Stickybuffalo.com

I have decidedly mixed feelings about writing this post, because it’s going to go into “2012″ and while I do mean something potentially apocalyptic, in a sense, I don’t mean anything involving dubiously-interpreted prophecies of a failed civilization. Or a John Cusack movie.

No, I mean that 2012, the one which we’re going to be hearing and reading about ad nauseum over the next 22 months. For which reason I hesitate to contribute in any way to the obsessive chatter, but 1) most of the post won’t be directly about 2012 and 2) I’ve concluded that it might be necessary to start dialing down expectations, in which case, better to start early.

So anyway, assuming that Barack Obama is alive and well (aside from wanting to be president of the United States) at the time, he’ll go before voters seeking a second term November after next. And while I continue to feel my share of disappointment with the guy, I’m going to want him to win that second term, not only because the primary alternative will likely be an atrocity but because I think Richard Kim has a point: for progressives, the Obama presidency really is “too big to fail.”

Related to that, there’s also the issue of really reeeeally not wanting to live through another round of triumphalist reactionary gloating in two years. If Obama wins, people will note that since Reagan left office, beleaguered Republicans have only won three terms in the White House to Democrats’ four, and those three were all members of one family (and two of those three terms were hardly ringing popular victories, to say the least). Whereas if Obama loses, it will be more hand-rubbing and chortling from the right accompanied by more hand-wringing and wailing from our side, and I would really prefer to avoid that. (And yeah, I know that the former will never actually become conventional wisdom; the preference for the latter still applies.)

So, I’ve hinted before at two theories about modern presidential elections; allow me to share them now:

Theory 1: Incumbency is a near-unbeatable advantage

I submit that it just requires some sort of extraordinary circumstances for an incumbent president to lose. (Or, at least, to fail in pursuit of a second term; for the purposes of my theories I’m setting aside the matter of whether or not Bush II was ever genuinely “elected” and just counting the fact that he, and not his opponents, actually held office for two terms.)

Bush I was a drip, effectively elected to serve Reagan’s third term and then, it turned out, was so not Reagan in terms of anything that actually made ol’ Ronnie popular. Plus, he went into his re-election campaign with the economy a big drag, and was up against one of the most effective American politicians of the 20th century, and still might have won anyway for all we know, had not a certain goofy billionaire launched the most effective third-party candidacy for the presidency since I don’t know when.

Before that, Carter was likewise up against Ron Reagan who, though lacking in much of any actual virtues, was definitely popular. Carter, too, was up against an ugly economy, plus “malaise,” and an oil shock, and “October Surprise,” and Billy…

And of Gerald Ford, I think little needs be said.

This theory seems okay as far as it goes, except that it’s more a theory we can retroactively fit to the facts, afterward, than one which makes testable predictions, other than “the incumbent will probably win, unless he (or maybe, someday, she) doesn’t.” But, I also have…

Theory 2: The Cheerier Candidate Wins

According to this theory, when there is a discernable difference, Americans will elect the candidate who looks more cheery than his opponent.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter with his big ol’ grin presumably seemed to offer a much cheerier prospect than Gerald Ford, with the rotting albatross of Watergate wrapped ’round his neck. Four years later, though, a Carter worn down by the cares of office and associated with drafty rooms and sweaters was on the losing end of the sunshine sweepstakes; Ronald Reagan’s hollow-skulled Hollywood perma-smile triumphed resoundingly in 1980, and again in ’84 against a typically-reserved Minnesotan tagged with the name Walt Mon-dull.

By 1988, I was old enough to have some genuine awareness of the contest and, as I recall, there was little to choose from between Bush I and Mike Dukakis, at least in terms of cheeriness, so the theory has no application. In the subsequent two elections, however, the theory seems soundly borne-out by “Bubba” Clinton’s romps over the pinched, out-of-touch Bush I and sour-faced old Bob Dole.

In 2000, as in ’88, we basically had (or thought we had) a contest of dull and duller; if there was any perceptible advantage it probably went to Bush II, who did indeed “win.” I think he managed a more-definite advantage over John Kerry in ’04, and in ’08 I think Obama decidedly had the advantage in cheeriness over the perpetually-grimacing John McCain.

Obviously there are various problems with this theory. For one thing, it doesn’t always make predictions; for another, when it seems to make predictions, “cheeriness” is, of course, subjective. There’s also the fact that perception of a candidate is not entirely within that candidate’s control; by any objective measure, Howard Dean was never a screaming lunatic but that didn’t help him when America’s media had a giggle-fit and decided to brand him as one.

There’s also the problem of what, I think, is known as reverse-causality. Do candidates win because they’re cheery… or are candidates cheery (or downbeat) because they can see they’re likely to win (or lose)?

A valid question, certainly, at least to the extent that anything having to do with this ridiculous pop-electoral-psychology “theory” is valid.

Thus, ultimately, at least until the campaign gets well underway, we’re back where we began: will Obama have reason to feel upbeat in his 2012 re-election campaign?

Well, that’s hard to say. Two years is a long time, there are plenty of both “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns; that’s why I generally consider superadvanced speculation on the race for the presidency to be ridiculous fluff. There is, however, always “the economy, stupid.” Or rather, since “the economy” can be defined rather differently depending on where one stands (e.g., Wall Street, K Street or Main Street), the unemployment rate.

Many who make such predictions are continuing to predict a very slow climb out of a very deep hole, unfortunately, which is probably bad news for Obama2012. Of course we still don’t know what the unemployment rate will be two years from now, let alone what its impact on the presidential race will be. If it’s 7.7 percent, but people feel like there’s positive momentum…? I really don’t know, any more than I know for sure what role a Republican House of Representatives will play. I think that Obama will have a difficult time running against a GOP House, absent anything else to take before the voters, but I really don’t know. We’re talking about turbulent times, with a significant number of fruitbat-crazy people involved, to boot.

That said, having been pretty confident that Obama will win a second term, doubt has crept in and thus, maybe, it’s time to start lowering expectations.

That, and praying to whatever deities one acknowledges that anti-Mormonism nullifies Mitt Romney again, and Sarah Palin then out-populist-goofballs Mike Hyuckabee. Because I’ll double down on Obama against Sarah Palin in a heartbeat, all other factors be damned. As Mike and Frank say, I’ll take that gamble “all day long.”

And now, having had my say, if I do another 2012 presidential race post this year, feel free to shoot me.