Why Obama Will Win in 2012
It might be “the economy, stupid,” but radicalism on the right will
doom Republicans’ chances at the presidency.
Jamelle Bouie | July 21, 2011



It’s not hard to find signs that President Barack Obama is destined
for a single term. Unemployment continues to hover at 9 percent, and a
June poll from American Research Group says 39 percent of Americans
disapprove of how he has handled the economy, which 71 percent of
registered voters say will be “extremely or very important.” When
asked whom they’d vote for in the 2012 presidential election, 47
percent said the “Republican Party’s candidate for president,” as
opposed to the 39 percent who would support Obama.

Obama isn’t the only incumbent to start a re-election campaign with
low approval ratings, but others enjoyed the advantage of a growing
economy. Ronald Reagan might not have earned the reputation for
political genius he’s been credited with had the economy stalled in
1984 instead of growing at a rapid clip. Likewise, Bill Clinton might
not have regained his title as the “comeback kid” if the economy
hadn’t begun to supercharge in 1995 and 1996. For Obama, even if the
economy grows quickly in 2012, unemployment will still top 8 percent,
and per-capita income growth (a major predictor of presidential
elections) is projected to stagnate.

Taken together, this is bad news for the White House. Nonetheless,
there are reasons for optimism.

For starters, Obama is far more popular than he should be under the
current conditions. The relationship between presidential approval and
unemployment is well established, and with the jobless rate at 9.2
percent, Obama should have approval numbers in the high 30s, on par
with George H.W. Bush’s performance in the last year of his term.
According to Gallup, however, his job approval for the current quarter
(from April to July 19) averages to 47 percent, as does his
year-to-date approval rating. Obama maintains high approval ratings
among core Democratic constituencies—liberals, African Americans, and
the poor—and a plurality of Americans still trust him to do right by
the country. On the current budget negotiations, for example, 47
percent say that Obama is “putting the country’s interests first,”
compared with 24 percent for Republicans in Congress.

Likewise, a plurality of Americans hold negative views about the
Republican Party as a whole, by a margin of 47 percent to 42 percent.
This extends to the state level; Republican governors in swing states
are deeply unpopular with their constituents. Governor Rick Scott of
Florida leads the loser pack with an approval rating of 29 percent—the
worst of any governor in the country. Governor John Kasich of Ohio and
Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania follow with approval ratings of
33 percent and 39 percent, respectively. This doesn’t guarantee votes
for President Obama, but it could drive Democratic turnout in those
states if activists use those unpopular governors to mobilize voters
and increase turnout.

Obama’s chief Republican competitors aren’t popular with the public,
either. As the moderate former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney
is best positioned to challenge Obama in a general election, but in a
head-to-head matchup, even he trails Obama. What’s more, if early
fundraising is a sign of voter interest and intensity, Obama is far
ahead of his Republican competitors. As of last week, the president
had raised $85.6 million for his re-election bid—twice as much as the
entire Republican field has brought in.

Yes, voters hate the sluggish economy, and they are dissatisfied with
the country’s direction. So far, though, that hasn’t translated into
personal disdain for the president. Voters are still reluctant to
saddle him with responsibility for existing economic conditions. By a
2-to-1 margin, according to a survey released last week by Quinnipiac
University, voters still say that President George W. Bush is culpable
for the current situation. This also holds true among independent
voters—49 percent blame Bush; just 24 percent blame Obama.

It’s easy to say that none of this will matter come October 2012, when
the economy is still sluggish and unemployment is still high. If
history and political science offer any insight, presidents lose when
economic conditions are poor. But today’s political circumstances are
unusual. Incumbents have never raised this much money, the electorate
has never been this diverse, and—with the exception of the 1930s—the
economy has never been this terrible. Political-science models are
useful but limited, and we don’t have enough data to make conclusive
judgments about the upcoming election.

At this point in the game, even with poor conditions, I’d call the
2012 election for Obama. I’d do so not because of his personal
popularity or his massive campaign operation but because of the
Republican Party. The GOP has been captured by its most extreme
members, and even the most moderate Republican candidate will be
forced to kowtow to the party’s far-right wing to win the nomination.
As Obama struggles with slow economic growth, the GOP’s fanaticism
could be the thing that saves him. High unemployment aside, if the
history of presidential politics shows anything, it’s that when you
give voters a choice between the incumbent they know and the radicals
they don’t, the former will win.

Jamelle Bouie is a writing fellow at the Prospect.  Follow @jbouie

-- 
-Laye
==============================
"With fair speech thou might have thy will,
With it thou might thy self spoil."
--The R.M

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤