A Look Ahead At The Next Year

I was talking on Twitter with a Democrat activist the other day.

The activist and I were debating what the 2012 election would be about.

I said “unemployment”.  I mean, do you really think people think they’re better off now than they were four years ago?

The activist’s response: “Depends on who people think is at fault. Thinking on that seems to be shifting”.

Well, the media will be doing its best to “shift” that “thinking” for the part of the electorate that doesn’t pay much attention to these things.

But I think the activist was overestimating their own party.  Because I will bank on the prediction that the Democrats’ campaign will key on the folloiwng:

  • “Oh, that Hermain Cain!  He’s sure a randy one, isn’t he?  We can’t have a philanderer in the White House!”
  • Related: “A president needs to be better at covering their tracks for their transgressions than that!”
  • “We can’t have someone in the White House who gets mental blocks on tedious, repetitive questions at game shows debates, can we?  We can not have a President who makes gaffes and who doesn’t shine on TV, oh, no!”
  • “Doesn’t Mitt Romney look insincere?”
  • “Hey, don’t blame us – bailouts were all lBush’s idea!”
Anything but unemployment.

7 thoughts on “A Look Ahead At The Next Year

  1. “Depends on who people think is at fault. Thinking on that seems to be shifting”.
    According to who?

  2. Terry, that would be people desperately trying to reconcile their ideology with reality. You need to do a whole lot of “shifting” if you’re on the Left these days.

  3. Kermit, I’m just a lowly middle-brow intellectual, but I can’t figure out how Obama’s “Jobs Bill” is supposed to work. It’s not classical economics and it’s not Keynesian economics. There is no theory that says that you get a net increase in jobs by increasing taxes, that is, by shifting money from the private to the public sector.
    It would be nice if some enterprising journalist would ask Obama to explain what economic theory of job creation he was following.

  4. Asking a journalist to explain economic theory is like asking a lab rat to explain how the maze was constructed.

  5. I remember having Rich Karlgaard, publisher of Forbes, address a business group a few years ago. He described business journalists as being as being failed sportswriters who, if they really understood how markets work, would be pulling down huge bucks managing investment portfolios rather than toiling on a reporter’s salary.

  6. In Keynesian economics, business spending is called “investment” because businesses spend all of their money as means to make a profit. Government spending is called “government spending”.

    Because the book essentially begins with Mr. Obama’s crash course in economics as a candidate and ends in early 2011, Mr. Suskind does not place the mismanagement and indecisiveness he describes in these pages in perspective with the tough-minded decision by Mr. Obama to sign off on the high-risk mission that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden in May.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/books/ron-suskinds-confidence-men-focuses-on-obama-review.html?pagewanted=all

    So, in the middle of the greatest economic crisis to strike our nation since the Great Depression, 53% of American voters cast their ballots for an affirmative action lawyer who had served less than a single term as junior senator from a state famed for its corruption and pay-to-play politics.
    And who needed a “crash course” in economics.
    Jesus wept.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.