Tweet
(photo: Jay Tamboli)
When the news broke last night that Osama bin Laden had been killed in an American special forces raid, some of the instant reaction on twitter and elsewhere was that President Obama just won his 2012 reelection contest. While we are almost assured to see a spike in Obama’s job approval numbers, the actual direct affect of this one event on an election a full 18 months from now should be modest.
After all, President George H.W. Bush’s approval ratings went sky high after the first Gulf War, but that still didn’t stop him from losing his re-election thanks to a weak economy. The state of the economy is still almost always the decider of elections.
Recent polling makes the point well. As much as people wanted bin Laden captured or killed, the most recent NYT/CBS News poll found that only four percent of Americans ranked the wars as the most important problem facing the country right now, and “terrorism” didn’t even register. The reality is that, on a day-to-day level, Osama wasn’t affecting most Americans’ lives the way the pressing issue of unemployment is. That is why jobs and the economy are still by far the top issues with Americans.
This isn’t to say it will have no positive political influence on Obama’s re-election.
Killing bin Laden is an accomplishment Obama can point to. It should make it harder for Republicans to attack his foreign policy credibility, or at least give Obama a good snappy comeback to any such attack.
But, more importantly, will be how this killing influences other decisions that will affect 2012.
I think how the moment moves coming events will have a bigger political impact than this “victory” for Obama. It is possible the spike in Obama’s approval numbers could convince some possible Republican hopefuls, like Mike Huckabee, to choose not to enter the Republican primary. Similarly, Obama’s appearance of electoral strength due to increased popularity could make some GOP donors more reluctant to give at this time, hitting primary candidates with lower name recognition, like Tim Pawlenty.
If Obama wants it to, this moment could be used as a great justification to push for a shift in American foreign policy. In theory, this would be a good time to push for quickly ending the unpopular war in Afghanistan or reducing the deficit by ending old-fashioned military spending not suited for modern conflicts.
This spike in approval could also, just in general, improve Obama’s hand in negotiations with House Republicans, resulting in better deals.
While helpful in no way did this one moment win Obama his re-election.
Electorates tend to have short memories. In the next 18 months, I can assure you more important pressing issues, likely economic, will come to dominate voters’ decision-making process. But this does perhaps provide Obama an opening and a useful burst of political capital. If he uses that wisely, this could be an important pivot point to build upon to get actual changes that would really have meaning for 2012.
24 Comments
I’m going to disagree. I can’t dismiss the effect this event will have on widening the perception of base competency between the current President and any Republican contender. This extends beyond the GOP’s “Keeping American Safe” frame to the respective parties’ ability to protect American’s pocketbooks. Not so much a boost to Obama, but a soaking wet blanket on the Republicans.
the date from past elections shows that it is almost always the state of the economy that is by far the most important factor. Even with this bad economy still means Obama loses, Even without this great economy Obama wins. Some where in the middle this could just might make a small difference in a very close race.
Republicans won’t vote for Obama for any reason.
Killing someone is not going to energize the base. This just isn’t an issue for a lot of people.
It might attract a few of the swing voters. However, it’s too long until the election to matter.
So, I agree with your premise. This will result in a short-term bounce which will prove useful in getting his security team nominations approved. It may also help in debt ceiling negotiations (though I’m not sure what “help” may imply).
By the end of the summer, this poll bump will be gone.
If anything, it may have hindered Obama’s re-election, by giving Mitt Romney the opportunity to show why he, and not Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, or Michele Bachmann, deserves the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. Since Obama’s strategy has been to try and keep Romney from entering the race (and thus to make sure that only persons incapable of winning a general election have a shot at the GOP 2012 ticket), this really is a long-term blow to that strategy. (Of course, the GOP base could still save Obama and go with one of the crazies. They seem to be utterly allergic to sanity, much less morality.)
Romney was one of the few 2012 presidential candidates to give full credit to Obama for the raid. Bachmann, Palin et al, in commenting on the raid, refused to even mention Obama’s name, much less give him credit.
Furthermore, the timing was all wrong to give Obama or the Democrats an effective boost. As you say, boosts from these sorts of things have a very short duration, one measured in weeks. If he’d done it when bin Laden’s Abbotabaid location was first confirmed back in August, that might have helped save the House and a few state legislatures in November. And if he’d waited until, say, August of 2012 — just in time to squish the Republican National Convention — it would have been politically helpful to him and the Democrats. (In fact, being that OBL had apparently been at the compound since 2005, there was no indication he was going to pack up and leave any time soon, so waiting until August of 2012 was likely an option for Obama.)
Crazy innit? R’s like Cheney kept sayin ‘deficits don’t matter’ and now D’s are saying Obama will improve his standing on foreign policy with war ‘victories’. Both are saying the exact opposite of what they normally say.
Meanwhile bloomberg reports that Chertoff group et al are all crowing, ‘it’s not over til it’s over’, so the psy ops boosters aren’t missing the beat.
If bin Laden had been caught immediately following 9/11, that would have been significant.
Most likely, his death will have the same impact as the capture of Saddam Hussein, i.e., very little.
http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/5240-getting-rich-from-the-naked-body-scanners
Of course, Chertoff is saying that. Osama bin Laden – and the boogus fear generated about him – caused Cheroff to get rich, rich, rich offa US taxpayer dollah$$. Naturally Chertoff doesn’t want the FEAR factor to go away anytime soon.
As I’ve been saying all day: whether ObL was killed or not recently, WHAT, exactly, has changed??
Agree. There may be some marginal “bumps” for Obama, but then: not much.
The crazed 27 – 30% will never vote for Obama, no matter what. The Indies/swing voters? A small percentage may be influenced positively towards Obama, but will those positive feelings still be there in 2012, esp if the economy is still doing poorly and jobs are scarce? Doubtful.
here’s another bloomberg clip with still another Chertoff Group rep saying ‘risk of terror still large’ talking over vid of newyork celebrant crowd
Before the Bin Laden Assassination:
Under the Patriot Act, the US Government can dissappear any citizen at any time for no reason. No right to Habeus Corpus. No right To Trial By Jury of Your Peers.
After the Bin Laden Assassination:
Ditto!*
H/T Rush Limbaugh’s Dittoheads
Wait, since Osama’s dead we can let Bradley Manning go, right? With Al Qaeda having no operational figurehead they’re no longer a threat, right? So Bradley didn’t allegedly disclose any information to any enemy, right?
Cause, ya know, the enemy is dead, right?
Again- my point is not about Rs voting D, nor is it about O’s net approval; one would be foolish to suggest this will have any lasting effect. However, I simply can’t believe this will not have a lasting, visceral effect of bolstering O’s RELATIVE advantage of PERCEIVED BASE COMPETENCY to swings voting their pocketbooks. I apologize for screaming, but some here appear like they didn’t want to read that.
I can’t think of any single, isolated, event (ie, not a decreased trend in unemployment) that helps O v any R in answering “Whom do you trust more to_______?” Apocryphal story alert: my conservative co-workers a losing their shit over this, and I’m fairly certain its not because O scored a perceived political victory by Making ‘Merica Safe, but because he scored a perceived political victory by simply getting an undeniable tangible result.
Have to agree with nslander, and for the same reasons. And I would like to throw in another reason. Obama will have lots of money for election and he has a very good P/R network, There are a lot of people who will see the death of OBL as a historical event, and this will carry over to the election if for no other reason than the repubs have been trying for 10yrs to get OBL and a democrat is the one who finally got him (if you believe that it was really OBL in the first place, but that is a whole different subject). Throw in Obama’s P/R network, and this might just be enough to carry the day, especially given the repubs candidates.
Food for thought.
In before “I’d rather elect a Republican than that sellout!”
FDL has doesn’t its best to undermine Obama from day one, why would this day be any different? You know he’ll win so you can keep up your self-righteous whining for FOUR MORE YEARS!
I have to agree with nslander and AngryB that this will help BO next year. It will be his trump card used by him indrectly to show he protects ‘mericans and he keeps his word about getting evil doers!
No. Obama is the one that undermined himself. By proving himself to be a liar and a hypocrite and a sellout. Why do trolls like you even bother coming here exactly?
I actually doubt this will help the current criminal in chief as many people dont even remember who OBL is/was or what he had to do with anything. I personally cant even remember myself. Plus gas prices will quickly make people forget as will the economy and health care and the fact that the banking criminals still have yet to be brought to justice.
I’ll tell you why, I spent 5 years here before I couldn’t stomach it any more. You like me better now?
raven is not a troll.
There is no GOP presidential aspirant lacking the shame to say, “Why hasn’t Obama got Osama yet?” during the 2012 goat rodeo, notwithstanding Bush’s failure in twice as much time. So, removing that dubious arrow from the GOP’s quiver is advantage Obama, I suppose.
But I don’t think any opposed to Obama’s re-election are going to say 18 months from now, “Well, he got bin Laden, so I better vote for him!” There are plenty of other things can go seriously wrong abroad (or at home, heaven forfend) between now and then.
I agree, though, Jon: it’s the economy, always, for American voters. And our economy’s underpinnings are increasingly dependent on Forever War.
Hi Raven.
I look at this from a different direction. If Carter had succeeded in getting the hostages out of Iran, he would have won in 1980, no questions asked. Osama’s assassination came a bit early in the cycle, but you have to gather ye rosebuds when they are in bloom. Advantage Obama. None of this will matter if the unemployment rate rises again (or just stays where it is), and the Thugs can mount a credible candidate, which seems less and less likely.