George Will and Erick Erickson predict near certain loss in the presidential election.
“[T]here would come a point when… conservatives turn their energies to a goal much more attainable than… electing Romney or Santorum president. It is the goal of retaining control of the House and winning control of the Senate.. [C]onservatives this year should have as their primary goal making sure Republicans wield all the gavels in Congress in 2013,” writes Will.
Will argues that a Republican-controlled Congress would be able to strongly oppose the president’s agenda.
“If Republicans do, their committee majorities will serve as fine-mesh filters, removing President Obama’s initiatives from the stream of legislation … [A] re-elected Obama — a lame duck at noon next Jan. 20 — would have a substantially reduced capacity to do harm,” he says.
When you have a candidate few people really like, whose support is a mile wide and an inch deep, whose raison d’etre (a 4am fancy word) is fixing an economy that is fixing itself without him, and who only wins his actual, factual home state by three percentage points against a guy no one took seriously only two months ago, there really is little reason for independent voters in the general election to choose him if the economy keeps improving….
At least we can be rid of him and, hopefully, his most ardent cheerleaders on November 7th when what the rest of us know will happen unless an economic catastrophe happens.
This tape dug up by ABC News doesn’t help the election narrative, or give me confidence that we know everything we need to know about either of the two frontrunners:
Nothing Will or Erickson says about the weakness of our most likely nominee, or currently second most likely nominee, is anything I haven’t said before in substance. I am not so pessimistic about the general election, however, notwithstanding these weaknesses.
But neither asks the question whether, if we are so sure to lose with our current top two choices, we should stop playing it safe and swing for the fences.
Or at least shoot for the moon.