They've Got His Number
Some pundits are starting to wonder if Obama will be reelected. He's been the favorite for a second term since he took office, and the OBL mission hasn't hurt. But, the argument goes, if high unemployment continues in a way we haven't seen in the post-WWII era, how can he win? The New York Times notes:
No American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.
He still seems to me the favorite. (And the stat above isn't particularly convincing. First, unemployment over 7% is rare in the past 65 years, so it's not like this is a regular rule. Second, it's all relative. When Reagan was overwhelmingly reelected, the rate had just dipped to 7.2%--thus the stat--but that seemed good because it had dropped in two years from a high of 10.8%.)
All the potential opponents that I'm aware of have certain weaknesses which the Obama team is ready to exploit. And he'll certainly have all the money he needs. Also, like the previous several elections, for a Republican to win he's got to thread the needle and take most of the swing states.
But I admit for the first time, I'm not so certain Obama will take it. I admit it's ridiculous to be making political predictions now when the landscape can change so much, but until recently, I felt the economy simply had to turn around by 2012. Not do wonderfully, but get better, in particular regarding the unemployment rate. But with the rate stuck around 9%, you have to wonder. Obama can say whatever he wants--if this number doesn't improve, how successful can a campaign be that runs on "It could have been worse"?
PS From the linked Times article:
“It’s a very tough predicament,” said Jared Bernstein, who until April was economic policy adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “Is there any political appetite for something that would resemble another large Keynesian stimulus? Obviously no. You can say that’s what we should do and you’d probably be right, but that’s pretty academic.”
So Bernstein knows how to save us, but the people are just too dumb to demand another stimulus. After all, the first stimulus worked so well, since, as we all know, "It could have been worse."
posted by LAGuy @ 12:11 AM
12 Comments:
The OBL mission is a blip, a nothing, in the perception of Obama. When you make your list of 10 or 20 or 50 things that have been "most important" in what Obama has done that have affected the public view of him, it'll be on the list. That's about all you can say about it. It'll be something like, "artificially made him appear marginally less hostile to the military and American power."
Possibly the most positive thing you can say about it is that, since it did not happen on Bush's watch, it was not painted as an international crime, apart from some ineffectual grumbling, to which Obama probably replied, "that came from Old Europe."
I think you may be underestimating the OBL effect. It's true, these sorts of things are forgotten in bad times. Even winning a war can be forgotten. But one of Obama's weaknesses--a weakness great enough that he would have lost in 2008 if that's what America was voting about--is national security. Getting Bin Laden is the trump card that, in effect, immunizes him from all sorts of charges that could otherwise be easy to make in a debate.
I agree, LAGuy. Of course, it also doesn't hurt that he's effectively indistinguishable from a moderate Republican on most national security issues. He suppurts Israel while nudging them in the direction of peace, he conducts drone strikes in other sovereign nations with impunity, he doesn't bother getting congressional approval of military actions in Libya, he doesn't remove any prisoners from Guantanamo, etc.
What I find funny is that a year or two ago, some editor at the NYT apparently issued a policy that our vice-president can never be called "Joe Biden". Instead, he must always be referred to "Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr."
This just bizarre to me. I have never heard any public official (including the President) call the VP "Joseph".
True, it's usually the right protocol to call people by their full names (unless they are Southerners, who for some reason always go by nicknames: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Bob Jones University). But do you really need the middle initial and the "Jr" every time?
Queensguy: Obama supports Israel? Maybe he thinks he does, but he's as anti-Israel as any U.S. president can get away with. He makes harsh demands on Israel while giving its enemies a pass--all they have to do is say a few words that they can take back any time while Israel has to make huge land concessions.
As far as not getting Congressional approval for military action, he did Bush one better there. Every step of the way Bush went to Congress and made sure they went along (though they pretended they didn't when his policies became unpopular). Though, to be fair, Obama made sure he had international permission, which, as far as he's concerned, is more important.
The biggest reason Obama will be reelected is there is absolutely no credible opponent in the other party. Mitt's trying to shut up and play moderate (he defended Mass health care and admits global warming so distingusihes himself from the extremists. it would work with the independents won by Obama in 08 (provided they forget Mitt's attempted social conservative identity from 2008) but will it work with the primary voters?
2012 will not be about Obama's opponent. It will be a referendum on Obama.
Anon@10:48:
He has made no "demands" whatsoever on Israel. Our continued military and economic support have not been conditioned on their compliance with any condition whatsoever. When Israel refused to extend the settlement ban despite Obama's direct appeal, no consequences whatsoever ensued. Suggesting a roadmap (ahem) to peace that Israel would have to independently accede to is not a demand, it's a mediation effort. A demand would be, e.g.: do it our way or no more fighter jets.
As far as congressional approval, both Obama and Bush have flouted the War Powers Act, as have several other post-ww2 presidents. Congress should stand up for their constitutional prerogatives.
It is true that Obama is indistinguishable from what QueensGuy calls a moderate Republican, a John McCain sort, Snowe, etc. Had McCain been elected, we'd still have Obamacare, it would just be called something different ("McCania"?) and would be being discussed as a conservative policy by folks such as QueensGuy.
"When Israel refused to extend the settlement ban despite Obama's direct appeal, no consequences whatsoever ensued."
The Palestinians hadn't even made a settlement ban a precondition for talks, but Obama--who didn't even believe in preconditions for Iran--did, thus stalling the talks and taking a tougher line than Fatah. Suddenly, the Palestinians couldn't even come to the table or they'd lose face.
"Suggesting a roadmap (ahem) to peace that Israel would have to independently accede to is not a demand, it's a mediation effort."
The "roadmap" includes the right to return, thus ends with the destruction of Israel. Obama wanted major Israeli concessions before there were any talks while the Palestinians are allowed to keep this as a bargaining chip.
"As far as congressional approval, both Obama and Bush have flouted the War Powers Act"
I'm not talking about the unconstitutional War Powers act, which Congress, figuring it had a chance to increase its power, passed against Nixon, but everyone knows they can't enforce. I'm talking about Obama getting us into a major war which he pretended would be over in no time, and then refusing to ask Congress for permission within the 60 day limit that he pretended other Presidents should comply with. Meanwhile, Bush got permission for Afghanistan, Iraq as well as all the provisions of the Patriot Act that he acted under.
Rick Santorum joins the race for Republican nominee - and that in no way decreases OB's chances for reelection. It might put Pennsylvania in play, but Santorum has little base in places like Florida and Ohio, which Republicans need to win.
But some people really think Rick Perry is getting ready to declare his candidacy. Perry could easily grab the southwestern states that are now deemed purple (Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada). He's fairly charismatic - he could grab Florida and Ohio,and even Pennsylvania. That would do it, assuming all other states fall as they did in 2008.
I thought the papers showed admirable restraint in failing to mention Santorum's "google problem."
Here's a good article about the guy I'd most like to see run, Paul Ryan, as forwarded to me by our very own ColumbusGuy. As I replied to him, I liked a lot of the speech. There was a bit too much of the "America, F*ck YEAH!" but that's pretty common in these things. The approach to China and emerging democracies was reasonable. The rejection of moderately lowered defense spending as a necessary part of the cure was disappointing, though.
Post a Comment
<< Home