“It’s the economy, stupid” … will Obama lose in 2012?
By Lynn R. Mitchell | Thursday, June 23rd, 2011 | PoliticsIn today’s Wall Street Journal, former George W. Bush advisor and strategist Karl Rove lays out four reasons why he believes President Barack Obama will not win re-election in 2012.
In a nutshell:
The economy is very weak and unlikely to experience a robust recovery by Election Day. Key voter groups have soured on him. He’s defending unpopular policies. And he’s made bad strategic decisions.
Obama is facing 9.1% unemployment after promising jobs, jobs, jobs. That unemployment number was supposed to be down, down, down. It’s not.
Remember Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign and the slogan coined by his advisor James Carville, “It’s the economy, stupid”? Is 2012 going to be 1992 all over again? Clinton and team hammered at President George H.W. Bush, who was considered unbeatable with a 90% approval rating after Operation Desert Storm … but with Clinton and Carville pounding the same economic drum over and over throughout the campaign, Clinton won.
A year ago Obama ballyhooed that the economy was “growing at a good clip.” Not so much, it turned out. He finally admitted it a week ago as he joked, “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.”
Oops.
Obama’s woes include a steady decline of independent supporters as well as his own base, as pointed out by Rove:
Jewish voters are upset with his policy toward Israel, and left-wing bloggers at last week’s NetRoots conference were angry over Mr. Obama’s failure to deliver a leftist utopia. Weak Jewish support could significantly narrow Mr. Obama’s margin in states like Florida, while a disappointed left could deprive him of the volunteers so critical to his success in 2008.
Housing hasn’t bounced back, gasoline prices remain high, some businesses have closed while others are limping along hoping to outlast the economic downturn, and yet others’ plans for new openings have been delayed or altogether scrapped.
Thanks in part to Obama’s “Cash-for-Clunkers” program two years ago, the used car market is ruined. The “environmental” desire by Obama was to remove less energy efficient vehicles off the roadways by offering vouchers for new purchases with instructions that the old vehicles had to be destroyed. Thus, prices in the used car market are high because of shortages and, therefore, pricing people who cannot afford new vehicles out of pre-owned vehicles.
Combine those with unpopular policies such as ObamaCare, government bailouts, recess appointments, a spiraling-out-of-control national debt, and other failures or disappointments, and you have a popularity rating that is continually dropping for this president. Rove noted, “In Wednesday’s Bloomberg poll, Americans believe they are worse off than when Mr. Obama took office by a 44% to 34% margin.”
History is usually on the side of the incumbent. Usually. Will 2012 be the exception?
Cross-posted at SWAC Girl
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
As SWAC Girl (an acronym for Staunton, Waynesboro, and Augusta County), Lynn has been writing in the Virginia political blogosphere since 2006. Active in area politics, she has coordinated campaigns and served in leadership for the past decade. The Shenandoah Valley of Virginia is one of the most beautiful places to call home ... the Republican Party carries her beliefs.
Comments
10 Responses to "“It’s the economy, stupid” … will Obama lose in 2012?"
“And he’s made bad strategic decisions” like releasing oil from the strategic reserve… another attempt to buy votes.
History is usually on the side of the incumbent. Usually.
Well usually the President is not trying to get even with the country. But remember, Chicago pols don’t let living voters overrule those currently deceased.
The question is, what’s the economy like on Election Day? If there isn’t a significant turn around and I don’t think there will be, particularly with Republicans doing everything they can to spook the credit markets, then Obama will be vulnerable. Then it will be a question of “Did the Republicans manage to nominate someone who doesn’t scare too many voters?” That means that if the candidates (or prospects) that BD contributors tend to like — Cain, Paul, Santorum, Perry, Bachman, Palin –are rejected, Republicans could do well;-) In a bad economy year, Romney or Pawlenty or Huntsman would stand a pretty good chance of beating Obama. With the exception of Pawlenty, it’s kind of hard for me to see any of those guys getting the nomination.
Steve,
Unfortunately, the Republicans’ ability to spook the credit markets pales when compared to what will happen if Greece, Portugal, and Ireland default on their government bonds. If that happens then the 2007 recession will look like a walk in the park. There is a joke that has been circulating: I asked my financial adviser what the best investments are right now. He replied, canned food and ammunition. That won’t even be funny if the EU suffers a financial meltdown.
However, I agree with you that the Republicans seem to be bound and determined to nominate someone who is ideologically pure rather than electable. Ken Falkenstein’s current piece on Republican lemming-like tendencies is spot on.
… “particularly with Republicans doing everything they can to spook the credit markets, ”
Now really, the Dems policies not to mention Bernanke have nothing to do with the economy’s performance or lack thereof??
No not at all. Obama is an economic genius. We are in recovery Summer part deux as we were just told. Everything is going fine as Wasserman-Schulz just said. The worst thing is that Repubs are also doing a number on Greece, Italy, Spain, Iceland, Ireland, Portugal who follow the same policies as Obama and the Dems. They kept raising the debt ceiling and nothing bad happened to them until the Repubs’ sneak attack. We need Superman to stop those nasty Repubs.
Val: We’re in a bad economy and the Republicans are threatning to let the country default on its debt to get their way on the budget. That’s not good for the credit markets.
Could Obama have done a better job on the economy, yeah probably. But he’s played the hand he was dealt. The only actual mistake I see was investing too much time on health care refrom n the first year instead of using his political capital to get a bigger stimulus package focused more tightly on creating jobs.
SV-agree that the time invested in the health care package was probably his biggest mistake-both economically and politically.
For Rove to complain about recess appointments seems disingenious as Bush used them frequently. However both parties (upon gaining power) seem to favor the things that they opposed while out of power.
SE-Particularly since it isn’t really a good health care package. Probably not even from Obama’s standpoint. If I recall correnctly, in 2008 he was the one arguing against the individual mandate in Clinton’s plan. But he let Congressional Dems draw the plan and the used the individual mandate to get insurance companies to sign on.
Texas Governor Rick Perry Will Be Our President In 2013
I FEEL EVERYONE IN THE USA SHOULD PUT FLYERS ON EVERY GSA PUMP IN AMERICA TO WATCH THE VIDEO THE OBAMA DECEPTION AND GO TO INFOWARS .COM IF WE GET RON PAUL IN OFFICE ALL THE NWO ANS NEOCON SCUMBAGS CAN GO TO PRISON IVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS PATRIOT AND TSA CRAP ITS ALL FAKE FAKE FAKE
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.