Excellent comment. I particularly appreciate your calling me on my lack of precision regarding how I define the “modern” presidency. For future reference, most political scientists view FDR as a bridge between the premodern and modern presidencies,so when I write about the modern era, I’m usually referring to the post-FDR transition presidency. But I should have defined my terms more clearly.

You are correct that the bipartisan commission that Obama appointed stressed that revenues can be increased without an increase in tax rates – a position that Obama studiously refrained from endorsing, I should add. If you have read my previous posts, you will know that I have long argued that any deficit reduction plan endorsed by Republicans will include some version of the Feldstein position: no increase in tax rates, but substantial tax reform that will include closing tax loopholes. I stand by that prediction.

Krugman is surely an excellent economist, but he is a lousy political analyst – a point I have made repeatedly at this site. I understand why progressives read his column – he provides comfort to the liberal soul, much as Rush Limbaugh boosts the morale of the Republican Right. But his assessments of Republicans motives and strategies are hopelessly contaminated by his partisan leanings, and you need to wean yourself from taking them seriously. Krugman is an economist and columnist whose job is to preach to the liberal choir. He does this quite well. Alas, political analysis is not his forte. For that, I hope you come here. My track record (and you can read my past posts to verify this) is far from perfect, but it is better than his.

As evidence, consider Krugman’s assertion that Republicans are not serious about reducing the deficit if it puts them in conflict with their pledge not to raise taxes. In Krugmanesque fashion, you describe this as a “pledge not to think”. Here is an alternative interpretation: by holding the line on tax increases, Republicans gain leverage in the political negotiations on how best to reduce the deficit. The Krugman’s of the world think this is lousy economics, but the sad reality is that these budget decisions are driven by politics, not economic theory. Politics is the art of the possible. As long as Republicans remain committed to the “no tax increase” pledge, Obama and Democrats will have to factor that into their budget negotiations. You may think this is bad economics. I don’t care – all I’m interested in is understanding what is likely to happen – not what Krugman and his disciples think should happen.

This leads me to my second point: political scientists have a decent track record of predicting election outcomes. At this point, assuming the fundamentals that drive elections do not change appreciably between now and November, 2012, this election is essentially a toss up. That means that you are correct that it is not far-fetched to expect a second term for Obama – but it is equally not far fetched to expect a Republican president in 2012. Given these fundamentals, you have a choice: you can believe in the never-never land described by Krugman, or you can come here to see what is likely to happen.

You say no president in the modern era has been re-elected with an unemoloyment rate above 8 percent. I don’t know what you regard as the modern era, but my definition is simple: if I was alive during someone’s presidency then he was a president of the modern era.
Franklin Roosevelt was re-elected in 1936 with an unemployment rate above 16 percent. And he was re-elected pretty handily. That’s because it was clear then that the Republicans had no answers beyond more austerity. And it seems clear that they don’t now. You write that their “whole legislative agenda is predicated on pursuing policy that in their view, rightly or not, will stimulate growth.”
I think that’s debatable. Martin Feldstein, the most Republican of economists, wrote in the New York Times of May 4 that “Reducing the budget deficit and stopping the explosion of our national debt will require more tax revenue as well as reduced government spending. But the need for more revenue needn’t mean higher tax rates.
As the bipartisan fiscal commission appointed by President Obama stressed last year, tax revenues can be increased substantially by limiting the deductions, credits and exclusions that are essentially government spending by another name.”
Congressional Republicans all say that reducing the deficit is essential for renewed growth, but very few want to limit deductions and exclusions (loopholes, by another name). So, in Feldstein’s view, very few really want to limit the deficit, supposedly a sine qua non for economic growth. As Krugman has noted a number of times, they don’t really seem to care about reducing the deficit — at least not if it puts them in conflict with their pledge not to raise taxes. Which, after all, is really a pledge to not think.

Given this, I don’t think it very far-fetched at all to expect a second Obama term.

Your excellent comment addresses a significant debate that I suspect is going on (or went on) in the Obama White House: with the election 14 months off, do we posture, in Trumanesque fashion, by placing a series of policy markers on the public agenda that distinguish us from Republicans – and which they won’t support – and let the voters decide? Or do we really try to strike a deal with Republicans, in the hope that the legislation (say, some version of a grand bargain centered on entitlement reform, or a combination of more spending cuts with a restructuring of the tax code) will a) pay political dividends and b) perhaps even impact the economy in a positive fashion down the road? I think your inclination is for Obama to be Trumanesque by accentuating partisan differences. At this late date, that may make the most sense politically in the short-term, but probably not policy wise i the long-term and perhaps not even politically either looking ahead. And there’s the rub – we are deep into the election season, which makes it harder to do the right thing.

I do want to take issue with a couple of your assertions. First, it’s not clear to me that all or even a majority of Republicans in the House were willing to default. If they were, we would not have a debt deal – one that almost half the Tea Party caucus opposed – but that half of the Democrats did too. This was a centrist policy agreement that played both ideological ends against one another. Second, I am pretty sure that Republicans don’t view themselves as against “economic growth” – indeed, their whole legislative agenda is predicated on pursuing policy that in their view, rightly or not, will stimulate growth.

“While you may be right that Republicans do not want to cooperate, it will be harder for them to refuse to do so if Obama makes a legitimate effort to meet them half way.”

This response really suggests that you have a different perception of what is possible with this Republican House. “Half-way”? The Republicans are seeking nothing but a mixture of austerity and tax cuts that have little affect in an economy in which corporations are sitting on record profits refusing to invest these funds in the U.S. largely because of a lack of demand (thats my “Krugman style”). You seem to concede that in the second part of your response, but your suggestion of going “half-way” means little given that the House was willing to default if they did not receive what they wanted. I think a better suggestion for Obama comes from a recent post on the “Mokey Cage”:

“…my discussion of Lynn Vavreck’s The Message Matters. She argues that, yes, economic conditions have a powerful impact on presidential elections. But when those conditions favor a candidate, it matters whether the candidate capitalizes on this fact by talking about the economy. (Al Gore did not.) And when those conditions do not favor a candidate, it matters whether the candidate can successfully change the subject. And by “matters,” I mean she shows that these strategies shift vote share by a large enough amount to influence the outcome of some presidential elections, even after taking into account the economy.”

Now, I am not totally convinced that a campaign could shift the message away from this terrible economy that you rightly point to as sinking Obama’s chances, but suggesting some type of “legitimate” raapproachment with House Republicans to promote economic growth seems to be a real misreading of the level of their opposition. BTW this does not make them “evil”, but it does make them obstructionists seeking to achieve their political goals (Obama’s defeat, drowning government in a bathtub, etc…) at the expense of economic growth.

I was in the middle of writing a longer post responding to Gerald’s very good question, but you beat me to the punch, and in more concise fashion. Hibbs’ model, and others like it, dating back to John Muellar’s pioneering work, are based on American wars with thousand of casualties. They aren’t precisely calibrated enough to tease out the relative impact of a change in casualties numbering in the hundreds. This is a debate, by the way, that played out in the Bush administration, with some arguing that the public’s tolerance for extended wars, even those with low casualties, has diminished in recent years, largely due to more pervasive media exposure. If I can, I’ll write an extended post that develops these points, but thanks for the link to Hibbs, and the comment, David.