A reader disagrees concerning Obama’s errors:
It’s much more than voter belief about the truth of hard facts like unemployment numbers, which have improved. It’s the fact that the federal government took on huge amounts of debt to save the banksters butts, businesses and bonuses, and did very little for the common man, many of whom lost their houses in the largest spate of foreclosures since the Great Depression. That just looks bad. The 98% took it on the chin so that the 2% did not have to. The way capitalism is supposed to work is those banksters should have gone bankrupt and been penniless themselves.
Granted. But the Bush Administration’s Henry Paulson led the effort to stabilize those banks. Did Obama really have an option to let them fail after Bush began the injection of capital to stabilize them? Younge suggests Obama had a choice about that; I’m not so sure.
But I could also argue this is part of Obama’s reluctance to prosecute for the errors of the previous Administration. After all, I think certain members of the Bush Administration could have been put on trial for war crimes, and Obama declined to even consider pushing that issue. While I can understand that he saw that as another wedge to divide a nation that desperately needed to come together, the price on that decision was to legitimize a war, and a party that pursued a war of dubious moral quality – and they knew it.
Of course, I’m way off the initial question. I’ll spare my readers my speculations – although I think Obama chose to achieve positive results, rather than prosecute errors. He felt he had to choose between the two, apparently.
So let me say this: I found the article unpersuasive for three reasons.
First, throughout the campaign I did not hear or read a single rumble about the unfortunate treatment of the banking industry at the start of the Obama Administration. I didn’t see a single poll that mentioned the issue. So far as I could see, it didn’t exist. Now, I didn’t have time for complete coverage, so if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But I didn’t see anything referencing the banking industry.
Second, there are no numbers in Younge’s articles to bolster his argument. No polls. No nothing. He’s putting an opinion out there, but is really failing to back it up with relevant objective facts. Not that I’m not guilty of that behavior, but I’m willing to flag it in others. I’d love to see a single reputable poll where the handling of the banking industry is cited as a reason for not voting for … Clinton. That would make his case far more believable.
Third, for all that he wants me to believe that Clinton lost because she was running for Obama’s third term, it’s crap. In fact, it’s differentiated faeces, in two ways. First, Clinton is a different politician with different priorities and policies, She spent a fair amount of time explaining that – between defending and sniping. But secondly, and more importantly, if she was running for Obama’s third term?
She would have won. Hands down.
Presidential Approval Time Series
Source: Gallup
I tried to capture this chart with the relevant data showing, but it didn’t work. On 11/11, which is close to Election Day, Obama’s approval rating was 55%. If Clinton was seen as Obama redux, she would have won based on his popularity. But it didn’t happen. She lost for reasons peculiar to her campaign – not to Obama’s actions.
So I can’t accept Younge’s assertion, based on this lack of evidence and some counter-evidence and logic. I can accept that punishment of the bankers should have occurred – see here for the punishment of the Icelandic bankers. Sure, it’s galling – but it’s also eight years in the past. It would be an improper cliche to say that voters have short memories – but there are certain things they don’t remember. So far as I can tell, this is one of them.
