and gas) are still rising.

Second, no new major international crisis arises that causes people to rally behind Obama because of his competent handling of it. And I emphasize the words "new," "major," and "competent." Afghanistan and Iraq devolving again into a problem will not help Obama, and actually may hurt him because our country has basically moved on from the situation in both places.

Third, a Republican nominee has to emerge who is charismatic; is a very good communicator; is in touch with the country's economic and social needs; and is a new brand of GOP leader whom many younger voters can connect with. Think of what it took in 1980 to defeat the Democratic incumbent -- Ronald Reagan and crises galore.

All three factors must converge for Obama to lose, and two of them are needed to drive his job approval down to a place, as I have written before, that makes it difficult for him to win. As one can see, these three elements don't include how much money the Democratic National Committee and Obama have at their disposal; how much cash the Republican National Committee or the Republican nominee raises; the quality of each campaign staff; the legislative machinations of Congress; or the use of modern technology in the campaigns (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.). Those are all tactical factors that, ultimately, will have little influence on whether Obama wins or loses.

Two of these factors--the economy and an international crisis -- are basically out of the GOP's hands (in many ways, they are out of the Obama campaign's control as well). Republicans should only be concerned with nominating the candidate who can give them a shot at winning if the two other factors are in place. And note that I didn't add longtime political office-holding to the qualifications. Experience is nice, but it isn't necessary in this environment.

Understanding the factors that could cost Obama the election allows us to not get distracted by the much-hashed-over details that matter little, such as money and technology. Focusing on what's really important is a very good lesson for politics -- and life.

This article appeared in the Saturday, April 2, 2011 edition of National Journal.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/what-could-cost-obama-a-second-term/73355/

 

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘

引用
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=2976&aid=4586609
引用者清單(1)
2011/04/11 10:16 【不平則鳴】 只當一任? 言猶在耳. Obama: 請續挺我!
 回應文章
難兄難弟
推薦1


胡卜凱
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

胡卜凱

馬英九和歐巴馬兩位先生都以形象清新而高票當選。前者因試圖通吃藍、綠而搞得政策失焦、怨聲載道,以致四面八方都不討好。後者雖然努力做對的事,但因沉痾過深,無法妙手回春。

目前以兩人皆以在任優勢而面臨選情膠著,連任之路日見崎嶇。國際情況只可能惡耗頻傳,扭轉大局難以期待。

歐巴馬可說非戰之罪,馬英九則是咎由自取。



本文於 修改第 1 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=2976&aid=4676420
歐巴馬選情拉警報 -- Steve Holland
推薦0


胡卜凱
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

New poll carries warning signs for Obama in 2012

Steve Holland, 07/21/11

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A poll released on Wednesday carried warning signs for President Barack Obama's re-election chances in 2012.

The Public Policy Polling survey found that for the first time since July, Obama does not lead Republican front-runner Mitt Romney in the group's monthly national poll on the 2012 election race. Romney has pulled into a tie with Obama at 45 percent.

Obama's overall approval rating was at 46 percent, with 48 percent of voters disapproving of him, and this is in line with other recent surveys.

But independents were split against Obama 49 percent to 44 percent, and the president will need independent voters to help carry him to victory in November 2012.

Independents broke solidly for Obama in his 2008 election but helped Republicans win the U.S. House of Representatives in last November's congressional elections.

Obama's approval rating has been in the doldrums because of the 9.2 percent U.S. jobless rate and prolonged wrangling with Congress over raising the U.S. debt ceiling.

The polling organization said on its website that Obama's position appeared worse than meets the eye.

"There's a very good chance Barack Obama would lose if he had to stand for re-election today," said Dean Debnam, president of Public Policy Polling. "This is his worst poll standing in a long time and he really needs the economy to start turning around."

The pollsters said if there is a silver lining for Obama it is that he trailed Romney in the same poll last July and then regained the lead for each of the next 11 months.

Most political analysts believe Obama will be in a strong position for re-election given the relatively weak Republican field, a huge financial advantage in campaign contributions and the potential for an economic recovery.

An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll released this week found that Obama led Romney 48 percent to 41 percent but when judged against a generic Republican presidential candidate the margin was tighter at 42 percent to 39 percent.

Separately, the Gallup polling organization's three-day rolling average of its daily poll put Obama's job approval at 42 percent with 48 percent disapproving.

(Reporting by Steve Holland; Editing by Christopher Wilson)

http://news.yahoo.com/poll-carries-warning-signs-obama-2012-213717802.html;_ylt=AhIdrbRr_Mcx1aiuiLUgQ2myFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTM5czM1ZWNqBHBrZwM3NTcxYzZiMS0wOTc2LTNiMmYtYjZkMC04NjhkODhkMWNiZDIEcG9zAzIEc2VjA01lZGlhVG9wU3RvcnkEdmVyAzViNDc3YmIwLWIzMjgtMTFlMC1iZWZlLWNlYmYzMjZkNTdiYw--;_ylg=X3oDMTFtYmZwZDAzBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljcwRwdANzZWN0aW9ucw--;_ylv=3

 

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=2976&aid=4676250
歐巴馬選情樂觀但非百分百 -- J. Klein
推薦0


胡卜凱
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

Why Obama's Not a Lock

Joe Klein

The most telling moment in Barack Obama's 60 Minutes interview came when Steve Kroft asked for his reaction after he saw the photo of Osama bin Laden, shot in the head. "It was him," the President said. And that was all he said. Now, this was a classic TV how-did-you-feel question, and Obama had a range of possible options. He could have gone all political, "I thought of the families who had lost loved ones ..." Or graphic, "Well, it was pretty ugly, but ..." Or excited, "Oh. My. God." Or religious, "Thank God." Or triumphal, "My first thought, actually, Steve, was 'Hasta la vista, baby.' " But, of course, this is Barack Obama, more Gregory Peck than John Wayne. And the same taciturn, hyperdisciplined quality that is so frustrating when he seems unable to connect with the economic anguish of the American people came across as just right, perfectly Midwestern - Kansas, not Hawaii, much less Kenya.

A few days earlier, five of the Republican candidates for President gathered in South Carolina for their first official debate. It was a weird show, newsworthy only because Congressman Ron Paul came out in favor of legalizing heroin, cocaine and prostitution. Many of the more serious (Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich) and less serious (Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich) Republican candidates weren't there - and so it would be unfair to compare the Republican punytude with the massive presidentiality of Obama during his strongest week. (See pictures from inside Obama's Situation Room.)

Three relevant observations can be made, however.

First, Paul's willingness to go off the libertarian deep end, without a blink, says something about the ideological extremism that has overwhelmed the Republicans in recent years. Paul is certainly further out than most, but all sorts of loony notions have become accepted wisdom in the Republican Party - about taxation, about the science of climate change, about the utter perfection of markets.

Which leads to the second observation: even the serious Republican candidates aren't very. Romney refuses to take credit for his greatest accomplishment as governor of Massachusetts - a universal health care plan that works. There are grounds to hope that Indiana's Governor Daniels and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman will not make fools of themselves, but it is hard to imagine either of them prospering by challenging the conventional Limbaugh wisdom of the party, and Daniels has already gotten into trouble by proposing that there should be a truce on "social issues" like abortion and homosexuality.

But my third reaction to the Republican debate cuts in the opposite direction. By depriving the Republicans of the birth-certificate and tough-on-terrorism issues in a single week, Obama may ultimately force them to spend most of their time discussing the weakest point of his presidency: the economy. My colleague Mark Halperin has observed that when Trump talks about something other than the President's birth certificate (or himself), he strikes some very resonant chords. He wants to slap tariffs on the Chinese, and he's mad as hell about gasoline prices (and wants to seize the Iraqi oil fields). This is the other side of the President's reserve: he won't demagogue those issues, or even talk about them very much. (See "The Awkward Republican Coalition.")

I came into presidential politics with Jimmy Carter, and I'll never forget his staff's derision of a certain washed-up actor-extremist from California named Ronald Reagan. Similarly, I remember the Democratic Party's despair in 1992, especially after Bill Clinton was linked, lubriciously, to a lounge singer named Gennifer Flowers. Carter had brought Israel and Egypt together. George H.W. Bush had beaten Saddam Hussein and retaken Kuwait; his popularity rating stood at 90%. But both Carter and Bush were beaten by a bum economy.

Obama could lose too, even to someone who seems silly to fusty opinionators like me. He could lose if he keeps playing on the Republican field - deficits - rather than in the arena preferred by most Americans: the sputtering economy. He needs some big, new, easy-to-understand economic initiatives. He could lose if he doesn't remind the public that he cut their taxes, as promised, and their Medicare drug bills. He also has to prove that, despite the bailouts, he's not Wall Street's sucker. (See "Bin Laden is Dead. Now It's Time to Fix the Economy.")

There is a grand history of populist loudmouths like Trump making an early impression in presidential campaigns: Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson and Howard Dean all had their moments. And so did John McCain, who lost his shot in 2008 when the financial crisis came and he didn't know how to react. Obama was calm under fire then, and ever since. It is why he's likely to be re-elected: we prefer Presidents who are adults over those who are angry. But he is certainly not a lock.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110512/us_time/08599207095300;_ylt=AnCFyG.YzYefQjjXUltkOkmzvtEF;_ylu=X3oDMTJ1a2txcXNsBGFzc2V0A3RpbWUvMjAxMTA1MTIvMDg1OTkyMDcwOTUzMDAEY2NvZGUDZ21wZQRjcG9zAzkEcG9zAzkEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawN3aHlvYmFtYTM5c24-

 

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=2976&aid=4625994
受教
推薦0


胡卜凱
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

多謝

讀過了

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=2976&aid=4596798
兩岸之砲
    回應給: 胡卜凱(jamesbkh) 推薦0


麥芽糖
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
呵呵!

市長請隨樓下引用, 到中壇參觀大陸的三砲.

跟李登輝打下飛彈的嘴砲, 有異曲同工的效用!



回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=2976&aid=4596399
請教
    回應給: 麥芽糖(myata) 推薦0


胡卜凱
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
那三砲?

本文於 修改第 1 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=2976&aid=4596004
三砲出馬, 奧八螞總統凍蒜!
    回應給: 胡卜凱(jamesbkh) 推薦0


麥芽糖
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
到大陸, 請三砲出馬. 奧八螞總統, 保證凍蒜!




回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=2976&aid=4595319
不知道
推薦0


胡卜凱
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

不知道ㄝ。google facebook上查看看。

 

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=2976&aid=4588252
那位專欄作家
推薦0


腦蟲
等級:7
留言加入好友

 
不會與NYT那位Moreen Dowd有親戚關係吧?
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
作者的睿智
推薦0


胡卜凱
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

我轉貼這篇文章並非由於作者的政治分析2012年歐巴馬是否能連任,對我來說,無關痛養;在我看來,於世局也無關痛養

倒是作者在文章引言和文末對世事和人生的觀察,值得參考。

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=2976&aid=4586618