After recent economic slides, President Barack Obama appears to be a narrow underdog for re-election, and the burden is on the president to change the way voters evaluate candidates come November, Stuart Rothenberg writes.
Back in October, President Barack Obama’s job approval rating stood at 44 percent in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey and only 17 percent of voters said that things in the country were “generally headed in the right direction.” Those numbers suggested that the president would lose re-election unless he was able to change the direction of public opinion.
Five months later, with the GOP embroiled in something of a civil war over its presidential nomination and new job numbers suggesting that an economic recovery was under way, consumer confidence surged.
In fact, the nation’s outlook was so bright that one of my favorite columnists on the economy, Steven Pearlstein, wrote in the Washington Post in March that “the economy is actually getting better ... the recovery has reached a point where it looks to be self-sustaining, that magic point when growth begets more growth, hiring begets more hiring, spending begets more spending.”
Not surprisingly, the March NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found fully half of those polled approved of the president’s performance. So that revised trendline showed the president was likely to win a second term.
But now, after three months of poor job growth (total non-farm payroll employment rose by only 69,000 in May and 77,000 in April), weakness in the stock market, growing economic problems in Europe, poor retail sales last month and missteps by the president (including his comment that the private sector is “doing fine”), Obama is clearly once again in serious trouble.
In fact, the president now looks like a narrow underdog for re-election. Yes, a narrow underdog.
Obviously, four months from now things could be very different. It all depends on the news and the campaigns. After all, the outlook has already changed twice within the past year, so another change (or even two) is possible.
But that fact doesn’t alter the current trendline. And it shouldn’t obscure the reality that the later in the year it gets, the greater the pressure to change the narrative for the underdog and the more urgent the needed change.
So, the burden is now on the president and his strategists to produce evidence that a recovery is under way or, more likely, to change the way voters are going to evaluate the candidates during the next four and a half months.
It is simply not enough for the president and his advisers to blame former President George W. Bush for the nation’s economic problems. Polls do show that voters believe Obama inherited a mess, and that’s why they gave him the benefit of the doubt for so long.
On January 3, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., raises her right hand as her son Henry messes up her hair while Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., delivers the ceremonial swearing-in in the Old Senate Chamber. Gillibrand's other son Theodore, lower right, looks on.
Each year since 1990, CQ Roll Call has reviewed the financial disclosures of all 541 senators, representatives and delegates to determine the 50 richest members of Congress. This year's report, derived from forms covering the calendar year 2012, shows it took a net worth of $6.67 million to crack the exclusive club.