Predict the Obama Presidency

[Keystone Phil]

Well, it looks like his followers cannot conceive a scenario in which he will be unsuccessful.

Well, of course not. They can, however, think of a scenario where their man ends up winning the biggest landslide in Presidential history (or at least very close to it with 62% of the vote)! It's too precious.

[Torie]

Obama for his first two years will be consumed with dealing with the financial crisis, and won't be carrying out any of his promises. His get out of Iraq in 16 months won't happen either, although he will claim he did by getting the troop levels down to just under a 100,000 maybe. Osama won't be killed (he might be dead anyway).

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Good foreign policy, bad everything else.  Might get some traction on curbing spending, but with a partisan bent to the prioritization.

^^^^^^^^

I like Obama, but I think he's too tied to his party to be truly effect in the ways he might want.  Change, yes, but change bastardized by the Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosis of the world.

^^^^^^^^

Have I been posting under another login in my sleep?

[YRABNNRM]

Someone is trying to jinx it...

[Nutmeg]

Change, yes, but change bastardized by the Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosis of the world.

If he wins enough of an electoral mandate, I could imagine Obama maneuvering (behind the scenes, of course) for Durbin to move up to the top spot.

[opebo]

The bad news is that the economic troubles in this country will prevent him from doing a lot of things he wants to accomplish (universal healthcare). 

As I have often pointed out, the solution to the economic troubles is spending - huge, costly new redistributionist government programs.  As Keynes taught us, and as history has proven, nothing else will work.

So the economic troubles will not prevent him from doing a lot of things that he wants to accomplish, they will require that he accomplish them, and enable him to do so.

Remember that the only time America has ever been able to break the stranglehold of the owners and accomplish reform is during periods of severe crisis, most notably the Great Depression.

[Keystone Phil]

Change, yes, but change bastardized by the Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosis of the world.

If he wins enough of an electoral mandate, I could imagine Obama maneuvering (behind the scenes, of course) for Durbin to move up to the top spot.

Oh, we can only hope! I'd love for my former least favorite U.S. Senator to become the GOP punching bag. 

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

As I have often pointed out, the solution to the economic troubles is spending - huge, costly new redistributionist government programs.  As Keynes taught us, and as history has proven, nothing else will work.

The purpose of Keynesian countercyclical deficit spending is NOT wealth redistribution.  The purpose is to place capital in the hands of consumers in order to stimulate the economy through increased demand, and to prevent individuals from being permanently ruined by economic forces they cannot control.

To call Keynesianism "redistributionist" is a gross distortion.  Outlawing wealth and success is not the way to promote economic growth.

[Nutmeg]

Change, yes, but change bastardized by the Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosis of the world.

If he wins enough of an electoral mandate, I could imagine Obama maneuvering (behind the scenes, of course) for Durbin to move up to the top spot.

Oh, we can only hope! I'd love for my former least favorite U.S. Senator to become the GOP punching bag. 

It would probably be a win for both parties, in that Durbin would be far more visible and vocal than has been that wimp Reid, with corresponding legislative and public relations benefits and costs for each caucus.

[Frodo]

President Obama will be unable to focus on his own initiatives, as his first term will be spent cleaning up the financial mess left by this financial crisis and the Bush administration.  I would like to see a reform of our tax code to spur savings over consumption, but I am not going to hold my breath.

For the sake of stability and continuity, he will keep Robert Gates as his Defense Secretary, with General Odierno in command in Iraq, and General Petraeus in charge of Central Command.  When push comes to shove, he will listen to his generals, and will be very flexible on removing troops from Iraq while still trying to remain true to his timetable, at least rhetorically.  In practice, he will only be removing troops from Iraq based on conditions on the ground which will probably ultimately be well within the 16-month timetable he laid out, anyway.  

If he does a good-enough job in his first term, and accordingly wins re-election in 2012, he may be able to focus on doing what he originally campaigned on doing in his second term -namely, reforming health care and achieving energy independence.  

[opebo]

As I have often pointed out, the solution to the economic troubles is spending - huge, costly new redistributionist government programs.  As Keynes taught us, and as history has proven, nothing else will work.

The purpose of Keynesian countercyclical deficit spending is NOT wealth redistribution.  The purpose is to place capital in the hands of consumers in order to stimulate the economy through increased demand, and to prevent individuals from being permanently ruined by economic forces they cannot control.

To call Keynesianism "redistributionist" is a gross distortion.  Outlawing wealth and success is not the way to promote economic growth.

Beef, I never said that Keynesianism was redistributionist in intent.  Keyensianism is redistribution as a practical matter.  As you stated it, the purpose is 'to place capital in the hands of consumers in order to stimulate the economy through increased demand' - this is quite correct (though it is somewhat bizarre to call this type of dole spending 'capital'), and thus Keynesianism is redistributionist simply because that is what works.  Only the poor spend the money you give them during a Depression.

Which brings me to a response to the above post by Frodo - you want to encourage saving in the middle of a depression?  Do you not understand what is a depression?  We need to encourage spending, not saving.

[Mr.Phips]

In early 2009, he will pass a second stimulus package that is heavy on public works projects and includes another round of rebate checks and a significant middle class tax cut.  He will also pass some laws that drastically reform the banking and financial industry, with much more oversight on these companies by the federal government.  In early 2010, he will pass his healthcare program that helps cover most uninsured Americans who cannot afford healthcare and want it.  The ecomomy begins to recover in March 2010 due to this keynesian style of economics.  In early October 2010, he helps negotiate a nuclear weopons halt that includes the US and many middle eastern countries. 

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

In early 2009, he will pass a second stimulus package that is heavy on public works projects and includes another round of rebate checks and a significant middle class tax cut.  He will also pass some laws that drastically reform the banking and financial industry, with much more oversight on these companies by the federal government.  In early 2010, he will pass his healthcare program that helps cover most uninsured Americans who cannot afford healthcare and want it.  The ecomomy begins to recover in March 2010 due to this keynesian style of economics.  In early October 2010, he helps negotiate a nuclear weopons halt that includes the US and many middle eastern countries. 

Scary how optimistic his supporters are. What will they do if/when he isn't successful at all these things he's promised? Will they blame Bush or throw Obama under the bus?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Which brings me to a response to the above post by Frodo - you want to encourage saving in the middle of a depression?  Do you not understand what is a depression?  We need to encourage spending, not saving.

If the root of the economic crisis is a credit crunch, then increased savings (and paying off of debt) is exactly the solution.  More money on deposit = more money available as credit = more loans to businesses and investment in securities.  That money creates jobs and growth.

There are two types of economic downturns: those resulting from a lack in consumption, and those resulting from a lack of available credit and capital.  This crisis is of the second variety.

[opebo]

If the root of the economic crisis is a credit crunch, then increased savings (and paying off of debt) is exactly the solution.  More money on deposit = more money available as credit = more loans to businesses and investment in securities.  That money creates jobs and growth.

You're mad!  There are plenty of 'savings', they're just not getting loaned out, Beef.  The trick is to force the 'money' out - either by simply printing it and sending it out to the people through both free giveaway programs and 'loans'.  You really have no idea what a crisis like this is all about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those are exactly the same thing, Beef!  Where do you think consumption comes from?  It comes from credit.  'Capital' doesn't even enter into it, as there is plenty of that, it is just sitting under the mattress - just as it did during the Great Depression, just as it always does during panics (such is the nature of 'private' capital).

[Mr.Phips]

In early 2009, he will pass a second stimulus package that is heavy on public works projects and includes another round of rebate checks and a significant middle class tax cut.  He will also pass some laws that drastically reform the banking and financial industry, with much more oversight on these companies by the federal government.  In early 2010, he will pass his healthcare program that helps cover most uninsured Americans who cannot afford healthcare and want it.  The ecomomy begins to recover in March 2010 due to this keynesian style of economics.  In early October 2010, he helps negotiate a nuclear weopons halt that includes the US and many middle eastern countries. 

Scary how optimistic his supporters are. What will they do if/when he isn't successful at all these things he's promised? Will they blame Bush or throw Obama under the bus?

The economic stuff will not be hard to get done if he brings in 60 Democratic senators with him, which I now think he will.  This is not going to be 1992, where the winner wins 43% of the popular vote and has zero coattails.  This is going to be at least a 1976.  

[pragmatic liberal]

I doubt you're going to get very many unbiased answers to this question. Predictably, Republicans will think he'll be a disaster and Democrats will think (mostly) that he'll do an excellent job.

I make no secret of my own partisan and ideological preferences and I admit to having a great deal of faith in Obama. I think he's a man with extraordinary management skills. He's intelligent, prudent, and willing to take advice on a range of issues. My beefs with him are that he may at times be too overcautious. His ideology is actually somewhat small-"c"-conservative; he's been called a "Burkean liberal," before. He adheres to very progressive, liberal ideals but is skeptical of sweeping, radical changes, believing that gradualistic and bottom-up change is ultimately more sustainable and less disruptive.

On the domestic policy front, I would imagine the following:

Obama likely keeps Bernanke in place and may even keep Paulson in place for a short, interim period. The first year of his term will be heavily focused on economic matters. He will probably move towards a temporary nationalization of much of the banking sector, similar to what is being done in Britain and what Paulson appears to be moving towards.

Congress will likely pass one or two stimulus packages which include increases in unemployment insurance, investments in energy and infrastructure, increases in food stamps and the direct aid to homeowners.

I do think that an Obama Administration and a Democratic Congress will make a major effort to enact universal health care within his first term; it would be politically foolish for Obama to wait for a second term to do this, since second terms rarely have significant domestic policy achievements. I give him only a 50-50 chance of success here; the budgetary situation and the entrenched opposition to health care reform may force a watering-down of his plan. He may ultimately only pass something like what John Kerry proposed in 2004 -- a near-universal plan that includes greater choice, cost containment and an expansion of some public programs that is nevertheless less comprehensive than what Clinton, Edwards or Obama proposed in 2004. It's also possible that in order to secure health care reform, he will need to embrace proposals to reform Medicare, similar to the plans that were debated in the second Clinton term.

I also think it's possible that in an effort to pass health care reform, Obama will abandon his own plan in favor of Wyden-Bennett, which has several Republican co-sponsors. It's a more radical plan and it includes an individual mandate - something Obama has opposed. But if his goal is universal coverage and he remains pragmatic about it, then the prospects for Wyden-Bennett could be substantially better than the prospects for his own plan.

Obama will also likely push for his fairly bold and innovative technology proposals. He is likely to also push for universal broadband.

Like Clinton, Obama will likely push for several causes through the budgetary process. I imagine that infrastructure improvements, funding for alternative energy and increased aid to cities will all be written into the budgetary process.

I actually expect that the federal budget deficit may likely increase in the short and medium term. I doubt that even a two-term Obama presidency would see a balanced budget, although if economic growth is restored by 2012, I imagine you will start to see deficits reduced so that by 2017, the U.S. deficit may be about half of what it is today.

On the foreign policy front, I see Obama ultimately removing most U.S. troops by 2011 as he has proposed. There is near-unanimity on this from the Iraqi government and the U.S. government. He will, however, face some opposition from the left, as there will be some residual U.S. forces, probably based in Kurdistan and around Baghdad.

Afghanistan will likely be a mess. I expect some increase in troops in Afghanistan, but observers are very mixed in their assessments as to whether this will work. There are going to be intense pressures to open up lines of communication with the Taliban (something the Brits are already proposing), which politically may be very difficult for Obama to do.

I expect Obama will devote greater time and energy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and he will likely dispatch a top envoy -- Dennis Ross, Richard Holbrooke or even Bill Clinton -- to the region in an effort to wring out a peace agreement within a year. But his efforts will probably fail and the region will probably have to muddle through. Though I think Obama recognizes the centrality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to America's relations with the Middle East, I doubt he will risk his political capital on a peace agreement within his first two years. He will have his hands full with enormous domestic policy challenges, huge foreign policy headaches in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and I doubt he will want to torpedo his chances of success with a quite-possibly failed effort regarding Israel and the Palestinians.

On Iran, he will likely initiate more back-channel negotiations. The landscape will shift dramatically if Ahmedinejad loses the 2009 presidential election. I could imagine a full "grand bargain" with Iran, including full diplomatic relations, but such a deal would likely have to wait for a second term.

On Cuba, I also imagine a similar softening, although again I would not imagine a full restoration of ties until later.

What do I see being the biggest potential difficulties for Obama? Well, any of the above could go wrong, but I actually see gas prices as the big Achilles heel. The truth is that the trend in world oil prices is clearly going the wrong way. Any investments in alternative energy, greater fuel efficiency and even additional coastal drilling will take years to bear fruit. In the meantime, it is very possible we could have oil at $200 per barrel by 2012. That could wreak havoc on the economy and force a mammoth shift away from automobile use and huge increases in the cost of shipping, flying and business. We have done very little preparation for dealing with that. Even if an Obama Administration and Congress enact the right policies for dealing with that reality, they may well have to take ugly short-term measures such as big subsidies for gas in order to prevent massive chaos and dislocation. It would also hugely impair any economic recovery. Gas prices remain the thing that scares me most about the next four years, and they could easily undo Obama even if he has relative success in accomplishing the rest of his agenda.

I also could easily see another bailout of the automakers in the offing. It is likely that both GM and Ford are in for major restructurings and several venerable U.S. nameplates will likely be sold or discontinued. Chrysler will probably go under.

In short, I actually think Obama's short-term prospects are fairly good. With large Democratic majorities, he should be able to enact a fairly ambitious domestic agenda during the first couple of years, but ultimately if oil prices increase and economic growth stays anemic, he could have a very difficult time getting reelected. If that happens, he'll simply have to hope that the coming GOP civil war prevents the emergence of a strong challenger in 2012 and that his approval ratings stay close enough to 50% that he can win reelection.

[Keystone Phil]

I doubt you're going to get very many unbiased answers to this question. Predictably, Republicans will think he'll be a disaster and Democrats will think (mostly) that he'll do an excellent job.

I actually don't think he'll necessarily be a disaster. I have warned my fellow Republicans countless times not to think that he'll definitely be incredibly unpopular and that we'll be embraced. Far too many on my side are way too confident about that happening.

That being said, yes, I think he'll be bad. I'm just not going to act like I know this for a fact.

[pragmatic liberal]

I doubt you're going to get very many unbiased answers to this question. Predictably, Republicans will think he'll be a disaster and Democrats will think (mostly) that he'll do an excellent job.

I actually don't think he'll necessarily be a disaster. I have warned my fellow Republicans countless times not to think that he'll definitely be incredibly unpopular and that we'll be embraced. Far too many on my side are way too confident about that happening.

That being said, yes, I think he'll be bad. I'm just not going to act like I know this for a fact.

Well, that's what partisans always comfort themselves with. Democrats said the same thing about Bush, but they turned out correct (in part) -- still, they were wrong enough that Bush still managed to (narrowly) win reelection.

Democrats said that about Reagan too, though. And about Nixon.

[JSojourner]

I've been asking myself this question a lot lately.  Excellent idea for a thread, though responses are understandably predictable.  Including my own.

I think Barack Obama will be a very good President.  Of course, very good Presidents don't always get re-elected.  (I note, expecting a storm of protest from my fellow Democrats, that George H.W. Bush was a good, maybe a very good, President.  Doesn't take away any respect I have for Clinton...it just affirms the fact that I can point to the H.W. administration and see lots of good stuff going on domestically and internationally.)

So -- what will Obama do that I will like?

I think he'll keep us on track to get out of Iraq and, most importantly, dramatically step up the war in Afghanistan.  I sure hope bin Laden is killed (or dead already).  Because that man is a waste of oxygen...and I say that about very, very few people.  But even if he doesn't get bin Laden, if he succeeds in righting the Afghan ship and helping install a reasonably tolerant Muslim government...as The Decider correctly intended to do in the beginning...we will be well on the road to improvement.  It's complicated, no doubt.  The poppy is a big part of the problem and how we handle that will go a long way to antagonizing or energizing the Afghan people.

I think Obama will succeed in getting our marginal foes to take a breath for a minute.  I don't know about the "foaming at the mouth" sort of Muslim extremists.  I'm still unsure of the North Koreans, thought I sincerely applaud recent Bush administration successes on that front.  But Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria...countries like that?  I think Obama will give them and us some breathing space.  Too, without sacrificing American independance, I expect him to successfully restore some, at least, of the good will we enjoyed with our allies after the 9-11 attacks.  They are not gonna give us a "do-over".  But if they see we are willing to respectfully listen to...and, at least some of the time, follow their advice....that's going to help.  In no small part because, sometimes Canada is right.  Simple as that.  :-)

Economically, I believe the bleeding will stop during the Obama administration.  But I hope we recognize that both Democratic and Republican voices and ideas are in the mix here.  Obama must, and I believe will, seek out Republican and Independent ideas and solutions.  There's no doubt, uber-partisan Republicans will say he's our version of George W. Bush -- plugging his ears and shutting out all but the synchophants -- if he doesn't do everything they want.  But let's be real.  If Obama heeds Hank Paulson on somethings...or if he turns Dick Lugar loose on a problem, there will be no shortage of Democrats whining about how he is selling out to big business or the military industrial complex.  But I expect him to govern mostly from the left, with more than token cooperation with the center.  This is not an incurious, "my way or the highway" sort of man.  And I think that's a good thing for our country.

I am fairly confident that -- to the extent he is fiscally able -- Obama will try to spark job creation and economic growth by attending to grossly neglected infrastructure.  I only hope he will do this with an openness to the new, and not just the old.  I'm all for highway projects.  But high speed, energy-efficient rail can be practical and successful if done correctly. 

I guess my highest hope for Obama -- and the most tenuous one -- centers around what national conversations we have.  About race, reproductive choice, sexuality and human rights, immigration, energy and firearms.  Among other things.  My highest hope is that he will stimulate, encourage and facilitate entirely new conversations...using paradigms that go beyond stale, old standards of left and right.  Let's begin a national conversation about abortion rights and let's invite anti-choice liberals and pro-choice conservatives to the table.  Let's find what we can agree on.  Ending most abortions can ONLY be a good thing.  There are ways to do that without criminalizing abortion and punishing women who are often in crisis. 

Finally, I hope Obama will - (and I have absolutely no idea if he will or if any candidate would, because frankly, none of them seem to care very much) -- put this country to work on the crucial issue of clean water and safe industrial emmissions.  There should NEVER be a repeat of the disasters we have witnessed in places like Anniston, Alabama. 

http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/Jones/anniston.htm

I'm not talking about something as simple as reparations.  One of the reasons I detest the reparation idea is that it's so superficial.  Money makes it all go away.  Bah.  I want to find ways for companies -- even chemical companies -- to make money, employ people AND put little or no toxins into the air and water.  That's one thing liberals and conservatives seem to agree on -- "It can't be done."  Liberals say that's why we need to shut these places down for good.  Conservatives say that's why we need to accept the risk and let them run as they please.  I am hoping Obama will say, "You bet it can be done.  And I am counting on Republicans and Democrats to show us all HOW."  Ah, but will he?  Time will tell...and on this one, I rather doubt it.

[Torie]

JS, you are just such a hopeless optimist. I suspect you are a believing Christian, as a wild guess. This stuff about conversations and the like, to reach some golden mean of wisdom, just isn't the way things are done. What is realistic, is that Obama will be in a policy strait jacket, as his more rabid supporters bite at his heels. His real challenge will be to persuade his true believers that there is no there, there.

I do believe that Obama will be determined not to be a failed president, and he has the discipline and smarts to avoid that, if he has the courage to anger his base. We  shall see.

One thing that does give me joy, is that elite Dems now take economists and financial theory, seriously. They know, that indulging in what the bulk of their supporters want, is the road to financial ruin, and will never go there.

[Firefly]

Two of the first acts of an Obama Presidency + Democratic Congress will be a significant increase in the minimum wage and passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.

[J. J.]

Probably a greater contraction of the economy, coupled with unemployment.

Possibly a greater Iranian influence in the Persian Gulf.

[Nutmeg]

Probably a greater contraction of the economy, coupled with unemployment.

Possibly a greater Iranian influence in the Persian Gulf.

Also, everyone will die.

[Torie]

Two of the first acts of an Obama Presidency + Democratic Congress will be a significant increase in the minimum wage and passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Other than force a few folks out of work, and unionize a few folks down the road given doing away with elections and a private ballot, and this rolling card sign up thing (heck even George McGovern thinks that is a disgrace), without much if any economic impact, but maybe some political impact, that will mean next to zero.