Why Dick Morris’s “LBJ” scenario cannot happen

Derek C. writes:

I’ve read a couple of entries on your site speculating that Obama won’t seek re-election [see this and this]. At the risk of offering a huge hostage to fortune, I would state categorically that, short of an assassination (which no one should want), that will not happen. The Democratic Party cannot not have Obama on the ballot. If he either quits or is defeated in a nomination battle, the black base will not turn out. This is a group already prone to all sorts of conspiracy theories and ever ready to take offense at any sort of “dissing” offered to the current president. If Obama decides to quit (even if he has a legitimate reason), a lot of blacks will attribute his withdrawal to the progressive white Democrats’ racism, and come election day they’ll sit on their hands. If the black vote stays home in key states, that will have all sorts of down-ballot consequences. Senate and House seats, state offices, and even local offices will turn over to the GOP. So, even if Obama looks set to suffer another McGovern- or Mondale-style defeat, he’ll have to stay on the ballot, if only for the sake of helping the Democrats hold some sort of influence in the Congress.

LA replies:

This seems like a very strong argument. I’ve sent Derek’s post to Dick Morris and I hope he’ll reply.

- end of initial entry -

Sage McLaughlin writes:

I’m also impressed by Derek C.’s argument. It is an angle I had not considered consciously, though in the back of my mind I’ve always doubted that the Democrats could afford essentially to concede the election to the GOP, or that Obama would be willing to risk the eternal wrath of the Democratic Party elders. After all, he’s still a young man, with a long post-Presidential career in front of him, which he will enjoy much more than he enjoys actually being President. Also, he does not appear capable of thinking of himself as a loser, certainly not before he’s been beaten.

Perhaps most the most decisive strike against the theory is that it comes from Morris, who is the eternal prophet of Democratic Party doom in the same way that you’ve described Charles Krauthammer as the prophet of conservative doom. He was one of the people conjuring up all sorts of scenarios under which the Republicans could win the Senate in 2010, which of course they never stood a chance of doing. I know, it’s an ad hominem argument, but the guy does have a record.

LA replies:

If a political pundit has a record of wrong predictions, and you say that you doubt his latest prediction because of his past mistakes, I don’t think that’s an ad hominem argument. I could be wrong.

Also, for the record, I consistently dismissed the constant Republican predictions of Republican victory in the Senate in 2010. However, I did give a tad more credit than I should have to Morris’s scenarios of a possible GOP House sweep much greater than what actually occurred.

James P. writes:

If Obama pulls the plug early enough - even as “late” as January - there will be plenty of time for the Democrats to find a new candidate and motivate black supporters. That’s why we should not want Obama to quit now. We want him to stay in the race and get crushed, not quit and give the Democrats the opportunity to run someone without his baggage.

With respect to Derek’s argument, the calculus is clearly whether a new candidate would gain enough “independent” votes to counterbalance the loss of black votes. The blacks are totally in the bag for the Democrats, and they won’t all stay home. Therefore the gain in independent votes for a non-Obama candidate would very likely greatly exceed the loss of black votes.

LA replies:

Interesting point by James about the gain in independent votes. However, I don’t get his scare quotes around January being “late.” The voting begins in Iowa on February 7, and Super Tuesday occurs by the end of February. If Obama pulled out in January, how would the Democrats even organize for a successor? They’d have to do the choosing at the National Convention.

James P. replies:

You wrote,

“If Obama pulled out in January, how would the Democrats even organize for a successor? They’d have to do the choosing at the National Convention.”

They would have competitive primaries just like they did in 1968 after LBJ resigned on March 31. If Obama quits before there have been any primaries, then the field is wide open.

Mark Jaws writes:

While Derek C makes an interesting point, I would like to remind him and others that blacks in their political aspirations are primarily motivated by fear and hatred of white conservatives. The Democratic Party is aware of this and has made use of this reality for over forty years to great effect. As sure as the sun will rise in the east and set in the west, we can always count on white liberal Democrats race-baiting conservatives to gin up a huge black and brown turnout. If Obama were to bow out for whatever reason, it would take white Democrats no more than 24 hours to blame the Tea Party and GOP leaders for this “unprecedently ugly, vicous, race-based character assassination against America’s first black president.”

Also, Democrats know that while blacks are vital to their electoral success, the center of gravity in 2012 is the white independent vote. Hillary can probably gain more white independents to make up for any loss of black voters. Democrats also know they have a convenient scapegoat with the hated Tea Party to get blacks to turn out for a ticket without Obama, who, need I remind you and your readers, has not exactly done much to improve the economic situation of black America.

Derek C. writes:

Three responses to James’s point about independent voters. First, the only way the Democrats could make up for lost black votes is if the GOP ran a partisan lightning rod like Palin. I don’t think even Rick Perry could drive away the number of independents Democrats would need to fill the deficit.

Second, even if we grant that it is possible, the sort of person needed to win independents back to the Democrats at this point would have be centrist, almost mildly to the right of center. That candidate would not only turn off blacks, but the white collar leftists, whom Democrats need to vote, work the streets and write checks.

Third, even if the Democrats could overcome these two obstacles and win the presidential race, they’d still lose a huge number of straight ticket voters. The independents split their ballots. Black and progressive voters pull that one lever marked “D.” That could mean disaster in the Senate in a year already biased against the Democrats, who have to defend more seats. The same thing applies to other races all the way down the ballot. No, the Democrats are stuck with Obama until he leaves office.

As far as Dick Morris’s continually bad predictions, it’s important to remember what George Orwell said about political pundits: they’re sort of like astrologers and psychics. They’re not nearly as interested in predicting what will happen in the future as they are in predicting what you want to see happen in the future.

Derek C. writes:

To do what Mark Jaws suggests, the Democrats would have to 1) position themselves as centrists to appeal to independent white voters and 2) sound like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton at their worst. I don’t see how you can square that circle. Of course, no matter what, the Democrats will turn out black voters and those voters will vote Democratic, but they won’t come out in the numbers they did in 2008, which pushed Obama over the top in a number of states. The numbers will look more like 2004, at best. As for Hispanics, they’re a follower voting block, as Steve Sailer has pointed out. There’s no way a majority will vote for the GOP, but they do swing with the white vote so the Democratic margins will be smaller, and they’re turn out is still relatively low—though not as low as it used to be.

Again, this prediction depends on the environment remaining bad for Obama, so caveat lector and all that.

Steve D. writes:

I have never bought into the idea that Obama would drop out in 2012. Considering his absolute failure to moderate his policies even slightly prior to the 2010 elections, it should be obvious that the secure future of the Democratic Party is not his primary motivation.

In fact, I think that Obama and his Marxist enablers would not hesitate to smash the Democratic Party if they had a chance to do so (Marxists tend to believe that political instability benefits them more than anyone else), and smashing the Democrats might be the surest bet for them this election cycle.

I also don’t believe James P.’s contention that a gain in independent voters could offset the catastrophic loss of the black base. Blacks have been radicalized as never before over the past three years—they are now “totally in the bag” for blacks, not for Democrats—and if the Democrats dump Obama there will be more than just an electoral boycott: there will be blood in the streets. That being the case, I can’t imagine independents voting in favor of the party that brought racial intifada to the United States—not in numbers sufficient to stave off disaster for the Democrats.

Mark Jaws writes:

Derek said in response to my post:

To do what Mark Jaws suggests, the Democrats would have to 1) position themselves as centrists to appeal to independent white voters and 2) sound like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton at their worst. I don’t see how you can square that circle. Of course, no matter what, the Democrats will turn out black voters and those voters will vote Democratic, but they won’t come out in the numbers they did in 2008, which pushed Obama over the top in a number of states.

My response can be summed up in two words—Hillary Clinton. Hillary is popular with white independents (particularly the soccer mom voting bloc), and as a Clinton she could pick up the pro-black banner and try out her phony southern accent when speaking to black audiences. Maybe this is all moot nitpicking, but I just don’t think the chances of Obama bailing out are at zero. He is a fairly effeminate man, married to a he-woman, who may really be making his life miserable, citing his failures to “man up” (as if he could). Who knows?

LA replies:

Sir Jaws’s last remark is the sort of baseless speculation on the private psyche and motives of a public figure that some people just can’t help indulging. The focus on Obama’s “effeminacy” (a recurrent theme on the right) and how it would affect his decision on his candidacy is particularly off-base and inappropriate. In fact it’s blind prejudice. Because they dislike Obama, his opponents cannot see anything positive or non-negative about him. For example, they cannot see that the man has a certain steel-like quality and has demonstrated it over and over. I repeat, not for the first time, what Obama accurately said about himself in 2008, “I may be skinny, but I’m tough.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 30, 2011 12:13 PM | Send