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– or it could see Obama making real progress on his agenda, ensuring his healthcare plans are fully implemented and not repealed.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

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Forget planning for no deal. The government isn't really planning for Brexit at all

The British government is simply not in a position to handle life after the EU.

No deal is better than a bad deal? That phrase has essentially vanished from Theresa May’s lips since the loss of her parliamentary majority in June, but it lives on in the minds of her boosters in the commentariat and the most committed parts of the Brexit press. In fact, they have a new meme: criticising the civil service and ministers who backed a Remain vote for “not preparing” for a no deal Brexit.

Leaving without a deal would mean, among other things, dropping out of the Open Skies agreement which allows British aeroplanes to fly to the United States and European Union. It would lead very quickly to food shortages and also mean that radioactive isotopes, used among other things for cancer treatment, wouldn’t be able to cross into the UK anymore. “Planning for no deal” actually means “making a deal”.  (Where the Brexit elite may have a point is that the consequences of no deal are sufficiently disruptive on both sides that the British government shouldn’t  worry too much about the two-year time frame set out in Article 50, as both sides have too big an incentive to always agree to extra time. I don’t think this is likely for political reasons but there is a good economic case for it.)

For the most part, you can’t really plan for no deal. There are however some things the government could prepare for. They could, for instance, start hiring additional staff for customs checks and investing in a bigger IT system to be able to handle the increased volume of work that would need to take place at the British border. It would need to begin issuing compulsory purchases to build new customs posts at ports, particularly along the 300-mile stretch of the Irish border – where Northern Ireland, outside the European Union, would immediately have a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, which would remain inside the bloc. But as Newsnight’s Christopher Cook details, the government is doing none of these things.

Now, in a way, you might say that this is a good decision on the government’s part. Frankly, these measures would only be about as useful as doing your seatbelt up before driving off the Grand Canyon. Buying up land and properties along the Irish border has the potential to cause political headaches that neither the British nor Irish governments need. However, as Cook notes, much of the government’s negotiating strategy seems to be based around convincing the EU27 that the United Kingdom might actually walk away without a deal, so not making even these inadequate plans makes a mockery of their own strategy. 

But the frothing about preparing for “no deal” ignores a far bigger problem: the government isn’t really preparing for any deal, and certainly not the one envisaged in May’s Lancaster House speech, where she set out the terms of Britain’s Brexit negotiations, or in her letter to the EU27 triggering Article 50. Just to reiterate: the government’s proposal is that the United Kingdom will leave both the single market and the customs union. Its regulations will no longer be set or enforced by the European Court of Justice or related bodies.

That means that, when Britain leaves the EU, it will need, at a minimum: to beef up the number of staff, the quality of its computer systems and the amount of physical space given over to customs checks and other assorted border work. It will need to hire its own food and standards inspectors to travel the globe checking the quality of products exported to the United Kingdom. It will need to increase the size of its own regulatory bodies.

The Foreign Office is doing some good and important work on preparing Britain’s re-entry into the World Trade Organisation as a nation with its own set of tariffs. But across the government, the level of preparation is simply not where it should be.

And all that’s assuming that May gets exactly what she wants. It’s not that the government isn’t preparing for no deal, or isn’t preparing for a bad deal. It can’t even be said to be preparing for what it believes is a great deal. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.