Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

babylonsister

(171,070 posts)
Thu Mar 15, 2012, 07:54 AM Mar 2012

2012 Is a Real Big Deal-Why this election is more important than you think.

http://prospect.org/article/2012-real-big-deal

2012 Is a Real Big Deal

Jamelle Bouie
March 14, 2012
Why this election is more important than you think.



Ruth Marcus is bored by the 2012 presidential election and wants us to turn our attention to 2016 which, she argues, will be a lot more interesting:

Enough about the 2012 election already. Let’s talk 2016, which promises to be far more interesting — and consequential.

The precise contours of that election, of course, will be shaped by what happens this November. Yet either way, the 2016 campaign will be, much more than 2012, a battle for the ideological soul of one or both parties.


Two things. First, for as much as political observers have a sports-like obsession with the back-and-forth of politics, it’s important to remember that there are stakes involved in the outcome of a presidential election. From the future of health-care reform and the welfare state, to the environment and foreign policy, presidential elections have a profound effect on the lives and livelihoods of countless people. That Marcus is bored with 2012 is a sign that she doesn’t take that seriously enough.

That aside, Marcus is wrong to describe 2012 as a non-consequential election. Downturns don’t last forever, and ordinary economic activity will eventually bring the economy back to stability, even without help from the government. In other words, the important thing to remember about the next four years is that—barring another crisis—we should expect a fuller recovery from the recession of 2008. By the time the next election rolls around, unemployment could be near or below 7 percent, and the economy could be growing at a healthy clip.

If he is still in office, it’s almost certain that Barack Obama—and the Democratic Party—will receive credit for the likely revitalization. Much in the same way that Ronald Reagan could point to his tax cuts as the explanation for later economic growth, the outgoing President Obama could point to the stimulus as the foundation for this renewed growth, and the reforms in health care and the financial sector as part of his plan to share those gains with all Americans. Indeed, by then, the Affordable Care Act (if the Supreme Court hasn’t overturned it) would have kicked in, and millions of Americans would associate their new health-care benefits with President Obama and the Democratic Party.

By simple virtue of winning re-election and presiding over a “natural” recovery, Obama will have tilted the political playing field toward Democrats for at least another decade, giving them the opportunity to solidify the policy gains of his presidency. Likewise, a Republican win would do the same for the GOP, for the simple reason that President Romney would be able to claim credit for whatever economic growth occurs during his term, even if it has more to do with the fundamentals of the economy and not any particular piece of policy.

All of this is to say that the 2012 election will determine the shape of American government for a good while. By my lights, that makes it momentous and interesting.
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
2012 Is a Real Big Deal-Why this election is more important than you think. (Original Post) babylonsister Mar 2012 OP
I wouldn't count on it zipplewrath Mar 2012 #1
I have a major pre-existing condition and know I am not alone. I babylonsister Mar 2012 #2
What percentage? zipplewrath Mar 2012 #3
Most health insurance plans only kept you on until you were 23 not 26 or 27. vaberella Mar 2012 #6
Less a complaint than an observation zipplewrath Mar 2012 #7
First off being Liberal and Democratic are not synonymous. vaberella Mar 2012 #8
Enough to go around zipplewrath Mar 2012 #9
Obama and 2012 412498 Mar 2012 #4
The outcome of Election 2012 may be a major turning point for the GOP as well Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2012 #5
Marcus has already thrown in the towel, the washrag, and that furry thing that covers the toilet lid Major Hogwash Mar 2012 #10

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
1. I wouldn't count on it
Thu Mar 15, 2012, 08:47 AM
Mar 2012
Indeed, by then, the Affordable Care Act (if the Supreme Court hasn’t overturned it) would have kicked in, and millions of Americans would associate their new health-care benefits with President Obama and the Democratic Party.



These millions (7- 12 % of the population) are made up of 26 year olds who can continue to be covered by their parents, individuals that will now have coverage through their employers, and people "mandated" to buy health insurance. The only remaining population will be the newly qualified for medicaid.

That's not a population that is likely to understand, or remember on voting day (for those that actually vote) that these were made available by the actions of the democratic party. Remember, at the town halls, it was the medicare recipients that were hollering, "No government run health care and keep your hands off my medicare".

babylonsister

(171,070 posts)
2. I have a major pre-existing condition and know I am not alone. I
Thu Mar 15, 2012, 09:47 AM
Mar 2012

welcome the possibilities of insurance companies not being able to charge me more for what I've had to go through already. I know that doesn't factor into your negativeness, but there it is.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
3. What percentage?
Thu Mar 15, 2012, 10:32 AM
Mar 2012

It's just that the population to which you belong (amongst voters likely to vote democratic) isn't all that large. I don't see where the significant gains are to be made among the larger population referenced considering the fact that people already don't appreciate that liberals gave them medicare.

26 year olds that are already on Daddy's policy, that stay on 1 more year will barely notice.
The guy that got insurance when he got a job doesn't know that 2 years prior, the company wasn't offering it.
The guy that now is getting medicaid, doesn't know that 2 years ago he wouldn't have qualified.
The person that develops a "pre-existing condition" won't understand that 2 years ago that would have been disasterous.

These people SHOULD understand, but I'm dubious that the vast majority of them WILL understand in any politically significant way.

vaberella

(24,634 posts)
6. Most health insurance plans only kept you on until you were 23 not 26 or 27.
Thu Mar 15, 2012, 01:11 PM
Mar 2012

In essence what you're complaining about is an uneducated electorate, and unfortunately no is no real way to educate them because even if you do tell them the truth---if they don't want to believe they won't. In particular if they have an issue with Obama for any reason.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
7. Less a complaint than an observation
Thu Mar 15, 2012, 01:34 PM
Mar 2012

Liberals, and so therefor democrats, are responsible for just about everything that most people rely upon and enjoy in their lives. 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay, being able to read and write, the ability to vote, heck just about anything can be traced back to liberals working hard for decades to achieve. Do they get any credit for all of that? Does it affect elections? They drink clean water, and complain about the EPA. They breath clean air too, and complain about it. The brag about the US going to the moon, and complain about government spending.

I just don't see alot of people suddenly deciding to vote democrat because they have health insurance. If people made those kinds of connections, every single person on medicare and medicaid, not to mention social security, food stamps, and unemployment insurance would be voting for Obama. So would every single homosexual.

Ask almost any employer. People are real thankful to have a job, until about 3 months after they start and then they bitch endlessly about it. A guy I knew paid very low wages, and HUGE bonuses every year. He chuckled because he'd be glad to just put it in their weekly paycheck. But if he does, within 3 months their bitching again. But when he hands out bonus checks, everyone is happy and grateful.

Too bad Obama can't find a way to put his "sticker" on every person that is affected. "Here is your Obama provided health insurance coverage" or some such thing.

vaberella

(24,634 posts)
8. First off being Liberal and Democratic are not synonymous.
Thu Mar 15, 2012, 01:57 PM
Mar 2012

Never was and never has been. The infestation of Blue Dogs and Conservadem in the Democratic party explains that enough. It was the democratic party that in effect fucked Obama with the whole Gitmo situation. They failed him and he takes the blame. Secondly many republicans in history actually helped to set up some of what you claim as Democratic wins...before they feel to the dixicrats that once used to rule a significant portion of the Dem party.

I agree with the last part. But sadly again we have a willing stupid electorate. Liberals--- or people who have cared about social reform and innovation understand have done a great deal. And I think most of those things are very important in the lives of post people. The problem is the branding. Just as you said is just how people think about Liberals. Liberals are classed as sort of this socialist group who want to control the lives of people or make us into a country we're not (Canada) comes to mind. The problem is to tear down the branding and breaking free of these titles and ideological divides.

I always blamed the failure of the PO not on Obama but on the Democrat Congress to clearly explain what the PO is to the people. I think Obama clearly explained it and did it over and over again. But the whole point of the congress and Reps is to send these people out with proper explanations to clearly map out what people are to expect. When I heard some dems misquoting the health care law and some were having difficulty defending it from simple I realized that our Congress has a major communication problem. Until we get that rectified and get people who sincerely care about their self-interests and dump some of their racist or prejudiced hang ups---Obama will always end up with the same wall.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
9. Enough to go around
Thu Mar 15, 2012, 02:07 PM
Mar 2012
I always blamed the failure of the PO not on Obama but on the Democrat Congress to clearly explain what the PO is to the people. I think Obama clearly explained it and did it over and over again.


There's enough blame to go around. Obama's team did way too much negotiating in secret with industry, without congress. The end result was that congress wasn't "in the loop" to be in a position to defend much. Furthermore, his willingness to exclude single payer put him in a very weak negotiating position straight out of the gate. He was also so interested in seeking bipartisan compromise, that he actually sought out the blue dogs, and conservative democrats, not to mention moderate republicans. The result was that they played GOP opposition against him. Truth is, it is not clear just how committed Obama was to the PO. He often seems more comfortable with the blue dogs and conservadems than anyone on the left.

But congress has plenty to blame too. They took WAY too long. Obama asked for something by August and that date just blew on by. Baccuss was a major problem. Everyone missed the problem with Scott Brown until it was way too late. And the leadership didn't figure out just how obstructive the GOP would be until well down the line.

412498

(1 post)
4. Obama and 2012
Thu Mar 15, 2012, 10:57 AM
Mar 2012

I personally believe that the 2012 election will be more important to Obama, because if Obama get elected again he will be able to do more because now he has experience and hopefully will do what he promised. 2012 election is more important to us now because we have to look at everything now and not the future.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,414 posts)
5. The outcome of Election 2012 may be a major turning point for the GOP as well
Thu Mar 15, 2012, 11:19 AM
Mar 2012

IF they win with Romney (because there is simply no other credible alternative), the "base" still won't like him much but he'll know that he can't afford to alienate the base for re-election in 2016, so he'll make sure to throw them some "bones" by surrounding himself with plenty of corporate hacks and neocons to keep everybody happy and Norquist will have somebody in the WH who will sign whatever Republicans, whom presumably will be controlling Congress if Romney were to win, send him to sign. He will be a willing puppet to them. In short, the alliance between the three major factions of the GOP will likely continue to be strained but they will endure IMHO.

if (when) they lose with Romney as the nominee, the "base" is likely to become full-on frothing mad (they're almost there now, of course, but this may finally push them off the cliff for good) and feel betrayed by the GOP "establishment" that, like in 2008, failed to provide a nominee who is "pure" enough and "severely conservative" enough to beat Barack Obama. If they feel really betrayed, they may choose to break away from the GOP and either form a third party (or series of third parties) to cater to their interests or simply lose all of their enthusiasm to vote for the GOP again.

If they somehow manage to get somebody like Santorum nominated and they lose in a blowout with him, that may just be enough for the "moderates" to be able to regain control of the party pull the party back from the edge of electoral oblivion and start to regain some sanity in order to recover some of their electoral viability that they are FAST pissing away with the GOP Tea Party currently in its ascendancy. Though, of course, their "bond" with the far right-wing is going to be likely to be broken either way and that's going to create new electoral headaches for them, so............

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
10. Marcus has already thrown in the towel, the washrag, and that furry thing that covers the toilet lid
Fri Mar 16, 2012, 07:14 AM
Mar 2012

She doesn't yet realize this, but there won't be a Republican President elected in the next 4 decades because of what George W. Bush did to his party.
It will slowly begin to sink in sometime around 2018, 2 years after the GOP has reorganized for the 3rd time in 10 years, after losing the 2016 Presidential election.
By then, after looking around and seeing what Republicans are left in her party to run for the White House in 2020, she will become like Nicole Wallace and just not bother to vote and will say, "This year's election isn't really all that important. Let's look ahead to 2024 and talk about it instead."

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»2012 Is a Real Big Deal-W...