Is the President's re-election in jeopardy?

[kentuck]

We shouldn't kid ourselves.

The President's approval rating in the last polls was only 39%. In the next 6-8 weeks, it may go down closer to 30%? He knows that this is a critical point of his presidency.

It does no good to deceive ourselves by talking about how "weak" the Republican opponents are going to be. In the end, the people vote on the incumbent. Did he do a good job or not? Was it good enough to get re-elected? From the present polls, the answer is no.

Can the President turn it around? Possibly, but he needs to change course. More taxcuts and more spending cuts will not do the trick, in my opinion. The President has the added burden of trying to work with an opposing Party that does not want him to accomplish anything. They want him to fail. And they will do everything within their power to make him fail, including voting against tax cuts, if necessary.

The average voter does not see this inside game being played by the Republicans. They only see if more people are unemployed or if the economy is getting worse. They will blame the President. This is the political reality that Barack Obama is dealing with. So, what can he do?

The time for political opportunity is probably long gone? He had a mandate when he came into office. He had the people behind him and he had a weak opposition Party that was fearful of losing everything. But, he blew it. He let the Republicans back into the game and now they are calling the shots.

What can he do to save his Presidency? Even the Black Caucus and the progressives in his own Party are disappointed with the way the President has handled the worst crisis of the last 70 years, at least since WWII. How can he get the people behind him once again? After all, it is the people that will determine whether or not he is a one-term or two-term President. I don't see how the President can do it?

Even if he regains the support of the liberals and the progressive base, how will he inspire the young voters and the independents to rejoin the cause? There is simply no way that he is going to get the same support he had the last time he ran. The best he can hope for, perhaps, is for a Third Party candidate, that will divide the Republican votes, and permit him to pull a Bill Clinton-type victory with less than 50% of the vote?

It is an up-hill struggle and the election is closer than we think.

.

[NightWatcher]

1. Lucky for him he's up against the Crazy Brigade. A competent opponent would be dangerous

I can't think of a non-crazy repuke at this time...and that's a good thing.

[kentuck]

3. But the point is...

people will vote on the President's job, no matter how crazy his opponent might be.

[Telly Savalas]

85. Quite to the contrary, a Bachmann or a Palin would bring a lot of voters to the polls

to vote for Obama who would otherwise stay home. Even for people extremely unhappy and disappointed with the President, keeping at nutjob like those two out of the White House would motivate a lot of folks to vote. This isn't a matter of ideology, but rather that of basic competency. Most of the GOP candidates should really be placed in a tranquil setting painting birdhouses, not be named the chief executive of the world's most powerful organization.

So yeah, I guess you could still say folks would vote on the president's job: "the president is doing a subpar job, but at least he can tie his own shoes and doesn't talk like George Will on magic mushrooms, so he's getting my vote."

You'd get this to a lesser degree with Perry, as he can do a better job of putting on a facade of being normal once the primaries are over.

With Romney, you probably are looking at a referendum on the President like you describe.

[JVS]

107. That's playing with fire. In 2009 we thought the teabaggers would destroy the republican party...

and instead they brought it back to life in the midterms. Americans like things done in an extreme or even excessive manner. Look at our cars, our food, our entertainment. Nothing is better liked than an extravaganza. Our politics are not different. In 2008 Obama won because the republican party was incumbent and Obama was able to promise change while McCain was kind of tied to the failure of Bush's policies. At best McCain could promise adjustments. Then after the election Obama just makes slight adjustments to Bush's policies for the most part and the republicans, free of having to answer for ongoing policy, can advocate for a radical dismantling of federal institutions. And Americans like the politicians who talk the loudest smack.

[bvar22]

28. At this point, it is a mistake to focus on the Republican Clown Car.

There are several very dangerous Republicans waiting in the wings, avoiding attention & blood shed, who can step out at the last minute and seem acceptably moderate after the Clown Car spectacle finally implodes.

Almost nobody knew who Bill Clinton was until right before the Democratic Convention.

[BlueIris]

32. That's what I say. These extreme candidates are a total red herring.

The real one is an utterly unappealing jackass, but a sly and crafty one. Not to mention filled with hate for the entire Democratic party (especially our nominee.)

[bvar22]

57. Someone like Jeb Bush.

He's totally flying under the Radar right now.
A Southern Governor with superb name recognition,
who could step in at the last moment and Save America!
He could unite The Fundies, the TeaBaggers, and the old "patriotic" Republicans.
There are others too.

Anyone who believes that an Obama re-election is in the bag
isn't paying attention, or is easily distracted by shiny objects,
like The Clown Car now sucking up all the oxygen.

Combine a Last Minute Savior Republican Candidate with a 3rd Party Challenge from The Left
(well funded with Republican money), the defection of LABOR,
and we have the makings of a Perfect Storm.

I remember the over confidence in 2004.
How could anybody lose to Bush-the-Lesser?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[moksha]

2. All great questions. He will have to run on his record.

I wonder how he feels about the first 3 years of his presidency. Is he proud and satisfied with where the country is now? Did he accomplish what he wanted?

[trueblue2007]

75. WHY WOULD ANY DU MEMBER GIVE THIS A PLUS MARK?

YOU PEOPLE DON'T WANT PRESIDENT OBAMA TO SERVE ANOTHER TERM?

i can't believe i am seeing so much discontent .. almost some notes moving towards hatred. makes me sad

[moksha]

92. I read nothing towards hate in the OP or what I wrote.

I think the OP made very good points. We can't take Obama's re-election for granted. The economy stinks and that is one of the biggest factors when voters make their decision. It is good for us to face the harsh reality that we may have a tough election ahead of us. We should prepare for that. It would be against our interest to assume it will be easy.

Please refrain from calling me "you people". I don't want a repub president. I will work to prevent that by voting for and encouraging others vote for Obama.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Broderick]

4. Heard a guy talking about a poll on the radio today

He said that when polling, one of the questions was "did you vote for B. Obama in the last election?". 51% said no, 43% said yes. Now, we all know what the results of the election were. Either people are lying, not wanting to admit they voted for him or the sampling is bad. What disturbs me the most is that this signals a huge shift on what folks think of the President at this point if the sampling is not in error. I have seen it with people, saying more frequently - well, I didn't vote for him. Some even say, not my fault cause I voted for the other guy. Nevertheless, things need to turn around quickly in my opinion. We have batshit crazy in myriad forms on the Republican side, and I can only imagine what this country will be like if Obama loses. They may win the Senate on coattails, and retention of the house is a given regardless. This is a tenuous time in our country's history.

[kentuck]

5. He has to find a way to inspire and energize the people...

or it is lost, in my opinion.

[HereSince1628]

8. Unfortunately, people trust his rhetoric a lot less at this time.

He and the history he was making was inspiring in 2010, the base went 'all-in' for him.

The disappointment he has created is his toughest opponent. It's very hard to see how he's going to do anything about jobs that will help by the end of October 2012. And he's still talking deficit cutting.

Without deficit spending the public sector won't be doing any hiring and stimulus will turn to post hoc tax incentives for job creation by corporations. How much leverage is left there, really?

[kentuck]

14. "The disappointment he has created is his toughest opponent"

I think you may be right.

[Broderick]

17. Independents and even some moderate Republicans

swung to him, for "change". And it worked brilliantly. Some feel, that change never developed and some even feel that the change has been for the worse. People vote with the pocketbook, and frankly there are a lot of people hurting now. With that hurt comes blame.

[RKP5637]

13. Often IMO he feels what is needed is another speech, and that's not going to hack it. People in

desperation will vote for change, even if that is for a republican crazy, for something different, anything different that might alter their misery, even for the worse. People need to see results, and that means jobs and a way out of their personal financial difficulties.

He's seen as the president for wall street, banksters, mega-corporations and the wealthy privileged, right or wrong, that's the perception, and in politics perception is what it's all about. IMO, it's a tall order to do a turn around.

lots of opportunities have been squandered IMO since 2008. I hope he can do a turn around, but IMO his options are getting pretty slim. One thing he could do, is to quit being seen as an appeaser all of the time. And his endless compromise. Sometimes, compromise does more harm than good. I think many Americans would view him better if he went down fighting and pointing at the guilty than compromising, and saying we did it. He's losing traction IMO.

[Broderick]

16. They are hammering him today

because he said, he will get a jobs bill together, AFTER coming back from a vacation. Some folks may see that as his priority while they struggle. Where was the jobs bill last year ect, might be what they are thinking. You are right that perception is everything.

[XemaSab]

41. At this point

him saying he's going to get a jobs bill together feels like damage control.

During his first YEAR in office there were people asking what the hell he's working on, and other people argued that we needed to give the man some time. I think he's had enough time.

The fact that he didn't come into office with a task list for the first six months at one point felt like ineptitude, but at this point it feels intentional. He's not the guy I thought I was voting for.

[Broderick]

15. Pretty words are not enough anymore

Promises to fit a certain crowd will be scrutinized far more now. The economy really needs to tick upwards. People vote with the pocketbook.

[sabrina 1]

48. If the Super Congress cuts SS and/or Medicare

he will be held responsible for that and imo, won't have a chance of reelection. I have been helping some elderly people with their Medical issues, including their coverage who voted for him in the last election, but now are hearing that SS and Medicare may be cut. They are very worried now as are their families, and will probably stay home if SS/Medicare is cut.

And the signs are not good. In his G20 speech last year, he once again raised these Social Programs as 'part of the problem'. This is infuriating to many people as they are NOT part of the problem and he knows it.

At this point since he has not done much else that people were hoping for, like get accountability for war criminals and Wall St. criminals, end the wars, etc, if these programs are cut, he can say goodbye to another term. And whoever is advising him needs to tell him to stop bashing Unions and working people also. We have the Republicans to rely on for that kind of bashing.

[sad sally]

58. In his speech yesterday, the President said:

"if it’s oppressive and bureaucratic and it’s not listening to people and it’s not responsive to the needs of people and isn’t customer friendly -- that’s a problem."

What about these "problems?"

According to the poll, 63 percent say the super committee should call for increased taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses.

Opposition to the war in Afghanistan is at an all-time high, with 63 percent of the public now opposed to U.S. involvement there.

Record Breaking Poverty in America: 52.8 Million and Growing; 46 Million on Food Stamps; 34 Million in Need of Work; Over 1 Million Deaths Annually; World’s Largest Prison Population

Please, Mr. President, tell me again about the problem with an oppressive and bureaucratic government that doesn't listen to people, or that's responsive to the needs of people. Oh, I forgot...campaign promises don't really mean anything.

[KoKo]

126. Too late to "K&R" this thread...but some good reads in posts here. K&R...for Kick

[madrchsod]

6. wisconsin is their wake up call but..

i think his team will ignore it. after all the last thing they want to do is piss off those who will give them that 1,000,000,000 plus for his next campaign.

he could win the popular vote and lose the college.

[Broderick]

19. I still feel uneasy about the events in Wisconsin

I think it was a distraction while other states took the cover it provided to do worse. Meanwhile, the precedent of recall elections has been set. I am of the mindset that it can work both ways.

[Lurks Often]

7. Possibly

Keeping in mind that we are just 15 months away from the election, so a lot can change. However I believe that if the election was held today, it is probable that either Perry or Romney would win.

I don't see the President getting the all of the states he got last time (New Hampshire, Florida and Virginia spring to mind) and a lot of the independents that voted for him last time, will likely vote Republican in 2012, AS OF NOW, again things could change for the better or worse.

I think a lot of people on DU have invested so much of themselves in believing in President Obama that they view things from a perspective that perhaps isn't as clear or un-biased as they might think.

[HereSince1628]

12. Show me a path that creates three million jobs in 14 months

or even two million jobs in 14 months.

These things take time.

Obama's window of opportunity to run on an economy with a significant recovery in employment probably closed last winter.

Going into this fall the topic is still deficit cutting. Deficit cutting means still more losses of public sector jobs.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. You put it much more charitably than I do

Your take is that people are sincerely emotionally invested in the man from a true belief, whereas I see a lot of fragile egos that can't admit a mistake and need to shout down any voices of dissent.

Much is at play here, but it certainly comes down to hero-worship in many instances: policy statements were studiously sidestepped in the '08 election, and this is his one-trick pony trick. Now, the music must be faced, the piper paid, and all that rot. Investing emotional energy in a person is a thorny kind of thing, and people are wont to ever admit being wrong; it's tantamount to admitting a lack of understanding of humanity.

Why so many people were and are so ga-ga over this man is beyond me. I see him as an extremely smooth operator whose energies are mostly spent on campaigning.

One can simply NOT be an effective politician without the flat-out willingness to be absolutely loathed by certain opponents. Reagan didn't give a tinker's cuss about that, yet Bill Clinton and Barack Obama seem to be in a hand-wringing need to be loved.

Anyway, the dynamic of the stalwart supporters is clear, whether it's more from an honorable--if naive--perspective than the more cynical one I presume.

'Nuff said. I don't see this ending well regardless of the outcome; even if he wins, he'll drag the country ever farther to the right and the reactionaries will carry it the rest of the way, hectoring and obstructing us at every turn.

[kentuck]

38. You might should make this a thread on its own?

I've wondered why some Democrats are not hesitant to criticize the President and others refuse to listen to any criticism, let alone speak it. I think you have touched on why this may be the case? I think most of the folks that criticize the President, do it in a constructive way. They want to see the President change. Unfortunately, he does not think like them. Others are more moderate and pragmatic and look at victory in the next election as the solution to the problems. They cannot comprehend that it may be only a continuation of our problems? These are not questions that they want to think about.

[xiamiam]

40. +1

he is an excellent campaigner..great photo ops especially with kids..beautiful smile..fabulous orator

many of us are painfully aware that is where it ends

[jannyk]

71. +1

[MoonRiver]

98. Your statement:

"One can simply NOT be an effective politician without the flat-out willingness to be absolutely loathed by certain opponents. Reagan didn't give a tinker's cuss about that, yet Bill Clinton and Barack Obama seem to be in a hand-wringing need to be loved;" is something I've thought about a lot. I think it has to do with their lack of stable and supportive father figures. Their mothers loved them but their co-dependent personalities probably weakened the boys' feelings of security even more. IMO, both presidents are desperately, albeit probably unconsciously, seeking the love and acceptance they missed in their birth families. Republican vultures sense their psychological weakness and hone in for the kill.

[PurityOfEssence]

108. Reagan's father was no prize, by the way...

Interesting point, though, but when one steps forward to be a steward of and champion for our hopes and dreams, one is responsible for being a fully-functioning person willing to shoulder the responsibility.

On the other hand, a flawed dad is probably better than none at all...

Here's the big question: how much do we owe this guy? Personally, I think that when one steps forward and accepts the mantle of greatness, he/she owes US. His has not been a horrible life at all, and he's been rather well rewarded for his actions.

[MoonRiver]

109. I don't owe Obama squat.

It's my nature and former profession (retired now) to psychoanalyze people. I find human behavior fascinating!

Obama has squandered political capital in totally needless ways and I am not a bit sorry for him. I'm sorry for the people who were depending on him to help bring back some semblance of pre-* America. Personally I think Obama is totally beholden to the PTB and won't do anything substantive to help the average joe ever. He may squeak by with another term simply because Rethugs are such Neanderthals. But he's letting the Thugs dictate his every move and if Thugs get the Senate and House that tendency will probably get worse in his last term. I have no positive expectations for him.

[PurityOfEssence]

110. Yet so very, very many seem to think that they do

I'm with you on this, but it's incredible, isn't it? So many people seem to think we OWE him unquestioning loyalty even well past the point of jeopardizing our future. It's pretty incredible to see this level of hero worship, but I've also seen it blow up on people in the past.

One of the disturbing possibilities of all this--seen even since before the election--is the disillusionment that will be felt by those who were swept along with such a frenzy of a transcendent hero.

He did not sacrifice his life for years for us in such a way that we owe him unchecked loyalty. His life has not been particularly hard at all. His legislative record was one of self-serving ultra caution.

Where this is all going is not good, and it's been incredibly obvious to many of us for years now. Being harassed into unquestioning obedience is bad enough, but when it's done to sustain someone with a bent that seems to be to further marginalize all but the very wealthy while waging wars of economic theft is a hard pill to swallow.

At some point, most of us will suck it up and stop publicly dissenting, but until then, we have a right and a duty to try to influence this administration.

[Raksha]

114. +1000 Very well said.

I have absolutely NO positive expectations for an Obama second term either. At present he has to give lip service to progressive values occasionally, however grudgingly and half-heartedly he does it. In his second term (if he gets one) he'll abandon even the pretense.

[KOfan]

9. no

next question.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigwillq]

20. Hello.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. "All politics is local." Tip O'Neill

If the voter lost his job and can't find another; if his kid is deployed and in danger; if he can't afford to pay his hospital bills; if he's on SS and didn't get his usual COLA; if his kid isn't getting educated; if his garbage didn't get picked up; he's going to blame whoever is in power and vote against him/her.

It's not about ideology or "practical" politics or the political bias of the media.

It's about the ordinary, apolitcal, just trying to get by, citizen. If he/she thinks their getting a good deal, Obama will win. If not, he might need to write a nice farewell speech.

[kentuck]

22. Excellent points.

and right on the mark, imo.

[loyalsister]

39. "all politics is local" refers to the president?

It may be about the immediate experiences but people are naive to believe that the president can cater to their neighborhood. State, city, and county governments create the policy that effects us most directly. They also decide how to spend the money they get from the federal government. For example, there is a sign in my local bus station thanking a republican senator for bringing the money for improvements.
When it comes to federal initiatives, like it or not, our congress members and senators vote on our collective behalf. If we live in a red state there are probably more congress members voting in ways that do not represent our interests. Our opinions and beliefs based on national polls don't negate the fact that more of our neighbors than not wanted them there. Some of us are represented by people who want the president to fail. It's up to us- at the more local level to change that.

If we want to make changes in federal government we have to work on change in local sentiment.
If anyone believes president Obama would have vetoed a single payer bill, one that extended unemployment AND did away with Bush tax cuts, a bill that would have led to significant job creation, or any other bill that would have been more favorable to us, they are either ignoring reality or making up reasons to hate him.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Tell that to the person whose kid just came home in a box from Afghanistan.

Most people aren't political wonks who analyze the federal, state, or local, governments. They're too busy living their lives and are inclined to blame whoever happens to be in power when they lose their jobs, benefits, or kids.

If you think that the populace is going to grab a civics book when bad things happen, you're the one not facing reality.

[loyalsister]

52. I understand personal investments

but, ignoring the facts of how our government is designed or the way it functions doesn't change them. In my area, we have a strong League of Women Voters that makes an effort to educate citizens by holding forums on various issues. The focus is on local legislators and we have an empowered, well educated populace. There is heavy involvement of people who have had and are having bad experiences. They are serious about change to make it better rather just complaining.

I think giving up on people who are feeling pain is pretty defeatist.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. It's the government that's giving up on the people in favor of "deals" and "compromises".

Fair or unfair most people base their votes on what's happening to them, or people they know, rather than on knowledge of the fine points of governing. If they see Obama putting SS and Medicare on the table they don't give a rip if it's "smart politics". All they know is that it threatens them and will likely vote accordingly.

If, in November, 2012, the situation hasn't changed for them with a better economy, more jobs, and an end to Obama's "necessary" wars, there's going to be a lot of congress people looking for jobs and, likely, an ex-president.

The "good news", if any, is that the people are bipartisan in their contempt for bad government as McCain learned.

[loyalsister]

61. I let you know about education strategies

It may or may not be successful, but we know self defeatist bashing will only bring people down.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. What people?

How many people? What "bashing"?

You talk of "the people" as if they morons, easily swayed by whoever voices an opinion. I look at them as sentient beings who are smart enough to make their own choices based on what they know, see, feel. Frequently, they make decisions that I dislike and that I find incomprehensible (Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes) but, I still recognize that they live their lives based on a multiplicity of things other than politics and that how they vote (or, don't bother to vote) is based on that multiplicity of experiences rather than on political theory.

If Obama wants to win in 2012 then let him find a way that actually gives jobless people decent jobs, stops the wars, provides for education, the elderly, the poor, the disenfranchised. If he can't do that, then, at least, he has to convince the average voter that he really is working on it. Just spouting platitudes and relying on the "not as bad" nose holding of voters is a shaky proposition.

[loyalsister]

64. Really?

"If you think that the populace is going to grab a civics book when bad things happen, you're the one not facing reality."

My point is that the next best thing is neutral information. I think that it is one thing to have personal opinions and criticisms. Quite another to be constantly vocal with anger about what isn't happening and contribute to the conflict that is 24 hour news.

You may have noticed that I pointed out that we have many peers with whom we vehemently disagree. Are those opinions respected?

Endlessly pointing out more reasons be angry at Obama does nothing but validate the hate that comes from the RWers some people listen to.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. How many Right Wingers come to DU to get their info?

Neutral? Democracy is all about opinions. If you think what you see here is "bashing" try reading up on the differences, and methods, used by the likes of Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, Burr, Madison, and Monroe in the early days of the Republic. Not to mention the creative usage of language, canes, and dueling pistols prior to the civil war. We are polite marshmallow throwing amateurs compared to them.

As Mark Twain said: "History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.  Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn’t be wise."

Americans may not be well educated in government but they are smart enough to realize that politicians are generally not in the game to serve the public. And, as Harry Truman said, (not one of my favorite presidents, but he did understand the common folk) "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

[loyalsister]

68. I'm not talking about DU

I'm saying I live in a community that does it. Charts and facts. Forums with more than one POV represented. How does that happen? People make the effort to do something of substance rather than sitting around complaining.

What I am hearing here is that people don't want to be apart of helping with the campaign, etc...

[Andy823]

18. Nope

The only problem would be if the left sits home and whines about this and that, instead of getting off their butts and voting! We already have seen what that will bring in Wisconsin, Maine, Florida, and the other states where republicans are now in control, and if people can't see what will happen if they "DON'T" vote next year, then they have a serious problem with reality!

[kentuck]

21. Do you have any evidence or links to show that the "left" sit home?

in those states you mentioned? I don't think that is true?

[nomb]

24. It's not whether the Left votes. It's whether the Left WORKS the election and DONATES that is critic

It's not a base of votes. It's a base of driven workers and money.

[pintobean]

102. It's hard to get much done from under the bus.

[HughBeaumont]

23. I'm sorry . . .

. . . yes, he's disappointing. I really really REALLY hate the fact that this President believes the faith-based Chi-School Bullshit-flavored Kool-Aid. I really, really, REALLY despise the fact that these MIC occupations aren't ending. This nation has long-standing problems that were made even wretchedly worse by the Failure Fuhrer, his rubberstamp congress and his corporate handlers.

But at the same time, and this is the bottom line of it all . . . is that I do not want this nation to become The United States of ChurchMerica. The thought of any single ONE of those fucked-up, hate-filled, insane whackjob-a-thons from the Regressive Party being addressed as "President" is enough to make me suck this whole Friedmanite mess up . . . and sadly . . . vote for this center-rightist shit-heap again.

America's menu (Republican, Fascist Loon, File 13) sucks, and America's Cancerous Wealthy are almost completely at fault for it sucking.

We don't stand up to them. No one does. They're running roughshod over this nation and it's workers and nobody goddamned cares even one BIT to stop them.

I don't really want to talk like this, but for this country to change, it's pretty much going to take someone who's truly fearless to be elected president and that person will have to go everywhere in a bullet-proof Popemobile. There's going to have to be millions of people in the streets, NOT protesting politicians, but protesting the predatory wealthy and corporations. America, the PEOPLE, have GOT to start making these people AFRAID OF THEM. The only thing the wealthy act skeert of now is their taxes going back to Clinton levels. That simply isn't going to be enough to break their stranglehold.

Greed isn't dying. Selfishness isn't ever going to die. Anyone looking for a wealthy/greedy/selfish/scorch-em-all die-off as the cure-all for this Plutocrat garbage . . . is going to be waiting a long, LONG time. The values of the wealthy are passed down from generation to generation. Every business major is indoctrinated, economically, not to care about anything except Number ONE. Number ONE (and when you get to be CEO, your fellow #1s) is all that matters. Econ 101 on, you're learning FRIEDMAN.

The path this nation has taken sickens me. I was never once fooled into thinking President Obama would be this liberal savior. But right now it's a choice between Offal and dogshit. And not even an Iron Chef can make dogshit taste good.

[Bluebear]

25. You said it all

[kentuck]

27. But you may be the exception?

With all of your reasons, you will still vote for Obama, because you rationalize what could happen otherwise? I'm not sure most voters think that deeply?

[RKP5637]

29. Therein lies the real problem, some will vote purely from their own

situation, others will vote to punish him, and others will vote out of their ideology and against him. I think 2012 will be very dangerous times for the future of America and the fact that the republican candidate is a loon, and what they will usher in, well might not be enough to deter many voters.

[HughBeaumont]

37. I think that solely depends on how well Obama campaigns.

There are a number of grave negatives to exploit on each candidate's resume. Their favorite alone (Mittens) worked for a Private Equity Firm that slashed and burned company payrolls and pocketed the profits. He's to the right on many positions and has negatives even among conservatives.

The rest . . . well, only a bought and sold jackass or a complete idiot couldn't find red flags in that sea of batshit.

The Obama campaign has to run on it's positives, however little they may be. Go to "The List" if you have to. It won't be a weak campaign because that's all he's got at this point.

[XemaSab]

46. I live in California

If my lil' old vote is enough to tip California into the red, then the election was never a contest to begin with.

[PurityOfEssence]

45. Well said. Republicanism is like a shopping cart with a bad wheel

No matter how you push it, it instantly veers hard right and crashes into the canned goods.

Reactionaries don't accept pluralism; other opinions and beliefs are a threat to civilization itself and are not to be tolerated. There's no "playing fair", there's no following the will of the people. Junior was a classic example of this: losing the popular vote by 552K people, he came into office as if he had a sweeping mandate, cancelling treaties, cutting taxes, rattling sabers, enabling corporate looting, yet Obama came into office with a HUGE groundswell, a virtual landslide, and he asked permission for the timidest of changes. It's pathetic. What's worse is that they pegged him as weak, and even if he stiffens up, they're going to keep buffaloing him.

The choice is between an enabler who will do a few good things (credit card legislation) and not be quite as bad with some of the other policies or a full-on barbaric neo-feudalist. Unless it's Romney, we're also going to get a certified theocrat, but then again, Obama's helped lay the groundwork for that, too.

Bad or horrendous; that's the choice.

I'll vote for him again, but even if I had the fervor, I couldn't mobilize the disillusioned who came out in such record numbers last time. Malaise has set in for the many who really bought the line that these would be "new politics". This is the oldest of the crassest kind of mealy-mouthed doubletalk machine-politics, complete with appeasement, hollow vagueness and corporatist enabling. There's simply going to be some serious attrition from the disillusioned. Couple that with the righteous vengeance of the reactionaries, and it's a bit daunting.

Nice post, by the way. It will, of course, all be our fault if he doesn't win, and that will just stir up more fulmination against the left from the Democratic centrists. Whatever.

Time will tell.

[Bill McBlueState]

26. I worry because of our unfair election method

Obama may well be more popular nationally than whoever they come up with to run against him, but it will all come down to a small number of states. It bugs me that the sort of people I run into in northwest Ohio have such an outsized role in electing the President.

[bvar22]

30. Unless Obama & The Democratic Party leadership does...

..something to protect their Left Flank,
a repeat of 2000 is very possible.
They have set up a Perfect Storm.

Obama & The Party Leadership has created an even bigger Vacuum on The Left than the vacuum created by Bill Clinton and his DLC Centrists.
Somebody WILL step in to this vacuum,
and they will find easy funding from Conservatives.

Vacuums ARE filled.
It is Political Physics.


Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[swilton]

81. I wish someone from the left would step in and fill the vacuum

[xiamiam]

31. 14 months to do something about the foreclosure mess., wall street corruption, and the wars

all things he said he would do while campaigning before and all things which have been left undone..we need a primary challenger..i'm not in and nothing that anyone says can change my mind until i see something done to help the middle class. I've got my own personal story as millions of others do. How about war crimes and all this looking forward bs. I'm over it. Nothing gives me confidence or hope. No words..no beautiful speeches.

[kctim]

33. Not in the least

The majority of Dems approve of his job, and at least half of those who do not will still 'hold their nose' and vote for him again.
Another fact is that President Obama has not done all of the 'scary' things the partisans on the right claimed he would, so fewer people will vote just to be voting against him.

He may not win by such a large margin as in 08, but he will win.

[LWolf]

34. Is the sky blue? nt

[PurityOfEssence]

35. ANY President is in jeopardy in a shitty economy

It's as simple as that.

Regardless of the genesis of it, people have a bizarre belief that the President has magical powers, and regardless of the obstructionism of the right--to the point of virtual sabotage--the reactionaries have no compunction about twisting everything to make it seem that it was all his fault.

The economy is getting worse. Only a fool would say otherwise.

[loyalsister]

44. Truth

I think the more directions from which the vitriol anger is spewed the more difficult his campaign will be.

[PurityOfEssence]

50. Hey, well it's the curse of the centrist: taking fire from both directions

At some point, most of us on the left who are fuming at this waffling mess of mistakes will be quiet and fall in with the lock-step of the acolytes, but until then, we still feel a duty to try and influence things.

I personally think that America will vote for a somewhat populist platform, but it won't if the leader won't call reactionaries out for the reckless assholes they truly are. "Playing nice" doesn't really work that well when the other guys smell blood and are going for the gold.

The idea that those of us on the left should just shut up and stand by as our President drags the country to the right and tacitly enables the reactionaries' headlong banzai charge to the right is also a bad idea. The country could be so irretrievably dragged to the right that the Democratic Party ceases to be any refuge for sense and decency; there WILL be a leftist party that will emerge in a situation like this, and it could easily split the vote so well that we're handily dragged into a fine new Dark Age.

[loyalsister]

59. It's hard to imagine that the country could be dragged further right

It has been very far right for the 30 yrs that I have been aware of politics. They have held the cards with a very short reprieve during the Clinton years during which they were still extremely powerful. How things are to change without talking to the majority that drives the dialogue?

"smell blood and are going for the gold?" could describe the idealistic revolutionary as well as the people who want to own everything and all of us.

My guess is that some people thought "change" meant some kind of immediate revolutionary shift as opposed to a president with goals to make some incremental changes in the institutional body that is our government.
One change has been an effort at civility.
If a person voted for a revolution in policy, they should be casting a vote for grassroots leadership and thinking about their personal role.

[PurityOfEssence]

69. Just you wait 'enry 'iggins, just you wait

With each passing few years, people forget what this country used to be and their imaginations for what it can be are crimped even more.

He sold us a whole lot of ethereal hope and dreamy stuff, and the evasive middling showmanship that got him to this place is specifically his fault. He has not delivered on even the incremental stuff, while defying Congress to get us into yet another war, sucking up to big finance, making a pathetic deal for something he could call health care reform, shying away from ANY leadership on the greatest peril of all (global warming) and playing both sides of every issue he couldn't avoid in the first place. Let's not forget the cheery fostering of theocracy for personal political gain, as well.

I do not accept any claim of steadfast morality here; he's played for the affections of big business, big medicine, religion incorporated and any other power bloc that's asserted itself. He's hidden behind proxies and NOT stuck his neck out with policy advancements, and somehow we're to treat him as a hero. That is not heroic; it's "pragmatic" in the most cynical sense and perhaps effective, but it is NOT laudable personal courage.

Our honorable good faith has been played and we're supposed to still throw all of our futures on the bonfire of reckless greed to sustain this person as a wondrous entity deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize and literal lionizing him as a transcendent vox populi and hero of the masses. We've paid. His actions are nowhere near as honorable as we're brutalized into agreeing they are, and the ruination of our country is being marvelously enabled by him and his henchmen and henchwomen. Now, he's thrown it away so thoroughly that he threatens the very existence of any non-reactionary political party, and still we're cajoled to blindly supporting him as if he's some kind of deity. He needs to take some stands, and he needs to do this now. He has NOT been courageous. He has NOT been a champion of the little guy. Assertions that he has are spurious, deluded or just plain insane.

Here's what's categorically worse: he used such high falutin' words of transcendent change that he appealed to the sweet and private guarded vulnerable dreams of people with poetic claims of grand new moral worlds of unchecked beauty, and then turned around and delivered us the same old pap and bilge water of grifting politicos past. Others who haven't delivered don't have quite the ignominy because they didn't claim anything anywhere near as lofty. That is the great transgression. To make it worse, he's hidden behind proxies and maintained plausible deniability for anything dicey, then shown up front and center to take credit for anything that can be skewed to look credit-worthy.

He's the coolest guy in the room. His people take pride in that. That's revolting. He takes pride in being a blank screen onto which people write their aspirations. To me, that's something only an emotional needy person or con artist would pridefully voice in public. It still strikes me as something that any reasonable handler would NEVER allow his client to admit.

Now he's being punked by the vicious elements from the reactionary world, and his beatific personality is still what seems to matter most to his most ardent partisans. That's just disgusting.

Everything he does is perfect, and anyone who criticizes him is some kind of back-stabbing, self-indulgent adolescent lefty or closet fascist. It's paramount among his most stalwart cadre to preserve HIM more than the very functionality of the country. It's a cult of the personality.

To those suffering from this affliction, I can only say this: we are not impressed; you do NOT have the true needs of this country at heart, but are instead fighting some frenzied rear-guard action to stave off any voicing of the reality that you've made a huge mistake and self-aggrandizing gamble and you're not willing to face the reality its generated. The sky is blue. Gravity works. Appeasers are either suckers or in it for themselves.

He has gifts. He seems to have his heart somewhat in the right place on occasion. Now, he needs to be a leader and whether he likes it or not, he can't be on every side of every issue anymore. Try as he may to avoid it, he's made some stands.

Time is running out.

[xiamiam]

103. +1

[bvar22]

105. Righteous Rant!

Recommending Post #69 by PurityOfEssence

:patriot:



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
The California Progressive Caucus WILL!!

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[KoKo]

117. +!!!!!! Beautifully and Wisely Stated...

[Mickey0352]

84. Idea to boost economy

I'm new so forgive me, but my partner had a great idea for helping the economy. They suggested forgiving all federally backed student loans. We know countless of folks who spends hundreds and sometimes thousands paying these loans back. If the government forgave the loans that they old this would free up so much more cash for people to spend and put back in the economy. Plus it would endear Obama to a generation of young professionals and their parents! Just my humble suggestion. Any idea how to get the WH thinking about this?

[KoKo]

124. Another Kick......

[seabeyond]

42. no. nt

[closeupready]

43. Carter lost, and it's important to remember that in large part it was because of the economy

and inflation and Carter's ineffectiveness.

While inflation is not as bad as during Carter's first term, it's still rising and taken with all the other terrible economic indicators, as well as drawing lessons from GHWB's failure to be re-elected during a milder recession, I do think this is going to be challenging for BHO.

[KoKo]

119. and people were feeling very discouraged and depressed because

we had expected a turn for us Democrats after the Nixon years. While not totally applicable to now, there is a depressed feeling here in America and it's neither helped by TeaParty Repug antics nor our President whom we can't seem to understand where he stands on issues anymore.

[trayfoot]

47. In a word, YES!

And it greatly disturbs me! If President Obama loses in 2012, you can kiss SS, Medicare, Medicaid good-bye.

[ProgressIn2008]

51. I don't think it's in jeopardy at all. Bigger question: what's in jeopardy when he's reelected?

In the end, the wagons will circle and he'll be reelected. Not by a landslide, but free and clear.

And then what?

[swilton]

82. I'm concerned about that

I would hate to see the man who doesn't have to worry about re-election -

Who would he nominate to the SCOTUS - what if he caved on his appointment or appointed a candidate to appease the Republicons - that's my fear

[XemaSab]

53. I think that not only is Obama's election in jeopardy

but we might have trouble ever getting another democrat elected again.

Most of the people I know who are under the age of 40 thought that Obama was a generational candidate, someone like a Kennedy or an FDR. We walked right into it, and I think it was a massive blow for youth support for the democrats. People are not going to be as happy to get in that line and punch that ballot again. I'm guessing that Obama is going to have a ripple effect like Nixon did, not as far as the depth of corruption goes, of course, but as far as really losing faith in the system.

(I know that I went through the Kubler-Ross stages with Obama, and I'm now mostly in the acceptance phase. We've been neck deep in it for over 10 years, and the world hasn't ended. People are still getting married, having babies, spending time with the grandkids, and so forth. Yes, things are ugly for a lot of people out there, but most people will just continue on as we've always done. Maybe on the ground level it will produce some positive cultural changes. Or maybe I'm just a frog in the same pot with everyone else.)

Back to my main point, I think Obama has singlehandedly lost the unions. You might convince today's young people to vote for candidates that they don't particularly like, but convincing unions to give money and volunteer hours to a candidate that they feel will sell them down the river isn't going to be so easy.

What's the line? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, can't get fooled again." :P

[ThomWV]

54. I think he will be a 1 term President

and I'm not going to do a single thing to stop that from happening.

[in_cog_ni_to]

55. He really needs to drop the nomination and let a LIBERAL Democrat run and WIN.

If he really cares about this country as much as he says he does, he needs to do the right thing and move back to Chicago.

This country is STARVING for a Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson or Elizabeth Warren PROGRESSIVE who really does care about THEM...the working poor.

[B Calm]

60. That's the problem, he doesn't care. He's a republican!!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

63. I believe so.

If Romney or Perry is the candidate, I think he may be sunk. Those two are white/ male/conservative/religious enough to pass the GOPer smell test, let alone the "anybody but O" test that many Americans will be using in 2012. His best hope for a win is for Bachmann to get the GOP nomination.

[Downtown Hound]

65. Hate to say it, but I think he's done for

He's the perfect example of a Democrat that tries to be a watered down Republican. And in Obama's case, he's not even that watered down. That strategy has failed so many times in the past, and yet the Dems never seem to learn.

Barring a weak Republican candiadte or some international crisis or something, I think Obama is a one-termer. And the truth is, if it wasn't for the nasty alternative that awaits so many, I wouldn't even be sad to see him go. I'm sick of weak-kneed, jellyfish corporate Democrats like him.

[B Calm]

118. When he loses people like me, he's in deep trouble. I think he shouldn't

seek reelection and give a real democrat a chance to save the party.

[icymist]

66. He could talk to the people.

It's simple. Just plain out talk. No shit. No political spin. Just talk. He could talk about the political spin that's going against him. Hell, that's just talk! Look at FDR. That waqs just simple talk. Simple enough that the American people understood. Could now understand. If the right person said it. Please, please be that person.

[cherokeeprogressive]

70. He needs to come up with a really catchy phrase or slogan... something like Hope and Change

or Yes We Can! or WTF...

Heck, it worked the first time didn't it?

[Obamanaut]

72. "And this time, I mean it!" or maybe "I wanted to, but the meanies wouldn't let me!" nt

[Obamanaut]

73. I think so. nt

[JoePhilly]

74. If he hasn't cleaned up 30+ years of mess by now, he needs to be fired so

that we can let Perry or Bachmann or Romney fix it!!!!

[cherokeeprogressive]

76. Wow. Now you're moving the goalpost TWENTY-TWO YEARS.

Before, it was "Hey, it took EIGHT YEARS to mess this up, it's going to take a while to fix it".

[JoePhilly]

78. The mess begins with Reagan ... or do you disagree?

[cherokeeprogressive]

80. Not necessarily. President Obama obviously doesn't either. Should I? MUST I?

During Reagan's presidency, revenue almost doubled. In the waning years, the deficit was on a downward arc. The unemployment rate in 11/80 was 7.5%. In 11/88 it was 5.3%.

[JoePhilly]

99. Reagan also started the policies that deregulated the banks.

And he increased revenues mainly because he reversed his own tax cuts.

And the deficit, he grew that more than any President as a % of GDP since FDR, and up to Bush #2.

Reagan also usered in the right wing conservative movement, and started the dismantling of Unions.

He is the father of trickle down economics.

And his fiscal policies are a big part of how we got here.

[KoKo]

121. Yes, but Clinton in his second term finished off the rest of Dereg.... plus giving us Nafta in

his first term... plus giving the country a tawdry sex scandal that unleashed the Repug Dogs and gave the exceptional powers they still hold to this day.

[bvar22]

106. Yes.

They threw Bill Clinton under the bus too this year,
along with FDR. I never thought I would see posts on DU tearing down FDR & The New Deal.

Apparently, Obama is NOW the only REAL Democrat we've ever had as President.



Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[treestar]

96. Exactly.

Sick of the shit stirring Republican operatives pretending all over the internet they are "progressives."

[mmonk]

77. Yes.

The only thing that may save him will be the looniness of the GOP candidate.

[NorthCarolina]

79. If I were a betting man,

I would bet "YES".

[bluestate10]

83. President Obama will be facing a zoned out dumbass. President Obama all the way. nt

[MadHound]

86. Just like Carter was facing a washed up actor.

The same dynamic is in play. An incumbent Democratic president who is perceived as weak, with a large portion of the left pissed at him is not a winning combination.

[Motown_Johnny]

90. ah yes, because having hostages in Iran on TV every night and killing Bin Laden

are perceived exactly the same way


Mommar is on his way out too.


Perceived as weak my ass

[MadHound]

87. Just like Carter was facing a washed up actor.

The same dynamic is in play. An incumbent Democratic president who is perceived as weak, with a large portion of the left pissed at him is not a winning combination.

[mitchtv]

88. I am getting a sinking feeling it's over

As a lifelong Dem, 40+ years, I am unable to commit to him ( tho I will probably hold my nose in '12) I am getting sick of the supporters trying to badmouth anyone who doesn't follow the Party line., and I am a Democrat, and Union. I don't like his attitude and' not as bad' is a lousy campaign slogan, besides I've done that too many times.

[Motown_Johnny]

89. He beat the Clinton machine with very few resources at his disposal

I think this guy is going to eat up any (R) that is foolish enough to meet him in the debates.


Screw his numbers right now. Check them after the 3rd debate and we can talk again.

[JoeyT]

91. Yes, but fortunately

we've already got exactly who we're going to blame picked out in case he doesn't win. It isn't anyone that actually has the power to cost him the election, of course. They're just convenient scapegoats.

When the economy is in the shitter and you can't find a job, the last thing that will endear you to a politician is hearing "We need to send more jobs overseas, and you peasants look like you could handle a little more sacrifice.".

[Vinca]

93. I think he's in real trouble. His unending attempts at bipartisanship

have pissed off Democrats, made Republicans hate him even more and given him the appearance of a weakling. The bus tour has been the final straw for many - pushing "free" trade agreements as a solution for the jobs problem??? I'm scared to death we could end up with an absolute lunatic winning the election.

[KoKo]

122. ...and don't forget "Patent Reform" as a jobs builder..

I couldn't believe he keeps pushing that and Free Trade. Unless he really believes that...and if he does, then we are skunked.

[MoonRiver]

94. If Romney picks somebody who is only half bat-shit crazy

he's got a good shot, imho. However, he'll probably pick a wacko and Obama will be perfectly safe. :D

[treestar]

95. No. He's the incumbent and the Rs are all insane

The Rs have no good candidates. This is obvious now. In Fall 2012 it will be super obvious.

[scheming daemons]

97. In about 7 months, the GOP will have a nominee.. and this question will seem quaint

Elections are about choices.... the GOP nominee has to be a valid option for America.


He won't be.

[Waiting For Everyman]

100. Look at the SEC story today - he could've at least cleaned out the Executive Branch.

But he didn't. He didn't even do that. That isn't anybody else's fault but his. Why didn't he? Because that would have meant going after the Money People, which he won't do. He needs donations, yes. But that added to his bipartisanship fiascoes, is too much ineffectiveness.

He wouldn't listen, he played his own "safe" game instead of taking a risk to get something to take credit for... and he ended up a Nothingburger, as we all were afraid he would. He insisted, he got what wanted, and it's a loser. The bad part of it is, we will pay for it. He will be fine.

Getting Osama Bin laden is probably his biggest plus (other things like health care are too compromised). What I wonder is, where was that risk-taker personality the rest of the time?

Short answer, yes. His re-election is in jeopardy. It looks 50/50 to me.

[H2O Man]

101. Interesting OP.

It's important to consider the 2012 election in a state-by-state context. It may be a much more difficult battle than many pro-Obama friends here suspect.

[sarcasmo]

104. In my opinion the only way he can win is to end the wars.

[WinkyDink]

112. Sho's your mother, Alexsh.

[elleng]

113. It is if foolish DUers publish this around the world.

Ever hear of the circular firing squad of Democrats? Well, here it is, taking up repug talking points at every turn, encouraging defeatism, THIS is treasonous, imo.

[tritsofme]

116. As if discussion amongst ourselves on a message board has real world political consequences...

Get real.

[elleng]

120. Get real if you DON'T think this board is one of the sources examined

for Dem 'temperature.'

Words have consequences.

[KoKo]

123. Well....if this board is a source that's examned for temperature...then

hopefully it will raise the temperature under our President's butt to stop doing what he's been doing and get on a Democratic Message rather than this wishey/washy Neo-Lib pandering he's been doing. Also, get a better message than "Shared Sacrifice, Trade Agreements, Patent Reform and Compromise.

It's time that he understands there are many unhappy people out there who voted for him including those Independents and some rational Repugs that he hopes to win over who are rethinking positions in disappointment and frustration.

[Proud Public Servant]

115. This question can be narrower

It's all about the electoral college. Last time Obama won 365-173. But demographics have shifted with the 2010 census, so that today, carrying all the same states (plus the NE-1), his 2008 margin would be 359-179. That's a margin of 89 votes, 89 votes he cannot afford to lose. Now, bearing in mind that Obama hatred runs most rampant in the South and in rural areas, ask the following:

a) Is he going to pick up any states he didn't carry in 2008?
b) Is he going to carry Florida again? (29 votes)
c) Is he going to carry North Carolina again? (15 votes)
d) Is he going to carry Virginia again? (13 votes)
e) Is he going to carry Indiana again? (11 votes)
f) Is he going to carry Ohio again? (18 votes)
g) Is he going to carry Pennsylvania again? (20 votes)
h) Is he going to carry Nevada again? (6 votes)
i) Is he going to carry New Hampshire again? (4 votes)

I would say, realistically, the answer to "a" is "no"; if a state stayed red at the height of Obama's popularity, it'll be red again next year. Now look at b-i; that list represents 116 votes, of which Obama needs to retain 27, plus everything he took in 2008, to get to 270.

Do you see any sure things up there? I don't. In fact, I'd say b-e are almost certain red states this time around, which could mean the whole election will turn on his ability to retain most of f-i. He's got a hell of a fight on his hands.

[KoKo]

125. I'm sure that "POB" 's Campaign Crew is looking at these numbers carefully...

and, we saw so little of the views of Thousands that showed up for his Campaign Appearances...just over two years later for his Presidential Town Halls. Were the Crowds less? Did the Media not cover because they are owned by Wall Street Banksters or Murdoch/Koch Brothers?

I don't know...but I do know that what he was saying in these Town Halls aren't what my friends and relatives want to hear from him these days.

That's going to hurt him going forward, I think.

[KoKo]

127. Another Kick for this Post!