Is "or else" really going to get Obama re-elected?

[NightWatcher]

I'll try to be very calm and "non bashing", but as I read numerous posts today on the day that Obama 2012 gets going, I see "or else" given as the reason to re-elect Obama.

In 2008 he rode a huge wave of grass roots optimism and Hope and Change into the White House, but in 2012 it looks like the meme might be "Vote Obama, or else". Sure, he may get some Democrat and left leaning votes that way, but he's not going to get much desire from those same people who worked so hard in 2007 and 2008.

The fundies and repukes are going to be out in force, they fucking hate Obama. Their base is going to be motivated like you've never seen, and the best that we can do is "Or else"? People respond to positive messages of Hope and Change, but I'm afraid political terrorism isnt going to get us where positivity got us last time.




Flame away

[FSogol]

1. Or Else? Governor Walker.

:shrug:

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[Autumn]

3. Who else? n/t

[progressoid]

32. Mitt, Newt, Huck, Michelle, Tim, etc.

Vote for the President or else you'll get one of those.

[Autumn]

33. That would be the point I made.

No one else to vote for.

[progressoid]

43. Oh I donno, I could see voting for Michelle Bachmann,

right after I give myself a lobotomy.

[Autumn]

47. Someone would have to use my rotting fingers off

my corpse to cast a ballot for that one.

[Odious justice]

4. yes

always does....

There is no one in the party strong enough to challenge...and Obama is enjoying higher popularity now than W did at this time in his presidency

[Ohio Joe]

5. Depending on if there is a primary...

And who might run, my vote may go elsewhere. Otherwise... fucking-A right "or else" is good enough for me because the repuglicans will fuck things up far worse.

[PeaceNikki]

6. States like WI, OH, IN, and FL will be interesting. Usually local elections ride on the national -

this time I think the tables will be turned and the national seats will ride along with the local elections.

[rucky]

24. Assuming the dictators of those states allow fair elections.

[Democracyinkind]

7. Yes it is.

Damn the day that I realized that participating in democracy always means chosing the lesser evil. As long as you're not running yourself, that is.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

8. go ahead and teach him a lesson. It worked so well in 2010.

[TheKentuckian]

21. Yup, the youth, minorities, Obamacans, and "centrists" sure taught a message.

Meanwhile, my done in ass was working the phones and working the field offices.

Your meme is false, petulant, and not very well thought out when you look at the numbers.

[Solomon]

25. Obama is where he is because he has been successful.

That's the bottom line. All this "or else" crap is a construct to placate people who don't want to admit it.

If he was the failure that DU-er's claim him to be, he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

Face it. He can't be primaried because he has been successful. You don't have to agree, everybody got their opinion no matter how wrong, but that is the fact on the ground.

Deal with it.

Oh, and he will win because he has been successful.

[JTFrog]

39. +1 n/t

[Dawgs]

48. Very successful!

"Successful" at hiring CEO's, lobbyists, and everything else non-liberal to run his administration.

"Successful" at compromising away everything that is important to the left.

"Successful" at giving in to the extreme right.

"Successful" at scolding those that supported him the most in 2008.

"Successful" at managing three wars.

[TheKentuckian]

58. Failures like Bush, Hoover, and Reagan all were elected. Some multiple times.

That has nothing to do with what happened in 2010, which was what my post was about.

[druidity33]

62. "successful" to whom?

The homeless? The poor? The disadvantaged? To Union labor? LGBT people? Folk concerned with endless war? Civil libertarians? Environmentalists?

:shrug:

[Selatius]

105. Success by what definition? George W. Bush won re-election. That's a low standard to beat.

One of the biggest reasons Obama probably won't be primaried is because nobody in any worthy position is going to expend the time and effort needed to raise the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to run a nation-wide primary campaign against an incumbent president.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. No flames from me.

I agree. "Or else" just doesn't cut it.

I do think he's head and shoulders above any Republican, but that's not saying a whole lot...

Oh well.

[Hugabear]

10. Barack Obama, Michelle Bachmann...you decide

It could very well be that simple. Sure, Obama isn't the perfect President, he's not everything that we all hoped for. But the alternative? Yes, that really could be a very good motivator.

[NightWatcher]

16. motivate with the carrot, not the stick

sell us plans for 2012, try doing something overwhelmingly Progressive now to get more people on board, dont beat us to death

[Skinner]

11. Just a hunch...

I suspect that the Obama 2012 slogan won't be "Vote Obama, or else."

[ixion]

14. My call for slogan is "lasting change"

a seemingly embedded meme in his announcement today.

[Rex]

80. He is talking about a lot of posters here on DU Skinner.

They always say 'you have no choice' and you should know that will piss people off just out of spite alone. Don't forget what happen in the last election, we lost because people decided not to turn out and vote - why? Because of some stupid choice of words by Obama and Biden right before the election.

'Or else' loses votes and is a loser way of thinking imo.

We need a REASON to vote for someone, not just 'if you don't a Repuke will win.'

If that is our strategy then we better raise TWO billion dollars, just in case.

[MineralMan]

12. No, actually, the overwhelming support by Democrats for the

President, along with the experience of having a bunch of teabaggers in the House and in state legislatures should do the trick. Having an idiot as the Republican candidate can't hurt, either.

But, you can do as you please. If you're not worried about the Republicans and can't see the difference, then you're not paying attention. Good luck with all that.

[emulatorloo]

30. "don't confuse me with the facts" n/t

[FLPanhandle]

38. +1

Obama has this one in the bag.

[ixion]

13. k/r

That's one of the most tired arguments I see on DU. "Vote Dem, or else!"

:puke:

[MineralMan]

15. It shouldn't even need to be said. The "or else" is obvious.

So, I'm sure the Obama campaign will come up with something other than that.

[defendandprotect]

89. Of course we fear the GOP ... they'd keep the wars going, attack public education, Social Security..

and probably end COLA's --

they'd probably also keep tax cuts for rich in place --

This is too sad to even comment on --

Let's move to the LEFT, folks -- !!!

Sen. Bernie Sanders can run on a Dem ticket -- he's a better democrat

than many in the party!!



The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414


How many DLC'ers are still in the party?

If you knew about this, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along --

:)

[Egnever]

17. Not in my case

I am going to vote for him just as enthusiastically this time as the last. Of course I think he is doing an awesome job given the environment he has to work in.

You enjoy your pity party. Thankfully most dems dont buy into the same garbage you do.

[onenote]

18. its exactly the argument that the other side is going to use to get out heir voters

Some group of repubs are likely going to be unhappy with their ticket -- either the teabaggers or the more traditional repubs who frankly have come to realize the difficulty in controlling the teabaggers. But they will use "Vote for (fill in the blank) or else (Obama will be reelected" in order to get out the vote.

We'd be crazy not to use the same argument.

[RZM]

53. I would like to be the first to propose a name for the 2012 Republican movement

ABBA, standing for: Anybody But BArack'

Their theme song could be 'Take a Chance on Me'

[treestar]

72. Exactly - and Republicans don't sit around claiming they aren't

inspired enough - they really are terrified those libruls will bring communism to this country! And let all sorts of brown people come. And interfere in commerce and socialized medicine. And fail to defend America from terror and not be proud enough of America!

[Motown_Johnny]

19. he can run on his record, that isn't an "or else" proposition

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/


Dr. Maddow is of the opinion that President Obama had accomplished ~85% of what he said he would accomplish in his first term, in the first half of his first term.


She also had a segment comparing what he said during his Peace Prize acceptance speech and what he has done in regards to Libya. This segment shows that he does what he says he is going to do even when it may not be popular.


He will also be running on the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for people making over 250K a year. That is why the extension ends on Jan. 1. 2013. Both sides want to run on it and the latest poll I saw had 81% of people agreeing with President Obama on this.


I think this guy knows what he is running on in 2012, and it ain't "or else".

[cali]

20. I think it's highly unlikely he'll lose.

and sure, part of it is the "or else" factor, but there are a lot of people who like the job he's done.

[LoZoccolo]

22. It won't have to. n/t

[Poll_Blind]

23. That's how he hopes to keep the Left while he simultanously courts the Center/Right with...

...his stances.

It's an interesting choice for him, and as a huge supporter in 2008 I find it a depressing one.

It's going to either be "or else" or "who else?". That kind of thing. Both of those are designed to reduce your disappointment (which is likely based on his stances/actions on a range of issues) to a simple false dichotomy and then hit you over the head with it.

But you probably knew that already as this administration hasn't necessarily been what I'd call "covert" in their courting of supposed-Centrist voters and some on the Right as well. And by the "Right" I don't mean the Limbaugh crowd, but folks who have traditionally voted Conservative and who might be just as displeased with the Republican's choice of candidates as we are- and who might feel as though Obama is more on their "wavelength" than the absolute idiots the Republicans are likely to put up for the position.

PB

[jaxx]

26. My vote will be given with no strings attached.

I am advocating for President Obama as the man who will continue moving the country forward for another 4 years. His track record says he gets things done.

[FredStembottom]

27. I'll be voting for him as, at minimum, a talented place-holder.

As we build democracy in the state-houses in 2012, we need not make things a hundred times more difficult by ousting an, at least marginally Democratic president with the very real result being a worse federal government that will crush the resurgent democracy movements in the states.

Remember: O is the guy allowing Vermont to move toward single-payer.

There are several SCOTUS appointments coming up - our Roberts/Scalia nightmare could end soon (or at the vey least be modified by an Obama "somewhat better" typical appointment. These things are worth having.

And O just might like to catch up to the states in a second term! I'll welcome him then with a slap and a "what took you so long!?!?"

[Safetykitten]

28. Apparently so.

[emulatorloo]

29. I think you are out of touch. Apr 3, Obama approval among Dems = 80%

Yes there are petulant DU'ers who don't seem to get what is happening in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and are going to do their darndest to encourage Dem voters to sit home in 2010.

As to Obama approval rating among democrats:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

Obama Approval Rating March 28 april 3rd:

Democrat 80%
Liberal Democrat 83%
Moderate Democrat 77%
Conservative Democrat 61%

So there is less approval among Conservative Democrats, but still solid approval

[daa]

40. Remind me again what Obama is doing in Wisc, OH, Ind ?????

[Motown_Johnny]

46. remind me again what power he has over state issues?

and please include MI in your outrage, we are screwed too ya know!!!

[PeaceNikki]

51. Exactly what he should be - letting *US* handle it and not making it about him.

[apples and oranges]

108. Kucinich has been absent too, and OH is his home state!

If you want the POTUS to come down and get involved in a state issue, then surely Kucinich should be involved!

[zalinda]

42. Many, many people are now former dems

When they saw how far the dem party has moved to the right, they registered as Independent or whatever it is called in their state. It's been happening since Clinton. They voted for Obama because they thought he was a real dem, they are now disappointed. Oh, and many repubs left the repub party because of the religious right, and joined the dem party, but they aren't the people who go out to do the work of getting people elected.

The real people that Obama has to convince is the Independents, a great mixture of people who really aren't into politics. They vote with their gut, or how their friends vote, or what commercial touched them, or how they are doing. If they are still struggling, after all the hope and change promised, they will vote for the other guy. That's just the way it is. They are called the mushy middle for a reason, the dems cannot count on their vote, and neither can the repubs.

Life hasn't changed much here in the trenches, and for the 81% who wanted a tax increase for the rich, Obama didn't listen. That will be remembered. He has done nothing that was popular with the masses. That will be remembered. He can't promise them again, that he will do it, when he hasn't done it yet.

Bashing the left over the head with Obama or else, will not win over the left. But, apparently that's the only thing that they've got.

zalinda

[Motown_Johnny]

55. Obama didn't listen???? Where have you been???

The (R)s shut down the government over those tax cuts!

He wants them repealed and said so at the time. He bargained away a 2 year extension for other concessions.

Those tax rates will be front and center in the 2012 campaign. Both sides want to run on them. That is why both agreed to have the extension expire on Jan. 1, 2013.

If we had one more vote in the Senate they would be gone. It isn't like he didn't try and repeal them.


If you really don't know what has been accomplished under President Obama maybe you should watch this short video (again?).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908


Near the end she gives a pretty nice little laundry list of things that have gotten done in the last couple of years.

[zalinda]

70. Sorry, but none of that translates to those of us

living at the bottom, and there are more of us than any other demographic in this country. I don't think you understand. Most of us can't afford cable, so watching that is out. Most are more concerned with surviving than what some person who isn't struggling. Many of the poor voted for Obama because he was/is black. They thought that he would know what it is like at the bottom, they now know that is not true. They were excited about Obama and thought he would change everything, it didn't happen. Who gave them false promises? Obama and his supporters pitched him as the savior who would make their lives better. It didn't happen, in fact it got worse. You can blame the repubs, all you want, but the simple truth is, promises were made, and broken.

Believe me, they've heard about Obama cutting heap money. They've heard about cutting social security. They've heard about Obama thinking it's not the government's role to create jobs. They've heard about the tax cuts for the wealthy. They've heard about the bank bailouts. They've heard about Obama's mortgage re-fi, which was/is a joke. They've seen people losing their jobs, they've seen for sale signs popping up all over their neighborhood. They've seen people's belongings out on the street, where they've been evicted. Many have taken in friends and relatives, because they've had no place else to go. They've heard about the obscene amount of money CEO's have made, even while cutting jobs, or sending them overseas. They've applied for jobs, over and over again, only to never hear anything. They've had to apply for food stamps or go to food banks so they can eat. They've noticed that thrift stores are more crowded than Walmart. There is real anger out here, and hopelessness. A clever saying isn't going to cut it this time.

Whether or not it was Obama or his supporters, making a pitch in 2008, the people bought it, and they have yet to reap any rewards for their vote. Since I live in a poor neighborhood, all I've heard is how Obama has failed. He needed to do something big, and he didn't do it. Would they vote for a repub, I have no idea, maybe if the repub sounds sane enough. More than likely though, they will stay home. After all, their last vote didn't change a thing for them, at least.

Oh, and the tax extension? Do you really think they will believe that he means it this time around? After all, he did promise it last time.

zalinda

[JoePhilly]

75. What are they now, Republicans???

[zalinda]

104. Of course not. The dem party left them, not the other way around.

They let principles guide them, not party. Sorry, but all this my side, their side sounds more like a football game than the real problems of real people. There are repubs that are more liberal than some dems, as well as some dems that are more conservative than some repubs. I have met both. And the my party or else, scares the crap out of them too.

I will vote for the best person for the job. I will stand by my principles, and not the popularity contest it has become. The weird thing is, I was one of the Nader bashers, and damn if Obama didn't prove him to be right.

zalinda

[Xithras]

63. Which, all told, is irrelevant on election day. The current numbers aren't enough to re-elect him.

U.S. Democrats: 72 million.
U.S. Republicans: 55 million
U.S. Independents: 42 million

U.S. Democrats happy with Obama: 57.6 millon (80% of Democrats)

Obamas job approval rating among Independents is 43%, which means that roughly 24 million of them disapprove of his performance.

The math is pretty simple. If the current number hold, Democrats are going to lose. By a lot.

[jeff47]

65. Trying to use polling when there isn't a Republican candidate yet will not work.

Independents will chose based on the 2 main party candidates. They know one. The other is currently unknown.

And all of the leading Republican candidates have higher disapproval among Independents than Obama.

[emulatorloo]

66. Good points.

[onenote]

76. That may be the worst use of polling data I've ever seen at DU

Congratulations for winning the race to the bottom.

[Xithras]

82. Lol, I know, I was just responding to its use upthread.

I used the same numbers he did, and freely admit that my numbers can be taken no more seriously than the UP's.

IMHO, polls are generally useless, but when someone uses a poll to justify a position, they can't really complain when other numbers from that same poll are used to refute it. In this case, the UP claimed that the 80% Democratic support meant that Obama wasn't in danger. I simply showed that, using those same numbers, he was. The numbers themselves are obviously worthless.

[MrMickeysMom]

100. Then, we're pretty useless....

I don't approve of what he's doing in so many areas, I'd love to see the repeatability of this poll.

I always love seeing the "Conservative Democrat" voter... you know the ones that want the America of the 1950's?

[Lucian]

101. Polls mean nothing.

[Exultant Democracy]

31. I guess it works on me. If I vote in CO I will vote for him, if I vote in CT then I won't.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

34. Yes

Most people act of self-interest (even if it doesn't always seem obvious). Some people went for Obama in 2008 simply because they couldn't handle the prospect of having Sarah Palin as a "heartbeat away from the Presidency". The current roster of potential 2012 GOP Presidential candidates not only INCLUDES Sarah Palin but also a whole bunch of other candidates whom are nearly as crazy as she is or at least in thrall to the crazies (aka teabaggers). Obama will be the "adult" any day of the week compared to whoever the Republicans finally decide to put up. Frankly, I don't think that the Republicans have a whole lot of confidence in their ability to win in 2012 (kind of like how we were in 2004) or otherwise there would be more candidates announcing by now.

[ecstatic]

35. It's an effective strategy for reaching the grown ups in the room...

now the kids... who knows?

[Solomon]

60. LOL

Well done! :thumbsup:

[truebrit71]

36. I think in 2008 a shit-ton of folk voted FOR Obama..in 2012 they'll be voting AGAINST whichever...

..nutjob wins the Angry White Rich Man party's nomination..

[gkhouston]

57. +1. There will be a lot of votes for President Placeholder. n/t

[tallahasseedem]

67. I'm okay with that...

as long as he gets the vote.

[onenote]

77. I suspect that in 2008 a shit-ton of folks voted against 8 years of repub mismanagement

and another shit-ton of folks that normally might vote repub simply stayed home.

[Keith Bee]

37. 2008 spoiled us

We were actually voting for a candidate. That's the exception, not the rule.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. "Or, else" and "Not as bad" is a "no sale" for me.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[emilyg]

49. +1

[onenote]

81. On the other hand it works fine for the other side

Who will convince tea baggers who think John Boehner is a sell out and that Mitt Romney is a dangerous socialist to hold their noses and vote for whomever is on the repub ticket because "if they don't, Obama will be reelected" and they would take anyone over that.

I, for one, think we would be nuts not to adopt the same approach. Indeed, for the past few years it seems like there have been daily posts complaining that the Democrats aren't as disciplined as the repubs. Well one of the things that has given the repubs their "discipline" is the "or else" argument.

[readmoreoften]

92. +1. I don't respond well to threats and intimidation.

[NYC Liberal]

44. I think there's plenty of reasons beyond "or else" to vote for him in 2012 though.

So yes, I agree that we should be talking about those instead of ONLY saying "or else the Republican wins." But it also is a fact that that's what will happen and we shouldn't forget it and get complacent.

[RZM]

45. I don't think this is all that unusual

Remember 2004? While 'he's not George W. Bush' wasn't an official Kerry campaign slogan, it might as well have been.

Although I wasn't alive in 1964, I also get the sense that one of Lyndon Johnson's strengths was that he wasn't Barry Goldwater.

Obama voters in 2012 will be a combination of those who genuinely like/support him and others who may not be huge fans, but prefer him to the alternative. That's generally how it goes, I think. Barring a major scandal, I'd say he has a pretty good chance of winning.

[Myrina]

50. "Re-Elect POTUS: Because Wall Street needs more money!!!"

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[readmoreoften]

95. Bernanke/Summers 2012 vs Chase/Goldman Sachs 2012

Let's just make it official and stop with the puppet show.

[Dawgs]

52. It's the ONLY reason I'll be voting for him this time.

Very, very, sad. :cry:

[Sivart]

59. Someone else already said it.....

But i will repeat it......alot of us are very unhappy with obama....and all we hear is - or else, its better than the alternative, etc. etc.

Is that all you've got?

That isn't much.

Not voting is not an option for me personally.....so I don't know where that leaves me.

It will be very interesting to me to hear what he has to say not about the wins, but about the list of things where he went back on his word. I want to hear his explanations.

Saying look at what I've done is one thing....but saying why you did what you said you were against is another.....

And for me personally, he cant just blame it all on the other party....because one of his promises was to elevate politics above that crap.

I know, he is just one man....but he wasnt saying that in 08....in 08 he was saying the WE can change things.....then he went and acted against alot of what he knew WE wanted......Now he needs us again......and I'm all ears, dude.

[LiberalAndProud]

54. The threat works on me.

I knew Gore and Bush Jr. were sort of different, but not too different. I didn't realize how hard the lesson would be to find out how wrong I was as to the degree of difference. Sure, I have been deeply disappointed by Obama, but I simply do not want to find out how bad the opposition is. It will be very bad. That's all I need to know.

[shanti]

56. future SCOTUS

appointees are the ONLY reason i will vote for obama. he will not get any of my money, however.

[tech9413]

61. It might happen but I can promise you one thing

I'll hold his feet to the fire and argue against every corporatist appointee on his cabinet. Obama was never going to be what we hoped for. We got what we voted for, the lesser of two evils, but not that much better.

[Swede]

64. Or else has to be used on a small minority,only.

The rest will vote Obama because they approve of his performance.

[JoePhilly]

74. +1

[BzaDem]

68. Explaining plain reality is not political terrorism. Just because you feel an argument is

inconvenient for you doesn't make it political terrorism.

The reason people follow the law and drive on the right side of the road in this country (rather than the left side) is because the alternative results in a head on collision. It is really no different here -- actions have consequences, and it is never a bad thing to point them out. Many who voted for Nader or stayed home in 2000 wished they knew about the consequences of their actions in advance.

[Arkana]

69. When the "or else" is Michelle Bachmann

or any of the other seven dwarves that is currently contemplating a run for President on the GOP side, I'd hope that would drive at least some people to the polls.

[treestar]

71. Most people probably don't require that, but if you do, OK

If you are that unceasingly negative about everything, why not? Do you really want a Republican President?

That's your alternative, realistically. Politics is not about perfection and realistically IS in fact about getting what you can and avoiding what you don't like.

Republicans. They are serious. They don't wait around to be "inspired" or express disappointment - they grab what they can get. That's why they win more than they should and get what they want.

[BOG PERSON]

73. if you don't vote for obama, lyndon larouche will become president.

then you'll be sorry.

[TK421]

78. Well, I don't take the "or else" as a threat, more like a fear-mongering tactic

vote for the D next to X ( Politicians name ) or else THIS...is gonna happen!!!

I've seen this shit before

[TNLib]

79. I agree but it depends on the "or Else"

If some wacka doodle wins the repuke primary then the "or Else" will be pretty effective. But if a seemingly moderate wins the primary then Obama is screwed.

[BzaDem]

83. Is there really anyone currently even thinking about running that you would consider moderate?

All of them would change the Supreme Court for the next generation as soon as they got the chance.

Or is upholding Roe v. Wade/overturning Citizens United just not that important?

[slay]

84. Not much of a campaign slogan is it?

n/t

[killbotfactory]

85. Yes, every reason to vote for Obama boils down to "or else"

But to be fair "Obama is actually a decent president considering the challenges he faces you ungrateful pricks" probably wouldn't convince many of his opponents to vote for him either.

[defendandprotect]

86. "Or else, GOP will cut Social Security, COLA's, give tax breaks to wealthy" ... ???

Maybe GOP will even stop you from getting single-payer universal health care!!!

Or STOP Medicare from negotiating with Big Pharma on drug prices -- !!!


:nuke:

[ProgressIn2008]

87. Yes, it probably will. It's the "2012: Where else you gonna go, bitch?" campaign. nt

[readmoreoften]

96. Basically.

[Chris_Texas]

88. Obamacare was the biggest betrayal of the poor in our nation's history

[liberal life]

90. no matter how you feel about Obama, the Republican Nazi party is worse

The way they have been behaving as if they don't give a damn whether we vote for them or not....I really think they plan on stealing the next election.

Remember Diebold? Nothing has changed.




http://fucorporatemedia.com/

[readmoreoften]

93. Living in an iron lung is better than ebola. But why can't I have a life?

Who would care enough steal the election? Republican ideologues? Geithner, Summers, Bernanke and the Goldman Sach's scum who ruined the economy are on Obama's team. Republican or Democratic they will run this country into the ground.

[BlueIris]

91. Actually, since you brought that up...no.

One of the reasons I don't think he will get Term #2 is that I don't think bullying is an effective motivator. And emotional blackmail, which is most of what constituted the campaign's leverage last time around, only goes so far.

So, um...good luck with this, Mr. President?

[tahrir]

94. not necessarily, but either way the elite win

it's a damn shame, and we all suffer the consequences of the billionaire ball.

[somone]

97. The choice is ample

[Union Scribe]

98. That's honestly their best argument.

It's the only one that sticks. It's a shitty argument bordering on political extortion, but there it is.

[Liquorice]

99. I think it will. We have no other choice. It's similar to

the situation with the republicans in 2004. Democrats were super fired-up, but Bush still won. I fully believe Obama will win reelection, and I hope he does, because a republican would be worse. It's sad and cynical sounding, but it's true.

Also, Obama has yet to put on his reelection campaign. I'm sure he will go all out again and get the faithful motivated.

[davidthegnome]

102. Whole lot of condescending going on here...

Nonetheless... "or else" works on me. I vote for Obama or it's highly likely I could get a Republican. I'm not pleased with his performance, but it's him or it's a republican, maybe even a tea party candidate. Just the thought of that is enough to make me shudder.

On the other hand... these are scare tactics being used and I think they're contemptible, because I figure that those of us who see things this way already knew it was Obama or a complete lunatic. There are some who will stand on principle - that is their right and I do not completely disagree with them, I just consider a write in campaign or a vote for a third party as a waste. We'll have two main candidates that receive media support, two main candidates advertising and pushing their campaign with all they can. I think a primary challenger is highly unlikely.

In the near future... a new record will be set for the most expensive Presidential Campaign in American history. Huge money is coming into play here on both sides from corporations and wealthy individuals. The vast majority of the American people who are supposed to be represented by their government... they have no financial power to match it. There's all kinds of ways of considering this - I see it as the government working for their bosses - generally speaking, the people who pay them the most. Some few politicians seem to be far less in corporate pockets than others, but they are the exception.

I think we should all keep in mind that while the American economy is suffering as are many of it's people, corporations are enjoying enormous profits without the responsibility of having to pay taxes to contribute to the society that has increased their wealth. Unless a candidate is already a billionaire, he or she cannot run an effective campaign without their support. As despicable as it is, I can't truly blame Obama for it, he's just playing by the rules. The game is definitely rigged, but that's not his fault. Citizens United made the game a lot dirtier.

Personally, I don't think throwing more dirty money into the pool will do anything to help - but lacking someone with the courage, the integrity and the willingness to take on the corporations, I'll vote for Obama instead. He's not as dirty as the republicans. That's the truth as I see it. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Lucian]

103. "Or else" is an idle threat.

Why don't we all work together to bring in a better candidate instead of saying we should vote for the one in office "or else?"

Saying crap like "He's better than a republican" or "the the teabaggers will get in" or other nonsense is not a good way to get someone elected.

Instead of giving $1B to Obama, how about we all pool our money and help ourselves out since our government has turned its back on us?

[alarimer]

106. This may be the first election I don't bother to vote in.

For sure I am not voting for Obama and I sure as hell won't vote for a Repuke. I refuse to condone anything this Administration has done. The blatantly illegal wars, the indefinite detention, blah, blah, blah. No way.

[JVS]

107. No. He's going to lose in 2012.

First of all. If he's trying to out-hate the teabaggers, then he's mistaken. Our disgust at the idea of republican president is a drop in the bucket compared to the insane rage of the teabag horde. He's going to have to do better than being not-Palin because those fuckers are crazed.


Secondly, and more importantly. IN, OH, NC, and PA are going to be really hard for him to win again if the economy doesn't pick up very quickly.

[Sivart]

110. They are going to beat him over the head with......

They are going to beat him over the head with his own words......And there very well may be enough there to take it to a level we have not seen before, in terms of making the person look completely untrustworthy. I think "I was for it before I was against it" will look like child's play.

He may survive it due to the alternative being worse, but I think it is going to be very tough for him. He is on record with statements, then his actions are the opposite in many many cases.

On the other hand, maybe the republicans would rather put up a loser, and make a true run in 2016......Maybe they don't want the mess that is up for grabs right now.

I will never vote republican, and i will probably ultimately vote for obama.....but he freakin sucks, in my opinion. And i hate that this is what it comes down to.

[dmallind]

109. Let me ask that of you in another way

Given that our electoral system currently only gives us two viable choices for President, isn't voting/working for the better choice, regardless of how highly you rank that better choice, the only rational option.

So let's say some fire-breathing DSA fan only rates Obama as a 25% on his personal scale, but even the best Republican candidate is 15%. One of them will be POTUS. Why would the far-left voter not want the additional 10%?

"Or else" is the basis of any moral choice under all teleological ethical systems - we would all steal to avoid starvation given no other choices. Not just morality abstracts either: we undergo great pain in root canals with only the "or else" of even greater pain with a rotting tooth to make us do so.

Rational choices are all about maximizing benefit or minimizing harm given the alternatives we can choose between. Unless our putative leftist is either irrational or honestly persuaded a candidate who ranks higher than 25% with him can actually win, then yes the "or else we get the 15% guy" is not only a perfectly good reason to hope, work and vote for an Obama win - it's the only reason needed or relevant.

[lonestarnot]

111. What a cute kitty.