Three Reasons President Obama Will Be Re-Elected

Okay, I admit it.  The title’s written mostly as an eye-catcher.  I can even hear some of you right now thinking, “There’s no way of knowing whether the president will be re-elected or not.  It’s still too early to tell!”

You’re probably right.  But frankly, unless something major happens between now and November 2012, I’m convinced Obama will get four more years.  And I don’t even have to know who the Republican nominee will be.  I’ll get into that in a just a bit, but let me say before we get any further that I’m trying hard to write this post from a reasonably non-partisan, “just the facts, ma’am” perspective.  So regardless of what I want or don’t want, this is just how I see things going down.  Now, without further ado:

Reason #1:  Polls

Okay, again here, I’m sure there will be those of you who say that polls mean nothing at this point.  And to an extent, that’s true.  But sometimes we can look at things historically and get some insight as to the trends of the political environment.  In this case, I’ll first point out Obama’s approval rating.  As of the afternoon of July 13, 2011, RealClearPolitics, a website which compiles polling data (and offers news and commentary), has the president sitting just short of 47% approval.  The disapproval measures about 47% as well.  Now let’s look at some history.  Obama is actually pretty much on par with other 2-termers of the last several decades, at least by this measurement.  At this point in their presidencies, Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon were all hovering just below 50% approval, according to the Wall Street Journal.  Bush 43 is an outlier, sitting higher due to wartime (back when we thought Iraq would be a quick and easy fix).

Well, even if his approval rating seems to be in decent shape, maybe he’s vulnerable to one of his Republican competitors, right?  Personally, I think it’s very telling that the only opponent that even comes close to consistently running ahead of Obama in a general election matchup is “Generic Republican.”  (In fact, the most recent poll from Rasmussen Reports has him trailing by 5%.)  This is happening for several reasons, but mostly I think it speaks to a lack of cohesion and leadership in the Republican Party, reflected in the fact that one survey after another indicates a general dissatisfaction with the Republican presidential field as it stands.  Regardless, without Mike Huckabee in the race, Mitt Romney seems to run the closest against Obama, and even though he’s led the president in some polls, they’ve been few and far between.  And this is the man most people consider the front-runner for the GOP nomination, and perhaps the best chance the Republicans have got.  All the other candidates are running on average at least 10 points behind Obama in head-to-head matchups.

So it looks like the president’s got the upper hand for now, especially given the fact that the economy continues to languish, and his approval rating has stabilized in the mid-to-high 40s — which brings me to my next point.

Reason #2:  “It’s the Economy, Stupid”

 Unemployment is pushing 10%, the national average price for a gallon of gas is $3.65, and still nearly half of voters approve of Obama’s handling of the presidency.  So it seems many voters are willing to continue to blame the previous administration for the country’s economic woes, believe the stimulus has worked or will work, or simply overlook it altogether (or perhaps some combination thereof).  I can sum up Reason #2 pretty simply.  Basically, my point is that even though the economy is pretty bad, even worse than the last days of the Bush administration by some standards, an impressively high amount of voters remain loyal to President Obama.  I suppose the economy would have to get significantly worse for that to change.

Reason #3:  The Tea Party

The Tea Party has been characterized variously as a backwoods strain of right-wing extremism, an offbeat libertarian resurgence, and concerned citizens of any and all political leanings who are tired of the same old politics in Washington.  Whatever the truth, I would posit that the Tea Party movement will ultimately work in Obama’s favor in 2012.  This may be hard to swallow for some of you, but hear me out.  Some of you might wonder how the Tea Party could lead to a second Obama administration when the movement helped elect so many conservatives across the country last year.  I would remind you that while some Tea Party candidates were successful, others suffered defeat, even one in solidly Republican Alaska (Joe Miller – he was even endorsed by Palin).

The real problem with the Tea Party is that its candidates and leadership are ideological purists, whatever else they may be.  These are the people who believe Obama was elected in the first place because the GOP “abandoned its principles” when John McCain was nominated for president, not because the American economy suffered its worst crash since the Great Depression a mere two months before election day 2008.  In response to a liberal administration, these folks believe the best chance of beating Obama is to offer a candidate who differs from him as much as possible – meaning, the more conservative, the better, as far as most Tea Partiers are concerned.

Let’s take a look at how that strategy turned out in Delaware’s Senate race last year…http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/de/delaware_senate_oadonnell_vs_coons-1670.html…Are you back?  In case you need a recap, long-time Republican Congressman Mike Castle was heavily favored to win the election for Vice-President Joe Biden’s old Senate seat.  But enter one hockey mom from Wasilla, and next thing you know, perennial candidate Christine O’Donnell gains the backing of the Tea Party and upsets Congressman Castle in the primary.  She went on to lose handily to Democrat Chris Coons.  So what happened there?  Apparently, enough of the Republican electorate got behind a candidate that heavily appealed to their conservatism that the candidate who appealed to a broader coalition (read MAJORITY) of voters was denied a shot at a general election he was expected to win because he was not ideologically pure enough.  Predictably, independents broke for the other side and delivered the seat to the Democrat.  And the exact same thing could happen in next year’s presidential election.

Some will say they’d rather lose an election than compromise their principles.  Me, too.  But there’s a difference between agreeing to disagree about the little things and compromising one’s principles.  The fact is, it almost always takes a majority vote to win the American presidency, so the Republicans will either have to nominate someone who can build bridges (to nowhere?), or take their lumps until 2016.  Yes, believe it or not, in order to beat Obama, the Republican presidential nominee will have to be someone who can win a general election (which requires getting a significant number of independents to vote for you).  In an unfortunate irony, in their efforts to win the country back to conservatism, the Tea Party may become one of the greatest obstacles to its advancement.

 

There you have it, folks.  That’s my breakdown of the top 3 reasons Obama will be an 8-year president.  It has little to do with any of his specific policies, and nothing to do with how I will cast my vote.  Now I want to know what you think.  This is the first political post I’ve ever made, so as usual, let’s keep things polite.  Any comments I judge to be inappropriate or hateful will be deleted.  Bearing that in mind, I’d love to hear from you.  Do you agree with my points?  Am I totally off?  You don’t have to be a member of WordPress to comment on this blog, so go for it.