From OUPblog: The two-term era

When I began teaching in 1994, the standard question we asked when we covered the presidency was why presidents were unlikely to be reelected, and why Republican presidents were more likely to be reelected than Democrats.

At that time, only Eisenhower, Nixon (who was unable to finish his term) and Reagan were elected to two full terms of office. Many other had been defeated. Now with Obama's reelection, we've had three president in a row who've won second terms.

Here's a look at why that might be the case.

I find this part most compelling:

Several factors may be at work, but one stands out. Most recent incumbent presidents have enjoyed the advantage of early, unified support from their own party.

Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama faced no challenge when they decided to seek renomination. Certainly they had their critics within their own party, especially the Democratic incumbents. Both Clinton and Obama faced murmurings of liberal discontent. But it did not suffice to propel a challenger to enter the fray.

On the other side, George H.W. Bush encountered sharp conservative opposition from Pat Buchanan. Although Buchanan never represented a serious threat for the nomination, he did pressure Bush 41 from the right. Bush’s situation paralleled that of Johnson, Ford, and Carter, each of whom did battle with a popular rival in his own party (Eugene McCarthy, Ronald Reagan, and Ted Kennedy).

With no competition for the nomination, a sitting president does not have to engage in one of the familiar exercises of American electoral politics in the modern era — repositioning himself between the primary season and the general election campaign. Mitt Romney’s attempt to redefine himself in the final months of the campaign, to shake the “etch-a-sketch” once he sewed up the nomination, is a necessary move given the sharp difference between the primary and general electorates.
We touched on similar thoughts in class, but note that this supports the idea that political parties have transformed the constitutional system.

Obama struggles with the base and the center

I asked 2301 students to speculate on how well Romney might pivot to the center once he - or now that he - has the nomination wrapped up, and how he can do so without losing his party's base. Obama has the same problem.

This story describes how he has to make the environmentalist portion of the party's base happy while also satisfying the center's desire for more fossil fuels. He is also trying to rally the base by pushing the Buffett Rule, but how do you do that without alienating those in the center who might be nervous about tax increases - even if it doesn't directly affect them.

A peek inside the Obama campaign: Narwhal

It involves processing - intelligently - a lot of data.

The campaign knew very little about the 13 million people who had registered for online updates, not even their age or gender or party registration. Without the ability to filter its recipients based on those criteria, the campaign stuck to safe topics for email blasts and reserved its sharp-edged messages for individual delivery by direct mail or phone call. In those channels, the campaign could be certain of the political identities of those it was reaching, because the recipients had been profiled based on hundreds of personal characteristics—enough to guarantee that each message was aimed at a receptive audience.

This year, however, as part of a project code-named Narwhal, Obama’s team is working to link once completely separate repositories of information so that every fact gathered about a voter is available to every arm of the campaign. Such information-sharing would allow the person who crafts a provocative email about contraception to send it only to women with whom canvassers have personally discussed reproductive views or whom data-mining targeters have pinpointed as likely to be friendly to Obama’s views on the issue.

As with SuperPACs, its a brave new world out there.

Obama reassembling the coalition that won him the 2008 election

From the Atlantic, a demographic by demographic comparison of where Obama is now versus 2008. This may seem cynical, but its worth considering if there is an overlap between the policies he is promoting now and the groups whose support he need to be re-elected.

A Contraception Trap?

Andrew Sullivan thinks that  President Obama issued the rule on contraception last week to goad opponents to position themselves against birth control which he may be able to use as a wedge issue in the upcoming election.

Obama meets with House Democrats at retreat

A week after House Republicans met to start off the new session, House Democrats did the same. President Obama spoke to the group to attempt to rally them as the election season heats up. His ability to rally them in the past has been considered suspect.

Some stories regarding the meeting:
- Obama rallies House Democrats at retreat.
- House Democrats Huddle With Biden and Obama Today.
- President, Buoyed by Rising Numbers, Seeks to Rally Democrats.

The feeling seems to be that improving economic numbers combined with questions about either of his potential rivals make re-election (never a guarantee) more likely, and that an enthusiastic base would be more likely to make that happen. House Democrats are toying with the possibility that they may be able to take back the House this year, though other caution that redistricting and restrictions on voting may make this more difficult.

The Economy and Obama's Approval Ratings

In the sections on public opinion (2301) and Presidential Approval, as well as persuasion (2302) we mention that presidential approval tends to rise and fall with the economy.

Here's proof that this still holds true:

The Gallup Poll shows that economic confidence has rebounded considerably in the past three month. and so has Obama's numbers. Some argue that attitudes about the economy are the only real factor explaining people's votes for or against a president. All this talk about campaign strategy and whatnot might be immaterial.  

Incumbent Party’s Expected Vote Margin = 1.14 −.83 × (Years in Office) +4.51 × (4th-Year Income Growth) +1.66 × (3rd-Year Income Growth) −1.04 × (2nd-Year Income Growth) −2.34 × (1st-Year Income Growth)

This formula tells us how likely it is that a president (any president, not just Obama) is likely to be re-elected. The key factor here is "real disposable income per capita." 

This is premature, but who cares? Handicapping the 2012 Election

From Nate Silver, a nice overview of where Obama stands now, about a year away from the general election. It all depends on three factors (1) Obama's approval rating, (2) who the Republican nominee is and (3) GDP growth in 2012. 

Election Matters: When Obama Should Start to Worry

From the Gallup Poll: Using past polls as a guide, February.

Still too early to make predictions, he still leads Romney and other Republicans in the polls - but he lags behind a "generic" Republican.

Jobs Bill Unlikely to Pass Senate

From the Hill:

Bracing for the defeat of President Obama’s jobs bill, senior White House officials said Tuesday they would work with Senate Democrats to break the bill into smaller portions that might find support.

The officials emphasized their view that it is Republicans who are holding up the president’s $447 billion plan, and they downplayed Democratic defections.

Democratic unity, one official said, has “never been the test before.”

“It's not going to be now,” the official said.

The White House officials also said it is absurd to suggest Democrats don't support the bill because a handful of Senate Democrats are opposed to it.

The Senate is scheduled to vote on the president’s plan Tuesday evening, but it will not win the 60 votes required to move forward.

The White House sees this as an advantage though. They intend to use it as a way to paint Congress - Republicans specifically - as ineffective.

Will Republican Primary Battles Produce an Unelectable Candidate

While its still premature to make predictions, the state of the economy, and the looming possibility of a second recession make Obama's re-election unlikely, that is unless the Republican Party nominates someone too extreme for the general electorate.

Albert Hunt sees this as a possibility. From the Atlantic Five:

"One of the few political pleasures for President Barack Obama's re-election team these days is watching the Republican primary fight," writes Albert Hunt in Bloomberg View. Republican presidential candidates must appeal to conservatives further to the right on issues from Medicare to immigration, threatening to alienate independent voters in a general election.

"President Richard Nixon used to say that the key to U.S. politics was to appeal to the base in the primaries and move to the center in the general elections. That's difficult if the nomination contests swing too far," Hunt says. In debates, Rick Perry, seen as the "leading conservative," has been attacked for moderate positions on immigration, even while he leads conservative attacks on social security. Romney's greatest liability is "enacting a health-care plan when he was governor that most analysts say has improved care in Massachusetts."

"Primary battles can be beneficial. Obama's standing and skills as the Democratic nominee last time were honed by his intense battle for the nomination against Hillary Clinton. An exceptionally tough and protracted battle, it never became ideologically toxic." Reagan was a better candidate in 1980 having defeated his primary rivals. But primary fights have "caricatured" a party beyond general electability as with Barry Goldwater or George McGovern, Hunt says. If Chris Christie gets into the race, he can expect to have his more moderate positions on guns and immigration attacked on the right, increasing the likelihood of another Goldwater-esque candidacy in the general election.

From the Daily Beast: Obama Plays to the Base

In preparation for his re-election bid, Obama tries to reconnect with the Democratic Party base. The winner of presidential elections tends to be the person able to both hold onto his base (which includes getting them to the polls) and get the majority of independents to support them.

From Nate Silver: Views of Perry Turn More Negative Since First Debate

He is also trailing Obama in head to head match-ups.

From The Washington Monthly: What the Focus Group Thought

In both 2301 and 2302 we discuss how different political actors attempt to manipulate public opinion and the techniques they use to do so. Here's a brief description of how a focus group was used to determine what a critical group of voters (swing voters in House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's district) thought of Obama's job speech. One of the goals of the administration is to gain the support of independents and non-partisans before next year's elections.

The study seemed to determine that they liked the speech - but the broader point is that if they had not, the information obtained would have given them an idea about how to adjust future communiactions in order to strenghen the president's appeal.

Obama v Perry

Debates rage on how well the various Republican candidates would do against Obama. Many argue that Perry's extreme stances on many issues - which are fine in a conservative state like Texas - may be too far on the fringe for the general American public.

Here's an argument that he could run a strong race against the president.

Obama's Haul and Bundling

Obama raised an impressive amount of money - $86 million - in the three month period ending June 30th. Reports tell us this is more than all the Republican candidates combined.

An interesting aspect of this story is the number of donations that came from "bundling" a practice where one person who has maxed out their contribution limits can collect checks from others and bundle them together so that it makes an impact. on the campaign. Bundlers for successful presidential campaigns often are then rewarded with appointed positions in that adminitstration.

- Campaign Finance in the United States.
- What Obama's Richest Donors Tell us About his Campaign.
- Obama Campaign Releases Bundler List.
- Obama For America and Obama Victory Fund 2012 Volunteer Fundraisers.
- Watchdogs Ask: What About the Bundlers?

The Debt Ceiling Battle as of 7/15/11

Commentators see things looking bad for Republicans:

Jonathan Alter thinks Obama has won his ultimate objective, support from independents for 2012:

The good news for Obama is that the more liberals, lobbyists and apologists for the rich squawk, the more fiscally responsible he looks to the independent voters who will determine the election.

Better yet, under McConnell’s plan Obama would get credit for good budgetary intentions without blame for the pain, which will remain theoretical for now. At the risk of mixing dessert and vegetables, the “Big Fudge” lets him pose as a responsible pea eater without actually ingesting any of the wrinkled little suckers.

You can hear the centrist 2012 message now. “We wanted to slash the debt by $4 trillion and protect our children’s future,” the Democrats will say, conveniently forgetting how loud they’re bellyaching this week about their own president’s proposed cuts. “But the Republicans killed responsible deficit reduction to protect corporate jet owners.”Megan McArdle thinks that if we default and actual cuts are made and people see the consequence of that, the public will turn against the party. She chides them for not taking a very generous deal and jeopardizing electoral opportunities in 2012 and 2016:

Republicans have a decent shot of taking the White House and the Senate in 2012; by throwing that away with both hands they also throw away their best chance at repealing ObamaCare before it starts irrevocably altering health care markets. They also ensure that any deficit-reduction deal we do post election will be heavily weighted towards tax hikes; give Democrats a fresh crack at all the bits of the Obama agenda that they ignored in favor of passing health care; and probably let them preside over a mid-decade recovery that will leave the GOP in a very difficult electoral position in 2016.

The GOP will have taken a chance at meaningful entitlement reform and a mostly-spending budget deal, and thrown it away for literally no gain. Anything you can achieve by simply saying no, they can undo by simply persuading voters not to re-elect you. And the 1996 experience suggests that this will not be hard for them.Polls suggest support for tax increases has grown among the American public.

Regarding Osama

For various comments and links regarding the killing of Osama Bin Laden this link to Andrew Sullivan's site should suffice: Live-Blogging: The Arc Of Justice.

And the obligatory political consideration: How does this affect the 2012 race?

Why Republicans May Be Skipping 2012 Presidential Run

Micheal Shear offers five reasons why many Republicans are skipping the 2012 presidential race:

This one sticks out to me:

4. The Tea Party. The emergence of the Tea Party movement as a force inside the Republican Party requires potential presidential candidates to pick sides in an intraparty philosophical struggle. The risks are clear for some Republicans who may have to alter or modify earlier positions to get through a contentious primary. Less clear are the benefits of having that support during a general election, especially if it means alienating independents in the process. Some of the most high-profile Tea Party candidates in 2010 did not fare so well in the general election.