Barack Obama will be back on top

[ProSense]

Robert Shrum

Barack Obama will be back on top

Here's why the president will win reelection in 2012

Seldom have so many observers from so many precincts in the press and so many points on the political spectrum converged so unanimously on a verdict writing off a president — except, of course, when their counterparts called Ronald Reagan a “one-year phenomenon” and declared Bill Clinton “irrelevant” after the first midterms of their tenures.

This time, the candidate with the magic in 2008 has become the imperiled and, in the more partisan accounts, the mortally wounded president of 2010. Predictably, Republicans characterize him as a spent and repudiated force whose major achievements will be rolled back forthwith. Others who were once fervent supporters have suggested, before and after the dark passage of the midterm elections, that he and his unhappy band can't emote, communicate, set priorities, weave a narrative, or even schedule a foreign trip.

Thus comes the easy criticism of his visit to India and elsewhere in Asia right after the results were in: He should never have gone now or he should have canceled to stay home and address the damage. By doing precisely what? Abruptly calling off the journey would not only have damaged U.S. relations with some of our most critical trading and anti-terrorist partners, who countenanced delay when health reform hung in the balance, but also would have ratified the notion of a depleted and disabled Presidency. Those gifted with 20/20 hindsight may concede that much, but then as amateur schedulers they conclude that the White House never should have chosen this time, knowing what was in store politically on Nov. 2.

In any event, Obama will be back by the time Congress gathers in Washington for the lame-duck session, with Republicans mainlining tea while plotting their plans for inaction, reaction, and a recession which they devoutly wish will still be painfully felt in 2012. The president will be there to negotiate with an opposition that appears intent on adhering to JFK's warning that it's impossible to bargain with those who insist that “what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable.”

more

[bluestateguy]

1. I would love to read this

but then I saw Bob Shrum's name at the top.

[Clio the Leo]

2. Serwer sums it up...

If unemployment is under 8 percent by 2012, Obama could reveal himself to be an advance scout planning a Romulan invasion of Earth and still get reelected.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/why_the_white_house_might_capi.html

[de novo]

3. I agree with this. The same could have been said for the Dems chances

in 2010.

The question how are they going to do it? What measures and programs are going to be implemented to achieve 7%=/- unemployment in a year and a half?

Just hoping that jobs are created isn't enough. And, now they have to work through a repug House.

[ProSense]

8. "Just hoping that jobs are created isn't enough"

Why do you keep saying that? Jobs are being created, albeit at a slow pace. This last report showed 150,000.

The fact is that it's moving in the right direction, and 2012 is still two years away.

[de novo]

10. 150,000 is a drop in the bucket. Yes, it is finally in the right direction.

Is the pace enough to gain back what was lost in the next year and a half?

I hope so.

[ProSense]

12. Who said it had to gain it all back?

People are going to notice significant improvement and that's all that matters.

[de novo]

13. Define "significant improvement".

[ProSense]

14. Unemployment

at 8 percent to 8.5 percent.

Two years, and several other dividents from the President's current achievements = win!

[de novo]

15. I disagree. 8-8.5% will not be seen a resounding success.

If that is the number the WH is shooting for, and we reach that, I am afraid we have another bad election night.

[ProSense]

16. You can disagree,

but that doesn't change much.

[de novo]

17. lol. I can't wait to see the campaign ads proudly touting 8.5% unemployment.

:rofl:

You joker.

[ProSense]

18. You do realize

that it will be the marked improvement that people notice, don't you?

Reagan won with unemployment near 8 percent.

[de novo]

23. Yeah, but...

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/02/unemployment_numbers_context
...

The real question for Obama, then, is whether the economy will rebound in the third and fourth years of his presidency, as it did during Reagan's. A measurable drop in the unemployment rate in 2011 and 2012 would revive American confidence and rally most swing voters back to Obama. Obama, like Reagan, is someone who most Americans instinctively like and want to support. Good economic news will let them go with their instincts.

With that in mind, there is -- on the surface -- encouraging news for Obama in the June unemployment data released this morning: At 9.5 percent (a slight drop from May), the jobless rate is almost exactly where it was at this point in Reagan's first term. (The June 1982 rate was 9.6 percent). Moreover, the growth in unemployment over the first 18 months of Obama's presidency is essentially the same as it was during Reagan's. When Obama took office, the jobless rate was 7.6 percent; for Reagan, it was 7.5%. This, more than anything else, explains why Obama's political position in the summer of 2010 is so similar to what Reagan's was in the summer of '82. And it suggests that Obama could still enjoy the dramatic political rebound that marked the second half of Reagan's first term.

Now, the bad news for Obama: At this point in Reagan's presidency, a recession was still raging, and unemployment was still surging. It ended up topping out at 10.8 percent in December '82, then began falling precipitously. By Election Day 1984, it stood at 7.4 percent -- essentially identical to what it had been on Election Day 1980, but such a marked drop from its '82 peak that voters rewarded the president with a 49-state landslide.

Today, we are told, the actual recession is probably over, and the rapid growth in the unemployment rate actually stopped months ago. For most of 2010, it has held steady in the 9.7 percent range, with no signs of a steep drop on the horizon. Yes, the 9.5 percent figure reported today is the lowest mark in a year, but it's largely be a function of hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans giving up the job hunt. The Obama administration is touting the creation of some new private sector jobs; they'll need far more of that in the future to match the Reagan recovery.

Paul Krugman has been writing that the effectiveness of the stimulus plan enacted last year has essentially been maxed out -- and that without more public spending soon, high unemployment will last well into the future. If he's right, then my Reagan-Obama parallel will no longer be valid.

[ProSense]

25. What does that mean?

"The Obama administration is touting the creation of some new private sector jobs; they'll need far more of that in the future to match the Reagan recovery."

Did anyone suggest that nothing will be done from here on out?

[ProSense]

26. Here

U.S. economy added 151,000 jobs in October

Jobless claims fall sharply to 4-month low

Trade Deficit in U.S. Shrinks as Exports Climb to Two-Year High

[paulk]

44. significant improvement?

150k/month only keeps up with population growth - it's not going to bring the unemployment rate down.

[jeff47]

20. 150k = net 0 jobs

We need about 150K jobs per month to keep up with population growth. If we add 150K jobs between now and 2050, we will still have high unemployment.

[ProSense]

22. 150K > -800K

Get the picture?

[jeff47]

27. 9.6% unemployment = 9.6% unemployment

Get the picture?

Things are not getting better yet. They are getting worse at a slower rate.

[ProSense]

30. 2010 is not 2012

"Things are not getting better yet. They are getting worse at a slower rate."


Facts

[jeff47]

32. Once again, you're completely ignoring the point

We have 9.6% unemployment.

Our recent "good" job growth numbers net 0 new jobs, because the workforce grew by the same amount. Meaning we're still at 9.6% unemployment. At the rate the economy is growing and adding jobs, the fastest way to reduce unemployment is to wait for workers to die of old age.

The economy will not grow more quickly as long as demand is low. Republican policies will not spur demand. Fed policies might help, but they're terrified of doing enough. The private sector will not increase demand quickly because private sector spending is based on demand.

So how, exactly, does unemployment come down by 2-3% by 2012? You need at least 3 times our current growth rate. Please identify specifically where that growth comes from.

[ProSense]

11. People are upset at

the thought that the President will win. LOL!

[Pirate Smile]

4. "Tongue in cheek, Sabato & Abramowitz mock pundits predicting that Obama will lose re-election"

Flagged by Andrew Sullivan - Tongue in cheek, Larry Sabato and Alan Abramowitz mock pundits predicting that Obama will lose re-election:

It’s “Otb” Time: One-Term Barack

Larry J. Sabato and Alan I. Abramowitz November 11th, 2010

WARNING: READERS ARE NOW ENTERING “THE IRONY ZONE”

The wreckage of the Democratic Party is strewn just about everywhere. President Obama’s carefully constructed 2008 Electoral College breakthrough is now just broken, a long-ago memory of what might have been a lasting shift in partisan alignment.

-snip-
There’s only one logical conclusion to be drawn: President Barack Obama is down for the count, will have an early lame duck presidency, and will be out of the White House in two years.

Almost everyone agrees. Here’s a sampling of the domestic and international media opinion that has been pouring in:

•“From the richest to the poorest precincts of Washington, D.C., you can get heavy odds that Barack Obama is going to be a one-term president.” –North America Syndicate columnist.
•“His continued, embarrassing on-the-job training…implies the grim reality of Obama being a one-term president.” –Houston Chronicle
•“I think Obama very likely will be a one-term president unless things change drastically.” –A longtime Democratic U.S. Senator
•“The statistical probability is that Obama will be another one-term president like Carter or Bush .” –The Times of London
•“Weak, vacillating, definitely one-term.” –A senior European political analyst
•“The midterm results are a death sentence for Obama.” –La Stampa (Italy)
•“Obama now looks not like a one-term president but a half-term president.” –Sky News (U.K.)
Some cautious observers will argue that it is too early for such sweeping judgments. The economy might improve substantially, or the Tea Party-influenced Republicans could nominate a weak, out-of-the-mainstream candidate.

We beg to differ. If President Obama is smart, he will try to salvage his term in the White House by announcing now that he will not undertake a hopeless campaign for reelection, and instead form a bipartisan national unity government to try to hold the nation together until his successor, inevitably a Republican, is selected in November 2012.


***************************************************************

CORRECTION: Due to sloppy research by our interns, the authors would like to clarify a couple of points. It turns out that all news reports cited above were not published in the last ten days, but right after the 1994 Republican midterm landslide. Every time “Barack Obama” appears in print, you should substitute “Bill Clinton”. The acronym “OTB” actually stands for “One-Term Bill” not “One-Term Barack”.

-snip-
Historically, incumbent presidents who have sought another term have won them by a two-to-one margin. Those aren’t impressive odds. How many of us would bet on a horse with minimal chances like that? Since 1900 only one incumbent president whose party captured the White House from the other party four years earlier (Jimmy Carter) has been beaten. The other incumbent losers—Taft, Hoover, Ford, and the senior Bush—were from a party that had held the White House for two or more consecutive terms. But the key is that Carter and Obama are practically twins; both won the Nobel Peace Prize. Enough said. Moreover, the present moment is unprecedentedly perilous for an incumbent president. There’s really no comparison in the existence of the American Republic, save for about a dozen crises like the Civil War, economic panics, the Great Depression, world wars, and 9/11.

Democrats may also place false hope in the fact that the next presidential election will have a turnout twenty full percentage points higher than we saw in the midterm—probably about 40 million more people than voted on Nov. 2. No doubt these “midterm-missing” voters are disproportionately 18-34 years old and members of minority groups, segments of the population that backed President Obama by margins ranging from 62% to 95% in 2008. Obama can’t seem to get them to cast a ballot except when he’s on the ballot. Well, yes, he’ll be on the ballot in 2012, but they’re likely disillusioned with him, too.

Our readers should also give little credence to the following figure, which shows the relationship between the House seat change that has occurred in a midterm election, and the vote for the incumbent White House party’s presidential candidate two years later. True, it turns out that there is no statistical relationship between a midterm result and the outcome of the next presidential election. But surely, people understand the old axiom, “Lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2010111101/

[Dr Fate]

42. EXACTLY, The 90's are comming BACK!

And when they do, this centrist will be here to say "I toooooooooooold you so."

The GOP will never expect us to continue to recylce 1990's strategy- thus they will be BLIDSIDED in '12 and beyond.

[jeff47]

5. You're quoting the guy responsible for Hillary losing the primary

I really don't think you should be taking much solace from the predictions of Bob Shrum.

[ProSense]

6. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? n/t

[girl gone mad]

7. Only if you value competence.

[ProSense]

9. Competence lost?

Who knew?

[jeff47]

19. Only if you're trusting his political advice...like when quoting him. (nt)

[liskddksil]

28. That was Mark Penn..not Shrum

Shrum was responsible for Kerry's 2004 campaign.

[jeff47]

37. Didn't she fire Shrum and retain Penn when things started going against her?

Jeez, it seems like so long ago.

[KeyserSoze87]

21. The economy will recover...

and Obama will beat the shit out of the Republicans and Teatards. I think 2012 will be one of the best years ever for Democrats.

[rpannier]

24. I hope he's correct and Obama rebounds

But based on how badly he fares at Presidential elections I'm dubious
I'd feel better if he was certain Obama would be dead in the water

[rug]

29. Good for him.

[displacedvermoter]

31. At what Friggin' Price this Victory?

Is this great event, his reelection, all that matters to you?

[Dr Fate]

33. I would listen to Shrum. He has shown that he knows how to WIN. n/t

n/t

[displacedvermoter]

36. When?

[Aramchek]

34. and a new Congress will ride in on his coattails...

[COLGATE4]

35. Name one time when Bob Shrum has been right in the past 12 years.

[jaysunb]

39. I trust Shrums word more than yours. n/t

[Dr Fate]

41. Me too. Shrum=Right about A LOT. Far left= wrong on everything.

n/t

[Dr Fate]

40. Name one time that he has been wrong.

What's that I hear- crickets?

LOL! that is what I thought.

[h9socialist]

38. Nice that President Obama will be back on top . . .

. . . it'd be even nicer if he'd fight the Republicans.

[DemocraticPilgrim]

43. It's very basic there is up ,,,, or down. Even if up is a bumpy road with Dems it's STILL up.

[SidDithers]

45. K&R...nt

Sid