Obama will need more than luck

By Edward Luce

©Matt Kenyon

It must be hard being Barack Obama. Midway through his opponent’s latest calamity, the president last week sat down for a grilling by the five friendly ladies onThe View, the daytime television chat show. At the start of what can be described as a gentle conversation, Mr Obama joked that he was mere “eye candy” for his hosts. The news media complained that Mr Obama only very rarely makes himself available for their more probing questions. But of course, smart politicians go to where the voters are. Whether he’s slow jammin’ with Jimmy Fallon or conceding a kiss to the First Lady at a sports game, the president knows what most people respond to. Mitt Romney, on the other hand. But I digress.

There can be little doubt that Mr Obama is a lucky candidate. This time four years ago, John McCain reminded everyone of his advancing age and dubious health by selecting a running mate who thought Africa was a country. After the financial meltdown, Mr McCain then made the rash error of calling for a suspension of the campaign. Mr Romney is on the verge of a similar fate.

ON THIS STORY

ON THIS TOPIC

Comment Romney must prove he is no John Kerry
Ryan sets out line on US taxes
Debt limit lurks in fiscal cliff talks
Global Insight US candidates’ futures up for debate

EDWARD LUCE

Given the latest polls, which show Mr Obama with six- to 10-point leads in the key swing states, Republican donors are debating whether to divert cash to the congressional election, where they could at least hold up the firewall against Mr Obama. Paul Ryan, meanwhile, is looking for ways to salvage his credibility as a future White House contender. Such are the rumours that disorient failing campaigns.

So far, Mr Obama has played along mostly as a bystander. Staff at the president’s Facebook-style headquarters in Chicago may dispute that description (their targeting techniques are light years ahead of their rivals in Boston). But Mr Romney has inflicted most of the damage on himself. Last week he had the decency to admit it. “That’s not the campaign,” Mr Romney said in response to the fallout from of his infamous “47 per cent” remark at a private fundraiser. “That was me, right?”

Yet there are reasons to pause before agreeing with the comedian Jon Stewart’s declaration that Mr Obama is “the luckiest dude on the planet”. For one, debating is not Mr Obama’s strong point.

On The View, Mr Obama noted that he and Michelle had to postpone their 20th anniversary dinner on Wednesday because it coincides with the first of three debates. Barbara Walters, one of the show’s hosts, later pointed out a bigger problem for the president: he can sometimes be “a little long-winded”. And as Bill Clinton inadvertently reminded us at the Democratic convention last month, Mr Obama still struggles to convert fiscal arithmetic into everyday language. The president barely deviated from his prepared address in Charlotte. In contrast, almost half the words in Mr Clinton’s speech were ad libbed.

Some commentators insist that debates almost never alter elections. They overstate their case. As recently as 2004, John Kerry’s strong first showing brought the election back into play. Until then, he had been trailing George W. Bush by an average of seven points. Like Mr Romney, Mr Kerry’s campaign was held up to mounting ridicule, some of which he brought on himself. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution pointed out recently, the race quickly narrowed after the first debate and then stayed that way.

In 2008 Mr McCain’s undisguised irritation at being in a losing race with Mr Obama meant the latter only had to avoid saying something incriminating.

Mr Obama will hope at least to emulate that on Wednesday. But as journalists can attest, this president has had little recent practice at fielding sustained questioning on the economy. Should Mr Romney draw blood there is still time for Mr Obama’s luck to change. Sensibly, perhaps, Mr Romney has been preparing for the debates for almost three months. It is his last real hope.

Second, were a terrible shock to happen, say a bomb in Times Square, or another big crisis on Wall Street, the electorate has already signalled ambivalence about another Obama term (or it had until the poorly staged Republican convention). Political scientists say that second-term bids are chiefly a plebiscite on the last four years rather than a choice between two futures.

At a time when most American voters are worse off, and when economic angst tops the list for almost 90 per cent, Mr Obama ought now to be fighting to stay in the race.

Instead, the president enjoys a lead that has been growing. If today’s polls offer any guide to the outcome, forecasters may have to tear up their models. But should a big event trip Mr Obama up, there are plenty of ill-wishing billionaires who would quickly take to the airwaves.

Finally, Mr Obama’s good luck is confined to his life as a candidate. The opposite applies to the times in which he has governed. With the big exception of healthcare reform, the 2008 crisis left most of Mr Obama’s more vaunted hopes on the cutting room floor.

Recessions are not a good time to try things like post-partisanship, carbon pricing or immigration reform. Here Mr Obama’s bad luck may also persist. Should he win, he will hit an instant maelstrom on Capitol Hill that could strangle America’s insipid recovery and once more ruin prospects for serious legislation.

There is also the growing risk the US will be unable to avert a war with Iran. Either one would do to his second term what Lehman Brothers did to his first. Republicans will be praying Mr Obama’s good luck vanishes in the next month. Should it hold, all sane people will be hoping it carries on for a while longer.

Bill's Blogabout

BILL'S TWITTER PAGE

Monday, October 1, 2012