Home > Alex Massie

Monday 21 May 2012

Mid-Term Myth-Making

Monday, 16th August 2010

Not long until Labor Day and the semi-official kick-off for the mid-term elections. Which also means that the papers will be stuffed with predictions that the losses in the mid-terms show that Obama is doomed and so on. Whether one cares for the President or not, this is simply not the case. Happily Norm Ornstein and Alan Abramowitz have launched a pre-emptive strike against some of the plausible-but-false notions that we can expect to see plenty of for the rest of the year.

Specifically: 1. Mid-terms don't predict future election results. 2. Anti-incumbency is vastly over-rated. 90% of incumbents will win. 3. The President's "message" is not going to have much of an impact. 4. It's not always all about the economy, though this year it might be. 5. Mid-terms momentum is easily squandered and doesn't always translate into a mandate.

Of these 3. is the most significant, at least in terms of media coverage. As the authors point out:

If voters are unhappy with the president and the economy is bad, even a great communicator such as Reagan can do little to prevent significant losses by his party. The same is true for presidential advisers. Karl Rove looked like a genius in 2002 because Bush was still enjoying strong public approval in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Four years later, in 2006, Rove didn't look so smart when voters took out their dissatisfaction with the president and the Iraq war on Republican congressional candidates.

Of course, some individual seats will always be affected by the president's message. And in a year when the difference between Democrats losing 35 or 40 House seats is the difference between having Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Speaker John Boehner, every district matters. But overall, there is probably little that Obama can say or do in the next couple of months to change the broad outcome of this year's elections. The die has already been cast.

Quite. The economy isn't everything but it's a large part of the reason why Democrats will do poorly this November and, absent some heroic turnarousn in public confidence, there's not much the President can do about that. Still, only a fool would write Obama off even if his party loses the House. Apart from anything else, it's not obvious that the Republican party has a strong field of candidates from which to select its challenger in 2012...

Filed under: Americana (478 more articles) , Congress (73 more articles) , Democrats (113 more articles) , GOP (332 more articles) , Mid-terms (18 more articles) , Obama (365 more articles) , Washington (169 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 (8)

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

Post comment

Beefeater

August 16th, 2010 4:11pm Report this comment

Stil too soon to predict?

David Alexander

August 16th, 2010 5:23pm Report this comment

Your man is a dud. The Left have made fools of themselves again by being hoodwinked by a Messianic figure.

Obamarx will soon find that the workers of the world are united against him.

Conservative Cabbie

August 16th, 2010 5:40pm Report this comment

Alex

Your post would work if it wasn't for some inconvenient facts:

1. Democrats are starting to run against Wasgington, particularly Washington Democrats. Joe Donnelly released an ad in which he didn't identify himself as a Democrat and said he was running against Washington whilst hid ad showed a picture of Pelosi and Obama.

2. Democrats who voted against Obama on stimulus and healthcare are polling much better than at risk Democrats who supported Obama.

3. In Colorado, where amusingly, Obama was supposed to have helped Michael Bennet get the Democratic nomination, as soon as he was nominated, Bennet started distancing himself from the White House.

as for 2012, you are partly right. The mid-terms say little about that election. But two points that Obama apologists use to immunise Obama from whatever happens now affecting his performance in 2012.

1. Obama's approvals are just like Reagans and he went on and swept the subsequent general. The difference is, that for Reagan, when the economy recovered, it did so with growth at 7%+. That's not going to happen for Obama or anything near.

2. Bill Clinton lost in '94 but went on to win the Presidency in '96. He also failed to get 50% of the vote wirh Ross Perot muddying the waters. There won't be a third party candidate like that for Obama most likely.

Obama's approval ratings are strengthened in very friendly Democratic states. Look at his approval in battleground states like Fl, MO, NC, PA and OH. He's hovering around 40% in those states, even lower in some. That's a long road back.

The one thing that is certain is that 2012 is no certainty anymore. Obama's core constiuencies are the one's suffering the most (youth and minorities). Obama relied on their enthusiasm in '08. Whilst they won't be supporting Republicans in '12, neither are they as likely to be as enthusiastic for Obama.

ndm

August 16th, 2010 5:52pm Report this comment

David Alexander writes:

-- Your man is a dud. The Left have made fools of themselves again by being hoodwinked by a Messianic figure.

-- Obamarx will soon find that the workers of the world are united against him.

I'm having trouble squaring the circle on this post which appears to suggest that the left has been hoodwinked by Obamarx. Is the idea that Obama is too far to the left (the marx reference) and the left somehow didn't know it?

Baron

August 16th, 2010 7:15pm Report this comment

Alex: ‘But overall, there is probably little that Obama can say or do in the next couple of months to change the broad outcome of this year's elections’.

Hmm, what about following your advice in ‘Preach it, Mr. President’. He could offer to open the mosque, and promise to preach there once a month. That should help things, shouldn’t it?

David Alexander

August 16th, 2010 7:21pm Report this comment

ndm

-What it means is that Obama is an elitist.
-What it means is that when Obama suggested to 'Joe The Plumber' that they 'spread the wealth around' he meant his (Joe the Plumber's) wealth.
-What it means is that 'working stiffs' were always going to be the ones who paid for Marxist fantsy.
-What it means is that 'environmental measures' were always going to fall hardest on the poorest in society.
-What it means is that Marxism is a busted flush, Socialism that implies colossal amounts of compulsion is a busted flush.
-What it means is that The Left are the enemies of Freedom, personal advancement and civilised society.

-What it means is that Obamarx, like Karl Marx is a giant con.

ndm

August 16th, 2010 9:32pm Report this comment

With David Alexandar's second post far the difficulty is not so much squaring the circle as understanding the point.

Charles

August 18th, 2010 2:44pm Report this comment

ndm

I think what David Alexnader means is that Obama talked a great game, whipped up hopes and has either failed to deliver and/or disappointed expectations (depending I guess on how you view him generally).

What the 'left' as a whole needs to learn is that the way to win repeat elections is through incremental changes and good, solid nuts & bolts governing. Exciting radical change may sound nice, but rarely achieves as much as you might hope.

Post comment