Why is Barack Obama’s re-election in 2012 only *now* in doubt?


I should note right from the start that I like Stu Rothenberg as a pundit and a political handicapper: he’s a pretty bright person and he has a lot of experience. But Rothenberg is also very much plugged into the professional political establishment… and sometimes, it shows. Case in point: Rothenberg’s otherwise spot-on analysis about the travails of Barack Obama these days has what I will charitably call a ‘howler.’

This president, like Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush before him, learned the lesson that every investment fund manager knows: Evidence of past performance doesn’t guarantee future results.

And now the president, who is expected to raise close to $1 billion for his re-election campaign, who faces a Republican field widely mocked as undistinguished and who can rely on the same team of brilliant political gurus who masterminded his 2008 victory, suddenly finds his re-election in doubt.

Two howlers, actually: the first is the frankly unsupported-by-historical-evidence assumption that Barack Obama ever learns a lesson on anything. The second is that Barack Obama’s past performance should have justified any expectations in the first place.

Let’s get the obvious out of the way: yes, Obama beat McCain in 2008. Which is to say, Obama beat a Republican candidate who was too tired to fight, too slow to realize that his signature issue (national security) was temporarily downgraded, and too inflexible to switch gears away from the campaign that McCain expected to run against Hillary Clinton; and Obama did this in the atmosphere of a sudden collapse in the economy, at the worst possible moment for the GOP*. Congratulations. Huzzah. Feel the magic – but since then? Well, let’s just say that the magic had a very, very short half-life:

  • December 2, 2008. GA-SEN runoff election. Saxby Chambliss goes from 49/46 in the original election to 57/43 in the runoff. This would be about the time where I realized that Obama was not a machine.
  • December 6, 2008. LA-02 & LA-04 runoff elections. If you remember - I do – the shocking result was not that Cao won in LA-02; it was that Fleming did in LA-04. LA-04 Especially noteworthy because it represented Obama’s first tentative foray into using his political capital.
  • March 30, 2009. NY-20. I bring it up because Rothenberg did in passing: and I’d like to note that going from a comfortable 62/38 win in the general to a 50/50 squeaker win in the special does not actually speak well for the President’s underlying aura of electoral baraka. And again, I wouldn’t have brought it up if Rothenberg hadn’t inexplicably used it as an example.
  • November 3, 2009. NJ-GOV and VA-GOV. Yeah, that was the day that a lot of people started saying this in public. Not so much because of Virginia – everybody knew that DOOM had arrived for Deeds fairly early – but because Obama went to bat for Corzine… and struck out.
  • May 21, 2010. HI-01 special election. This was the one that more or less made up for the GOP base’s throwaway of NY-23 in order to make it clear that it was time to take the Republican grassroots more seriously; and Charles Djou’s win there obscured just how badly Obama and the Democrats messed up the organizational side of things by trying to push Case over Hanabusa.
  • November 2, 2010. The 2010 Midterm elections. And how well did Barack Obama do there, in his first real test to see whether he could bring in supporters?

You tell me.

I bring all of this up to point out something: not every one of us believed that Barack Obama was all that, or ever all that. He didn’t impress me as a candidate, he doesn’t impress me as a President, and at the rate things are going he won’t impress me as a campaigner next year. And I didn’t need to wait until September of 2011 to gear up towards telling him ‘no:’ I was already starting to do it in February of 2009. Or November of 2008, depending on how you look at it. So I guess that what I’m trying to point out here is… while I understand that Stuart Rothenberg is a little surprised at how badly things have turned out for the President – and the people who are stuck having to rely on the President – I’m not exactly sure why Rothenberg’s surprised that Obama could be defeated in 2012.

Wasn’t it obvious in 2008?

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*I would like to note for the record, by the way, that the unemployment rate and average price of gas has more or less doubled since then. Which is why you’re going to see a lot of “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” commercials next year.

 


Category: , ,

RSS feed

4 Comments Leave a comment

Rothenberg is afraid of the race card

renl57 Monday, September 26th at 7:13PM EDT (link)

Rothenberg’s analogy for Obama: “Evidence of past performance doesn’t guarantee future results.”

What “past performance”??? Exactly what stellar achievements in government did Obama have to his name, prior to announcing his candidacy for President? He had won elections against weak opponents who were tainted by scandal. In the Senate, his record was notably undistinguished, with a whole bunch of “present” votes.

Obama and his antiwar “netroots” did run a good campaign for President. But their assertion that running a campaign showed how good Obama would be as a Chief Executive was risible.

The truth is that had Obama been a white Irish guy named Barrey O’Bama, and had the antiwar leftists not been searching for an antiwar spokesman to counter Hillary’s having voted to authorize the Iraq War, he would have been dismissed as a nonentity.

But to say that–to suggest that Obama’s fame is in no small part due to his being the first black nominee of a major party–is to invite a charge of racism.

But it’s true nevertheless.

Obama is a textbook example of the corrupting effects of affirmative action. Bend over backwards to give some black person all kinds of special breaks which he never earned, and the result is a black person who is kicked upstairs to his level of incompetence (or even above it).

He is the campaigner-in-chief and the teleprompter-in-chief.

rickbull Monday, September 26th at 8:58PM EDT (link)

And has never been anything more, as is evidenced by the fact that even the leftists are seeing through the veneer to the particle board underneath on this cheap piece of furniture in the oval office.

WE ARE THE 53% (who actually pay taxes).

 
 

Moe, the timing of that "...sudden collapse in the economy, at the worst possible moment for the GOP*." still makes me wonder

radicalrighty Tuesday, September 27th at 8:22AM EDT (link)

if Obama’s liberal, billionaire-supporters, Soros, Buffett, various Hollywood mogals, et al, conspired to manipulate the overseas markets (to avoid the SEC), and trigger the collapse and panic, thus allowing a Dem to waltz into the White House?

I mean, (Redstaters) could it have happened?

 

Obama's supporters will return

publious Tuesday, September 27th at 10:25AM EDT (link)

As they suffer from invincible ignorance…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1-RchxqTPg