When President Barack Obama announced the death of the country’s foremost enemy, terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden to America and the rest of the world, there were many interesting observations. Young people gathered in front of the White House gates to celebrate the fatal blow dealt to the nation’s nemesis. Political commentators spoke of a “defining moment” in Obama’s presidency. Predictably, the president’s approval ratings rose substantially, especially on the foreign policy front. In fact, political Washington was so much obsessed with talk of Obama having secured a lock on the Electoral College as a result of bin Laden’s death that Jon Stewart deadpanned and announced, “Yes, he sealed it. It’s over”.
But what started in jest seems to develop into the reality of the day. Some of you reading this may be absolutely incredulous and accuse me of being presumptuous, naive or worst of all, a partisan ignoring the realities of the recent credit downgrade, runaway debt, controversial health care debates, high unemployment and partisan gridlock in the District. Like any good attorney with a case theory, I felt I should share mine with you. I believe that whilst election 2012 will be a fairly close affair, President Obama will get reelected on the basis of a number of factors. None of these factors are of the president’s making at all. On the contrary, the president will win due to external factors. The only question, in my eyes, will be the closeness and (thus) strength of the mandate conferred upon him by the American people. So, why do I see 2012 as another Obama year?
1.) Voter Turnout
Democratic voters outstrip Republicans in most states. Most voters frequently identify themselves as independent or Democrat. Additionally, and that’s something that is being forgotten all the time, the mid-term congressional elections had a dramatically lower turnout than the 2008 or 2004 elections. The 2012 election turnout, with the White House and control of both houses of Congress at stake, will be well above 65 percent, thus reducing the influence of the Tea Party movement as a real numerical factor in the presidential election.
2.) Split Republicans
Don’t believe the Republican self-motivation talk. The party is split, veering between compromise and satisfying the demands of a vociferous, radical right wing that makes Pat Buchanan look like a benign centrist in comparison. The recent debate on raising the debt ceiling is a perfect exposition of this: Speaker Boehner showing signs of compromise, Mitch McConnell’s convoluted (and obviously partisan) ploy to confer authority to President Obama, the quirky (but nonetheless unrealistic and economically irresponsible) “Cut, Cap & Balance” plan. The GOP is torn, split and a house divided. Even after Perry entering the race, there are those who are clamoring for a candidacy by Chris Christie or Paul Ryan.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - pablo
I must say that I find this article very amusing particularly in reference to Dr. Paul.
The author says the idea of the abolishing the FED is not flying at all, then references a page over at the LA Times that says:
"But Paul's anti-Fed message has drawn broad support because of the central bank's failure to restrain the flood of cheap money and excessive risk-taking in the years leading up to the financial crisis.
It has stirred rallies on college campuses and supportive commentaries from Wall Street pundits. More than 300 representatives in Congress have embraced Paul's ideas for reigning in the FED." LOL
Nice job :)
2 - verbavolant
Glad to be of service! ;) The LA Times was to provide a different perspective from mine - as I say in my profile, I do have an opinion and am not afraid to voice it...doesn't mean I lay claim to being infallible.
3 - pablo
Nor am I afraid to voice mine Verb. If you consider what most people in this country thought about the FED ten years ago to today, its a much different story. To grant a privately owned banking cartel to print money out of thin air and then to lend it out to the government at interest is going out of vogue very quickly, particularly considering the current economic climate, don't you think Verb?
4 - cindy
Things are going to get a lot worse before the election...September speech will bring about new calls for Stimulus which will be a battle , but you will not get the funds to hide the failing economy!!!! Inflation rising, doubling down on regs, blaming everyone,but the driver of the bus, tax the rich...THEN WHAT?, No plan and no growth....Repubs do have a plan , but none of which would ever pass the senate...But please go ahead and think you have the re-election all wrapped up....instead we have to wait til the election to get some real solutions!
5 - verbavolant
Cindy,
Just to be very clear: When you refer to Democrats as "you", I hope you're not addressing me. I don't, never have and never will consider myself a Democrat, simply because their congressional wing tends to be invariably extreme. I'm personally no fan of the tax-and-spend approach to government. Unfortunately, the same is true for the Republicans, who (as you will concede) seem to live in a reality of their own. And except for Huntsman and Johnson, I just don't see anyone who can credibly make the case for a unifying and effective version of Republicanism. As I indicated in my article, if either of them won the nomination (and this appears remote, as of now), my assessment of Election 2012 would change. As you can see, I DO give Republicans their due and would even support them: But they have to nominate an effective candidate who will not be an establishment hack or an extremist á la Bachmann.
I'm aware that my analysis is a forceful and certainly bold statement of the President's re-election prospects, as I perceive them. Nothing less, nothing more.
6 - Igor
Yes, the Fed is a bizarre idea, but it seemed at the time that it could work well. The idea was to have an agency free of political influence (especially voter influence) to set the monetary level. It was clear that the money supply had to expand as population expanded else severe deflation would result. For decades it was felt that the primary thing was to control inflation at a moderate pace that would best benefit business.
Worked pretty good as long as the Fed was kept pretty free of politics, but it all went awry when Greenspan became political, and then when he became blatantly political as a Bush puppet by declaring that the Clinton surpluses were dangerous! That gave Bush the greenlight to go on his spending spree.
7 - Kevin
Remember that as late as 2009, pundits were claiming that the Republican Party might be finished. Even with the gains made in 2010, the GOP is so weakened that it trips over its own message.
President Obama has not been as promised, but he will face no significant primary challenge. The conventional wisdom is that any incumbent automatically runs his/her race a position of strength.
I would argue that Obama would win if the race were held now, but there's a lot of time remaining. Sour economic news will pull anyone's approval rating down, and the issue may be who looks the most impotent in the face of it all.
Time to hold one's nose on the way to the polls again.
8 - Arch Conservative
This article is deranged wishful thinking.
Come next November, when unemployment is still hovering around 9%, a rock with the word jobs painted on it could beat Obama.
But don't let my comments deter your adherence from that age old liberal strategy of repeating something enough times to make it come true verbolent.
9 - roger nowosielski
a rock with the word jobs painted on it --
that it a good one, Archie.
At least your're exercising your imagination.
10 - Dr Dreadful
Arch, I'll hazard a guess that if your family has a motto, the word caution doesn't feature in it.
If it did, I imagine that your track record of predicting elections, which isn't stellar, would cause you to hesitate before making such a forecast.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Verb #5 -
I agree with you that if Huntsman were to get the nomination, Obama would be in serious trouble - in fact, I remember reading a long time ago how Huntsman was the only one among the prospective Republican candidates that Obama was worried about. Why? Because Huntsman - unlike the rest of the field except for the even lesser-known Johnson and the daily flip-flopper Gingrich - is a true moderate who accepts scientific realities like climate change and evolution, and has a wealth of foreign policy experience most notably with China. In all honesty, the simple fact that I myself wouldn't mind him overmuch means that he'd almost certainly draw the significant majority of the independents out there.
Fortunately for Obama, the Republican base (not the party, but its base) is so radicalized that it is extremely unlikely that Huntsman would stand the least chance of getting nominated. One wonders if Obama was sneaky and calculating enough to deliberately allow the GOP to go merrily down the path where it's gone since he took office...but no - it was already well down that path once the Muslim Kenyan terrorist-supporting scion of the Chicago thugocracy (at least in Republican eyes) took the nomination from Hillary.
12 - Clavos
the Muslim Kenyan terrorist-supporting scion of the Chicago thugocracy...
Hmm. I like that.
[Jots down note]
13 - roger nowosielski
Is Glenn beginning to see the light or is he speaking in his usual mode -- tongue in cheek?
I'm not certain.
14 - handyguy
Roger, what are you talking about?
15 - roger nowosielski
I'm trying to make sense of Glenn's #11, that's all. Perhaps it's all transparent to you, but it's not to me. Hence the query.
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger's apparently got this idea that whatever I say must either be based in ignorance or guilt or adherence to dogma or maybe even sheer spite.
I don't think it's ever occurred to him that I might make such a statement because Huntsman (alone out of all the Republican candidates including Ron Paul who rejects evolution) accepts the scientific realities of climate change AND evolution, and supports merit pay for first-rate teachers and other improvements in education. Huntsman's an intelligent and reasonable man and not hidebound to saying "yes sir, no sir, three-bags-full-sir" to the Republican base. If he were to win the nomination, I'd feel pretty good that there were a bunch of Republicans out there who also had the courage to reject the dittoheads and the anti-intellectuals of the Republican base.
That said, I do NOT support him for president over Obama. Why? Here are Huntsman's positions that I can't agree with: he takes a hard line against abortion rights, and he flip-flopped on the individual mandate for health insurance (as did so many other Republicans once Obama began to support it).
Huntsman's a good man who would perform his duties as commander-in-chief well - and I must say I'd vote for him over some Democratic ideologues like, say, Kucinich (I really don't trust ideologues - see Ron Paul). But I will not vote for anyone who would oppose the chance to allow all citizens of the richest nation on earth regular and timely access to quality health care.
But there it is - I'm back to being the greatest threat to small-d democracy because I refused to support someone else over Obama.
*sigh*
17 - Arch Conservative
Huntsman is a chump.
18 - Jet Gardner
My theory is that the GOP intentionally threw the 2008 election, knowing that there was no way to fix the damage that they themselves did to the economy.
Also they're counting on the short attention span of the American voter, knowing that they might not remember that the GOP made this mess; only that Obama didn't fix it fast enough for them, so he gets the blame instead of remembering the fact that he INHERITED this mess before he took office.
Unemployment? There's a really good reason why "big business" isn't hiring anyone right now. They're waiting til another republican gets in the white house so thay can make him look like a national hero, he'll overturn all of the Wall Street restrictions, and they can go hog wild!
Want to see proof? Everyone's having heart attacks right now about the stock market tanking over and over again... but conveniently no one remembers that when Obama took office it was in the mid 8000's and where is it now 11,500-12,000? That's a lot of money put into invested pension funds that wasn't there in '08
19 - Baronius
I'm tired of 2012 analysis that blames the Republicans for failing to support Huntsman. He hasn't run a good campaign. He's from a small state and had limited name recognition from his time there. He's been in China for the past few years - great experience, but not a place you can easily launch a campaign from. He hasn't taken advantage of the conservative media outlets that I've noticed. He didn't mount a challenge in Ames. He didn't distinguish himself during the debates (he was in at least one of them). There's an argument to be made for a candidate with his experience, but he doesn't seem to be making it.
I'm also unimpressed with the listing of candidates in order to denounce the whole field. You could do that with any presidential year. Clinton, Brown, Tsongas, Kerrey, and Wilder were the Dems' candidates in 1992. Bush, McCain, Forbes, Keyes, and Buchanan were the R candidates in 2000. You take any year in 20/20 hindsight and once you get past the first name or two, the bench looks weak.
20 - Baronius
I might as well finish my critique of this article. There were 5 reasons given that President Obama will be reelected: voter turnout, split Republicans, this isn't 1996, lack of real opponents, and the president himself. I've discussed the problems with the lack of opponents theory; let's look at the others.
The first two have been true for all of my lifetime. There are a lot more Democrats than Republicans, and the GOP is fractured. You'd think they could never win a race if you look at the statistics. But a lot of independents and a bunch of Democrats vote Republican, or don't vote at all.
You're right that this isn't 1996. Gas cost $1.30 per gallon. There was a 5.4% unemployment rate. I can't find the number of foreclosures in 1996, but you can see where I'm going with this. Your final point was the President himself. I recall Democratic House members warning Obama in 2010 that health care reform really hurt the party's candidates in 1994. Obama said this will be different: now you have me. Well, now they do.
21 - verbavolant
Baronius,
Whilst I have no problem with criticism of an article authored by me whatsoever, I thought I'd inject myself in the debate to point out a couple of things.
You alluded to my comparison to 1996. In fact, I wrote that this feels like a darker version of the 1996 election: darker because, as you correctly said, the economy is under threat and the vitriol by Republicans against the President (I shall leave aside the reasons) is stronger than against Bill Clinton. Again, you're right, gas cost $1.30 per gallon - but those times are not coming back, and the public needs to understand that. One unnecessary war (and a necessary one) and the lack of revenue adjustments to finance it took care of that.
Additionally, once again, I would underline the fact that I was not using the article to indict the Republican Party per se. In fact, you may see that there are quite a few of the candidates that I DO respect, for various reasons. The problem, however is - and my view is due to my preference for pragmatic and visionary Republicanism - that real Republicans have been supplanted by a series of extremists who (as I said) make Pat Buchanan look like a mellow change. I'm not denouncing the field at all. I'm denouncing the fact that someone with a limited understanding of the world (and no legislative accomplishments) as Michele Bachmann can run the table, while someone like Gary Johnson gets ignored.
Call that naive, but it's not partisan to point out the weaknesses of a major party - it's just objective.
22 - Arch Conservative
Here are a couple of reasons Obama will not be reelected.
1. Unemployment will still be hovering around 9% com November 2012.
2. Rick Perry is polling poorly in the NH primary while Romney is polling very well. Romney is also holding his own w/ Perry in polls in other states. The NH primary has traditionally given the winner a great amount of momentum going forward in the race to be the nominee. (John Mccain won in 2008) If Romney wins the GOP nomination he will draw many, many moderates away from Obama and unlike 2008 when conservatives didn't hold their nose and vote for McCain they will do so this time w/ Romney as they have Barry Sotero in action.
C. The Obamacare abomination is likely to hit the Supreme Court before November's election and likely to be ruled unconstitutional. Is there any better fodder for the GOP going into the general other than the unemployment rate?
4. Despite all the kool aid Obamabots assertions that approval ratings are meaning less they are not and Obama's are sinking lower every day. The only possible way he could turn them around is if the economic and unemployment situation turned around significantly and most economists as well as most citizens believe "it aint happening by next November." His current poll numbers are a reflection of what more and more Americans are coming to believe every day. That being that Obama has no leadership skills to speak of and that no good will come to this nation with him at the helm. it's not just conservatives like myself that hate the man with the passion and intensity of one million burning super novas that believe this but also many independents for their own reasons and even leftist whackadoos for their own reasons as we've sent he chatter about a primary challenge from the left to "the one we have been waiting for."
Those still supporting Obama overestimate him and underestimate not only the GOP but the growing discontent among the American people. The tired line that has been trotted out by Obamabots and the mainstream media that the GOP field is weak and cannot possible beat Obama is pure unadulterated mythology. it is part of the psyche of the left to believe that if something is repeated often enough it will must be true or enough people will start believing it so that it will be held as true even if it isn't. Sometimes that works, "sometimes it don't." The relection of Barry Sotero seems to be shaping up to be the latter.
23 - Baronius
Verb - I agree with most of your first paragraph, or at least I think we’re both describing the same things differently. As to your second paragraph, do you really think that this year’s (or this generation’s) extremists are more extreme than the last one’s? I’ve been hearing this all my life. As the left moves further and further, the right has more things to complain about, but they’re not more extreme. Last generation, the right was saying no to $1T government, no to civil unions, no to abortion. Now, they’re saying no to $4T government, no to gay marriage, no to taxpayer-funded abortion. Where’s the greater extremism?
One thing we can agree on is that a candidate's experience matters. Sometimes an experienced candidate doesn't catch on, as is the case with Johnson. I can accept that. What I don't accept is when an inexperienced candidate does catch on. I want to see at least 8 years in the upper echelons of government. I'll accept time running an Olympics as a substitute, but not raising foster children.
24 - Glenn Contrarian
Where's the greater extremism?
Your problem, Baronius, is that you're only comparing to last year - and it's hard to see great contrasts in such processes over only one year. It's more effective to look at decades and generations, for then you will see just how far to the right the Republicans have gone.
How about during the most recent GOP debate where the candidates were asked they'd accept a budget proposal that included 90% spending cuts with only 10% revenue increases - and what was the response of every single candidate? NO. That's a far cry from Reagan (who raised revenue 12 times in his presidency) and Bush Sr. ("Read my lips!"). These men knew that there was a time that dogma should be superseded by reality. Bush Sr. even slashed defense spending. The current crop doesn't dare admit any such possibility for fear of being labeled 'socialist'.
Other examples? Can we imagine a time in American history B.O. (before Obama) where a political party would cheer the fact that we didn't get awarded the Olympic games?
But even telling is the obstructionist Republicans which led to a greater level of obstruction in Congress than any we've seen since the Civil War.
The attacks on unions, on collective-bargaining rights, in the past two years are beyond what we've seen in many, many years. In Wisconsin, teachers were being vilified by the Republicans for their pension plans (which btw were funded almost solely by deductions in the teachers' salaries). And then there's Texas, where Gov. Perry (who held a "prayer rally" for rain) slashed education spending by nearly $5B in a state where 25% of the teachers already have to moonlight at other jobs to make ends meet...but he still awarded hundreds of millions in tax breaks to corporations!
You claim the left has only moved further and further left is equally fallacious. Before Clinton, most Democrats understood the reasons for and supported a progressive tax system where the rich would actually pay at least as great a percentage in taxes as the rest of us. But now we have a lower tax burden than we've had in the past half-century, and fully one-third of the stimulus package was tax cuts.
The biggest deregulator of the last half-century was not a Republican - it was Clinton...whose trade deregulation campaign enabled tens of thousands of our factories to move overseas. The oh-so-conservative Cato Institute decried how Reagan was not supporting free trade, but Clinton gave them exactly what they wanted! And don't get me started on the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act signed by Clinton (but passed with veto-proof Republican and blue-dog Democrat majorities) that in large measure enabled the Great Recession.
In all honesty, the further we get from Clinton's presidency, the worse it looks - and almost entirely due to his pandering to the Right.
So, NO, Baronius, the Left has not moved a great deal further to the left. If compared to what the Left has been since the Civil Rights Act, the Left has moved further right, and the Right keeps moving the goal posts ever further away.
25 - handyguy
Baronius, it is pretty astonishing to claim that the Left is moving further and further -- further left, you mean?! Examples please.
Do you agree that in both rhetoric and practice, the GOP has been moving rapidly rightward since the late 1970s?