Will Obama get reelected?

[© tweed]

JJ,

this was the same point I was making.  in the last 100 years, Obama's election was the 11th time the White House changed parties.  9 out of 10 the new party was re-elected.  It's not random but surely a built-in advantage for the incumbent party in such a case.  As Reagan's defeat of Carter shows, it's not an insurmountable improbability for the challenger but I agree the GOP's biggest problem in 1976 wasn't one in 1980.  I doubt the GOP will be so lucky in 2012.  It's not that it's unlikely Obama will lose because it's been historically rare but that it's unlikely he'll lose for the same reasons it's historically rare: 4 years is just a bit too fast for the country to happily hand back the keys to the party who they felt drove them into the ditch.

The average American voter is a complete idiot.  These are people who think it would be OK to give Republicans back control in 2010. 

they are idiots by design.

[J. J.]

Obama=Carter is one of the more satisfying analogies for Republicans seeking a return to the power that they just had. Like most analogies in history they ignore significant differences. The most obvious differences between Carter and Obama are:

1. Obama is no outsider, unlike Carter. Many people voted for Carter because they thought that Washington insiders were the cause of ethical problems in politics, but by 1980 ethics in politics were secondary concerns.

Four years in the Senate is not exactly a career in DC, and since 1976, most presidents have been outsiders.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, Carter was reasonably good, and there is a thread about how boring Obama is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So was Carter, the first time.  The second time less so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 1980, it looked like the Solid Democratic South; that wasn't the case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Carter had no scandal.  Your "Yemen" comment is telling.  Please keep in mind that, in 1978, at just about this time Carter was in Iran, celebrating the New Year with the Shah (seriously).

I'm not predicting, because I think it is a bit too early to predict, but some of these things are surfacing.

[Mr.Phips]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So was Carter, the first time.  The second time less so.

Carter was hardly a good campaigner in 1976.  Ford clearly outcampaigned and outworked him almost every step of the way, enough to nearly overcome the 33 point lead Carter held in August. 

[pbrower2a]

Obama=Carter is one of the more satisfying analogies for Republicans seeking a return to the power that they just had. Like most analogies in history they ignore significant differences. The most obvious differences between Carter and Obama are:

1. Obama is no outsider, unlike Carter. Many people voted for Carter because they thought that Washington insiders were the cause of ethical problems in politics, but by 1980 ethics in politics were secondary concerns.

Four years in the Senate is not exactly a career in DC, and since 1976, most presidents have been outsiders.

Obama is the definitive quick-study. He knows his way around the Senate. As for being an outsider, the question is of whether one's experiences outside Washington were relevant. Carter micro-managed, which one can't get away with as President; Reagan didn't. The elder Bush was excellent at foreign policy and military matters, but helpless in dealing with  Congress on matters not his expertise. Clinton avoided Carter's mistakes.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, Carter was reasonably good, and there is a thread about how boring Obama is.[/quote]

Question unanswered.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So was Carter, the first time.  The second time less so.[/quote]

Ford was a weak campaigner -- until too late. Reagan mastered the art of offering the homily as political acumen. Such is not my first choice, but it was adequate for enough people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 1980, it looked like the Solid Democratic South; that wasn't the case.[/quote]

Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" backfired in 1976 because conservative Southern Democrats rallied around Jimmy Carter in the aftermath of the "Enemies List" that included people ideologically compatible with Nixon yet belonging to the "wrong" Party. As the Republican Party established itself as the definitive Party of conservatism (thanks in no small part to Ronald Reagan), the most conservative region of America turned on the moderate Carter.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Carter had no scandal.  Your "Yemen" comment is telling.  Please keep in mind that, in 1978, at just about this time Carter was in Iran, celebrating the New Year with the Shah (seriously).

I'm not predicting, because I think it is a bit too early to predict, but some of these things are surfacing.
[/quote]

Which ones are coming to pass? Scandal is unpredictable, but for obvious reasons, Barack Obama has less room for hanky-panky than did Bill Clinton. Wars and warlike actions are unpredictable in their consequences. Obama seems to be going with the Keynesian playbook for getting out of a depression.

If h is getting dull -- governing isn't as exciting to the non-politician as is campaigning. 

[J. J.]

Carter was hardly a good campaigner in 1976.  Ford clearly outcampaigned and outworked him almost every step of the way, enough to nearly overcome the 33 point lead Carter held in August. 

Oh, PLEEZE.  I've even read accounts praising the Carter campaign in 1980.

[J. J.]

Question unanswered.   

How about:

"I'm not a lawyer and I'm not from Washington."

His tag line was "Hi, my name's Jimmy Carter and I'm running for president."

Those two were just from the Iowa Caucuses.

In 1980, there was "divide the the county between rich and poor, black and white."  Ah, those were just from memory and some of the lines that worked.  Try again.

The problem with the dullness is that BHO was suppose to inspire.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Definitely not.

[J. J.]

  If the country is not in as bad shape in 2012 as now, he wins.  Even if it is, he still has a fair chance to win because people aren't oblivious to the fact that problems began under Republican rule.   

I think unemployment was actually lower in 1980 than in 1975, so it is possible that if the problems are not fixed, Obama could lose.

The Carter period was marked not only by inflation, but by foreign policy problems; that helped.

I think it is far too early to pronounce Obama doomed, but the possibility does exist.

[pbrower2a]

President Obama has far less leeway for failure than any President in American history. Standards are much higher for him than for Dubya, who may have manged to "get by with a little help from his friends" (in Ohio) in 2004. There's no marginal state for him outside the Blue Firewall in which a Democratic machine has the chance to do what Kenneth Blackwell may have done in Ohio.

He must keep the Blue Firewall intact (states and DC, none of which have voted for a Republican nominee more than once after 1988), which doesn't seem that difficult unless there is an economic or military catastrophe.  Aside from that he must win one of the following:

1. Ohio

2. Florida

3. Virginia

4. Missouri

5. Arizona and either Montana or Nevada

6. Colorado and either Montana or Nevada.

7. Arizona and Colorado

8. Montana, Nevada, and both Dakotas

in no particular order of likelihood.

He did not win Arizona, Missouri, Montana, or either of the Dakotas.

He's not going to win Indiana again without winning Ohio; he's not going to win North Carolina again without winning Virginia, he's not going to win Georgia without also winning both Florida and North Carolina, and he's not going to win South Carolina without winning both North Carolina and Georgia. I can't see him winning either of the Dakotas without the GOP really messing up, and after that we get to Texas and an Obama landslide. One Congressional district in Nebraska is unlikely to make a difference.   

A 4% shift of votes from him to the Republican nominee nationwide would cause him to lose Colorado and Virginia -- and likely the election. That may seem like a huge shift, but we know that Republicans swept statewide races in Virginia in 2009 (sure, it's an odd-year election), and the attachments of Colorado and Nevada to the Democratic Party look shaky now.

Now that he is President, he does little overt campaigning. In all likelihood he is a more adept campaigner than politician, and the powerful campaigner will be back at work in the summer and early autumn of 2012 if things get shaky. Remember this: he won two states (Indiana and Virginia) that hadn't voted for a Democratic nominee  since the LBJ blowout in 1964, and North Carolina, which hadn't voted for any Democratic nominee since  Jimmy Carter in 1976.

In essence so far, the 2012 re-election is his to lose. There's also the possibility that the GOP might have the wrong candidate to offer then, too.

[Vosem]

President Obama has far less leeway for failure than any President in American history. Standards are much higher for him than for Dubya, who may have manged to "get by with a little help from his friends" (in Ohio) in 2004. There's no marginal state for him outside the Blue Firewall in which a Democratic machine has the chance to do what Kenneth Blackwell may have done in Ohio.

Idiot. If Ken Blackwell rigged the votes in Ohio for Bush, how come he couldn't do it for himself in 2006?

[DS0816]

In essence so far, the 2012 re-election is his [President Barack Obama's] to lose. There's also the possibility that the GOP might have the wrong candidate to offer then, too.

Current slate of Republicans? …Laughable.

They're doomed.

That's why the Republican Party wants … An Obama Presidential Failure.

[pbrower2a]

President Obama has far less leeway for failure than any President in American history. Standards are much higher for him than for Dubya, who may have manged to "get by with a little help from his friends" (in Ohio) in 2004. There's no marginal state for him outside the Blue Firewall in which a Democratic machine has the chance to do what Kenneth Blackwell may have done in Ohio.

Idiot. If Ken Blackwell rigged the votes in Ohio for Bush, how come he couldn't do it for himself in 2006?

Vote-rigging is possible only when the margin necessary is small (Florida, 2000; Ohio, 2004) or if one has violence behind one. Allegations are unproved, but someone in charge of the electoral process is the chair of the state campaign for the President has a severe conflict-of-interest and much temptation. Note the weasel words: "might have". Without those weasel words I would be an idiot.

Election 2004

In 2006, a very bad year for Ohio Republicans, Kenneth Blackwell was going down to defeat and knew it. He eventually lost his bid to become Governor of Ohio, 60-37. Blackwell was very much a Bush loyalist, a political hack in charge of the electoral process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ohioguberoct06.gif

If one is going down to a crashing defeat in what must look like a fair election, one has no chance to purge voter rolls of "undesirables", reverse tabulations in precincts, or reduce the vote count in precincts that vote "wrong" enough to win. When courts are monitoring electoral behavior, one has no cause to ensure slow votes in precincts that vote"wrong" while places that vote "right" have no delays. Blackwell's behavior in 2004 intended to strengthen the Republican Party damaged the credibility of the Republican Party in Ohio in 2006 and 2008. He of course was only part of the story, as the Ohio GOP had other scandals.

Remember well: the people do not elect the President; the States do.

If one cheats and wins the courts follow the stated vote for lack of means of official challenge of the vote because the process is itself more important than the integrity of the election. If one cheats and loses, then one might draw the attention of the FBI as the perpetrator of a federal crime.

Do you concur, at the least, that people in charge of the vote should not have overt conflicts of interest such as being the chair of a partisan campaign for anyone other than oneself?
 

[GLPman]

Anyone that believes that Kenneth Blackwell rigged Ohio in '04 is BOTH a hack and an idiot. I love how there are always those select few liberals who must complain about how Gore was cheated in 2000 and then Kerry was cheated in 2004. Gore lost, get over it. Kerry lost, get over it. Was Bush a terrible president? Yes, but the Democrats failed to offer a decent candidate to run against him and, as a result, they lost.

[J. J.]

Do you concur, at the least, that people in charge of the vote should not have overt conflicts of interest such as being the chair of a partisan campaign for anyone other than oneself?
 

In most of PA, the election is a partisan board of County Commissioners, elected by the public.

[pbrower2a]

Anyone that believes that Kenneth Blackwell rigged Ohio in '04 is BOTH a hack and an idiot. I love how there are always those select few liberals who must complain about how Gore was cheated in 2000 and then Kerry was cheated in 2004. Gore lost, get over it. Kerry lost, get over it. Was Bush a terrible president? Yes, but the Democrats failed to offer a decent candidate to run against him and, as a result, they lost.

I said "may have". There was screwy stuff going on. Obviously we can't undo the effects of eight years of a poltroon as President.

John Kerry was a poor choice for President -- someone with hidden weaknesses that a shrewd and ruthless campaign exposed.

Nothing in the Constitution guarantees that elections be fair or that counts be accurate.  People stupid or craven enough to vote for someone as amoral and intellectually-hollow as George W. Bush deserve the consequences. If your opponent is cheating or seems to be cheating, then you must play a beat-the-cheat strategy so that you can win. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

In 2011 a great plague of locusts will eat Obama whole during a surprise White House 'back room' attack upon which Michelle decides to replace him with the winner of the "3rd Annual Barack Obama look-a-like contest" in Lewisville, Indiana. Unfortunately the winner had prior died of a stroke, so Michelle had to settle for the runner-up.

The look-a-like then goes onto defeat the Republican candidate. Who was a 25 foot tall cross between a teenage Sarah Palin and Zombie Reagan after a DNA experiment gone right to create the perfect Republican hybrid. To appeal to the upwardly mobile it was decided to make Peagan (as she(? It?) became known) entirely out of solid gold and have only the ability to roar loudly for communication. During the presidential debates, It was widely reported that this roaring was the most intellectually coherent thing a Republican candidate had said in such a debate since Goldwater. Despite this, the look-a-like won due to his amazing ability to stare at people in the face on television and turn them into blubby stacks of irrational goo with a bizarre fixation on ticking boxes near the word 'Obama', unfortunately this also applied to words like Obama and so Osama Bin Laden actually ended up beating out Peagan for second. The Look-a-like also had the special ability of turning enemies into pillars of salt if they did not obey. This was the eventual fate of Robert Gates. THE END.

[The Dowager Mod]

Given the current crop of Republican frontrunners Obama has nothing to worry about.

[WILLOCO]

Yes at this point I feel President Obama will get re-elected in 2012. He's outstanding on the campaign trial, And the GOP has no one who can go pound for pound with Obama in the debates.

[J. J.]

Given the current crop of Republican frontrunners Obama Carter has nothing to worry about.

With that correction, you have the conventional wisdom of January 6, 1978, along with "Disco will live forever." 

[Coburn In 2012]

no,  not a chance in hell

[Verily]

Given the current crop of Republican frontrunners Obama Carter has nothing to worry about.

With that correction, you have the conventional wisdom of January 6, 1978, along with "Disco will live forever." 

Errr... what? Everyone knew Reagan was a serious force in 1978.

[J. J.]

Given the current crop of Republican frontrunners Obama Carter has nothing to worry about.

With that correction, you have the conventional wisdom of January 6, 1978, along with "Disco will live forever." 

Errr... what? Everyone knew Reagan was a serious force in 1978.

Reagan's supposed "swan song" was the Republican National Convention in 1976; he was "too old" after that.  I can still remember the commentators describing it as such.  He was supposedly finished in 1980, with GHWB winning Iowa.  Then came, "I paid for this microphone," in NH. 

Your vision is perfect 20/20 hindsight, but it wasn't like that while it was happening.

[jimsnaza]

Then, who's the savior of the GOP? It should be someone already in office. Palin's done, Huckabee's done, Romney's not conservative enough. If you run Pawlenty, it will be a massacre. Put any of these candidates on the trail for a year and they're going to screw up. A year ago, I thought it was impossible for Palin to be the candidate for the GOP, now it is looking more and more likely. Remember Obama has $30 million left over, and he doesn't have to spend on the primaries. Oh yeah, 4 million people have donated to his campaign. I bet 2 million will donate again. The country is only getting younger and more racially diverse.

No Republican will be able to match Obama's network of donors and volunteers.

Given the current crop of Republican frontrunners Obama Carter has nothing to worry about.

With that correction, you have the conventional wisdom of January 6, 1978, along with "Disco will live forever." 

[J. J.]

No Republican will be able to match Obama's network of donors and volunteers.

You make an assumption that they will still be there.  It doesn't like they are now; will they come back in 3 1/2 years?

[Rob]

You make an assumption that they will still be there.  It doesn't like they are now; will they come back in 3 1/2 years?

Ashley Todd says yes: