I must have seen ten articles in the last week explaining why President Obama will lose the November 2012 election; or at the least, how he could lose. Most have been by conservative pundits, but a few have also been by Democrats. I certainly agree that he could lose, but it’s a question of how. I want to consider one of these articles—by Salon’s news editor Steve Kornacki. Not because I disagree with the conclusions, or most of the argument, but because it makes the wrong use of what could be an instructive analogy to the 1992 election.
To deflate the expectation that Obama is sure to be re-elected, Kornacki points to the 1992 election. Eighteen months prior to that election, it looked like George H.W. Bush was a shoo-in, but in November 1992, he won less than 40 percent of the electorate against Bill Clinton. “It was the economy that sunk the president,” Kornacki writes. If the U.S. economy “remains lousy” next year, and if the Republicans don’t nominate someone “outside the mainstream,” then Obama, Kornacki reasons, could suffer a similar fate. I agree with the final sentiment, but not with the logic leading up to it.
If you look back at the U.S. economy in 1991 and 1992, you find something very curious. The recession took place during 1991—growth was negative that year—but in 1992, the economy grew 3.4 percent, and the unemployment rate began falling from a peak of 7.8 percent in June to 7.3 percent in October. The economy was not “good,” and there is always a lag in the public’s perception of an economic recovery; but there is still a gap between fact and perception that politicians try to fill with their version of the facts. That’s the role of politics and political campaigns.
George H.W. Bush lost in 1992 because he failed to fill that gap with his perception of the economy. He failed to convey to voters that he knew or cared about the lack of jobs. They saw him as more interested in foreign wars than in domestic distress—a point that Clinton made, but that was also hammered home by primary opponent Pat Buchanan and by independent candidate and erstwhile Republican Ross Perot. It was, above all, a political failure on Bush’s part to convince voters that he was doing something about the economy, and that what he had already done was responsible for the drop in unemployment and increase in growth.
Fast forward to Obama and the 2012 election: If the unemployment rate were to plummet—say, to 7 percent by June of next year—then assuming even a mediocre campaign effort, Obama would probably be re-elected regardless of his opponent. Conversely, if the United States plunges back into a recession because of the Republican budget cuts that Obama has agreed to, then even a semi-mainstream candidate like former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee could defeat Obama. But what is most likely is a situation similar to that faced by George H.W. Bush in 1992: a sluggish economy that is improving, but at a sufficiently slow rate to leave a gap between fact and perception that rival politicians will attempt to fill.
So far, Obama has not done very well in filling that gap. He has allowed Republicans to make a case that things are getting worse, and he has cooperated with them in taking measures that will actually make things worse. He has allowed Republicans to set the terms of the debate. It has been about the perils of deficits and debt. That is not just bad economics; it also leads Democrats into a political cul-de-sac.
I think this is a good point. Certainly I don't know anybody who is worried long term about anything but the economy, and people are dismayed by what they're seeing as a sideshow (The Deficit) - which in fact would be greatly impacted, for the better, if people had more and better jobs - this would automatically increase revenues.
Plus, the Republicans have scared people. Many of us feel threatened, we feel there's no future, the US is on the brink, if you aren't rich you're doomed, etc - this is obviously hurting the economy too, by itself.
I spoke to a woman after class tonight. She said she'd voted for Obama but now worried that he will not be re-elected and the reason is twofold: a) t ... view full comment
I think this is a good point. Certainly I don't know anybody who is worried long term about anything but the economy, and people are dismayed by what they're seeing as a sideshow (The Deficit) - which in fact would be greatly impacted, for the better, if people had more and better jobs - this would automatically increase revenues.
Plus, the Republicans have scared people. Many of us feel threatened, we feel there's no future, the US is on the brink, if you aren't rich you're doomed, etc - this is obviously hurting the economy too, by itself.
I spoke to a woman after class tonight. She said she'd voted for Obama but now worried that he will not be re-elected and the reason is twofold: a) the economy b) he is too interested in "bipartisanship" and not interested enough in defending the people (especially Democrats.) She said she regretted having preferred Obama over Hillary but now regrets that because she perceives him as "too soft," when the times call for determination and toughness.
Regardless, I think the fix was in. I don't think the Democratic elites were listening to the people then either.
President Obama is an awesome person but he'd only been a US Senator for less than 2 years, and obviously the GOP is hell bent on taking the legs out from under the US as we know it. So regardless, maybe the Limousine Liberals should have tried to support the tougher, more experienced person, and focused on trying to get Obama elected after a few more years of national political experience. The sheer nastiness of today's political climate must have surprised him - he hasn't reacted well at all imo - lately he's shown some fire but it's already too late, probably.
There's an article in HuffPo about the job situation and it's really shocking - people who do get jobs are often taking huge pay cuts - security and lifestyle have been completely lost along with homes, cars, careers and even hope.
This is probably closer to a depression than a recession. I agree with the author of this piece that the Republican spending cuts will hurt the weak recovery, not help it; Krugman repeatedly makes the same point. But the Republican House members have hijacked the debate and rammed their unpopular ideas down our throats and we appear to be defenseless.
I think, President Obama should start talking about the economy, jobs, the fact that deficits grow when revenues fall; and start challenging these Republicans, who after all are supposed to be business people, "'producers" as opposed to all us "parasites," to start creating some jobs instead of trying to figure out how to break down unions, take away affordable birth control pills and destroy the AHCA along with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - safety nets that also represent a contract we, the people, have made with each other - that no American shall be abandoned, that we the people won't leave each other behind.
First Name
Last Name
Address 1
City
State
Zip
