Unseating Obama -- Part Two: The Economy
We’ve kicked around the idea of a Democratic challenger to President Obama in 2012.
I didn’t mention Hillary Clinton.
It wasn't an oversight.
IMO, she looks tired, sounds tired. Besides, she’s telegraphing to the media that she wants to leave the arena sooner rather than later. Perhaps she goes private in 2013, recharges her batteries, and then makes one last run in 2016.
If it weren’t for that pesky 22nd Amendment, what’re the odds of a repeat of 1912 – and a different Clinton joining the fray?
Anyway, on to the second determining factor in re-elects: the economy. Specifically, its role (or lack thereof) in the demise of the past century’s four tossed White House incumbents.
1912. Teddy Roosevelt called for a “New Nationalism” – national health care, a federal inheritance tax. However, and unlike the other three contests, this wasn’t a “wrong track” election. Personalities and core philosophy dominated.
1932. The Great Depression, 23% unemployment in Herbert Hoover’s fourth year. ‘Nuf said.
1980. Double-digit inflation, prime rate soaring above 20%, economic growth below 1.5%.
1992. Unemployment climbs to 7.8%; two months before the election, the U.S. Census Bureau reports one in seven Americans lives in poverty.
As we’re 18 months-and-change until November 2012, let’s avoid the specifics of economic conditions come voting-time. Instead, what do you see as they keys to effective Democratic and Republican messaging?
1) Assuming Obama runs on “recovery” and “growth”, how does he sell it to a wary public that might not be seeing/feeling/experiencing much of either?
2) Assuming the GOP nominee runs on some variation of Ronald Reagan’s “are you better off . . .?” question, how does he/she man-on-the-street/bullet-point both that and Arthur Okun’s “misery index”?
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Unseating Obama -- Part Two: The Economy
I see where Trump's "pitbull," as the press calls him, was (is) a big Obama supporter from 2008. That begs the question, is Obama's strategy for '12 to divide the Tea folks from the GOP with Donald Trump?
Dec '10
Re: Unseating Obama -- Part Two: The Economy
The worth any determining factor from the past, when it pertains to the dismal science, may be less disputed for its use as an indicator of the future, if it has the force of a cause and, if its force covers the vastly enlarged size of government, extends to the population’s far greater dependency on the government treasury, persists through the irreversible transition from a farming to a manufacturing to a service providing workforce, and penetrates the überawesomeness of social media as an indoctrination prod for herding conformity in an unterinformed, grievance mongering mass of willing collectivists.
The households entered into the federal treasury’s ledger as net payees, a liability, now exceed the number of those entered as net payers, its only asset, already put conservatives in a demographic deficit notwithstanding the amount of wealth those assets in aggregate represent.
One man, one vote for Republicans; one unionmember, many votes for Democrats.
Our historic first Islamic apostate president has to lose Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and more states in 2012. Republicans have to have a candidate to win. Prepare for oppressive rationing, lower standards of living, and unionized TSA state-agents terrorizing the domestic air industry and its travelers.
Jan '11
Re: Unseating Obama -- Part Two: The Economy
A 14 trillion national debt. Obama has tripled the annual deficit. The government will have to increase taxes for everybody, not just "the rich", to around 50% if they don't cut spending. Did I mention 14 trillion in national debt? And a 1.65 trillion deficit this year?
We should put these numbers before the public and keep stating them and rephrasing them in terms everybody can understand. Tell them 40 cents of every dollar the Feds spend is borrowed. Tell them what we're paying in interest now and what the interest rates will be in 10 years under Obama's budget. Ask what they'd think of a family that had an income of $25,000 and regularly spent $36,000.
Fourteen. Trillion. Dollars. (According to Iowahawk, that's sixteen tons of dollar bills, but I haven't checked his math.) Ask them how many people they know who are making $50,000 a year and would be happy to pay $25,000 in taxes to maintain the Feds' spending spree.
The numbers make the case for us. We have to show them to people, and keep showing them, and find ways to make them real.
Jul '10
Re: Unseating Obama -- Part Two: The Economy
I would add double digit unemployment to 1980. It was the "double double," inflation and unemployment, that shattered the pillars of Keynsian economics.
Apr '11
Re: Unseating Obama -- Part Two: The Economy
Use simple simple numbers related to concrete things. Trillions of dollars in debt is too abstract because at a certain point the numbers are more than can be comprehended in a meaningful way by most people.
By contrast, if gasoline prices hit $4 per gallon, every people understand that. (Maybe not in some urban enclaves.) Simple and concrete.
When inflation kicks in, it should not be hard to find a good example.
Jul '10
Re: Unseating Obama -- Part Two: The Economy
Just discuss the numbers in per capita or per household or per tax paying household numbers, they get real pretty quick.