Given the current clown act that has taken over the Republican presidential nomination process, the White House could be forgiven for feeling pretty good about President Obama's chances for re-election. But it would be a serious mistake to read too much into the media circus surrounding Trump, Bachmann, Santorum, and the other buffoons piling out of the tiny car.
At some point in the not-too-distant future, the GOP is going to send out the clowns -- and the game is going to shift dramatically. Gone will be the notion that this election will come down to what percentage of Americans believes Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States. Instead, the operative number will more likely be the stunning 70 percent who, according to the most recent CBS News/New York Times poll, believe the country is on the wrong track, compared to only 26 percent who believe we're on the right track.
Even this far from Election Day, those are grim numbers to set against the very hopeful numbers of the political futures market Intrade, which currently gives the president a 60 percent chance of winning re-election.
For the moment, the White House seems to be following the standard Washington playbook, which is premised on two dubious assumptions: a) elections are decided by "independents" b) "independents" are always to be found in the middle of the road.
So, the Beltway thinking goes, count on those in your base to come out (where else are they going to go?), and run a middle-of-the-road campaign to win over those independents before your opponent can.
It's the classic way to run a campaign. And it was proven completely wrong in 2008 by the winning coalition that swept Obama to victory. He didn't win by swerving to the middle. His 2008 campaign had a different premise: that elections don't have to be the cynical zero-sum game Washington believes them to be. Instead of fighting for the ever-dwindling number of swing voters, Obama fought to win over the much larger number of voters who had turned their backs on the process.
It was audacious -- and it worked. According to a new study by Project Vote, new voters made up 12 percent of the electorate in 2008. And they went for Obama by a margin of two to one. That translated into 10 million first-time votes for Obama -- who won by a margin of 9.5 million.
And a significant portion of the voters who gave Obama his victory were African-Americans, Latinos, and the poor. The percentage of African-Americans casting their first vote went from 17 percent in 2004 to 19 percent in 2008. That means 800,000 African-Americans voted for the first time. Among Latinos, the percentage went from 22 percent in 2004 to 28 percent, adding another 800,000 first-timers. And among those with a family income of less than $15,000, first-time voters went from 18 percent to a whopping 34 percent.
These are precisely the people who have been disproportionately hurt by the recession. Unemployment among African-Americans is much higher than the national average. Indeed, even as the country's rate ticked down in March to 8.8 percent, it climbed from 15.3 to 15.5 percent among African-Americans. Among Latinos, the unemployment rate is 11.1 percent. And, of course, the ongoing shredding of the social safety net greatly impacts all those low-income voters.
Much has been written about the disaffection of the Democratic base, usually taken to mean the most highly involved, activist elements of the party -- the so-called "professional left" that Robert Gibbs complained about in the lead-up to the 2010 midterms. But most of them are almost certainly going to vote for Obama, even if half-heartedly. And a half-hearted vote counts no less than an excited vote.
So, the more intriguing question is what will happen to all those 2008 first-time voters -- and to all those who have become eligible to vote since 2008. 2.2 million more young people voted in that election than voted in 2004, and they went for Obama over McCain 66 percent to 32 percent. However, unlike the Democratic Party base, first-time voters, especially young people, minorities, and low-income families do have something else to do on Election Day -- stay home.
So what is Obama doing to reach these increasingly unlikely voters? One thing they're not particularly interested in is reducing the deficit at the expense of growing the economy and creating jobs. As the Project Vote study notes: "individuals who voted for the first time in 2008 strongly favor an active role for government in ensuring economic fairness and educational opportunity."
For instance, 79 percent of those 2008 first-timers think the economy should be boosted by increasing spending on public works and infrastructure. And 86 percent support more spending on public education.
Instead, what they're getting is a White House that has signed on to Republican principles, like prioritizing steep budget cuts -- even in a faltering economy. The only debate now appears to be whether the cuts will be harsh or incredibly harsh. Those are the official boundaries of debate now acceptable in Washington.
But instead of audaciously enlarging the debate and taking his case directly to the American people -- who, in poll after poll, say they would prefer the government to focus on jobs instead of deficit reduction -- Obama has dutifully accepted the narrow range allowed to him by the conventional wisdom. That's hardly the kind of leadership that inspired those 10 million people to vote for the first time in their lives.
As John Judis writes in his perceptive analysis of where the White House's economic message has gone terribly wrong, "Obama has, sadly, bought the Republican argument for why the economy is in trouble." And the effect, Judis says, "is to nullify Democrats' ability to offer popular programs that will fuel growth, save jobs, and reduce people's insecurity."
Of course, it doesn't help that the media has bought into the same myth. In a Los Angeles Times article about the so-called "Gang of Six" senators, we're treated to this doozy, which is such conventional wisdom that no source was thought necessary: "Democratic senators up for reelection next year are particularly interested in debt-reduction strategies, an issue that has energized independent voters."
Really? Independent voters are "energized" by deficit reduction? That's not what the polls show. And to the extent that polls do show a growing concern about deficit reduction, it's a little like a news station running a month of segments about shark attacks and then at the end of the month claiming viewers are really worried about shark attacks.
What the millions of voters who turned out and elected Obama the first time around -- and who have it in their power to stay home and deny him re-election the second time around -- are actually "energized" by is the prospect of jobs. And by the sort of leadership they thought they were voting for, the sort that doesn't so unquestioningly accept the narrow, self-serving, and false parameters of the economic debate laid out by official Washington.
This is where the media attention should actually be focused. Obama's chances of re-election depend much less on the Republican circus that's currently in town and much more on how much he buys into the conventional wisdom of what the country needs and wants. For every independent or unlikely voter who is actually obsessed with the deficit, there are millions of potential voters waiting to reward with their vote a president who is willing to take bold and decisive action to create jobs and grow the economy. Or punish him by staying home on Election Day 2012.
Lincoln Mitchell: Will We Have Another Election With No Discussion of Jobs?
Sheldon C. Good: A Budget To Protect The Poor
Rev. Jennifer Butler: Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand: An Unholy Alliance
Gregory Floyd: Words of Wisdom Depend on Moral Principles
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
This is a very good and timely post. I agree with everything you say,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but I have a problem with the last line i read about FIRST time Voters, " or PUNISH him by staying HOME ....and denying him election " ?
I question the WISDOM of this line. Because this is the HEIGHT of POLITICAL STUPIDITY and ignorance for first time voters to PUNISH OBAMA will ACTUALLY MEAN PUNISHING Themselves !! ??
OBAMA and the other DEM leaders will do just fine .........it is the First time voters and millions of others that will GET PUNISHED by NOT TURNING out to VOTE !!
You more than anyone else CAN TEACH them that .in the imperfect world , there is NO other BETTER ALTERNATIVE , and so TURN OUT to VOTE is a VOTE for their own SURVIVAL.
Arriana H. and others that have a public voice should demand that the FED be reformed or replaced. It is in charge of stealing from the American people, and it is prolonging the misery of this economy for a sizeable portion of the American people. Bernanke basicallly says the FED cannot do much- just be patient for recovery of the economy. Benanke is wrong about this, and he shows an abolute deadness to creative thought. The FED cannot do much when it is the lackey of Wall Street and the people who have a strangle-hold on the operation of the FED. The system is rotten and needs reform. We could start by asking Bernanke for his resignation. The FED could allocate the money for certain purposes and not others. That would be a good start for effective leadership. Why does it not do that?
In the meantime, Arriana- shout about the FED!
If the Republicans come up with a halfway decent candidate then Obama will be beaten and it will be up to the Republicans to see to it that we get back on the right track.
That remains to be seen...
I have no faith in another round of Bush type BS...
We need something that isn't Bush or Obama...
We need a President who will let us all keep more of our own money to spend as WE see fit.
We need a smaller government.
A smaller government is cheaper to maintain.
We need to close almost all of our foreign military bases...
We need to bust ALL public sector unions...
No one who gets paid with tax money should be allowed to unionize..
We need to stop giving money to billionaires...
We need to stop giving money to millionaires...
We need to stop ALL foreign tariffs on goods coming into this country.
This will make all foreign countries eager to buy our products.
Etc...
Nothing about Obamas tax and spend insanity makes a lick of sense, and STOP with the Bush caused it BS... Grow up and smell the coffee..
Obama went along with all of it.
He's Bush times ten....
http://captbecker.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/why-keynesian-deficit-spending-will-fail/
However, Obama's platform was well within the accepted political spectrum. Cap and trade, health care, education and immigration reform all borrowed heavily from yesterday's Republicanism. All throughout, Obama made the key moves, whether signing the FISA bill or turning down public financing to maintain the support of key figures in the business communities and campaign contributions from major industries.
Once in office the administration proposed a modest and undersized stimulus package, once again in accordance with conventional wisdom stating that a limited degree deficit spending was an appropriate response at the time. From his campaign right down to his every move in office the president has followed the prevailing wisdom of the day, refusing to stick his neck out. The one thing that can be said is that on paper, the policies he proposed represented tangible, if limited progress. But after two years of retreats and futile attempts at compromise, veering to (relative) center isn't going to work. Other than that, there's nothing new or shocking about his actions on the deficit.
He allowed the health care system to continue on the path that will guarantee that every poor and lower middle class citizen will die before their time. He protected the criminal activities of the pharma industry that traffics in withholding it's product instead of providing it. He allowed hundreds of thousands of Americans to be evicted from their homes based upon fraudulent mortgage practices and still hasn't addressed one of the prime factors holding back our economy. He oversaw the obscene transfer of wealth from the middle class to Wall St criminals, allowing bonuses to be paid out of taxpayer funds that would have dwarfed most lifetime incomes of the working class.
The list can go on for a lot longer than the word limit will allow, but, bottom line, Obama is a DINO like few others we have seen and has earned a "real" primary challenge. America deserves better.
Very good analysis, but you stopped a sentence or two short of the full truth. He did what any candidate from either party is bound to do: serve the interests that elected him or her. I really don't like Bernie Sanders, I find him a career politician who grandstands in a way that undercuts any chance of his being really effective for the sake of his celebrity. But I have to give him this, every time he is utterly wrong, he is completely honest in his beliefs and values ... he is not obviously beholden to any special interest.
About 42% of Americans register as Democrats, 25% Independent and 33% Republican. Democrats only need to appeal to one Independent in three to carry an election. But they must first appeal to the Democratic voter. Obama has been trying to find a bi-partisan path for as long as he has been in office. The Republicans just refuse to be part of that so little is accomplished. They know all they have to do is maintain the current economic crisis until election day 2012 and so many dispirited Democrats will stay home that they will win. It happened in 2010.
So, yes, it has to be about Obama getting reelected. The options would be terrible.
FAVED and fanned because you are a wise citizen .
GOPers/Teab..ers have everything to gain NOT to ALLOW Progress, so Economy is bad , No jobs created high GAS prices are part of their PLAN or as Hillary would say part of their RIGHT WING conspiracy to DEMOLISH the DEMOCRATIC party.
The stated GOAL of GOP was and is to Establish the PERMANENT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY .
Can you imagine what that really means ? a TOTALITARIAN regime !
and permanent democrat majority as they like to say.
SO, YOUNG voters should realize there is NO BETTER alternative than the DEM party. and by VOTING for the DEMS , it will gradually get the backbone we give it.
So YES Vote for the DEMS/Obama to PREVENT a TOTALITARIAN REGIME which has already arrived in the House of Representative.
Or you could institute public works projects and build a lot of high speed rail lines that hardly anyone will use or do whatever politically connected organizations want to do, which is rarely of benefit.
We already have a massive public works program called the military, and a fantastically inefficient military industrial complex which wastes massive amounts of resources and labor for unproductive purposes, but yeah, lets just up the ante and throw more good money after bad and create more jobs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc&feature=player_embedded
"The only debate now appears to be whether the cuts will be harsh or incredibly harsh." - This line is just incredible. Congress was being silly debating about cuts that were about 1/20th of our budget deficit on the high end, and were likely over-estimated at that. But these same cuts are so very "harsh" as to be "incredibly harsh" on the high end. It's just beyond silly. We can't even get to talking about the 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities when a small fraction of that is just beyond reach.
If we collect all the income of the wealthy we can only do it one time, and we deflate the available money supply so badly needed now for small business. If we "herd" the wealth into proper channels we will see jobs flourish and our multi layered economy return. That wealth will change hand many times in it's natural movement back to the top, offering taxation opportunities at every change of hands. It has always been the working middle class that funds government. The wealthy fund the jobs that make that possible.
What the heck are you talking about?
The wealthy can and should spend their money on whatever they wish..
NO ONE has the right to tell the wealthy or anyone else how to spend their own money.
That is certainly not the job of our government and any policy old or new designed for that end should be abandoned...
OBTW, CBO historical data do not support your assertion that the taxes of the 60's were never collected. http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/
Psychology is important factors in mood and marketplace. Talking down and finding false remedies are what destroy confidence, as we have now with the focus on the defict, instead of economic growth and jobs- not to mention reforming institutions that are prolonging our problems and doing less than nothing--- I point out the Federal Reserve, which must be in charge of stealing from the American people.
Going back to same old failed Bush/repub policies would be a disaster to avoid at all costs "if our country is to prosper!"
Clinging to the past will only get a person so far, and those invocations are a depreciating asset.
The disaster for the nation that is unbridled free market capitalism and the corporatocracy it has spawned couldn't be more obvious.
There are so many profound differences between the United States, those nation-states, and even our dear friends in the British Commonwealth, that the comparison is specious.
What couldn't be more obvious is that if Fred wants what Jim has, then Fred needs to do everything that Jim does, not just the part where Jim stands around and reaps the benefits.
The GOP will be spending millions to convince the electorate that up is down and red is white and the only way to counter the incredible advantage they have in spending is to have a simple and concise plan that the American people will support. It's called the "People's Budget" and was conceived by the House Progressive Caucus and outlines in simple terms what the Democratic Party SHOULD be about.
The Democrats can either return to their roots and principals or risk losing the support of their base, along with their rather tenuous hold on government. They are not going to win by sitting on the fence or making pretty speeches that they fail to follow with action.
i faved you because you spoke the truth.....................but your last paragraph is was disappointing.
many who did not come out to vote in Nov 2010 produced the WORST Possible outcome.(alternative ).
Because the DEMS are STILL the BETTER ALTERNATIVE. i will still vote for this UNDERDOG Party............who does stand for Democratic principles (as much as the support of voters is given to them )
remember that those SENIORS who got the best GOLDEN Years did not have the LOYALTY and DEFECTed to become Reagan Dems !!?
The Democratic Party is as strong as WE the VOTERS make it . !
Please reconsider. We Know YOUR MESSAGE...........let us WIN, and REVERSE this.
Maybe this has something to do with it? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027090-503544.html
That would explain why (according to the latest Gallup/USA Today poll) the Republicans have a 12-point lead with respect to which party would best deal with the federal budget.
He's history!
Yes, he will be history in 5-1/2 years and it will be good reading.
The people who answer that question are politically more SAVVY than the pundits who interpret the polls.
ACTually ,
This country has been going in the RIGHT DIRECTION for over 30 years.........so much so that it is now well into the FAR RIGHT position.
So, THAT is really why people answer the COUTRY is Going in the WRONG direction !!!
The people SENSE there is something WRONG in this RIGHTward drift.
The people who answer that poll know that the TEAp----- direction is the WRONG ONE