Is America in trouble no matter who wins the presidency?
Last Friday, I spoke to a local chapter of the Optimist Club. This Friday, I’m going to make sure no one who reads my blog can possibly have any shred of optimism remaining.
Just kidding. Sort of.
In an election season in which the presidential campaigns take turns making mistakes, making one wonder if either candidate really wants to win this thing, Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics lays out a case that neither side should want to win.
It’s the third in a three-part series; the first two installments were an argument for why Barack Obama will be re-elected, and an argument for why Mitt Romney will unseat him. The third piece boils down to: Be careful what you wish for.
Trende cites four factors that, at this point in time, suggest the winner of this election will see his party (or, in Romney’s case, himself) get rocked in the 2014 midterms and 2016 presidential election.
1. The economy. After reviewing the way we have not sprung back from the most recent recession the way we have from previous downturns, Trende notes:
Now consider that the average post-war business cycle lasts about six years from trough to trough. We hit our last trough in mid-2009, which means we should be due for another recession in the next few years.
We could easily begin to contract before we have fully recovered from the last recession. There are already signs that slowdowns in Europe and China are spilling over to our shores. This is probably too late to affect Obama’s re-election chances, but if it turns into a full-blown recession, it would greatly impact 2014 (when 11 Democrats are facing re-election in states that went for George W. Bush).
2. Debt. Here, Trende writes:
The current CBO projection assumes that we will add $3 trillion in debt over the next decade. But the reality is actually much, much worse than that. This assumes that we go off the famous “fiscal cliff” in December and allow all of the Bush tax cuts to expire, allow the full force of the alternative minimum tax to kick in, allow all of the spending cuts agreed to earlier this Congress to kick in, and greatly slash money paid to Medicare providers. Needless to say, if people see their taxes raised, their doctors stop accepting them for care, and we go into a recession, none of this will be popular.
If we assume Congress won’t allow this to occur, then we are looking at the CBO’s “alternate scenario.” It involves an additional $11 trillion in debt over the next few decades.
Even this latter scenario, he notes, is dependent on CBO’s rosy economic growth projections coming true — even though the economy has consistently underperformed CBO forecasts in recent years.
3. Health care. Trende notes that Obamacare is set to get cranked up in earnest in 2014. He imagines two scenarios:
If Obamacare doesn’t work — if seniors really suffer as a result of the benefit cuts to Medicare; if more people get thrown off their employer-sponsored insurance than expected; if insurers get put out of business because people opt to pay the tax rather than get insurance — it will not be a pretty political situation for Democrats.
Even if it works well, there will be problems. Unlike Medicare and Social Security, Obamacare creates obvious winners and losers. We then get to issues of salience: If people who are tossed onto the exchanges are angrier than people who are no longer denied care for pre-existing conditions are happy, there is a political problem for Democrats. If seniors strongly perceive the cuts to Medicare Advantage, but quickly forget about the “donut hole” being closed, there is a political problem for Democrats. There are dozens of such examples. Maybe they cancel each other out, but I wouldn’t bet the proverbial farm on it.
As for Republicans, Trende only maps out a scenario in which a President Romney and Congress repeal the law but don’t replace it with other reforms. Personally, I don’t think that’s the most realistic GOP scenario. But either way, he is probably right that Democrats will claim any shortcomings would have been better under Obamacare and will swing that club against Republicans early and often.
4. Iran. This, Trende says, doesn’t require a lot of theorizing:
In the next few years, one of two things will happen. Either Iran will develop a nuclear weapon, or Israel and the United States will forcibly stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
No American president wants to be the one who oversees the former. And the disruptions that could ensue from the latter would be massive, especially in combination with any of the other factors listed above. Add in the continued difficulties we face in the region in general (as we saw last week), and the problems there are similarly insurmountable.
***
What does all this mean? Is Trende right that either Democrats or Republicans could “win by losing”?
From a purely electoral-politics perspective, maybe. Of course, that would mean neither man is up to the task of creating better outcomes to these challenges. Which is a pretty depressing thought.
But is it a correct thought? Should we really believe America is doomed for the next four years no matter what happens in November?
Let’s hear your arguments why Obama or Romney would avoid disaster on any or all of these four issues. Think of it as a Poll Position without the poll. Just answer in the thread below.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
798 comments Add your comment
UGA ECONOMICS MAJOR
September 21st, 2012
5:41 pm
I BELIEVE PRESIDENT OBAMA IS THE MAN TO GUDE THE COUNTRY OUT OF IT ECONOMIC WOES..ITS AREADY BEGINNING…MITT THE TWITT WILL PUT US IN A DEPRESSION WITH HIS GREEDY POLICIES FOR THE HAVE MORES
Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American
September 21st, 2012
5:45 pm
Let’s see…all caps, multiple spelling, grammar, punctuation errors, UGA grad…yeah, that’s who I’m taking advice from.
HDB
September 21st, 2012
5:46 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout – Vote American
September 21st, 2012
5:37 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 21st, 2012
5:39 pm
It’s redistribution because of the TRANSFER of money…….the transfer can be either voluntary or involuntary!!!
Gravy Train
September 21st, 2012
5:47 pm
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t voluntarily pay colluded prices for things, I pay because I have to, and I don’t think many people would make it out of the store if they volunteered not to pay. I’m pretty sure I risk losing my license if I drive off without paying for the OPEC price controlled gas, and the shop attendant won’t negotiate or barter. In fact, you have to pre-pay for the price fixed gas. Only in the mind of the ditto-head will you find a place where greed, collusion, graft and price fixing don’t exist.
Big Barry
September 21st, 2012
5:48 pm
Todays news – long lines to buy the new iPhone. If we had Romney, we could go back to Bush’s policies and have soup lines.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
September 21st, 2012
5:50 pm
I just don’t understand why more people don’t like this guy…
Gravy Train. You don’t even know the guy. What I have heard people who know him say is that he is a wonderful caring involved individual and father. Unlike, Obama, there are numerous people on record describing how Mitt went out of his way to help other individuals. Instead of just making them eligible for a government program, Mitt has been out in the streets, helping people.
Everything negative you say about Romney can be said about Obama. Mitt got deferments from his draft boards, he is not a “draft dodger”. Had you been alive during that stupid Dem war in Vietnam, you would have been doing everything legal yourself to get out of dying in some stupid war we had no intention of winning. I am sure you supported Slick Willie, who jumped some high fences to avoid serving in Vietnam.
Obama is a failure and the only thing the Dems can come up with to justify reelecting him, is that Mitt is worse. What a great campaign slogan. ” Vote for the Failure, it could be worse!!!!!! “
Fourscore
September 21st, 2012
5:50 pm
Cain told members of the media after the speech that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s recent “47 percent” comment was a “non-story” being blown out of proportion by the media. But Cain said he would have been doing better if he was the nominee, saying that he’d probably have a “substantial lead” on President Barack Obama at this point.
“The reason is quite simple: I have some depth to my ideas,” he said.
Fourscore
September 21st, 2012
5:52 pm
“The presidential thing is bound to have an impact on every election,” Thompson told WKOW in Madison Wednesday. “You know, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican. If you’re a standard-bearer for the presidency is not doing well, it’s going to reflect on the down ballot.”
The poll was out from Marquette University Law School, and showed that Baldwin is leading Thompson, the former governor, by 9 points. Last month, another poll from MULS showed Thompson ahead by 9 points.
Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American
September 21st, 2012
5:53 pm
HDB: It’s redistribution because of the TRANSFER of money
——————–
You can call a dog’s tail a leg, but that doesn’t make it so.
In fact, the purchaser bought the computer because he considered it to be of more value than the money needed to purchase it–that’s why voluntary transactions occur. The purchaser’s standard of living went up because he bought the computer. Not exactly redistribution.
Fourscore
September 21st, 2012
5:54 pm
But Thompson wasn’t alone. Rep. Rick Berg, running for the Senate in a closer-than-expected race in North Dakota, became the latest in a string of Republican candidates to say they disagreed with Romney’s 47 percent remarks.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 21st, 2012
5:54 pm
“but I don’t voluntarily pay colluded prices for things, I pay because I have to,”
No, you don’t. You always have a choice.
Government taking from the rich to give to the poor doesn’t allow for a choice.
Bigot.
Fourscore
September 21st, 2012
5:56 pm
“The demographics race we’re losing badly,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.). “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”
HDB
September 21st, 2012
5:56 pm
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer’s ineptocracy
September 21st, 2012
5:50 pm
The problem now is that what people have SEEN about Romney doesn’t meet your narrative! IF you started from his campaign stop in Pittsburgh (”these are 7/11 cookies”) to the photo op with black kids on MLK Day (’who let the dogs out”)…to his campaign stop in Philadelphia to discuss education…to his stop at the NAACP Convention….to the just-released videotape: those exposures speak VOLUMES about the man and runs counter to what Ann has put out there!!!
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 21st, 2012
5:57 pm
Now it’s off to mow the south 40. Back later to correct the liberal mistakes (redundant term, perhaps?) being written while I’m gone.
Fourscore
September 21st, 2012
6:00 pm
What happened to Pawlenty?
Man with his resume could wait 6 weeks and still be offered a great job somewhere……..
Coincidence…………… Lie to yourself, but not hardly
HDB
September 21st, 2012
6:04 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout – Vote American
September 21st, 2012
5:53 pm
“In fact, the purchaser bought the computer because he considered it to be of more value than the money needed to purchase it–that’s why voluntary transactions occur. The purchaser’s standard of living went up because he bought the computer. Not exactly redistribution.”
Not necessarily, LBB, The person’s standard of living may only be MAINTAINED….not improved. Just because the transaction was voluntary does not mean that redistribution does not occur! I could buy a computer right now to replace one from 1997……and my standard of living is just maintained!! It’s still redistribution because I transferred money to another entity and those funds were distributed throughout the company and the economy…………
Gravy Train
September 21st, 2012
6:06 pm
Dem’s war in Vietnam? So now not only does W not exist in the mind of the ditto-head, but now Eisenhower and Nixon never existed either. As far as calling someone worse than the other, that’s been Willard’s whole campaign to this point “Look how bad America and Obama are, I’ve got no specifics to tell you how, but I can do better, but Obama is so bad how can you go wrong voting for me?” At least that’s the gist of what he’s saying when he’s not too busy sticking his foot in his mouth.
The squirming continues, the gnashing of teeth is almost at fever pitch. The plutocrats have spoken and have stuck the ditto-heads with Willard and they can’t stand it.
Rafe, are those commentaries you’re trying to spin coming from other Mormons? They wouldn’t possibly have anything else to say but “Willard is great,” would they. Nah, we’ll just take your word for it, I can’t trust what I’ve seen with my own eyes.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
September 21st, 2012
6:07 pm
Well, so much for this loon lib conspiracy theory -
The Republican presidential candidate also released his full tax return for 2011, which showed that he voluntarily paid more tax than required by reducing allowable deductions for charitable contributions.
Barking at the wrong moon again?
getalife
September 21st, 2012
6:10 pm
10 years of taxes.
If the gop win, stock up for a total collapse.
The stores will be closed because of riots on the streets.
Fourscore
September 21st, 2012
6:10 pm
Why isn’t Palin out campaigning for Romney?
She did so well last time, right?
@@
September 21st, 2012
6:15 pm
Gravy:
Were you kidding about black Mormons? Their numbers on on the rise internationally AND here in the U.S.
You might wanna read a book entitled “Last Laborer” by Keith Hamilton, a prominent black Mormon.
Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American
September 21st, 2012
6:17 pm
HDB, ignorance can be fixed, stupidity can’t. I tried.
Gravy Train
September 21st, 2012
6:18 pm
Why isn’t W out campaigning for Willard? Why didn’t he deliver one of the greatest speeches of all time at the GOP convention? Where was Michelle Bachmann? Where was Ron Paul, for that matter? Was lil’ Rand there? They have all of these geniuses to choose from, why are they not using them? Isn’t it time to pull out all the stops in favor of Willard? He can only circle the drain for so long…
Linda
September 21st, 2012
6:18 pm
yrzey@5:16, There are no govt.-hating conservatives. Conservatives love govt. more than liberals. It’s just that we love the parts that the Constitution actually allows, whereas liberals love the parts that the Constitution does not allow & progressives hate the Constitution, period.
The regulators have too much power to regulate. Actually, they have no power under the Constitution other than that given to them by congress, but they make far too many fundamental policy decisions. For example, the Senate voted against regulating greenhouse gas emissions, which is precisely what the EPA is doing. We have Congress passing laws & then outsourcing the tasks of regulation to bureaucrats who aren’t elected & don’t work for elected officials, a practice not authorized in the Constitution.
I did not say that regulations were illegal just because I don’t think they are good policy.
Gravy Train
September 21st, 2012
6:19 pm
So they have a token black guy, like the GOP has their token minorities? I should have known…
Fourscore
September 21st, 2012
6:19 pm
I just hope that the Republicans have a good October surprise for Obama. They need to make this a race.
Who like watching Super Bowl blow outs?
getalife
September 21st, 2012
6:19 pm
“HDB, ignorance can be fixed, stupidity can’t. I tried.”
You should try harder and read more.
drudgey, rush and fox is not informative
It is rw propaganda..
getalife
September 21st, 2012
6:21 pm
..drudgey, rush and fox are not informative
They are rw propaganda.
My bad.
Fourscore
September 21st, 2012
6:24 pm
It is funny when the right says remember 2010.
Well I hope they remember 2010, because if something doesn’t change in the next few weeks, 2010 will be what they have to hang their hat or head (either one will work) on come election day 2012.
Gravy Train
September 21st, 2012
6:24 pm
I’ve been to the Mormon ward in my area. There wasn’t one black person within two miles of the place, and the one minority (half-Asian) there doesn’t consider himself one because he’s pro-Willard. True story.
@@
September 21st, 2012
6:29 pm
Gravy:
I’ll have to post two separate links directing you to black Mormon organizations here in the U.S..
It’s more than “A” token.
http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/index.html
getalife
September 21st, 2012
6:29 pm
“The study’s leaders claim to have bonafide research that says the average size of a penis is roughly 10 percent smaller than it was 50 years ago. And the researchers say air pollution is why,” Limbaugh said.
Limbaugh said that he did not believe that air pollution and global warming could have such an impact. “I don’t buy this. I think it’s feminism. I think if it’s tied to the last fifty years, the average size of a member is ten percent smaller…it has to be the feminazis,” Limbaugh said.
Informative?
Nah, tin foil hat and weirdo stuff.
HDB
September 21st, 2012
6:29 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout – Vote American
September 21st, 2012
6:17 pm
When one is myopic, you won’t see the forest for the trees……when you are an expansionist, you see a greater argument……..I did NOT disagree that redistribution is involuntary…but it is ALSO voluntary……..
inda
September 21st, 2012
6:18 pm
“yrzey@5:16, There are no govt.-hating conservatives. Conservatives love govt. more than liberals. It’s just that we love the parts that the Constitution actually allows, whereas liberals love the parts that the Constitution does not allow & progressives hate the Constitution, period.”
Actually, you’re wrong!! Conservatives hate the government because they feel that it’s too intrusive when what the government is ACTUALLY doing is ensuring that ALL citizens play by the same rules!! THAT’S what liberals like about the Constitution…..and the ability of the Constitution to be AMENDED so that everyone can be guaranteed Constitutional protections. Remember: black people didn’t get full Constitutional protection until 1965…..women until 1970…and gays have YET to achieve such status…………………….
@@
September 21st, 2012
6:30 pm
Gravy:
And…
http://www.blacklds.org/
Anyhoo…someone mentioned that you’ve been posting your Mormon rants all over the AJC. I did a little checking…the only Mormon rants I found were from a perpetual name changer. He/she would post one rant under one name, followed by another rant under a different name.
hmmmmmmm
I can bring them over if you like.
Gravy Train
September 21st, 2012
6:31 pm
This is getting too easy. Time to go rustle up some grub…hmm…I’m thinking Chick-fil-A. Gotta support blatant homophobia you know. Oh wait, they’ve balked on that, damn it! I guess I’ll have to go to Waffle House and watch the Grand Wizard of the local Klan chapter (is that you, Lil’ Barry?) cook my food while a toothless, meth addicted waitress tells me about all the latest conspiracies involving Obama. Good times.
cc
September 21st, 2012
6:31 pm
Gravy Train
September 21st, 2012
6:06 pm
Can you post ANYTHING that isn’t disparaging of Mormons? You go from blog to blog and post the same things over and over. Would you just give it a rest for a while?
MarkV
September 21st, 2012
6:34 pm
The complaints about business regulations are just hot air or, to put it more courteously, a matter of personal opinion. Except for the most extreme groups, rational people accept the need for some business regulations. Then it becomes a question of what anybody considers appropriate and what an inappropriate regulation. Which is the same situation as with many other issues, such as what is appropriate spending of the tax dollars and what is not. Quite naturally, business owners generally dislike regulations, and just as naturally, other people want them.
MarkV
September 21st, 2012
6:39 pm
There seems to be a fair amount of talk about income redistribution, mostly demagoguery, with such false definitions as the following:
“Income redistribution is when someone takes from another who is unwilling to part with it.”
That is wrong on several levels, the most fundamental one being that it implies that incomes are somehow preordained, and redistribution by the action of the government would mean that it would be decreed that some incomes must decrease and some increase. Since the government does not directly control incomes, that is false.
The government, on the other hand, makes decision that affect the economy in many respects, and thus indirectly the incomes. But there is nothing new about that, it happens automatically and all the time. Even though the incomes are basically determined on a free market, the government policies, including tax policies, are a factor in the income distribution. If then, as it has been happening in recent years, the incomes of the top earners grow much faster than those of the middle class, it is quite appropriate for the government to take actions that would make changes in the policies and thus, indirectly, change this disparity and thus effect income redistribution.
getalife
September 21st, 2012
6:41 pm
Obama: ‘I Don’t See A Lot Of Victims In This Crowd Today’
“Now for some reason my opponent got very excited. He re-wrote his speech real quick. He stood up at a rally and proudly declared: ‘I will get the job done from the inside.’ What kind of inside job is he talking about? Is it the job of rubber-stamping the top-down, you’re-on-your-own agenda of this Republican Congress? Because if it is, we don’t want it. If it is the job of letting oil companies run our energy policies, we don’t want it. If it is the job of outsourcers running our tax code, we don’t want it. If it is the jobs of letting politicians decide who you can marry or control the health care choices that women should be able to make for themselves, we’ll take a pass. We don’t want an inside job in Washington. We want change in Washington.” Aol.
Our President answered every attack.
Hillbilly D
September 21st, 2012
6:43 pm
Is America in trouble no matter who wins the presidency?
In my opinion, yes. We’ve been whistling past the graveyard for at least 40 years. It’s roosting time for the chickens.
Bruno
September 21st, 2012
6:45 pm
Bruno,
WHY would you want to stir this pot of noodles?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQq6nVW_kaA
ld
September 21st, 2012
6:46 pm
Thisapt description of members of Congress explains why we are a nation in trouble:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbf_9UesVX8
George P. Burdell
September 21st, 2012
6:48 pm
I agree with the narrative you presented Kyle and I actually thought, and said to people, the same thing back in 2004. The one thing you didn’t mention that I think will have an even bigger impact is when the Fed tries to unwind QE3 along with the first 2. When that happens, its going to make 2008 look like a picnic. Whomever is in office will get blamed, but any reasonable person would realize it is because of Obama and Bernanke trying to juice things up now and failing miserably.
MarkV
September 21st, 2012
6:53 pm
Nobody can predict the future and therefore all this discussion Kyle has initiated about “what if” is amusing, but of little value. There is, however, one part of Kyle’s article, which one should reject on principle:
“In the next few years, one of two things will happen. Either Iran will develop a nuclear weapon, or Israel and the United States will forcibly stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”
There are other alternatives. Even if anyone considers any of them unlikely, to put the choice so absolutely is irresponsible.
Bruno
September 21st, 2012
6:58 pm
We’ve been whistling past the graveyard for at least 40 years.
HD–Careful now, or you’ll send JamVet into a frenzy.
For Jam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1C2lbGwcHE
yuzeyurbrane
September 21st, 2012
7:05 pm
Linda @ 6:18–I quote Linda referring earlier to EPA: “Obama is going around congress & ignoring the rule of law. . . .” Like I said, if you think EPA regulations violate the law you can take them to court and have regs voided. I don’t know whole history here but either critics did not sue or if they did they lost. Sorry, parsing “illegal” and “ignoring the rule of law” is like saying “it depends what the meaning of is is.” I find your constitutional analysis bizarre and not in accordance with over 200 years of Supreme Court case-law. If you don’t believe me, go ask your own lawyer. It is Constitutional Law 101. Believe it or not I also have many Republican friends, none of whom hate govt. but merely dislike it. But I have also known some conservatives who do hate govt. I base this on the normal interpretation of their words. I also have read many posts here which exhibit a blind hatred of govt. I suppose that if you adhere to a strict reading of the Constitution itself one could conduct the type of analysis you apparently engage in. Likewise, if you also believe the Bible is quite literal and unchanging in interpretation, one could disapprove of much of modern Christianity and Judaism. Actually, you would be entitled to those views and I would be the first to defend your right to espouse them. But I don’t think many people would agree on those points, certainly not as many as you may think. I hope this blog is giving you some useful exposure to views outside your circle.
Gravy Train
September 21st, 2012
7:06 pm
Kyle, we’re doing a great job killing Iran’s nukes without one boot hitting their soil. You see modern reactors require computers to work and there isn’t one computer alive that can’t be hacked. Simple solution, hack the computer, reactor fails. It’s already happened multiple times since Obama took office. That’s too simple for plutocrats and chicken hawks, they need those inflated defense contracts… How dare we let the people of Iran determine their own future?
Like shooting fish in a barrel LOL
Bruno
September 21st, 2012
7:07 pm
Mark V–Since it was revealed today that Romney paid an average annual effective tax rate of 20.2% the past 20 years, the same that Obama paid this year, what is the Lib narrative going to be now??
And exactly what have Obama and the Dems done to reverse the income disparity in our country since assuming power?? Other than make everyone poorer??
breakfastfor2
September 21st, 2012
7:10 pm
Simple question
If corporations are people, and many of the corporations pay no income tax, are they part of the 47%?
Bruno
September 21st, 2012
7:12 pm
Some more GFR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc_JcGuH5Z8