Did American Voters Elect the Wrong Person as President?

[MineralMan]

I don't think so. They voted, once again, for change and for hope. And yet, some still are attacking their choice. 47% voted for a different person to be President. Another 1%, roughly, voted for one of the third party candidates.

As we do every four years, we elect one of two candidates to be the President for four years. Those who turn out at the polls to vote are still a minority of the entire adult population, but they're the minority that thinks elections are important enough in a representative democracy to go to the polls.

President Obama is not an ideal President for every voter who voted for him. I can't imagine that anyone would be that. The range of political beliefs in the United States is very large, and encompasses everything from pure socialism to pure fascism. Most voters are somewhere in between those extremes, of course.

In 2008 and in 2012, US voters voted for President Obama as a majority choice. Those who say, "If only...." are not correct. The far right says, "If only a 'true conservative' ran for the office, he would have won in a landslide." Those at the far left of the political spectrum say the same thing, but substitute "true progressive" in the sentence.

The actual fact is that neither extreme is correct. This country is roughly equally divided in its political beliefs. That's been true for a very long time. Nobody running who is coming from either extreme even has a chance of being elected.

So, we have President Obama. I'm glad of that, since the alternative was Mitt Romney. President Obama is more of a centrist than I'd prefer, but he's way to the left of Romney's position. It's the best we could do in 2008 and 2012. He'll move us a bit further toward the left during his two terms. Not far enough to suit me or to suit many others, but it's movement in the correct direction.

He'd probably move further if we had elected a majority of representatives in the House. But we, the people, did not do that. Perhaps we'll correct that situation in 2014. That is my hope, and that is the goal I'll be working toward. I hope everyone on DU will join in that goal. If we succeed, we'll give President Obama an opportunity to do more. If we do not, we can expect the same small steps he has taken to continue. It's up to us, really.

[bvar22]

1. The American Voters choose the better of the two choices they were allowed.

[MineralMan]

2. Actually, the American Voters chose the two choices.

We have primaries, caucuses and other means to select our candidates. As I remember, there were a bunch of Republican primary candidates. Not so much on the Democratic side. How do you think we choose candidates? As an avid caucus-goer and nominating convention delegate in my own state, I was part of that process.

Nobody allowed anything. Candidates present themselves, and two end up being selected for the General Election, essentially. There are third parties, but they're irrelevant in today's elections for national offices.

Did you participate in selecting candidates? If not, then why not?

[n2doc]

5. Wasn't given a choice in the Democratic Primary

Big money ensured that there would be no challengers. I guess we got fooled in 08 and are stuck until 2016. My bad.

[geek tragedy]

7. No, it's just that the vast majority of Democrats disagree with you.

Had there been any discernible interest in the Democratic base for a primary challenge, there would have been one. Provided, of course, that someone wanted to risk their career by running against Obama.

[MineralMan]

8. Did any Democrat step up to run?

Here in Minnesota, filing to run is easy. Where were the candidates? We're a caucus state, too. Nobody's name was put forward as an alternative candidate. Why was that?

The bottom line is that no alternative Democratic candidate stood a chance. President Obama's popularity made that clear.

[Blue_Tires]

11. I like the assumption that some big name challenge, if it did happen...

would have come from someone to the left of Obama...

[bvar22]

14. A challenge would have to come from The Left.

There is no room on the right for a challenger.
Those bases are covered.

[MineralMan]

15. Where, then, was the challenger?

Lacking one, what other choice was there?

[Blecht]

23. A challenger cannot get any traction unless he/she plays the game

And by playing the game, they sell themselves to the process, and they quickly become like every other candidate.

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. No greater truth has been mistakeningly spoken ...

A challenger cannot get any traction unless he/she plays the game ...

And like it or not, that "traction" is called support and that lack of support indicates that the majority of people, more specifically, the majority of people in the Democratic party, are not as far to the left as you (or I) would have them.

[bvar22]

48. What other choice was there?

Exactly my point.

Do you have ANY idea what happens when you choose to challenge the POWER establishment inside the Democratic Party?

1) It take several TONS of Money and a good head start.

2)Those who go with the challenger risk being primaried, unfunded, redistricted, marginalized, ....or worse.


These folks are GOOD at elections.
They KNOW how to put on a show,
flood the field,
limit the choices,
steamroll supporters of opponents,
hedge their bets,
and make offers that can't be refused.

Most challengers will never overcome the money deficit or the Media Deficit, and they are left alone because they are necessary for The Big Show.
But for those that pose a real threat?
Well....Go ask Howard Dean or John Edwards.


The "Debates", where "challengers" are "showcased" are now owned & operated by the parties themselves since 1984.
Control the "Debates"= Control the Election.

Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984.[5] In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted.

On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:[9]

" The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."


According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."[9]

...and that is just skimming the surface.
Follow the MONEY.

[n2doc]

6. exactly. n/t

[Fresh_Start]

3. Saying that the people are relatively equally divided in its political beliefs

isn't strictly accurate.
They are relatively equally in their voting between parties. But many people don't share all the beliefs of the party they are voting for.
Sadly I think the largest discrepancies is that the GOP voters do not understand that their votes against gays/welfare and pro-corporate takeover of everything are against their own interests.
They vote against others rather than for themselves.
Its also true for democrats to some extent but ....
the GOP has fostered hate/division because it allows their parties (rather than their members) interests to succeed.

[MineralMan]

4. That is the effect. About half vote for Democrats,

and about half vote for Republicans. It shifts a few percentage points from election to election. I didn't say that half think either candidate is ideal. In fact, I made it clear that is not the case. It is an election between two sides, every time. Whichever side manages to convince more people to vote wins.

For every thinking voter, there is an ideal. No candidate meets that ideal, but one will be elected anyhow. That is our system. We can argue whether that's the best system, but the fact is that it is our system.

As we learned from Barry Goldwater, running a candidate that is too far on one end or the other is a losing proposition. It doesn't work. That is why most Presidential candidates take positions closer to the center than to the extreme. The same voters choose both the President and the Congress. We have a history of choosing each from different sides of the center in this country. Again, the voters tend to elect centrists overall. So, we end up being stuck a lot of the time with an inactive federal government. Inactive due to that general centrist voting habit we seem to have as a nation.

[woo me with science]

9. Ah, the predictable, hideous encapsulation

Last edited Fri Mar 1, 2013, 03:42 PM - Edit history (1)

of the good cop/bad cop, "lesser of two evils" propaganda scam they run on us, over and over again.

Cheer austerity and/or the theft of your Social Security, because the other guy's version would be worse!

[MineralMan]

10. I'm talking about elections, not policy.

We had an election. Obama won. In the House, though, Republicans still won the majority. What's your solution for that?

I'm not cheering any policy. I'm suggesting that we voted for what we have, and that we do something different in 2014. Did you read my post?

I am not in a position to change how we elect people for national office. Neither, in fact, are you. So, how do we turn things in our direction? The system is not going to change before the next election, or the one after that, either.

[99Forever]

45. Yep.

That's exactly what they do. Give you two crappy choices, then use the less crappy choice you made as a stick to beat you into silence while they fuck you over, again and again.

[WinkyDink]

12. Romney/Ryan was the other choice.

[MineralMan]

13. No. I gave my opinion on the election.

I do not think we chose the wrong President. I think we failed to choose the right House members, though. Read my last paragraph. That's what I think.

On Edit:

Here's the post I responded to. It isn't the one that's there now. Thank goodness for transparency on DU!:

Original version with no edits.
12. You don't THINK so?! There's room for DOUBT, then?!

[msongs]

16. now if we could just get transparency from the winners of the election lol nt

[AndyTiedye]

49. A Majority Voted for Democrats in the House Too, But Gerrymandering Trumps the Will of the People

…and will do so in the House and in the red state governments for the foreseeable future.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Americans, as usual, voted for the one they considered "not as bad".

And, got what they voted for.

[MineralMan]

18. Did they? Some did, no doubt.

Others voted for the one they thought was the best choice. Not all Americans think the same about anything, which is the point of my OP. I know some Americans who think that President Obama is the best President ever. It's always a mistake to assume that people do things for the same reasons you do things. They don't.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. I'll stick with my contention.

Most people vote against rather than for candidates. Thus the American tradition of painting the other candidate in the most horrific terms possible (and, impossible). i.e. "Obama is Commie Muslim!" or, "Romney is a heartless capitalist who tortures his own dog!"

What we got is a clever, ambitious, politician who, in fact, is "not as bad" as the alternative.

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine

[MineralMan]

20. That's fine with me.

However, I've seen the other side of it during the campaign. You're underestimating the number of people who enthusiastically voted for President Obama. Perhaps you don't know any of those people. When you work on campaigns, you get to meet them.

I'm one of them. I don't think either of us is competent to say why most people vote as they do, to be quite frank. I wouldn't even try.

The fact of the matter is that more people cast their vote for Barack Obama than for Romney. Each voter had his or her own reasons for doing so. President Obama will be President through 2016. I suggest we work hard to give him a Democratic Congress to work with in 2014. That would give him a couple of years to get more done. What do you think?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. I think I'll follow John Quincy Adams' advice.

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

[MineralMan]

22. I think I'll follow another bit of wise advice:

"May the better man or woman win." That's how elections go. You vote for the better candidate. That's a principle I can stand by.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Our principles differ.

[MineralMan]

27. Actually, I doubt that they do.

It's a question of how we get there, really, for me. And we certainly don't do that with Republicans. So...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. I'm going to be 69 years old tomorrow.

I've voted in 22 federal elections starting in 1966. I've voted for the "not as bad" candidate in most of them, save 3. On those occasions I voted for the "best" candidate without sacrificing my principles or damaging my nose. McGovern was one, the others were 3rd Party (Greens and Peace & Freedom).

But...no matter how I voted, or might have voted, the outcome of the elections would have been the same.

With that in mind, I might just as well vote for the best candidate rather than settle for the "not as bad" candidate.

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." Emma Goldman

[MineralMan]

29. And I'm 67, and have voted in the same number of elections.

For any individual voter, the outcome doesn't depend on his or her single vote. My vote is just one of many. Where I can influence the outcome of elections is during the primaries and campaigns, so that's where I put my energy. Voting is a very small part of it.

You will vote as you see fit, I'm sure. I will always vote for the better of the two candidates who have a chance to win. I will campaign for that candidate, too, in the general election campaign. During the primaries, I select the candidate to support using other criteria, but not in the general election. There's too much to lose.

You can make a difference, but it's unlikely to take place in the voting booth, really. What you do before the election is the way you make a difference.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. Recent polling ...

of the youth vote, indicates otherwise. On NPR this morning there was a segment on the gop. In it, one of the gopers used that same line, i.e., President Obama voter were voting against Romney or voted for him on personality versus policy; but the next commentator cited to polling that rebuted the statement, stating that the majority of youth voters voted FOR President Obama because they agreed with the policies of his previous term and his promise to continue on his olicy path. (paraphrasing the segment, of course)

[FarCenter]

24. Didn't really matter. If Romney had won, the Senat would have blocked him.

Since Obama won, the House is blocking him.

And, since it is his second term, Obama's presidency is already over.

[MineralMan]

26. Oddly enough, I think you're incorrect in that assessment.

We'll see, for sure. For my part, I'll be working to get a majority in the House in 2014.

[FarCenter]

30. With Pelosi as speaker, Obama still couldn't get anything done.

Face it, Obama went from 1 term Senator to President.

If he had been a Governor of a state (like Reagan, for example), he would be an outsider to the House and Senate and he would have experience in dealing with a state legislature. This would have given him a shot at developing some clout with Congress.

If he had been a senior Senator (like LBJ, for example), he would have had the connections and information needed to manage Congress.

Having neither, he has been largely ineffectual and deferent to a disfunctional Congress. Even with a Democrat controlled House, he wouldn't have any power. Nancy et al would drive the agenda and it would be stymied in the more conservative Senate. Obama is still largely out of the picture.

[Aerows]

34. I disagree

He already has clout because he can't run again. He's pretty much done in politics except as a role like Bill Clinton unless for some unheard of reason he chooses to run as a Senator.

[FarCenter]

42. Not being able to run again makes him a "lame duck".

He has lost influence over Congress, and as his term approaches its end, he will lose influence over the party.

He may retain popularity with the people, but without the abilty to reward or punish the members of his party he has no real power other than the formal power of being president and commander in chief. The formal powers of the president are limited when it comes to economic matters.

Most lame duck presidents make up for lack of domestic clout by becoming adventurous in foreign affairs.

[Aerows]

44. "Lame Duck"

I've always heard that term used in a completely different context. Cue Inigo Mantoya.

[AndyTiedye]

41. The Senate Was Completely Unable to Block Bush**

Take a look at our Supreme Court.

[FarCenter]

46. That's a good indication of how conservative the Senate is.

And how most of the Senate Democrats are to the right of the House Democrats.

On a state basis, there are 30 Republican and 19 Democrat governors. The only way the incumbent Democrat senators can keep their seats is by tacking to the right.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. I disagree ...

If romney had won ... Senate Democrats would have bent over backwards to work with him, i.e., govern. That's what elected Democrats do.

[Aerows]

31. We got

What was paid for and presented. We got the best of two choices, neither of which are the true choices most of us would have made.

Now we need to ask - where do we go from here? We need to get the House back and keep the Senate. Looking back and complaining is not useful - moving forward and getting the House back IS a viable strategy.

[MineralMan]

32. And that was the reason for my last paragraph.

There is something we can do, and we should do that. That was the reason for my OP in the first place.

[Aerows]

33. And I didn't disagree with you :) n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. "neither of which are the true choices most of us would have made." Who the hell is "most of us"?

And who the hell gave you permission to speak for "most of us"?

[Aerows]

36. I apologize

You are correct. Neither of which are the true choices that some of us would have made.

[davidn3600]

37. At the end of the day...America is a melting pot

Americans come from many different backgrounds, beliefs, and religions. Different parts of the country have different priorities, problems, and feelings. It's a large country. And the reality is that not everything that works well for one group of people may not work well for another group.

Many other countries are not as large as the United States and don't have the kind of diversity that we do. They may have a common culture with common traditions, common goals, and a smaller population. They may be more easily able to agree on things and work together.

Obama couldnt have been elected without the progressive left. That's true. But he also couldn't have been elected without the moderates. He couldnt have been elected without independents. And going beyond that, the President is supposed to work for and represent all Americans....which includes the right. So imagine yourself in that kind of position and you will see why Obama tends to go to the middle. That is where the majority is at. We are not a progressive country. We don't even have a progressive political party. The GOP is right wing, and the Democratic party is center-left. That's the reality.

[MineralMan]

38. You're correct. The United States is what it is.

We get the elected officials we choose to elect. There is nothing that can be done about that except to educate voters, which is the job of campaigns. Recognizing that is the first step toward making changes. Forgetting it generally leads people down paths with endless false turns.

What you wrote is an unpopular point of view for some on DU, but it remains the truth. We can't change that truth without putting our hearts in the effort and doing the best we can in any given election.

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. Pay no attention to the many trolls and third party assh..., er I mean, advocates who infest "Demo-

cratic Underground". They have a lot in common with their Tea Party compatriates, they both hate Obama, and in many cases, I think they're the same people.

[MineralMan]

43. I never really do. Thanks!

[Blue4Texas]

40. It is what it is

[thelordofhell]

47. No

[Union Scribe]

50. I love how those who insist "far right = far left"

are the ones who always object to any implication of similarity between Democrats and Republicans.

Pick one eh? Maybe logical consistency isn't a pragmatic value.

[Deep13]

51. Of those running with any chance of winning, we picked the right one.

We also picked the right one in 2001, but the system was rigged against us.

Now, out of 300M people, was Obama the very best we could have done? I rather doubt it.

[dkf]

52. I am beginning to regret I didn't support Hillary.

I found Obama hugely inspiring and his background was absolutely fascinating to me. Moreover his stand on the Iraq War was exactly what I wanted and I found Hillary's comments on the nuclear umbrella positively frightening.

But Pres. Obama had no history of governing and I think he may not have the personality that thrives on hammering out deals.

If I didn't have Bill Clinton as an example I wouldn't know the difference but because we have that history I can recognize that maybe Pres. Obama just isn't the right type of personality to navigate this environment.

I think he needs to step out of his comfort zone if he wants to make it work.

And believe me I sympathize. I am more like him than Bill Clinton personality wise.

Maybe I am giving Hillary too much credit though. I have no evidence she could be what I would like. That's just a case of "the grass is greener".