2012: Analysis From The Left

[PoliticalChic]

William Galston, from the Left-leaning Brookings Institute, wrotes the following:

"One Year to Go: President Barack Obama’s Uphill Battle for Reelection in 2012

1. More than in any contest since 1992, the economy will be the overwhelming focus. But fundamental clashes about the role of government will also be in play against a backdrop of record low public confidence in our governing institutions.

2. ...contests involving incumbents tend to be referenda on their records more than choices between candidates. If the election pitting Obama against the strongest potential Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, were held tomorrow, the president would probably lose.

3. ...three factors could change the odds in Obama’s favor. Economic growth could exceed expectations, and the unemployment rate—long stuck at 9 percent—could come down fast enough to restore a modicum of Americans’ shattered hopes for the future. The Republicans could commit creedal suicide by nominating a presidential candidate outside the mainstream or unqualified for the office.

4. ...Obama campaign could make a wise decision to focus first and foremost on the states—principally in the Midwest—that have decided presidential elections in the past half century and are poised to do so again next year. If the president tries to rerun his 2008 campaign under very different circumstances, he could end up turning potential victory into defeat.

5. ...from Obama’s inauguration through the end of 2009, on average, 39 percent of the electorate thought that the country was generally heading in the right direction—not great, but much better than the 2008 average of 13 percent. But things have gone downhill ever since: “right direction” averaged 33 percent in 2010 and 28 percent thus far in 2011. As of early November it stands at just 21 percent.

6. Fifty-seven percent of the people regard the economy and jobs as the most important issues facing the country, compared to 5 percent for the budget deficit, 2 percent for health and education, and 1 percent for poverty, crime and war. (Neither abortion nor moral values registers even 1 percent.)

7. During the 2007-2009 recession, median household income declined by 3.2 percent. Since the official end of the recession in mid-2009, it has declined by an additional 6.7 percent. Median household income now stands below what it was in 2000.

a. President Obama is increasingly being held responsible as well: 53 percent of the voters now blame him a “great deal” or a “moderate amount” for the economy, up more than 20 points....The big swing has come among Independents, whose “blame Obama” percentage has risen from 37 percent in early 2009 to 60 percent in the fall of 2011 (Gallup, September 21, 2011)....by a margin of 64 to 30 percent, Americans still blame government more than Wall Street for our economic plight. Not surprisingly four in five Republicans blame government more. But so do 65 percent of Independents.

8. The people want change, but they have no confidence in the public sector as the change agent. That would seem to give the edge to the anti-government party, but unfortunately for the Republicans, the people think they’re out to serve the interests of the rich, who already have too much. That would seem to give the edge back to Obama and the Democrats. But unfortunately for them, the people can’t figure out whose interests Obama and the Democrats want to serve—or whether they have a plan that could translate good economic intentions into tangible results."
One Year to Go: President Barack Obama


This, from the Left, but packed with facts.
His discussion of the electoral vote is really interesting if you have time, here:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2011/1107_obama_galston/1107_obama_galston.pdf

 

[Inthemiddle]

I'd say it's a pretty good synopsis of the current political situation as the election approaches. The 2012 election will come down to which voters have given up most.

 

[Wiseacre]

I personally felt that McCain ran a very poor campaign in 2008, hopefully whoever the repub candidate is will do much better. You would think with an economy and UE this bad that Obama would be toast, but I wouldn't count any chickens. The repubs also need a majority in the Senate too, as well as keeping it in the House. One wonders how the gop will do in their primaries if the TPers push unqualified candidates into the general election.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I personally felt that McCain ran a very poor campaign in 2008, hopefully whoever the repub candidate is will do much better. You would think with an economy and UE this bad that Obama would be toast, but I wouldn't count any chickens. The repubs also need a majority in the Senate too, as well as keeping it in the House. One wonders how the gop will do in their primaries if the TPers push unqualified candidates into the general election.

Galston goes on to discuss the electoral college and how it will play a role (my second link above.)

Here's part...

1. As Gerald Seib rightly reminds us (Wall Street Journal, September 27 2011), presidential campaigns are won and lost state by state in the Electoral College, not in the nationwide popular vote. (Once in a while, this turns out to be a distinction with a difference; just ask not-quite President Gore.) Based on state results from the past five elections, Seib argues that the Electoral College gives Democrats a distinct advantage: they’ve won 18 states plus the District of Columbia, totaling 242 electoral votes, in each of those elections, compared to only 13 states with 102 votes for the Republicans.

2. In 2008, Barack Obama beat John McCain with 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173. Now let’s do alternative history based on two assumptions: (1) the two-party popular vote was evenly divided; and (2) Obama’s margin in each state was reduced by the same amount—7.26 percentage points—yielding an equal division of the popular vote. Under that scenario, Obama would have lost five states that he actually won—Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia—with a total loss of 86 electoral votes. Under this scenario he still would have prevailed in the Electoral College, 279 to 259. That would seem to validate the hypothesis that Democrats enjoy a structural edge: they get 10 more electoral votes when the popular vote is evenly divided.

3. But not so fast: the 2008 presidential election was the last to be carried out based on the 2000 census, and the distribution of Electoral College votes did not reflect population shifts that have occurred in the ensuing years. The 2012 presidential election will, and it makes a difference. Reapportionment shifts 6 electoral votes from Democratic to Republican states. If we rerun the 2008 election with the 2012 electoral vote allocation plus an even split of the popular vote, Obama wins by a very narrow margin—273 to 265. So the current Democratic structural advantage is 4 electoral votes—not nothing, but not much either. The probability that Obama could win reelection without a majority of the popular vote is extremely if not vanishingly low.

 

[Wiseacre]

I personally felt that McCain ran a very poor campaign in 2008, hopefully whoever the repub candidate is will do much better. You would think with an economy and UE this bad that Obama would be toast, but I wouldn't count any chickens. The repubs also need a majority in the Senate too, as well as keeping it in the House. One wonders how the gop will do in their primaries if the TPers push unqualified candidates into the general election.

Galston goes on to discuss the electoral college and how it will play a role (my second link above.)

Here's part...

1. As Gerald Seib rightly reminds us (Wall Street Journal, September 27 2011), presidential campaigns are won and lost state by state in the Electoral College, not in the nationwide popular vote. (Once in a while, this turns out to be a distinction with a difference; just ask not-quite President Gore.) Based on state results from the past five elections, Seib argues that the Electoral College gives Democrats a distinct advantage: they’ve won 18 states plus the District of Columbia, totaling 242 electoral votes, in each of those elections, compared to only 13 states with 102 votes for the Republicans.

2. In 2008, Barack Obama beat John McCain with 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173. Now let’s do alternative history based on two assumptions: (1) the two-party popular vote was evenly divided; and (2) Obama’s margin in each state was reduced by the same amount—7.26 percentage points—yielding an equal division of the popular vote. Under that scenario, Obama would have lost five states that he actually won—Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia—with a total loss of 86 electoral votes. Under this scenario he still would have prevailed in the Electoral College, 279 to 259. That would seem to validate the hypothesis that Democrats enjoy a structural edge: they get 10 more electoral votes when the popular vote is evenly divided.

3. But not so fast: the 2008 presidential election was the last to be carried out based on the 2000 census, and the distribution of Electoral College votes did not reflect population shifts that have occurred in the ensuing years. The 2012 presidential election will, and it makes a difference. Reapportionment shifts 6 electoral votes from Democratic to Republican states. If we rerun the 2008 election with the 2012 electoral vote allocation plus an even split of the popular vote, Obama wins by a very narrow margin—273 to 265. So the current Democratic structural advantage is 4 electoral votes—not nothing, but not much either. The probability that Obama could win reelection without a majority of the popular vote is extremely if not vanishingly low.

Yeah, I read that analysis when it first came out. All very true, it's hard to see Obama getting the support from the independent voters this time, I suspect he'll lose some swing states.

One wonders if the increasing numbers of unemployed will stick with Obama thinking they'll keep getting their gov't handouts or instead vote GOP thinking they'll have a better chance of getting a job. Big Gov't vs Small Gov't. And the OWSers could have a detrimental impact on the repubs if Obama can paint them as the party of the rich guys. I think it's gonna get nasty.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I personally felt that McCain ran a very poor campaign in 2008, hopefully whoever the repub candidate is will do much better. You would think with an economy and UE this bad that Obama would be toast, but I wouldn't count any chickens. The repubs also need a majority in the Senate too, as well as keeping it in the House. One wonders how the gop will do in their primaries if the TPers push unqualified candidates into the general election.

Galston goes on to discuss the electoral college and how it will play a role (my second link above.)

Here's part...

1. As Gerald Seib rightly reminds us (Wall Street Journal, September 27 2011), presidential campaigns are won and lost state by state in the Electoral College, not in the nationwide popular vote. (Once in a while, this turns out to be a distinction with a difference; just ask not-quite President Gore.) Based on state results from the past five elections, Seib argues that the Electoral College gives Democrats a distinct advantage: they’ve won 18 states plus the District of Columbia, totaling 242 electoral votes, in each of those elections, compared to only 13 states with 102 votes for the Republicans.

2. In 2008, Barack Obama beat John McCain with 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173. Now let’s do alternative history based on two assumptions: (1) the two-party popular vote was evenly divided; and (2) Obama’s margin in each state was reduced by the same amount—7.26 percentage points—yielding an equal division of the popular vote. Under that scenario, Obama would have lost five states that he actually won—Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia—with a total loss of 86 electoral votes. Under this scenario he still would have prevailed in the Electoral College, 279 to 259. That would seem to validate the hypothesis that Democrats enjoy a structural edge: they get 10 more electoral votes when the popular vote is evenly divided.

3. But not so fast: the 2008 presidential election was the last to be carried out based on the 2000 census, and the distribution of Electoral College votes did not reflect population shifts that have occurred in the ensuing years. The 2012 presidential election will, and it makes a difference. Reapportionment shifts 6 electoral votes from Democratic to Republican states. If we rerun the 2008 election with the 2012 electoral vote allocation plus an even split of the popular vote, Obama wins by a very narrow margin—273 to 265. So the current Democratic structural advantage is 4 electoral votes—not nothing, but not much either. The probability that Obama could win reelection without a majority of the popular vote is extremely if not vanishingly low.

Yeah, I read that analysis when it first came out. All very true, it's hard to see Obama getting the support from the independent voters this time, I suspect he'll lose some swing states.

One wonders if the increasing numbers of unemployed will stick with Obama thinking they'll keep getting their gov't handouts or instead vote GOP thinking they'll have a better chance of getting a job. Big Gov't vs Small Gov't. And the OWSers could have a detrimental impact on the repubs if Obama can paint them as the party of the rich guys. I think it's gonna get nasty.

"I think it's gonna get nasty."
That's called 'hope and change.'

 

[Wiseacre]

For me it's "hope for a change". In the WH.

 

[Sundial]

1. The economy is growing and will continue to grow. Whether it will surpass expectations depends on expectations. Many people don't even know we're in a recovery.

2. As the economy improves, people will pay less attention to it. The news industry is in the business of making news, so they'll make something new to pay attention to. We don't know what it'll be, until it happens.

3. There is no fundamental clash over the role over government. Other than the right-wing nut jobs, who're a lost cause in any event, everyone wants the government to make things better. The fundamental clash is inside people's heads: they blame government for everything bad that happens, without giving it credit for any good work that it does. There's no reason for Democrats to pay to much attention to this. This issue is a loser for Repubs. Obama should let them chew off their own feet.

3. This is not a referendum on Obama's record (which, by the way, has been impressive); it's a referendum on the bat-shit craziness of the Republican right-wing, which is running their party into the ground.

4. Romney would not beat Obama if the election were held tomorrow. RCP shows Obama would beat Romney. And this despite Obama not even starting to run against Romney yet. (and let's not even talk about the others.)

5. It's true; nobody cares about the debt. Obama has handled this issue marvelously.

6. Obama needs to continue to hammer on his Jobs Bill. It's unfortunate the media isn't paying more attention to it.

7. The Democrats desperately desperately need their own media to counter the Repub's media empire. Too often Repub's are able to set the agenda purely by force of weight of ownership of media outlets. Democrats need more voices. (Jon Stewart and the Huffington Post are not enough.)

Obama is in good shape to beat Romney. (And much better chance to beat anybody else.) Betting odds, overall, would put him at about 2:1. A year, of course, is an eternity in politics, and there's no excuse to be be complacent.

 

[DiamondDave]

"Nobody cares about the debt"

That's about the funniest thing I've heard in months

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The economy is growing and will continue to grow. Whether it will surpass expectations depends on expectations. Many people don't even know we're in a recovery.

2. As the economy improves, people will pay less attention to it. The news industry is in the business of making news, so they'll make something new to pay attention to. We don't know what it'll be, until it happens.

3. There is no fundamental clash over the role over government. Other than the right-wing nut jobs, who're a lost cause in any event, everyone wants the government to make things better. The fundamental clash is inside people's heads: they blame government for everything bad that happens, without giving it credit for any good work that it does. There's no reason for Democrats to pay to much attention to this. This issue is a loser for Repubs. Obama should let them chew off their own feet.

3. This is not a referendum on Obama's record (which, by the way, has been impressive); it's a referendum on the bat-shit craziness of the Republican right-wing, which is running their party into the ground.

4. Romney would not beat Obama if the election were held tomorrow. RCP shows Obama would beat Romney. And this despite Obama not even starting to run against Romney yet. (and let's not even talk about the others.)

5. It's true; nobody cares about the debt. Obama has handled this issue marvelously.

6. Obama needs to continue to hammer on his Jobs Bill. It's unfortunate the media isn't paying more attention to it.

7. The Democrats desperately desperately need their own media to counter the Repub's media empire. Too often Repub's are able to set the agenda purely by force of weight of ownership of media outlets. Democrats need more voices. (Jon Stewart and the Huffington Post are not enough.)

Obama is in good shape to beat Romney. (And much better chance to beat anybody else.) Betting odds, overall, would put him at about 2:1. A year, of course, is an eternity in politics, and there's no excuse to be be complacent.

You, offering political and/or economic analysis would be like Charlie Sheen doing a testimonial for eHarmony.

You should try to stick to subjects where you might actually have some cache, such as favorite Crayola, or how far to sit from the tv….this is out of your league.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

I personally felt that McCain ran a very poor campaign in 2008, hopefully whoever the repub candidate is will do much better. You would think with an economy and UE this bad that Obama would be toast, but I wouldn't count any chickens. The repubs also need a majority in the Senate too, as well as keeping it in the House. One wonders how the gop will do in their primaries if the TPers push unqualified candidates into the general election.

Galston goes on to discuss the electoral college and how it will play a role (my second link above.)

Here's part...

1. As Gerald Seib rightly reminds us (Wall Street Journal, September 27 2011), presidential campaigns are won and lost state by state in the Electoral College, not in the nationwide popular vote. (Once in a while, this turns out to be a distinction with a difference; just ask not-quite President Gore.) Based on state results from the past five elections, Seib argues that the Electoral College gives Democrats a distinct advantage: they’ve won 18 states plus the District of Columbia, totaling 242 electoral votes, in each of those elections, compared to only 13 states with 102 votes for the Republicans.

2. In 2008, Barack Obama beat John McCain with 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173. Now let’s do alternative history based on two assumptions: (1) the two-party popular vote was evenly divided; and (2) Obama’s margin in each state was reduced by the same amount—7.26 percentage points—yielding an equal division of the popular vote. Under that scenario, Obama would have lost five states that he actually won—Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia—with a total loss of 86 electoral votes. Under this scenario he still would have prevailed in the Electoral College, 279 to 259. That would seem to validate the hypothesis that Democrats enjoy a structural edge: they get 10 more electoral votes when the popular vote is evenly divided.

3. But not so fast: the 2008 presidential election was the last to be carried out based on the 2000 census, and the distribution of Electoral College votes did not reflect population shifts that have occurred in the ensuing years. The 2012 presidential election will, and it makes a difference. Reapportionment shifts 6 electoral votes from Democratic to Republican states. If we rerun the 2008 election with the 2012 electoral vote allocation plus an even split of the popular vote, Obama wins by a very narrow margin—273 to 265. So the current Democratic structural advantage is 4 electoral votes—not nothing, but not much either. The probability that Obama could win reelection without a majority of the popular vote is extremely if not vanishingly low.

Yeah, I read that analysis when it first came out. All very true, it's hard to see Obama getting the support from the independent voters this time, I suspect he'll lose some swing states.

One wonders if the increasing numbers of unemployed will stick with Obama thinking they'll keep getting their gov't handouts or instead vote GOP thinking they'll have a better chance of getting a job. Big Gov't vs Small Gov't. And the OWSers could have a detrimental impact on the repubs if Obama can paint them as the party of the rich guys. I think it's gonna get nasty.

In order for the republicans to get the support of moderate/independent voters they're going to have to nominate a candidate that appeals to them. None of the early Republican frontrunners thus far would be able to do that. But I think its safe to say that Perry and Cain have been rendered politically impotent. Now we'll see Newt run up front for a while then maybe Romney(but lets face it the republican base wants nothing to do with him).

 

[Sundial]

1. The economy is growing and will continue to grow. Whether it will surpass expectations depends on expectations. Many people don't even know we're in a recovery.

2. As the economy improves, people will pay less attention to it. The news industry is in the business of making news, so they'll make something new to pay attention to. We don't know what it'll be, until it happens.

3. There is no fundamental clash over the role over government. Other than the right-wing nut jobs, who're a lost cause in any event, everyone wants the government to make things better. The fundamental clash is inside people's heads: they blame government for everything bad that happens, without giving it credit for any good work that it does. There's no reason for Democrats to pay to much attention to this. This issue is a loser for Repubs. Obama should let them chew off their own feet.

3. This is not a referendum on Obama's record (which, by the way, has been impressive); it's a referendum on the bat-shit craziness of the Republican right-wing, which is running their party into the ground.

4. Romney would not beat Obama if the election were held tomorrow. RCP shows Obama would beat Romney. And this despite Obama not even starting to run against Romney yet. (and let's not even talk about the others.)

5. It's true; nobody cares about the debt. Obama has handled this issue marvelously.

6. Obama needs to continue to hammer on his Jobs Bill. It's unfortunate the media isn't paying more attention to it.

7. The Democrats desperately desperately need their own media to counter the Repub's media empire. Too often Repub's are able to set the agenda purely by force of weight of ownership of media outlets. Democrats need more voices. (Jon Stewart and the Huffington Post are not enough.)

Obama is in good shape to beat Romney. (And much better chance to beat anybody else.) Betting odds, overall, would put him at about 2:1. A year, of course, is an eternity in politics, and there's no excuse to be be complacent.

You, offering political and/or economic analysis would be like Charlie Sheen doing a testimonial for eHarmony.

You should try to stick to subjects where you might actually have some cache, such as favorite Crayola, or how far to sit from the tv….this is out of your league.

Interesting, substantive response, there, PoliticalChic. I'd make a mental note to try to respond to you at your own level, but why bother?

Honestly, though, you need to try to do better than that. You're not impressing anybody.

 

[Sundial]

"Nobody cares about the debt"

That's about the funniest thing I've heard in months

Dave, look at #6 in the OP.

I'll wait.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The economy is growing and will continue to grow. Whether it will surpass expectations depends on expectations. Many people don't even know we're in a recovery.

2. As the economy improves, people will pay less attention to it. The news industry is in the business of making news, so they'll make something new to pay attention to. We don't know what it'll be, until it happens.

3. There is no fundamental clash over the role over government. Other than the right-wing nut jobs, who're a lost cause in any event, everyone wants the government to make things better. The fundamental clash is inside people's heads: they blame government for everything bad that happens, without giving it credit for any good work that it does. There's no reason for Democrats to pay to much attention to this. This issue is a loser for Repubs. Obama should let them chew off their own feet.

3. This is not a referendum on Obama's record (which, by the way, has been impressive); it's a referendum on the bat-shit craziness of the Republican right-wing, which is running their party into the ground.

4. Romney would not beat Obama if the election were held tomorrow. RCP shows Obama would beat Romney. And this despite Obama not even starting to run against Romney yet. (and let's not even talk about the others.)

5. It's true; nobody cares about the debt. Obama has handled this issue marvelously.

6. Obama needs to continue to hammer on his Jobs Bill. It's unfortunate the media isn't paying more attention to it.

7. The Democrats desperately desperately need their own media to counter the Repub's media empire. Too often Repub's are able to set the agenda purely by force of weight of ownership of media outlets. Democrats need more voices. (Jon Stewart and the Huffington Post are not enough.)

Obama is in good shape to beat Romney. (And much better chance to beat anybody else.) Betting odds, overall, would put him at about 2:1. A year, of course, is an eternity in politics, and there's no excuse to be be complacent.

You, offering political and/or economic analysis would be like Charlie Sheen doing a testimonial for eHarmony.

You should try to stick to subjects where you might actually have some cache, such as favorite Crayola, or how far to sit from the tv….this is out of your league.

Interesting, substantive response, there, PoliticalChic. I'd make a mental note to try to respond to you at your own level, but why bother?

Honestly, though, you need to try to do better than that. You're not impressing anybody.

Your post was so riddled with bogus statements that it was the only appropriate response.

"...though, you need to try to do better than that...."
OK....let me try again:

Economics? You couldn’t make change for a dollar bill without consulting a financial planner.

Your amazing ability to ascertain the truth can only be compared to the skills of the protagonist in the classic “Horton Hears a Who!”

And, finally,...
...you are on double secret probation


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0cF2piwjYQ]Double Secret Probation.mpg - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Toro]

I think the OP is pretty good, and shows why Obama and the Democrats are in trouble. It is a reflexive action of electorates everywhere to defeat the ruling party during tough economic times.

I think it will be a Republican sweep next year. However, it also represents a trap for the GOP. Many in the Republican party will view the victory as a resounding mandate for their philosophy. However, even though Americans support cutting spending, when you dig deeper, they have consistently opposed cutting anything that matters, i.e. defense, Medicare, SS, etc. They also have consistently supported by a 2:1 margin raising taxes on the rich, which the Republicans vehemently oppose.

Republicans pining for a repeat of the early 1980s will be sorely disappointed. The structural problem the Republicans have is the truism that if the vast majority of people aren't seeing gains from the economic arena, they will try to extract them from the political arena, which is diametrically opposite of GOP orthodoxy. Republicans also generally do not understand the problems in the economy. The problems stem from the collapse of asset prices and a credit implosion. Cutting taxes and regulation and being more friendly to business will help on the margin but won't alleviate the fundamental problems of excess supply. These problems will start to work themselves out by 2013 or 14, but the economy is likely to be weak as the economy slowly lifts out of the morass. Cutting spending and focusing on the deficit will also weigh on the economy, which is good long term but not in the short term. Thus, you are likely to see Republicans get crushed in the 2014 midterms.

However, by 2016, most of our problems should be over as the excess housing market gets cleared away, and the economy will be growing smartly. This means that the Republican President will likely be re-elected, perhaps recapturing one of the houses of Congress.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think the OP is pretty good, and shows why Obama and the Democrats are in trouble. It is a reflexive action of electorates everywhere to defeat the ruling party during tough economic times.

I think it will be a Republican sweep next year. However, it also represents a trap for the GOP. Many in the Republican party will view the victory as a resounding mandate for their philosophy. However, even though Americans support cutting spending, when you dig deeper, they have consistently opposed cutting anything that matters, i.e. defense, Medicare, SS, etc. They also have consistently supported by a 2:1 margin raising taxes on the rich, which the Republicans vehemently oppose.

Republicans pining for a repeat of the early 1980s will be sorely disappointed. The structural problem the Republicans have is the truism that if the vast majority of people aren't seeing gains from the economic arena, they will try to extract them from the political arena, which is diametrically opposite of GOP orthodoxy. Republicans also generally do not understand the problems in the economy. The problems stem from the collapse of asset prices and a credit implosion. Cutting taxes and regulation and being more friendly to business will help on the margin but won't alleviate the fundamental problems of excess supply. These problems will start to work themselves out by 2013 or 14, but the economy is likely to be weak as the economy slowly lifts out of the morass. Cutting spending and focusing on the deficit will also weigh on the economy, which is good long term but not in the short term. Thus, you are likely to see Republicans get crushed in the 2014 midterms.

However, by 2016, most of our problems should be over as the excess housing market gets cleared away, and the economy will be growing smartly. This means that the Republican President will likely be re-elected, perhaps recapturing one of the houses of Congress.

"I think it will be a Republican sweep next year. However, it also represents a trap for the GOP. Many in the Republican party will view the victory as a resounding mandate..."

Spot on. I've been saying that for a while....it's the danger inherent in human nature: each of us contain the seeds of our own destruction.
The best course would be a conservative course...and a return to the Contitution.

 

[Sundial]

You, offering political and/or economic analysis would be like Charlie Sheen doing a testimonial for eHarmony.

You should try to stick to subjects where you might actually have some cache, such as favorite Crayola, or how far to sit from the tv….this is out of your league.

Interesting, substantive response, there, PoliticalChic. I'd make a mental note to try to respond to you at your own level, but why bother?

Honestly, though, you need to try to do better than that. You're not impressing anybody.

Your post was so riddled with bogus statements that it was the only appropriate response.

"...though, you need to try to do better than that...."
OK....let me try again:

Economics? You couldn’t make change for a dollar bill without consulting a financial planner.

Your amazing ability to ascertain the truth can only be compared to the skills of the protagonist in the classic “Horton Hears a Who!”

And, finally,...
...you are on double secret probation


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0cF2piwjYQ]Double Secret Probation.mpg - YouTube[/ame]

When your side responds to facts, reason and analysis with grade-school taunts and temper-tantrums, how do you think it makes your side look?

 

[Sundial]

I think the OP is pretty good, and shows why Obama and the Democrats are in trouble. It is a reflexive action of electorates everywhere to defeat the ruling party during tough economic times.

I think it will be a Republican sweep next year. However, it also represents a trap for the GOP. Many in the Republican party will view the victory as a resounding mandate for their philosophy. However, even though Americans support cutting spending, when you dig deeper, they have consistently opposed cutting anything that matters, i.e. defense, Medicare, SS, etc. They also have consistently supported by a 2:1 margin raising taxes on the rich, which the Republicans vehemently oppose.

Republicans pining for a repeat of the early 1980s will be sorely disappointed. The structural problem the Republicans have is the truism that if the vast majority of people aren't seeing gains from the economic arena, they will try to extract them from the political arena, which is diametrically opposite of GOP orthodoxy. Republicans also generally do not understand the problems in the economy. The problems stem from the collapse of asset prices and a credit implosion. Cutting taxes and regulation and being more friendly to business will help on the margin but won't alleviate the fundamental problems of excess supply. These problems will start to work themselves out by 2013 or 14, but the economy is likely to be weak as the economy slowly lifts out of the morass. Cutting spending and focusing on the deficit will also weigh on the economy, which is good long term but not in the short term. Thus, you are likely to see Republicans get crushed in the 2014 midterms.

However, by 2016, most of our problems should be over as the excess housing market gets cleared away, and the economy will be growing smartly. This means that the Republican President will likely be re-elected, perhaps recapturing one of the houses of Congress.

The economic and political realms are not two separate arenas. Economic success - as in the accumulation of financial resources - is determined by access to power, relationships - including the ones you're born into - and good fortune, as much as anything. The rules that favor those who are already privileged over others are not rules that are handed down by God. They're rules that are created by those who have the power to create rules.

Inevitably and unsurprisingly, those who have the most power use their power to create rules that favor them over everybody else. Rules, in other words, which use state power to ensure the continuation of their power and their incomes, whether or not they do anything to earn it.

If you believe those rules are somehow created objectively or disinterestedly, then you're being naive.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Interesting, substantive response, there, PoliticalChic. I'd make a mental note to try to respond to you at your own level, but why bother?

Honestly, though, you need to try to do better than that. You're not impressing anybody.

Your post was so riddled with bogus statements that it was the only appropriate response.

"...though, you need to try to do better than that...."
OK....let me try again:

Economics? You couldn’t make change for a dollar bill without consulting a financial planner.

Your amazing ability to ascertain the truth can only be compared to the skills of the protagonist in the classic “Horton Hears a Who!”

And, finally,...
...you are on double secret probation


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0cF2piwjYQ]Double Secret Probation.mpg - YouTube[/ame]

When your side responds to facts, reason and analysis with grade-school taunts and temper-tantrums, how do you think it makes your side look?

"...temper-tantrums..."

There was no temper-tantrum.

I was making fun of you because of how dumb a post your wrote.

And, as I don't suffer fools gladly, will continue to do so.

 

[Wiseacre]

Galston goes on to discuss the electoral college and how it will play a role (my second link above.)

Here's part...

1. As Gerald Seib rightly reminds us (Wall Street Journal, September 27 2011), presidential campaigns are won and lost state by state in the Electoral College, not in the nationwide popular vote. (Once in a while, this turns out to be a distinction with a difference; just ask not-quite President Gore.) Based on state results from the past five elections, Seib argues that the Electoral College gives Democrats a distinct advantage: they’ve won 18 states plus the District of Columbia, totaling 242 electoral votes, in each of those elections, compared to only 13 states with 102 votes for the Republicans.

2. In 2008, Barack Obama beat John McCain with 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173. Now let’s do alternative history based on two assumptions: (1) the two-party popular vote was evenly divided; and (2) Obama’s margin in each state was reduced by the same amount—7.26 percentage points—yielding an equal division of the popular vote. Under that scenario, Obama would have lost five states that he actually won—Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia—with a total loss of 86 electoral votes. Under this scenario he still would have prevailed in the Electoral College, 279 to 259. That would seem to validate the hypothesis that Democrats enjoy a structural edge: they get 10 more electoral votes when the popular vote is evenly divided.

3. But not so fast: the 2008 presidential election was the last to be carried out based on the 2000 census, and the distribution of Electoral College votes did not reflect population shifts that have occurred in the ensuing years. The 2012 presidential election will, and it makes a difference. Reapportionment shifts 6 electoral votes from Democratic to Republican states. If we rerun the 2008 election with the 2012 electoral vote allocation plus an even split of the popular vote, Obama wins by a very narrow margin—273 to 265. So the current Democratic structural advantage is 4 electoral votes—not nothing, but not much either. The probability that Obama could win reelection without a majority of the popular vote is extremely if not vanishingly low.

Yeah, I read that analysis when it first came out. All very true, it's hard to see Obama getting the support from the independent voters this time, I suspect he'll lose some swing states.

One wonders if the increasing numbers of unemployed will stick with Obama thinking they'll keep getting their gov't handouts or instead vote GOP thinking they'll have a better chance of getting a job. Big Gov't vs Small Gov't. And the OWSers could have a detrimental impact on the repubs if Obama can paint them as the party of the rich guys. I think it's gonna get nasty.

In order for the republicans to get the support of moderate/independent voters they're going to have to nominate a candidate that appeals to them. None of the early Republican frontrunners thus far would be able to do that. But I think its safe to say that Perry and Cain have been rendered politically impotent. Now we'll see Newt run up front for a while then maybe Romney(but lets face it the republican base wants nothing to do with him).

I disagree, the repubs just have to nominate a candidate who is the lesser of two evils compared to Obama, which will not be difficult to do. At this point, it looks like Romney is the guy, and while not wildly popular his saving grace is that he's not Obama. He isn't all that well received in the GOP, but Obama has pissed off a few in his party too. I suspect both sides will rally to their candidate, with the election going to whoever wins the independent vote. With his abysmal record, Obama is facing an uphill battle to do that.