2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Economist Magazine Endorses Barack Obama
Which one?
America could do better than Barack Obama; sadly, Mitt Romney does not fit the bill
FOUR years ago, The Economist endorsed Barack Obama for the White House with enthusiasm. So did millions of voters. Next week Americans will trudge to the polls far less hopefully. So (in spirit at least) will this London-based newspaper. Having endured a miserably negative campaign, the worlds most powerful country now has a much more difficult decision to make than it faced four years ago.
That is in large part because of the woeful nature of Mr Obamas campaign. A man who once personified hope and centrism set a new low by unleashing attacks on Mitt Romney even before the first Republican primary. Yet elections are about choosing somebody to run a country. And this choice turns on two questions: how good a president has Mr Obama been, especially on the main issues of the economy and foreign policy? And can America really trust the ever-changing Mitt Romney to do a better job? On that basis, the Democrat narrowly deserves to be re-elected.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/whichone
Not the most enthusiastic of endorsements, but an endorsement none the less.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)fugop
(1,828 posts)In what alternate reality did Obama set a new low with regards to negativity and attacks? What a crock of shit. Do they really believe what they're spewing, or are they just hoping bashing the prez will take some of the sting out of their endorsing him?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Through his surrogates. F- The Economist
Cha
(297,238 posts)make up shit as they go along.
barbtries
(28,794 posts)it's a terribly anemic endorsement.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)but given their readership is most likely fairly conservative, it's not surprising that they feel the need to water it down.
Vidar
(18,335 posts)putz like Romney.
Ebadlun
(336 posts)Unfortunately for them they're aren't any.
The Economist is an interesting read for its coverage of foreign affairs, but it's politics are complacent 1%-ism.
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)The endorsement makes serious points, good and bad, about our President's first term (emphasis mine):
Two other things count, on balance, in his favour. One is foreign policy, where he was also left with a daunting inheritance. Mr Obama has refocused George Bushs war on terror more squarely on terrorists, killing Osama bin Laden, stepping up drone strikes (perhaps too liberally, see article) and retreating from Iraq and Afghanistan (in both cases too quickly for our taste). After a shaky start with China, American diplomacy has made a necessary pivot towards Asia. By contrast, with both the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and his reset with Russia, he overreached and underdelivered. Iran has continued its worrying crawl towards nuclear weapons.
And what about Mittens (again emphasis mine):
snip
Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defense spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help Americas poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further). At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises. Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more.
I'll take whatever we can get from the Economist. Hopefully their words will fall on, and be heeded by, some formerly unsympathetic ears.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,316 posts)I don't know if they did endorsements for US president before then. They see Romney as the worst challenger in at least 32 years.
Martin Eden
(12,867 posts)Have they never heard of fact-checking?
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Martin Eden
(12,867 posts)They would vote for Romney BECAUSE he lied very effectively in that debate?
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)If they BELIEVED that the Mitt Romney they saw in the first debate was the real Mitt Romney they would have endorsed him.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)I had to change the card I use for my subscription...and was waiting to see who they endorsed! This will make the "ex's" head explode
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Cha
(297,238 posts)the DMR endorsinig romney. Full of bullshit.
Whatever Economist.
LTR
(13,227 posts)Good observations about preventing a depression and the refocused war on terror. But anti-commerce? Aloof and indifferent on foreign policy (while crediting Bush 41 for ending the Cold War). These people just don't get it.