The Second Time Around
Apparently some pundits are claiming Obama may not run for President in 2012. I'm no insider, but I don't find this scenario plausible. Okay, anything is possible in politics, but why wouldn't Obama run this time around, even if he's young enough to try later?
He's still got a good chance of winning. Even if the election were held today he starts with a guarantee of over 2/3's of the Electoral College majority he needs, plus a bunch of swing states that could easily go his way. Even if things looked worse it'd be ridiculously early to write him off--no one knows what 2012 will look like, and a lot of President who made it were polling poorly with a year to go. Certainly if the economy improves he'll be in excellent shape, but other things can happen as well. And no one yet knows who the Republicans will pick, but all the potential candidate have serious weaknesses that can be exploited.
Anyway, even if he thought he was doomed, it's pretty rare for a President not to run. What else is he supposed to do? The nomination is Obama's for the asking--I don't see a big name challenging him (unlike LBJ's situation, which was also different because conventions and party leaders had more say then), and even if one did, Obama has such a lead in organization and money it would be pointless. On the other hand, if he drops out hoping to run four years from now, that's trading a bird in the hand for a pig in a poke. If he quits now, he'd probably look like a loser down the road. Newer, shinier candidates would appear, and I doubt the Democrats (much less the public at large) would want another ride on a train that doesn't offer regular service.
The only reason I can imagine he wouldn't run in 2012 is if he's just sick of being President and doesn't want to do it any more. But my guess is anyone who's crazy enough to go through what it takes to become President doesn't want to lose the spot once they're there.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:25 AM
8 Comments:
I look forward to your analysis of the rumor of whether this primary season will cause the Republican Party to split into two smaller parties.
Equally as plausible (perhaps implausible) as the claim made by noted courtesan toe-sucker, Dick Morris, who is the source of the particular canard discussed in the post.
Obama remains personally popular, more popular than any other leading figure in the Democratic Party. His resignation would throw the party into utter disarray, and likely gift wrap the Presidency for the Republican candidate.
And then, Denver Guy, when the economy continues to fail, Obama will look like the saviour in 2016 that he looked like in 2008.
The Republicans won't split into two smaller parties, but it some nut goes off the reservation, like Ron Paul or Donald Trump, and decides to run on his own, it could hand the election to Obama.
Three years ago we were seeing the "death" of the Republican Party. In December 1994 Clinton was "irrelevant" and the Republicans were about to become the new majority party.
The current claim is equally silly. But I have also heard variations that say that unnamed sources assert that prominent (but also unnamed) Democratic lawmakers are soon going to try to convince Obama not to run, and to let Hillary run instead.
Some of the most fascinating stories in politics are totally unsourced. Recently someone mentioned that the New York Times is "working on a story" that asserts President Obama is "depressed". I generally assume that all these stories are invented from whole cloth. After all, if you're a reporter and your editor is willing to publish a story with no sources, why wouldn't you just make your stories up? It is much, much, much easier than writing well-sourced true stories!
I have no trouble believing some of our presidents suffered from various forms of mental illness, if usually mild cases. Some argue Lincoln was depressive, and it may be so. People who are so driven probably do have a lot of other things going on in there as well.
Anon2
I don't see Obama ever being viewed as a savior. Obviously, if the next administration (assuming Obama loses) can't turn the economy around, they will be viewed as equally ineffectual (and we will probably get a 3rd party by 2016).
But that kind of decade long depression of the economy is still highly unlikely. Even the Great Depression wasn't one long decline - it was two recessions, one starting under Hoover, and the second starting under FDR.
I think a Republican victory in the Senate will goose the economy, and whoever wins the Presidency will benefit from the improvement (whether they do anything to help or not). If the economy sinks again, it will be most likely because the European economy goes in the tank, which is not the responsibility of either US party.
DG, I think your point about the Depression is spot-on. When the Empire State Building opened in 1931, it was seen by New Yorkers as symbolic of the end of the "panic" that had begun in 1929. Of course, America was slower then, and the fallout from 1929 was only then begining to really hit the heartland, but in NYC it seemed as if a true recovery was already underway. Then in January 1932 a string of bank failures -- beginning, if I recall correctly, in Switzerland -- started a second depression that was hard to distinguish from the first.
So your worries about Europe dragging us down scare me. Might history repeat itself?
Post a Comment
<< Home