Barack Obama will win re-election in 2012.
First, the Republicans will win back the House in the 2010 elections. Most political observers now expect this, and the White House seems resigned to it. The Senate is in play, but it is likely to stay in Democratic hands.
Next, House Republicans, thrilled by their victory and confident they have a mandate from the American people, will start passing bills. Some of these bills will be reasonable and popular. Obama will sign these and take much of the credit. Other bills will be less realistic and will provide the president an opportunity to look reasonable by comparison.
Republicans will find how precarious power is in this current national environment and how much more difficult it is to be popular in the majority than in the minority. Many think the Republicans will overreach, but they will probably be blamed for overreaching no matter what they do.
President Obama will wisely act chastened by his loss. In the first two years of his term, he accomplished a sizeable portion of the Democratic wish list. He understands that his next agenda moment will occur after his re-election. In the second two years — the campaign years — he will speak about health care to his audiences and about deficit reduction to everyone else. He will spend the next two years sounding like a moderate, a deficit hawk and the one pragmatist in Washington. He will largely succeed in this effort. The economy will probably look better in two years as well. No recession lasts forever, and even the slightest break in the bad news will look like a win for the White House.
Next is the Republican nomination process. There is no national Republican figure to match Obama’s fundraising ability, adroit campaigning and presidential plausibility. So the nomination battle could go one of several ways. The GOP could nominate its “next in line,” like it always does. In this case, that would probably be Mitt Romney. In this scenario, Obama’s fundraising advantage and Romney’s own limitations as a campaigner will spell defeat in 2012.
Or the Republicans could seek to change the game by nominating a charismatic outsider, such as a Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich. This could fail spectacularly. Obama would seem more plausible as president, more serious and more pragmatic.
Finally, the Republicans could nominate one of the new “austerity caucus” that David Brooks thinks is the new face of the GOP. His pick, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, could be the choice, or New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, or a similar reform-minded, budget-balancing governor. While this path could lead to the most high-minded, intelligent campaign, it’s not clear where such a candidate would find the funds or the enthusiasm necessary to beat a sitting president.
Finally, Obama will probably raise more money than any politician in American history. His excellent fundraising apparatus will have the power of the presidency behind it, and his Internet strategy will only be better after four years of refinement. Those who predict Obama’s defeat are almost certainly underestimating the magnitude of the financial advantage he is likely to have.
Nothing is inevitable in politics. There is always a surprise or two in any political season. Often the surprises are simply momentary distractions from the overwhelmingly likely result. However, Sarah Palin’s rise, the Clinton-Obama battles, and the Reverend Wright uproar were surprises that eventually gave way to the unsurprising result of a Democrat winning the White House in 2008.
Republicans must understand that Obama won in 2008 because he seemed more pragmatic than his opponent, because he was a better campaigner and because he raised more money. Nothing that has happened in the last two years — not oil spills, not Tea Parties, not Obama’s own mistakes — has changed that equation.
Yet. Reach Will at wmunsil@asu.edu
