News Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[WhoWee]

White House press Secretary Robert Gibbs is stepping down.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/5/obama-lose-spokesman-gibbs-steps-down/

Does this signal the start of campaign 2012? Gibbs has been with the President since 2004.
http://www.examiner.com/google-tren...house-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-steps-down

It sounds as though Gibbs will continue to assist the President.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256399/obama-gibbs-retool-2012-robert-costa

As per the President:
"“For the last six years, Robert has been a close friend, one of my closest advisers and an effective advocate from the podium for what this administration has been doing to move America forward. I think it’s natural for him to want to step back, reflect and retool. That brings up some challenges and opportunities for the White House – but it doesn’t change the important role that Robert will continue to play on our team.”"

The press has speculated the location of the campaign headquarters will be Chicago.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/war...2012-Re-Election-HQ-to-Chicago-112450444.html

"The Tribune lists a number of factors in the likelihood of President Obama centering his headquarters in Chicago, including strategist David Axelrod's planned move back to the city, blunting the perceived anti-Washington climate around the country and staying strategically close to a number of battleground states.

"He will and must select Chicago," American University political scientist James Thurber told the newspaper. "He needs to project an anti-Washington image and keep the campaign staff far away from the echo chamber in D.C."

A skeletal staff may be in place by spring 2011 with a larger team added by the summer or fall, according to some Democrats who talked to the paper."

Apparently, it's difficult for the President to run as a Washington outsider - will this be believable?

 

[mugaliens]

I suspect his most successful strategy will be to quit before the Democratic party wastes $40 Million trying to re-elect a president with one of the lowest approval ratings in history.

 

[WhoWee]

I suspect his most successful strategy will be to quit before the Democratic party wastes $40 Million trying to re-elect a president with one of the lowest approval ratings in history.

I like your attitude.

However, I think the Dems need to chart a course for 2012, but more importantly look ahead to 2016. In the context of 2016, Biden is baggage (IMO) and Hillary (or Oprah based on popularity?) would be the logical VP choice.

As for approval ratings, unless a very strong Republican candidate emerges, 12 months is plenty of time to rebuild popularity.

 

[Hepth]

...trying to re-elect a president with one of the lowest approval ratings in history.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

His LOWEST approval rating is higher than the past 8 president's LOWEST approval ratings. (Back to Kennedy), what are you comparing?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. The start of a new year (especially after a mid-term election) is a good time to make staff changes. And I think in particular, you shouldn't keep a spokesperson too long, lest people become too comfortable with them and forget that they are just the messenger.

As for Obama's re-election strategy and prospects, a lot depends on what happens to the economy the next two years, of course. However...

It is easy to say an incumbent can't run on "change", but Obama can simply say he's not finished yet. One of the big aces for Obama in 2008, though, was his lack of experience translated into lack of things to criticize him for in an era of anti-establishment thinking. So it was easy to make a campaign out of colorful but content-less speeches because they had no real-world application to criticize. Now he's had to turn those speeches into policy and as a result, there is a lot to analyze and criticize, with failures, broken promises, unpopular legislation and ridiculously bad predictions. A republican need-not disagree with the current state of 'Gitmo, for example, to still criticize him for saying he'd close it and castigate the voting public for believing him when he said he'd close it. Same goes for unemployment. So his re-election campaign will certainly be a lot more complicated than his election campaign was.

Nevertheless, 'it's still just the economy, stupid'. With the most recognizable current issue being unemployment, if unemployment is still above 9% in 20 months, he won't have a prayer of being re-elected and if it is below 7%, no Republican will have a prayer of beating him. Between those, it'll be about who can work the issue better.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. The start of a new year (especially after a mid-term election) is a good time to make staff changes. And I think in particular, you shouldn't keep a spokesperson too long, lest people become too comfortable with them and forget that they are just the messenger.

He's going to work as a consultant, along with Axelrod.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-0105-gibbs-gone-20110106,0,7503226.story

"As a private consultant, Gibbs will remain a top political adviser to Obama as the re-election campaign gears up. David Axelrod, a senior adviser and Jim Messina, a deputy chief of staff, are also leaving the White House to concentrate on the re-election campaign."

 

[Vanadium 50]

Nevertheless, 'it's still just the economy, stupid'. With the most recognizable current issue being unemployment, if unemployment is still above 9% in 20 months, he won't have a prayer of being re-elected and if it is below 7%, no Republican will have a prayer of beating him. Between those, it'll be about who can work the issue better.

I'm not so sure that's completely true. I think at least 50% of the problem was not the economy per se, it was that the Obama administration's attitude was "we will work on that - right after we get our own agenda passed", or put a less-flattering way: "your problems are not as important as our desires". If the Obama administration is perceived as trying to help, they will be in better shape, even if unemployment is still high.

As a historical example, in 1932, unemployment was 13%, and FDR won the election with 46 states and 57% of the popular vote. By 1936 it was up around 20%, and FDR won with 48 states and 60% of the popular vote.

 

[WhoWee]

Nevertheless, 'it's still just the economy, stupid'. With the most recognizable current issue being unemployment, if unemployment is still above 9% in 20 months, he won't have a prayer of being re-elected and if it is below 7%, no Republican will have a prayer of beating him. Between those, it'll be about who can work the issue better.

Didn't they tweak the way unemployment is calculated last week? Regardless, I think the Dem's believe they'll be able to champion another unemployment extension - beyond 99 weeks at the end of 2011.

Also, let's not forget that the real unemployment number is higher - when you factor in people who are under-employed, those working multiple part time jobs, and the people who are working for cash. If the economy perks up, these will be first people in line to fill new positions.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not so sure that's completely true. I think at least 50% of the problem was not the economy per se, it was that the Obama administration's attitude was "we will work on that - right after we get our own agenda passed", or put a less-flattering way: "your problems are not as important as our desires". If the Obama administration is perceived as trying to help, they will be in better shape, even if unemployment is still high.

Actually, I think Reid and Obama will try to bargain away spending cuts based upon furthering their agenda. At this point, I'm not convinced they won't sacrifice parts of health care to push immigration, union expansion, environment, and social issues. They are motivated by ideology (IMO) and as the saying goes - "you can't be a little bit pregnant". Once a program starts, they know it's very difficult to completely remove.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I'm not so sure that's completely true. I think at least 50% of the problem was not the economy per se, it was that the Obama administration's attitude was "we will work on that - right after we get our own agenda passed", or put a less-flattering way: "your problems are not as important as our desires". If the Obama administration is perceived as trying to help, they will be in better shape, even if unemployment is still high.

Less than a month after being inaugurated in Feburary 2009, Obama signed the stimulus bill to help improve the economy and save jobs. In March, Geithner implemented programs to help buy depreciated real estate assets to try to improve the housing market. Furthermore, in March, the Obama administration intervened in the US auto industry to prevent the likely collapse of two of the three main auto manufacturers in the US. These are some of the many policies implemented by the Obama administration to spur job creation and boost the economy that occurred well before health care reform was brought up for debate in the summer of 2009 (which I assume is the agenda that you claim Obama was pushing ahead of job creation). Furthermore, right after passage of the obamacare bill, Obama introduced and passed a jobs bill to help provide additional stimulus to the economy.

You can certainly argue that these have been the wrong measures to create jobs and that the Obama administration has been unsuccessful at creating jobs. But, given these facts, it is difficult to claim that the Obama administration put non-economic issues such as health care, DADT repeal, and environmental policy in front of job creation (in fact many have criticized his job creation policies such as the stimulus as having gone too far and being too big).

 

[WhoWee]

Less than a month after being inaugurated in Feburary 2009, Obama signed the stimulus bill to help improve the economy and save jobs. In March, Geithner implemented programs to help buy depreciated real estate assets to try to improve the housing market. Furthermore, in March, the Obama administration intervened in the US auto industry to prevent the likely collapse of two of the three main auto manufacturers in the US. These are some of the many policies implemented by the Obama administration to spur job creation and boost the economy that occurred well before health care reform was brought up for debate in the summer of 2009 (which I assume is the agenda that you claim Obama was pushing ahead of job creation). Furthermore, right after passage of the obamacare bill, Obama introduced and passed a jobs bill to help provide additional stimulus to the economy.

You can certainly argue that these have been the wrong measures to create jobs and that the Obama administration has been unsuccessful at creating jobs. But, given these facts, it is difficult to claim that the Obama administration put non-economic issues such as health care, DADT repeal, and environmental policy in front of job creation (in fact many have criticized his job creation policies such as the stimulus as having gone too far and being too big).

Your defense of him is that (other than being a good salesman) he's incompetent as a leader?

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I am refuting the claim that the Obama administration's attitude has been "we will work on job creation right after we get our own agenda passed" and "your problems are not as important as our desires." I am saying that one's opinion on Obama should be (obviously) based on whether one believes that his job creation policies were the correct policies to implement. (And for the record, I do not believe that he has been a good salesman).

 

[WhoWee]

I am refuting the claim that the Obama administration's attitude has been "we will work on job creation right after we get our own agenda passed" and "your problems are not as important as our desires." I am saying that one's opinion on Obama should be (obviously) based on whether one believes that his job creation policies were the correct policies to implement. (And for the record, I do not believe that he has been a good salesman).

While selling the stimulus plan, he said that without it unemployment would exceed 8% - we're now hovering close to 10% - with over 8,000,000 people out of work and a $14,000,000,000,000 national debt. His response was to talk about jobs created or saved.

His supporters thought it was terrific.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...-team-stimulus-saved-created-3-6-million-jobs

Then people began to question the results.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853

We haven't heard much about created or saved recently - have we?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not so sure that's completely true. I think at least 50% of the problem was not the economy per se, it was that the Obama administration's attitude was "we will work on that - right after we get our own agenda passed", or put a less-flattering way: "your problems are not as important as our desires". If the Obama administration is perceived as trying to help, they will be in better shape, even if unemployment is still high.

We don't disagree, I just think that if unemployment ends up low enough, he'll be able to argue that he was responsible or conversely, people will care less that he didn't do more to help. He did, after all, get the stimulus passed immediately after taking office and he can argue that tackling the economy was an iterative process. Republicans will, of course, counter with the argument that the stimulus wasn't even well targeted at fixing the economy but rather at pushing pet projects and causes, but if unemployment has recovered enough, it might not have traction. If unemployment is down, people may just think "well, he could have gotten it down faster, but he eventually did get it down" and not have a strong enough negative opinion to vote against him. He's the incumbent, so being unimpressed with him isn't enough not to re-elect him - people have to dislike him [his policies/record].

As a historical example, in 1932, unemployment was 13%, and FDR won the election with 46 states and 57% of the popular vote. By 1936 it was up around 20%, and FDR won with 48 states and 60% of the popular vote.

That's interesting, I had no idea. Still, I'm not sure that unemployment was the most recognizable feature of the Great Depression, was it? Wasn't it the collapse of the financial industry that took people's life savings bigger?

 

[russ_watters]

Didn't they tweak the way unemployment is calculated last week? Regardless, I think the Dem's believe they'll be able to champion another unemployment extension - beyond 99 weeks at the end of 2011.

Also, let's not forget that the real unemployment number is higher - when you factor in people who are under-employed, those working multiple part time jobs, and the people who are working for cash. If the economy perks up, these will be first people in line to fill new positions.

Democrats used that argument during the Bush years, so it is ironic that the shoe is on the other foot now. The issues of underemployed, long term unemployment and left-the-workforce are real and are worse the higher unemployment is, but as I said during the Bush years, in order to compare stats, the stats have to be collected the same way. One can't compare our current 10% unemployment to the 10% unemployment of the 1970s unless they were measured the same way.

Anyway, it is my understanding that it wasn't the unemployment rate itself that was being changed, just that they were adding more data on long-term unemployment to the basket of stats collected.

 

[WhoWee]

William Daley, Chief of Staff - a very good choice for the President.

Daley is experienced (working with Republicans too), he has business experience (a first for this Administration), he certainly understands politics, and he could be a potential running mate OR a candidate for 2016. My hat is off to the President.

 

[Gokul43201]

Your defense of him is that (other than being a good salesman) he's incompetent as a leader?

Is there any logical connect at all between yggg's post and your characterization of it?

 

[Vanadium 50]

You can certainly argue that these have been the wrong measures to create jobs and that the Obama administration has been unsuccessful at creating jobs.

I think those are both true statements, but that was not the point I was making. The point I was making is that the electorate doesn't think this was helpful. (Based on the July Rasmussen poll) And in an election, it's what the electorate thinks that matters.

Like I said, I don't think it was helpful at job creation. What are the big pieces of ARRA? An extension of unemployment benefits, a tax credit for low and moderate income family, and infrastructure funding that went to the states. The first two are unlikely to help job creation ("more food stamps! now we can hire a maid!") and it turns out that the last one was essentially a transfer of debt from the states to the federal government. That may be a good and necessary thing, but it's unlikely to make much of a dent in unemployment.

 

[WhoWee]

Is there any logical connect at all between yggg's post and your characterization of it?

How would you characterize this post? (my bold)

"Less than a month after being inaugurated in Feburary 2009, Obama signed the stimulus bill to help improve the economy and save jobs. In March, Geithner implemented programs to help buy depreciated real estate assets to try to improve the housing market. Furthermore, in March, the Obama administration intervened in the US auto industry to prevent the likely collapse of two of the three main auto manufacturers in the US. These are some of the many policies implemented by the Obama administration to spur job creation and boost the economy that occurred well before health care reform was brought up for debate in the summer of 2009 (which I assume is the agenda that you claim Obama was pushing ahead of job creation). Furthermore, right after passage of the obamacare bill, Obama introduced and passed a jobs bill to help provide additional stimulus to the economy.


You can certainly argue that these have been the wrong measures to create jobs and that the Obama administration has been unsuccessful at creating jobs. But, given these facts, it is difficult to claim that the Obama administration put non-economic issues such as health care, DADT repeal, and environmental policy in front of job creation (in fact many have criticized his job creation policies such as the stimulus as having gone too far and being too big). "


My logical conclusion was that Obama is a good salesman - he sold his programs and got them funded - but apparently he doesn't know what he's doing - as nothing worked in the context of job creation. Where is my logic faulty?

 

[Gokul43201]

Where is my logic faulty?

It is faulty in that it has nothing to do with the argument that yggg was making.

 

[WhoWee]

It is faulty in that it has nothing to do with the argument that yggg was making.

Again, how would you characterize his post?

 

[Gokul43201]

He was responding to V50's earlier post, and summarizes his point very clearly in the closing sentence. And V50 addresses exactly that point in his response.

 

[WhoWee]

If you'd like me to address his post line by line - I can. Let's start with my contention that Obama is a good salesman - in this article, he's touting healthcare reform as a jobs creator.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/03/obama-we-cant-have-job-gr_n_308586.html

"Obama: We Can't Have Job Growth Without Health Care Reform"
"In his weekly radio and Internet video address Saturday, Obama said his proposed health care overhaul would create jobs by making small business startups more affordable. If aspiring entrepreneurs believe they can stay insured while switching jobs, he said, they will start new businesses and hire workers."

I also stated that Obama's efforts to create jobs have been unsuccessful - obviously healthcare reform isn't creating any jobs in the private sector - and won't for a LONG time. Good sales job - bad management of the problem.

yggg also cited the Obama's work in the housing market and auto industries. The housing crisis is far from being addressed, cash for clunkers was a disaster and the GM deal did nothing (that a Federal judge couldn't have done in a normal Chapter 11) except give favorable treatment to the UAW at the expense of bondholders and auto dealers. More salesmanship and bad management by Obama.

The one point that yggg made that I haven't addressed is "But, given these facts, it is difficult to claim that the Obama administration put non-economic issues such as health care, DADT repeal, and environmental policy in front of job creation ". My previous post shows Obama tried to spin healthcare as a jobs creator and his environmenal policy was supposed to create Green jobs. Given that DADT was passed in the lame duck and he didn't mention Gitmo - I think my argument covers all of the bases and is quite logical.

Obama is a very good salesman - the 111th Congress passed Trillions of Dollars in new spending - and didn't solve the unemployment problem (even with all of those short term Census and construction jobs).

I apologize that this response was so unorganized, I'm tired and proofing a business plan while I type this.

 

[WhoWee]

This thread has been idle a while - and it's still very early. However, a common complaint by Conservatives from the 2008 election was that Candidate Obama received mostly favorable press coverage. Without debating that point, I find it very interesting the White House has responded to Donald Trump's birth certificate challenge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/10/donald-trump-for-president_n_847147.html

How can engaging with Trump on this issue possibly help the re-election campaign? If they consider Trump a serious candidate - it MIGHT make sense? Otherwise, it can only re-start the whole issue and serve as a distraction from the (current) message.

Further, the re-election campaign could help create a template whereby the President must defend against each assertion made by would-be contenders. Is it possible that instead of the Republican contenders discrediting each other through debates - as a group - they could each take a bite out of the President's re-election effort

 

[lisab]

This thread has been idle a while - and it's still very early. However, a common complaint by Conservatives from the 2008 election was that Candidate Obama received mostly favorable press coverage. Without debating that point, I find it very interesting the White House has responded to Donald Trump's birth certificate challenge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/10/donald-trump-for-president_n_847147.html

How can engaging with Trump on this issue possibly help the re-election campaign? If they consider Trump a serious candidate - it MIGHT make sense? Otherwise, it can only re-start the whole issue and serve as a distraction from the (current) message.

Further, the re-election campaign could help create a template whereby the President must defend against each assertion made by would-be contenders. Is it possible that instead of the Republican contenders discrediting each other through debates - as a group - they could each take a bite out of the President's re-election effort

The birther issue is only good for the dems. It paints the right as totally insane loonies - it surely won't win the votes of independents.

Trump has to know this - he's wacko but not a complete idiot. I think he has a plan: raise the birther issue now, then "review the evidence" and become convinced Obama was born in the US. Perhaps it's a ruse to come off as a reasonable man, which could sway some independents. Meanwhile he sweeps up support from the birthers.

Just speculation...who knows.

 

[WhoWee]

The birther issue is only good for the dems. It paints the right as totally insane loonies - it surely won't win the votes of independents.

Trump has to know this - he's wacko but not a complete idiot. I think he has a plan: raise the birther issue now, then "review the evidence" and become convinced Obama was born in the US. Perhaps it's a ruse to come off as a reasonable man, which could sway some independents. Meanwhile he sweeps up support from the birthers.

Just speculation...who knows.

You've hi-lited my point. Trump is neither considered "right wing" nor is he a conventional Republican candidate. He may not even participate in any debates. I can understand why Trump might do this - (but how in the world) - does engaging Trump (without showing the document) help the re-election effort?

 

[turbo]

You've hi-lited my point. Trump is neither considered "right wing" nor is he a conventional Republican candidate. He may not even participate in any debates. I can understand why Trump might do this - (but how in the world) - does engaging Trump (without showing the document) help the re-election effort?

Obama's birth certificate is on-line for all to see. It looks virtually identical to mine. The county clerk access the birth records (originals are not given out) and types an accurate transcript on a piece of security paper, then signs it and embosses it. That's all. You cannot get your original birth certificate from your county office. They don't release them.

Now Palin has taken up Trump's ridiculous and entirely unsupported claim that Obama has spent 2 million dollars avoiding the release of his birth certificate. That kind of crap may resonate with people that have about 2 firing neurons, but it's not going to gain anybody traction in a general election. I don't know what Trump is trying to pull, but he can't be serious about running. He'd get slaughtered.

 

[WhoWee]

Obama's birth certificate is on-line for all to see. It looks virtually identical to mine. The county clerk access the birth records (originals are not given out) and types an accurate transcript on a piece of security paper, then signs it and embosses it. That's all. You cannot get your original birth certificate from your county office. They don't release them.

Now Palin has taken up Trump's ridiculous and entirely unsupported claim that Obama has spent 2 million dollars avoiding the release of his birth certificate. That kind of crap may resonate with people that have about 2 firing neurons, but it's not going to gain anybody traction in a general election. I don't know what Trump is trying to pull, but he can't be serious about running. He'd get slaughtered.

I'm not trying to engage in the birth certificate discussion turbo. I think YOUR response was MUCH stronger than the one from the White House.

 

[russ_watters]

You've hi-lited my point. Trump is neither considered "right wing" nor is he a conventional Republican candidate. He may not even participate in any debates. I can understand why Trump might do this - (but how in the world) - does engaging Trump (without showing the document) help the re-election effort?

I agree with Lisa's point and will expand: Trump doesn't have to be generally right-wing to use a right-wing argument, nor does Trump need to be right-wing for Obama to benefit from highlighting right-wing extremism. I agree that keeping the issue alive can only help Obama.

 

[Astronuc]

Um - couldn't we wait until next year to discuss this?

I've already heard it will be the first $billion presidential campaign.

The annual Federal Budget needs to be reduced by ~$1.6 trillion.

No more Federal Deficits until the Debt is paid off.

Having a trade surplus would be nice too.

 

[WhoWee]

I agree with Lisa's point and will expand: Trump doesn't have to be generally right-wing to use a right-wing argument, nor does Trump need to be right-wing for Obama to benefit from highlighting right-wing extremism. I agree that keeping the issue alive can only help Obama.

That was my original thought as well. But (what if) Trump nibbles on this issue, Palin pounds him on his the Left Wing agenda, and Newt focuses on his inexperience?

To this mix, consider the (IMO) VP tier of Santorum, Barber, Herman Cain, Jindahl, Steele, (maybe) Allen West, and a slew of others including Bachman, Paul, and Rubio focusing on their pet peeves/areas of strengths. IMO - as long as they appear less zany than Biden, they will not themselves.

This leaves front runners Romney, Huckabee, and (maybe) Daniels a little breathing room to stay on point and avoid destroying each other in the early debates.

Also IMO - at the end of the day, the President has to run against 2008 Candidate (and Senator) Obama. In 2008, he could basically say anything he wanted. In the 2012 cycle - "he's got some 'splainin to do" (IMO).

 

[russ_watters]

Also IMO - at the end of the day, the President has to run against 2008 Candidate (and Senator) Obama. In 2008, he could basically say anything he wanted. In the 2012 cycle - "he's got some 'splainin to do" (IMO).

Agreed. In 2008, he was even able to run against Bush! He won't be able to do that this time.

 

[turbo]

Agreed. In 2008, he was even able to run against Bush! He won't be able to do that this time.

He has no credible opponent to run against this time. Pawlenty? Palin? Trump? Romney? Bachman? None of them has any chance. Does the GOP have anybody willing and able to run? I don't see a contender.

 

[russ_watters]

He has no credible opponent to run against this time.

Well of course not: It's April of 2011! There's no chance of having a credible opponent for another year! But I agree with the previous that besides the GOP candidate, he's also going to have to run against himself and having to beat two opponents at once may be tough.

 

[WhoWee]

He has no credible opponent to run against this time. Pawlenty? Palin? Trump? Romney? Bachman? None of them has any chance. Does the GOP have anybody willing and able to run? I don't see a contender.

If you recall, that was the problem last Fall with the Tea Party - nobody for the Dems to focus on.

If the Republicans can manage not to destroy each other (in the primaries) and everyone stays focused on the President (and his words/record) - the re-election campaign will need $1 billion (IMO).

 

[mrchristo]

in australia we really hoped that he could of made a 'global' difference but from my perspective he seems to be gagged.

just happy Bush is gone, the worst thing is to have Palin groomed for the position, she scares the hell out of us...government is for the people and not the wallet

healthcare is simply humanity that should be available for all that NEED it
(just my point of view)

 

[BobG]

Nevertheless, 'it's still just the economy, stupid'. With the most recognizable current issue being unemployment, if unemployment is still above 9% in 20 months, he won't have a prayer of being re-elected and if it is below 7%, no Republican will have a prayer of beating him. Between those, it'll be about who can work the issue better.

I think Russ hit on the key point in the 2012 election. The average person won't remember the details of the stimulus bill, won't really know whether it had any effect or not, and won't even really know just how much any President's policies can effect the economy.

What they will know is how they feel about their own prospects for the future. If they're depressed about their own future, then they'll vote in the other party for President. If they're optimistic about their own future, they'll keep the current party in power.

At the end of 2008, I would have said Obama would be a shoo-in to be re-elected, since most recessions aren't going to last 4 years. He'd get to take credit for improving the economy even if he did nothing. At this point, I'd say high unemployment numbers make his chances iffy.

In fact, saying an unemployment rate of less than 7% gets Obama re-elected is a sign of just how far people are starting to adjust their sights. 7% unemployment isn't good.

But, yes, it is enough of an improvement that it would probably make people more optimistic about their future and that's often more important than their current situation.

Incredibly enough, I don't think it's a given that unemployment gets below 7% by next year. Taking into consideration how productivity has actually increased during the recession, the number of baby boomers that have to delay retirement because of the stock market crash in 2008/2009, and the number of workers that quit looking for work that will start looking again, unemployment could be a problem for the 2016 election, let alone the 2012 election.

 

[drankin]

Isn't the unemployment figure based on those who are currently collecting unemployment? How about those that have run out of their unemployment monies? For example, my wife will be running hers out in a few months. A different discussion but the recession has run long enough that people may be dropping off the percentage count yet still unemployed.

 

[WhoWee]

Isn't the unemployment figure based on those who are currently collecting unemployment? How about those that have run out of their unemployment monies? For example, my wife will be running hers out in a few months. A different discussion but the recession has run long enough that people may be dropping off the percentage count yet still unemployed.

There's a lot of information available on this site.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#nlf


more
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

 

[drankin]

There's a lot of information available on this site.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#nlf


more
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Thanks for the link. My assumption was incorrect. Recieving UI is not supposed to have a bearing on whether someone is unemployed or not.

 

[russ_watters]

At the end of 2008, I would have said Obama would be a shoo-in to be re-elected, since most recessions aren't going to last 4 years. He'd get to take credit for improving the economy even if he did nothing. At this point, I'd say high unemployment numbers make his chances iffy.

I did make exactly that prediction in 2009, but I'm starting to question it as well. The economy hasn't rebounded as fast as I expected it to and what people will remember of/connect to the stimulus is the part that was a lot worse than I expected: the spectacularly high deficit. While it is good that Obama is flip-flopping on spending (finally), I don't think that he'll be able to claim that as a win.

In fact, saying an unemployment rate of less than 7% gets Obama re-elected is a sign of just how far people are starting to adjust their sights. 7% unemployment isn't good.

You're missing the point: 7% is key because that's [about] what unemployment was when Obama took office.

Incredibly enough, I don't think it's a given that unemployment gets below 7% by next year. Taking into consideration how productivity has actually increased during the recession, the number of baby boomers that have to delay retirement because of the stock market crash in 2008/2009, and the number of workers that quit looking for work that will start looking again, unemployment could be a problem for the 2016 election, let alone the 2012 election.

Agreed - at this point, I don't think there is much chance of it being below 8%, much less 7%.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks for the link. My assumption was incorrect. Recieving UI is not supposed to have a bearing on whether someone is unemployed or not.

But looking for work does.

 

[turbo]

So far Russ, the "Obama Strategy for 2012" has come up pretty lame. If Obama needs a 2012 strategy, he needs a viable opponent to target with that strategy. There is none at this time, when potential candidates are forming "exploratory committees". The GOP and their FOX surrogate are putting up cardboard cut-outs with no real viability. It seems that the GOP is willing to cede a two-term presidency to Obama, IMO.

If they had an actual candidate for 2012, it seems like we would have been subject to all the hints and "vamping" that the national parties are known for.

 

[WhoWee]

So far Russ, the "Obama Strategy for 2012" has come up pretty lame. If Obama needs a 2012 strategy, he needs a viable opponent to target with that strategy. There is none at this time, when potential candidates are forming "exploratory committees". The GOP and their FOX surrogate are putting up cardboard cut-outs with no real viability. It seems that the GOP is willing to cede a two-term presidency to Obama, IMO.

If they had an actual candidate for 2012, it seems like we would have been subject to all the hints and "vamping" that the national parties are known for.

If I was a Republican strategist - there would be a large debate every 60 to 90 days (with all the candidates). There would, however, be one difference in the format - instead of tearing each other apart, candidates would be challenged to debate every aspect of what is wrong with President Obama's - every aspect. The differences in opinion would come about in the way the would fix the Presidents mess.

Let's label this entire post IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

So far Russ, the "Obama Strategy for 2012" has come up pretty lame.

Well, lacking a strategy isn't a strategy, but I'm not sure that's what you were after with that comment...

If Obama needs a 2012 strategy, he needs a viable opponent to target with that strategy.

Agreed, and that's going to continue to be a problem for him until one emerges: lacking someone for him to criticize, he'll have to play defense against criticism of himself. One of his primary strong points in his first election was a lack of a record to defend. He doesn't have that luxury now and he doesn't have anywhere else specific to aim his guns.

It seems that the GOP is willing to cede a two-term presidency to Obama, IMO.

If they had an actual candidate for 2012, it seems like we would have been subject to all the hints and "vamping" that the national parties are known for.

You really need to remember your history, turbo-1, because that's just plain not how it needs to work. See, Clinton:

During the aftermath of the Gulf War, President Bush's approval ratings were extremely high. During one point after the successful performance by U.S forces in Kuwait, President Bush's approval ratings were 89% [1] As a result, several high profile candidates such as Mario Cuomo refused to seek the Democratic Nomination for President...

The Democrats lacked a high-profile viable candidate to face an incumbent Republican president or vice president. Still, several candidates such as Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown chose to run...

Clinton, meanwhile, was still a relatively unknown national candidate before the primary season... [emphasis added]

Again, your belief that a challenging party to the incumbent needs a leading candidate at this stage of the game is just plain historically wrong.

 

[turbo]

I believe that the GOP needs to field some plausible candidates, in order to be relevant in the 2012 presidential election. Right now, they have nothing but some wanna-be's, IMO. Mitt Romney is not a bad guy, but he is running as fast as he can from his record, and cannot (IMHO) get a majority of GOP support no matter what he does. He did some good stuff in Mass, but then again, "Romney-care" is not going to endear him to the hard right-wingers no matter how you cut it. Not that the people of Mass are complaining.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Turbo, judging from your past posts, I think it's unlikely that you will cast a vote for the Republican candidate, so I don't think the GOP particularly cares if you think its slate is "plausible" or not.

Neither party has to produce a perfect or flawless candidate. What they need to do is to produce a candidate who can get more votes than the other guy. We can (and will) debate this between now and Election Day, but it is a fact that President Obama won the last election with 53% of the vote, and another fact that he has fallen 20% in the polls since his inauguration. It is not a stretch to think that he will face a serious challenge, even if Superman does not chose to run this term.

 

[turbo]

Turbo, judging from your past posts, I think it's unlikely that you will cast a vote for the Republican candidate, so I don't think the GOP particularly cares if you think its slate is "plausible" or not.

Neither party has to produce a perfect or flawless candidate. What they need to do is to produce a candidate who can get more votes than the other guy. We can (and will) debate this between now and Election Day, but it is a fact that President Obama won the last election with 53% of the vote, and another fact that he has fallen 20% in the polls since his inauguration. It is not a stretch to think that he will face a serious challenge, even if Superman does not chose to run this term.

I am not enrolled with either party, and I DO vote for Republican candidates every election cycle if I think that they are the best candidate. I was a solid Republican until Uncle Ronnie and his gang gave us the shaft in favor of the super-wealthy. When Bush Sr called "trickle down" "Voodoo economics" during the primary fight, he was right on the money. The GOP has been stuck on that track ever since, to the detriment of the rest of the country.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So you haven't voted Republican in 30 years. I think it's fair to say that the GOP has written off your vote, and as such your opinion carries little weight.

 

[BobG]

By this time in 2007, there were several candidates for both parties. Historically, I think that was a little early, though.

None the less, the lack of Republican candidates has already resulted in http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-usa-campaign-debate-idUSTRE72T40U20110330 being rescheduled from May 2 to September due to a lack of Republican candidates.

There's reasons for some of those. In fact, Palin and Huckabee are running into the same problem Thompson ran into in the 2008 election. They're already pulling in money from numerous TV appearances and that would have to stop once they declare themselves candidates.