Why Obama Cannot Win in 2012

Why Obama Cannot Win in 2012

Merrill Matthews
Forbes.com
Apr. 28 2011

The smart money in a presidential election is on the incumbent. But in a down economy, or when the public perceives the incumbent as feckless, dithering or simply not up to the task—can you say Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush?—the conventional wisdom can go out the window.

That’s pretty much where we are with President Obama. Several factors, when taken together, make it almost impossible for him to win reelection.

“It’s the Economy, Stupid.” We have former Bill Clinton advisor James Carville—who knows a little something about beating an incumbent president, Bush 41—to thank for that important insight. Maybe Carville was anticipating Obama.

A new Washington Post poll claims that 57 percent of the public disapproves of Obama’s handling of the economy. Those kinds of numbers can create electoral landslides—for the opponent.

Since 1940 no incumbent president has been reelected with an unemployment rate above 7.5 percent (i.e., Reagan’s rate in 1984). It’s currently 8.8 percent. Of course, many states have significantly higher unemployment rates; California, Nevada, Michigan, Oregon and Florida, among others, remain above 10 percent. Those states are essential for Obama’s reelection. While California and Oregon will remain blue, economically struggling Michigan, Nevada and Florida could express their discontent by voting Republican.

The economy will likely pick up over the next 18 months, but very slowly. And that means millions of struggling families will head to the polls on election day and vindicate Carville’s political insight.

Consumers Are “Fueling” the Pain. High gas prices create immediate and visceral economic pain. A new ABC/Washington Post poll says that seven out of 10 respondents claim that high gas prices are “causing financial hardship.”

When those prices get high enough, the public starts demanding solutions—and holding politicians responsible.

There have been three major gas-price hikes in the past century:

* The mid-1970s when Gerald Ford was president;

* Followed by an even bigger spike when Jimmy Carter occupied the Oval Office; and

* 2008, when oil exceeded $100 a barrel between January and September, ending just before the presidential election.

Incumbent Gerald Ford lost his reelection bid, as did Jimmy Carter. Of course, John McCain wasn’t running for reelection in 2008, but the Republican Party (with Bush in the White House) was—and the party lost. Even though prices had started to decline by September, it wasn’t enough to stem the summer of our discontent.

Barack Obama has never proposed a serious energy policy. Indeed, he has either directly or indirectly opposed virtually all efforts to develop domestic energy sources, including offshore drilling and in Alaska. Rather, his energy policy seems to be to put everyone in a (Government Motors) Chevy Volt.

The 2008 gas-price surge lasted about nine months. If the current surge follows that pattern, that would take it to the beginning of 2012—and some think it may go significantly longer. If voters continue to “fuel” the pain at the pumps, the president will feel their pain at the polls.

The Debt Bet. A newly elected President Obama made a political bet: that the American people would be so glad to get all the new federal handouts and bailouts there would be little or no political fallout.

Although he still complains he inherited the first-ever $1 trillion deficit from the Bush administration, Obama immediately doubled down with a $1.4 trillion deficit for the 2009 fiscal year, and $1.29 trillion for FY 2010, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Then CBO also projected budget deficits at $1.43 trillion for FY 2011 and $1.16 trillion for FY 2012. Of course, repeated Republican calls for spending cuts, backed up by widespread public support in the polls, forced the president to reverse course in April, which may affect future deficits.

But Obama’s repeated efforts to blame Bush for deficit spending—deficits that were created by a Democratically controlled Congress and supported by then-Senator Obama—no longer look disingenuous so much as dishonest. Much of the voter angst that led to the Democrats’ drubbing last November was due to the president’s unchecked federal spending spree. Obama gambled big and lost. The public wants the country’s fiscal house in order, and that means big spending cuts—not tax increases.

Promises Made, Promises Broken. The man is a serial flip-flopper who has reversed himself on almost every major promise—and a lot of minor ones, too: His assertion about the openness of the health care reform legislation; his opposition to an individual mandate requiring people to buy health insurance; his strong support for publicly funded presidential campaigns; his claim that he would shut down Guantanamo and try terrorists in civilian courts; his criticism of Bush for getting us bogged down in a winless war in a Muslim country, then going into Libya; his promise that families making less than $250,000 would see no tax increases. The list of his flip-flops is endless.

On the positive side, the man can claim that he’s been right on almost every issue because he’s been on both sides of so many of them. But American voters want a president with principles who stands for something—besides his own reelection, I mean.

The Electoral Flap. The November election was a boon for Republicans, giving them control of the governor’s mansions in 29 states and another five with Republican legislatures and a Democratic governor. So how do some of the pundits see this massive electoral upheaval playing out for Obama’s reelection? Why favoring it, of course.

USA Today reporter David Jackson writes, “Our friends at NBC News have revised their battleground map, and it shows that Obama and the Democrats have the edge in states with 232 electoral votes.” (It takes 270 to win.)

By contrast, political tracking pro Michael Barone writing in the Washington Examiner comes to a similar number for Democrats, 237 electoral votes, but he sees that number at the top end of their total votes, not the starting point. As a general rule, you don’t want to bet against Barone.

The fact is that the state-by-state breakdowns show a Republican trend. For example, of the four states USA Today lists as “lean Dem,” three of them—Michigan, New Jersey and Pennsylvania—all have Republican governors now. And the fourth, Minnesota, just had a two-term Republican governor step down and now, remarkably for that state, has a Republican House and Senate.

Of the 10 states considered toss-ups, several of them—Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia—have strong Republican leanings, and voted both times for George W. Bush. The electoral map is leaning more Republican than it has for years. Obama can win it, but it’s an uphill climb, not a downhill slide.

The Tax Man Cometh. Presidential candidate Walter Mondale famously predicted at the 1984 Democratic convention, “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.” The crowd was silent for a few seconds, then slowly began to applaud—probably wondering if they should publicly approve of Mondale’s self-inflicted wound. He went on to win Washington DC and, barely, his home state of Minnesota.

Barack Obama is embracing the Mondale tax-increase strategy by demanding higher taxes on the “rich.” And I bet it works every bit as well him as it did for Mondale.

Taken together, Obama’s economic malpractice, flip-flops, class warfare and the country’s rejection of his policies will make it very hard for him to win reelection. The one big plus in Obama’s favor, besides incumbency, is the lack of a strong Republican alternative—yet. But even that may not be a deal breaker. The 2012 presidential election will likely be more a vote against Barack Obama than a vote for the Republican candidate.

With the field of candidates the Republicans currently have, they will NEED for Obama to continue screwing up.

dblboggie wrote:With the field of candidates the Republicans currently have, they will NEED for Obama to continue screwing up.

No shit. But I also should point out for others reading this thread... that it's still too early to even make a wager on the GOP nominee. But if the election were held today, we'd be in for another 4 years of misery.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:With the field of candidates the Republicans currently have, they will NEED for Obama to continue screwing up.

No shit. But I also should point out for others reading this thread... that it's still too early to even make a wager on the GOP nominee. But if the election were held today, we'd be in for another 4 years of misery.

Actually, I think just the opposite. Obama is so clearly screwing things up I think the Republicans could run a border collie and probably come out on top.

Honestly, 2 years in and he's racked up greater deficits than Bush did in 8 years, we have unemployment hovering between 8 and 9 percent, we have gas prices topping $4/gal in most cities and topping $5/gal in many of the biggest cities, along with the higher gas prices we now have rising inflation on basic necessities like food, economic growth the 1st quarter of this year was low enough to put on life support and is already sparking talk of a double-dip recession. It's like Obama has been a one-man economic wrecking crew laying waste to the American economy with wanton abandon!

At least now he has two more years to try and put some lipstick on this pig. I think if he ran today he'd be run out of town on a rail.

I don't know. I still think that the GOP will run another weak candidate like McCain (or 1996's Dole) and lose.

Obama will win, especially after making the gutsiest decision any president's made in decades to take out bin Ladin. He is a strong, steady, unflappable leader who has accomplished more in 2 years than Bush did in 8. The GOP field of contenders is laughable. My prediction is that the majority of Americans, roused from their lull by Ryan's radical plan and by Republican governer's all-out assault on the working class unions, will show up in epic numbers in 2012 to pull the pendulum back from its extreme right wing motion. I'm quite confident in this assertion.

^Hey, good to see you posting. Welcome to the board!

crystalbay wrote:Obama will win, especially after making the gutsiest decision any president's made in decades to take out bin Ladin. He is a strong, steady, unflappable leader who has accomplished more in 2 years than Bush did in 8. The GOP field of contenders is laughable. My prediction is that the majority of Americans, roused from their lull by Ryan's radical plan and by Republican governer's all-out assault on the working class unions, will show up in epic numbers in 2012 to pull the pendulum back from its extreme right wing motion. I'm quite confident in this assertion.

The bold red is what I think you have right. The rest is your opinion.

crystalbay wrote:Obama will win, especially after making the gutsiest decision any president's made in decades to take out bin Ladin. He is a strong, steady, unflappable leader who has accomplished more in 2 years than Bush did in 8. The GOP field of contenders is laughable. My prediction is that the majority of Americans, roused from their lull by Ryan's radical plan and by Republican governer's all-out assault on the working class unions, will show up in epic numbers in 2012 to pull the pendulum back from its extreme right wing motion. I'm quite confident in this assertion.

And by "working class unions" you mean those government employees who are doing such a stellar job at educating our children? The very same government employees who wouldn't have a job if it weren't for private sector employees and employers providing the taxes that pay for those "working class unions?"

That's right, those government unions wouldn't be around if there were no union dues... and there would be no union dues if there were no private-sector taxpayers providing the money to pay those government union members who then take the money that PRIVATE sector taxpayers provided them and spend some of it on union dues! Then, these same leeches on the private-sector - these government unions - sit at a bargaining table across from other government employees paid by private sector taxpayers - the politicians - and "negotiate" themselves fat pay-scales, cushy work rules, unbelievably generous health care plans and budget busting pension plans!!! In return for the massive generosity of politicians toward government unions (after all, these politicians don't have to pay for any of the concessions they give to government unions), these "working class unions" contribute MILLIONS of dollars (private sector taxpayers dollars, just to add insult to injury) to those politicians who gave those government unions such generous pay and benefits. And ALL of this is paid for by hardworking private sector taxpayers!!!

Yeah, some real hero's those "working class unions." In a pig's eye!!!

I have not seen your response to my last post crystalbay... come on... let's have a spirited debate on the issue of government unions! I love a good debate!

Did you know that no less a liberal luminary than Franklin Delano Roosevelt was also against public-sector unions?

In a letter written to Luther Steward, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, on August 16, 1937, FDR said the following:

“The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

(Full text of this letter can be found HERE.)

Remember, it was FDR who forever hitched the Democratic Party’s wagon private-sector unions (a point which becomes important latter in this discussion) with the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935 (the act protected the rights of private-sector unions to organize and bargin collectively).

So it’s not like FDR was against unions.

Does this perhaps change your view of government unions?

I would sincerely like to know what you think of FDR's opinion here.