October 7th, 2010
I don’t entirely disagree with Peter Beinart’s thesis–that President Obama is more likely than not to win re-election. (I would not go anywhere so far as Beinart does, though, in saying that the odds of Obama’s re-election is anything like a “lock.”)
But in the specifics, Beinart trots out a couple facts which aren’t as helpful to his case as they seem. He says that in the last 75 years only 3 presidents have been defeated. True enough. But for a little more context, consider that since FDR took office only 11 sitting presidents have run for reelection. Three of them lost and one of them (Johnson) was forced out of the race before he ran. (That is, if you treat Johnson’s first full term as his first term; this may not entirely fair.) Either way, 3-of-11 or 4-of-11 aren’t impossible-to-1 odds.
Beinart then says that of the three sitting presidents to lose, they all faced “serious” primary challenges. I think he’s overstating the seriousness of Pat Buchanan’s insurgent campaign. I don’t think anyone ever believed that Buchanan had a chance to win the nomination–not even Buchanan himself.
The other curious point Beinart makes is this:
I doubt Obama will move as sharply to the centerover the next two years as did Clinton, but he can do so to neutralize key weaknesses if he wants, because there is zero prospect that he’ll be seriously challenged in the primaries. No challenger would have any chance of stealing the black vote, of course, and even among white lefties, for all their grumbling, Obama has no national rival.
It’s interesting to me that Beinart asserts so casually that “no challenger would have any chance of stealing the black vote.” He’s correct, of course. But shouldn’t that fact be troubling?
Jason O. October 10, 2010 at 7:26 pm
What, exactly, would an “effective stimulus” have been? Another 250b or 500b added to the original 800b?
I disagree that Obama will see health care as a triumph at some point in the future: He already thinks that Obamacare is his greatest triumph because, IMO, he believes that any movement toward a single payer system is a victory.
Also: If Obama moves (even more) to the left and solidifies his base, how will that prevent the current GOP advantage among independent voters from widening even more by 2012 ?