Obama will win in 2012 – the real contests are below the headline fight

The more telling outcome will be how 2012 shapes the field of candidates – both Democratic and Repub

Over the past few weeks, potential candidates have been dropping out of the race to be the Republican nominee to challenge President Obama in 2012 – and a few even entered, but in truth ite is almost irrelevant whom the GOP selects to carry the party's standard: Obama will almost certainly win, and it seems that the Republicans know it.

However, that's not to say the race is over, or even that it won't be interesting. But for the real movements you have to look below the headline fight of Obama vs the Republican candidate.

The elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives will shape Obama's second term and will be the difference between him being a lame duck and a President that continues with his agenda and has the ability to make real changes. Since the November 2010 midterm elections, the Republicans have controlled the House of Congress and wiped out the supermajority the Democrats enjoyed in the Senate.

This has meant near deadlock on Obama's legislative agenda and almost brought about the shutdown of the federal government over budget negotiations. Depending on the outcome of House and Senate elections next year, it could be four more years of the same stalemate – or it could see Obama making real progress on his agenda, ensuring his healthcare plans are fully implemented and not repealed.

While the Republican primary race will prove interesting, the more telling outcome will be how 2012 shapes the field of candidates – both Democratic and Republican – for 2016. 2016 will be the true horserace: with no incumbent president and the vice-president not running, four years out and it is difficult to see who the Democratic challengers are likely to be. Eight years of a Democrat in the White House leaves space for a capable Republican to stand a real chance. Looking ahead, Republican candidates will be using the campaign this year and next to launch themselves towards the 2016 nomination.

Mike Huckabee, the former state governor-turned-Fox news pundit, has decided not to run, even though he has been growing a significant base of supporters among Republicans since he came second to John McCain in 2008. Donald Trump, the Lord Sugar of the American Apprentice and populist (if not popular) businessman, has also decided against running after appearing seriously to be considering entering the race, and even pseudo-campaigning for a while.

Haley Barbour, another highly rated governor, also announced that he will not be throwing his hat in the ring – despite building up a campaign team and visiting the early primary states.

Paling attraction

Sarah Palin, perhaps the best-known name in the Republican field, is yet to announce her intentions, but may follow in the footsteps of Huckabee and Trump. Speculation suggests that she is enjoying life outside elected office enough to be relucant to seek out the rigours of a tough campaign unlikely to end in victory.

Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, celebrated for initiating the impeachment hearings against Bill Clinton, has had a poor start since making his announcement. He has been a player in the political field for a long time now, and may not represent the "fresh face" that Republicans will undoubtedly look for. His extramarital affairs won't help among the staunchly conservative Republican base voting in the primaries.

That leaves Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and businessman, is many people's favourite to win the GOP nomination. The fact that he raised $10m in one day last week is a good example of why.

Do Pawlenty and Huntsman also want him to win? Both are credible candidates: Pawlenty a successful and popular governor in Minnesota; Hunstman a former CEO, governor of Utah and President Obama's ambassador to China for two years. However, neither is particularly well known nationwide (59 per cent of Americans felt neither favourable nor unfavourable towards Pawlenty in Ipsos's March poll) and while that didn't stop Obama in 2008, this is a very different election.

These two relatively young candidates will use this election cycle to build their national profile and grow support bases in the key states. Their next four years will be just as important. They will need to keep whatever momentum they gain this time around. Four years ago, Huckabee was an unknown, but he's now a recognisable face to many and, had he decided to run, he would have been in a very strong position to win the Republican nomination.

View to a killing

Our latest research shows Obama leading all his opponents, which is hardly surprising at this stage. Although the polls also show a small bump for Obama since the killing of Osama Bin Laden, it is unlikely to make much difference in the long run. It does however strengthen his personal position and closes off an avenue of attack from the Republicans.

They will find it far more difficult to accuse him of being weak on terrorism or defence – three in five Americans (59 per cent) give Obama a satisfactory rating on terrorism, up from 43 per cent before the death of Bin Laden.

Obama's electoral fortunes – as those of David Cameron and the Conservatives in Britain – lie in the success or failure of the economy. The most likely obstacle that could prevent Obama staying in the White House would be an economic downturn and increasing unemployment. Current projections suggest this won't happen, but the Republicans could do worse than learn from a little-known governor of Arkansas in 1992.

No one gave Bill Clinton a chance against the incumbent, President George H W Bush, but with the economy sliding and the independent Ross Perot splitting the vote, he forged a victory. You've got to be in it to win it.

Another Democrat provides a warning story for those Republicans looking ahead to 2016. John Edwards believed that coming second to John Kerry in 2004 and becoming Kerry's running mate made him a shoe-in for the 2008 nomination, before the junior senator from Chicago, Barack Obama, stole his momentum.

A repeat of 1992 is unlikely. The Democrats need to concentrate on winning key House and Senate races in order to give the president at least two years in which he can pass the legislation he wants. The Republicans are playing a risky game if they're looking ahead to 2016. However unlikely, every election is winnable and Republican candidates for House and Senate seats will be grateful for a presidential contender who gets the Republican vote out.

Tom Mludzinski is a research executive at Ipsos MORI, the social research institute.

Tom Mludzinski (@tom_ComRes) is head of political polling at ComRes

Getty
Show Hide image

The deafening killer - why noise will be the next great pollution scandal

A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. 

Our cities are being poisoned by a toxin that surrounds us day and night. It eats away at our brains, hurts our hearts, clutches at our sleep, and gnaws at the quality of our daily lives.

Hardly a silent killer, it gets short shrift compared to the well-publicised terrors of air pollution and sugars food. It is the dull, thumping, stultifying drum-beat of perpetual noise.

The score that accompanies city life is brutal and constant. It disrupts the everyday: The coffee break ruined by the screech of a line of double decker buses braking at the lights. The lawyer’s conference call broken by drilling as she makes her way to the office. The writer’s struggle to find a quiet corner to pen his latest article.

For city-dwellers, it’s all-consuming and impossible to avoid. Construction, traffic, the whirring of machinery, the neighbour’s stereo. Even at home, the beeps and buzzes made by washing machines, fridges, and phones all serve to distract and unsettle.

But the never-ending noisiness of city life is far more than a problem of aesthetics. A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. Recent studies have linked noise pollution to hearing loss, sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart disease, brain development, and even increased risk of dementia.

One research team compared families living on different stories of the same building in Manhattan to isolate the impact of noise on health and education. They found children in lower, noisier floors were worse at reading than their higher-up peers, an effect that was most pronounced for children who had lived in the building for longest.

Those studies have been replicated for the impact of aircraft noise with similar results. Not only does noise cause higher blood pressure and worsens quality of sleep, it also stymies pupils trying to concentrate in class.

As with many forms of pollution, the poorest are typically the hardest hit. The worst-off in any city often live by busy roads in poorly-insulated houses or flats, cheek by jowl with packed-in neighbours.

The US Department of Transport recently mapped road and aircraft noise across the United States. Predictably, the loudest areas overlapped with some of the country’s most deprived. Those included the south side of Atlanta and the lowest-income areas of LA and Seattle.

Yet as noise pollution grows in line with road and air traffic and rising urban density, public policy has turned a blind eye.

Council noise response services, formally a 24-hour defence against neighbourly disputes, have fallen victim to local government cuts. Decisions on airport expansion and road development pay scant regard to their audible impact. Political platforms remain silent on the loudest poison.

This is odd at a time when we have never had more tools at our disposal to deal with the issue. Electric Vehicles are practically noise-less, yet noise rarely features in the arguments for their adoption. Just replacing today’s bus fleet would transform city centres; doing the same for taxis and trucks would amount to a revolution.

Vehicles are just the start. Millions were spent on a programme of “Warm Homes”; what about “Quiet Homes”? How did we value the noise impact in the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, and how do we compensate people now that it’s going ahead?

Construction is a major driver of decibels. Should builders compensate “noise victims” for over-drilling? Or could regulation push equipment manufacturers to find new ways to dampen the sound of their kit?

Of course, none of this addresses the noise pollution we impose on ourselves. The bars and clubs we choose to visit or the music we stick in our ears. Whether pumping dance tracks in spin classes or indie rock in trendy coffee shops, people’s desire to compensate for bad noise out there by playing louder noise in here is hard to control for.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 heralded a new era of city life, one where smog and grime gave way to clear skies and clearer lungs. That fight still goes on today.

But some day, we will turn our attention to our clogged-up airwaves. The decibels will fall. #Twitter will give way to twitter. And every now and again, as we step from our homes into city life, we may just hear the sweetest sound of all. Silence.

Adam Swersky is a councillor in Harrow and is cabinet member for finance. He writes in a personal capacity.