Why Obama Will Win Re-Election
As we move into the primary season I thought I would repost my earlier musings on why President Obama is likely to retain his title for another four years.
The most basic reason for this conclusion is the simple fact that most Presidents win re-election. If you look over the last 100 years or so, there are only a few examples of Presidents losing.
In 1912 President Taft lost, but only because the GOP vote was split between Taft and TR.
In 1932 President Hoover lost, but only because of a massive depression that was seen as his fault.
In 1976 President Ford lost, largely due to the party split with Reagan and the aftermath of Watergate.
In 1980 President Carter lost, thanks to party divisions with Kennedy, the 3rd party candidacy of John Anderson, the bad economy AND the Iran hostage crisis.
In 1992 President Bush lost thanks to party divisions with the right, the Perot candidacy and the bad economy.
Looking to 2012 it does not seem likely any of these things will apply. There is some discontent with Obama on the left but nobody major seems to be emerging for a primary challenge and the base generally seems satisfied.
Nor does a 3rd party campaign seem likely.
The economy is bad, but most people seem to see that as being beyond party, and to the degree they blame a party it is at most evenly split between the two sides, if not tilted to the GOP.
Similarly there does not seem to be any major foreign policy issue, especially after the killing of Bin Laden.
Obama will also have a massive treasury to spend. One of the advantages that Richard Nixon had was that he as a long time anti Communist could go to China without being condemned. Similarly President Obama seems to have the ability to raise billions in campaign funds while avoiding the ‘buying the election’ allegations.
This of course does not even go in to the fact that the GOP is currently without a major candidate who seems to have the ability to match up with Obama on a debate and communications level. Further many of the contenders have problems with the GOP base, and in particular the more insane portion of it.
Romney is a decent enough man but he has issues with his (gasp) moderate views on things like gay rights (also known as human decency), health care, etc.
Paul will have a lot of base support but his positions on many issues are way too far out of the mainstream to win a general election
Santorum may well emerge as the anti-Romney but his views are seen as reactionary even by many conservatives.
Gingrich is… well Gingrich. Even he knows his campaign is a joke.
Most of the rest of the candidates are simply too new to win the nomination, and some are just jokes (read Jimmy McMillan).
In short the GOP is much like the Democrats were in 1984 or 1988, they just don’t have anyone with the right combination of talent, moderate views, name recognition and skill to beat Obama.
So when you combine history (Presidents usually win) with the current reality (Obama will have massive funds and incumbency) plus the lack of a major GOP candidate then there just does not seem to be a path to victory.
In short, it’s time to plan for 2016.
18 Responses to “Why Obama Will Win Re-Election”
I believe Obama has a good chance to win reelection. The current crop of GOP candidates are as big as losers as the current POTUS. Why change when you know current loser and his administration? You already know who to contact/buy influence from. Actually, I don’t blame the presidents for the past problems. Sure, they all made mistakes but the real culprits is Congress. Barney couldn’t run a family lemonade stand (with the lemons given to him for free) for a profit. There are plenty of others I could name but there is limited space here.
Both parties only interest is to give the treasury away trying to buy votes to keep their majority and their power. The only difference is who gets the money. Is it the dependent poor or the special interest groups.
The marriage of major corporations like GE to news media ownership is a disaster waiting to happen. GE wants to sell green power crap that is not economical and will buy influence with their network. Then GE gets on Barack’s job team. Then GE sells green power crap (with tax dollars help) and then gives their favorite candidate money and exposure on their network.
PE, thanks for stating the obvious as it seems to have been obscured by people still enamored of hopey changey, but ignoring the fact that incumbents with no in-party opposition and oodles of money and after only 500 days in office reelection campaigners on the job, can’t lose.
All that doesn’t mean that Obama and the Dems are doing a good job, they just look like it compared to the Reps.
IronMikeHouston says: The current crop of GOP candidates are as big as losers as the current POTUS.
dduck says: but ignoring the fact that incumbents with no in-party opposition and oodles of money and after only 500 days in office reelection campaigners on the job, can’t lose.
These two comments reveal perfectly why the Democratic Party is losing more affiliated voters than Republicans, but also why independents are growing by big numbers.
A one line reason why Pres. Obama is more likely to win reelection is because the Republican field is abysmal.
However, Pres. Obama is beatable, it’s just the current crew doesn’t make the case very well that he should be.
November’s choices on the presidential level do not inspire involvement. Low turnout, anyone?
Not in Massachusetts, where Elizabeth Warren is proving that a great Democratic candidate can inspire.
Please, Whomever said president Carter lost because of divisions with Kennedy and the Hostage crisis must be drinking kool-aid. Carter lost because he was astonishingly incompetent and when paired with Ronald Reagan in a race, he looked like a child. If the Republicans nominate anyone who has a proven record and can make a case for Obama’s ineffectiveness will win in a landslide and all the fools who refuse to actualize Obama’s blame will be left bewildered! The second Reagan won the election, the Hostages were released. No terrorist in Pakistan trembled at Obama
Read This —> CAN We Really Blame Obama?
B, some people minimize the power of TK, he managed to derail HCR twice, once under Carter and once under Nixon.
It is like carrying a 100 pound sack up hill to beat an incumbent, especially when “he got us out of Iraq, killed Bin Laden, and has gotten more net jobs”. Just sayin.
Whether it’s Sleaze bag liberal Romney, loony-toon crazy beyond belief Paul or His Majesty the Newt, Republicans will vote against Obama even if Joseph Stalin was their nominee. Why? For one, because they are programmed by the media to hate Democrats. For two, because the President is black and racism is the subtle basis for the republican party.
Obama has the upper hand by far, but a lot can change in the coming months. This seems to be a year when unfavorable opinions are stronger than favorable ones, with 50/50 being a high point.
I’m not making any calls at this point.
If Iraq falls apart, the Reps will have a good wedge issue, especially if we need to reinsert any forces.
Duck-
Wake up Duck. Nobody cares about Iraq. Nobody gives a squat what happens to Iraq anymore. President did exactly the perfect move by pulling the troops out.
Undisputable.
To your indisputable, I say: “You’re despicable!” Jones’ …
I’m a little stunned that no one pointed out that Secretary Hoover WAS elected in 1928 as a confirmation of approval of Coolidge’s policies.
PRESIDENT Hoover LOST in 1932, not 1928, after two terrible winters of Depression and on the eve of entering the worst winter ever.
The political problem created in the 1930s was that safeguards were put in place to insure that such a deep depression would not happen again, so that in 2008 not enough of the population was desperate enough to support the kind of extreme action that was required for recovery. So, instead of recovery, we just got damage control.
If we had only had an even more catastrophic and wide-spread economic disaster in 2007-8, we might have a healthy economy today.
Thanks for catching the typo Kerr, I’m surprised I didn’t notice it myself !
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the GOP. Sure, they certainly look sloppy and out of touch now, but when they all settle in on a candidate and ramp up a consolidated rhetoric machine, Obama is going to have a real tough fight on his hands. The economic numbers still don’t look good for him, there’s still a lot of un- and under-employment out there. He is vulnerable. With the right message, delivered cohesively, he’ll go down.
Don’t underestimate the Right’s rhetorical talent.
Barky, it is all an act to try and lull the Dems into thinking they have a slam dunk in 2012.
All that money and campaigning power the Dems have been stacking up after the 500th day of Obama’s term, will be needed to get Dem voters off their asses and down to the polling places.
Duck, there’s also all the anecdotal evidence showing O is actually losing his base. That could be a real problem. At least Clinton held onto his throughout his presidency.
Barky, shush, you might ruin the rope-a-dope Rep ploy.
duck-
I didn’t say “indisputable” I said “undisputable”.
Bif Dif duck dadgummit.
“You’re deth-picable!”, still.