Washington Babylon — August 25, 2010, 9:11 am

More on Obama’s Chances to Win Reelection

Nelson Hernandez (among others) took issue with my “clever analysis of President Obama’s excellent
chances of re-election.” Hernandez made a number of good points, though he made several comments (for example, Obama has “an insatiable desire to promote socialism”) that make it hard to take him seriously. But here’s an edited version of his email, to which I’ll reply below:

The economy is obviously in dire straits and may well be heading
into a full-scale, big-D Depression which will hit us full force
before the 2012 election. Even the most mainstream economic
commentators are now pretty much throwing in the towel after the
crushing GDP and housing numbers we’ve been hearing lately. In short:
do a little extrapolation on this disastrous economy and tell me that
the Democrats can win re-election in 2012. It’s not a question of
where we are today, but where we will be in two years. It doesn’t
look good.

Silverstein’s breezy dismissal of all the likely GOP candidates
totally fails to take into account the already well-advanced revulsion
toward the incumbent that animates broad swathes of the middle class
and independent voters. It is also very unlikely that youth and
non-black minority groups will mobilize for Obama in the same way they
did in 2008. Americans are in distress and are not going to fall for Obama’s
soaring yet lightweight rhetoric a second time.

Silverstein’s recollection of history is faulty. Mondale was not
the most boring candidate ever; Dukakis was. Mondale was actually one
of the better candidates (in terms of competence) the Democrats have
put up in the last 40 years.

Finally, Mr. Silverstein completely disregards four personages in
the GOP, of which at least one and possibly two will likely be on the
2012 ticket: Gov. Christie (NJ), Gov. Daniels (IN), Rep. Ryan (WI) and
Gov. Jindal (LA). All four of them could and would demolish Obama in
a debate on any topic in different ways: basic principles, factual
analysis, policy analysis. There is absolutely no hope of Obama
besting them in an impromptu discussion.

My reply.

Point One: I generally agree, the economy is very scary and if it drops off the cliff Obama will lose. But in my view, that’s the only way he’ll lose. It’s very hard to knock off a sitting president. Gerald Ford lost in 1976 to Jimmy Carter, but this was the first election after Watergate; Ford was Richard Nixon’s vice president; Ford angered the country by pardoning Nixon; and the American economy was in a terrible recession in the run-up to the election. And even so, Ford came back from behind (at one point by 34 percent) and lost by only two percentage points. A shift of very few votes in Wisconsin and Ohio would have given Ford victory in the Electoral College.

George Bush Sr. lost in 1992 but he had Ross Perot on the ballot; Bill Clinton won with just 43 percent of the vote. And in recent times, that’s it. Sure, Obama could lose but Hernandez’s breezy dismissal of his chances reveals his loathing of the president and sympathy for the GOP.

Point Two: I also agree in part, but see above. I’d also note that Americans fell for his rhetoric the first time, there’s nothing to prevent them from doing so again. Americans have a long track record of swallowing empty, overblown rhetoric (for example, that the GOP is the party with a track record of deficit reduction, even though under Presidents Reagan and Bush it ran up enormous deficits, and Clinton more or less eliminated it.) And underestimating Obama as a campaigner is a mistake Hillary Clinton, among others, has already made. He’s good on the campaign trail.

Point Three: OK, Dukakis was a dog of a candidate but it’s a photo finish with Mondale in terms of dullness. And competent? Mondale was best known as Carter’s vice president, hardly an auspicious record to campaign on.

Point Four: Good luck to those four candidates. If I were Obama I wouldn’t be losing a lot of sleep about any of them. The political scenario for Republicans for 2012 looks to be highly favorable (though obviously a lot could change between now and then), but the party has no charismatic candidate with new ideas, and whoever wins the GOP nomination is still going to have to knock off a sitting president with the powers and perks of incumbency. Possible, but unlikely unless Hernandez is right about the “big D.”

Share
Single Page

More from Ken Silverstein:

Commentary November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm

Shaky Foundations

The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

From the November 2013 issue

Dirty South

The foul legacy of Louisiana oil

Perspective October 23, 2013, 8:00 am

On Brining and Dining

How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy

Get access to 165 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

September 2016

Land of Sod

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Only an Apocalypse Can Save Us Now

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Watchmen

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Acceptable Losses

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Home

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Tennis Lessons

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Post
 
Andrew Cockburn on the Saudi slaughter in Yemen, Alan Jacobs on the disappearance of Christian intellectuals, a forum on a post-Obama foreign policy, a story by Alice McDermott, and more
Artwork by Ingo Günther
Article
Land of Sod·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Nobody in academia had ever witnessed or even heard of a performance like this before. In just a few years, in the early 1950s, a University of Pennsylvania graduate student — a student, in his twenties — had taken over an entire field of study, linguistics, and stood it on its head and hardened it from a spongy so-called “social science” into a real science, a hard science, and put his name on it: Noam Chomsky.

At the time, Chomsky was still finishing his doctoral dissertation for Penn, where he had completed his graduate-school course work. But at bedtime and in his heart of hearts he was living in Boston as a junior member of Harvard’s Society of Fellows, and creating a Harvard-level name for himself.

Photograph by Mike Slack
Article
The Watchmen·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Nobody in academia had ever witnessed or even heard of a performance like this before. In just a few years, in the early 1950s, a University of Pennsylvania graduate student — a student, in his twenties — had taken over an entire field of study, linguistics, and stood it on its head and hardened it from a spongy so-called “social science” into a real science, a hard science, and put his name on it: Noam Chomsky.

At the time, Chomsky was still finishing his doctoral dissertation for Penn, where he had completed his graduate-school course work. But at bedtime and in his heart of hearts he was living in Boston as a junior member of Harvard’s Society of Fellows, and creating a Harvard-level name for himself.

Illustration by John Ritter
Article
The Origins of Speech·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

"To Chomsky...every child’s language organ could use the 'deep structure,' 'universal grammar,' and 'language acquisition device' he was born with to express what he had to say, no matter whether it came out of his mouth in English or Urdu or Nagamese."
Illustration (detail) by Darrel Rees. Source photograph © Miroslav Dakov/Alamy Live News
Article
Acceptable Losses·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Nobody in academia had ever witnessed or even heard of a performance like this before. In just a few years, in the early 1950s, a University of Pennsylvania graduate student — a student, in his twenties — had taken over an entire field of study, linguistics, and stood it on its head and hardened it from a spongy so-called “social science” into a real science, a hard science, and put his name on it: Noam Chomsky.

At the time, Chomsky was still finishing his doctoral dissertation for Penn, where he had completed his graduate-school course work. But at bedtime and in his heart of hearts he was living in Boston as a junior member of Harvard’s Society of Fellows, and creating a Harvard-level name for himself.

Photograph by Alex Potter

Chances that college students select as “most desirable‚” the same face chosen by the chickens:

49 in 50

Most of the United States’ 36,000 yearly bunk-bed injuries involve male victims.

In Italy, a legislator called for parents who feed their children vegan diets to be sentenced to up to six years in prison, and in Sweden, a woman attempted to vindicate her theft of six pairs of underwear by claiming she had severe diarrhea.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Mississippi Drift

By

Matt was happy enough to sustain himself on the detritus of a world he saw as careening toward self-destruction, and equally happy to scam a government he despised. 'I’m glad everyone’s so wasteful,' he told me. 'It supports my lifestyle.'

Subscribe Today