Election Predictions
I’ve paid less attention to this election season than just about any in my adult memory. So take this all with a grain of salt. But I’m going to predict now that Barack Obama will be re-elected President in a year’s time.
My reasons:
1. He’s already President. People who are already President usually get re-elected if they run.
2. His party, and his political tendency, are united behind him. The recent exceptions to the prior rule are Presidents Carter and George H. W. Bush. Carter faced a substantial insurgency within his own party during the primaries, and the general election featured a protest candidacy by John Anderson, a liberal Republican, who was a comfortable choice for people who wanted to vote against Carter but who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Reagan. Bush faced a more modest insurgency within his own party during the primaries, but a much more substantial third-party candidate in the general election, coming from the center but oriented around themes and from a regional and demographic base that had more in common with the GOP than with the Democrats. For all the various gripes about him, there is no real movement for a challenge to Obama from within his coalition, neither from the left nor from the center.
3. The GOP will not be united behind their candidate. They are united in their dislike of and desire to retire President Obama. But the only plausible candidate currently running – Mitt Romney – not only elicits no enthusiasm, he elicits columns like this. Indeed, the nominating process as it has unfolded so far has basically featured a series of desperate popular eruptions against the overwhelmingly likely standard bearer. Romney’s competition, just in terms of plausibility, is much, much weaker than McCain’s in 2008, or Kerry’s in 2004, or Dole’s in 1996, or Clinton’s in 1992, or Bush’s in 1988. But the party just doesn’t want to believe they have to settle on him. I have little doubt that he will eventually close the sale, but buyers remorse will set in almost immediately. Democrats in 2004 and Republicans in 1996 were far from enthusiastic about their nominees, but neither Kerry nor Dole elicited the antipathy and distrust that Romney does. (McCain elicited a different but even more intense antipathy, and look how he turned out.) Romney will be an exceptionally weak nominee for that reason, someone who will have to watch his right flank not only if he is elected, but during the general election campaign, for fear of re-igniting an insurrection within his own camp. And that’s no way to win a general election.
4. The GOP has nothing to campaign on. Reagan and Clinton each defeated incumbent Presidents in times of economic dislocation and distress. Both ran campaigns that made clear diagnoses of the cause of that dislocation and distress, and proposed remedies. The Obama Administration has plainly failed to deliver a substantial recovery that would earn it an enthusiastic vote to reelect. But the country still knows that the economic crisis hit during the Bush Administration, so any plausible diagnosis of the cause of the crisis must at least refer to that period in history. The dominant GOP themes so far – regulatory uncertainty? seriously? – have not the slightest hint of plausibility. One can, of course, imagine alternatives to the Obama Administration’s policies that would be plausible and potentially persuasive – for example, the GOP could run on more substantial monetary easing coupled with fiscal retrenchment. That’s not what I’ve been arguing for in this space, but it’s a very plausible argument. But Mitt Romney can’t run on a platform of looser money – because his base is increasingly enthusiastic about the idea of abolishing the Fed entirely and going back on the gold standard. Of course, he’s not going to run on that platform either. On the economy, Romney is going to run, basically, on double-talk and assertions of his own special competence because he’s . . . a former banker. Right. Now there are other issues out there besides the economic situation. But, unlike in 1988, law-and-order questions are not uppermost in people’s minds (crime remains much lower than it was in the 1970s or 1980s). Unlike in 1980 or 2004, foreign policy questions are not pressing either – and if they are, Obama can run on a record of liquidating Osama bin Laden and winding down the war in Iraq, while Romney will likely run on a platform of extreme bellicosity. So what is he going to run on? And note, I’m not saying that a candidate other than Romney would do a better job. There is simply nobody actually running on the GOP side who is saying anything that could serve as the germ for a general election campaign. The GOP doesn’t want to run on anything. That’s why, as Ross Douthat correctly suggests, they’ll likely choose a nominee like Romney, who represents nothing. But, as the saying goes, you can’t beat something with nothing.
5. The unemployment rate will probably go down, steadily if slowly, from now until election day. Chairman Bernanke is committed to preventing us from slipping back into recession. He’s not going to tighten between now and election day – not with unemployment as high as it is, and with Europe as fragile as it is, and with a substantial chorus from his own side of the aisle arguing that money has been and still is too tight, and with the knowledge that everyone would perceive precipitate tightening action as politically motivated. Congress is going to be useless, but President Obama isn’t going to shoot himself in the foot – if there’s anything he can do on his own authority to tackle unemployment, he’ll do it, and if Congress is actively obstructive he’ll tie that around the GOP nominee’s neck. So barring an external shock (like an Israeli attack on Iran), the unemployment situation should improve steadily if slowly. That’s not as good for the President as if it were improving rapidly. But it’s different from the situation the first President Bush faced. From November 1991 through July of 1992, the unemployment rate increased with every reporting. Obama’s situation may be more comparable to the situation under the second President Bush, when unemployment inched its way down from its peak in July, 2003 through just before election day. Now, obviously, the absolute level of unemployment is going to be way too high on election day for a majority of people to be satisfied with President Obama’s performance. But the trend probably matters more at the margins. A strong positive economic trend led to an overwhelming reelection victory in 1984 even though no sitting President since World War II had been reelected with such high prevailing unemployment rate. A weak but positive economic trend in 2004 led to a modest reelection victory even though the absolute level of unemployment was much better than it was in 1984. That’s what I expect for President Obama in 2012: a modest reelection victory based on weak but improving fundamentals.
6. I’m talking my own book. In 2008, I announced my support for then-candidate Obama by saying I was an “Obama skeptic for Obama.” I’m still an Obama skeptic for Obama, and barring something very surprising I expect to support him for reelection. I don’t agree with him on everything, and I don’t think he’s been a particularly strong leader during the economic crisis. On pretty much all major issues he’s a very conventional thinker and a cautious political actor, which is what I thought he was during the campaign. But the Republican Party really doesn’t offer a serious alternative.
Republicans will line up behind their nominee, if only out of sheer loathing for Obama. McCain received nearly 46% of the vote despite running an inept campaign backlit by the flaming ruins of the Bush years. Can Romney hope for 3-4% better, especially with a demotivated Democrat base? Today I think the race is his to lose. Of course the surest way to blow it is to tack hard to the right, choose a fire-breathing looney as his running mate, then pander shamelessly to his base out of fear that the most radical elements will otherwise stay home (ha!). That terrifying and unedifying spectacle ought to be enough to convince the Democrats that there are worse things than disappointment.
Bland, reasonable and reaching out to the center will demotivate the Left more than the Right.
One last consideration: Who gains control of the Senate? I’d love to register my disappointment with Obama, but I could not countenance another Republican-controlled government.
— Kit · Nov 7, 11:52 PM · #
I like the loose money idea — if also coupled with tightening reserve rates and cracking down on extreme leverage in general. Without inflation, people will continue to be underwater on their mortgages for years. Without a crackdown on extreme leverage, such liquidity would trigger another bubble.
— Carl M. · Nov 8, 01:06 AM · #
Noah,
I’m surprised this post hasn’t attracted more comments. I will officially disagree with you and wager a lunch the next time you are in Chicago on my prediction for the following reasons (responding to your points):
1) Yeah, but people don’t think he’s doing a good job;
2) See above, although I agree that traditional Dems will line up behind Obama I just don’t see the big enthusiasm this time around;
3) I can’t stand Romney but I’m starting to come around because I realize he is the only one out of the current crop who can beat Obama and that is the only thing that matters. I suspect I’m not alone.
4) This is just silly — the GOP has plenty to campaign on. Less government spending, less government debt, repeal Obamacare, roll-back federal regulations and federal hiring, lower federal taxes (especially corporate taxes), etc. To tie it all together you might want to use this theme:
“We sent a new class of leaders to D.C., but immediately the permanent political class tried to co-opt them – because the reality is we are governed by a permanent political class, until we change that. They talk endlessly about cutting government spending, and yet they keep spending more. They talk about massive unsustainable debt, and yet they keep incurring more. They spend, they print, they borrow, they spend more, and then they stick us with the bill. Then they pat their own backs, and they claim that they faced and “solved” the debt crisis that they got us in, but when we were humiliated in front of the world with our country’s first credit downgrade, they promptly went on vacation.
No, they don’t feel the same urgency that we do. But why should they? For them business is good; business is very good. Seven of the ten wealthiest counties are suburbs of Washington, D.C. Polls there actually – and usually I say polls, eh, they’re for strippers and cross country skiers – but polls in those parts show that some people there believe that the economy has actually improved. See, there may not be a recession in Georgetown, but there is in the rest of America.
Yeah, the permanent political class – they’re doing just fine. Ever notice how so many of them arrive in Washington, D.C. of modest means and then miraculously throughout the years they end up becoming very, very wealthy? Well, it’s because they derive power and their wealth from their access to our money – to taxpayer dollars. They use it to bail out their friends on Wall Street and their corporate cronies, and to reward campaign contributors, and to buy votes via earmarks. There is so much waste. And there is a name for this: It’s called corporate crony capitalism. This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts, of waste and influence peddling and corporate welfare. This is the crony capitalism that destroyed Europe’s economies. It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners – the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70% of the jobs in America, it’s you who own these small businesses, you’re the economic engine, but you don’t grease the wheels of government power.
So, do you want to know why the permanent political class doesn’t really want to cut any spending? Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done? It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed – a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”
5) I don’t think the unemployment situation will improve much, if at all, by next November (unfortunately);
6) I’m also talking my own book — I hate Obama and everything he represents (although kudos to him for getting bin Laden and using drones to al-Alwaki).
— Fake Herzog · Nov 8, 11:50 PM · #
Good article by George Will. Thanks for linking to it.
Not that any Republicans agree with me yet, but I’ve been saying that they have a better chance of stopping the leftwing fascist juggernaut if they are in opposition. If their guy is in the White House, and especially if their guy is Romney, they will spend their time supporting a lite version of the policies they now claim to oppose. I’m not saying they WILL stop it if they are in the minority. If you read the daily headlines at Townhall.com you get the impression that conservatives are more interested in playing themselves (aka tax policy change, gratuitous Obama-bashing) than in stopping the growth of government. But they will have a better position in which to stop it if they are in the minority. And maybe they will if their backs are against the wall and the hate machine goes all out to liquidate them once and for all.
This could change, of course, but Republicans aren’t really big on reforming themselves.
— The Reticulator · Nov 9, 04:31 AM · #
If the economy remains sluggish, then Obama is finished, and the only real question is which Republican shall be the new president. If it doesn’t, then he has a chance, given to him mainly by the lackluster Republican choices. Obama’s problem then is that he has shot his load campaign-wise. He can’t do the same thing he did in 2008, but nothing he can do will be as effective. He also no longer has Bush to riff on or first-black-president novelty.
— Matt · Nov 9, 04:49 PM · #
“This is just silly — the GOP has plenty to campaign on. Less government spending, less government debt, repeal Obamacare, roll-back federal regulations and federal hiring, lower federal taxes (especially corporate taxes), etc.”
The fact that much of that agenda would be not only useless but actively harmful to the nation in its current state pretty much says it all about the GOP and its tribesmen.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 9, 08:21 PM · #
GOP has the solution to fix the economy: Tax break for the rich, end medicare, privatizing social security, cuts, cuts,everwhere but dont cut the tax break for the wealthy and no regulations please. It seems that the idea of tax break for the rich and no regulations for big money corporations may hurt the economy. Hummm…,Bush keeped those two things together but he left us in the worse economy crisis we have not see for a long time. What GOP did to help clean up the mess Bush left behind?
— Alessandra · Nov 11, 04:44 AM · #
For more or less the same reasons, I’m betting Sarkozy will also win another term in 2012.
— Chris · Nov 11, 08:32 PM · #