How Obama wins the election: the economy, stupid, and everything else

December 9, 2011
By Paul Smalera
The opinions expressed are his own. 

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, and the entire Republican presidential field before them, have enjoyed painting Barack Obama as a European-style socialist, an apologizer, an appeaser, a president who is ceding America’s place in the world. Their stump speeches and debate soundbites seem to always end with some variety of the phrase, “when I’m your president, I’ll make America great again.” It would seem the nation is hungry for that kind of leadership; after all, polls now say that Obama’s job approval ratings are worse than Carter’s at the same point in his term. The game clock would seem to be running down on his re-election hopes. But what if it turns out we’ve been reading the scoreboard wrong, and Team Obama already has the lead? What if, by the time Americans get to vote, less than a year from now, America is already great again?

Coming off the heels of a nasty recession and horrible intertwined crises in banking, housing and economic confidence, every decision President Obama and his team made on the country’s way forward has come under intense scrutiny. Inevitably, the left has called some decisions, like the smaller-than-hoped-for size of his stimulus bill, weak sauce. The right has decried everything this administration did, as with health care reform, as lurching us towards socialism. Even Rockefeller Republicans have changed their spots in order to make libertarian arguments, as when Mitt Romney argued in the New York Times that the auto-industry bailout was wrong and Detroit should have been allowed to go broke.

One shouldn’t feel bad for Obama — this kind of scrutiny comes with the job, after all. But the criticism his administration has endured from all sides has seemed particularly craven, perhaps because the stakes have been so very high these past few years. And yet, the political capital invested in his centrist, negotiated policies are now paying dividends. Perhaps Bill Clinton was a smoother operator, but it’s beginning to look a lot like Obama’s triangulation of policy, politics and the press is working, and that may deliver him to a political comeback and a 1996-style election victory.

Take the economy: Unemployment numbers are still bad, but they are improving, reaching levels not seen since the very start of the crisis. GDP growth has been anemic but it long ago stopped contracting, as it was when Obama first took office, thanks to effects of the global financial crisis and US credit crunch. Asset management firm BlackRock, meanwhile, predicts that GDP growth will increase in the last quarter, hitting the 3% mark that puts the economy beyond “treading water” territory into real growth that companies large and small will invest in, both in terms of equipment and real estate upgrades, and new hiring. Macroeconomic Advisors puts the figure at 3.7%.

The GOP would love to challenge Obama on foreign policy, but here he is nearly unimpeachable. He’s steadfastly refused to commit U.S. resources to overseas adventures, resisting the “nation-building” that candidate George W. Bush had promised to not engage in. He corrected the Bush-era excesses by pulling out of Iraq and announcing a timetable to withdraw from Afghanistan. If a president John McCain had used drone strikes as much as Obama did, Republicans everywhere would be crowing about the president’s use of “smart power”  in the War on Terror.

As Todd Purdum recently explained in Vanity Fair, in an article about George Kennan and his disillusionment with our country’s military-driven growth and global-policeman interventionist foreign policy stance, there should never have been anything inevitable about the U.S. jumping into global hot spots just because it could. Obama is perhaps the only president in the last fifty years to successfully resist committing huge numbers of American lives and treasure to an overseas engagement. With that accomplishment, he joins only Dwight Eisenhower, who ended the Korean War, if we go back a little further. And yet, when asked Thursday at a press conference if he was engaging in a policy of appeasement with Iran, he smartly suggested that the reporter “ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that.” The GOP may try to pin Obama on foreign policy, but when he starts defending his record in such stark terms, it’s pretty easy to see how this is a losing fight.

If the economy rebounds even partly, and his foreign policy continues to be effective, what can the Republicans pin on Obama? The birth certificate is public and the country has grown comfortable, or at least used to, seeing him on the world stage. The “otherness” that plagued him during the early days of his presidency has been all but eradicated. The incumbent advantage will begin to manifest itself as the GOP nominee struggles to present a vision for America that differs significantly from where we already are. With social issues always being marginalized in general elections (and with Rick Perry proving even the GOP primary season is barely hospitable to his anti-gay TV spots), it’s becoming clear that no credible alternative narrative to the Obama era is going to emerge from this Republican party or its Tea Party wing.

Finally, Obama seems to have learned perhaps his most difficult lesson: how to be the master of Congress. He’s taking credit for good ideas and pointing fingers at the failures, while appearing to the public as engaged but above the fray. He learned all the lessons of the debt ceiling debacle in time to benefit rather than suffer from the super committee’s failure. He’s dared congressional Republicans to attack his middle-class populism by wearing the cloak of a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, when talking about it. And if Congress fails to pass the payroll tax extension before its December recess, the administration will surely paint its Republican leaders as not just do-nothings, but hypocrites to boot.

Come general-election season, Obama should be able to describe his first term as one in which: he took the right steps on the economy which, due to simple outside lag time, are just now paying off; he avoided military entanglements while keeping the country safe and hunting down terrorists; and he stared down the extreme wings of both parties in order to maintain a centrist course, while also increasing health care coverage for millions of Americans. In short, whereas it was once hard to see how the president could possibly win a second term, it’s now difficult to understand how he could lose.

Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama listens to former U.S. President Bill Clinton speak about the economy during a tour of an energy-efficient office building renovation near the White House in Washington December 2, 2011. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

Most reasonable people understand that Obama is, and has always been, a centrist. It pisses off the left and the right, but it will most certainly get Obama re-elected as GOP candidates continue to cater to only to the extreme elements of their party.

Posted by 11thCavVet | Report as abusive

The cool aide is working again. Can you name any Obama policies, centrist or otherwise, which, have been successful?

We (USA) are $16 Trillion dollars in debt and growing, average income of Americans is declining at record levels, and there is no solution in sight. I don’t care who’s fault it is or, if they have mastered the media, I care about someone “leading” to the accurate definition of the problem, the leading of the definition to resolution and the leading to the execution of the resolution.

Posted by niblick3 | Report as abusive

The fact that this president focused on health care and blaming everybody else for the failures of his presidency will not go unnoticed by those of us in the middle who are actually paying attention. His style of lecturing us instead of bringing this country together should be especially offensive to those who bought into his Hope and Change slogan. In the six decades I have been alive never before has a president been presented with an opportunity to constructively change America in a positive way and failed so miserably.

Posted by NoHopeNoChange | Report as abusive

@niblick3, I have no idea what you’re trying to ask in the second part of your message, but was far as your first question:

Posted by MAJBlackburn | Report as abusive

You left the Nobel Peace Prize out of Obama’s resume, every Savior should have one of those, and I sure wish someone could explain the affordable part of the “Affordable Healthcare for America Act”.

Until we inject some common sense into Foggy Bottom, we all lose no matter who wins.

Posted by CaptnCrunch | Report as abusive

Humans are nitwits. All emotion, no logic.

Obama is by far a better president than our country deserves.

Posted by BajaArizona | Report as abusive

“He took the right steps on the economy, … he stared down the extreme wings of both parties in order to maintain a centrist course, while also increasing health care coverage for millions of Americans.” – Please. Did you blush when typing this?

Posted by thenix | Report as abusive

[…] How Obama wins the election: the economy, stupid, and everything else […]

Posted by News: Republicans push $915 billion spending bill | News 25/7! Delivering news in real time | Report as abusive

The only reason Obama will win in 2012 is because unlike when Jimmy Carter’s Presidency was tanking, Obama doesn’t have a well-spoken, charismatic opponent running against him. Our out-of-touch President will win because his opponents are even more out-of-touch. A lose-lose for all Americans.

Posted by GLK | Report as abusive