This week, the National Journal poll of political bloggers moves to a new spot on the NJ website, “The Hotline Blogometer.” Besides the weekly poll, the Blogometer contains a daily report on what leading liberal and conservative political bloggers are writing about the controversies of the moment. In this week’s poll, bloggers were asked “On a scale of 0 to 10, what’s the likelihood that Congress will pass health care reform?” Based on the information that was available in the earlier part of this week, the Left answered 7.8, while the Right said 5.6. Which is not terribly far apart.
I voted for 5, and wrote “In May 1994, President Clinton used the full force of his office to convince House Democrats to drive their majority off a cliff, by enacting a ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ (ordinary firearms with cosmetically incorrect features). President Obama and House leadership seem determined to repeat a similar mistake, except on a much greater scale.”
Question 2 asked the Left “Is Tim Kaine an asset or a liability as DNC chairman?” The Right was asked about Michael Steele and the RNC. On both sides, only 31% voted for “asset.” The only writer who had anything good to say about Michael Steele was me: “Probably some of each. Still having trouble understanding that his job is to help the team, not to be the star.”
Finally, the bloggers were asked if Obama would be a one-term President. Thirty-one percent on the Left, and 71 percent on the Right thought so. Of course it’s far too early to predict with any confidence, but perhaps it would be accurate to say that his current chances for re-election are in the 30–70% range. He’s far from doomed, but not looking particularly solid right now either. I guessed the one-term would be the more likely result: “He will have plenty of opportunities in 2011–2012 to change his current self-destructive course. But it seems more likely that he will double down on his failures and his policies, which alienate the majority of the American people.”
Borris says:
As anyone will tell you the only reason Obama could be a one term President is because of “straight up racism”
Quote
March 18, 2010, 9:36 pmBruce Hayden says:
I think that health care “reform” could be the issue that defeats him in 2012. The problem is that the pain will kick in immediately, but the gain (if there is one) won’t until after the 2012 election. And, even if the Republicans could pass repeal legislation before then, he would be in a position to veto it. Plus, there just aren’t enough vulnerable Democrats running this year for the Republicans to have a good chance at retaking the Senate. So, the battle cry in 2012 is likely to be repealing health care “reform” by the Republicans, and replacing President Obama is required to do that.
Quote
March 18, 2010, 9:44 pmSteve says:
I suspect that “repealing health care reform” will be a Republican primary issue, not a general election issue.
Quote
March 18, 2010, 9:54 pmBlue says:
It depends, Steve, on how many middle/upper income voters get kicked off their employers health insurance and take it in the shorts in the exchanges with no subsidy.
Quote
March 18, 2010, 10:25 pmorca says:
All signs point to a booming economy during the 2012 campaign. I’d put Obama’s chances of a second term somewhere north of 90%.
Quote
March 18, 2010, 10:26 pmrpt says:
And the victims will be told not to blame the insurance companies doing the kicking.
Quote
March 18, 2010, 10:35 pmBruce Hayden says:
We shall see. The economy should be rebounding, but with the fiscal policy that Obama has been following, it sure hasn’t happened yet, and many believe that his fiscal policies are anti-growth. So, if they are right, and you are wrong, not being completely out of the current recession I think is likely to hurt his reelection chances immensely.
Quote
March 18, 2010, 10:37 pmEarly Bird says:
I see absolutely no value in these polls of bloggers. I read these posts by Kopel for a while, and I never learned anything I didn’t already know. Righties hate Obama, lefties love him. Righties think HCR will be bad for Dems, lefties disagree. Duh. I have basically stopped reading these posts, I just wanted to ask, does anyone (other than Kopel and, I guess, the people who do the polling) think these polls have any value at all?
Quote
March 18, 2010, 10:44 pmCornellian says:
He’s far from doomed, but not looking particularly solid right now either. I guessed the one-term would be the more likely result: “He will have plenty of opportunities in 2011–2012 to change his current self-destructive course. But it seems more likely that he will double down on his failures and his policies, which alienate the majority of the American people.”
I think you’re suffering from the usual pundit myopia about these issues. If the economy in 2012 is significantly better than it is now, Obama will be unbeatable, as incumbent presidents usually are in those circumstances. If the economy is as bad as it is today, or worse, he will be vulnerable. Either way, the public isn’t going to care about arcane process issues like “deem and pass.”
Quote
March 18, 2010, 10:59 pmorca says:
The U.S. economy grew at 5.9% last quarter.
Quote
March 18, 2010, 11:03 pmG. May says:
So this is what you meant by “all signs”?
Personally, I think Early Bird is correct — in other news: Water Is Wet.
Quote
March 18, 2010, 11:17 pmorca says:
Faith-based policies hasn’t worked out so well for the Republicans these past couple of elections...but by all means keep believing economy isn’t recovering.
Quote
March 18, 2010, 11:27 pmKat says:
Of course, we know that there will be no “gain”. There is no practical way to manufacture one and the deadweight loss from all of the coming taxes won’t help the economy either.
I encourage everyone to put pressure on the Democrats to vote “no”. He’s losing support among even the most liberal in his party over this (which was a pretty big surprise to me — they were building shrines to him 8 months ago). They’re going to get slaughtered in November if they don’t vote this down. Personally, I don’t care how many terms he has as long as he doesn’t have a congress willing to go along with whatever his imperial highness desires.
Call, fax, email, show up in D.C. and show them the American people are still the boss. You have so much more to lose by not making the time to counter Obama’s and Pelosi’s pressure.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 12:02 amConstantin says:
2004 was a Gilded Age (so was thought) compared to anything that can be supposed to happen in 2012, and Bush was 50k Ohio votes away from losing to two guys their own party didn’t even care for.
You are sorely underestimating the anger Barack is engendering amongst independent voters. Look at any poll, it’ll tell you. Or just ask some people you know who aren’t into this stuff as much as we are.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 12:14 amvic5 says:
kool aid kid
Quote
March 19, 2010, 12:30 amlgm says:
I don’t agree with what you say are the causes of the Democratic loss of 1994. It wasn’t gun control (which was popular). It was the tax increase that eventually led to a budget surplus, together with the fiasco on health care reform. Then too there were ethics scandals for Democratic Congressmen that make Massa and Rangel look like Boy Scouts.
Today, health care reform is about to happen, taxes are not going up, and corruption is bipartisan.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 12:34 amgeokstr says:
Especially if they campaign on also refunding all those “fines”, fees, charges, and taxes being assessed between passage and 2012 to make this magically look “deficit-neutral” in the first decade.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 12:36 amPeople Republic of Both Side says:
Both side critical of party chairs.
Why does this sound like it was written for the People’s Daily?
Quote
March 19, 2010, 1:10 amorca says:
Says the guy who’ll have to pretend to be excited as corporate manikin Mitt Romney dances his way through the 2012 Republican primaries.
Watch out, Obama!
Quote
March 19, 2010, 1:10 amthinkstrategically says:
The federal reserve projects that the unemployment rate will be between 6.8 and 7.5% in 2012.
Unemployment rate in November 1992, when GHWB was ousted due to a poor economy: 7.1%
Quote
March 19, 2010, 4:12 amleo marvin says:
Just got word from Merriam-Webster: Endlessly lame attempts to link Obama with racism are now officially known as “straight up Borrisisms.”
Congratulations, Borris. You earned it dude!
Quote
March 19, 2010, 5:05 amBrett Bellmore says:
I don’t think it’s the same mistake. First, we’d almost certainly still be saddled with the ‘assault weapon’ ban, if it hadn’t had that sunset provision; Anything like that in the health care ‘reform’ bill?
Second, the gun ban did nothing to help improve the long term position of the Democrats. The health care bill, by strengthening the hand of government, probably does strengthen the Democratic party; As their center of power is in the government, anything that boosts the government relative to the private sector improves their position.
It might cost them seats for a couple of elections, but they’re planing on trading that loss for an essentially permanent shift in the ‘house odds’ their way. That’s not a mistake, that’s an investment.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 6:55 amA. Zarkov says:
If you really believe that then you should be buying stocks, and perhaps even real estate. The last quarter growth in 2009 was mostly inventory restoration, which is not a strong signal. For most people it’s too soon to really tell about the future prospects for the American economy. You could be right, but you could be wrong too. We have wait for at least 3 quarters of non-inventory driven growth.
Let’s also remember that unemployment is the big driver for Obama’s re-election. Even a general recovery in employment might not help him if it’s uneven in the wrong way. His base consists of mainly of blacks, Hispanics, Jews, young unmarried women, school teachers, academics and the media people. It doesn’t much matter if the economy and employment in California recovers because he has that state almost no matter what. He’s got to keep most the block consisting of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Colorado and South Carolina to win. So employment must be pretty good in these states 2012 for that to happen.
Predicting 2012 is a lot more complicated than looking at growth in a single or even two quarters.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 8:21 amuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post...
This post was mentioned on Twitter by VolokhC: Bloggers: Both side critical of party chairs. Disagree somewhat, but not entirely, on health care chances, and Oba... http://bit.ly/cFbScb...
glopes says:
So... Obama and Congress should not pursue their agenda because it will likely cost them the re-election/seats? Their main objective should be the perpetuation of power? Or the correctness of the policies is proportional to their popularity?
Either way, this post seems to rely on a perverse hypothesis.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 9:25 amG. May says:
I had hoped for a bit more of a substantive explanation, but that’s clearly expecting a bit much from one of VC’s resident trolls.
Echoing A. Zarkov’s response, we’ll have to wait and see before making such bold predictions as “all” indicators showing a “booming” economy. Adding to his comment, The spike we saw last quarter was also heavily influenced by the auto industry which was clearly manipulated by the federal government with that silly Cash for Clunkers program. Other indicators such as unemployment, real unemployment (you remember, that statistic the media used to hammer Bush about when it was much lower than what it is now?), federal receipts, the new and existing homes markets, real estate in general, and the surprisingly underreported, yet titanically significant fact that all those toxic assets which helped get us in the mess we’re in right now are still festering out there.
So, all indicators? Really? Care to stop trolling for one moment on this blog and back that up? Because I’d like to see something positive for once. I genuinely hope the economy rebounds, but not for the sake of Obama’s Presidency (I’m apparently one of the few that doesn’t buy into the silly notion that the President is responsible for the economy). If things have rebounded by the time the election rolls around, I’m sure his chances will improve dramatically, though your estimate of >90% I believe is simple fantasy. Unless of course you can back that up too.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 9:28 amSarcastro says:
[<3 Borris.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 9:37 amGuy says:
Wait, so if X% of a group A says that Y is true, then that means that group A has reached a consensus that Y is X% likely to be true? I don’t think statistics work that way. You could divide those polled into two groups to get an “upper” and a “lower” estimate at pretty much wherever you want, so long as you can divide freely.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 9:51 amGuy says:
Wasn’t that what it was supposed to do? The government having an effect on the economy doesn’t count unless it was done by accident? You could argue the spike was transient, or not worthwhile, but that it doesn’t count because they were trying to fix the economy on purpose when they did it?
Quote
March 19, 2010, 9:55 amorca says:
Those of us who had faith in Obama’s economic policies have already ‚made over 50% in the stock market.
The Chicken Little’s will have had to settle for what, the 1% a year their bank is paying?
Quote
March 19, 2010, 10:54 amrarango says:
A couple of thoughts: the blogger poll is interesting but probably irrelevant only because (I think) that bloggers opinions reflect their underlying political ideology. That bloggers reflect the larger population seem to me to be problematic.
Second, I agree with those who suggest it is far to early to be assessing Mr Obama’s chances for relection. Far too much can happen in the next two years and many of those possibilities are relative immune from the ability of the administration to influence.
I will become more attentive in the summer of 2011 and see what is happening them.
These kind of polls are simply navel gazing.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 11:05 amG. May says:
I never said the government couldn’t have an effect on the economy. I just think it remains to be seen whether or not it’s “fixing” the economy and I’m nowhere near convinced a sharp spike in one quarter’s GDP is adequate evidence. Asserting so is about as compelling as concluding that Obama’s economic policies are responsible for the returns in the stock market. (Not saying you’re the one making that argument of course.)
Quote
March 19, 2010, 11:10 amilbob says:
I am not buying the theory that the economy is improving. The trillions of dollars wasted on bail outs was bound to have some collateral effect. But at some point we are all going to be paying for those bail outs.
I suspect the misery index days of the Carter administration are not too far off.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 12:04 pmorca says:
And the trillions of dollars wasted on Iraq and Afghanistan?
Quote
March 19, 2010, 12:05 pmA. Zarkov says:
Does that include you? Did you personally buy stocks because you thought Obama was going to improve the economy?
I’m not a fan of the idea that any president let alone this one can improve an economy on anything but a temporary basis. Remove all the deficit spending and the economy sags again. That’s what happened to Japan. It also happened to the U.S. in the 1930s. This is not an offbeat idea. Most economists think FDR spending did little to improve the economy. They think going off the full gold standard to a partial gold standard along with a currency devaluation was more helpful.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 12:46 pmorca says:
Yep...bought a wad of Microsoft when it was down at $15/share
Maybe, but presidents are going to get blamed when the economy is bad so they may as well take credit when the American economy is booming, as it is now.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 12:52 pmPlanning a Graduation Party | says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Bloggers: Both side … [...]
yankee says:
The 10% of Americans who are unemployed are likely to disagree with that assessment. The rate of growth of GDP is increasing but that isn’t the only standard to measure the economy by.
People’s reactions to the state of the economy aren’t determined by statistics and abstractions. They’re determined by the direct effects the economy is having on their lives and their community.
Hopefully unemployment will go down faster than most analysts expect, but if unemployment is still at 10% despite a roaring GDP, voters will not be happy (and rightly so!)
Quote
March 19, 2010, 3:20 pmorca says:
Employment has always been a trailing statistic in economic recoveries...and the party that’s out of power always tries to make political hay with it.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 5:14 pmA. Zarkov says:
I don’t know how you define “booming,” and I don’t think we are in one under any reasonable definition. If the economy were really “booming” people would be getting jobs and new businesses would be opening up.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 7:02 pmA. Zarkov says:
MSFT hit a low of $14.87 on March 6, 2009 after opening and closed at $15.28. If you bought at $15 you must have purchased between March 3 and March 10. That means you had almost perfect timing, which is virtually impossible to do except by pure luck.
Quote
March 19, 2010, 7:14 pmplzz4 says:
ladies and gentlemen, in order to thanks for our company ( h t t p://w w w.p l z z s h o p.c o m/ )new and order costomers,my boss make a determind that you can get a best discount and a free gift if you shall buy something from our company this month. i hope you may buy something early from our company. so stay tuned!!! im looking forward to your early place an order. (h t t p://w w w.p l z z s h o p.c o m/ ) Following are some of the famous brands that we can supply: 1. Footwear: all brand name sport shoes, children shoes, EVA clogs, beach slipper, climbing shoes, canvas shoes, Kid shoes, etc. 2. Apparel: all brands Tag T-shirts, shirts, coat, jacket, hoody, Jeans, shorts, Children Clothing, Baby Clothing, underwear, etc. 3. Accessories: All brands Handbags, Wallets, Purse, Sunglasses, Watches, Caps, BIKINI, Hair straightener, etc. We sincerely find serious partners and establish a long-term business relationship. Please email us freely at any time and we are on the service for you, if you are interested in our products, please contact us ! h t t p://w w w.p l z z s h o p.c o m/ finally,i wish you happy every day and lucky forever.
t
Quote
March 20, 2010, 8:25 amnoahp says:
Obama:
1. Not likable
2. Economic policies are anti-growth
3. Foreign policy is a disaster
4. Bush tax cuts will expire and Obamacare taxes
5. Ongoing mega-deficits may result in USA credit downgrade
6. Significant risk of default in CA even if the economy improves due to structural deficits
7. Permanent rage if Obamacare passes
I could go on.
Zero chance of reelection.
Quote
March 20, 2010, 12:48 pmSarcastro says:
Love this phrase.
Also, don’t count out ACORN, or the Old Gods Obama has been sacrificing to!
Quote
March 20, 2010, 1:02 pmEric says:
Stock market needs to start valuing sustainability. For instance tar oil sands resolution: make the beaches cleaner when you’re finished. If industry leaves behind a cleaner environment, then they should be rewarded.
Quote
March 30, 2010, 10:04 amcritical illness unemployment cover says:
Very good blog. First-time I’ve discovered it. I am just into critical disease tips and also common info. Will probably see once more.
Quote
May 14, 2010, 12:36 pm