Posted on 04/23/2011 10:22:36 AM PDT by presidio9
I must have seen ten articles in the last week explaining why President Obama will lose the November 2012 election; or at the least, how he could lose. Most have been by conservative pundits, but a few have also been by Democrats. I certainly agree that he could lose, but it's a question of how. I want to consider one of these articles — by Salon's news editor Steve Kornacki. Not because I disagree with the conclusions, or most of the argument, but because it makes the wrong use of what could be an instructive analogy to the 1992 election.
To deflate the expectation that Obama is sure to be re-elected, Kornacki points to the 1992 election. Eighteen months prior to that election, it looked like George H.W. Bush was a shoo-in, but in November 1992, he won less than 40 percent of the electorate against Bill Clinton. "It was the economy that sunk the president," Kornacki writes. If the U.S. economy "remains lousy" next year, and if the Republicans don't nominate someone "outside the mainstream," then Obama, Kornacki reasons, could suffer a similar fate. I agree with the final sentiment, but not with the logic leading up to it.
If you look back at the U.S. economy in 1991 and 1992, you find something very curious. The recession took place during 1991 — growth was negative that year — but in 1992, the economy grew 3.4 percent, and the unemployment rate began falling from a peak of 7.8 percent in June to 7.3 percent in October. The economy was not "good," and there is always a lag in the public's perception of an economic recovery; but there is still a gap between fact and perception that politicians try to fill with their version of the facts. That's the role of politics and political campaigns.
George H.W. Bush lost in 1992 because he failed to fill that gap with his perception of the economy. He failed to convey to voters that he knew or cared about the lack of jobs. They saw him as more interested in foreign wars than in domestic distress — a point that Clinton made, but that was also hammered home by primary opponent Pat Buchanan and by independent candidate and erstwhile Republican Ross Perot. It was, above all, a political failure on Bush's part to convince voters that he was doing something about the economy,
Bush1 didn’t have the lamestream media and every leftist group backing him and abetting him either.
NPR? Wow. Trouble in Liberalville.
I have a scenario for Obama’s defeat. How about a hapless administration that won an election criticizing everyone they didn’t like validating their thinking and it turns out that those they hated were right about some things if not most things.
Consequences have elections.
Point, and Bush ‘41 peaked at an approval rating in the high 80s - the current twit has never been near those kind of numbers.
Present Stroker is becoming legendary with his wrong choices. As a matter of fact, can anybody cite one instance where he has made the right choice about anything?
I’m waiting.
OK, I read the article twice. What’s the wrong issue for 2012? The economy? The Budget?
Maybe they hid it in the fourth paragraph. Not a good way o write an article with that headline. Though, if it started as a radio story, that might explain the poor construction of the article.
I just a FOX newflash on “Obama’s Deficit Tour”. I took a look at his lame pansey-@ss posturing and thought it should be called “Obama’s deficit Disorder”.
Barry cannot lose unless he chooses to resign. He can declare himself president for life with total impunity. At least 40% of the country would declare it to be “the end of Republican and corporate rule” and rejoice in the streets.
Don’t let the polls fool you. A gigantic chunk of the population is getting money from Barry’s corruption and they love him for it.
This socialist nightmare will never end until this nation experiences a violent uprising. The Republic has already been completely destroyed.
“To deflate the expectation that Obama is sure to be re-elected, Kornacki points to the 1992 election. Eighteen months prior to that election, it looked like George H.W. Bush was a shoo-in, but in November 1992, he won less than 40 percent of the electorate against Bill Clinton. “It was the economy that sunk the president,” Kornacki writes.”
Idunno. I seem to remember a little guy about 4’ 1” named Ross Perot that had something to do with it too.
I suppose that means you won't be helping us win the 2012 elections, so that we have some chance of restoring what we've lost??
Just remember that if you don't help us win in 2012, you give up the right to complain in 2013.
I will be voting on 2012 just for the sake of opposing the bastards.
However, the only relevant move will be to store up munitions.
No joke. Somewhere, a pragmatic lefty is having a fierce battle with the uncompromisingly loony lefty right now. Of course, if that person was keeping up with his meds, the symptoms might not be as bad.
“George H.W. Bush lost in 1992 because he failed to fill that gap with his perception of the economy. “
I remember that election. The NYTimes and the liberal media kept harping on how bad the economy was, and when Bush weakly tried to correct the record, he was hammered for being ‘out of touch’.
Flip the media bias and Bush would have won re-election.
Read My Lips, No New Taxes.
That one line cooled a lot of Republicans who still voted for him, but without enthusiasm.
Maybe they hid it in the fourth paragraph. Not a good way to write an article with that headline. Though, if it started as a radio story, that might explain the poor construction of the article.
It's the deficit (paragraph 10!).
A long way to go for an answer that doesn't make much sense.
If the economy doesn't improve all the talk about stimulus will look silly. Under those circumstances voters will incline to kicking Obama out for ineptitude and reckless spending.
If the economy stays the same voters will split on partisan lines. Independents just might concentrate on the deficit and weigh it into their calculations, so both parties have to address it.
If the economy gets better, Obama will run on that and win. It's not like he's already made a hard-and-fast decision to run on the deficit to the exclusion of other issues.
Bush didn't hear the job sucking sound so he didn't give a poop about jobs. Perot gave us Clinton but Bush gave us Perot. Obama could win again because GOP contenders 'fail to convey that they care about jobs' because they don't, except for Trump. GOP wants to make war upon government workers and push job exporting free trade.
If 2012 resembles 1992, it will be because Donald Trump is pulling votes away from the Republican nominee.
The very day after Bill Clinton was elected, the NY Times ran a front page story to the effect of “Surprise, the US Economy Makes A Dramatic Turnaround.” I will never forget this, because it was the subject of the only letter I have ever written to the NY Times editorial staff.
I am tired of hearing the phrase “outside the mainstream” used by pundits. This is advising the Pubs to use another John McCain and, Pubs being the fools they are, they will find a way to oblige by putting another RINO on the ballot.
The fact that the establishment Pubbies are trying to use gerrymandering to oust the Freshman Tea Party Congressmen tells us that all they have learned is to stoop as low as they need to go in order to oust the Tea Party. The particularly galling thing about this is that they have refused to use the same methods to defeat Dems. They are clearly more in agreement with the libs than they are with the truly conservative side of their own party. That is frightening!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.