Obama in 2012

Josh Marshall on Obama's chances in 2012:

People simply don't appreciate how seldom elected presidents get denied reelection. By my count, it's only happened three times in the last century. Carter, the first President Bush and Herbert Hoover. (If you come up with someone I'm missing I'll be terribly embarrassed. But please let me know.)

Actually, Josh is understating things. In general, Americans don't turf out parties from the White House in less than eight years. Hoover and Bush Sr. were both voted out after their party had held the presidency for 12 years.

The only exception to this rule in the past century is Jimmy Carter. There have been a couple of other close calls (Wilson in 1916, Bush Jr. in 2004), but that's it. 1980 is the only year in which a party got thrown out of the White House after only four years.

If the economy is in decent shape, Obama will win reelection. If it sucks, he's vulnerable. That's pretty much the shape of things.

Help!

I've lost two blog posts today. The first one was because I did something stupid. The second was because MoJo's blog software ate it. I'm tired of this.

So this is a plea for help. Can anyone recommend a good, simple Windows key logger? I don't need anything fancy, and I don't need to monitor other people's computers. Just my own. All I want is something that logs keystrokes to a file so that if I do something dumb, or the power goes out, or Drupal goes crazy, all I have to do is retrieve what I wrote from the log file and reconstruct it.

Any recommendations?

UPDATE: OK, I guess we can skip this. I'm already aware that writing in a different window would solve most of my problems with lost posts. For various reasons I prefer not to do this, but obviously it's an option.

Tab Mania

Dave Roberts tweets:

My great accomplishment yesterday was reducing the number of open tabs in my browser from 168 to 92.

I've read a lot of tab complaints like this over the years, but I've never quite understood them. Once you open up more than 20 or 30 tabs, there's not enough screen space to identify them even with a tiny icon (see below). So they're completely blank. Do people keep opening up tabs anyway, even though they're just tiny slivers that are totally unidentifiable? Or do they use add-ins of some kind that allow you to open lots of tabs but still retain some kind of minimal ID?

Just curious. Somehow I always feel like I'm missing something obvious when I read someone blogging or tweeting about this.

Ben Smith on the TSA backlash:

There's no doubt about who won on this issue: Matt Drudge chose it and drove it, illustrating both his continued power and his great sense of the public mood, and it now seems a matter of time until he gets results. But the moment is also, a smart Democrat notes, representative of how this administration (and to be fair, everyone in public life) continues to wrestle with "populism as narrated by the Drudge Report." There are some echoes of the Shirley Sherrod mess in the panicked, mixed reactions.

I know I'm totally off the reservation on this, which is a little weird since I'm usually a bit of a privacy crank. But I think liberals have been badly rolled on this. We're usually better about letting ourselves get sucked into the Drudge vortex.

From Tyler Cowen, on whether the TSA's new full body scanners are worth it:

Keep in mind there are significant negative externalities from exploding airplanes.

Don't you just love reading economist bloggers? In any case, there's more at the link, and Tyler suggests that if Americans really want to get outraged over something air related, they should get outraged over the "lack of markets in allocating scarce resources," and "airlines which ruthlessly screw you over, repeatedly, and lie to you and mistreat you." Roger that.

Blood in the Streets

Paul Krugman writes today about Alan Simpson's eagerness for a "bloodbath" when Republicans try to shut down the government next year:

How does this end? Mr. Obama is still talking about bipartisan outreach, and maybe if he caves in sufficiently he can avoid a federal shutdown this spring. But any respite would be only temporary; again, the G.O.P. is just not interested in helping a Democrat govern.

My sense is that most Americans still don’t understand this reality. They still imagine that when push comes to shove, our politicians will come together to do what’s necessary. But that was another country.

It’s hard to see how this situation is resolved without a major crisis of some kind. Mr. Simpson may or may not get the blood bath he craves this April, but there will be blood sooner or later. And we can only hope that the nation that emerges from that blood bath is still one we recognize.

Forecasting 2012

Good news for Barack Obama today! Um, sort of. Ray Fair has released a forecast of the 2012 presidential race based on his well-known political/econometric model, and he says Obama will win in a landslide.

That is, he'll win in a landslide if Ray Fair is also good at forecasting future economic growth:

It thus comes down to what the economy will be in the next two years, which is, of course, what the equations are all about. If the recovery is robust, which my economic model predicts will begin to happen in the middle of 2011, Obama wins easily. If the recovery is only modest, the election will be close, with an edge for the Republicans. If there is a double dip recession, Obama loses by a fairly large amount.

His topline forecast is that Obama wins 55.88% of the popular vote, which sounds reasonable for an incumbent president presiding over a robust economy. But if recovery is fairly flat, which is hardly out of the question, suddenly Republicans are favored to win the White House.

With that in mind, then, what was it we were saying yesterday about Republican incentives relative to the economy? Mitch McConnell made their priorities clear a few weeks ago, after all: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." If Ray Fair is to be believed, there's only one way for that to happen.

Dean Baker writes today about "several center-left blogger/columnists" — that's me! — who have suggested that "progressives should be happy to cut a deal now on Social Security and other issues related to the budget." But he says that's wrong. The real problem is that we need to rescue the economy today:

More than 25 million people are unemployed, underemployed, or have given up looking for work altogether. For most of these people, every day is a struggle to support their family and hold onto their home. The projections do not show any substantial improvement in this situation for years.

The priority for policy must be getting people back to work....Remember, these people are unemployed not because they did anything wrong, but because people like Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and others in policymaking positions messed up on their jobs.

Following directly off this point, it is amazing how right in front of our own eyes, the Wall Street gang has managed to divert the public's attention from the wreckage caused by their greed and incompetence to the "entitlement problem" (i.e. Social Security and Medicare). This is the moment where we should be looking to restructure and downsize the financial industry.

I agree almost entirely. My main disagreement is over Social Security, where I wish I could persuade progressives that a deal to shore up its finances now — while privatization is largely off the table — would be good both for Social Security itself and for the liberal project more generally. But in today's atmosphere I can understand why that's a hard sell.

But here's the thing on Dean's broader point. I've been a registered Democrat since I was 18. And I completely agree that our economic priority right now ought to be a huge dose of fiscal stimulus. Unfortunately, it seems pointless to waste my breath on that argument. We have a Democrat in the White House and he's not making that argument. The Democratic leadership in Congress isn't making it either. If they were, the Blue Dogs in my party wouldn't support higher spending anyway and it would die. And even if the Blue Dogs came around, Republicans would block it.

So should I keep screaming into the void about fiscal stimulus even though it's obviously not going to happen? Probably. But without help from anyone in the party I call home, it's pretty hard to maintain the energy for endless amounts of quixotic blogging.

In other words, I'm frustrated. No. That's not nearly strong enough. I spend most of my time just seething whenever I think about this. Especially because of what Dean says in the final paragraph I quoted: we're where we are because Republicans put us here. But no one cares. We're still letting them call the shots.

The facts of the past decade are pretty clear, after all. George Bush inherited an uncommonly vigorous economy from Bill Clinton: growth was high, business was booming, wages were growing, and the federal government was running a surplus. This ended in 2001, but it ended with one of the mildest and shortest recessions on record and provided Bush with a chance to fully apply Republican orthodoxy to the economy: multiple rounds of tax cuts, light regulation, and the most business friendly atmosphere from the White House imaginable. The result was catastrophic. The Republican expansion from 2001 through 2007 was the weakest since World War II: productivity and GDP gains were mediocre, employment growth was weak, and wages were stagnant. Only corporate profits prospered. And this period of historically weak growth was ended by a financial disaster worse than any since the Great Depression. That's the Republican legacy of the aughts: a strong economy turned first anemic and then completely crippled. Welcome to Washington, President Obama.

It simply beggars imagination that Republicans and the business community have managed to make everyone forget this so soon. But they have. And so instead of talking about how big a stimulus package we should pass, we're talking about cutting off unemployment benefits, reducing federal spending, insisting that states tighten their belts, retaining tax cuts for the rich, and halting the scourge of "regulatory uncertainty." It's just mind boggling.

And yet, that's where we are. And I'm really not sure what to do about it.

Back in August, Stan Collender said that for cynical electoral reasons Republicans were likely to oppose any action to improve the economy:

It’s not at all clear [] whether Bernanke realizes that the same political pressure that has brought fiscal policy to a standstill in Washington is very likely to be applied to the Fed if it decides to move forward. With Republican policymakers seeing economic hardship as the path to election glory this November, there is every reason to expect that the GOP will be equally as opposed to any actions taken by the Federal Reserve that would make the economy better.

On Monday, Matt Yglesias chimed in, suggesting that the White House needed to be prepared for "deliberate economic sabotage" from Republicans. On Friday, after taking note of recent Republican attacks on the Fed's quantitative easing program, Paul Krugman agreed:

The core reason for the attack on the Fed is self-interest, pure and simple. China and Germany want America to stay uncompetitive; Republicans want the economy to stay weak as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House.

Steve Benen collected these quotes today and added his concurrence: "We're talking about a major political party," he said, "possibly undermining the strength of the country — on purpose, in public, without apology or shame — for no other reason than to give themselves a campaign advantage in 2012."

Strong statements! But here's what's really remarkable: virtually no one in any position of authority has picked up on this since Collender first suggested it. On the Republican side, practically everyone from the party leaders on down is thoroughly convinced that Barack Obama is one or more of: a socialist, an appeaser, a Chicago thug, a racist, a would-be killer of grandmas, and a president who wants to undermine everything that makes America great because he's ashamed of his country. This is just standard rhetoric from Fox News pundits, radio show hosts, rank-and-file members of Congress, and party poobahs. It's hardly even noteworthy anymore.

But the mirror image of that — Democrats saying that Republicans are deliberately sabotaging economic recovery — is virtually invisible. Krugman finally said it yesterday, but that's it among high-profile liberal leaders. For the most part they're just not willing to go there. This, in a nutshell, is the difference between the conservative noise machine and the liberal noise machine. One is noisy, the other is....restrained. We'll see if that changes now that Krugman has brought his cannons to bear.

POSTSCRIPT: For what it's worth, my own view isn't that Republicans are consciously trying to sabotage the economy. Rather, I think it's really easy to convince yourself of things that are in your own self-interest, and that's mostly what they've done. A bad economy is in their self-interest, so they've convinced themselves that every possible policy to improve things is a bad idea.

Of course, excuses like that from mushballs like me are the reason the liberal noise machine is sort of anemic in the first place.

On the left, Domino peers suspiciously at the camera while enjoying a warm day under a beautiful azure sky. On the right, Inkblot plays games with the camera while skulking around in the garden. Currently, he's doing his skulking a couple of houses away, safely distant from all the carpet installation and floorboard renovation currently being done on his house. He doesn't get it, though. The floor doesn't squeak when he walks on it, so what's the problem?