Why? To repeat an old adage, “It’s the economy, stupid.”
The choice facing Democrats – and progressive Democrats in particular -
is what we are going to do about it.
If the election were held next month, the results might look like this:
Official unemployment remains above 9% - a real rate closer to 13.5% - while mortgage delinquencies remain at historic highs – roughly 13%. Few in or out of the administration expect these numbers to decline significantly in the coming year. And people who have lost their jobs and houses are not likely to vote for Obama.
(* And take a lot of Democrats with him.)
Up until last week, I had hoped that President Obama would use this summer’s congressional session to finally speak up for those devastated by the Great Recession - - 20 million unemployed, millions more working at the margins, millions of people foreclosed, tens of millions of people underwater. Those people desperately need a president and a Congress that will act dramatically and immediately to help. And most of these people vote.
Instead, Obama has doubled down on neoliberal economics, pseudo compromise with Republicans, and has even put Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block. Obama is under the false illusion that by giving away the farm he will get the manor. He will end up with neither. To add insult to injury, Obama’s senior campaign advisor, David Plouffe said,
The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates, or even monthly jobs numbers," White House senior adviser David Plouffe said at a Washington event on Wednesday. … People won't vote based on the unemployment rate, they're going to vote based on: “How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?”
http://www.cbsnews.com/...
How could the administration be any more disconnected?
Since World War II, only once has a president been reelected or party kept the White House when the unemployment rate was above 6%. That exception was Reagan in 1984 – and he benefitted from a rapidly declining unemployment rate - 10.8% peak to 7.2% - as well as his mass media savvy.
Obama could have followed Reagan’s lead and worked to reduce unemployment. Of course, back in 1984, Reagan had a host of congressional Democrats who enacted one of the largest corporate tax increases in history – TEFRA – which helped underwrite spending programs aimed at limited the impact of the recession. The current batch of Republicans in Congress is hardly likely to grant Obama the same opportunities. But Obama could have campaigned against the GOP leadership which refused to assist Americans in need. But Obama chose not to do so.
How bad is the Great Recession? You've seen this before:
The Great Recession dwarfs any economic downturn since the Great Depression -
both in severity and in length.
Official unemployment nationwide is at 9.2.% - real unemployement is much higher.
But unemployment varies considerably state to state - and the presidential election is actually 51 state contests in the electoral college - not a national race. Key states that Obama won in 2008 and will need in 2012 - like Nevada - have terrible unemployment.
Then there is foreclosure.
The 90-day delinquency rate for Florida is 19%. For Nevada it is 16%. That is mind-boggling. And homeowners are a demographic with extremely high voting rates. There may not be much information on voting patterns of former homeowners, but they are unlikely to vote for the sitting president.
And it's not just people facing foreclosure. 25% of homeowners nationwide are underwater. In Nevada, almost 70% of homeowners are underwater. In Florida it's 50%. Obama will not win these states.
If Obama is lucky, he might win the following:
Look familiar? It's basically all the state that either Gore or Kerry won in 2000 and 2004. But there's just one problem. Although that would have been enough to get Obama elected in 2000, because of population shifts and reapportionment, it isn't enough in 2012.
A note on methodology -
Estimated vote in 2012 is based upon 10%-20%-30%-40% weighting of election results from 1996 to 2008. In addition, the Democratic margins are adjusted downwards for 1/2 of any state unemployment in excess of 7% as well as 1/2 of all foreclosures in excess of 2% - which may be too generous. It is a coincidence that the map returned was all states that voted Gore or Kerry - but understandable.
What about young people?
They were the core of the Obama campaign in 2008. Will they come out in the same numbers as they did four years ago? Youth unemployment is even twice the overall unemployment rate - almost 20%. This makes sense. Given that there are so many experienced among the unemployed, a potential employer is far less likely to hire someone without experience.
And student loan deliinquencies are skyrocketing. Again, a no brainer. With increased college costs and few job opportunities, you can't pay back your college loans.
<<<>>>
Let's get down and dirty with the 51 contests that make up the electoral college.
Obama doesn't stand a chance in any of the state that McCain won. The only remote possibilities were Missouri and Montana, but Missouri has been trending increasingly Republican for the past two decades - PPP showed Obama trailing most GOP candidates - and Montana had a right-wing GOP sweep in 2010.
Few pollsters expect Obama to carry Indiana and North Carolina in 2012. Both states barely went for Obama in 2008. Neither state had voted Democratic in 30 years. Both states showed huge Republican gains in 2012.
Florida and Nevada have been devastated by the Great Recession. Both states have been traditionally placed in the "Toss-up" category, but neither gave Obama a large margin in 2008. Add unemployment and foreclosure and they are likely out of reach for Obama in 2012. [Sunshine State's recent Florida poll us-jobless-numbers-dragging-barack-obama-down-florida] seems to confirm Obama's weak position.
So that leaves Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia. How much did Obama win Ohio by in 2008? 4.6%. What's the unemployment rate? 8.6%. And the 90-day delinquency rate? 9%. And the Republicans control the Ohio state senate 23 to 10 and flipped the state house from 46/53 to 59/40. Not to mention unseating an incumbent Dem governor, trouncing the Dem U.S. Senate candidate, and capturing FIVE House seats. That doesn't happen in a vacuum. Similar, although not as extreme, patterns prevail in Colorado. Virginia is Obama's best bet which seems odd. Before 2008, the last time Virginia voted Dem was in 1964 - not even voting for Carter in 1976. Of course, Northern Va has witnessed a huge demographic transition. Kaine and Allen are tied. But there's a reason Webb isn't running for reelection.
And we aren't even talking about Pennsylvania - where Obama is tied with Romney - Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Obama is, at best, going to looking at a map of Gore & Kerry & Virginia. The Republicans are going to go after Obama throughout the Midwest and in Pennsylvania, too. And even Obama's people are saying unemployment is going to be at 8.2%?? No way.
<<<>>>
The situation for the Senate and House is just as bleak.
A ticket headed by an unpopular president is going to be devastating.
The numbers alone work against the Dems - not to mention the effects of 2012.
Senate 2012
33 races:
21 Democrats
2 Independents (caucus Dem)
10 Republicans
So 2/3s of the seats at state are Democratic. Of the 10 Republican-held seats, only Massachusetts and Nevada appear possible for an upset. In Massachusetts, Scott Brown leads by about 10 points in early polls. He is handsome and media savvy. There are no “name” Dems offering to run. And the Bolger arrest brings up questions of the Mass Democratic political machine. Chances are better in Nevada, but Nevada’s terrible unemployment rate and high mortgage default rate will work against all Dems on the ticket there – from Obama on down.
As for Republican pick-ups – North Dakota is almost certain to go GOP. Open seats lose the advantage of incumbency. With Bingaman, Webb, and Kohl retiring – New Mexico, Virginia, and Wisconsin are going to be tight races. All three states saw big GOP upsurges in 2010. Claire McCaskill and Jon Tester faces tough races in Missouri and Montana. McCaskill is only at 45% in early polls in a state that hasn’t gone Dem in a presidential race since Bill Clinton. Tester is running against Montana’s At-Large Rep. Denny Rehberg who has averaged 62% in his past five statewide races compared to Tester’s 49% in the 2006 race. Bill Nelson is likely to have a tough race in Florida, too. The reactionary political climate combined with the terrible state economy is going to make it tough for Nelson, but Nelson has the advantage of Gov. Scott’s mismanagement and horrible ratings to counterbalance.
So let’s say that the Senate Dems gain ½ a seat and lose 3 ½ seats – that’s a net loss of 3 seats. And a Republican majority. Even if the Dems only lose 2 seats and the GOP wins the White House, that gives the Republicans control. And then there are the Blue Dogs.
House 2012
Nancy Pelosi has recently outlined a plan to recapture the House of Representatives for the Democrats. I wish her well, but I am extremely skeptical. Why?
First, redistricting. This works against Democrats in two ways. Following the 2010 census, 10 states lost and 8 states gained a total of 12 seats. Of the 12 seats lost, 8 are from Dem states, 3 are from toss-up states, and 1 is from a GOP state. Of the 12 seats gained, 8 are in GOP states, 3 are in toss-up states. And 1 is in a Dem state. (And the 3 toss-up gains are in Florida and Nevada – hardest hit by the Great Recession.)
Second, redistricting. In the never-ending debates about Obama, it has largely gone overlooked that the most serious ramification of the 2010 election debacle was the loss of control of the majority of state legislatures. Why is that important? Well, state legislatures draw up new districts – not only in states that lose or gain seats. But in all states due to internal shifts in population. Party control of the state legislature means that favorable districts can be drawn for that party. Prior to the 2010 elections, the Democrats controlled 28, the Republicans 13, 9 were split, and Nebraska was “Nonpartisan”(read GOP). After the 2010 elections, the Republicans controlled 26, the Democrats 15, 8 were split, and Nebraska is “Nonpartisan” (read GOP). A devastating result.
Given that the Democrats have to make up 10 seats lost through census apportionment; given that redistricting will be favorable to Republican gains in more than half the states – and to Democrats in only a quarter; given that the low-hanging fruits that the Democrats gained in 2006 and 2008 were mostly those seats lost in 2010 – it seems highly unlikely that the Democrats will regain control of the House.
<<<>>>
So then - what is to be done?
If Obama is not going to win, what should progressive Democrats do? Can we pressure him to act boldly? I think the current "negotiations" and a whole series of previous disappointments show the president's modus operandi. It ain't gonna change. And if he did in 2012, it would be viewed as an act of desperation.
Should we primary him? Again, that looks impossible - - although he truly deserves to be primaried. No Democrat has expressed any willingness to do so. No president who has been seriously primaried in the 20th century has survived the general election. Any primary effort would deeply divide the Democratic Party - politically and racially. Then again, the Democratic Party is so divided it might not matter.
I do not believe that it is ethical to demand that people who supported Obama in 2008 - who volunteered, who canvassed, who donated, and who voted for Obama - continue to support a person who has trashed nearly every core Democratic value. A former Dem gubernatorial candidate - who was on the ground floor of Obama's 2008 run and for whom I worked - said it effectively - that Obama had the economic sense of Herbert Hoover and the obsession to compromise of Henry Clay.
The pie fights and threats here and elsewhere only underscore Obama's profoundly weak position. When you have to threaten the core party workers at a progressive website, something is wrong. Obama is going to lose.
That leaves few options. The best one is to convince President Obama not to run in 2012, but to devote himself in the remaining portion of his presidency to addressing the crisis facing working Americans free from the need to seek reelection. The chances of such are slim to none, but they are better than anything else. I can assure you that millions of people who voted for Obama in 2012 - as shown above - will not do so in 2012. There comes a point where it is no longer possible to support this administration - - and we have an obligation to make certain that Obama knows this.