Pollster: Bin Laden Death No Game-Changer for Obama in 2012

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_embassy_newzealand/5682145800/sizes/m/in/photostream/">US Embassy New Zealand</a>

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

It didn’t take long for Washington’s pundits to begin prophesying how the assassination of Osama bin Laden would impact President Obama’s popularity among American voters.

Prior to the Bin Laden announcement, Obama’s approval ratings were languishing in the mid-40s, near the lowest of his presidency. But then came Sunday’s big news. Soon after, pollster John Zogby said Obama’s approval ratings could spike by 10 points, and Obama’s 2012 election chances leaped by more than 10 points on online prediction market Intrade.

But in today’s National Journal, Charlie Cook, one of the most respected pollsters in Washington, lays out what’s probably the smartest assessment of how Bin Laden’s death will affect Obama’s standing. Cook’s conclusion: Not much.

Cook calls Bin Laden’s death “a B-12 shot in the arm” for Obama and the Democratic Party, but adds that “it’s not a cure.” The issues ailing Obama’s presidency—chronic unemployment, high gas prices, political instability in the Middle East—remain problematic, and even the death of the world’s most wanted terrorist won’t make voters forget about the nation’s economic woes, Cook argues. He writes:

There is little question that this long-awaited event will hit a reset button in terms of day-to-day or even week-to-week politics, changing for a time the zeitgeist.

Democrats will fervently hope that the public will see this as a seminal moment in which people begin to see and appreciate President Obama in a new light, much as President Bill Clinton’s speech after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, in retrospect, was a turning point for his presidency.

But it might be a mistake to assume that it is a more enduring game-changer in terms of the politics of 2012 or that it will recast Obama as much as it did for Clinton.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend