July 8, 2011

"What did David Plouffe really say about unemployment?"

WaPo's Greg Sargent tries to rehabilitate Plouffe, who clearly did say that the unemployment rate is not going to determine how people vote in 2012.

When you see the transcript and think about it, it's obvious that Plouffe did not say that unemployment wouldn't matter to voters. He said that the percentage itself isn't what affects voters' minds. What matters is their personal subjective experience:
So, you know, people won’t vote based on the unemployment rate. They’re gonna vote based on, “How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?”
Sargent says:
You can argue that it was a misstep in that the quote does sound tone-deaf when reproduced without the surrounding context, and it’s understandable why people would see it as insensitive when viewed without that context.
A lot of clever remarks are like that. A witty, engaging speaker will say something surprising and counterintuitive, but then flesh it out or add one more point, and then it clicks. Of course, if you have opponents, you've got to anticipate what they'll do with the little slice of what you said that seems head-slappingly idiotic. So it may not be so smart to be smart like that.

Now let's look more closely at that possibly clever notion of Plouffe's: Any given voter is going to ask not what the facts are about Americans in general, but how do I feel about what's happening to me personally and do I believe that the President cares about me. 

This is how people* got hooked into voting for Obama in the first place! Plouffe and company massaged people into the place where they had a feeling about Obama. Hope. Change. Yes We Can.

And Plouffe is gearing up to do it again. The difference this time is that Obama is not an outsider to the current conditions. He represents not change, but: the same. And the current situation is dreadful. Plouffe knows that, and his comments show how he's planning, this time, to do the same thing but different. Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family? Yes, you do. Or you will. Plouffe hopes.

You can savage Plouffe all you want for his seemingly stupid remark, but don't miss the opportunity to see what he revealed about the theory of the reelect Obama campaign.
_______________________

*Not me. I voted for Obama, but I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice.

129 comments:

Fred4Pres said...

Yeah, the unemployment rate will not affect voting one way or the other in 2012. Keep telling yourself that Dems.

If the trend is flat or getting worse in November 2012, it will definitely have an negative impact on Obama's reelection chances. If the trend is improving, then so does Obama's chances of reelection.

John Thacker said...

I don't see how his argument is clever at all.

Even if people vote based on their own personal situation, the higher the unemployment rate, the more people will have a poor personal situation and thus vote against the President.

Fred4Pres said...

I do agree with him that a raw percentage number is not the issue, it is the subjective impression the voters have on the direction the country is heading. But if the perception is things are stagnant or getting worse, that is bad for the party in charge (which is still the Democrats).

Mick said...

Is that how you were bamboozled? A law prof voting for an ineligible Usurper (born British).

SunnyJ said...

They'll care if their own unemployment rate is 100%.

That feels alot worse than 9.2% nationally.

I'm worn out with all the Marketing 101's throwing around their clever spin, talking brands when they talk about the leader of our country, smug in their Goebels knowledge of propaganda/public relations renamed.

All those unemployeds with the BS/BA degrees took that class too, infact, I'm thinking by now most everyone has. That is truly what the tea party is all about...enough with the clever! Let's return to sincere and direct. That went out with Letterman, South Park and Stewart et all. Maybe it's trending back.

ndspinelli said...

Plouffe is a girly man. Only women listen to girly men.

Fred4Pres said...

Plouffe's argument is not clever or original. I do not know him at all so I can't comment if he is a girly man.

SunnyJ said...

Prof, you are trying to make yourself feel better for having been manipulated and sold something you thought you wanted and needed!

Surprise, it's a vacuum cleaner...pay $150 or $1000, it's still a vaccum cleaner.

Why is it so clear that it wasn't a rational decision? You're defending it. No one that voted for McCain is doing that today.

America's Politico said...

On election day in 2012, the voters will --

- Wake up.
- Sing: Let us not change the horse in mid. Let us hope for the best. We like diversity.
- They will vote for O-B2.
- If a voter is worried, thinks, then she/he will see the GOP ticket and begin to think - these guys have no plan, no vision, no diversity, get me out of here.

Q.E.D. David Plouffe is a genious. His book is a must-read. We give to all our clients, even the GOP one (one client I have).

NB: Had dinner at the Oval Room near K-street with some consultants, including those from GOP. Every one think that is impossible for the GOP to win until 2016.

Carol_Herman said...

First of all, McCain was a terrible nominee! He was picked by the republicans, who told their followers that even if they didn't like McCain, McCain could win over "hillary's voters."

There was also an undertone that because obama was black, he'd lose white votes.

And, you also have to remember, someone on Dukakis' staff, handed him the leather helmet with goggles on top. And, told him to stick his head out of the tank.

So, Ploufe is inside. Getting paid.

Just like Karl Rove.

As to the stupid party. And, 2012. I've already said that even though predicting is an impossible business ... when I saw Sarah Palin's bus ... with the ONE NATION mural ... I thought of UNITED WE STAND.

ONE NATION ... follows.

I also think she's gonna pick Donald Trump to be her veep. Just to untarnish DC from the creeps who think they can nominate the world.

"REVERSE FERRET!"

If you haven't seen the Murdoch story, yet ... you will.

Eric said...

Not me. I voted for Obama, but I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice.

Well, you thought you made a rational choice.

traditionalguy said...

Plouffe is saying that the fear of being abandoned in the Depression will make people cling to Barack who will keep me on the welfare. As Biden says, either support the Gang or don't come asking for anything.

The State of Texas is now being beat down intentionally to demonstrate to the country how dangerous it is to oppose the Obama Gang. They will selectively regulate you to death.

Plouffe is speaking from the heart. And it is a threat.

Michael K said...

The difference, as I see it, is that people can now realize that Obama doesn't really care about them. If enough of them do, he will go down like Admiral Yamamoto after Tex Lamphier got to him.

Carol_Herman said...

In 2008 not only did obama get voters to show up! He got people to believe their mortgage problems would be solved. And, instead of a chicken in every pot ... They'd get a free house.

Maybe, they don't have LEMON LAWS where you can get a refund on your 2008 vote.

But up ahead? Fewer people will go to the polls. And, nobody's gonna believe they can win against the banks who hold their mortgages.

I'm for ONE NATION! heck, if I don't like the candidates we are given, I'm gonna write in Sarah Palin's name, just the same.

Coketown said...

A quote taken out of context? This is a troubling development indeed. How can the Democrats hope to run a clean campaign when the GOP is doing things like taking statements out of context?

But really, if the Obama administration can't make a 20-word statement without needing a 400-word qualification, they've got serious messaging problems.

Real American said...

the president does make decisions based on me and my family every time he decides to TAKE OUR MONEY AND GIVE IT TO HIS CRONIES.

pbAndj said...

It looks like Althouse's own "context" is the part of this post that is meant to engage (or, more accurately, enrage) some of the so-called hillbillies around here.

Does she repeatedly restate the correctness of her vote because she likes tormenting the volatile con commenters who cannot resist the bait?

ricpic said...

Never in a million years would it occur to Plouffe or any of the other brilliant children in the White House that the simple admission that "Yes, there's a problem on our watch and this is what we're trying to do about it" even if it was pure BS would give them the benefit of the doubt in the minds of the millions of decent Americans out there who are still hoping against hope that these grifters are anything but.

Penny said...

Thin Kin in China tweets...

"Plouffe"?

"You can't HANDLE the plouffe!"

Penny said...

Gotta luv those Shy knees!

Conserve Liberty said...

Of course, it won't just be the employment rate, but how the employed feel about their current situations.

Did the President help me?

Let's See.

My wife and I both have the same employers we had 10/2008, yet:

Household Income is down 20% (I am commissioned)
Health Insurance Premium up 11%
College tuition (last child) up 17%
Gasoline costs up 40%
Real Estate tax up 12%
Home Value down 18% (yes, there is a conflict there)
Grocery Expense up 18%
Utility Expense up 7%

Gee, how do you think I will vote, Mr. Plouffe?

chickenlittle said...

Don't these guys both live in the DC/NoVa bubble? (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Seriously, WTF do these guys know about unemployment?

JAL said...

Yeah yeah -- they all wanteed us to freak over Bush's unemployment !!1!!! (<5%!!11!1)

But O'Bamas? No big deal.

But I do think people who walk into a grocery store anytime in the first 3 quarters of 2012 are going to know how to vote.

Wal-Mart prices made me gag today and I am not sure what is going to happen between now and then to drop or slow those prices but I don't think the Obama Administration is doing a particularly good job "caring" about Americans.

Get out of our way. Revoke the regulations and stop writing new ones.

Go. Away.

And unemployment will get better.

Quaestor said...

Welcome back America's Politico! One must suppose those consultants you hobnob with in the fevered imaginings of your wayward fantasy life are the same advisors who predicted a GOP rout last November.

Nota bene (indeed, note well): 11/2/2010 - the actual results vis-à-vis those ludicrous pontifications of yours leading up to the fatal date.

wv: milfl - popular culture abbreviation for "mother I'd love to f**k later"

The Crack Emcee said...

I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

Sure you did, Annie, sure you did. You keep telling yourself that.

BTW - have you ever looked at that post you did where you admitted it was a cult?


I'll see if I can find it.

Hagar said...

I do not buy that people will vote entirely on their own situation with no regard for how the rest of the country is doing or what they think the Government had ought to do in a rational world.

I do not buy that the elderly (and I am one of them) will resist any and all attempts to reform Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid based solely on the benefits they presently receive, disregarding any suggestions that these programs as presently organized are headed for fiscal disaster.

I think the Republican politicians are making a big mistake swallowing this Dem agit-prop whole and refusing to believe that American citizens will respond favorably to a rational appeal to their better instincts.

But they always (well, for the last 80 years or so, anyway) have been a timid lot.

chickenlittle said...

*Not me. I voted for Obama, but I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice.

You bought it. You own him. "Unowning McCain" is irrelevant because you could just as well have voted for a third party.

You can choose to cancel your subscription to the reerection, but I suspect you're still a believer, despite your doubts.

___________
wv granne. I refuse to go there.

Quaestor said...

ricpic wrote:
Never in a million years would it occur to Plouffe or any of the other brilliant children in the White House that the simple admission that "Yes, there's a problem on our watch and this is what we're trying to do about it"...

Of course, because to admit a problem is to admit that Lord Zero is not the godlike being whose visage caused so much incontinence among the poltroons and mountebanks.

FedkaTheConvict said...

Wal-Mart prices made me gag today and I am not sure what is going to happen between now and then to drop or slow those prices but I don't think the Obama Administration is doing a particularly good job "caring" about Americans.

My kids like to drive Welch's grape juice so I figured I'd grab a few cans of the concentrate at Walmart.

When I got to the freezer I was shocked to see the price per can had jumped from 98 cents about two weeks ago to $1.34 today.

Big Mike said...

I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice.

I believed then, and continue to believe today, that you made a choice based largely on the milieu in which you live and work. A lot of us had no trouble foreseeing the consequences of putting a liberal university professor (oops, "senior lecturer") in a far left of center ivory tower in charge of the economy. I did not then, and do not today, regard your choice as "rational."

murgatroyd666 said...

I voted for Obama, but I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice.

Too bad it had such poor consequences.

"Ah, but think how much worse it would have been if McCain had been elected instead of Obama!"

"Ah, but think how much worse your pneumonia would have been if we had given you penicillin instead of applying leeches to rid your blood of ill humours!"

The Crack Emcee said...

Found it:

"The entire plan to bring Obama into office depended on the glorification of the man, whose actual experience was so bizarrely limited that it took some nerve to claim to be ready. Magic was required. The cult grew up not as he held power and needed to respond to a crisis. The cult was the campaign to bring him into power. It depended on our projecting all sorts of hopes and dreams onto him, and he knew it. Inside, he may have felt embarrassed by the whole enterprise, but he'd figured out that it could work, and he was right. Now, I think this worked because he really is a solid, normal person who remained grounded in the middle of all this craziness. And I like to think that, now that he's President, with his steely nerve, his intelligence, and his groundedness, he'll do the job that must be done. The trickery is over."

So, you were rational or you were tricked - which is it?

pm317 said...

@John Thacker "the more people will have a poor personal situation and thus vote against the President."
------
Maybe Ploof thinks they don't need those voters. You know Obama supporters are all elites with jobs and health insurance..In fact, that was their attitude in 2008 that they didn't need the traditional Democrat demographics.

Lucius said...

Plouffe and Axelrod both always struck me as creeps, sub-Bismarkian apparatchiks who autohypnotized themselves on Obama because the idea of getting an African-American elected made them, in their fevered progressive imaginations, some sort of Sts. James and John.

It allowed them all the thrills of Chicago hardball politicking, with the exoneration of conscience provided by serving a Higher Cause.

I remember video of one of them on the '08 campaign, feverishly shaking Obama's hand and bowing to him, bowing-- am I imagining this?

Whichever one of them it was, he looked awfully damn sweaty.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

and made a rational choice.


One person's rationality can look like insanity to another.

The unemployment figures are bogus. People only need to look around and their friends, neighbors, families and their own selves and see that there are more than 9 people out of 100 who are not working.

Closed store fronts. Less people working in the establishments that do remain open. Restaurants and stores closed more often than they have been in the past to save money. People selling their personal possessions on Craigslist and yard sales in higher numbers than before. Pawnshop shows and Storage Wars shows where people are desperate and needy.

Go grocery shopping for God's sake and then claim that people are not going to vote based on how they feel.

Obama is doing his best to find the whipping boy of the week to distract the peons. This week, or was it last week, it is the corporate jet owners. Next week....who knows. But his strategy is to divide us and pit people against each other.

I wish that Casey Anthony had been his mother.

Sixty Grit said...

America's Politico wrote...

... Let us not change the horse in mid."

Mid what, you Nepalese moby?

"We like diversity."

You hate dissent, so you really shouldn't lie like that.

"Q.E.D. David Plouffe is a genious."

That abbreviation does not mean what you think it does, and you are clearly not a genius - you can't even spell the word.

"Every one think..."

You really need to learn English. Now get back to sucking your own dick.

Penny said...

Mid Ling tweets from China...

"Ah,SO? Americans, STILL cueless"

Penny said...

Phee Ling in China tweets...

"Plouffe"?

"Ah YES"!

*giggle*

"A POUF"!

**giggle, polite hand over mouth**

David said...

So is it "Plouf" or "Plou-fay?"

Jose_K said...

Betty Ford has died

m stone said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ET1492 said...

This is a fight over poor people's votes.

A. Shmendrik said...

I voted for McCain, and worked for his campaign in Florida, but not with any real expectation he could win. When McCain said "The fundamentals of the American economy are strong!" on or about September 15th, 2008, it was game over.

As to Obama and the unemployment rate. I think that everywhere, outside of Madison and the Washington DC metro area (where home prices have actually risen slightly in the past 12 months), the economic destruction is clearly in your face and palpable, every day.

I used to suggest that the question should be phrased as - what kind of skill or attribute would Obama have to pull out of his sleeve in order to merit re-election? But now, after an undeniable string of bad monthly economic reports - you would have to wonder, if he were holding some magical leadership capability in reserve, why? The run of the last 12 months makes it far more plausible that he is simply not a leader, has no special reserve, and thus will resort to throwing the kitchen sink in 2012. It's all he will have.

Eric said...

I think people take more than just their own employment situation into consideration. They look at family, friends, neighbors, the guy from the gym, etc. Once too many people around you get laid off the fear sets in even if you still have a job.

And that's pretty rational, in my opinion. If there are ten people lined up waiting for your job, it's going to be a lot tougher to get a raise and your employer will be a lot more willing to cut you loose for minor problems.

NYTNewYorker said...

Hey Plouffe....oh yeah and Garage.

“The numbers, they are awful.”

9.2% — unemployment rate for June.

0.1% — increase since May.

16.2% — underemployment rate for June.

0.4% — increase since May.

8% — conventional wisdom for the maximum allowable unemployment rate to win reelection.

15 — remaining BLS reporting months before Election Day.

255,000 — net jobs that must be created each and every month to reach 8%.

18,000 — net jobs created last month.

44,000 — downward revision to April and May job creation.

3,825,000 — total net jobs needed before Election Day.

2,100,000 — jobs created in the last fifteen months.

11.2% — unemployment rate if the labor participation rate was as high as it was in January, 2009.

290,000 — best monthly net jobs gain during Obama administration.

231,000 — real best gain, minus temporary Census hiring.

14 — months since best monthly gain.

1% — decrease in DJIA in the opening minute of trading, day that jobs figures released.

$1,200,000,000,000 — cost of ARRA “stimulus,” with interest.

1,900,000 — net jobs lost since ARRA was signed.

2 — quantitative easing programs since 2008.

~$2,000,000,000,000 — total of first QE program during Great Recession.

$600,000,000,000 — total of second QE program, just ended.

40% — increase in federal debt since January, 2009.

30% — increase in annual federal spending since January, 2009.

20% — decrease in federal revenues since January, 2009.

12% — decline in value of US dollar since January, 2009.

37% — increase in number of Americans on food stamps since January, 2009.

62% — increase in Misery index since January, 2009.

800 — days since the Senate passed a budget.

1.9% — last quarterly GDP increase.

2.5% — consensus projection for last quarterly GPD increase.

2.7% — official White House projection.

3.0% or better — GDP growth needed to dent unemployment.

3.6% — official White House GDP growth projection for 2012.

2.7% — IMF GDP growth projection for 2012.

30% — federal debt held by public as percentage of GDP, 2005.

60% — federal debt held by public as percentage of GDP, 2010.

180% — federal debt held by public as percentage of GDP, CBO estimate, 2035.

0% — odds of current path being sustainable.

Penny said...

In other news today, the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, has directed his country to focus on...

"BALLS"?

edutcher said...

As several have said elsewhere, unemployment won't enter into the election due to the fact that so many other things will have gone wrong by then.

As to rational choices, I'm skeptical. Junior, whatever his faults, would not have made the mess we have today.

Or will have in 16 months.

Jason said...

Remember though: Obama is "ready to roll up his sleeves" and go to work. After all, he canceled his Montana weekend getaway.

He is going to need a miracle in terms of an economic recovery in the next 12 months if he has a prayer of even sniffing re-election.

chickenlittle said...

Washington DC and Madison WI are more alike than they resemble the rest of the country right now. Thanks to Althouse, we see, almost daily, what kind of unreal bubble people live in Madison.

Extrapolate that to Washington DC.

pm317 said...

"*Not me. I voted for Obama, but I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice."


Poor Ann. She still thinks the choice was between McCain and Obuma.

Penny said...

So...

Wen Jiabao, the Shy Knees Premier thinks all the fuss is about "CUELESS" balls?

Peano said...

*Not me. I voted for Obama, but I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice.

Yeah. Right. Now give us a cool, rational analysis of why your cool, rational choice was so grossly mistaken.

chickenlittle said...

pm317 said: Poor Ann. She still thinks the choice was between McCain and Obuma.

...when really the choice was between Alaska and Hawaii.

ktl said...

"Coolly observed?" "Soberly examined?" "Chose Obama?" You are making a funny right? Those three statements cannot go together in the rational world. Oh, wait. Madison, Wisconsin/Rational World.... Never mind.

Henry said...

Reproduced with its surrounding context the takeaway is that Plouffe thinks the voters are morons. It's not insensitive. It's insulting.

"Be a schmuck. Vote for Obama."

Sixty Grit said...

ktl, you beat me to it - that's just more of her unmoistened humor.

America's Politico said...

Does anyone want to make a bet?

O-B2 will win in all states. The GOP will be defeated everywhere. A defeat bigger margin than Reagan over Mondale. Obama will become the greatest President (via NPR, NYT, and PBS) after election day, even bigger than Reagan.

If this is going to happen, what can the GOP do today?

Thoughts?

edutcher said...

You mean like last year defeated?

Sixty Grit said...

That's why we like to see you post, America's politiho - you are slightly less delusional than most communists and the Wisconsites who post here.

And, you are more literate than most of them, too.

Now step away from the crack pipe and get back to your normal job. And say hey to your "girlfriend" for us, okay?

Cedarford said...

Plouffe is wrong, because people's economic concerns don't begin and end with their immediate nuclear family's employment status.

It is about them and many, many economic issues outside the family..

If the economy and free trade with China has put friends, relatives out of work. If they now have the greatest insecurity ever about if their job will still be there next week. If their state or city is bankrupt and massive new taxes, cuts in services are expected. If the have-nots with no job prospects resort to crime or "flash-mobs" to get the stuff that only those with ability to get a job can afford..The jobless rate is an indicator if things will get better or worse. If their dollars will continue to decline on the trillion dollar deficits..The price of oil.

Penny said...

Hm?

Maybe Wen Jiabao makes some sense?

When your competition is cueless, and you have, what?..."BALLS"?

What to do?

chickenlittle said...

@America's Politico: You were stunningly wrong on the 2010 mid-terms. Why should I buy anything you're selling this time?

Thoughts?

Michael K said...

The unemployment figures are bogus. People only need to look around and their friends, neighbors, families and their own selves and see that there are more than 9 people out of 100 who are not working.

I am retired from surgery and do reviews of workers comp claims for extra income. I have done this for about ten years, in addition to teaching medical students which is mostly gratis.

My income from workers' comp has declined 90% since 2009. I think a lot of this is that those who were going to file claims because they knew they were in danger of layoff, are now gone. The rest are worried enough about having a job, they are not filing claims. A lot of claims were filed by illegal aliens and many of them may have gone home to Mexico.

The employment world looks a lot different from this view than I read in the papers. The biggest workers comp carrier in California, State Compensation Insurance, is laying off all their doctors and down sizing severely. This means that employment is down a lot more than the published numbers, maybe 40%.

Cedarford said...

chickenlittle said...
*Not me. I voted for Obama, but I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice.

"You bought it. You own him. "Unowning McCain" is irrelevant because you could just as well have voted for a third party."

=============
No, the "have the moral authority of a 3rd Party vote who cannot win", vs. picking between the two options...is a sackless thing.

It's like voting "present".
Or being on a jury and saying you prefer not to vote innocent or guilty because you will be criticized for both calls...so you will vote "justice is very important" instead...assuming the judge doesn't throw your wishy-washy cowardly ass off the jury.

McCain would have been a worse President than Obama. He wanted us in 3 new wars and his preferred path to restart the economy was to give 300 billion to any of the mansion-owners as free equity so they could afford the mortgages on what they and the Fed Gov't gift didn't cover.
Obama sucks, but think of the alternative of that pro-Amnesty, treacherous to fellow Republicans, War-happy incoherent dimbulb in office. I know many say he "deserved it" because he was captured by the enemy and 'suffered'.

AJ Lynch said...

Althouse,Plouffe won't get far using the same schtick he used in 2008.

But I do predict, the MSM will pivot all at once and start asking "do Americans really want a new and inexperienced president instead of reelecting the pragmatic Obama who now knows where the pitfalls are". The American people will gag when they hear that.

andinista said...

Wow. "Rational choice"
You may have followed a intellectual process, but you arrived at a nonsensical result. Here's why. Every "fact" of Barry was in dispute. Whereas McCain was a known quantity. This was deliberate. Airy-fairy gusts of smooth baritone hot air fooled the rationally ignorant mob, and the deliberate uncertainty skewed the "intellectuals" like you. Barry even told you what he was doing, he was a blank slate that you attached your own expectations to.

Some of us are trained to analyze a problem, derive a conclusion, and then step back and apply the following practical tests: "Does this result even make sense?" "Can I find another way that will falsify this conclusion?". "If I try an alternate analysis method, will I arrive at the same result?". "Are my inputs correct?"

Your analysis was a GIGO disaster. You compared the honestly known faults of McCain, against the deliberate deception of masking of faults of Barry. No matter how skillful your analysis process, you were doomed to fail. Have the courage to admit that consequently you voted your gut for the airy-fairy feel-good smooth baritone that you didn't know a solid thing about. You took a flyer from a grifter.

AJ Lynch said...

Althouse do you still believe Prez Obama has these chracateristics? Compare & contrast what you thought then vs. now.

"And I like to think that, now that he's President, with his steely nerve, his intelligence, and his groundedness, he'll do the job that must be done. "

Lem said...

So the 14 million unemployed are just going to vote for Obama?

What are these people smoking?

Lamar63 said...

There is no doubt Obama is in trouble if the reelection plan is premised upon people believing Obama is making decisions that are good for their families. Obama is not empathetic. He is cold and aloof.

Another problem Obama has is a dispirited base. Almost everyone I know is left or hard left. The energy, passion and excitement are gone. The "cool" factor is lost. That does not mean they will vote Republican. They will still vote for Obama but will they knock on doors, donate money until it hurts, or get out the vote? Maybe this is similar to how Republicans felt about Bush and McCain. I even hear people wishing for a primary challenge. They think that will push Obama to the left.

I think what Plouffe is signalling is a run to the middle campaign. They are going to try to compromise on entitlement cuts and raise taxes on the wealthy. Then campaign in the middle. The argument will be that Obama made the "gutsy call" and alienated the left for the good of the country.

Obama can't win with an "I feel your pain" campaign. It is just not his personality. But he can win with a campaigned of hard and unpopular choices made. I would welcome an Obama move to the middle.

JAL said...

Linked from Insty:

PROFESSOR JACOBSON: Obama’s Catch-2012: “The only way for Obama to stimulate the enormous private sector job growth needed to ensure Obama’s reelection is for Obama to announce he is not running for reelection, which would unleash a wave of investment and economic activity not seen since the Great Depression.” (Emphasis added).:

Like I said:

Go. Away.

Like I said

chickenlittle said...

@Cedarford: Unfortunately, you haven't added anything to your previous attempts to rationalize why McCain would have been a disaster. I told you once that as time went on your position would weaken. It has. So odd that you keep using that worn-out "I hate war heroes" tripe.

You also forget/dismiss any role or influence which Palin could have exerted on a McCain presidency. But that's to be expected from you because you long ago dismissed her using that Sullivanistic language/logic of her being just a female totem goddess(or whatever). I must say that I do enjoy lumping you and Andrew Sullivan together when it comes to Palin and McCain. You make such a fine couple.
_________
P.S. See andinista's subsequent critique. He/she (I think) says it better.

JAL said...

@America's Politico If this is going to happen, what can the GOP do today?

Thoughts?


Thanks for the comic relief, AP.

:-)

Lamar63 said...

@JAL

You may get your wish. I saw Obama on TV today for the first time in a long time. He did not look good. I wonder if he is ill or depressed?

All day I've been thinking he might not run again. I know that sounds crazy but I can't shake the feeling.

The Crack Emcee said...

Obama's all about Eat The Rich. Kill The Rich. Tax The Rich. They Must Be Destroyed, Right? (He's A Fucking Idiot.)

The man's in need of some Better Propaganda.

gadfly said...

Well, in any case -- employed, unemployed, retired or dead -- I will not vote for Zero and the Unemployment rate will get no notice from me. Now that is what I call a "rational" decision.

If, at first, I harbored the thought that there was rationality in Plouffe's rant, I immediately dismissed the madness descending into me when I read:

"I would submit to you that a healthy percentage of Americans, far more than a majority, believe the president has a very sound vision for where the country needs to go."

Vomit!!!

garage mahal said...

Thanks to Althouse, we see, almost daily, what kind of unreal bubble people live in Madison.

We saw two people STRETCHING at the Capitol! UNFLIPPINBELEIVABLE!

rcocean said...

Thank God we're still importing millions of legal and illegal immigrants every year (Not to mention the H-1Bs).

As everyone knows, the best way to decrease unemployment is to import more workers.

Juba Doobai! said...

What was the basis for your "rational choice," Althouse? Unicorn dust? The leprechaun with the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? What was rational about voting for an inexperienced parrot with a passion for voting "PRESENT"? His law degree?

rcocean said...

BTW, Betty Ford is dead. She was our first drunken First Lady who supported abortion rights.

She was a trailblazer.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Steely nerve and groundedness?

Eric said...

Does anyone want to make a bet?

O-B2 will win in all states. The GOP will be defeated everywhere.


I'd bet my last dollar, along with everything I can borrow, against that proposition.

chickenlittle said...

rcocean said...
BTW, Betty Ford is dead.

Is she clinically dead as well?

DADvocate said...

Not me. I voted for Obama, but I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice.

LOL!

rcocean said...

I just checked the wires, She's still dead.

ampersand said...

BTW, Betty Ford is dead. She was our first drunken First Lady who supported abortion rights.

She wasn't all bad. She also got rich drunken celebrities to pay good money for the privilege of cleaning her toilets

gadfly said...

PB&J is undoubtedly the most intellectual and the most intelligent commenter on this board. (Just Ask!) Unfortunately, there are not enough mirrors to look into here in this space to handle such narcissism.

"It looks like Althouse's own "context" is the part of this post that is meant to engage (or, more accurately, enrage) some of the so-called hillbillies around here.

Does she repeatedly restate the correctness of her vote because she likes tormenting the volatile con commenters who cannot resist the bait?"


BTW, I am not "so-called", I am a real WV hillbilly, but a long time removed from the coal mines.

chickenlittle said...

rcocean said...
I just checked the wires, She's still dead.

But her clinics live!

DADvocate said...

Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?

Not only do I believe he doesn't care, I believe, as a sociopathic narcissist, he is incapable of genuinely caring. He can only pretend as if he cares in an attempt to manipulate us.

DADvocate said...

Does she repeatedly restate the correctness of her vote because she likes tormenting the volatile con commenters who cannot resist the bait?

Hopefully, she's poking fun at herself. Otherwise, she's dreadfully lacking in insight.

The Crack Emcee said...

garage mahal,

We saw two people STRETCHING at the Capitol! UNFLIPPINBELEIVABLE!

You know what I like about you, G? You're a liar. And I mean a pure liar. No here has to take a word you write seriously because they know - they KNOW - you are not to be trusted. Your word is as good as American Politico's consultations but, while he's just an idiot with broken english, you're the real deal:

A bald-faced fucking liar.

It's really quite refreshing.

Juba Doobai!,

What was the basis for your "rational choice," Althouse? Unicorn dust? The leprechaun with the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? What was rational about voting for an inexperienced parrot with a passion for voting "PRESENT"? His law degree?

Dude, you can't blame her entirely, except for the part about not coming clean by now - that's, like, unforgivable. But, as far as the cultural bubble she's in, they're all in it. Her, Glenn Reynolds - a whole bunch of 'em. They're not so gone they're nuts, but they're not so with us they're completely sane either. I think the term is "high functioning."

I mean, they've got blogs.

chickenlittle said...

PB&J is undoubtedly the most intellectual and the most intelligent commenter on this board. (Just Ask!)

I tend to ignore PB&J. He's kind of a "thinking man's Titus" and they share a lot of sequence homology.

rcocean said...

"But her clinics live!"

Her clinics have saved a lot of Hollywood Celebrities from an early grave.

I wonder if that was a good thing.

Fred4Pres said...

High functioning? That's funny...and true.

Curious George said...

"Not me. I voted for Obama, but I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice."

What a steaming pile. Same steaming pile that "independents" try to sell.

Like your weighing "who won the debate". The fact that Obama can bullshit and sell socialism better than McCain can sell his brand of "conservatism" has no effect on the fact that socialism is never the answer, and will lead us to troubles we now find ourselves in. Failure was not only inevitable, it was predictable.

You want to make yourself out to be cool...rationale...then know you also have to accept the fact that you are just not very bright. But I think it's just a bunch of bullshit.

Alex said...

garage is unmitigated bullshit.

Fen said...

McCain would have been a worse President than Obama. He wanted us in 3 new wars and his preferred path to restart the economy was to give 300 billion to any of the mansion-owners as free equity so they could afford the mortgages on what they and the Fed Gov't gift didn't cover.

Lets take a step back and recall teh constant lectures to conservatives re "McCain the Maverick!, the Moderate that will win over Independents!".

Yeah. Lets not fall for that one again.

Fen said...

Betty Ford is dead. She was our first drunken First Lady

Jackie Kenndy.

And lets not even talk about all the drugs JFK was on WHILE IN OFFICE.

chickenlittle said...

*Not me. I voted for Obama, but I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice.

I think her choice was pre-meaditated. Would either Meade or Althouse, given their mutual influence, vote the same way again?

bagoh20 said...

Cool, sober, rational.

or

"You took a flyer from a grifter."


Stupid is as stupid does.

Ralph L said...

So the 14 million unemployed are just going to vote for Obama?
What are these people smoking?

Unbelievably, they probably will vote for him. Consider how big city voters (and all of California except DBQ) keep reelecting the crooks who have so obviously driven their cities into the ground.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that Ann is on to something here with Plouffe. He is in the almost impossible position of reelecting Obama to the Presidency, with the economy in a shambles, thanks a lot to his mis and non management thereof.

The thing that he needs is for everyone to quit looking at those dreadful economic statistics (see NYTNewYorker @ 8:52 above). And, he needs Obama's base to start believing again in the magic.

The problem though with his suggestion is that Obama's true believer base is probably harder hit than most demographics by the Obama recession. The highest rate of unemployment is with minority, esp. Black, youth entering the work force. Or trying unsuccessfully.

The kids coming out of college today, who were rallying to Obama 2 1/2 years ago, are not finding jobs. As someone pointed out, it is no longer cool to be for Obama, esp. if that means that you and most of your friends are unemployed, or at least underemployed, as a result of thinking it was so cool to back such a candidate in 2008.

So, how does Obama get his mojo back? Plouffe's answer seems to be that it starts by getting Obama's base to ignore negative economic indicators. Because without getting the base's enthusiasm back up, Obama doesn't have a prayer.

kent said...

I voted for Obama [...] and made a rational choice.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, Professor.

Lonetown said...

It was obvious to me McCain was a weak candidate but it was equally obvious Obama was inexperienced and full of himself.

Your "rational" decision is only rational in your mind.

Ned said...

"made a rational choice. "
Apparently not given the state of the country! Your choice was wrong and stupid...many could see it, you could not. your judgement is very weak...you just can't admit it...liberal habit.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"*Not me. I voted for Obama, but I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice."

This!

I picture the neighbor that bought the lemon from 'Hope' Motors in town.

You know, the neighbor that is constantly washing and waxing the car in the driveway...it never leaves because it spends more time in the shop than not?

And ALL the other nieghbors know what a piece of junk it is, yet the owner continues to crow about it?

Ridiculous.

Lonetown said...

I think we need to distinguish between absolute rationality, i.e. rationality weighed with no bias and "virtual rationality" which most of us suffer from.

It looks rational, feels rational but actually is not rational because all the facts were not known or assumed.

I still think Obama was the obvious bad choice.

Martha said...

America's Politico said at 7:30 pm:

Q.E.D. David Plouffe is a genious. His book is a must-read. We give to all our clients, even the GOP one (one client I have).

When my now 30 year old son was 6 years old he made a sign for his room that said: Rickie is a genious.

We kid him about that GENIOUS spelling to this day. Not to mention the hyperbolic self-promotion.

Rusty said...

I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice.



(In my best Nelson Muntz voice) Ha! Ha!


No. Really. You knew that this guy was an Illinois pol, and not only that a Chicago pol as well. THE state with the most federal investigators investigating political corruption. You thought, what? maybe this one isn't as corrupt as the others? maybe the stink didn't get on him?He's a "good man"?
Jaysus, girl!
God save us from the well intentioned intellectual elite.

Jim Treacher said...

Plouffe thinks people are stupid. And the evidence is on his side, considering he has a job in the White House.

Hagar said...

Jonah Goldberg has a column about how the kids (as well as some commenters hereon) are using "That's raaaacist!" as an ironic/sarcastic comeback now.
It may not be all that easy to re-start the magic.

Roger J. said...

One only hopes that the Professor is jerking our chains a la PJB's comment above.

As for Mr Obama's "groundedness," what precisely are his core beliefs? In fact the opposite obtains: he grounded in nothing more than his own narcissism.

David said...

"*Not me. I voted for Obama, ..."

Do you now feel that you did a good job of examining Obama? Was it just that McCain was so awful? Do you feel that perpetuating the two party system is the right thing to do? What would you do if a third party appeared that matched your beliefs perfectly?

gerry said...

Not me. I voted for Obama, but I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice.

Not very smart. Even if allegedly "rational".

However, now you are more much less intimidating. You have a great sense of self-deprecating humor.

Hagar said...

That comment, "These projects were not as shovel-ready as we had thought," really was an astounding admission that he and his White House have no idea how things work - in or out of the Government.

Further, I think he, and they, are so fixed in their ideology that they are quite unable to adjust and change course.
Obama is not Bill Clinton; with Clinton it is all about him and how much faster and cleverer he is than anybody else - "Just look at me! Am I not the coolest?" - so he was and is quite adept at ducking and dodging and even cutting a 90 to 180 and taking offf in a different direction. But Obama is "the One we have been waiting for," his program must be right, and making changes or compromises is to admit doctrinal error and defeat.

Bill said...

"*Not me. ...I cooly...bla, bla, bla"

Give me a break Althouse. I haven't seen that much self-deception revealed in one sentence in a long time. I can see why you deprecated the statement to a footnote.

What facts did you rationally weight? Obama's vast experience? Obama's detailed plans for what he was going to do a President?

zbogwan99 said...

Wonder if President Obama will have a new catch phrase in/for his reelection bid for 2012:"Full Employment by 2050 or Bust"?????

Moneyrunner said...

Take Me, Obama

The morning after: a question for Ann Althouse.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/017246.html

Greg Q said...

Pouffe's wrong. People wonder "if I lose this job, how long will it take me to find a new one?" People wonder "is my company going to do well, and thus keep me on, and maybe give me raises?" And those thoughts are directly affected by the unemployment rate.

Even when you have a job, a high unemployment rate makes you worried about keeping it, and so less willing to push at work about things that make you unhappy. Which drives down employment satisfaction.

So, it might be "clever", btu it's still wrong.

vanderleun said...

All this piling on Ann for saying "I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice" is just misplaced enthusiasm and wasted keystrokes.

Long time readers of AA know that when it comes to very important issues that have somehow gone awry, AA never, ever admits to being wrong.

This is just the nature of the beast and there is nothing that can be done about it. When one is female, attractive, and blonde one understands from a very early age that even if you are wrong the world will cut you large swathes of slack.

Speaking for myself I wouldn't have it any other way.

Fat Man said...

"*Not me. I voted for Obama, but I coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice."

Next time go with your gut.

TmjUtah said...

A coup. Not an administration.

There is no worry about 2012 because the plan all along was based on winning once.

Triple/Quadruple the size of government.

Publish by diktat thousands of shelf feet of new, punishing, and above all legally contradictory regulations on every possible aspect of American life, from schooling to snack food to energy production to labor relations to immigration... and appoint committed fellow travelers to the thousands of new bureaucracies spawned.

Drive away our traditional allies, appease or even encourage our enemies.

His upbringing was counterculture moonbat before there were moonbats.

His professional career has always been that the diversity hire who was always moved on before the bottom fell out.

He is at the position dorm room communists always dreamed about. And when the bottom falls away - in spite of the best efforts of 52% of the country and ALL the media to pretend that destruction wasn't the objective all along - he will have finally succeeded at something.

The Crack Emcee said...

Long time readers of AA know that when it comes to very important issues that have somehow gone awry, AA never, ever admits to being wrong.

And she calls that "integrity."

Moneyrunner said...

Crack Emcee,

Thanks for the research. I used it here.

SukieTawdry said...

There was no rational choice for Obama, Ann. Sorry. Perhaps you could provide a rationale?

flicka47 said...

No Ann, your choice was not "rational". It was not even based on your being a liberal, it was something much more basic than that. And it had nothing to do with believing the Dem candidate was good for the country.

I remember reading it when you announced that you would be voting for the 0. All I could think then was "No, Ann! All of your reasons were 'Well, he could be!'" You didn't believe them at the time,and were only wishing he'd turn out to be something different than he appeared. No, McCain was not a good candidate, but you did not buy into the "Hope and Change" either...

But, your boys did...and you were hoping they were right.

Alex said...

Putting McCain in as POTUS would have been the end of the GOP forever. Electing Obama saved the GOP, Ann did the country a favor!

vanderleun said...

So after 126 comments the question before the House comes down to this:

Did Althouse vote for Obama because she "coolly observed all this emotionalism, soberly examined the 2 major party candidates, and made a rational choice," or did she vote for Obama because she's a blonde?

Bruce Price said...

I always think that the signal moment of the 2008 campaign was Obama's announced plan (on YouTube now) to create "a civilian national security force" as large and well-funded as the regular military.

Can even a lawyer spin this so it doesn't sound at least borderline insane?

Gman213 said...

I sure wish you would go in depth in your explainantion of why you voted for Obama, more importantly why you would vote for the bozo again? Who is the Bozo you or him?