Home > Alex Massie

Thursday 23 February 2012

How do you know Obama is failing? Just ask people who didn't vote for him!

Tuesday, 30th March 2010

How should one measure political success? That was my first reaction to Julia Pettengill's Standpoint article headlined Is the Obama Presidency Failing? Sensible, I suppose, for Standpoint to present this as a question to be debated, not a verdict that had already been delivered. And it's bad luck on Ms Pettengill that her piece should have been commissioned after Scott Brown's triumph in Massachusetts and filed before health care reform was passed. Such are the perils of journalism.

Nevertheless the article is instructive, not least because of how it is organised and the extent to which it reflects certain strands of Washington's brand of conventional wisdom. Since the author spends much time talking to some of Obama's conservative critics and very little time with his supporters it's not wholly surprising that Pettengill suggests that the President is failing and that he's doing so because he's not "listening" to the people and because he's far too "partisan" and "ideological".

This reflects a curious conservative view, namely that although liberals may win elections from time to time they should never interpret those victories as any kind of a mandate for liberalism. For that matter, Pettengill never lets the reader know that on a range of issues Obama has disappointed the left just as much as he has infuriated the right. On civil liberties issues, much to the irritation of liberals and libertarians alike, his Justice Department has retained perhaps 80% of the infrastructure it inherited from the Bush administration while the health care bill, whatever else one may say of it, is a long way from being the left's idea of a perfect or even semi-perfect bill. Indeed one can certainly make an argument that in as much as Obama's rating have fallen this is as much a feature of liberal disenchantment as centrist disapproval.

In truth it's a mixture of both. But if one tries to stand back and look at his Presidency with some measure of objectivity then one might be forced to admit that passing both the stimulus package, however flawed it may be, and a monumental health care bill that, again, despite its problems, has been a progressive Holy Grail for 40 years have to be considered significant achievements. In other words, successful Presidencies - at least according to one definition of success - get their agenda through Congress; failing ones don't. (And, yes, by this measure George W Bush's first term could also be considered successful. At least in part.)

Michael Barone has forgotten as much about American politics as most of us are ever likely to know but that simply makes his argument, quoted by Pettengill, that "In five decades of closely following American politics, I have never seen the Democratic Party in worse shape," seem even sillier. If that's his verdict on the Democrats when they control the White House, Senate and House what can he think of the Republican party's prospects?

My old chum Toby Harnden also thinks that Obama remains in big trouble and he may be right. But, look, Pettengill's piece gives but the briefest of passing mentions to the state of the economy. But if anything is going to damage the administration it's unemployment and sluggish, perhaps even neglibible, growth, not whether conservatives remain opposed to the White House's agenda.

That's one reason why we can expect Republican gains to be misinterpreted or, perhaps, over-interpreted this November. Yes, health care may play a part and yes so will spending and government indebtedness and so too, perhaps, will some questions about military commissions and the like, but overall it will be the economy that counts most. And, of course, the mid-terms almost always favour the party that doesn't hold the White House. Despite this we can expect Republican gains to be heralded as some kind of revolutionary novelty offering more proof that Obama is going to be a one-term President.

Perhaps that will indeed prove to be the case but it is far too soon to predict this with any serious level of confidence. Apart from anything else, in the midst of a pretty horrific recession, his approval rating still remains around the 50% mark. Or, to put it another way, after what his critics tell us has been a disastrous year marked by failure after failure a President supposedly radically out of step with the American mainstream remains in a reasonably healthy position.

This doesn't mean that Obama will cruise to re-election (it's too early to say that too!) but given the success he has enjoyed during a difficult year it's not daft to suppose that it's a little too soon to be writing his political obituary. And this is, obviously I should have thought, the case even if one does not necessarily approve of everything, or even anything, that he has done.

One thing I am pretty confident about, however, is that this suggestion, made by Pettengill, will a) not come to pass and b) fail miserably even in the monstrously lmprobable likelihood it did:

There has even been some speculation that Senator Evan Bayh's withdrawal from the Indiana Democratic primary was not only a repudiation of the party's leadership but also a signal that he may challenge Obama in the Democratic primaries for the 2012 Presidential election.

No, I don't think so.

Filed under: 2012 (154 more articles) , Obama (356 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (10)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Beefeater

March 30th, 2010 7:22pm Report this comment

Your "some measure of objectivity" allows you pretty confidently to assert that it is nearly always too soon to predict political outcomes.

This is anti-spin, indeed: a stationary see-saw. Not without some interest, though, depending on the circumstances and your point of view.

Snowman

March 30th, 2010 9:15pm Report this comment

Alex, never jump before you can walk; far too early to make a judgment on the man and what he's up to.

Conservative Cabbie

March 30th, 2010 11:07pm Report this comment

Alex

I think you don't realise just how bad the polling is for the Democrats and Obama is right now. I realise I'm a bit of a polling 'nerd' as per your recent post, but the polling may even be getting worse for Democrats post HCR than before.

Now I realise that we are still seven months away from the mid-terms and 2012 is a lifetime away but I'm not sure how, short of a war or terrrorist attack, it gets turned around (with the way strength of feeling is, I'm not even sure the turning around of the economy will do it).

Consider:

65% think HCR expands govt's role too much and is too costly (USAtoday/Gallup)

47% want to repeal Obamacare

A recent Mason-Dixon poll had Obama's approval at 37% in Florida. How does he turn that around in a key swing state? He's at less than 45% in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Missouri. There's no way he wins in 2012 unless he turns them around and they are all trending ceaselessly downwards.

Obama's approval is only being buoyed by the loyalty of the black vote, he is losing whites badly right now, and hispanics are dropping Obama almost as fast as whites.

But at least on Obama you are right. There is a long way to go and those numbers can still be turned around (possibly).

But I'm afraid I have to disagree with you and agree with Michael Barone on the Dems. Things are really really ugly for them.

In 1994, the Democrats had a marginal lead on the generic ballot (or tied). Gallup's generic ballot has been shown to be an extremely accurate predictor of mid-term elections). We all know what happened in '94. Currently, the GOP lead the Dems by 3% on the latest generic. To put that into perspective, that means the Dems losing 60-70 seats in the mid-terms putting them where the GOP are today.(that's an actual Gallup model, not guesswork).

On top of that, you have Scott Brown winning Ted Kennedy's seat, you have the Senate majority leader almost certain to lose, you have potentially close Senate races in California and New York of all places, you have independents favouring Republicans and Republicans fifteen points more enthusiastic than Democrats.

All the evidence says that things are nightmarish for Democrats right now and if they couldn't turn it around by passing HCR, how are they going to make things better?

I just don't think it's enough to say "oh well, long way to go. No worries".

DavidDP

March 31st, 2010 12:15am Report this comment

"47% want to repeal Obamacare"

Ah, so it's continuing to go down.

Further, the polls regarding healthcare have become quite sophisticated, and have shown that of those that do want it repealed, a good number want more government involvement, not less, leaving a total of around 30% or so actually supporting the Republican position.

And, his approval ratings have increased.

Frankly, there is a lot of guff being spoken about the state of both the parties. I suspect the Republicans will take seats in the mid-terms, not least because the Democrats currently hold seats in rather odd areas due to Obama's coat tails in 2008. They may even take majorities in one or both houses. But we've seen administrations win second terms from worse positions. However, things are so much in flux at the moment it really isn't possible to predict what's going to happen in November from this far away.

ndm

March 31st, 2010 2:54am Report this comment

Conservative Cabbie writes:

-- I think you don't realise just how bad the polling is for the Democrats and Obama is right now. I realise I'm a bit of a polling 'nerd' as per your recent post, but the polling may even be getting worse for Democrats post HCR than before.

Meanwhile, Nate Silver clarifies:

-- Obama's approval decline among white voters does not look so steep if you compare it to his election day results -- nor for that matter to the election results of past Democratic candidates. Since 1972, the Democrat's share of the white vote in Presidential elections has been: 31 percent, 47 percent, 36, 35, 40, 39, 42, 41, and 43 percent (Obama). Something around 39 or 40 percent of the white electorate -- where Obama's approval ratings seem to be now -- is pretty much right in that ballpark.

I don't think Obama has much to worry about in 2012.

Conservative Cabbie

March 31st, 2010 10:53am Report this comment

ndm

That's an intersting re-interpretqtion of history by Nate Silver.

Dukakis got 40% of the white vote and we know what happened to him, Mondale got 35%. Obama is hovering in the middle of those two figures. Clinton tells us nothing because of Perot.

Add that to the fact that 7% of Bush voters didn't turn out to vote for McCain and that I don't think the young and black vote will turn out in the numbers they did in '08 (no longer a historic election) and I don't think an Obama win is clear cut at all.

Ronnie

March 31st, 2010 1:38pm Report this comment

If the discussion on the outcome of the mid-terms this year and the general election in 2012 is based purely on Obama's polling figures and perceived unpopularity then we are wasting our time.

The Republicans have to get organised and start making concerted moves but the clock is ticking. Only then can we start talking.

Ronp123

August 26th, 2010 2:33pm Report this comment

Care to review your article in light of the current situation, Mr. Massie? Looks like Ms. Pettengill was more right than he gave her credit for.

ronp123

September 12th, 2010 12:38pm Report this comment

with each passing day Mr. Massey's critique of Ms. Pettengill's article becomes more absurd. putting aside his lack of understanding about how the US political system works. his notion of political achievement is made all the more absurd by the daily drumbeat of news regarding that achievement - democrats who (luckily) voted against the healthcare bill are promoting that fact on the campaign trail while the majority that did vote in the affirmative are not mentioning their actions and hoping the voting populace of their state or congressional district may have forgotten. fat chance. why not be a proper gentleman and own up to the fact that your snarky little column was not only snarky but worse for you - wrong.

ronp123

September 12th, 2010 12:44pm Report this comment

and one more thing....

"One thing I am pretty confident about, however, is that this suggestion, made by Pettengill, will a) not come to pass and b) fail miserably even in the monstrously lmprobable likelihood it did:

There has even been some speculation that Senator Evan Bayh's withdrawal from the Indiana Democratic primary was not only a repudiation of the party's leadership but also a signal that he may challenge Obama in the Democratic primaries for the 2012 Presidential election."

No, I don't think so."

really - well his own secretary of state and former rival just put a shot across the bow with your speech to to the CFR the other day when she asserted that the current (Obama) deficits were a national security issue. Ms. Clinton is the Bobby Kennedy to Obama's LBJ. if the polling holds and there is a congressional Tsunami in the mid-terms, not only will Ms. Clinton mount a primary challenge but yes Virginia so will Evan Bayh and a few others.

Post comment