Althouse: "Incumbents tend to win presidential elections, but second-term presidents tend to be disappointing."

September 2, 2012

"Incumbents tend to win presidential elections, but second-term presidents tend to be disappointing."

"Mr Obama’s first-term record suggests that, if re-elected, he could be the lamest of ducks. That’s why he needs a good answer to the big question: just what would you do with another four years?"

61 comments:

garage mahal said...: Good question. Republicans have decided that "If I can't have America, nobody will".; 9/2/12, 12:06 PM
Tim said...: "Mr Obama’s first-term record suggests that, if re-elected, he could be the lamest of ducks. That’s why he needs a good answer to the big question: just what would you do with another four years?"

Perpetual unemployment at 8% or greater; ongoing $1 trillion annual deficits or greater; entrenching the ACA; Putin driving foreign policy; railing against the wealthy; misery and hopelessness growth industries.

Bad enough for ya?; 9/2/12, 12:07 PM
Tim said...: Who knew the troll was a chick?; 9/2/12, 12:07 PM
rhhardin said...: A sharp stick in every eye.; 9/2/12, 12:07 PM
madAsHell said...: Garage Mahal is a women?; 9/2/12, 12:11 PM
garage mahal said...: Hahaha.; 9/2/12, 12:13 PM
cubanbob said...: The answer to the question is obvious, four more years of this shit. The only positive outcome of his reelection and that is a huge stretch, is that he won't have a pliable Congress to even further ruin the country.

Obama hasn't merited having his contract renewed based on his job performance and given his inflexibility doesn't deserve a second chance.; 9/2/12, 12:14 PM
LilyBart said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/2/12, 12:14 PM
harrogate said...: Not rocket science. A few possibilities:

For some, giving the health care bill a chance to show that that it really does expand coverage for people who previously could not get it. And there is always the Supreme Court business that both sides worry about so much. That issue alone will keep people interested in re-electing incumbents, even if there is nothing else. There are lots of things the voters have in mind, and I am sure he will mention a few of them in Charlotte.

And then, of course the things to prevent, always get traction. Preventing another dumb tax cut. Preventing the GOP from starting another dumb war, wasting so many lives that, were the GOP not in power, will remain with us. Such things themselves might be enough of a reward for four more years of Obama.; 9/2/12, 12:16 PM
Roger J. said...: Did not Mr Obama announce his second term objectives recently? I was struck by one of his objectives, to wit, ending the Senate filibuster procedures. Just how, pray tell, is Mr Obama going to do that? he has demonstrated his incomptency with respect to the economic situation, and his "right war" in A-stan.

He certainly cannot run on his record in his first four years--with any luck this election will be a referendum on his stewardship of his first four years.; 9/2/12, 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...: There is one reason the POTUS will win re-election, with a squeaker. I say this as I was inside the Chicago HQ.

- There is a team that focuses on each voter with a statistical sampling. The POTUS is in IA today, 3rd visit in 3-weeks. Enough said.
- The plan is to win the margin (Electoral College). To divide and conquer.
- VJ is in the main brain trust (incl. David A. and P. and Jim M. and FLOTUS).
- The HQ has regular conversations with NYT reporters and other cool bloggers. Every-one is kept on a rope. "We will need every-one." was the constant message. Before a pool report, someone from WH modifies the document. This is then used by others. We are told to review every-thing multiple times. It is like a machine operation. Every-thing counts: voter, message, communication, etc. There is a dashboard of what, why, who, how, and when. It is based on collective and as an individual.; 9/2/12, 12:18 PM
LilyBart said...: Republicans have decided that "If I can't have America, nobody will".

What arrant nonsense.; 9/2/12, 12:18 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: "Mr Obama’s first-term record suggests that, if re-elected, he could be the lamest of ducks."

And yet everybody's afraid of him.

Whatever - Y'all were to blame for him anyway,...; 9/2/12, 12:18 PM
Mick said...: And the "law prof" (imagine what's being taught to her future scumbags, er lawyers)still fails to even notice the American sovereignty killing non natural born President (born British of a British subject father) that she voted for, and who is OBVIOUSLY lacking in allegiance and attachment to America. She just treats him as the typical incumbent. History will look down on those that should have known, and should have alerted the public.; 9/2/12, 12:19 PM
Tregonsee said...: I realize I am instantly disqualified under Godwin's Law, and rightly so. Nevertheless, I am reminded of that old (disgusting) joke about people trying to get Hitler in hiding to come back. Finally, he agrees, but tells them that "This time, no more mister nice guy." No I am not equating Obama with Hitler, but he will have the flexibility to do more of what he wants.; 9/2/12, 12:19 PM
madAsHell said...: really does expand coverage for people who previously could not get it.

Yeah....I wanna pay for the fat chick with a tattoo sleeve, and a ring in her nose.; 9/2/12, 12:19 PM
Larry J said...: LilyBart said...
Republicans have decided that "If I can't have America, nobody will".

What arrant nonsense.

Once again, Garage in, garbage out.; 9/2/12, 12:21 PM
Sydney said...: This is the first time I've thought that America's Politico might actually have worked for Obama.; 9/2/12, 12:24 PM
Patrick said...: Garage, is that Tammy Baldwin? Can't tell due to size on phone.; 9/2/12, 12:25 PM
garage mahal said...: Garage, is that Tammy Baldwin? Can't tell due to size on phone.

Nope. Kind of looks like Tammy though.; 9/2/12, 12:26 PM
The Drill SGT said...: So this is as goood as it gets?

God help us all...; 9/2/12, 12:27 PM
Michael Haz said...: Barack Obama will interpret his re-election as a mandate to do whatever the hell he wants to do.

There will be spending unto America's bankruptcy, seizure of the baking system,massive tax increases.

The Executive Branch will not be bound by laws; it will act by executive order, laws be damned.; 9/2/12, 12:27 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: Yesterday, 1 Sept, Instapundit had a link captioned "Obama Plans to Keep Campaigning Even After He Wins." This chases to a short politicalwire.com note, and ultimately to the WSJ (subscription req'd for the full article).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443864204577621424114535022.html?_nocache=1346598840259&user=welcome&mg=id-wsj

The gist is in a second term BHO intends to devote more time and energy to selling his ideas to the People. WSJ: "He has told some aides that a sizable mistake at the start of his administration was his naiveté in thinking he could work with Republicans on weighty issues."

I'm not a certified Constitutional Scholar, so perhaps there's one out there who can help me understand this.

My recollection from grade school is that
..the Legislature makes the laws;
..the Executive carries out the laws;
..powers not enumerated to the Federal government are reserved to the States or to the People.

That would mean the President is supposed to do what the Legislature directs, and only what the Legislature directs. The President is not supposed to be a Leader, but rather more of a follower of instructions of the People as conveyed through the Legislature.

If BHO sees his primary job as selling his ideas to the People, and views the People's elected representatives in the Legislature as obstructionist, then perhaps have the wrong person in the office of President.; 9/2/12, 12:32 PM
dreams said...: Look at her/him mock and laugh at us.

Or maybe he/she is laughing about what will happen to our country if Obama is reelected.; 9/2/12, 12:34 PM
harrogate said...: "Yeah....I wanna pay for the fat chick with a tattoo sleeve, and a ring in her nose."

That comment speaks volumes. Would that it were a Moby.; 9/2/12, 12:37 PM
Chip S. said...: I stopped reading the article here:

Confronted by obstructionist Republicans in Congress, he did well to get anything through at all.

I don't need to slog through a thumb-sucking Economist piece of dreck to read nonsense I've already seen here.

Anyway, we already know Obama's second-term plans, both foreign and domestic.

BTW, I think anyone can appreciate the clarification at the end of that Politico (second) link:

This post was updated to reflect the president's intent to express his support for manufacturing success. An earlier version was unclear about his intent.

Certainly his support for manufacturing can't be inferred from his policies.; 9/2/12, 12:37 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: Once reelected, the Nobel committee will give O a second peace prize, and throw in one for economics also. Then all will be well.; 9/2/12, 12:39 PM
cubanbob said...: "really does expand coverage for people who previously could not get it."

'Coverage' and actual care are not one and the same.
So unless the plan includes forcibly making doctor's accept the compensation that is given to the providers those 'covered' will not get actual care. We already have a shortage of doctors and with this law the shortage will only worsen. Perhaps the next brilliant democrat idea will be to allow veterinarians
treat those patients that MD's will no longer treat and if that isn't enough perhaps expand the pool of providers to include herbalists, homeopaths and other witch doctors.; 9/2/12, 12:39 PM
garage mahal said...: You have to admit, the thought of Obama working with the same Congress again isn't that appealing to voters.

Here is what McConnell said in 2010:

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Has that changed? What's the single most important thing Republicans want to achieve if Obama wins again?; 9/2/12, 12:47 PM
Seeing Red said...: Via Insty, Harro - NHS won't work, 60 years of experimentation on smaller countries:

Talk about a war on women, don't tell Bloomberg:

NEWS FROM THE WORLD OF GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE: Caesareans and pain relief for mothers giving birth ‘should be cut to save the NHS money.’ “Family doctors are being told to try to talk women out of having Caesareans and very strong painkillers during birth to save the NHS money. New guidelines drawn up for GPs urge them to encourage women to have natural labours with as little medical help as possible. They also remind doctors to tell women to consider having their babies outside hospital in midwife-run units or in their own homes.”; 9/2/12, 12:50 PM
Hagar said...: Republican presidents tend to be reelected; Democrats not so much.

The exceptions since 1854 are Wilson and FDR (wartime), you may consider Truman to have been reelected in 1948, since he had almost a full term behind him, and then Bubba Clinton.; 9/2/12, 12:51 PM
Anonymous said...: If Obama has any plan beyond running up trillions of dollars in debt and doling that money out to cronies, clients, and his crazy pet projects, while telling voters things are just about to get better, he would have told us by now.

Obama has been under the gun since before the 2010 election to dazzle us with his brilliance and nada.

Of course, as Obama explains, the problem is that he didn't explain his wonderful work well enough and that's the real problem.; 9/2/12, 12:53 PM
Chip S. said...: You have to admit, the thought of Obama working with the same Congress again isn't that appealing to voters.

Which is why he's going to lose.

It's hilarious how the Althouse lefties view the 212th Congress as having resulted from something other than an election.; 9/2/12, 12:54 PM
Hagar said...: and Garage,

what they want to achieve is give business people a reasonable expectation of being able to continue to do business, so that they will come out in the open and start doing things again.; 9/2/12, 12:55 PM
Seeing Red said...: I'm always fascinated by those who think one has insurance that one will get the care they need in a reasonable time.

Canada proves otherwise. It has for a long time.; 9/2/12, 12:55 PM
Sorun said...: I want to know what Michelle's lavish travel plans for a second term? Maybe she could replace Hillary at State. We might save a little money that way.; 9/2/12, 12:57 PM
gk1 said...: If this dillweed does manage to get re-elected at least I get to witness the democratic party turn into the whigs of the 21st century. There is no future for big spending liberals.; 9/2/12, 12:59 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: You have to admit, the thought of Obama working with the same Congress again isn't that appealing to voters.

I welcome this scenario.

In fact, I'd been even more satisfied if Obama faced a Republican House and Senate.; 9/2/12, 1:08 PM
garage mahal said...: Which is why he's going to lose.

If the election were held today Romney would lose. You're confident Romney is going to provide a compelling argument to move all those people into his column by November?; 9/2/12, 1:09 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: How about that, garage?

I would find an Obama win and a Republican win in the House and Senate quite amusing.

Might be the best thing to satisfy the "all racism all the time crowd." Obama serves out a second term, so all the bitching about how racist Amerika and Republicans are gets defused.

And, Obama is hamstrung from doing much of anything. On the other hand, Republicans are restrained from doing anything extreme because of Obama's veto.; 9/2/12, 1:13 PM
Hagar said...: No, but Obama will.; 9/2/12, 1:14 PM
cubanbob said...: garage mahal said...
You have to admit, the thought of Obama working with the same Congress again isn't that appealing to voters.

Here is what McConnell said in 2010:

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Has that changed? What's the single most important thing Republicans want to achieve if Obama wins again?

9/2/12 12:47 PM

Wow! What an amazing insight! Really, when was the last time democrats didn't try to keep a republican president from getting reelected? Funny thing, no matter what the republicans do or don't do it's not them that will decide whether Obama gets reelected or not. As for your question if Obama were to get reelected what would be priority number one for the republicans in Congress? To achieve what each of them campaigned on, keep Obama from doing even more harm. You seem to forget that a third of the senate and the whole of the house is also up for election.; 9/2/12, 1:18 PM
Hagar said...: ST
The next 4 years are going to be difficult in any case, but Obama and his administration still in office and given their propensity for ignoring Congressional statutes and mandates, and the Republican establishment's reluctance for another impeachment proceeding after their experience with Clinton, could make it really bad for a very long time.; 9/2/12, 1:19 PM
Birkel said...: Latest Rasmussen poll:
Obama 44
Romney 48

Gallup
Approval 43
Disapproval 48

Garage,
Do you see a correlation? And do you really think Obama is ahead in thiselction? Were you surprised in 1980 too? Carter was "ahead" until late October after all.

I drink your tearful milkshake. I drink it up.; 9/2/12, 1:20 PM
garage mahal said...: And, Obama is hamstrung from doing much of anything

Hey I'm down with that. He's proposed/done enough dumb things. The economy will rebound I think to a tolerable state at least if absolutely nothing gets done.; 9/2/12, 1:20 PM
Anonymous said...: ST: But I'm not keen to give Obama a shot at two, maybe three, Supremes.; 9/2/12, 1:33 PM
edutcher said...: Zero will rule, as opposed to govern, by executive order.

Sieg Heil, liebling.; 9/2/12, 1:58 PM
cubanbob said...: garage mahal said...
And, Obama is hamstrung from doing much of anything

Hey I'm down with that. He's proposed/done enough dumb things. The economy will rebound I think to a tolerable state at least if absolutely nothing gets done.

9/2/12 1:20 PM

If he had done literally nothing in his first term you would be right. But the damage he has done won't cure itself in a second term unless it is undone.; 9/2/12, 1:59 PM
garage mahal said...: But the damage he has done won't cure itself in a second term unless it is undone.

Yea that stimulus money and a partially implemented health care law just ruined America. You ever wonder why you're losing?; 9/2/12, 2:01 PM
SukieTawdry said...: Don't be silly, AmPo; the left doesn't have any "cool" bloggers.; 9/2/12, 2:14 PM
edutcher said...: OT:

garage, who's the lady in the avatar, Mrs garage, or do we call her Mrs mahal?; 9/2/12, 2:22 PM
garage mahal said...: Nope, not related, edutcher.; 9/2/12, 2:26 PM
harrogate said...: "Don't be silly, AmPo; the left doesn't have any 'cool' bloggers."

Life in the bubble 101.; 9/2/12, 2:48 PM
SeanF said...: Incumbents tend to win presidential elections...

Historically, perhaps, but incumbents are 4-3 in my lifetime (4-4 if you count Johnson in '68).

BTW, Garage's avatar is Molly Ivins.; 9/2/12, 3:08 PM
Paddy O said...: So, what happens if Obama wins, but Republicans take over the Senate and keep the House?

Suddenly, we will have a situation in which a united Congress will be sending him bill after bill--and if they're smart they won't fall into the trap of witchhunts or prosecutions, but will do the business of the country.

Obama is campaigning, it seems, on an all or nothing strategy. Even if he wins, what will he win?

His only hope, then, would be to rule by fiat (or GM, I suppose).; 9/2/12, 3:36 PM
Brian Brown said...: garage mahal said...
Good question. Republicans have decided that "If I can't have America, nobody will".

States with GOP governors have an average unemployment rate 1.2% less than those with Dem governors.

And you're a boob.; 9/2/12, 4:31 PM
Robert Cook said...: "...the President is supposed to do what the Legislature directs, and only what the Legislature directs. The President is not supposed to be a Leader, but rather more of a follower of instructions of the People as conveyed through the Legislature."

That boat sailed a long time ago, and the status of President as Supreme Leader, (i.e., "Commander in Chief of not just the military but of all"), was formalized under Bush/Cheney and Cheney's assertion that the President is, constitutionally, a strong unitary executive.

Face reality: we have no substantively functional representative republic left and the Constitution is now referred to, but only as a totem, and it has no bearing on how things operate. We're "allowed" to vote for one of two representatives of the ruling class, and most still think we have a democracy, a say in our own governance.

Nope.; 9/2/12, 8:37 PM
The Godfather said...: I think The Economist must be one of my Facebook friends. For weeks I've been saying to all my liberal friends that if Obama does win reelection, he'll accomplish even less in a second term than he did in his first term. There's hardly an example in history of a president who was more successful (in terms of accomplishing what his supporters desired) in his second term than in his first.

In one sense, conservatives and libertarians could welcome Obama's reelection. A second Obama term would tarnish the "progressive" brand for a generation. But we are in such a bad economic situation, and the foreign threats are so dire, that I just don't think the country can afford four more years of Obama's fecklessness.; 9/2/12, 9:46 PM
Rusty said...: The Crack Emcee said...
"Mr Obama’s first-term record suggests that, if re-elected, he could be the lamest of ducks."

And yet everybody's afraid of him.

Not afraid.
Intolerant.
I don't like tyrants.; 9/3/12, 7:45 AM
Rusty said...: garage mahal said...
But the damage he has done won't cure itself in a second term unless it is undone.

Yea that stimulus money and a partially implemented health care law just ruined America.

maybe you can be taught.; 9/3/12, 7:46 AM
Curious George said...: "madAsHell said...
Garage Mahal is a women?"

If so, she's pregnant.; 9/3/12, 8:21 AM