Obama isn't a sure thing.

[Vattel]

Yes the Republican Party has sold its soul to the crazies in its ranks. Yes, the current list of possible Republican candidates for President looks like Obama's dream list. But here are five reasons for Obama's supporters to be wary of being too complacent:

1. In spite of 8 horrible years of Bush, McCain was leading Obama in many polls until the collapse of the economy a few months before the 2008 election.

2. All kinds of disasters can happen between now and the election. God forbid, but the war in Libya could turn out to be a turd-sandwich, for example. And there is no guarantee that the economy will not worsen in ways that damages Obama's popularity (have you seen oil prices lately?)

3. The Democrats lost Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts.

4. The ever-fickle mainstream media might decide to spew bullshit to undermine Obama's campaign. Or have we already forgotten how they gave Bush the whitehouse in 2000 by repeating all of the lies about Gore (and note that many so-called liberals in the media played a huge role in the smear campaign against Gore).

5. The Republican's primary schedule is structured in a way that reduces the chances of a teabagger getting the nomination. Their nominee may turn out to be someone relatively moderate (by RW standards) that comes out of nowhere. No one was predicting Obama or Bill Clinton (in 1992) to be the Democratic nominee this far from the election.

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Take Obama and give the points.

He not only wins, he covers the spread.

[Vattel]

2. Don't get me wrong.

I would definitely bet on his winning. But I think it would be dangerous for Democrats to think that it's a sure thing.

[SkyDaddy7]

42. I feel the same way!

With the Citizen United ruling & the fact most Americans are so easily fooled by Right Wing Propaganda I know Obama is not a sure bet to win. I HOPE he does win but it is a long time between now & the election!

[tularetom]

3. Gas prices soaring to $5 or $6 a gallon a year before the election won't help him

Doesn't matter whose fault that is, any president will get blamed.

Even so, I find it hard to believe that any 2012 graduates of republican clown college would have even a whiff of a chance of defeating Obama.

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. The largest single blowout in American presidential history....

...was in 1936, in the middle of a depression, and the winner was an incumbent.

The second was in 1984, hard on the heels of a recession, and the winner was an incumbent.

For every Carter there's a Landon, for every Bush I, a Reagan.

[MH1]

39. W is a clown and he (almost) beat Gore

when the economy was good thanks to Clinton, and the worst thing Gore had against him was the smear against Clinton - which any rational human being with a life, should have blown off (oops sorry for the pun) in relation to the real issues that a President has to deal with. But enough yahoos voted for Bush (and Nader) to make it close enough for the clown to steal.

NEVER assume that the American electorate won't vote to put a clown in the office of President. Unfortunately history smashes that assumption pretty thoroughly.

[Wait Wut]

4. As much as I disagree with you...

...I appreciate the post. Too many people claiming that he's a sure thing makes the less motivated Dems feel like they don't need to make the effort. That's a more risky situation than the teapers.

So... a rec with a thank you.

[Guilded Lilly]

5. I believe in Obama and all kinds of GOOD could happen too...but I also will add that...

a dangerous portion of America is extremely stupid. So stupid they will support wretched Tea Baggers who have no interest in their welfare, but who daily spew lies and ugliness. That America embraces ugly. They have a for a long time and it is getting worse.

Undercurrents of incredibly powerful, wealthy racists/bigots/misogynists/corporate scum (take your choice) are constantly at work beneath "patriotism" "honor" "country" to smash and control anything that will threaten their rush for the almighty dollar and power.

Republicans will do ANYTHING to see Obama fail. Including bringing their own constituents to their graves.

We have a handful of insidiously foul men (and a few repugnant women) who do not give a DAMN about the country or the citizens therein, but who only care about The Win at all costs.

We have to be cautious, and careful and very very diligent.

[Inuca]

6. Ted Kennedy lost his seat??!?!?!? n/t

[dennis4868]

7. I thought he died....

was he on the ballot? I did not know that....

[Inuca]

12. Of course he died :-(, and

of course he was not on any ballot. That WAS my point. Not sure what the point of the OP was...

[Vattel]

16. He held it so long, I kinda thought it was his even after he died.

[rocktivity]

8. All the Repubs have to do is force Obama to run against himself

Forcing him to explain why he embraced the majority of what he described as "failed" Bush policies, particularly the tax cuts, might demoralize enough progressives and independents to stay home on election day.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[emulatorloo]

13. They won't do that in the media. Too risky. However they may send trolls to internet sites

to argue that. Posing as liberals attacking from the left. May start up some fake progressive websites too.

[dennis4868]

18. "he embraced the majority of what he described as "failed" Bush policies"

Please tell which of the things listed on the link provide are failed Bush policies?

www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com

[rocktivity]

21. We've still got the Patriot Act and the Bush tax cuts,

which I wouldn't be unhappy about if he'd at least TRIED to do something about them.



:headbang:
rocktivity

[great white snark]

22. So he "embraced" making the tax cuts permanent?

He explained the compromise and his approval numbers have gone up since then.

I would love to see the differences between Obama and Bush thoroughly debated. Some progressives need to be educated on the issue even more than the Republicans do.

[rocktivity]

23. We're going to be paying the bill for that compromise

not him and the top 3%-earning crowd. Besides, don't you think that when the extension ends, the Rethugs will run the same game on us all over again?

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Solomon]

27. The repubs would be stupid to ask those questions

You really think they want to give him that kind of forum? I think he would be able to explain it very well, all the while blasting them for their roadblocking.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. He's a surer thing than any Republican at the moment

1. True, but not by much. McCain was better known too. Obama got a good bounce from the DNC although it was undercut by the RNC and the announcement of Palin as VP. As soon as people figured out how dangerously unqualified she was, McCain's candidacy was doomed. I would argue that he probably would've ultimately lost in any event because the Republican "brand" had been so badly disgraced and damaged by GWB- though the race might have been closer with a more competent VP nominee.

2. Disasters or something truly evil and awful COULD happen between now and then to undercut President Obama. However, it's not always just about something awful happening but how it's handled and President Obama has handled things extraordinarily well not to mention competently so far IMHO, so I'm at a loss about what could be so overwhelmingly bad that would politically destroy him in time for the 2012 election. So far, neither Issa nor anybody else has uncovered any huge lurking scandals that could haunt Obama like Whitewater did Clinton (and even despite Whitewater, Clinton still won re-election handily).

3. Bad candidate, off-year election, There was Democratic voter apathy and massive Republican Tea Party mobilization. That's almost certainly NOT going to be the case in 2012 IMHO.

4. Obama has had two plus solid years of corporate media, Fox News, Republican Tea Party mudslinging and still has quite healthy approval ratings and is personally liked by most average people.

5. A decent "moderate" Republican candidate MIGHT emerge from their primaries who isn't a teabagger BUT that's no guarantee that the fire-breathing teabaggers are going to be motivated to organize and vote for them unless that candidate decides to pander to them and if they do, then that will make them no different than if they were teabaggers themselves and will leave themselves wide open for attack by President Obama during the campaign.

[ProSense]

11. Nothing is a sure thing

but if Democratic pundits, the media and Republicans succeed at tearing down Democrats, it will be to the advantage of Republicans.

[emulatorloo]

14. Of course not. n/t

[William769]

15. The only sure thing is

Birth, taxes and death.

[JoePhilly]

17. Item #1 fails ...

I know this because I spent the summer of 2008 debating right wing nuts. From JUNE on Obama held about a 6% lead when you averaged all polls (including the anchor Rasmussen, which consistently showed McCain roughly even).

McCain got a small bump when he picked Palin, an unknown woman who initially seemed to be able to speak to the right wing base which McCain was unable to energize. McCain actually got a tiny lead briefly. And then a few days later, Palin's ridiculous statements started, and Obama's poll number lead returned to 6-7%.

#2 nope. Libya will be forgotten probably in the next few weeks. And the economy has been improving, steadily.

#3 nope. That seat was lost because the Democratic party could not get behind one candidate. The entire thing became an exercise in INTERNAL in fighting. The focus on internal politics resulted in a non-focus on external politics. But that does lead into ...

#4. This one is real. The media will give ANY right wing meme full attention for being serious, and the left will have no problem bashing Obama from now unitl then (you can see that here on DU every day).

#5. When I try to consider ALL GOP members, those who seem to be running, and those how don't, even those who say they are not running ... its tough to find a SERIOUS GOP candidate.

Having said all of this, I still think we should act AS-IF there is a serious GOP challenge, and work like crazy to take a 6% win in 2008, and make it a 10 or 20% win in 2012.

[rocktivity]

25. DING DING DING! JoePhilly, you're our grand prize winner!

Having said all of this, I still think we should act AS-IF there is a serious GOP challenge, and work like crazy to take a 6% win in 2008, and make it a 10 or 20% win in 2012.

A razor-thin margin a victory will do him more harm then good, just as it did in Bush's second term.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[totodeinhere]

35. All of that is mere speculation. It is impossible to make any accurate predictions

this far out from the election. I would rate Obama as the favorite but a lot can happen between now and then that Obama might not have any control over.

[Life Long Liberal]

19. I think the GOP contenders will be lamer than usual. n/t

[robcon]

20. It's as close to a sure thing as we've seen in a generation, IMO.

Obama is strong among independents, where elections are decided.

Dems will vote for Obama; Repugs will vote for whomever the Repugs nominate.

Independents will decide the election, as usual, and I think Obama will do much better than he did in 2008.

[WI_DEM]

24. Neither were Reagan or Clinton at this time in their presidencies

go back and look at their numbers at this time. Reagan was trailing Mondale!

[sadbear]

26. The media will turn on the tea party soon

Their schtick is getting tired. Bad for ratings. Turning on them will be a ratings bonanza.

[Fire1]

28. He's the best your gonna get. You better hope he's a sure

thing.

[joentokyo]

31. Better than what? I cannot see a difference between Obama and a Republican.

[Fire1]

38. Then you haven't been paying attention. n/t

[Hawkowl]

41. Au contraire

There is a difference between Obama and the batshit crazy wing of the R party. However, he would be right at home with Goldwater and Nixon.

[StevieM]

29. No candidate is guaranteed victory. But right now I think he looks strong for re-election (eom)

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

30. Your anti-Obama crusade will fail.

[Vattel]

33. Weird post. I think he will win and I hope he wins.

[Arkana]

32. ...

1. Yeah, so? Sure, without the crash, Obama probably would have won by a smaller margin.

2. Also true, but it is equally likely that a lot of good can happen in a year and a half.

3. You're kidding, right? Martha Coakley's political tone-deafness lost Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. No way in hell this state turns red.

4. They, um, do this already, and poll after poll after poll shows Obama trouncing the potential field in most battleground states.

5. I don't know--they have some states that are proportional, which I would think would increase the chances of a teabagger at least hanging around long enough to make an establishment candidate like Romney sweat.

[krawhitham]

34. I quit reading after #1 because it is bullshit

Obama locked up the nomination on June 3. Obama trailed McCain for a total of 7 days (Sept 12 - 19, convention bump) from June 3th through the election

look it up

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Jun03.html

[craigmatic]

36. There's no such thing as a sure thing. Nobody ever talks about Patacki or one of these blue state

repigs either getting the nomination or being put on the ticket. Yet it remains a dangerous possibility.

[ClassWarrior]

37. And the way to win is to embrace the values of your ideological base...

...not run from them.

No Center, No Centrists
by George Lakoff

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views...

I am a cognitive scientist and believe that people's brains play a significant role in elections. From the perspective of brain science, the answer is a no-brainer. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) You speak to biconceptuals the same way you speak to your base: you discuss progressive values, and if you are talking to folks with both progressive and conservative values, you mainly talk about the issues where they share progressive values. What that does is evoke and strengthen the progressive values already there in the minds of biconceptuals.

And of course, you don't negate or argue against the other on their framing turf -- remember Don't Think of an Elephant!

That was the winning strategy of Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Brown is a thoroughgoing progressive who never moved one inch to the right. He talked about the issues where he agreed with his Ohio audiences -- and legitimately spoke for them...

Read the rest at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[Hawkowl]

40. Obama is a sure loser

The economy will be in the shitter. THREE wars. Unemployment greater than 8%. Gasoline above $5 gallon. The Rethuglicans will nominate a 'moderate' governor and he will get his ass kicked a la the 2010 midterms. He has alienated progressives, the GLBT community, unions and teachers. He's toast.

[EndElectoral]

44. I think you're right....we need a primary, and a leader with convictions

I see Wes Clark, Russ Feingold, Howard Dean, Dennis Kuccinich, Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders as possibilities, and would gladly entertain someone not currently in politics, but I really beleive that Obama will not win in 2012, nor do I like what he has done.

I think Hawkowl is right on the money, and it's wearing rose colored glasses to believe we are going to see a massive turnaround by 2012.

[Keith Bee]

43. If there's a double-dip, maybe

Otherwise, I see the Prez winning reelection, albeit by a smaller margin than '08.