Movin' On Up
The media regularly note Barack Obama's appeal to youth. I suppose there's something to it, but one bad argument I've heard is that even if he doesn't win in 2008, he'll be back bigger than ever in 2012, since the 13-17 year olds will be of voting age, so his cohort will be even larger.
Well, for one thing, youth are fickle, and this year's model might not play so well in four whole years.
Second, who the heck knows what life will be like four years from now? If the President is popular, certainly another four years is likely. Plus some new star may rise among the Dems, or some personal problem will bring down Obama.
Most important, the teens will grow into voters--but the college aged will start working their first regular jobs, and those with jobs may start getting raises and promotions, while other young voters will get married and raise families. (Plus, someone, somewhere must be moving from "youth" to "middle age" or at least into "late youth" over the next four years.) All these transitions may lead them away from Obama.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:52 AM
4 Comments:
In the hypothetical, maybe Obama would still be popular in 2012 with a youth but it would be hard beyond that- a large part of the appeal of the is the new fresh face with fresh ideas not tied into the compromises and failures of the status quo.
If he doesn't make it this year, while he has some chance to re-energize for 2012 but it would be harder- there might not be a "been there, done that" feel yet or a tying of Obama to the establishment but those trends would definitely be underway. There will be new young people in the future and they may well unite behind a slacker generation candidate ("Dude. Vote, or... whatever")
What if he ran as the junior member of a Clinton-Obama ticket and was elected VP? (A big what if since he's still the favorite for the nomination and not clear either candidate or the insider supporters would go for it) That could play out in many ways - my guess is would be a battle.
Last year I suggested Obama run because he'd never have a better chance. If he ran as Veep and won, that would set him up to be the next candidate, no doubt, as we can see from recent history. Even if he ran as an unsuccessful Veep, that would still set him up as the presumed frontrunner.
If Obama gets the nod and runs and loses, yo McCain - I don't think he comes back ever. He will have lost when the chances of winning couldn;t be better. No party treats a failed campaigner well, which is why even though Kerry and Gore could both point to the specific things they would have done better had they won, not that many Democrats really want to see either run again. Even Edwards was tarnished from being part of a failed campaign.
But if he doesn't get the nomination, and Hillary runs and loses to McCain, he will have a huge "I told you so" factor going for him (like Reagan in 1980 after failing in '76).
Denver Guy wrote:
No party treats a failed campaigner well...
Actually, no pragmatic party treats a failed campaigner well. But ideologues do.
The Democrats nominated William James Bryan in 1896. After a massive defeat, they renominated him in 1900, took a break four years later, and renominated him for a third run in 1908.
The result was three-and-a-half decades of Republican dominance. From 1896 to 1932, the Republicans won every presidential election except for Woodrow Wilson (who won because of a GOP split), and dominated Congress.
The folks who worship Obama will gladly renominate him forever. They won't outgrow him. In fact, he will remain the symbol of their youth, just as some older liberals still worship every member of the Kennedy family.
The question is, what fraction of Obama's supporters are worshippers? Despite his high African-American polling numbers, I suspect his worshippers are confined to the latte-sipping affluent white college crowd.
Post a Comment
<< Home