Obama and 2012

The election season has begun, and the president--that socialist, Muslim, Black Liberationist, terrorist, Kenyan--is in a good position. Here's why:

1. There's a weak Republican field.

Last time around, the Republicans put forward a dinosaur, a flip-flopping elitist, some creationists, James Polk, an uber-libertarian, and Rudy Giuliani. This time, the flip-flopper is back, but now he’s (believe it or not) the conventional candidate, with competition from Michelle Backman, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Haley Barbour, and Donald Trump. I can’t write this shit, people.

2. History (and other elements) are on his side

Obama has several important factors on his side. Remember all the ridiculous talk of primary challenges to Obama on the left (Russ Feingold) and on the right (Hillary Clinton), even from serious people like Bob Woodward? Do you hear those stories anymore? Nor does it appear likely that a major third party candidate—i.e. a Ross Perot, a George Wallace, a Theodore Roosevelt—will emerge. The improvements in the economy are slow and in some respects miniscule but healthy enough. The situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are tragic and apparently never-ending, but they are, rightly or wrongly, in the back part of Americans’ minds at the moment and likely will be in 2012. The Tea Party protests might be prevalent, but they are not prevalent or powerful enough to create a perception of widespread discontent among the American people like the protests of the 1960s.

True, there exists the possibility of the so-called “October Surprise” the opposition is always hoping for, and while I concede that our world is improbable, I would place my bets on a surprise not happening.

3. He still has a liberal base—the Case of the Slurpee

Yes, there was his famous Philadelphia speech and 2004 convention speech and inauguration speech and Nobel Peace Prize speech, but it was his mocking of the Republicans before the 2010 elections that got me most excited to listen to Obama. He told a simple story: He, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid and others were hard at work, working to fix America after eight miserable years. And they were pushing the car up the hill, and where was the GOP? “They were sipping on a slurpee!”

For all the talk Obama has given about “there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America, there is the United States of America,” it’s always better to hear Obama talk like a big-city, commie Democrat than it is to hear him talk about holding hands and making the other side feel good.

Don’t let some on the left fool you, liberals still love Obama.

4. This is a president who gets stuff done

The period from 1860-2008 has shown that historically, Americans want their presidents to get things done, whether they’re liberal things or conservative things. Many previous presidential two-timers have been those who have gotten things done. FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, and Ronald Reagan’s conservative shifts are prime examples, and all featured painful concessions that infuriated their base.

Obama had a two year liberal period. The first major victory was about a month into his presidency—the stimulus. Featuring $787 billion dollars of what the New York Times called a Great Society for the middle class, it eclipsed the meager $16 billion Clinton wanted in his first term for stimulus (and didn’t get), even if it was about $213 billion less than want many liberals wanted. As Jonathan Alter pointed out in “The Promise,” that law featured five major acts in one—the largest tax cut since Reagan, the largest investments in science and education since LBJ, the largest health care spending ever, and the largest infrastructure spending since Eisenhower. Obama could have stopped there and still won re-election.

But then he got health care reform after a hundred years worth of presidents tried but failed. And it may not have had that public option (which almost none of the liberal activists would have qualified for), but it banned the health care rationing system, regulated the health care industry, allowed young graduates to remain on their parents’ plans, and mandated that everyone have health insurance. And then he got Wall Street reform, and that may have been minuscule to what was necessary (like reinstalling the Glass-Steagall Act to separate investment banks and depository banks), it was still much more impressive that what was originally constructed. And he saved more acres of land than Bush did in eight years, and finally regulated the tobacco industry, and mandated that Detroit build cleaner cars.

Even when he lost the 2010 elections, he was able to get Congress to provide health care for 9/11 workers, fund children’s healthy school nutrition, install the largest overhaul to food safety since the 1930s, pass an arms reduction treaty with Russia, and repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Even when he loses, he wins.

I'm a bit late in this game. Brian Montopoli at the Associated Press beat me to this two weeks ago, but he largely agrees with my arguments. If you're into confusing math and listening to "experts," you can read about Yale economist Ray Fair or the good work at PollyVote, or for simple arithmetic there's the brilliant historian Allan Lichtman, whose research in the groundbreaking "The Keys to the White House" served as the basis for my prediction and analysis. My guess is that eventually Nate Silver, Larry Sabato and others will come to the same conclusion.

Even with a low approval rating, Obama's 2012 position is looking good.