I have a new column at Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball on why Harry Truman's 1948 campaign against the "Do-Nothing Congress" may be a misleading model for President Obama:
[T]he dramatic narrative of Truman’s victory doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. As University at Buffalo, SUNY political scientist James Campbell pointed out in 2004 (gated), Truman’s comeback was fueled by “sizzling” growth in the year before the election (the time when voters tend to most strongly reward economic improvement)...
This well-timed surge in economic growth is likely to have played an important role in the success of Truman’s campaign. By contrast, the International Monetary Fund just downgraded its forecast for US economic growth in 2011 and 2012 to 1.5% and 1.8%, respectively.
The column, which updates a 2010 post on this blog, directly contrasts economic growth under Truman in the six quarters before the election with the forecasts for the equivalent period under Obama. The difference is dramatic. Read it to find out more.
Another difference between 2012 and 1948 may be that Obama and Congress haven't done nothing. On the contrary, a majority of voters seem to believe that they've done too much.
They've taken dramatic, ground-breaking actions, such as the biggest Stimulus in history, biggest deficit in history, federal Healthcare, bailouts of Wall Street, takeover of auto companies, and giving billions to dubious clean energy startups. The problem is that all of these actions are unpopular. So, I think Obama will have a tough time convincing voters that we'd be better off if Congress had let him do even more.
However, I must admit that I'm not that familiar with the 1948 election. For all I know, Truman's "do-nothing" accusation may have been as spurious as Obama's. In that case, this would not be a difference.
Posted by: David in Cal | October 06, 2011 at 09:52 AM