Please, spare us the “How Obama lost his magic” columns
Let's stop pretending that the president's current middling approval numbers were anything other than inevitable
Topics: Barack Obama, War Room, 2010 Elections, Media Criticism, Politics News
President Barack Obama, accompanied by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, speaks at a Recovery Act highway project in Columbus, Ohio, Friday, June 18, 2010. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)(Credit: AP)For his weekly New York Times column over the weekend, Charles Blow scanned some recent polling data and concluded that President Obama’s “magic has drained away.”
He then tried to explain why, laying some blame on voters (for expecting too much) and some on Obama (for being too inflexible and “rooted in the belief that his way is the right way and in no need of alteration”). To regain his popularity, Blow advised the president to “re-evaluate the composition of his inner circle (which could use a shake-up) and the constitution of his inner self (which could use a wake-up).”
Man, oh man, do I hate these kinds of columns. Why? Because the explanation for Obama’s midterm polling slide is actually very simple: It was inevitable from the moment he was elected, and there was nothing he could have done to avoid it.
Just about every president’s popularity wanes in his second year in office; the only question is of degree. In Obama’s case, the drop was always going to be pronounced, given the enormous popularity he started out with and the gruesome economic conditions he walked into. Factor in sizable Democratic congressional majorities, which (fair or not) make it impossible for Obama to credibly blame the country’s woes on his political opponents, and you have the recipe for substantial “buyer’s remorse.” Here’s how I put it back in December 2008, before Obama even took office, in a column that advised ambitious Democrats not to run for higher office in 2010:
That brings us to 2010. On the surface, it looks like another promising year for Democrats, particularly in the Senate, where the G.O.P. will have more turf to defend—some of it in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and New Hampshire, where Democrats have had much success these past two elections. In a climate like 2008 or 2006—or even like 2000 or 1998—the stage would seem set for a strong Democratic year.
But by Election Day 2010, Democrats will have been running Washington for nearly two years. As economist Paul Krugman suggested in Monday’s New York Times, no matter what Barack Obama does in the coming months, dreadful economic news is likely for all of 2009, perhaps well into 2010. Americans have invested considerable hope in Obama—more than they have in most incoming presidents—but, amid perpetually gloomy news, this optimism will eventually give way.
Suddenly, those promising targets for Democrats might not look so inviting…
Steve Kornacki writes about politics for Salon. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki More Steve Kornacki.




Republican Virginia Lt. Governor Nominee: Obama Sees World "From A Muslim Perspective"
Rep. Issa Aware Of IRS Investigation Since Last July
French President Hollande Signs Marriage Equality Bill
Obama Group Braces For Progressive Backlash Over Keystone
Comments
102 Comments