ONE-TERM WONDER?

Posted at 7:08 a.m. ET

We're usually shy about speculation here.  It's so easy, and it's usually wrong.  But James Pethokoukis of U.S. News has written a fascinating piece, thoughtfully reported, on why Obama might be a one-term president.  He makes good points:  Herewith:

It's the battered economy, after all, that will be President Obama's greatest domestic policy challenge. As such, it will also be his greatest political challenge, too -- but one where failure may already be baked into the cake.

That's right, the "O" in "Obama" may stand for "One Term." For starters, there's a strong chance that when voters head to the polls on Nov. 2, 2010, they likely will still think the economy is awful. Not much debate about that. (Good chance the Democrats' two-election winning streak comes to an end.)

Okay, so he may suffer setbacks in the mid-terms.  But what about 2012?

And while voters may be somewhat patient for two years, patient for four years? Really unlikely. If history is any guide at all, voters may still be terribly cranky about the economy when they cast their ballots on Nov. 6, 2012 and thus likely choose the 45th president of the United States -- be it Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal or some other Republican without "Bush" for a last name. Once again a "change" election for an impatient America. The same bad economy that doomed John McCain in 2008 will have sunk Obama, as well.

Keep this column away from Michelle.  She won't be proud of her country anymore.

See, it takes a while for people to really perceive that an economy has turned around, especially if unemployment is high. Bill Clinton won the 1992 election on the economy ("it's the economy, stupid") even though GDP had been growing for six full quarters. According to Gallup, 88 percent of Americans thought the economy was "fair" or "poor" in October 1992 with some 60 percent saying the economy was "getting worse." Two years later, it was the Democrats turn to feel the brunt of widespread economic anxiety as the Republicans captured both the House and the Senate. Even though the economy had then been growing for 14 straight quarters and the unemployment rate was down to 5.8 percent, 72 percent of Americans still thought the economy was "fair" or "poor" and 66 percent though the nation was headed in the wrong direction.

This man has done his research, a rarity in journalism.

And then there's this: The 2008-09 recession may actually be far nastier than its 1990-91 twin. Every day, Wall Street forecasts worsen. Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist at Goldman Sachs, expects a jobless rate of 8 1/2 percent by the end of 2009 and drifting a bit higher in 2010 for the biggest cumulative rise in unemployment since the Great Depression. And over at JP Morgan Chase, economists are predicting the economy will shrink 4.0 percent this quarter and 2.0 percent during the first three months of 2009. And on top of all that, you have the $7 trillion of lost national net worth. (Think higher investment and business taxes will help?)

Plus the fact that the bailouts, which will be administered on Obama's watch, are hugely unpopular and resented.

Obama's election is often compared to that of Ronald Reagan's in 1980. Both gentlemen were voted in to fix an ailing economy. But the 1982 recession took a huge chunk out of the Gipper's popularity. He had just a 35 percent job approval rating at the start of 1983, just two months after Republicans lost 27 seats in the House in the midterm elections. But Reagan's presidency was saved by an amazing economic rebound. The economy surged at a 4.5 percent pace in 1983 and at a mind-blowing 7.2 percent clip in 1984 as unemployment dropped from a high of 10.8 percent in December 1982 to 7.2 percent in November 1984. The Long Boom was underway.

Finally...

Reagan worked his magic with tax cuts. Obama is trying to do the same with government spending. But stimulus packages are only supposed to keep the recession from getting worse or morphing into a mini-depression. I don't think anyone expects that $500 billion in hot money to return America to prosperity. Only time (and the private sector) can do that, especially with a downturn caused by a credit crisis and deflating asset bubble.

Someone said, before the voting, that this might be the only presidential election in American history where the winner asks for a recount.  Obama has a staggering job ahead of him, with very little experience behind him.  He also has an angry Democratic Party and interest groups who will demand their chunk of the organically produced pie.

And there is something else.  Economic stress almost always leads to ugly recrimination, often directed against minorities or "businessmen."  Will a President Obama, under intense political pressure, be able to avoid joining in the finger pointing?  If he slips into it, he might be seen as divisive as is (unfairly) George W. Bush.

There is nothing more unpredictable than a presidency.  When the minds of many mainstream journalists reach voting age, they may begin to see the complexities and dangers ahead, and bring an end to the sixties-style mindlessness that has surrounded the election result.

November 12, 2008.