I've written about this before, and I'd like to explain my current thoughts, especially after UpstateDem's controversial diary yesterday predicting an Obama defeat in 2012.
I won't rehash all the details of my argument, but let's just say it would be most unusual for a president who was elected in a landslide while the opposition party was in power to lose reelection. In fact, it has never happened before, unless you count the 1856 election where the party leaders refused to renominate their incumbent, at a time when candidates weren't chosen by the public.
At only three points in history have there been situations of a party controlling the White House for no more than four years. In none of them had the incumbent been elected in a landslide. The first was Polk's term, where the incumbent declined to run again due to failing health; the second was the Cleveland-Harrison debacle of 1888 and 1892, which involved an Electoral College fluke; and the third was Jimmy Carter's fateful single term. It's no wonder Obama's opponents try to raise the specter of Carter, but I need to emphasize how unusual that situation is.
Even Bush managed to win a second term even though he had an approval rating below 50 percent, and he hadn't even won the popular vote the first time around.
The objection I usually hear is that these patterns may be coincidental, and that factors such as the economy are more important in determining who wins and who loses. Yet I think these patterns point to some larger truths. Economic problems like what we're experiencing now do not usually persist for four years, and when they have, as in the Great Depression, the president who inherited it was reelected in one of the greatest landslides ever.
Some have argued that Obama may turn out to be less like FDR than like Hoover. But Hoover was from the party that had controlled the White House for eight years before he came to office. The public was poised to throw that party out, regardless of the particular candidate. And remember that the crash happened on his watch.
Much of this discussion hinges on the popular belief that economic realities overshadow political ones. Almost everyone recognizes that Obama is a highly skillful politician. The pessimists simply think that the Obama magic will either wear off or prove insufficient four years from now, should the economy remain in the toilet.
I believe that Obama's political skills and personal popularity should not be underestimated. Outside of the loon base, even Obama's detractors generally admire the qualities he brings to the presidency. (See, for example, David Brooks's recent column about Obama's "dignity.") Even when his job approval ratings decline, voters may still feel comfortable with him in office.
Comfort with the incumbent is exactly the pattern I have discerned from the historical examples. Comfort with a charismatic and politically skillful incumbent who inherited a disaster from the most unpopular administration since the birth of public polling should make Obama practically unstoppable in 2012. And that's not even considering the state of the Republicans.