In the preceding post I articulated an argument that Barack Obama will lose next year. In that post I argued that the fundamentals of the election, mostly regarding the economy, will be unfavorable to Obama. I concluded by saying that a generic Republican should be favored to beat Obama.
This is why I think Obama will win. A great way to judge the strength of an incumbent is look at the kind of competition he draws. One way would could tell Stephanie Herseth Sandlin was in trouble is the fact that Kristi Noem, Blake Curd, and Chris Nelson were all quality challengers. Right now only Mitt Romney and possibly (possibly!!) Rick Perry are credible challengers to Obama, and Perry is leaking oil terribly. For whatever reason, credible challengers such as John Thune, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Chris Christie, and Paul Ryan decided not to run. Mr. Generic Republican, Tim Pawlenty, failed to catch on. I think any of the people I just mentioned (except possibly Barbour) would beat Obama. Every candidate under Romney right now, including Herman Cain, is deeply flawed and a well-financed, articulate, and, frankly, demagogic Obama will tear Cain and the rest of the Republican field apart. Again, maybe Perry has a shot at overcoming his weaknesses, but I doubt it.
Funding is also why Obama will do well. He will raise a billion dollars and his top notch team will get enough of the vote out to win the election. He will run a race like Bush in 2004. Taking a page from Karl Rove, Obama win get out his base with highly ideological and partisan appeals while going highly negative on his opponent. The era of "hope and change" is over. Obama will win, but he will win ugly. He is already telegraphing a deeply negative campaign, and I think it will work. Like when you are being chased by the bear, you don't have to out run the bear, you just need to out run the other guy.
So in short, Obama is not popular and clearly is not as skilled as a politician as everyone thought. Three years of Obama have him wearing thin. But I think he will be more acceptable to the public than the Republican nominee. I noted the political science models of presidential elections in my previous post. They explain a good deal of the variance in presidential voting, but they don't explain it all. One thing they can't control for is the quality of the challenger and his ability to articulate a compelling argument against the incumbent. I don't think any of the Republican candidates (except Romney) are capable of doing this. Let's be frank: the fact that Herman Cain, God bless him, is even near the top of the Republican polls should have Republicans soiling themselves. Whatever his virtues are, Cain is clearly unqualified to be president (note, for example, his totally unformed foreign policy views).
Apparently Rush Limbaugh said this week that Mitt Romney is no conservative (I don't listen to Limbaugh, so I get this from RealClear). Limbaugh is probably right. But so far he is the only candidate who has been consistently articulate in debates, holds views (albeit ever changing views) that are likely to attract a majority of voters, and has a background that suggests the capacity to govern. I think he has a fair shot of beating Obama. Perry is a long shot, and everyone else is a no shot.
Bill Flemming asked in the comments of the previous post about a third party candidate. Obama has nothing to fear here. I think if Romney is the Republican nominee there is a fair shot at there being a third party conservative candidate (although I am not ready to predict that). This of course will destroy Romney and ensure that Obama wins.
I've always thought that Palin would run as a third party or independent candidate. If she would cut loose from the corporate elite and run as a populist (as she did as Governor in Alaska) against the corporate power brokers, she might just win against Romney and Obama.
Posted by: Donald Pay | Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 06:00 PM
There could be more than one Indy candidate, the way things are shaping up. "Populist/Libertarians" from both bases.
Could be interesting. But I agree in general. This is Obama's race to lose.
Posted by: Bill Fleming | Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 07:32 PM
We must elect Sarah Palin president in the most crushing tidal wave of enthusiastic good judgment ever seen in the history of this nation. With that one bold move we will accomplish the dual goals of seeing America led by the greatest natural born leader in our generation, even as we witness the final implosion and last agonized shrieks of our endlessly lying extreme left loonies. Their entire movement, from the fabricated attacks on Bush beginning with ‘Blood For Oil’ to the crammed-down-our-gullets lies of Obamacare and the Shovel Ready Stimulus, have been nothing but one vile deceit heaped upon another. Such an absolute inability to deal in the truth or to face the facts of our situation and its solutions only proves that there is simply no place at the grown-ups’ table for these diseased sputa. Good riddance to rubes and bad rubbish. Time to usher in the American Renaissance, carried in on the invigoratingly freshening breeze of President Sarah Palin.
Posted by: Margaret Wang | Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 08:35 PM
Palin would get smashed running as a 3rd party candidate. And she would hand Obama another term.
Romney is the only candidate who can beat Obama.
Posted by: sdpride | Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 10:21 PM
I disagree with Donald. I agree with sdpride.
Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Donald Trump ... In my opinion, none of them can get the Republican nomination, and none of them could beat Obama on any ticket, but they could ensure Obama's re-election by running as independents.
I wonder about Herman Cain! How can so many people not see through his 999 plan as a massive tax cut for the wealthy and a potentially devastating tax rise for the poor?
Bill, how about Dennis Kucinich running as an independent? Let's draft him. He'd make things interesting. Can you imagine him running against Herman Cain? Oh well, we can dream. It's still legal, I think.
I'm pulling for Romney. At least he's got some substance along with all that style.
Posted by: Stan Gibilisco | Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 11:19 PM
...or Bernie Sanders. Anybody but Ralph.....zzzzzzzz....uh...huh?...what?...oh... sorry... Nader.
Posted by: Bill Fleming | Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 07:18 AM
As a usually logical man, I have never understood why (logically), Obama is deemed such a VERY BAD PRESIDENT, other than the FACT that he has been up against a group of Republican-tea partiers who swore to see him fail right from the beginning!!!!!
Posted by: Josh Kitts | Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 02:22 PM
Good question, Josh. Here's some evidence to back up your point.
http://planetpov.com/2011/02/13/a-short-list-of-pres-obamas-accomplishments/
Posted by: Bill Fleming | Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 04:01 PM
Romney doesn't "hold views," he rents them. Obama will run a demogogic campaign, but he will find that much more effective against Romney than Cain. People don't like either Romney or Obama. People like Cain. It is hard to demonize him. He has his flaws, but any reasonable Democrat has to hope to run against multiple choice Romney.
Posted by: Mike Cooper | Monday, October 17, 2011 at 06:17 AM
"...other than the FACT that he has been up against a group of Republican-tea partiers who swore to see him fail right from the beginning!!!"
Welcome to politics. That's how it works. Both sides take whatever position they need to in order to get back in power.
Posted by: sdpride | Monday, October 17, 2011 at 11:10 AM
Obama would destroy Cain. Obama is far more articulate and Cain hasn't proven himself as anything more than a gimmick candidate. Obama would much rather face Cain than Romney who is miles ahead of Herman in fundraising and organization.
Posted by: sdpride | Monday, October 17, 2011 at 11:13 AM
Yes, Obama is, um, uh, well, uh, more um, uh, uh ar, um ticulate than ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Cain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0hU1THjuc Yes, he is so much more articulate than Cain-if his teleprompter is functioning.
Posted by: duggersd | Monday, October 17, 2011 at 01:23 PM
sdpride (great name btw), watch the Clinton-Cain debate on You Tube about health care. Cain is extremly articulate and he made mincemeat out of Clinton, and Clinton is much better than Obama. And, Cain comes across as more likeable. For many reasons, one of which is respective debating ability, Obama would rather face Romney than Cain.
Posted by: Mike Cooper | Monday, October 17, 2011 at 09:59 PM
Cain cain't.
Posted by: Bill Fleming | Tuesday, October 18, 2011 at 09:42 AM
Correct Obama will win. I predict 52-47 with 332 EVS. A smaller margin than in
2008. However, winning ugly doesnt set The One up well for a successful 2nd term.
His popularity will peak before he is inaugurated and will fall below his lowest
approval rating to date. 2014 will be an even bigger disaster for the Dems as they
lose all the House seats they gained in 2012 and lose 8-10 seats in the Senate.
Posted by: BamBamFunkhauser | Monday, November 07, 2011 at 08:51 PM