The news this morning is, quite simply, catastrophic for the president. Economic growth in the second quarter slowed to 1.5 percent annualized from 2 percent in the first quarter. The economy is weakening as the election approaches. No one has ever won reelection in such circumstances. No one. (Harry Truman: 4.4 percent growth in Q2, 1948. Ike: 2 percent growth in 1956 Q2 after negative growth in Q1. Nixon, Q2, 1972: 5.3 percent. Clinton: 3.5 percent. GW Bush: 3.4 percent.)
Granted, things aren’t as bad for Obama as they were for Jimmy Carter; in the second quarter of 1980, the economy actually contracted by .7 percent. But in 1936, Franklin Roosevelt won a landslide despite the Great Depression; as Amity Shlaes noted yesterday on Twitter, annual GDP growth from 1933-1936 had averaged 9 percent. Nine percent.
Perhaps the most interesting analogy is to 1992—a year in which the economy was actually staging a recovery from a recession in 1991. That was, you’ll recall, the year of “it’s the economy, stupid.” The annual growth rate in 1992: 3.4 percent. The incumbent president received 38 percent of the vote that year.
Prior results are no guarantee of future returns, of course. But this all gets to the central problem for the president: What case can he make for a second term with undecided voters?
Yes, but he is so damned likable!
What will you say if Obama wins? That you completely misunderstood the electorate? Keep in mind, this electorate voted in 2006 for defeat and again in 2008 for a community organizer who wanted to "fundamentally transform American" and "spread the wealth around" and had Rev. Wright of "God Damn America" fame, over a moderate Republican war hero. The electorate, in short, is nuts or already bought off or both. So, please be more judicious with your predictions.
Very good points. I am still trying to figure how anyone in his right mind could ever consider taking Obama seriously.
You didn't build it- your bussiness, is Barry Jr's-death nail.
Well, in 2008, economic woes got blamed on Bush and Republicans, and McCain ran a timid campaign that wouldn't talk about Wright. He also made some gaffes that Obama pounded, such as his saying "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" or so when it couldn't possibly play well. As well, media narrative of Obama was messianic in scope, that he was a miraculous avatar of sensibility and charisma, and that [possibly correctly, and yet, while possibly that, possibly also wrongly] he was a historic candidate [such not being any good criterion for a presidential nominee]. Obama also brought out constituencies that were not thought to be as great factors as they'd prove. (Personally, at the time, I knew of and was swayed by McCain's strong character and reputation [not that these are today at doubt], being convinced of his strength of his candidacy, and I still marvel that the Republican party has nominated for President in succession two moderates. If anything though, the quick nature of the economy didn't allow for any significant debate as to what caused it, so Bush became a quick and effective, though not a particularly blameworthy, scapegoat. In hindsight, no mere "correction" of McCain's campaign wins him the White House.) n nAnd was 2010 no indication of the reversal that the electorate can [positively] make? It's both more recent and relevant than 06 and 08. It's fair to say that the electorate can be schizophrenic, but if so that's because they're not too attuned to what goes on in the political world, and aren't adept at dissolving the narrative they are given of events of things that go on in spheres not their own. (I may not have described the electorate in any positive terms, but I do believe that the American people is on the Earth one of its wiser peoples, and that, even if they do prove to make a foolish choice, that they have the constraints set upon them by wise forebears to fall upon. I'm also willing to forgive the fault I ascribe to them: one could maybe feel it his sacred duty to vote [and hence, he will vote!] even while he knows he doesn't know much about politics.)
He does not "need to make a case" with undecided voters. They are actually Democrats who just claim to be undecided.
What about 2010, when the House flipped BIG time, and governor mansions and legislative assemblies went R all over the nation?r nr nThere are many quietly angry, orderly citizens just waiting to swamp the polling places in November, with many indies among them.
That’s right, Podhoretz — you need to be “more judicious with your predictions.” At least according to one BDZ.
Snork!
BDZ- No one can predict what will happen in November. And, of course, Obama can still win. However, his chances are a lot slimmer than the Obama-ides think. And allow me to say that, if the President would be white (a la Carter), he'd be buried in the next election ( a la Reagan). Because Obama is African-American, the American public is still loath to vote against him. Eric Holder has it totally backwards- the President's race actually is helping him. But no one will touch that fact in the press….
michaelmas12 – Along with your line of thought, the current poll numbers may be even worse than reported for Obama if you factor in the Wilder effect. I am sure there are many independents and blue collar Democrats who are hesitant to reveal their true intentions to pollsters.
I'm not predicting anything, but I dispute those who look at this from a logical, rational, point of view. The electorate has been bought off and corrupted. Logic and reason are not that important. If they were, Obama would never have been elected, and right now he would have a 0% approval rating.
What case can he make? Are you joking? n nRACIST! n nThat's the case he can make. That's the case he'll almost certainly try to make.
Obama's shadow campaign, the MSM, will do its utmost to ignore, confuse and deflect this issue. That's the bad part. The good part is that if they are not successful they will go down with the creepy narcissist.
The fact that the growth rate from '33-36 was 9% is terribly deceiving, as if a man was receiving a 9% raise after being cut 80%.
Now instead of BHO, replace his name with any Republican, including Bush, and tell me the American people would vote again for this person. No way!! Does anyone else notice the total silence from the Left after all the "warmongering" BHO has done, (Lybia, Egypt, etc )including not closing Gitmo? I thought that's why they hated Bush?
John is too limiting in his view of the electorate. The fact that the economy is so horrible and so anemic means that Mr. Romney has a chance to not only turn undecided voters to his corner but he can also turn voters who, right now, would vote for Mr. Obama. Sure there are voters who no matter what will vote democratic (alas, Jews fit this description) but with the economy doing poorly, with unemployment high and going higher, with our nation's debt ever growing and no plan to reduce it, with citizens afraid of having any money much less a retirement, the economy is a key and personal issue to all voters. n nMr. Romney needs to show voters just what the economy means to them, without causing widespread mental anguish, so he can turn voters to him. He has to find a way to make the economy personal and further, that he has a good and workable plan to proceed. Those are tough conditions to meet, but if he can do it, he will win by a greater margin than anyone predicts now. n nClinton was right, "it's the economy, stupid." That applies today.
I am increasingly convinced that Obama is a doomed man. Mitt Romney is more intelligent than the president! This is becoming obvious to even those people who don't generally pay attention to politics. The president is outclassed. Romney now has a five point lead in today's Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll. It is doubtful that Obama will ever again regain the top position.
I agree, but I put nothing past the Obama ACORN Marxist regime. These people will do some thing to disrupt America if they fell all is lost.
Don't be so rational. A rational electorate would never have voted for this traitor to American values.
Obama is toast. Mark it down.
It's not simply the unemployment number, it's the trend. FDR got re=elected with unemployment over 9%, but unemployment was on its way down; it had been 15%, so the mood of the USA was good. No president has ever gotten re-elected with downward trending unemployment; but the nation is in a weird place now; unemployment has flattened out at over 8%. This is a disaster for Obama…but does anyone really think Mitt can fix this?