Biden's Abysmal Debate: Denial ain't just a river in Egypt

                    

As much as partisan Democrats seek to put lipstick on a pig, Biden's first and probably last
presidential debate was a disaster, if not fatal. Not only did it fail to do what it was supposed to do but it also confirmed public perceptions about Biden and trendlines in the presidential race that had largely been frozen for nearly six months.

            Even before this debate there were growing concerns about Joe Biden's age and cognitive capacities.  Four years ago the public was concerned about Biden's age and that has only grown since he was president.  Biden has held the fewest number of press conferences since Ronald Reagan was president, and his public appearances have mostly been canned and scripted. For many, he looks like their aging grandfather who has good and bad days, with many wondering that while we see Biden on his good days, what is he like on those days which are not so good?

            Polls indicate a majority of Americans are concerned about his age and think he shouldn't run for reelection.

            Even beyond the age factor, political science models all suggest that Biden was going to lose the 2024 election. While the models are not perfect, they look to presidential approval rating and perceptions about the economy as key to predicting reelection.

            Biden has approval numbers worse than Trump did in 2020. In fact, no incumbent president has ever won reelection with the numbers that Biden has.  In many cases, the economy looks good yet the public remains very fraught and fearful about inflation and the future of the economy.

            Even if we did not look at a traditional political science prediction model, polls indicate that for at least the last six months, Joe Biden and Donald Trump have been frozen in terms of what the numbers say in the five or six swing states that are going to decide the election. Last October I looked at Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Five swing states that will decide the 2024 election. Joe Biden was behind in enough of those swing states that were the election held back then he would lose to Donald Trump in the Electoral College. A couple of months later, the New York Times did a similar analysis, but added Nevada to the list. It too found that Joe Biden would lose to Donald Trump and the Electoral College.

            Leading up to this debate, the polls indicated in those critical swing states that Biden and Trump are close, but Trump enjoyed a consistent if not narrow lead. Generally this election as I've argued will come down to about 150,000 to 200,000 swing voters in five or six swing states. We are looking at an incredibly small number of people who effectively will decide the election.  Biden needed to move these voters.  They are probably low-information voters not paying a lot of daily attention to politics, but might nonetheless be affected by mass, pop culture or otherwise impressions of the candidates.

            Biden and his staff too were looking at the polls in the swing states.  They needed to do something to shake up the dynamics of the race.

            Thus an early debate.  Thus far, neither abortion politics as it did in 2022, nor fears of Donald Trump being reelected seem to be enough to change the trajectory of the Biden campaign. He and his staff placed a lot on the value of this first debate.

            The debate did little to move the trendline. There is no indication thus far that it altered people's perceptions of Trump versus Biden in a significant way or at least in a way to Biden's advantage. But what it did do was to confirm what many people believed about Biden and that he lacked the wherewithal to serve out a second term as President of the United States.

            After the debate party loyalists did their best to address Biden's bad performance.

            They said that it was just one bad day and he will be able to recover from it. In doing that, they drew parallels back to 2012 where Barack Obama had a bad debate against Mitt Romney but managed to recover. But that analogy is not appropriate. No one questioned Obama's cognitive capacities in 2012. There was not a belief that he was too old or too feeble to be president. He had a bad debate.

            Biden's bad performance confirmed what most people are believing. The debate might have been a bad day, even if Biden had a good day afterwards it does not alter the  impression that he is an eighty-one-year old in cognitive decline.

            It is nearly impossible to shake those types of public impressions for those few undecided voters who are out there if they were paying attention. There's an old adage you don't have a second chance to make a first impression. This first impression for them might well have been decisive.

            Party loyalists are also trying to argue that they would rather have a president with a sore throat and who stammers a little ahead of a president who lies. It may be true that the debate was between a person who lied about the facts and one who forgot the facts. But it still doesn't change the fact that there is no indication that this debate changed perceptions about Biden or changed the trajectory of the race. Does this mean that people, especially those 150,000 to 200,000, are more likely to vote for Trump? Perhaps not. It certainly doesn't mean they're more likely to vote for Biden. They could very well stay home on election day. They could vote for an alternative third party candidate. But certainly Biden did nothing to win them over.

            The reaction to the debate shifts to the question of decision making. All indications are for the last several months there were concerns among some in the Biden campaign regarding his mental capacities. But nonetheless the Biden campaign and partisans are rallying around him.  Party loyalty and loyalty to Biden seems stronger than the resolve for the Democrats to win the election. They fear an open convention more than they appear to fear losing. They fear being politically ostracized within the party. Much like Congressman Dean Phillips was when he said Biden shouldn't run.

            Somehow, Democrats are thinking he can still win this one.

            Perhaps they hope abortion fear of Donald Trump or some other black swan will intervene and change the trajectory of the election, perhaps even a second debate.  While I think a second debate is unlikely because Donald Trump has no incentive to do it. The risks of a repeat of this are too great for even Biden to consider. Yet he probably will do it or insist on it.

            There is something wrong with this level of insularity in decision making. If a candidate who was so unpopular and now so demonstrates lack of cognitive capacity even only occasionally still is nominated, there is something wrong in how political decisions are being made.  Yet despite all this, unless a black swan emerges, the theme of the Biden campaign might as well be “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

The Immigration Reform Trap (Or how the GOP took the bait)

So Obama finally showed some backbone and did what he should have done before the election–he acted on immigration.  Had he done this before the election as he said he would (if Republicans did not act) then maybe more Hispanics would have voted for Democrats and the November results would have been different.  Now we see Republicans engaged in a faux act of anger, declaring that they will get even.  The Republicans should be grateful that Obama acted–it takes immigration off the table without Congress having to act, or not act, and therefore it removes a thorny problem for the GOP.  But foolishly and predictably the Republicans have protested, only guaranteeing that they will continue to guarantee that Latinos vote for Democrats, perhaps for the next generation.
    Republican anger belies they fact they if they do not like what Obama did they can always pass legislation on their own regarding immigration.  It’s called legislating.  Instead they plan retaliation, again a predictable and foolhardy  response that will only ensure that Democrats will be able to make the case against the GOP Congress in the 2016 elections.  Their reaction also provides justification for why they do not want to act responsibly-- they can claim that they will not compromise with the president on anything because he acted when they refused to. Kind of like taking the bat and ball and going home if you do not like how others are playing the game.  I think one calls this childish.
    But there is something more curious here–why the refusal to change immigration laws? Why the fear of illegal immigrants or undocumented aliens? In general, especially in tough economic times, the argument is that immigration and immigrants take jobs away from Americans and serve as a drain on the economy. Illegal immigrants or undocumented aliens are often singled out as competing against American citizens for jobs or that they cost taxpayers money. There is a belief that the benefits of citizenship, the free schools, and other programs found in the United States operate like a lure to attract illegal immigrants to the United States.  Allowing them to work in the United States, get a driver’s license, the availability of schooling, health care, and citizenship for children, or even lax enforcement of immigration laws, sends a signal to them that they are welcome. Thus, undocumented aliens flock to the United States and something needs to be done to stem this invasion.
    What is the reality?  Are immigrants a net drain on the economy; specifically, are they a bigger drain on taxes and public services than they are overall contributors to the economy? Second, immigrants are depicted as taking jobs away from Americans. What do we know about both of these claims?
    First, while acknowledging that immigrants may in some local settings or jurisdictions place some short-term significant burdens upon public services, overall they are net contributors to the economy. Several studies substantiate this point. The 2005 Economic Report of the President (produced under a Republican president) provided a detailed analysis of the impact of immigration upon the United States economy. The report noted that they as a group had up to a $10 billion net positive impact upon the economy. The report noted, for example, that while immigrants may be more likely than native born Americans to be on public assistance, the “net present value of immigrants’ estimated future tax payments exceeded the cost of services they were expected to us by $80,000 for the average immigrant and his or her descendants.”  However, with changes in public assistance laws, that figure had been upped to $88,000. While better educated immigrants (high school degree or better) definitely reflect this contribution, even among those not as well educated, the gains from them and their descendants’ productivity nearly, if not totally, offset the costs they impose upon public services that accrue to state and local governments. Finally, the president’s report also provided other documentation regarding the impact of immigrants upon the economy. For example, it noted that immigrants paid Social Security taxes on income of $463 billion dollars. Moreover, because illegal immigrants cannot collect Social Security, it is likely that immigrants overall pay more into this government program than they receive from it.
    In addition to the President’s 2005 report, other studies have noted the net economic benefit of immigrants to the United States. A 1997 National Academy of Sciences study found several net benefits associated with immigration, including a $10 billion net positive impact on the economy. Brad Edmondson’s “Life Without Immigrants” found that: “Illegal aliens in prison cost about $471 million per year, and they consume about $445 million more in Medicaid funds. But these costs are offset by about $1.9 billion in taxes paid by illegals and billions more in consumer spending.” Furthermore, the National Academy of Sciences, President’s Report, and the Edmondson study, all indicated that younger workers provided for important sources of productivity that also served the economy well. Overall, these and other studies clearly contested the myths that immigrants were a drain on the economy.
    In general, broader studies on immigration in the United States also confirm that there is a net benefit of immigrants to the economy. They generally pay more in taxes than they consume in public services. They have provided critical payments to Social Security to help maintain its solvency. Heidi Shierholz  in Immigration and Wages: Methodological Advancements Confirm Modest Gains for Workers found that even native US citizens have seen modest gains in terms of wages as a result of immigration. More importantly, California, Florida, New York, and Texas, the states with the highest immigration, seem to have particularly benefitted from it. Others reach similar conclusions about the impact on workers while noting that the granting of amnesty to illegal immigrants has benefitted the economy and increased tax revenues to the United States.
    The second criticism leveled against immigrants is that they take jobs away from American workers or they negatively impact wages. Again, several studies refuted that. For example, the National Academy of Sciences study found the wage impact to be negligible, while the President’s Report found little impact on wages of Americans. The report also noted and dismissed the argument that immigrants displaced American citizens in the labor market. Instead, they often filled labor gaps abandoned by others, such as farming and agriculture, and they definitely constituted a new source of productive labor particularly at a time when the size of the labor pool from other workers had disappeared.
    In addition to the above a Pew Hispanic Center  study reached similar conclusions. It compared the economic growth in selected states with high versus low immigration and found no differences in economic growth or in its impact on the labor markets. It also found that there was in fact in 12 states a positive correlation between the growth of immigrant and native-born workers. By that, there was no evidence that in states where more immigrants entered the labor market it depressed the entry of others into work. Finally, even among immigrants who were young and lacking in education, there was no indication that they directly competed against and hurt native-born workers with similar background.
    In sum, the evidence that immigrants are financial drains on the economy and that they take jobs away or hurt the wages of native-born workers is simply false.  Attacking immigrants and blaming them for society’s problems goes a long way back in American history.  Republican refusal to act on immigration may in part be based on the xenophobic  attitudes of its base, but the political calculus in taking such a position is bad politics.  Obama set a trap for Republicans  with his action and the GOP has taken the bait.

What if we gave an election and nobody came?

Well, literally not nobody came, instead, as Woody Allen once said, 90% of life is just showing up and that is what the Republicans did on Tuesday when they routed to a major sweep across the country.
    First, consider nationally, only 33.3% of the voters showed up.  This compares to 41% in 2010, and it is by far the lowest turnout going back to the early 1980s.  Two-thirds of Americans stayed home, including young voters and people of color.  These are core Democrat voters critical to Obama’s coalition yet they had better things to do than vote.  Even in Minnesota, a state priding itself on the highest voter turnout in the nation, only 50.2% of the voters showed up, down from 55% in 2010, and 60% in 2006.  Despite all the money and resources spent by the national Democrats and the DFL on GOTV, their base did not turnout.  One might speculate what would have happened if they did.  Perhaps the national GOP blowout would not have occurred and many of the close races would have tipped the other way.  Perhaps the Minnesota House of Representatives would not have flipped with the loss of 11 DFL seats.  Who knows, the results might have been different.
    It would be too easy to blame the low turnout on restrictive voting laws.  Maybe in some states that was an issue, but it does not explain places like Minnesota.  Moreover, there were some states such as Wisconsin which actually had higher turnout than four years ago.  No, the laws were not the sources of voter discontent.  What was?
    The first was that there was no constructive defining narrative in 2014.  Republicans ran against Obama and Democrats away from him.  Republicans told us what they would not do Democrats failed to explain what they did and why they deserve two more years.  This was a repeated on the dueling non-narratives of 2010.  Republicans had enough of a message to get their base out, Democrats did not.  Democrats had a failure of nerve, a failure to articulate why they had made the lives of many people better.  They can point to many successes, but too they failed.  Obama really has failed on many scores. 
    Yes Republicans did scuttle many of his efforts, but the President never pushed far and bold enough.  Too small a stimulus, too meek health care reform, waiting too late to tackle the environment, money in politics, or serious education reform.  He gives a good speech but the reforms he pushed were never grand enough to make the types of differences that needed to be made.  We all hoped Obama would be a transformative president, he turned out barely to be a transactional one.  Thus, in part the reason why Democrats stayed home was a combination of disillusionment, disappointment, and simply a failure of the president move the country in a direction far enough for people to see a major difference in their life now or in the future.
    Going forward, what does all this mean? The election results did little to change national politics.  For the last two if not four years power has been gridlocked in Washington, and that is certainly not going to change with the new Congress.  Obama was already a lame duck before the election and he was  destined to lose influence no matter what the results.  Tuesday’s returns simply accelerate the shrinkage of his presidency.  The last four years have been marked by repeated but failed efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, inaction on immigration and global warming, short term stopgap budget issues, and stalemates on minimum wage and a host of other issues.  Don’t expect to see that change in the next two years.  New congressional majorities do not necessarily mean that the House and Senate will act more responsibly and that its leadership and Obama will reach agreement by necessity.  What needs to be understood is that there is a basic philosophical difference over the role of government here, with little electoral incentive to compromise.  This is the core to understanding  the 2014 elections.
    The Pew Research Center has argued correctly that what has emerged in American politics is a two tract election cycle.  We have a presidential election cycle marked by turnouts in the mid 50s where women, the young, and people of color turn out, or at least vote in percentages greater than in midterm elections.  These are presidential election years that favor Democrats, in theory.  But the midterm elections produce significantly lower turnouts, with older, whiter, and more male electorates.  In each of these election cycles a different mixture of congressional, state, and local seats are up for election too.  The result is that different electorates create contrasting majorities and results.  Effectively we have dual majorities rule in the United States, each checking one another. With right now the midterm majorities driving American politics.
    Democrats are now looking to 2016 as their salvation when anticipated turnout is up to save them.  Don’t count on pure demographics to bail them out.  One still needs a good narrative and message, an argument to give people a reason to vote.  Obama’s lasting legacy may be one I saw in a New Yorker cartoon from a few years ago when one person turned to another and said “I think Obama has the potential to get a whole new generation disillusioned.”  It is this disillusionment that is the reason why we gave an election this past Tuesday and no one came.

Why the DFL will lose the Minnesota House

The DFL are going to lose the Minnesota House.  There are many reasons for this but the main one is arrogance–both a refusal to recognize a bad strategy and an unwillingness to admit mistakes.
    On the face of it, the DFL has much to cheer about come November.  It will sweep the constitutional offices with Dayton especially winning by a wide margin.  Franken too will win, probably big, as there is no sign that the election is tightening, contrary to what reporters any my colleagues rotefully declare.  The coattails of these statewide victories plus the large cash advantage that the DFL enjoy should in theory be enough to keep them in power in the House.  But it won’t be enough.
    Yes, there are obvious reasons why the DFL will lose.  Obama is unpopular and dragging down the party.  It is a mid-year election and DFL voters are less likely to vote.  Both of these factors explain why big-name Democrats such as the Clintons and Michelle Obama have visited the state with the hope of rousing the base and instilling passion into DFL voters.  But still that will not be enough to overcome other major problems of the DFL.
    Consider first that the DFL won many seats in 2012 by close margins in Republican areas.  They did so in part because if was a presidential election year and also because they benefited from Republican legislative overreach in the 2011-2012 session.  This means the DFL are defending many seats that are in Republican areas, or at the least, seriously lean GOP or are at best swing. 
    The second problem is the lack of a Democrat or DFL narrative.  Obama had a great narrative  in 2008 but since then at the national level there has been no narrative for reelection.  That is why Democrats were trounced in 2010.  Obama held on in 2012 because Romney was such a horrible candidate.  Dayton won in 2010 because Emmer was a weak candidate, and in 2012 the DFL won less on their narrative and more on GOP failures.  This year, there is still no national Democrat narrative and at the state level, the narrative too is missing.  Yes Dayton and Democrats can run on  their record of accomplishments and on a good state economy, but neither play well in swing districts.  Moreover, the DFL do not have a good narrative to counter MNSure, Obamacare, the new Senate Office Building, and many of their other legislative acts.  Yes all of these play well to the base, but not to swing voters. There is a nagging yet silent sense of DFL over-reach here, but when you put it all together, what is the narrative?   “Four more years?”  “If you liked the past you will love the future?”  The narrative is cloudy at best, thereby explaining in part the lethargy of the DFL voter.
    But perhaps the main reason why the DFL will lose the House has to do with arrogance.  It is arrogance on several scores.  Over the last few months I have given more talks across the state than I can count.  Repeatedly I hear that th DFL is using a cookie-cutter approach to running a state legislative campaign.  They are using the same messaging, GOTV, and tactics in all of their campaigns.  Such an approach is a recipe for failure, ignoring the special issues and needs of different districts.  While we may live in a era where elections are often nationalized, Tip O’Neill is still correct that all politics is local. 
    Almost 30 years ago I moved to Minnesota and saw a party still fixated on the past. I saw a  DFL bureaucratic and dominated by a small core of activists who in many ways still dominate the state and think the way you win is the way they used to win.  Say what you might about the GOP, but the TEA has brought in a new crop of activists into the Republican Party, willing at times to challenge it with new ideology and tactics.
    But what I have heard about and see this year is that the DFL leadership has refused to acknowledge that their strategy and campaign projections are flawed.   It is a urban-based approach that might work well in cities with lots of Democrats, but it is still not well suited for many suburbs  and especially rural Minnesota. I have heard several DFLers over-confidently say there are only about 8 swing races in the state, self-assured that there are some seats they really do not need to defend. Too many individuals have told me that they have been refused support or volunteers because the DFL thinks their race is unwinnable.  Or that the DFL has not supported a race because of petty jealousies. 
    There is a lot of ego on the line here.  Many in the DFL leadership have a stake in being considered wise gurus–they have decided who can win or lose and how–and they do not want to prove themselves wrong less they lose their stature within the party.  This insularity and making it all about them is a sure downfall for the DFL this November.

NSA Spying and the Constitution: Why Obama does not get it

“[N]othing that I have learned since indicated that our intelligence community has sought to violate the law or is cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow citizens.”
    –Barack Obama, January 17, 2014

    Barack Obama simply misses the point.
    In a windy speech seeking to address NSA spying on American citizens and foreign national, including our allies, Obama’s speech amounted to nothing more than “trust the government to do the right thing and protect your rights.”  Such a sentiment completely misses the point about why we have a Constitution and in particular, the Fourth Amendment and the demands that searches be conducted only upon probable cause.
    Let’s first start with why the speech.  The speech did not take place because the president was genuinely concerned or worried about the threat to individual liberties associated with the NSA intelligence gathering of our phone, e-mail and other metadata.  Instead, the only reason the speech took place was because of the disclosures by Edward Snowden.  Had those leaks not occurred it seems unlikely that the public would have known about the NSA spying.  After all, the FISA Court that issues warrants to allow for activity like this is a secret court–no different than the old Star Chamber of the British monarchy.  One can debate whether Snowden is a hero or a criminal but the truth is that he revealed something that the public would not have known about.
    As a result of Snowden we have come to learn of the extensive reach of the NSA in terms of spying on Americans and others across the world. We have also come to learn from a few scattered court decisions issued that the NSA has not always complied with court warrants, often exceeding them or acting way beyond their scope.  All in the interest in keeping us safe and secure from terrorism.  But Snowden’s disclosures have forced a public debate, pushing the president into the position of having to form a task force to reevaluate they NSA activity.  His speech on January 17, was a response.
    To say the least, Obama was unapologetic if not defiant.  He first appealed to fear and the threats to our security that terrorism poses and then he defended in a sanitized version how effective our intelligence gathering has been to protect us throughout history.  The ends I guess justify the means.
    But then Obama outlines the changes to the spying program.  Frankly, there were no real substantive changes.  The NSA will continue gathering metadata and will not stop monitoring calls and e-mails.  He does call for some minor changes in the FISA court but they are not really clear what they will be.  The major change is to say that the NSA cannot store the metadata anymore.  Someone else will?  But whom?  Private vendors, like the one who Snowden worked for?  Or companies like Target and Neiman Marcus?  Whether in private or public hands the data still exists, is still being examined, and still constitutes spying.
    Moreover, Obama misses other fundamental issues.  First, the issue is not whether the data has kept us safe and secure.  The issue is about following the law.  Rarely do I echo Rand Paul but he got it fundamentally right on CNN.  If we suspect someone is doing something illegal then get a search warrant.  The fourth Amendment requires particular suspicion to do searches–it does not allow for general fishing trips to look for information or to round up the usual suspects.  It’s not hard to get search warrants–I did it when I worked in government.
    Morever, the security versus liberty dichotomy is a false one.  When are only secure when our liberty is protected.  Additionally, there is no evidence that this wholesale spying is efficient or produces real intelligence.  It is overreach.  Use real intelligence to focus on real suspects.
    Third, to capitulate on the Fourth Amendment means we have lost.    Immediately after the events of 9/11 President Bush declared: “The object of terrorism is to try to force us to change our way of life, is to force us to retreat, is to force us to be what we're not. And that's--they're going to fail. They're simply going to fail.”  Bush was correct in saying what he did even though he would fail to honor them.  We fail as a country if we fail to respect our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  We are the “shining city on the hill” because we respect and do not abuse rights.  That is why stories about spying and torture are so bad.
    But finally, Obama misses it because in the end he speech comes down to no more than simply “trust the government to do the right thing.”  Tell that to James Madison and the constitutional framers.  Constitutions and bills of rights are written because we fundamentally should not always trust the government.  Both are written to restrain the government.  This is what Obama misses.
    I am not conspiracy theorist.  It was a single shooter in Dallas in 1963.  But what should be skeptical about the NSA spying.  We are told they are not listening to our phone conversations or looking at the content of our e-mails?  Should we believe them?  Remember Nixon and the extent of his spying and his assertions that we should trust the president when it comes to national security?
    Obama missed a great opportunity.  It was a chance to do what candidate Obama promised.  It was a chance to also reign in private business data gathering.  It was a change to move us to a new discussion about privacy and rights.  But he failed to do that and instead simply missed the point about spying.

The Presidency and Foreign Policy (plus a note on Polls and Wisconsin)

The 2012 presidential race was supposed to be about the economy.  At least that is what Mitt Romney wanted.  His goal was to emphasize this experience as a businessman in contrast to Obama’s failed leadership in an economy with still high unemployment.  If his first message was to steal a page from Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign–“It’s the economy stupid”–his convention speech shifted it to the Reaganesque “Are you better off now than four years ago.”  Run on the economy, as the conventional wisdom would have suggested, and it should be a path to the White House since presidential re-elections are generally referenda on the economy.

Yet things have just not worked out for Romney.  First it was Obama picking up where Newt Gingrich left off, turning Romney’s Bain Capital experience into a liability and symbol of vulture capitalism.  Despite the persistence of a weak jobs economy, Romney has lost his advantage on this issue as the NY Times reports that polls now give Obama a slight nod on this issue.

The it was Paul Ryan.  Ryan diverts attention away from the economy and to budget cuts and Medicare.  Or Atkins in Missouri has pushed the agenda to abortion and social issues.  Or Obama  and the Democrats have made the campaign about gay rights.  Whatever the diversion, though, Romney has not been able to score on the issue that should have been his strength–the economy.

And now the agenda has shifted again–to foreign policy. Until now the presidential race was about domestic policy.  Yes Romney tried in his RNC speech to talk about Afghanistan and the war there, but generally the polls suggested that this is not what is driving the public or the race.  But how recent and potential events are placing foreign policy back perhaps to the center of the race, again taking the presidential contest further away from the economy.

Two events this past week were particularly important.  There is the killing of the US ambassador in Libya along with the anti-American uprisings across the Arab world, and then the demand by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for the US to draw a red line for Iran regarding nuclear weapons.  Both of these events thrust foreign policy and events into the middle of the presidential race.

At first blush, Obama is coming our a winner.  He does so because of Romney’s ham-handed criticism of the president regarding Libya that was factually wrong and ill-timed, criticized even by fellow Republicans.  This is not Romney’s first mistake.  He crudely criticized the UK regarding the Olympics and also while visiting Israel his comments about Palestinians was criticized.    His views on Russia too seem antiquated.  The point here is that Romney’s lack of foreign policy experience is showing, and it creates an opportunity for Obama to look presidential and qualified.  Romney’s problem is not unusual for presidential challengers when running against incumbents–the latter always look more experienced and qualified–the big exception being Jimmy Carter and the hostage crisis in 1980.

Generally foreign policy crises work to a president’s political advantage.  It gives them the chance to look, while presidential and in control.  People rally around the flag, especially if presidents act decisively.  So far Romney has damaged himself and Obama has not hurt himself.  But that could change.

Think of worst case scenarios–all October surprises.  Israel bombs Iran.  What does the USA do?  Obama cannot ignore supporting our ally and with the Jewish vote critical to a Florida victory, he may have no choice but to intervene.  How such a war will affect the presidential election overall is unclear.  Conventional wisdom generally says the president should be helped with something like this, but America is war-weary.

A second October surprise-American hostages are taken at some other US embassy or another ambassador is killed.  Images of Carter, Iran, and 1980 are invoked here.  Carter’s impotence with the hostages–and a botched rescue mission–were not good for his image.  Obama probably now needs to take some major foreign policy action to address Libya but what?  In theory it and Egypt are our allies.  Kind of hard to bomb them.

Other October surprises are a continued erosion of stability and civil war in Syria and financial solvency of the Europe.  Overall, these foreign policy events are largely beyond control of Obama and all could dramatically change the presidential race.  They also have domestic implications–look at the price of gas.

Overall foreign policy and international events run risks for both Romney and Obama.  How these events play out are yet to be seen but they have placed foreign policy in the center of the race.  For Obama it also shifts the race again off the economy and that might be good.  For Romney, this may not be good.

Two Final Thoughts: Swing States and Labor Rights Wisconsin

Two other thoughts are in order.

Both the Financial Times and the New York Times have noted critical changes in the presidential race since the DNC.  Obama and the Democrats got a convention bounce that the GOP and Romney did not.  Obama picked up a couple of points in the polls but more importantly, he picked up some approval ratings.  This may be the “sugar high” that Romney speaks of, but it is still significant. 

But the bigger problem for Romney is that two swing states–Pennsylvania and Michigan–are no longer swing.  Romney has effectively given up on them, reducing the number of swing states to eight or nine.  The Financial Times reports nine swing states with Obama leading in eight, including a solid margin in Ohio.  Romney may be close in the national polls but he is not doing well in the critical swing states-although he has a shot in Wisconsin

Finally, on Friday a Dane County circuit judge invalidated the law that abrogated public employee rights in Wisconsin.  He did so on federal constitutional grounds (First Amendment freedom of association and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection grounds) along with state constitutional claims.  Were the decision upheld on appeal it would be a real repudiation of the Walker and perhaps more significant that had he ben recalled.

However hold on with this case.  It was not the best drafted opinion and the chances of it being upheld are iffy at best.  Moreover, Walker will move for the decision to be stayed on appeal.  It is not clear after reading it whether it restores collective bargaining rights and if so, when.  In short, lots of questions remain regarding what the decision really means.

America Beyond the 2012 Elections: What the candidates should be discussing

Groucho Marx declared that any club that would have him as a member he would not want to join. His sentiment perhaps captures my attitude toward presidential candidates–anyone who wants to be president I would not want to support! The reason is that with America’s problems so pressing, anyone who wants the job or thinks they have easy solutions to the difficult problems is probably a fool and should not be president.

The same is true this year. While the presidential primary and now general election seem again mired in social issues, the tough issues facing America are left untouched or inadequately discussed.  Yes, there are concerns about the solvency of Social Security and other entitlement programs, and the economy and gas prices loom large, yet there is little serious debate about how to solve these issues, whether the president even has the power to do anything, and also little discussion about a range of other pressing concerns that need to be addressed. Regardless of who wins in November, consider some of the pressing issues that need to be confronted but which are being ignored.

Obama faces an economy where the best projection is of high unemployment and low economic growth. But there is more. Home values remain about 25% or more below what they were in 2008, consumer and now student debt is high, and many people have already blown through their unemployment benefits and face an uncertain future. Consumer confidence remains near historic lows, suggesting little chance that retail sales and spending for the coming holidays and into next year will revive the economy. The public just does not believe the country is headed in the right direction (61% say in the wrong direction) and few think we are better off now than four years ago.

However, in recent months the American economy appears to be recovering. The unemployment rate is steadily decreasing, the stock market is at pre-2008 levels, and the housing market appears to be stabilizing This has brought a shift to three other domestic issues—gas prices, debt, and social issues. In 1980 rising energy prices due to two embargoes by oil producing countries had an impact on President Jimmy Carter’s election loss to Ronald Reagan. In 2012 projections are that gas prices may increase from approximately $3.00 per gallon to perhaps $5 by July. These rising prices are already causing a potential worry in terms of their impact on the US economy, and they are the subject of political criticism by Republican presidential candidates who are blaming Barack Obama for the increases.

American Decline?
A second domestic issue is the American budget deficit. The current budget deficit for fiscal year 2013 is projected to be nearly $980 billion with overall nation debt estimated at $15.6 trillion. This debt is a concern for many reasons, some of which is over worry that the United States cannot continue to finance it budget deficits by borrowing. Continued long term US debt affects its credit rating and ability to borrow money from sources, some of which are international. Efforts to reduce the debt and budget deficit potentially have an impact on defense spending and there are some discussions regarding how this might affect US military might. Paul Kennedy describes how one threat to the United States may be that its declining economic strength may compromise its ability to maintain its international military supremacy or standing in the world as it loses it capacity to maintain both hard (military) and soft (economic) hegemony.

Former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski writes in his new book America and the Crisis of Global Power that the budget deficit, an unstable financial system, decaying infrastructure, growing economic equalities, and partisan politics threaten America’s national security and international standing. In many ways his arguments echo what Paul Kennedy had asserted 25 years ago in his influential 1987 "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" that the declining economic stature of the United States could have a significant impact upon its geo-global standing. Both books powerfully connect domestic politics to national security and assert that the country must confront certain realities. Yet unlike when Kennedy wrote it appeared America had bipartisan capacity to act, Brzezinski sees the very polarization of our political system as a strategic liability, standing as impediment to solving the other problems that exist.

This polarization affects the capacity to govern. Samuel Huntington and others were roundly criticized over a generation ago for asserting that America faced a governability crisis. Yet now he seems prescient. The list of problems confronting the American political system is endless. There is the growing polarization of the political parties that makes compromise near impossible. Add to that the personalization of political attacks that render compromise after election difficult. But there is also the growing disaffection of the public from the two major parties, the inability of the Democrats and Republicans to escape capture by special interests, the impossibility of the an opportunity for minor parties to emerge. Polls increasingly point to large majorities of the American public expressing dissatisfaction or distrust with Congress and the government overall, and while money in politics has always been a problem, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens’ United v Federal Election Commission has exacerbated the impact that wealthy donors and corporations have on the political process. Political scientist E.E. Schattschneider wrote more than 50 years ago that America was in danger of becoming the largest aristocracy in world where political power was stratified by wealth, race, and gender, and that has largely come to be.

But the political divisions are a consequence of another real problem America must confront—the growing gap between the have and have-nots. Mounting evidence demonstrates that the United States has the largest gap between the rich and poor this country has experienced since the 1920s. Since the 1970s repeated studies document declining social mobility for the poor and middle class and a nation where the rich have done will and the rest have not. The United States fares poorly in comparative statistics on equality and mobility compared to other developed countries. The reality is that there is a significant class divide in this country, affecting political engagement, life prospects, health, and a host of other issues.

Domestic Policy: Infrastructure, Health Care, and Gas Prices
Another issue is America’s crumbling infrastructure. It now seems a distant memory that in 2007 a bridge collapsed in Minneapolis. For a few days infrastructure was the word of the day. “Infrastructure” is not a sexy word. Nor is it the type of word that most of us use in everyday conversation, until the Minnesota bridge collapsed. Yet infrastructure—a short hand way of referring to America’s bridges, roads, highways and sewer and water pipes—is important to our everyday lives. Without the basic infrastructure of roads we would never get to work, to school, or go shopping. Without it we could not cross rivers, drink water, or flush our toilets. In 2007 the American Civil Engineering Society estimated a need of at least $2.2 trillion to revitalize America’s aging infrastructure. While no additional bridges have fallen, the aging American infrastructure costs the economy billions in lost competitiveness.

The American health care system is a mess. The United States currently spends nearly 18% of its GDP on health care, far greater than the 10-12% spent by other developed countries. Spending will only grow as the Baby Boomers age. The United States does not have universal coverage and 44 million plus lack basic coverage. Health indices such as infant mortality, life expectancy, and obesity rates compare unfavorably to other nations. Obama’s health care act may not have been an ideal solution, but it tried to do something.  Republican Party repeal or Supreme Court invalidation of the health care act and return to a free market solution will fail to address the problem.

Short term rising gas prices are a problem but the longer term issue is that this country remains wedded to a low cost hydrocarbon economy that is not sustainable. Demands to frack or drill more will do little to depress long term energy prices as worldwide demand increases. In fact, statistical evidence demonstrates that America’s increased production over the years has had little impact on decreasing energy prices. Unlike Germany which is moving rapidly into alternative energy sources, or Europe in general which has adjusted to higher prices, the American economy is not prepared for a new energy future.

Finally, there are significant educational and demographic changes that America needs to face. Educationally, America’s students underperform compared to those in most other developed countries. It is not that teachers are not teaching but that our school system represents a horse and buggy era far too slack on math, science, and other standards. Americans still think that second languages are unnecessary, and ignore the ways that poverty and racism affect learning and outcomes. Demographically, we face a more diverse yet aging society. Future workers will have to support an aging population and these new employees confront a high-tech world where they may not have the skills to compete on a global scale.

All of the above described problems are dire and require money to fix them. This list does not even include the environment and global warming, but the last problem America faces—its budget deficit, as noted—may make that impossible. Continued long term US debt affects its credit rating and ability to borrow money from sources, some of which are international. Efforts to reduce the debt and budget deficit potentially have an impact on defense spending and there are some discussions regarding how this might affect US military might. Both Paul Kennedy and Brzezinski, as noted, describe how one threat to the United States may be that its declining economic strength may compromise its ability to maintain its international military supremacy or standing in the world as it loses it capacity to maintain both hard (military) and soft (economic) hegemony. Together they and others see a need to address the long term fiscal health of the country but alas, the growing political polarization of the United States places a solution beyond immediate grasp.

Foreign Policy
So far in 2012 foreign policy issues have been secondary concerns this year. The United States formally withdrew from Iraq in 2011, leaving this issue as a minor concern for most. However, the United States still has troops in Afghanistan and there are some who criticize President Obama’s intention to phase out the military commitment there.

The Middle East in general is perhaps the primary foreign policy concern for the United States. There is concern over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, defense of Israel, and the latter’s potential bombing of Iran to prevent its access to nuclear weapons. The Obama administration does not presently support military action against Iran but some of the Republican presidential candidates do. The notable exception is Ron Paul who does not see Iran as a security threat to the United States. The United States supports the opposition in Syria but so far official US policy has not endorsement arming them or taking more aggressive military action. Again, some of the Republicans endorse this action.

In addition to the Middle East, North Korea’s stability and nuclear ambitions are of concern. Recently the United States secured some agreements regarding the North Korean nuclear program. Regardless of who is elected president, steps will continue to be taken to address this issue. It is unlikely that the US will return to the rhetoric of George Bush who labeled North Korea one of the “axes of evil.”

Finally, Europe does not seem to factor large in terms of issues dominating the 2012 American elections. This is perplexing given the historical close alliances with Europe and how financial instability across the continent could impact the American economy. Furthermore, Russia does not factor very high in the 2012 presidential debates, although Mitt Romney, the likely Republican Party presidential nominee, has described that country as one of the main competitors and security threats to the United States. China is perceived as more of a rival or threat to US interests than is Russia. Barack Obama shortly after assuming the presidency canceled the missile shield proposal in Europe that his predecessor George Bush was advocating. Were a Republican elected as president it is possible that the missile defense shield proposal might again be resurrected.

Overall, these are the difficult issues confronting America’s future and it does not look like either any of the candidates or political parties are confronting them in a realistic fashion. Nor does it appear that either the media or the public is either.

The Last Word
There is an interesting article in the New York Times discussing how Obama is having a difficulty attracting big donors this election. It notes how over 58% are small donors this time. Big money is going to the GOP.  It seems that after wealthy America threw a party and had to pay the bill, they turned in 2008 to Obama to bail them out. Now that they are bailed out and partying again they have turned their bake on him. There is a message here for Obama and corporate Democrats. The silver lining here is that if Obama gets reelected it will be with small donors and perhaps they will mean a change in politics. But the worry for Obama and the Democrats is that big money is again voting ideological and that is usually a good sign for Republicans.

“It’s the gas prices stupid.” Oil and the Fate of the Obama Presidency

“It’s the gas prices stupid.” Perhaps this is the new mantra that David Plouffe should have posted in the Obama re-election headquarters, updating the famous “It’s the economy stupid” that James Carville coined for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992. Yet unlike in 1992 when that saying and strategy slew a sitting incumbent, Obama should worry that the tables could be turned on him and gas prices could doom his bid for a second term.

In a recent Washington Post poll rising gas prices are sinking Barack Obama.  According to the poll, his disapproval rating is 50% with disapproval of his handling gas prices at 65%. Overall disapproval on the handling of the economy is at 59%. All of these numbers are increases in the last few weeks after economic good news had steadily helped him politically.

Confirming the salience of gas prices were exit polls in Ohio last week dramatically demonstrating the worry and concern in that swing state among many, including the crucial swing voters.

But there is a particular and vexing problem for Obama with rising gas prices that suggests that he has few options to insulate himself.

Think about reasons for rising gas prices. They include speculation over Iran and whether Israel will bomb Tehran’s potential atomic capabilities. There is also the decision by Iran not to sell oil to some countries in response to an embargo against it. There is also rising demand for oil across the world as the economy improves, and there are also some shutdowns in refineries for a variety of reasons that remain dubious and perhaps monopolistic.

Obama wants to pressure Iran regarding its nuclear capabilities. The more it does that the more that invites oil price speculation. Second, Israel increasingly fears a nuclear Iran and is rumored to want to bomb its facilities. If it does that then expect oil prices to skyrocket. Last week when Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the United States he appealed to Obama to support them in a possible bombing of Iran. If Obama does that, again, oil goes up. If the president does not support Israel then he runs the risk of alienating Jewish voters, and in swing states such as Florida that could prove costly. 

Obama’s trilemma: How to contain Iran and support Israel, depress oil gas increases (which can also hurt the economy), and promote his reelection? This is not an easy feat to accomplish.

What tools does he have to address these problems? Not many. He could again open the spigot to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve similar to what he did in June 2011. However, that decision was coordinated with similar actions with allies around the world and it is not clear they will follow suit this time. Additionally the amount oil released then had minimal impact on oil prices and the same will be true when (not if, but when) Obama opens it again this year. The only issue is when he will do it. Open to early it has no lasting impact, open too late and it may have no political or economic efficacy.

Obama has to do something and he cannot look hapless. This is in part what doomed Jimmy Carter in 1980 when he did not know what to do about the Iranian Hostage crisis. Somehow Obama has to divert America’s attention away from gas prices, or convince them that the GOP have no better ideas regarding what to do (and the latter is true). However, every step along the way the Republicans will be reminding voters that “It’s the gas prices stupid.”

Obama needs advice and help. In 1992 space aliens advised Clinton on what to do about the economy, at least according to the Weekly World News. It seemed to help him then. Maybe that alien can provide Obama with some advice in 2012, instead of offering what appears to be out of this world recommendations to Gingrich and others that they can get gas to $2.50 per gallon immediately.

Obama’s Christmas Present

Christmas came early for Barack Obama as Republican prospects to pick up the presidency took a major hit this week. A series of events again demonstrated that Obama cannot win but the Republicans certainly can also lose the presidency.

Miscalculating the Payroll Tax
The most glaring event of the week was the misplaying of the House GOP vote on the extension of the payroll tax. In principle they may have been correct that a one year deal is preferable to a two month extension but they needed to act but did not. Perhaps they thought Obama would again capitulate like he did in August with the debt deal but the politics was very different then as opposed to now. In August failure to reach agreement meant a government shutdown, making Obama look hapless. This time no deal meant tax increases on the middle class and that would have stuck to the Republicans. Moreover, even the Senate Republicans–including Mitch McConnell and John McCain–pressured the House to assent to the deal. The House GOP here simply overplayed their hand and lost.

Obama the Economist Populist
Contributing to the miscalculation is the traction Obama has received in running as an economic populist. He has given two major speeches in the last few months describing himself as a man for the people. The first was his $450 billion jobs speech a few months ago and the other was his recent Osawatomie, Kansas speech. In both he talked of the need to help the middle class. Both were fine speeches, but talk is cheap.

Obama rightly so should be criticized as the Democrat who abandoned the middle class and the poor. He continued the Bush policy of bailing out the banks and he has put more emphasis on stabilizing the financial sector than he did in helping home owners and the working class. While his original stimulus bill did help, I argued after the 2010 elections that his failure has been to appear to side more with the banks than the people. Given how much he took from Wall Street in 2008 to finance his campaign, no surprise here.

But Obama has been lucky. Occupy Wall Street and the “We are the other 99%” campaign have helped him. Both shifted focus to the Republicans in Congress and running for president that there is a clear class divide in America. Previous blogs of mine have attested to this fact and the growing economic divide in America over the last 30 years. Congressional refusal to raise taxes, a Republican presidential debate revealing no candidate willing to raise one dollar in taxes for every ten dollars in spending cuts, and the failure of Congress to enact Obama paltry $450 billion jobs bill all make it clear that they do not care about the American people (had they enacted the bill they could have disarmed the president and still pointed to how they supported the president on all his major economic programs but they still failed).

The point is that Obama can look like an economic populist because of the failures of Congress and the GOP to offer a credible alternative and to play politics in a way that makes them look like they care for anyone besides the top 1%. Obama is winning because of the implosion of the Republicans.

The Dismal Presidential Choices
Obama is also benefitting from a Republican presidential field that is not a varsity or junior varsity but the freshman team. It is a team running increasingly further and further to the right. A team that is further to the right than the Reagan Party–it is the Palin Party still as I wrote about several times t his year. It is a party that has flirted with several conservatives–Bachmann, Perry Cain, Gingrich, and now maybe Paul as the preferred choice over the more moderate but lackluster and passionless Romney. They seem out of touch with America in their talk of tax cuts, privatization, and return to the gold standard.

Now with little more than a week before Iowa, the race is definitely up in the air. Recent polls confirm what I asserted in an interview last week that Paul, Gingrich, and Romney will be the order in Iowa come January 3. But even if Paul does not win, his ascendency is a problem for the Republicans. If he does well in Iowa is libertarianism will play even better in New Hampshire and Romney needs to worry about a relative poor showing there on his part. This year with the Republican primaries and caucuses allocating delegates not by winner-take-all but proportionally, unless there is a quick kill by one candidate in January, look to a long primary and a potential brokered convention.

So What Does All this Mean for Obama?
Obama is now in much better shape in the polls for reelection than he was a few weeks ago. Polls have his approval rating up to 49% and it now exceeds is disapproval rating. He has a 7 point lead over Romney and much larger leads over the other Republican candidates. Congress’s approval is under 10% and public approval of the Tea Party has weakened. There are small signs of economic improvement but certainly no indication of real growth or significant decreases in unemployment in 2012. The economic news and prospects should doom him and the Electoral College road to reelection is complicated, but Obama now has a clear lead in Florida.

But compared to the Republicans running for president and those in Congress, he looks good. Obama can run for reelection on a slogan of “No matter how bad I am look at the alternative.”

Merry Christmas President Obama! Your present came wrapped with Republicans in a box they are building themselves in.

Defining Obama: Presidential Image and Narrative in the 2012 Elections

In so many ways it may already be too late for President Obama. It may be too late for him to construct an alternative narrative about his successes and accomplishments that he can use on the campaign trail to support his re-election. For many Americans, the narratives have already stuck that his presidency and policies are a failure.

Two rules that every successful presidential candidate remembers are that “politics is like selling beer” and that “define or be defined.” The first rule refers to the power of political narratives, the second to the constructing your own image–creating an image–or having someone else do it for you. Both of these are rules about constructively using the media–generally in an aggressive and proactive way to do messaging.

This blog has repeatedly discussed the power of political narratives. Candidates need a compelling narrative that describes who they are, their vision for the future, and what they want their presidency to look like. The narrative is their reason for running for office (“I am running for president because...”) and the direction they want to take their presidency and the American public. George W. Bush was chided for lacking that “vision thing” and rightly so, but he still won in 1988 for other reasons (see below).

The way of persuasion is about having a narrative. We tell stories about ourselves when job hunting (the cover letter and resume), we tell stories to do fund raising (“Send money to feed the homeless”), and businesses sell products by telling stories (“Drink this soda and you too will be cool.”). It is less reason and facts that move people than it is narratives, with the best being about the future, messages that are optimistic, and those which inspire passion.

The great narratives of our time were Ronald Reagan’s “It’s morning in America” and Bill Clinton’s appropriation of Fleetwood Mack’s Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow. Both were brilliant narratives about hope and the future. They were narratives that promised a better tomorrow; they appealed to America’s sense of progress, optimism, and that the future will be better than the past. Perhaps one of the most famous lines in movie history–Scarlet O’Hara’s “Tomorrow is another day” from Gone with the Wind captures the compelling nature of this American belief in a better future.

The 2008 presidential race witnessed dueling narratives of John McCain and Barack Obama. McCain’s narrative spoke of the world being a dangerous place and that we should not trust enemies. He touted his military experience to keep us safe and he sought to get America to forget that he was a Republican wanting to the keep the White House in his party’s hands after a failed eight years under George Bush. McCain’s narrative sought to channel the Reagan brand one more time but it failed. It failed to an Obama narrative of change. A narrative of hope for the future, of an appeal to a new generation wanting their turn at power. Obama simply had a great narrative. He also had the fortune of a collapsing economy that worked to his favor, and a Republican vice-presidential candidate in Sarah Palin who few thought was qualified to be president in the event of McCain’s death.

But beyond the narrative, Obama also understood the power of define or be defined. In politics, you need to define who you and your opponents are before they do that to you. Remember the famous 1990 Andre Agassi Canon commercial–“Image is Everything”–that captures the point.

Image construction is important to politics, especially if you can do it to your opponents. On Labor Day 1988 Michael Dukakis had a 18 point lead over George Bush. Bush used Willie Horton, references to the ACLU, and stories about the Massachusetts’ governor not wanting to kill someone who hypothetically raped his wife to cast him as a pinko who was soft on crime. Bush went to win the presidency by three points.

In 1992, when allegations of marital infidelity nearly wrecked Bill Clinton’s campaign, his staff used the latest technology of the day–the fax machine–to proactively counter stories. Finally, in 2004, the Bush campaign brilliantly defined John Kerry as an elitist coward who purposively injured himself three times to get out of Vietnam early. The genius in transforming a three-time Purple Heart winner into a coward was amazing; thus the power of narratives.

Again in 2008 Obama understood the charm of definition. He defined himself as the candidate of hope and change, of McCain the candidate of the old an stodgy, and he also successfully declared Ronald Reagan and his narrative to be dead. Obama brought narrative and definition together to create an amazing campaign story about himself and his opponents.

But the brilliance of 2008 rapidly faded. All that was done so well in 2008 failed Obama and the Democrats in 2010. They lost the narrative and definition. Palin mocked Obama by asking how we liked the “hopey-changey stuff?” The Republicans tied TARP to Obama and not Bush. They decried that the stimulus bill was a failure (even though it did work but was insufficient to address the real depth of recession the economy was in), and they questioned his competence and leadership. All of this has stuck. In part it stuck because there was some truth to many of the accusations, but still the Republicans were lethal after being trounced in 2008. They went on the attack from January 20, 2009 and redefined Obama as a failure.

Now think about where Obama is as 2012 is about to begin. Obama’s successes are defined as failures. The stimulus did help, TARP made money (Yes, it was a Bush program), and he did deliver on many other promises. Health care reform is decried as Obamacare and bank regulation as killing the economy. Obama’s narrative of change has degenerated into “It could have been worse” as described so many times in this blog. Obama still lacks a narrative and worse, he is defined as a failure and as unable to rescue the economy. Again, there is much evidence that this is accurate, but even if not, Obama has been defined by a narrative that he cannot escape. Obama needs to escape the economy and run against a do-nothing unpopular Congress. He needs to cast himself as an economist populist that fights for the other 99%. In short, Obama needs a complete makeover.

It will be hard to do this now that he has already been defined by the Republicans for the last four years. But even if not for the last four years, clearly in the last few months the Republican presidential debates have been influential in doing that. While Obama does his presidential thing, the GOP candidates debate and get press. They get air time attacking the president and he does not respond. The candidates collectively have succeeded in crafting an image of Obama that has stuck. While four years ago content analysis of media coverage of Obama demonstrated overwhelming positive images, were a similar study done today the hypotheses today would be of just the opposite–overwhelming images. Obama has been defined–his narrative for him written by his opponents.

Obama at least has one advantage–the image and narrative for his Republican opponents is being written and it is a negative one. Palin never had a chance to run for the presidency with over 60% of the public thinking her too dumb or unqualified to be president. Now think about the other Republican contenders–Romney as a boring multiple choice Mick–Bachmann as a religious zealot–Perry as a lightweight cowboy–Cain as a lightweight sexual predator–and Gingrich as a cranky, adulterer, arrogant, hypocrite. These are largely self-defined images reenforced by the media. Hardly the images that are winning presidential formulae.

As the Iowa caucuses loom it will be telling to see how Obama tries to remake his image and narrative. Again, it may be too late to do that but with the narratives and images of his opponents equally dismal Obama might be able to pull off a second term with a slogan reminiscent of we chanted when Richard Nixon was running for a second term: “Don’t change dicks in the middle of a screw, vote for Nixon in 72.” Better the devil we know than the one we do not. That may be Obama’s best hope for a narrative.

Bonus quiz and word association time: When I mention Obama or any of his GOP rivals, what words or images come to your mind? Let me know your suggestions.

The Clock Ticks: History, Unemployment, and Presidential Elections

Less than one year to the 2012 elections. Less than 60 days to the New Hampshire primary. Barely 50 days to the Iowa caucuses. The official presidential race is upon us. But as the clock ticks, time is running out for Obama and history is against him.

The basic problem is the economy. Only 80,000 jobs were added in October, placing the unemployment rate at 9.0%. The Federal Reserve Board projects slow economic growth next year–2-2.5%–with the unemployment rate settling in at about 8.5% by election time. Of course these numbers are bad for all those looking for jobs or businesses hoping to grow, yet for Obama it is a real problem.

Since 1932 only two presidents have ever won re-election when the unemployment rate was above 6%. In 1936 and 1940 Franklin Roosevelt won reelection with unemployment rates of 17% and 14.6%, but both of these elections should be treated as outliers or oddities. In 1936 the unemployment rate had dropped from nearly 24% to 17% and the economy was growing at an annual rate of 14%. In 1940 World War II was upon America and with patriotism high, support for Roosevelt was strong. More importantly, the economy was growing at 10% but the perception was that the president had the country going in the right direction.

In 1984 Ronald Reagan won re-election with an unemployment rate of 7.5%. Yet his victory occurred when the economy was growing at more than 11% and gas prices were tumbling from then record highs. Reagan definitely benefited from the perception that it truly was morning in America, especially after the unemployment rate tumbled from around 10% in 1982 and 1983.

But FDR and Reagan aside, high unemployment–six percent or more–is the death knell for a presidential re-election bid. In 1976 Gerald Ford ran for re-election when the unemployment rate was 7.7%–he lost to Jimmy Carter. Four years later the unemployment rate was 7.1% when Carter ran for a second term against Reagan. He lost to the tune of Reagan asking Americans if they were better off now than they were four years ago. In 1992 George Bush sought a second term with an unemployment rate of 7.5%–he lost to a Bill Clinton reminding the voters that it was “the economy stupid.” Conversely, Nixon won with an unemployment rate of 5.6% in 1972, Clinton 5.4% in 1996, Bush in 2004 with 5.5%, Eisenhower 4.1% in 1956, and Truman in 1948 with 3.8%.

Key to a presidential re-election is the actual unemployment rate. But economic, and the reality or perception that it is moving in the right direction, is also important. If there are not significant declines in unemployment along with economic growth and a perception that the economy is moving in the right direction, presidents are not given a second term.

Obama faces an economy where the best projection is of high unemployment and low economic growth. But there is more. Home values remain about 25% or more below what they were in 2008, consumer and now student debt is high, and many people have already blown through their unemployment benefits and face an uncertain future. Consumer confidence remains near historic lows, suggesting little chance that retail sales and spending for the coming holidays and into next year will revive the economy. The public just does not believe the country is headed in the right direction and few think we are better off now than four years ago.

History suggests Obama will lose. This assumes the Republicans put up a viable candidate with a compelling narrative. Yet so far that task seems elusive. Bachmann has come and gone. Perry has gaffed himself to death. Cain’s numbers place him in the GOP lead, but his negatives are escalating as it becomes more apparent that he is a misogynist who treats every woman in a demeaning fashion. Romney is boring and the Republican base does not really know where “multiple choice Mitt” stands on the issues. Gingrich is too acerbic. Congressional approval is less than 10%, with the public placing more blame on the Republicans than Obama for the gridlock in Washington. In short, the Republicans have the Democrats' disease—they are poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Obama can still win—he has money, the bully pulpit, and demographics that place perhaps as many as 200 or more electoral votes in easily into his presidential win column without too much effort. Now all he needs is the narrative for his re-election.

Obama hopes for a rerun of the 1948 Truman surprise victory over Dewey, campaigning hard as an economist populist against a hapless elitist. Yet the 1948 campaign featured an economy far better than 2012 so the parallels here might not be good.

Obama is also running on the fear factor—Hope that the American public will be afraid of an extremist Republican president presiding over a Republican Congress. Fear came be a powerful too, but 1980 demonstrated with Carter was up for re-election, fear of a crazy Reagan who would blow up the world was pushed aside by the desire for change and disgust with the status quo. Obama knows the public wants change—as he promised in 2008—but it is hard to run on that narrative when you an incumbent seeking re-election. He needs to navigate a message that promises change while staying the course with him. It’s a hard task—made only more difficult by the unemployment numbers—but Reagan and FDR did it, and now Obama needs to figure out how to channel their magic to do the same.

Presidential Politics: It’s about the money

The third quarter presidential financial reports are in and this is a good time to string together some thoughts about the candidates.

“Money is the mother’s milk of politics,” said former California Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh.

Money is what it is all about in campaigns, especially presidential politics, as they have evolved into hundreds-of-million dollar businesses, replete with fundraisers, media consultants, travel consultants, pollsters, and a host of other specialists. The days of candidate door-knocking and Lincoln-Douglas debates are part of a quaint Norman Rockwell past. Modern presidential campaigns are won or lost with money.

Third quarter reports are in and we can learn a lot about candidate prospects by examining their fund-raising balance sheets. Of most interest, Michelle Bachmann’s along with those of Obama, Romney, and Cain.

Bachmann

Bachmann is dead financially and it confirms her descent in the polls. In the third quarter she raised $4.2 million, suggesting that her congressional money machine was not equipped to make the presidential leap. Yet her second quarter produced barely $4 million, and she spent nearly $6 M. This is embarrassing and bad news for her.

Embarrassing–She rails against government deficits and need to live within our means yet she cannot do that with her own campaign. She has proved to be a bad steward of her own money–how can we trust her with the public treasury? Her credibility on the budget is gone.

Bad News–Bachmann’s financial woes confirm her poll problems and fall from grace. Think about it–the 3Q should have been a slot machine for her. In August she was at the top of the polls and had won the Iowa straw poll. She had a massive donor list and money should have poured in. Yet it did not. Perry clearly hurt her as did her bad debate performances and gaffes. She failed to capitalize on her opportunities.

But that is not the end of it. Bachmann has not been to New Hampshire since June. She has little or no organization outside of Iowa where she continues to camp out. Her poll numbers are bad and hurt fund-raising, and now this news about the 3Q only makes it harder to generate cash.

Even if Bachmann wins Iowa in January it will not be enough to save her. Everyone expects her to do well there so she will not get much of a bounce even my winning. But assume she wins, what then? With no organization in other states she will not be able to capitalize on the win there to help her move forward. Her financial number reveal a candidate who will meet her Waterloo one way or the other in Iowa. She lacks an infrastructure in other battle ground states and thus she may be a one-state candidate.

How long will Bachmann last? I think she makes it through Iowa at most. At the least she stays in the campaign through December because she has a book coming out then. Is she counting on the book bolstering her campaign? No–Bachmann is now in it for herself. She is using her presidential campaign and her supporters for the personal benefit if herself. An active campaign makes for books sales and for money in her own pocket.

Call me cynical but it is now clear Bachmann does not care about the presidency or her supporters. She is in it for the money. Watch her make a few million on her book, leave her creditors on the hook, and she walks away from politics rich and her supporters used.

Obama and Romney

Obama raised a ton of 3Q money, dwarfing all of the GOP. Good for him–he will need it if he wants to win reelection. Money, the power of incumbency, an unpopular Congress, and the penchant of the Republicans to want to nominate a candidate so conservative that no swing voter will support them (Think Goldwater and 1964) may overshadow the 9% unemployment rate. Obama still lacks a narrative for reelection and GOP will run on the mantra of “change” against him.

Romney hangs tough with $14 million, but GOP polls continue to place him at about 25%–a spot that has not changed for months. He seems stuck, unable to gain more support as the different flavors of the month–Trump, Bachmann, Perry, and now Cain–seem to come and go. Romney may have the best shot of all to beat Obama but he generates little excitement. His problem is that he is like the guy who reminds a woman of her first husband. He has the same problem with the Republicans. He generates little excitement and affection. His boringness is why other candidates look good to the Republicans–they are searching for something more exciting and for someone who will fulfill their fantasies. Romney is out of place with the current version of the Republican Party. If he does get the nomination he will generate little excitement among the Tea Party folks. Remember, Rod Stewart is right–it is about passion–especially in politics–and Romney lacks it.

Wall Street, Obama, and Romney

If you want loyalty and a friend, get a dog. This is what Obama must be thinking about Wall Street. They were his friends in 08 when they needed him and they gave to his campaign. Now Romney is out-pacing him when it comes to Wall Street money. Why?

Wall street got what it wanted from Obama–the bailouts–and they do not need him anymore. Obama was played like a violin–he bailed them out before getting anything from them and now that they are fat with cash again they cast him aside for someone else. No surprise.

Cain and Final Thoughts

Cain might be the flavor of the month but it is good to be the flavor when it is close to the real start of the primary season, which is just a few weeks from now. His poll numbers are great but his fund-raising is lackluster at less than $3 million (which includes a ton of his own money). In the last few days the media has poured scrutiny on him–look to see more of that in the coming weeks.

His 9-9-9 will come under huge analysis. Cain admits that 9-9-9 was conceived of as a bold idea. Bold it is, smart it is not. It is not based on any real economics but instead it captures the attention of those who want quick simple solutions.

Wait to people begin to think about the 9% federal sales tax. I am sure consumers and businesses will love it. Plus 9-9-9 will force massive budget cuts and fail to generate the revenue needed to address the debt. Look to see 9-9-9 lampooned soon.

It's About Jobs--Obama's Failing Quest for Reelection

President Obama gave a jobs speech about a week ago and it was clear that the job he is most worried about is his. Offering an anemic job proposal that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats in Congress find appealing, Obama is in political trouble, with a 60/40 chance that he will not get reelected. Why such dismal prospects?

Obama was a brilliant campaigner. He understood the basic rule of politics for how to get elected, yet as president and now in seeking reelection, he just does not seem to get it. What are these rules of politics? For our purposes, four rules are critical.

The first is that politics is like selling beer. By that, politics and political success are contingent upon developing a powerful narrative. Narratives are stories–they are stories that explain who you are as a candidate, what you hope to accomplish as president, what your view of the world is. Narratives are rhetorical and persuasive tools to convince voters to support you. Moreover, good narratives are positive and look to the future. Great example of past narratives are Reagan’s “Morning in America,” Clinton morphing Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop Thinking about Tomorrow” into a campaign mantra, and even Obama’s 2008 “Change we can believe in.” All were inspirational.

But where is Obama’s narrative now? The problem is he has no narrative. In 2010, the Democrats went down to defeat because either they had no narrative or at best, their narrative was “It could have been worse.” The latter, in reference to claims that had Obama not acted with the stimulus and Dodd-Frank the economy could have been worse. Such a narrative was neither inspirational not compelling. It died in the face of the a brilliant Republican narrative stolen from Obama in 2008–change.

The narrative again in 2012 for the Republicans will be change. Obama still lacks a narrative. His speech on jobs last week was an effort to cast himself with a narrative that it is “the economy stupid” and that he cares more about it than the Republicans. So far, that new narrative is not working.

The second rule of politics is mobilize your base. It is imperative to nail down your political base if running for office. You need to get them behind you, excited, and mobilized. Politics begins with dueling bases. If your base stays home and the other shows up, you are in trouble. As Woody Allen correctly stated: “Ninety percent of life is showing up.”

Obama’s base is eroding. Recent NY Times polls show that the unions, white working class, the young, and the liberals in his party are discouraged, and disappointed with Obama. It is for good reason–he blew them off too many times. He continuously gives into the Republicans instead of fighting for what his base wants. Somehow Obama the law professor believes that everyone will be reasonable and willing to compromise. It takes two to tango and only one side is dancing. Moreover, Obama consistently blew off supporters–stating that they had to wait on don’t ask don’t tell, gay marriage, changing rule son unionization, or dealing with the environment. He has told his supporters he has bigger fish to fry and that they must wait. Bad moves. The best way to disappoint supporters is to raise their expectations and then dash them.

The third rule is that politics is a bar fight. Fights in bars are won or lost by the ability to capture the audience to your side. In politics, this means the battle is for the swings. Even if each side mobilizes its political base, that does not guarantee victory because neither the Democrats not Republicans represent 50% +1 of the voters. Neither party has majority status. The battle is thus to capture the swing voters and states. Among voters, the suburban moms and moderates are the swings.

Obama’s new strategy is to refine himself as the moderate centrist, seeking to show he is reasonable and the Republicans are not. Obama’s job speech, his efforts to compromise on the debt deal, and so much more recently have been efforts to do this. Yet the efforts to create this new narrative have failed. He has failed to capture the swings, but luckily for him, the same is true for the Republicans.

Obama has failed to capture the swings because of his inability to propose economic plans deep and broad enough to really stimulate the economy and produce jobs. He has failed to address the mortgage crisis that continues to depress real estate prices, sales, and personal wealth. And he has done nothing to reinvigorate consumer demand. His jobs proposal was anemic and failed because it did not offer solutions to these problems. As so aptly stated by several small business owners at a talk to the Twin Cities West Chamber of Commerce: “Tax cuts will not encourage me to hire anyone. So long as no one wants to buy my products I have no reason to hire anyone and tax cuts are not going to change that.”

Finally, Obama has forgotten a fourth rule of politics–Rod Stewart is right--It’s about passion (in reference to a song he wrote many years ago). Passionate people are motivated and will vote and give money vote. They will show up. Obama seems to assume a dispirited base has nowhere to go but back to him. He banks on this and tries to appeal to swings (and a miserable Republican candidate) to pave his way to victory in 2012. However, a lethargic base and an inability to capture swing voters with an uninspiring narrative is certainly not a winning formula. Combine all this with 9% unemployment and a probable double-dip recession and that result is one more ex-president out of work.

In all fairness, the one thing Obama has going for him is that the Republican field is equally horrible. Perry and Bachmann are unappealing to swing voters and they lack any real plan for the economy and the nation. Romney is bland and boring and his narrative has failed to captivate, and Congress’ approval rating is 12%. The choices are bad, making it not much of a surprise that a third of the voters want a viable third party and many want to see other candidates run for president.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Democrats need a challenger to Obama. They need an alternative to force the president to fight for his base and galvanize them. Obama needs to work for his party vote, he needs to define himself, he needs to learn how to fight. He has failed to do all of that so far, questioning both whether he deserves his party nomination and whether he can win reelection.

(Cartoon courtesy of the New Yorker Magazine.)