Rush Is Wrong On This One; Obama Still Heavily Favored For Re-Election

Now, of course the economy may not improve for quite some time and normally that is fatal for a President. However, Obama is uniquely positioned to survive this scenario. First, thanks largely to media, he is going to be able to use the “It’s Bush’s Fault” excuse for far longer than any other President in modern times. For Obama to be really hurt by a poor economy things would have be at least as bad three years from now as they are today. The reality is that, unless this is an unusually long recession, there is almost no chance that there won’t be at least some improvement that his friends in the fourth estate can of course give him all the credit for.

Some look to expected conservative gains in today’s results and foresee a 1994-like Republican landslide forming for 2010. Ok, that is certainly possible and, based on history, maybe even probable, but even this set of circumstances plays right into the hands of Obama’s reelection prospects. If Democrats no long have a stranglehold on both houses of congress, then much of the understandable fear that sparked the Tea Party movement will be greatly dissipated by 2012. You can even easily see this development being spun by the media as a positive element of his narrative. Obama will be portrayed as having “learned his lessons” and “shown his ability to adapt,” all of which will make his a far more seasoned and superior reelection candidate.

(On a side note, there is no greater indicator of the impotence of the Republican Party’s message machine and the lack of knowledge of the average American voter than the fact that, as proven by the two post-election polls I commissioned last year, vast portions of Obama’s base of support still somehow think that Republicans have control of congress and at least have the power to stop his agenda. This is an incredibly important reality that the Republican Party has done absolutely nothing to rectify.)

There are many delusionally optimistic conservatives who insist Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately, the facts seem to indicate that he will end up tracking politically far more like Ronald Reagan.

There are many differences between Carter and Obama. First, the economy got much worse during Carter’s term so the “blame it all on Republicans” excuse didn’t resonate. Second, Carter got the snot beaten out of him by Ted Kennedy during the 1980 primaries (the media will never allow Hillary Clinton to do the same even if she dared to act on what are surely her desires), Third, the demographics of the nation are very much different in 1980 than they will be in 2012 (more conservatives have died, more liberals have turned 18). Fourth, the news media was not nearly as overtly liberal or partisan in 1980 as it is today (it is important to note here that the conservative minority elements of media will actually have a profound economic self interest for Obama to be reelected). And finally, Carter had to run against Ronald Reagan, a candidate whose electoral qualities (thanks again to the media and their relentless destruction of potential heirs to his throne) are highly unlikely to be duplicated in 2012. Let’s face it, no matter how badly things go for Obama, there still needs to be a viable alternative for him to be defeated. Just ask John Kerry.

What frightens me most about the way things could go over the next three years is that in our understandable zeal to expose Obama as the fraud that he is, conservatives may have set up a situation where if the economy does recover as it normally does we may be perceived by the ignorant masses as having been wrong about Obama and the nefarious narrative of us being mean, outdated, racists will be even further entrenched for at least another generation. The most frustrating thing about all of this is that the vast majority of what conservatives are saying about Obama is correct; except for the most likely outcome of his reelection bid.

Pages: 1 2

share this post

filed under