Obama in 2012 Could be Hoover in 1932: Toast

The following is in response to this article.
GUEST POINTS

RichM September 9th, 2009 12:31 pm
Hamsher's explanation of the "memory hole" and "yo-yo" mechanisms is delightfully accurate & perceptive.

However, her predictions that Obama won't escape his supporters' wrath; or will be a one-term president, if "'health care reform' turns into a massive bailout of the private insurance industry," -- on these points, Hamsher is probably wrong.

There's no doubt that health care reform will turn out to be a boondoggle for the insurance industry. But many Obama supporters will simply invent some self-deceiving rationalization for this. The main characteristic of Obama supporters is a capacity for self-deception.

Meanwhile, the question of whether Obama will be a one-term president won't be decided by the outcome of the health-care dispute. For one thing, they're going to put a clause in the final bill so that the "new plan" takes effect only AFTER the next election. So people won't have a chance to see how bad it really is, before they vote. // Furthermore, the issue is far too complicated for most Americans to understand. Most don't know the difference between "single payer," "the public option," and "health exchanges." Keeping the public confused about all this will be like taking candy from a baby.

As is standard for the US, the 2012 election will not be decided on rational grounds (such as the quality of health care reform). It will come down to some match-up of personalities. The public might well simply elect someone who excites them, like a Sarah Palin. They might vote for a General Petraeus, who could be marketed as a "strong man" and military "hero." Believing the public will vote as a sort of rational referendum on health care is giving the US public way too much credit. They'd sooner vote for someone who simply promises them easy riches, & offers a juicy scapegoat for public anger.

All true.

When there are discussions here at CD, they take place on a level well over the heads of the typical American. This is one of the reasons why the powers that be don’t really worry about what we say, by the way.

Although Rahm and Obama are cleverly putting the implementation of any health care regulation changes off until 2013, Obama is nonetheless automatically toast if there are no or virtually no net jobs created during his term, which is looking increasingly likely. He will definitely lose in 2012 under a no new jobs scenario whether or not there are any riots, mass demonstrations, or breadlines of the increasingly desperate masses, as there were in the 1930's.

Did Hoover have a chance in 1932? No, he did not; he was toast.

Obama is also automatically toast if the perception that he is a milquetoast and that he is politically weak gains permanent traction.

Obama is also automatically toast if the Taliban succeed at ramping up the body counts and/or at bringing down the Afghan government in Afghanistan.

For someone who has been in office for only about 8 months, it is notable how many scenarios there already are for Obama to be a lame duck in 2012.