the competence issue

Marc Ambinder has an interesting, non-committal post on whether Sarah Palin will be a viable candidate for the 2012 GOP nomination. It's worth reading in full but I'm going to pick on one very good point:

Republicans believe that Palin lacks the substantive chops to be president. This is not a creation of the lamestream media, even though the media's 2008 coverage may have amplified those doubts. Palin's friends who regularly Tweet about her doings seem to dismiss these complaints (that she isn't smart enough, isn't ready, isn't developing policy chops) as stupid and uninformed. That said, given that independents' central issue with Obama will be his failure to fix the economy, it is significant that other Republican presidential aspirants are preparing to run on competence -- and Palin is not.

Although she has some serious strengths, including a large and devoted fan base and an intuitive feel for communication, I don't think Palin has anything like the discipline to run a successful nomination campaign. But if I'm wrong and she does, she'll be crushed by Obama. Ambinder's point above helped me to crystalise why. Obama must start as odds-on favourite to win re-election, if only because sitting presidents are very hard to dislodge in an election (it's only happened a couple of times this century). If he is vulnerable, it'll be because the voters have lost faith in his competence to manage the economy. After all, his standing in polls on national security issues has proved remarkably resilient, despite the pants bomber and the protracted Afghanistan decision; now that healthcare has happened and Soviet Russia hasn't materialised, there's less reason to think he's an ideological extremist; voters generally like him and his family, and don't think that his values are so out of whack with their's. So if he's beatable it will be because the economy is still languishing in two years' time and people think he's run out of answers (quite possible). At which point, voters will look around and ask, who do we really trust to fix this?

I don't believe Sarah Palin will ever be the answer to that question.

Comments

[ejoch]

The President's standing in other polls (non Nat-security) doesn't seem too good though:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071205453.html

I agree the GOP would be mad to put Palin up, but surely a decent candidate has got a good shot, the way things are now?

[Marbury]

Yes, they would - as I say above - if things are as they are now and voters have lost faith in this president's ability to fix it. But that's a big if. And there aren't too many strong candidates around at the moment.

But my point here was specifically about Palin. I'm suggesting that this president may be vulnerable, but not in any way she can take advantage of.

[ejoch]

I think I just meant, seems to me that - at present- he's beatable for many more reasons than the economy. But totally agree Palin would be a mistake. It'd be the GOP equivalent of picking George McGovern... fire up the base and have everyone else horrified. (or Goldwater. except by all accounts he was at least intelligent)

[Hal]

This is slightly tangential, but your statement that "sitting presidents are very hard to dislodge in an election (it's only happened a couple of times this century)," is a little off. I assume you refer to the 20th century. By my count, a sitting president was defeated, or wanted to run but saw that it was hopeless, six times:

Taft 1912, coming in third after Wilson and TR;
Hoover 1932;
Truman 1952 (wanted to run, but lacked enough support);
Johnson 1968 (ditto);
Carter 1980; and
Bush the elder 1992.

So it could happen to Obama if the economy get bad enough for long enough. Let's hope we don't go there. I am less confident than you that Palin could never find a political opening in a depressed economy.

[Ian Leslie]

Thanks Hal. I suppose I meant presidents who fought a reelection battle and lost. But the most revealing thing about this is that I'm still living in the last century.

[ejoch]

Speaking for myself I rather like the last century, so on that note - didn't Johnson actually think he had a small chance of still running? He made the dramatic statement and hoped it would have some amazing effect on the war (taking himself above petty political matters etc); which in turn would leave him still in with a chance. Instead of which of course his power just drained away.
Have I remembered that wrongly?

[Hal]

I think that LBJ intended to run, and was shocked to win the New Hampshire primary by only 49-42 percent against Eugene McCarthy. According to this website, Robert Kennedy jumped into the campaign after New Hampshire, and this helped Johnson decide to withdraw on March 31, 1968. I don't think that LBJ felt he could jump back in after that.

http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet3b.html

Rather sad, because at home he achieved a lot.

P.S. I also have to remind myself what century we're in.

[ejoch]

Thanks for the link Hal!
I always thought it was sad about LBJ; not least being unable to leave the White House and all because of demonstrations.