1. Sabato and Abramowitz, two of our most astute and fair-and-balanced political scientists, are now certain that our president will serve only one term. Either he will be defeated for reelection (by anyone but Palin) or he will bow to the inevitable and decide soon to not seek reelection.
2. I wonder. Back in 2008-09, when so many on both sides were saying that Obama’s (and the Democrats’) big victory signaled a new birth of PROGRESSIVE REFORM, I said that he’s going to be little more than a blip in our political history. It still remains the case that the ideology of Progressive Reform died as a sustainable, governing public philosophy with the failure of the Great Society. This month’s election was just confirmed for me what I thought was an obvious fact.
3. Now it’s true that blips can do big stuff. And so we’re stuck with the really terrible Health Care Reform in the short term. Pistol Pete and others remind us how hard it will be to rid ourselves of that. But already it’s not change that most of the country believes in, and I strongly doubt that it’s going to get more popular as we feel its effects.
4. But for now I also doubt that the repudiation of our President’s ideology will generate a sustainable, governing alternative public philosophy either.
5. It’s probably the case that 40% of the country are for the president as public philosopher, 40% against (that’s the percentage that’s pro-Tea Party), and 20% genuinely conflicted and readily swingable. Among those who say the president doesn’t deserve reelection, after all, are those who say he hasn’t been liberal or progressive enough.
6. The country remains evenly divided insofar as our citizens think politically. The two-party vote for Congress this time (as I did predict) was about the same as 2008, but in reverse. 2008, for reasons we’ve discussed, pushed pretty much as far in one direction as is possible. This time, for reasons JWC and others have discussed, pushed about as far as possible in the other.
7. Given turnout differences beginning with the African Americans in 2012, it’s about inconceivable that our president would lose by anything close to a landslide next time. He could win if he were perceived as more competent–and he might get lucky (economically, for example) or he might just get more competent. Finally, the confidence of Larry and Alan depends on their conviction that our president is too inflexible to adjust to conditions of divided government. I am, to repeat what I’ve said before, not as sure. It’s true that one-trick Barack will be one-term Barack, but he may turn out to be trickier than he’s seemed so far.
8. No Republican should believe the election of 2012 is over. Don’t misunderestimate this guy (here Pistol and I agree). And be about the business of getting your own really good guy.
9. Finally Americans remain pretty even divided or conflicted on “public philosophy,” and we remain a center to center-right country.
November 11th, 2010 | 11:49 am
The Democrats got about 45% of the congressional vote in November. That tracks pretty well with the President’s job approval rating and might be a fair proxy for how he would have done this year if the turnout had been exactly the same (which of course it wouldn’t have been.) He would have lost to a non-scary Republican. If you tweak the Latino and African American turnout up to the 2008 ratios and have the Democrats do as well they did among those groups in 2010, the Democrat share of the popular vote goes up to a little more than 47%. He still loses but it is closer. Now keep in mind that Republicans won 60% of the white vote in a favorable turnout environment and near the bottom of the labor market with the Democrats holding undivided control (and blame) of the elected branches. Republicans were winning a huge fraction of persuadable whites.
Republicans could repeat that performance among whites (and the right campaign might even make gains among Latinos) if the labor market stays the same or (gulp!) worsens, but if the unemployment rate is trending downwards, then Republicans better pick their fights over the budget really carefully, pick their words even more carefully, and run a good presidential campaign in 2012
November 11th, 2010 | 1:07 pm
Pete is exactly right.
November 11th, 2010 | 2:44 pm
Jonathan Last has an interesting piece on this over at The Weekly Standard. One interesting point: He says no President since FDR has been reelected without expanding their share of the popular vote. Can Obama do better than 53% or win with a smaller share and break the pattern?
Question for the experts like Pete, Peter and Jim Ceaser: What does the Democratic party look like in two years and how does that affect Obama’s reelection chances? It’s been noted that the Dem caucus is now more liberal since many of the moderates lost (e.g. Ike Skelton). Obama kept these folks on board with his agenda and told them he’d have their backs. Look where that got them! Will there be some sort of backlash by those moderates that remain? There are 23 Dems up for reelection in the Senate in 2012, some in red or purple states–e.g., Webb, Conrad, Tester. Will they or can they assert themselves on principled grounds for more centrist policies than the Pelosi/Reid camp? How might this affect Obama?
November 11th, 2010 | 3:00 pm
Because of his obvious incompetence and failures as a president, I’m pretty sure Barry will not be able to recapture the Stupid White People (SWP) vote. That, alone, may doom his efforts to seek a second term.
November 19th, 2010 | 11:24 pm
Republicans need to remember that the American peoples disappointment with Obama’s first term is not enough to guarantee a win in 2012. We need to choose a true conservative contender. If the republican party chooses a RINO or a weak challenger, like another John McCain or Bob Dole, they lose.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact