The path to victory in 2012 looks tough for the Democratic incumbent, but Barack Obama has won as the underdog before and could well do so again, writes Anthony Painter
Political scientists are, of course, no such thing. There are very rarely replicable experiments in controlled conditions in politics. It is a long way from Einstein’s general relativity theory. But imagine for a moment that you could design a controllable experiment into the outcome of a US presidential election. What would that look like in 2012?
Let’s start with the incumbent. Taking RealClearPolitics’ aggregated polling averages as our dataset things do not look too good for him at all. His disapproval rating is 51 per cent compared to 42.5 per cent approval. He has been clearly in negative territory ever since failing to stand up to a recalcitrant Congress which refused to raise the federal debt ceiling without an immediate programme of fiscal consolidation in the midst of an economic slowdown following a deep recession.
It turns out that for our incumbent compromise looks like weakness. He may have been snookered by failing to agree an increase in the debt ceiling during the previous year’s lame duck session following the taking of the House of Representatives by his political opponents. Playing chicken and taking the nation into a default may not have been a better option. Nonetheless, the numbers do not lie. Our candidate may not be in the disastrous territory of, say, a Jimmy Carter, the last Democratic one-termer, but it is still far from ideal. In fact, on the basis of this number alone, he is in real trouble.
What is more, this terrible approval rating is in the context of a nation whose people have lost faith. Seventy-two per cent consider their country is on the wrong track while only 21 per cent see it as on the right track. This is the same level as the incumbent’s deeply unpopular predecessor left the nation. He may seek some solace in the fact that Congress’ approval ratings – currently averaging 82 per cent disapproval to 13 per cent approval – are worse than his own, but he is not running against Congress. All that may encourage him from that is the thought that, if he somehow wins, the House of Representatives may flip back to his party, but that seems like wishful thinking.
So far, so bad for our experimental president, and we have not even begun on the economic situation yet. When he came into office, unemployment was 7.8 per cent. As things stand, just over a year until the presidential election, it now stands at 9.1 per cent. The federal deficit stands at 9.1 per cent of GDP and growth is anaemic.
He has recently introduced a short-term stimulus package to Congress – let’s call it the American Jobs Act. It cuts payroll taxes, incentivises small businesses to hire workers, extends support for the unemployed, invests in infrastructure, and protects jobs in the public sector. It is financed through deficit reduction measures further down the line. If passed, estimates point to roughly a one per cent reduction in unemployment in 2012. However, passage of this $447bn package is anything but assured and the Republicans are working hard to block it. Early hyperactivity on healthcare, financial reform, climate change, and the TARP fund, which helped rescue the likes of General Motors, Citigroup and AIG, gave the impression that his focus was not always on jobs. The $700bn stimulus package in 2009 ended up being far too small, though that was not realised at the time.
Since the global financial crisis that led to the economic meltdown, house values have fallen by a third. The debt overhang is horrendous and 7.5m are facing foreclosure. Negative equity is having a knock-on effect on consumer confidence. It is also having a knock-on impact on political confidence as the constant anxiety of negative equity bites.
A recent CNN poll shows that 52 per cent blame his Republican predecessor for the economy against 32 per cent who blame our candidate. So there is an alibi available to him at least, but let’s not duck this one: the economy and gridlock in Congress place the incumbent’s re-election in severe jeopardy.
But wait – there is a demographic context to any election too. We must factor that in. The growth groups in the electorate are young people, Hispanics, and professional college graduates. The problem, though, is that our candidate’s strength has declined in these categories.
In 2008 he was ahead by 66 per cent to 32 per cent among 18-29-year-olds; by 67 per cent to 31 per cent among Hispanics; and by 50 per cent to 48 per cent among college graduates and by a margin of 18 per cent among the 17 per cent of the population who are postgraduates. Unfortunately, his lead is not holding this time round against the leading Republican contender – let’s call him Mitt. A recent Pew Research Center poll shows him leading only 62 per cent to 36 per cent among 18-29-year-olds. His support among Hispanics has fallen to 60 per cent to 37 per cent though he does retain a two per cent lead among college grads. Overall, our experimental candidate and his challenger, Mitt, are tied in this poll.
His struggle among the white working and middle classes are particularly acute. He trails 54 per cent to 41 per cent among white voters earning under $30,000 and by 60 per cent to 36 per cent among those earning $30,000-$74,999. He trails by 54 per cent to 41 per cent among independents. He led by 52 per cent to 44 per cent among independents in 2008.
Traditional strongholds and crucial swing states – especially in the Rust Belt and midwest – could become much more tricky this time around. Indiana looks like a dead loss. Pennsylvania, Michigan (Mitt’s political heritage, though he did oppose the bailout of the automobile industry), Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa all look trickier than they should. And Virginia, Colorado, Nevada (Mitt’s a Mormon), and Florida are all very much in the balance. He has a number of pathways to 270 and can even afford to lose a couple of traditional strongholds but it is very tight.
Which then raises the next variable – our incumbent’s opponents. At this point things start to look up considerably. Their economic credibility is shot among anyone other than their own base. As Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democratic Network, has written: ‘If I were a Republican, I would be very worried about how far from both mainstream economic thought and public opinion their current economic approach is.’
There is one who is electable – Mitt – and then there are a series of others between whom the Tea party switches its support depending on who is getting the best PR on Fox News at the time. The Republicans seem determined to select anyone but Mitt but no one passes the credibility test, so it is to Mitt that they are likely to turn to without a late wildcard entrant. The good news for him is that, as a result of a great number of proportional primaries, the race will be a long one. Why is that good? The longer he is seen as a contrast to the Tea Party fringe in the eyes of the electorate the better. The result will be in the favour of one Mitt Romney.
This, then, leaves us with the final variable – the candidate himself. Strangely reticent and aloof recently, can he rediscover his inspirational campaign trail persona? This, in part, relies on the right strategy: a balance between arguing for action on the economy versus his opponents’ inaction; standing up for ordinary Americans against vested corporate interests without ending up in a populist corner; and articulating his successes in a context of acute challenge in a way that makes sense to America’s current mood of decline anxiety. Yes, the campaign will be top-notch again but this is about the candidate.
His campaign this time will not be about ‘change.’ It will be about taking action on the economy, competence, and being on the side of average Americans. Despite the current polls, and as long as the economy does not worsen from here, then our experiment produces a surprising result. Barack Obama is re-elected. Maybe not with enthusiasm and not by a landslide – he is the slight underdog as things stand. He won the Democratic nomination in 2008 as the underdog and he is likely to win his second term in the same way – just. And it will be the most exciting presidential race since, well, the last one.
—————————————————————————————
Anthony Painter is a political researcher and writer
—————————————————————————————