James Taranto, WSJ electoral expert and editor of their 'Best of the Web Today' did a dynamite job Monday crystalizing what the Obama '12 campaign is going to do to win.
And what's the matter with Boulder? Why would higher-educated voters stick with Obama despite the manifest failures of his fiscal and economic policies? That Times story gives a clue. The corollary to that last quoted sentence is that Obama detractors are uneducated, poor, old, white people. Who wants to be associated with those losers?
Actually, come to think of it, maybe the best way to understand that passage is in terms of brand management. The Times is attempting not only to persuade its readers that it's uncool to vote Republican but also to reinforce its own position as a luxury product for people of high status.
In other words, the President's victories, Obamacare and the Stimulus have been miserable failures that have not made healthcare affordable for all and reduced unemployment. The fact that he ignored the voice of the American citizenry who said, "We voted for you because we believed there would be rainbows and unicorns, and our liberal guilt about the sins of our racist past would be absolved with your election, but we never wanted more expensive health care and a state run economy," resulted in loss of the House of Representatives and his supermajority in the Senate.
Simply put, he cannot run on issues or accomplishments without losing big. So, he has given the Congress a jobs bill that even Democratic Senators will not vote for so that he can demagogue the Republicans as do-nothing because they won't pass his economy wrecking incumbency protection act and much of what they do pass is killed by Senator Reid.
Make no mistake, his campaign will be a hybrid hateful demonization of his opponents, class warfare populism and self-aggrandizing re-apotheosis, because he can't win on his record.