Today Barack Obama turns 49 years old, but it is time to celebrate
.
Alessandro Tapparini
.
When the forty-nine today Barack Obama will blow the candles on his second presidential birthday cake, photographers will have their work cut out for not framing the dark clouds that gather in the background. Missing Only three months after the midterm elections, and it seems that the Republicans are going to regain control of the entire Congress, not just the House but also in the Senate.
The mid-term elections to elect serve all Members and one third of senators. In fact, however, is at stake is above the White House, and because the parliament that emerges determine the limits of his power in the years to follow, both because the outcome of the election is seen as a referendum to determine whether two years by the election of the president believes people feel better or worse. It goes without saying, therefore, that when the economy goes bad the blow is guaranteed for the ruling party.
Larry J. Saturday, political scientist revered the University of Virginia, argues that if Democrats were to vote today it would come out bleeding from a hemorrhage of thirty seats in the House and Senate 6:00 to 7:00: such as that suffered by George W. Bush at the height of his unpopularity, in November 2006. Obama would thus become, in record time, from the most celebrated president in decades to "lame duck".
Of course, Bill Clinton in 1994, despite having been elected just two years ago with a triumphant majority (Bush's father had inflicted on the fourth worst electoral defeat ever reported by an outgoing President, although in part thanks to the candidacy of billionaire contractor Texan Ross Perot), suffered its first midterm a defeat that marked irrevocably the presidency: the Republicans won less than 54 seats in the House and eight in the Senate. Clinton, however, whether he saw with the opposition in great shape, led by a leader tostissimo (Newt Gingrich) and has a focused and coherent program (the "Contract with America"), so much so that that campaign is remembered none that as Republican Revolution.
Obama instead benefit from a divided opposition and flaky, and totally devoid of leadership for the debacle would not have predicted then mitigating circumstances. According
Saturday, the Democrats have a single precedent in which to rebuild. In 1982, Ronald Reagan was testing his popularity two years after the Republicans not only win the White House but also many seats in parliament and even the majority in the Senate, where opposition had been a quarter of a century. The continuing economic downturn (with unemployment at around 10%, just like today) suggests a catastrophe for the party of the president. Republicans scale campaign of television commercials played on the slogan "Come on, let's give him a chance" ( Let's give the guy a chance ), as was talking to kids eager, reassuring them relying on the keystone of rhetoric Reagan: optimism. The disaster was averted. In November, the newly elected Democrats were fifty-seven well, while Republicans were only twenty-four, but only the Republicans lost 26 seats in the House, less than half of those predicted, and miraculously did not lose a single seat in the Senate, indeed they won one more. And 'this' is the only case in modern times "- emphasizes Saturday - that in times of economic crisis, the ruling party obtained a" half victory "at midterm.
The mid-term elections to elect serve all Members and one third of senators. In fact, however, is at stake is above the White House, and because the parliament that emerges determine the limits of his power in the years to follow, both because the outcome of the election is seen as a referendum to determine whether two years by the election of the president believes people feel better or worse. It goes without saying, therefore, that when the economy goes bad the blow is guaranteed for the ruling party.
Larry J. Saturday, political scientist revered the University of Virginia, argues that if Democrats were to vote today it would come out bleeding from a hemorrhage of thirty seats in the House and Senate 6:00 to 7:00: such as that suffered by George W. Bush at the height of his unpopularity, in November 2006. Obama would thus become, in record time, from the most celebrated president in decades to "lame duck".
Of course, Bill Clinton in 1994, despite having been elected just two years ago with a triumphant majority (Bush's father had inflicted on the fourth worst electoral defeat ever reported by an outgoing President, although in part thanks to the candidacy of billionaire contractor Texan Ross Perot), suffered its first midterm a defeat that marked irrevocably the presidency: the Republicans won less than 54 seats in the House and eight in the Senate. Clinton, however, whether he saw with the opposition in great shape, led by a leader tostissimo (Newt Gingrich) and has a focused and coherent program (the "Contract with America"), so much so that that campaign is remembered none that as Republican Revolution.
Obama instead benefit from a divided opposition and flaky, and totally devoid of leadership for the debacle would not have predicted then mitigating circumstances. According
Saturday, the Democrats have a single precedent in which to rebuild. In 1982, Ronald Reagan was testing his popularity two years after the Republicans not only win the White House but also many seats in parliament and even the majority in the Senate, where opposition had been a quarter of a century. The continuing economic downturn (with unemployment at around 10%, just like today) suggests a catastrophe for the party of the president. Republicans scale campaign of television commercials played on the slogan "Come on, let's give him a chance" ( Let's give the guy a chance ), as was talking to kids eager, reassuring them relying on the keystone of rhetoric Reagan: optimism. The disaster was averted. In November, the newly elected Democrats were fifty-seven well, while Republicans were only twenty-four, but only the Republicans lost 26 seats in the House, less than half of those predicted, and miraculously did not lose a single seat in the Senate, indeed they won one more. And 'this' is the only case in modern times "- emphasizes Saturday - that in times of economic crisis, the ruling party obtained a" half victory "at midterm.
The current strategy of Obama does not seem focused on that model. It seems, if anything, based on the fact that opinion polls give a high rate even unpopular Republican opposition.
In May, Howard Fineman of Newsweek (tested more than benevolent against President) noted that while the campaign in which Obama has won the presidency was a positive focus on the future (hope, change, optimism, overcoming divisions), the average for the elections term is a negative focus on the recent past, on the bogeyman of a return to what two years ago the majority of voters decided to get rid of. To give an idea, Fineman quoted a New York rally that the President had compared his task to "call in the car over the road into a ditch" just to remind you that the Republicans were to hold the steering wheel when the car was finished astray.
Agree Michael Scherer, White House correspondent for TIME , according to which the message of Obama is: Do not ask yourself if you are better than two years ago, but how much worse you could be if you had not chosen me. He quotes a rally in his Winscosin last June: "I know, sometimes people do not remember how bad things were and how bad they could go." The result is that the president claims to have produced an improvement, but to have prevented a worsening: "Instead of giving you something, would guarantee a no-thing." Discounted
the rise of the conservative Wall Street Journal: " 'we know you're worse than two years ago, but it is no fault Our ' is not a topic much seductive, even if that grant can be based. In this way, the campaign of 2008 'Hope' (Hope) in 2010 gives way to a series 'Fear' (fear). "
The confirmation came last Friday, when Obama, flanked by Sergio Marchionne, held a rally at the Jefferson North plant (just outside Detroit) of Chrysler, one of the two automakers - the other is the GM - Saved State intervention by a mega $ 60 billion, sharply contested by the opposition Republican. Speaking to the workers who escaped dismissal, and claimed responsibility that are reflected in the auto sector recruitment (although even at Ford, which has not benefited from the "save" state ...), the president wanted "to remember that if the government had gone some people, this does not would happen. This factory, and your job, maybe today would not exist. "
Chrysler workers applauded him enthusiastically. Soon we will know if the argument has made inroads in the audience, far more extensive and complex, the taxpayers from whose pockets are out those 60 billion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment