An honest question. Who does Obama think will vote for him in 2012?

[MadHound]

Over the past year and a half I have watched this man piss off numerous subgroups of his base: Teachers, anti-war folks, LGBT, environmentalists, unions, the elderly, the list is long. Every week it seems as though he performs some act that greatly harms, and thus pisses off, one of the major sectors of this big tent known as the Democratic party.

Thus I'm left wondering who does Obama think will vote for him come 2012? How does he expect to win? I can understand pissing off a few demographic groups, that's normal. But at the rate that Obama is going he's pissing off enough to take away some serious support.

So how is he going to win in 2012. Or, as he has hinted at, he doesn't care about winning a second term, and is simply going to do what he's going to do and to hell with what the voters want.

I really want to know.

[Township75]

1. The same people that voted for him in 08.

It's simple. A few supporters will whine about him turning his back on gays, or the environment, or whatever, but when it is he vs Palin, or Obama vs. Any Repub, people will come around to thinking it will be worse without him, so they vote for him.

Besides, most of us really care about the Dems being in power adn the Repubs not being in power, not so much about what laws are/n't passed.

[MadHound]

9. Yet he continues to alienate people,

Teachers are highly pissed, I'm running into several who voted for Obama that simply won't vote for him now. One of his larger constituencies,

Anti-war folks, another constituency who are going to not vote for Obama in droves.

A few here, a few million there, and pretty soon you have enough pissed off voters to throw an election. Witness Gore '00.

Fewer and fewer are actually playing the partisan game, witness the declining membership rolls in both parties. People are caring more about issues, not parties.

[ecstatic]

17. Anyone who prefers Romney or Palin isn't too bright

and shouldn't be taken seriously. Obama is the best chance we have at getting things right in this country.

[MadHound]

29. And what a very sad statement that is,

As the man continues to destroy education, continues two illegal, immoral wars, continues the assault on civil liberties, etc.

If that is the sentiment you're going to try and evoke in 2012, well, we're screwed.

[ecstatic]

36. I think the wars should end; but I think education needs serious reform.

Teachers were silent when they collected their checks as millions of minority students were pushed along without learning anything. Now suddenly when competition is mentioned, everyone wants to speak out.

Assault on civil liberties? Since Obama has been president, I see a lot of progress for LGBT rights and civil rights in general. I haven't seen any constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage proposed and endorsed by Obama like we saw under Bush and would likely see under Palin or Romney.

You would really prefer to cancel out the progress that is being made to go back to the GOP?

[MadHound]

44. I'm not advocating for anything, I'm asking questions

And the fact that you want "competition" in education as some sort of reform simply shows how far you, and apparently the Democratic party is out of touch with education.

How do you measure the winner of such "competition"? In fact why does a field such as education, which is grounded in cooperation, even need competition?

Do you agree with the privatizing of education? The takeover of public education by private corporations and other entities? Even though it has been shown that they do worse for students than public schools?

Or how about we try this, for once in our modern history, namely fully funding education, actually living up to that empty toss out line so many we, namely that education is one of the most important areas in our society.

As far as progress goes, far too many people are going to look at that statement and laugh because progress, change hasn't touched them at all.

[Dinger]

386. Thank You MadHound

I mean that.

[MadHound]

391. You're welcome,

Questions, sometimes the most basic ones, have to asked time and again.

[EFerrari]

125. Charter schools not only don't seem to be helping minoriy students

they seem to be actively discriminating against them in the reports I've seen. And I don't know what silent teachers you're talking about. I've been around teachers my entire working life and don't know any silent ones. :)

[Bluebear]

328. 'I see a lot of progress for LGBT rights' - can you elaborate?

[Tutankhamun]

350. Millions of minority students were pushed along without learning anything?

I'm an English teacher, and almost all of my students have been minorities. I didn't just push them along in lieu of them actually learning. Teachers are already under tremendous pressure from parents, administration, other teachers, students, comunity members, etc.

Now, I'm seeing teachers class sizes almost double in the last five years or so. Try teaching forty fucking students at a time and then tell me these education "reforms" are a good thing. The idea behind it is simply to take money out of education, under the guise of punishing "underperforming" schools. Curious how these "underperforming" schools happen to be the ones populated by minority students, isn't it?

That's what it's really about -- it's a way to take money from poor, minority children, keeping them poor and disadvantaged. It's just another way to give wealth to the richest Americans while shrinking the middle class and keeping them uneducated, thereby providing the ruling class with cheap labor and dumb, Republican voters.

I'm a teacher, and that's why I'm pissed off.

[Citizen Worker]

371. Yes to competition

The political argument about Obama vs. Palin or Obama vs. Romney illustrates the need for political competition. Every four years voters are left with the lesser of two evils or the eviller of two lessers. Both political parties tell the voters that competition will only make our failing institutions better and competition for jobs with slave wage nations will only make us better but both parties are silent when the issue of a SECOND political party is raised. We need political competition, and soon.

[Stinky The Clown]

304. Really?

Who prefers Romeny or Palin?

Obama is the "best"? Really? No better person than him? Don't consider this an anti-Obama statement because it isn't, but given a free choice, I'd see Gore as better equipped than Obama (as but one example).

[TheFarseer]

345. don't you understand why someone would vote for Mitt?

A vote for Obama followed up by a vote for Palin makes no sense what-so-ever, but a vote for Romney makes sense. He's going to come in and say he was a successful businessman and he can fix the economy. That's going to appeal to some people that voted for Obama. He won't tell them that his plan is to send their jobs overseas to pump up corporate profits. They'll just get to be surprised by that.

[Township75]

24. To be honest I hope you are correct.

Not that I am happy people are pissed with Obama, but that people will actually start holding people accountable for what they run on.

I personally don't care if a Dem gets loses an election that won't do what we want him to. If he doesn't, then he really was just running for the sake of his own ego, not for any ideal.

You may be correct with your analogy about Gore in 00. I didn't think about that. But I still find it hard to believe when there is Obama vs Repub election, any one voting for BO isn't going to vote for him again (at least for the base)

[dflprincess]

227. He and his advisors will assume we have no where else to go

and fear of Palin or Romney will be enough. They don't care if we're actually voting against the Republican just so the box by Obama's name gets marked.

What they may not be considering is the number of people who will be so turned off by 2012 that they just stay home.

[MadHound]

229. That is the big problem, people so turned off they stay home

It has been what's hurt the Democratic party for decades now, people are disillusioned as Democrats continue more of the same ol', same ol' corporatist policies. So the number of apathetic voters staying home grows and grows.

This is exactly the problem that Obama faces in 2012.

[Bluenorthwest]

107. Speak for yourself when you say it is all about Party

and not about human rights or making good law. For most of us, politics are about trying to improve the nation, for our families and for those coming after. The tee shirt or badge being worn by the elected servants is not that important to most people. It is about principles for most.
For many of us, there are specific goals to be reached, and it is those goals that matter, not the casting of the West Wing reality show. Like it or not, that is how it is.

[Raineyb]

207. +1

Although the post you're responding too rather aptly wraps up the attitude of so many people. Which is why they seem to support things when a politician with a D after their name pushes them that they would have opposed when a Republican proposed it. It's the same attitude that let Clinton get away with his Republican lite bullshit. You'd think people would have learned their lesson by now. Apparently, despite the number of ego-stroking times you hear people in public say the opposite, the American people really are stupid.

[robinblue]

335. well said. thanks.

[Township75]

387. I'm not speaking for myself

I am just relaying an observation I have about people and politics. WHen it isn't voting time, like now, people subscribe and support their principles...when it is time to vote, it becomes about party loyalty, or more like keeping the other party out of power.

The amount of whining about John Kerry getting the nomination was overwhelming, but I watched posters slowly migrate to him, and then drool over him when he didn't change is position on the IRaq war at all during that election season. I think people like to think they vote on principle, but I see them treat it more as a supporting a sports team.

[muffin1]

145. Whining about him turning his back on gays.

Yeah...OK. If you helped put Obama in office, and he considered you a second-class citizen, maybe you would 'whine', too.

As I said in a thread yesterday, unless Obama reverses almost everything he's done so far, I will not vote for him in 2012. I don't care who his opponent is. I will vote for a third party candidate, or maybe I will write in a progressive. I am tired of giving my approval of repuke-like behavior with my vote.

[Mike K]

178. This presumes -

- Obama won't have a serious challenge from the Democratic side and that the Republicans won't come up with an equally acceptable candidate. But even if neither circumstance arises don't discount the many Democrats who voted for Obama in '08 but are so disgusted with at him they simply won't vote at all in 2012 no matter how bad the Republican candidate might be.

The unpleasant fact is if Obama keeps going the way he's been going between now and 2012, except for the skyward gaze and cosmetic smile there won't be much of a difference between him and the Republican, whomever that might be. It already seems to be a foregone conclusion that Obama is an untrustworthy liar, so the "Yes, we can" routine isn't going to work for him anymore.

Actually, I believe Obama came into Office knowing and accepting that the agenda he is obliged (to his corporate sponsors) to follow will limit him to a single term. His general attitude along with his often astonishing actions seem to suggest that. The kingmakers knew that Bush had utterly destroyed any hope for a Republican to succeed him so they positioned a viable corporate puppet on the Democrat side.

Would anyone care to argue that Obama is anything but a corporate puppet?

[socialist_n_TN]

182. Name ONE acceptable Republican candidate

Betcha can't. :)

[cali]

236. yeah. I think the corporate puppet crap is simplistic reductionist crap.

[varelse]

293. Minus one

not that it matters... I'm sure some of the conservatives he's won over with his bipartisan approach to politics will make up for it. Right?

[saracat]

314. Wow. If we don't care about what laws are passed and the issues, what does it matter which party is

in power? What value is there in voting? If that is all most of us care about , this is a very frightening situation. The only reson I am a Democrat is becvause I adhere to Democratic priciples.

[robinblue]

331. its a sad sad commentary when I see things such as that post.

[TorchTheWitch]

334. I'm still trying to lower my eyebrow at that one

Yeah, issues and laws don't matter, only voting for Party X matters!

What the fuck?

Stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's idiocy like that that pisses me off about party loyalists whichever party... and scares the shit out of me.

[bamacrat]

353. I agree. Unless Grayson runs he still has my vote. n/t

[gleaner]

367. I voted for him then, or for who he was pretending to be ....

I will vote against him in the primary, but I will never vote for him again. The Hell with it. I'm tired of lies and excuses.

[mucifer]

2. his approval rating is at 52% higher than most presidents at this point in their term

He will probably get a lot of "lesser of the 2 evils" votes. I'll be included in that. You do realize if palin were president now things would be much worse.

[MadHound]

11. I voted for Obama only because of Palin,

But as he continues to piss off his various constituencies, that whole lesser of two evils mantra is going up in smoke.

[NWHarkness]

14. Well, except one evil keeps getting eviler

So, he has that going for him.

[socialist_n_TN]

175. Yeah exactly

I'll PROBABLY vote for him simply because I don't want ANY Republican anywhere NEAR the levers of power. I'm not a corporatist by ANY means (in fact ideologically I'm the opposite) and Obama IS a corporatist to a certain degree. However he's by FAR the best of the lot as far as politicians go. Or at least politicians who have a chance to win. Ergo he'll probably get my vote.

And yes, that a REAL sad state of affairs.

[saltpoint]

18. Maybe for some, but there's no evidence of it generally.

The president's support remains strong.

Also I see no one challenging him within the Democratic ranks on the left or the right.

Not that Evan Bayh wouldn't like to.

[sabrina 1]

342. Polls at this point are not worth much. Eg, I am so angry

at Obama that if the election were next week, I could not bring myself to support him. But if someone were to ask for my opinion for a poll, I would not reveal that information because of how I feel about the Republican Party. So, I would be counted among those who 'approve' of him when in fact I do not right now.

He is losing people that democrats need to win elections. And unless he does something about it way before the election, it is very possible that he will lose and will be a one term president. It really hurts to have to say that, but it is a fact.

[saltpoint]

370. All presidents almost by the nature of their role will anger some

percentage of the population.

While you are dismissing the polling, the polling says what it says. No one knows what will happen. As things stand now it would appear that the likelihood of a challenge for the Democratic nomination is fairly remote, either from someone left of Obama or right of Obama, which would secure him the nomination in pretty close to a cakewalk.

As for the 2012 general, again, barring unforeseen downturns in fortune, I see no credible Republican in any position to defeat this president.

[sabrina 1]

376. I'm not worried about a challenge from the left, it's very unlikely

to happen. I am worried about who the Republicans choose as a candidate. With Independents being the ones to carry the election of either candidate in the end, and with many of them very disappointed in Obama's flip flops on major issues right now, we'll see what the polls say when a candidate emerges in a year or so. Those are the only polls that will matter. Right now, people don't have a choice.

[saltpoint]

381. True that things will shake out differently than they seem

right now, but the advantage still seems to me to be to the president.

The Republicans are in demographic quicksand. On one hand they are still claiming the same memes of failure that the public has been rejecting in significant percentages, and of late Governor Brewer is leading the charge to alienate Hispanic voters in what I think will be very large numbers.

As recalcitrant and cement-headed as the Republican leadership is -- insofar as they HAVE a leadership -- they cannot present a compelling enough case for their normally conservative agenda to prevent the Tea Bagger movement which seeks in part to dismantle insufficiently conservative Republicans. Witness the hack job done on Bob Bennett.

If the Baggers align with the foaming-at-the-mouth fundies the GOP "base" is not going to be operating "at baseline." They are going to be competing for the same fund raising sources and the polls are going to split them up into two angry and resentful factions.

And I say that's great. It's been a long time comin'.

[sabrina 1]

385. I agree that the Republicans are in dissaray and

as things stand now, they are not in very good shape for a general election. But in politics, two years is a long time. Democrats moved to the right to win over more conservatives voters disillusioned by the Republicans on many issues, one of them being the Economy. I think that anyone who calls for accountability for the collapse of the economy would be hugely popular across the board. But it would have to be someone who is not tainted by Wall St. money and I'm not sure there is anyone ine DC, right or left, with a shot at the presidency, who isn't.

Imo, it will in the end come down to the economy. Everything else seems to take second place to that. If someone on the right had the courage to link the money that is going to pay for these wars to the economy, they could probably win. But that would be a Democrat, in a perfect world.

[mucifer]

23. wow you REALLY think Obama and palin are one and the same? That's weird.

I'm disappointed. But, seriously you think palin would have put in Chu for Dept of energy? You think palin would sign an equal pay bill? you think palin would sign infrastructure bills for jobs? You think palin would change the law so that people could visit their loved ones in the hospital?

Obama said on the campaign trail he was for the war in Afghanistan and for a slow withdrawl in Iraq.

Yes, he sells out to the banks and big business more than I thought he would. But, if you think palin would be the same I don't know what to say.

[Pirate Smile]

35. Flashback - Gore or Bush - it doesn't matter, they are both the same. Who cares who wins the

Presidential election...

[MadHound]

55. Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem

I stated that the only reason that I voted for Obama was because of Palin, which implies that no, I don't think that Palin would have done those actions that you mention, and no, I don't think that he's the same as Palin. Try reading for comprehension rather than going for the quick insult.

[MadBadger]

154. Does that mean you would have voted for McCain if no Paliln on the ticket?

[MadHound]

155. No, I'm not fond of any corporately controlled candidate

I was fully planning on going Green, but seeing that Idiot Barbie had the chance to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, well, simply couldn't let that happen.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

165. Would you have voted for Huckabee instead?

[Dream Girl]

249. I think that says it all... ahem...

Thanks for playing

[MadHound]

251. Says all of what?

C'mon, make that baseless accusation, I know you want to. Be warned however, I'll put my Democratic creds up against yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[sabrina 1]

343. What it says is the commenter does not support corporate

owned candidates. Only the threat of a complete idiot getting that close to the WH caused him to relent on that one occasion. He was not alone. Sarah Palin probably did more to help elect Obama than most other factors. The election was very close, Hillary voters were planning on staying home, or writing in their candidate. Then along came Palin, and she scared people so badly they voted to keep her out of the WH.

I supported Obama, based on the issues he claimed to support, on the debates between him and Hillary and later him and McCain. But now, I see that there would not be much difference on the major issues if McCain had won ... and I am not alone by any means.

[Name removed]

351. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

361. Deleted message

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

[NNN0LHI]

375. You would have voted for McCain over Obama if McCain had picked a more suitable VP running mate?

Is that what you just said or am I misunderstanding you?

Don

[MadHound]

382. Geez, why do you automatically assume that somebody is going to vote 'Pug,

If they're not voting Dem. There is the Green party, and others out there. Get it?

[NNN0LHI]

405. There is the Green party, and "others out there" ...

Others like the Larouchies perhaps?

I knew it.

Don

[MadHound]

406. You knew what? What stupid assumption about me are you making?

This I've got to hear.

[dems_rightnow]

3. It the ecomomy turns around

Pretty much everyone as 2008. If it doesn't.... most of the people who voted for him in 2008.

[MadHound]

13. If the economy turns around,

A person who is still out of a job won't be feeling very generous in 2012.

Meanwhile, when you are threatening the livelihood of folks like teachers, do you think that they'll vote for him?

[Mr Generic Other]

i'm a teacher who will find it tough to vote for obama again.

as far as i'm concerned he has not come through with much of the "change we could believe in".
he speaks a pretty line but is clearly working with the enemies of the american people rather than for the american people.
i have been voting for the lesser of two evils all my life and i guess this is the end of that game. to do that any longer means i have no integrity.

[quaker bill]

325. You think teachers

will do better under any republican?

Further, if an act of voting, an act that takes all of about 15 minutes once every two years, is sufficient in an of itself, regardless of how your ballot is cast, to rob you of all integrity, then you must have not had very much integrity to start. Get over yourself, voting just is not all that important to one's being. Elections do have consequences, but the selection of Bush did not threaten my integrity. It made me angry, but my integrity remained intact.

There is no "pure" vote, slice it anyway you want, at the other end lies a politician.

[Mr Generic Other]

380. teachers are worse off than they were under bush.

he started NCLB but obama has intensified the efforts to dismantle public education.
i devote nearly every moment of my waking being to the study of american politics, economy, society and history. i also teach others what my many hours of research have taught me.
i am active in local politics and volunteer in my community.
i don't have to be told to vote for "the lesser of two evils" as if my vote or lack of voting was just a response to a petty complaint.
politicians in both parties are our working to make life harder for most americans and for most people on earth.

[GoneOffShore]

4. He's got my vote and I'm no DLC apologist.

[salguine]

102. May I ask you what of significance has he done that you just gotta have more of?

[AllentownJake]

5. The people that are going to be pissed when the GOP takes the house

in 2010. The GOP will act like, well the GOP.

So the President's lackluster credentials for doing much of anything progressive will be bolstered by crazy people fighting with him.

[MadHound]

15. And if that happens, that will be perhaps the final nail in the coffin for him

Dithering around with Congress, unable to achieve nothing while both parties point fingers at each other for being unable to achieve anything absolutely, completely turns off voters. Not a good thing for 2012.

[AllentownJake]

20. Nah

The GOP will overplay their hand, shutdown the government, try to cut programs people like, investigate nonsense, pass resolutions to bomb people. They always do, and like the democrats haven't learned their lesson, I'm extremely doubtful the GOP has learned anything.

The only time the democratic party establishment is appealing is when the alternative takes power. Other than that, they are pretty disgusting.

I think he's an awful President thus far, the only time he looks appealing is when contrasted with an uglier alternative.

It is like going into a bar and there are only two ugly girls or guys to dance with, you try to dance with the prettier of the two ugly girls or guys.

[MadHound]

33. Or you simply go home and don't dance at all,

In many ways these actions of Obama aren't going to force people into the Republican camp, it is simply going to keep them home on election day. Voter suppression will mean he doesn't win. If the 'Pugs are smart, they don't run Palin or somebody polarizing, they run a Romney or somebody else who passes for a moderate, and win essentially by default. That's what I see happening.

[AllentownJake]

42. Congress switches

He gets re-elected. Token primary challenger, tons of volunteers etc.

All the people off the reservation right now will grin and bare the insults of the first two years soon after Speaker Boehner or Speaker Cantor go for their first figurative puppy kicking resolution or law.

Congress doesn't switch, he's fucked and will probably have a primary opponent and an actual fight for the nomination. He's kicked too many interest groups in the teeth the past 2 years. The ones with the most missing teeth will put someone up against him.

[MadHound]

48. You're more optimistic than I am,

I'm looking at large swathes of people who are so pissed off right now that they're either going to stay home or go third party in 2012.

We'll see.

[AllentownJake]

50. 2012 is a long ways away

Particularly with a GOP with a strong dominionist Christian bent.

You will see the GOP try to pass laws that resemble Nazi Germany if they take back the house, which their base eats up, and fighting the administration on every minor issue, because fighting him and punching him constantly got them back in a position of power.

[ellie]

56. You think he is an awful president?

[AllentownJake]

66. I don't think that is a secret

Every time he's been given the chance to lead, I've seen a whole lot of fail. Please don't bring up the Health Insurance Profitability Assurance Act, I did not find that to be reform or progressive, the battle is over, I'll work in PA for single payer and say fuck the rest of the country.

We'll see the end product of financial reform and how the actual withdraw from Iraq and than Afghanistan goes to see if he is salvaging his first term from being a failure.

His response to the biggest domestic crisis of his administration is rather Hooveresque and before you get on a soap box, I will break out my charts and foreclosure and long term unemployment figures.

Herbert Hoover didn't cause the depression either, he was just the guy in charge on clean-up duty.

[MindandSoul]

81. So. . .YOU were the one expecting the Messiah???

You must be on the wrong forum too!. . .

[AllentownJake]

86. I was expecting someone to the left of Richard Nixon on economics

I don't think that is a Jesus type character.

[socialist_n_TN]

180. Why were you expecting that Jake?

There's almost NOBODY in EITHER party that's to the left of Richard Nixon on ANYTHING now days. THAT'S how far the country has right turned since the Nixon presidency.

The return to the left will be a long and painful process, one election and one primary at a time.

[MindandSoul]

211. I agree with you. . .the whole country has gone further to the right. . .and

this is the only reason why Obama "looks" like a moderate (even though, the "right" still accuses him to be the most liberal President ever!).

I believe Obama is doing his best to keep the ship from capsizing. . .while still heading it in the right direction (left). . .but this huge ship takes longer to change direction than a speedboat would! Does that surprise anyone?

[cali]

39. look we all realize that you'd like to see Obama lose in 2012

alas for you and others it's unlikely to happen.

[AllentownJake]

47. I actually think it depends on the mid-terms

Outside of hopes and wishes, I personally would love to see him fall to a primary challenge with a crowd of people shouting Yes We Can the moment his opponent clinches the nomination.

Now back to reality.

The President has kicked so many people in the teeth that do the organizing and groundwork for the party that a loss of the House helps him politically, because he can keep his ridiculous stances and look good in comparison to bat shit insane people who are trying to pass bat shit insane things in one part of the legislature.

They keep the house, they will have gridlock and the President will have a great deal of trouble looking effective.

The house will become as contentious as the Senate and getting votes will not be easy. Probably will have 52 Democratic Senators in 2011 with Lieberman if he doesn't jump ship.

[cali]

58. yeah, I agree the midterms are important

but I don't see that whatever happens will be determinative as to whether Obama gets re-elected.

[AllentownJake]

67. Of course it will

Events don't happen in a vacuum. A small majority makes him even more impotent, an enemy with a branch of government makes him a fighter.

[MadHound]

59. What I want or don't want at this point is irrelavent,

I'm trying to deal in real politik here, and frankly trying to understand why Obama continues to piss off large swathes of his constituency. Does he think that there will be no repercussions? Or does he think that it simply doesn't matter?

You think it is unlikely to happen, right now I don't think it is unlikely at all. I think it's too close to call, and frankly my record of calling national elections correctly is pretty much perfect.

So thanks for your typical snark, and have a nice day.

[cali]

61. I think you're engaging in wishful thinking rather than real politik

you're doing the classic projection thing- casting your feelings on to others when all the objective evidence and history itself points in the opposite direction.

oh, and you have a nice day too.

[AllentownJake]

69. 1994 and 1996

Who is reading recent history wrong

This guy is doing the Clinton dance all over again, except during a deflationary debt crisis instead of a minor recession. At least Bill was original. This guy is a lame copycat politically, marketing wise better, politically he's splenda to sweet and low.

:rofl:

[MadHound]

82. Then I guess we'll have to wait and see,

Meanwhile it seems as though hardly a month goes by without some major component of this big tent that is supposed to be the Democratic party isn't thrown under the bus. Keep this up, and there will be nobody left who is willing to vote for the man.

You don't believe me, simply take a look at these boards. Or better yet, go out in the real world and ask folks like teachers, anti-war folks, civil libertarians, LGBT and see what they say. I think that you'll find that my outlook is much closer to reality than yours.

[AllentownJake]

90. He won't have the same number of people knocking on doors as in 2008

That is a given.

I won't do shit for him. If the choice is him and a crazy person, I'll show up at 7am hold my nose and than try to find a way to erase voting for him a 3rd time from my mind.

[MadHound]

93. And if there are fewer people knocking on doors for him

Fewer people donating to his campaign, fewer people talking him up, it makes sense he will get fewer votes.

[AllentownJake]

96. I think turnout will be lower in 2012 across the board

That being said, if the other side is more motivated and your side is pissed off or apathetic...well you are in for a tough fight.

People are stupid to write off the GOP. Remember only a year and a half ago, the same people were declaring them dead when they are poised to pick up 7 senate seats and possibly the House.

Overconfidence is the sign something is about to go boom.

[cali]

116. well, here in the real world of Vermont

I literally don't know anyone who won't be voting for him again- that includes the teachers and farmers I know and the many LGBT folks I know. My sister is a teacher and she worked her butt off for him. I talked to her the other day and she's certainly less than happy with his education policies, but she plans on supporting him. Will she work as hard for him in 2012 as she did in 2008? That may not happen.

[MadHound]

118. And she doesn't work as hard for him, and I don't, and Allentown Jake,

And on, and on, and pretty soon we're adding up to some real voting here. Your sister may vote for him, but that neighbor she could have persuaded, well, she doesn't do that and that neighbor votes 'Pug. Or that neighbor I don't talk to doesn't vote at all.

And so it goes across the country.

[AllentownJake]

124. If Vermont goes Red in 2012

:rofl:

I live in a state and a community that actually requires election work during Presidential years.

[cali]

138. What I want to know is whether you think Sestak will beat Arlen.

[AllentownJake]

194. 50-50

Joe needs to be up by 3-4 prior to Tuesday.

I'm not going to post my true analysis on what will be working for Arlen on election day in the machine districts. All I'm going to say is that the machine Arlen is borrowing is very effective in certain areas for GOTV in a primary.

Ask Barack about that ;-)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

167. Obama doesn't dither

[AllentownJake]

260. Ha nt.

[krawhitham]

352. Yep it sunk Clinton too

Oh way, he had a landslide 2nd term, that's right I keep forgetting

[saltpoint]

6. Polling from this past week indicates his highest approval ratings since

last October.

If he wants a second term, the nomination is likely his, and the Republicans have little chance of putting forth a convincing alternative.

IMO one point on evaluating Obama would involve whether he has uprooted the stakes of that big tent. It doesn't seem to me that that is the case. It was a big tent also in the 1960s and took Vietnam to bring Johnson down. I thought George McGovern would make an outstanding president but a huge majority of my fellow U.S. citizens disagreed and chose Nixon in a landslide. I'm still pouting about it, too.

Once a landslide majority chooses a thug like Nixon over a good man like McGovern, or an ideologue like Reagan over Jimmy Carter, you realize that the landscape we're in is hostile to meaningful reform. A lot of Democratic county chairmen and chairwomen know this, too, and do true-blue things in spite of it. They're the ones keeping the tent stakes secure in the ground.

In the larger landscape it seems to me that Obama has been decidedly effective. I don't think the percentage of discontent rises to the level necessary to bring the tent down or to wound him enough to deny him a second term if he wants one.

A lot of people who like Barack Obama like him a lot.

[pnorman]

19. You expressed my thoughts exactly!

I may (loosely) quote them elsewhere. THANKS!

[saltpoint]

26. Hi, pnorman.

I salute anybody from Seattle, just because it's such a class-act city.

You folks have a refreshingly liberal city to live in -- and t's physically beautiful as well.

Continue to kick butt!

[MadHound]

25. Actually I though '72 was a huge turning point for the Democratic party,

That is when they essentially stopped throwing the liberal part of the party a bone, and simply demanded that we keep voting for, "after all, who else ya gonna vote for, a Republican? Har dee har, har."

I honestly think that this coming election will be the one where we see the liberal wing seriously break off from the Dmeocrats and demand to be heard. This splintering started with Gore, it could very well be fulfilled with Obama.

A lot of people are feeling very betrayed by Obama, large swathes of the electorate that would normally vote for him and support him are now either feeling threatened by him or disgusted. That's not going to change.

[saltpoint]

31. Not in 1972, when a lot of Democrats voted for Richard Nixon, just as

many did for Ronald Reagan in 1980.

I wish they had not, but they did.

Gore evolved to the environmentalist liberal he is. He used to be a centrist through and through. He was annoyingly centrist. I was a Bradley delegate and was really pulling for Bill Bradley that year, but New Hampshire voters put out that fire. Gore-Lieberman got my vote but never quite won my heart. I still think Bill Bradley would have been the more persuasive candidate against George W. Bush.

I acknowledge that some people are disgruntled with Obama but again, that percentage is not great enough, IMO, to undo his presidency. He seems likely to win re-nomination without challenge either from the Evan Bayh / Ben Nelson faction of the party or from the Kucinich wing. Where Obama is now is politically enviable. If that were not the case the Pukes would have something more to howl about than his damn birth certificate.

[depakid]

41. The number of people who like him a lot shrinks every time he badmouths or backstabs a constituency

or panders the right.

Bottom line on it is of course that much depends on who ends up the nominees and whether a strong third paty voice comes along to fill the void.

If Republicans nominate an ostensibly competent and ostensibly moderate candidate- then all bets are off in states like Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, Virginia and North Carolina and Iowa, since a re-election campaign won't to generate the enthusiasm of the first go around after ll that's happened.

Sad really, because Obama had an army- and had he chosen to be a populist- and ride that wave, rather cozying up to the very corporations and interest groups that caused the problems the nation faces, Republicans would have been relegated to the fringe (where they belong) for a generation- and Democrats could have changed the landscape of American politics.

Instead, the far right's coopted the populist anger and resentment, been re-energized, enabled and legitimized- and from the looks of it, Obama may well get his wish to "work with them" in a bipartisan fashion- with John Boehner as the speaker.

[saltpoint]

52. Your analysis could come to pass, depakid, but the evidence is not

there right now.

The polling asserts itself as a gauge of the man's approval in office, and right now it is in a healthy-enough range.

The health care debate (such as it was) and the British Petroleum de facto assault on the environment are two pieces of evidence in the public shift in opinion on corporations. I would also throw in the big bank issue, although the Wall Street vs. Main Street meme is older than the other two hotter issues. Corporations' desire to hire cheap labor in other countries while decimating U.S. job holders' income and pensions would be yet another example, and is more of a long-standing crisis, all of this forming a kind of re-aligned mosaic in the public perception of corporate power.

The losers here, if the paradigm shifts enough and critical mass is achieved, will be the relationship citizens have with corporations. It will not come at the expense of a gifted politician like Barack Obama.

That's just my take.

[depakid]

62. Trouble is that the administration's created the perception that their loyalties

lie with those very corporations. For Democrats to win key states, they need volunteers and enthusiasm which is things continue as they have been is unlikely to be repeated.

Ironically, of course- and I think the administration gets this, losing Congress would be in their best interests in terms of reelection. They'll have someone to blame for getting few things done, and people won't want a both a Republican president and congress that might behave like the last ones did.

[saltpoint]

71. Agree that the percentage of concentricity between the Obama

administration and corporate "personhood" is greater than I would prefer, but again, I don't see evidence that the public perception of the president suggests a political danger zone for him.

There is also the likelihood that his advisors will be addressing exactly your points with Obama and the men and women he'll choose to run his re-election campaign.

Mid-terms ordinarily feature a loss of seats for the president's party, whether this president or another. I don't think it will be in the 1994 range, though. The Republicans have no wiggle room on the corporate issue at all. Pretty much no wiggle room at all, in fact.

The surge of inspiration that elected Obama was a plus for him personally. It is not likely to ever be that high or strong again, but neither, IMO, has it fallen enough to endanger his re-election. The surge FOR Obama in 2008 was also a wave AGAINST McCain, a Caucasian military profile conservative "maverick," allegedly a shoe-in for election. But McCain had to fight off piss-poor challenges from Mitt Romney and MIke Huckabee to win the nomination. Giuliani led in public polling for over a year for the Republican nomination, as Hillary Clinton did for the Democrats. That McCain survived to win the primary suggests that the Republicans were in a state of internal chaos and fury, acting out grudges between its factions, and in the absence of any real focus, a hapless dolt like McCain slips through to win their nomination.

I'm not seeing the Republicans in much better shape than that now, or going into 2012. They're all snark and anger and no brains and ideas. Obama won't have the surge he had in 2008 but neither will he have much cause to worry about serious opposition.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[MadHound]

27. You think far too much of yourself to be trying to determine whether a question is "stupid ass"

Or not. You are also apparently unable to engage in a polite discussion. Gee, not just an ass, but a noob ass as well.

Welcome to DU, I suppose.

As far as your point goes, a poll taken today has no relevance to tomorrow. Second of all, with groups such as teachers, and the LGBT community feeling betrayed by the man, do you honestly think they'll turn out in force? Somehow I doubt it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Me, for one.

[ecstatic]

10. Smart people nt

[watercolors]

12. He has our vote and most of the people I know!

nt

[MadHound]

37. And when he pisses on your profession, or on issues you hold near and dear

Will you still vote for him.

There is real anger out there among education groups, LGBT groups, anti-war folks, civil libertarians, etc. etc.

Do you think that he can overcome the loss of those key groups come 2012? Somehow I don't think so.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

168. prove that he has lost them?

[Mike K]

189. Read The Democratic Message Boards!

The comments are 99% against Obama. I don't know where this 52% approval rating is coming from but it doesn't square with what I've been reading and hearing. The only solidarity with Obama that I'm aware of seems to be from the Black community.

He's alienated every other support group.

[Tarheel_Dem]

225. So you've come to the conclusion that the president's only support..

must be coming from black folks, because of what you've read on message boards?:rofl: I know some Ron Paul supporters out there who are trying to create this impression, but how many people out of the 300 million of us, post on democratic message boards?:rofl:

[cali]

238. what nonsense. as in complete and utter nonsense.

wishful thinking is no substitute for critical thinking.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

255. the message boards?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

289. ROFLOL! If the internet message boards meant anything, we'd have president Paul right now.

[Lilyeye]

294. self delete double post

[Lilyeye]

296. Wow. This is the ridiculous post I've read today.

If I had of listened to message boards, Hillary Clinton would have won the primary.

[Number23]

337. "The only solidarity with Obama that I'm aware of seems to be from the Black community."

Works for me! :) We've always been known for our strength and common sense. If we're the only group that has the sense to support this man, that says more about his adversaries than it says about Obama.

[AuntPatsy]

392. Not true but then again, there is definitely a concentrated effort to attempt

to force a negative outlook for the Dem's to win in an effort to ignore the very real dangerous threat of ever having a repug dare to get control of anything, they had their chance, they blew it big time and no amount of ignoring the very real damage they did to our country will not become yesterdays news even if the msm and a few lone no sense cons believe it can be forgotten...

President Obama has barely been in office..spare me the percentages, your left flailing your arms in an effort to once again find something to cling to....

We have a long way to go to fix what those lousy republicans broke and I for one though not happy with somethings going on right now in no way shape or form would ever stupidly not vote for a dem knowing full well one of those idiotic and mindless damaging republicans would ever get their grimy little paws on any bit of power ever again, my God as it is, in states, those that are still in power are proving daily how destructive and ignorant they truly are that alone should scare that ninety nine percent you speak of off their lazy carcases and vote and than help to ensure the change for the better we need to happen gets the push it needs to ensure it does happen, NOT voting will do nothing more than ensure a complete breakdown of this country, God forbid any sane american citizen would dare to allow that to happen...

[johnlucas]

400. This Black ain't feeling Obama

Don't be so sure about the Black community being behind Obama.
The quiet pride that the racial barrier was broken still remains but trust that some are disillusioned with his actions.

In fact, it's the Black community that you find may have the most to say AGAINST Obama.
If he f's this thing up the Black community is put into the political wilderness in this country perhaps forever.
For us, it's imperative he gets this right. Our future in this country depends on his performance in that job.

Let the Black guy in there, he screws it up, no more Blacks in that office. Back on the outside of the gate looking in hoping for crumbs.
That's how it goes down.
The Blacks are gonna come down on him hard if he screws this up, trust me.
John Lucas

[muffin1]

244. He'll have to reverse nearly every position he's taken so far,

or neither I, nor hubby, nor best friend will be voting for him.

It really makes me incredibly sad to say that. My friend and I both worked for him. He voted for Clinton in the primaries, but once Obama had the nomination he was just as invested in him as anyone. On election night, I cried like a baby, and he alternated between being in a trance-like state and doing his 'happy dance'.

We were ardent supporters of Obama. I imagine people who were only luke-warm supporters of him last time won't be any happier with him in 2012.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

256. I thinik a left winger would also run up against problems

[Scuba]

16. And the alternative is....

....Satan? Some other Republican?

[NotThisTime]

89. Palin, just vote Palin you won't regret it one bit....

:sarcasm:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

169. Liz Cheney of course!!!!

[aikoaiko]

21. Who else are they going to vote for?

Nader?

[LaydeeBug]

22. me-eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!! And I'm GONNA. nt

[Number23]

338. +1

[KharmaTrain]

28. And Which Rushpublican Can Beat Him?

I proudly voted for President Obama in '08 and will do so again in '12. I'm not 100% with him and didn't expect to be...but I feel far more comfortable with im in charge of this country than the alternative.

While the corporate media loves to play horse race with politics, the poll numbers show the rushpublicans are still very unpopular and facing a major bloodletting in their own ranks. In some ways I think the GOOP taking control of both houses this fall may be a good thing (in a bad sort of way) as we'll get to see how well "divided government" doesn't work as the GOOP will obstruct and try to play all sorts of wedge games...making this President look better and better.

Now who will the GOOP run in '12? They sure as hell don't know and their ongoing teabagging is ripping the party apart and throwing it further off the political abyss. Let's see how many Heyworth supporters show at the polls in November if McCain wins the nomination...same for in other states where the teabaggers are running just as much against the rushpublican party as they are the Democrats.

So who will their candidate be? Mooselini? She couldn't even win a straw poll at any of the right wing swillfests and the highest poll numbers I've seen for her is around 30%...and that's within her own inept party. There's Mittens whose playing the inside game...again maybe generating 20-25% of the vote. This party's bench is weak and I don't see anyone emerging between now and '12 as a serious challenge.

The only person who can beat President Obama is the President himself.

[Lost4words]

46. I think many of you folks are underestimating the GOP,

they have proven in the past that they can over ride the vote, and nothing has changed re the voting machines with the exception of a few areas. The right has been super energized by Obama.

So to all you nay sayers, dont be too surprised, do you really think a majority of Americans wanted Bush in 2000?

They stole it twice, what makes you think they cant do it again? What have you done to insure a legitimate election?


Your dedication and loyalty is impressive, your naivety is disturbing.

:kick:

[gmoney]

78. Look out... the Fred Thompson juggernaut is warming up!

and of course, MITTENS!!!

[saltpoint]

80. I can see Thompson right now, opting for bumperstickers that simply

say:



Fred!



-- and that will be the entire rationale for his candidacy.

[MadHound]

85. I don't think that it's even a case of underestimating the GOP

I think it is simply a case that there are going to large enough numbers of people who are going to be pissed off enough to simply not vote, and the GOP will win by default.

[Lost4words]

288. Similar thread on FireDogLake

its pretty good and a lot less noise.

[howard112211]

30. I bet he has done the math.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Local races are still very important

For all I care, the entire Beltway can slide down a bottomless sink hole. The entire system is corrupt!

[saltpoint]

38. Politics is a dirty businesss, granted. I'm not sure it's any dirtier now

than it was in any other era, though, or in any other place.

By nature it involves the jostling of ego-driven individuals on a stage of influence and power.

There's just no way that isn't going to be a back-alley knife fight, at least at times.

But it doesn't mean that good people are not involved in the system. We have been fortunate to have lived when many of them served, past and present. Bobby Kennedy. Bella Abzug. Barbara Jordan. Russ Feingold. Barbara Boxer. And many others, recently gone or currently serving.

A spiritual contemplative has the higher ground than a political junkie. I readily admit this. But I'm a political junkie and the game is still very interesting.

And still worth playing.

[cali]

34. most of the people in most of the groups you list will vote for him

you seriously overestimate the potency of the anger against him. In other words, you're wrong. And look who the republicans have as potential candidates. I think he'll rather easily win a second term.

[depakid]

45. Just like they voted for Al Gore...

[cali]

53. uh, actually they did vote for Al Gore

in any case that's rather a silly comparison as Gore wasn't a sitting president. Why not say just like they voted for bushco in 2004 or Clinton in 1996? When one looks over the list of recent presidents, most do get re-elected.

[depakid]

64. Close enough to steal in key states

and the economy isn't likely to look so bright come 2012- so that won't be a feather in the administration's cap, as it was in 2000. Prospects are more likely to resemble Carter in 1980 or Bush in 1992.

[MadHound]

100. Actually they didn't,

Let's take a look at Florida. Gore was campaigning on expanding oil drilling off the shores of Florida, bringing the limit in a lot closer. This single issue pissed off enough people, 200,000 registered Democrats, 400,000 self described liberals, to the point that they voted for Bush out of spite.

Gee, if Gore had modified his position on that single issue, in that single state, he would have captured enough votes that it wouldn't have been close enough to involve the SC and he would have won.

That's what we're facing in 2012, key groups, key constituencies, in key states.

Oh, and considering that over the past forty years, and past eight presidents, three of them have not gotten reelected. Not a great track record.

[Selatius]

40. The same people who got fucked over. We have no alternative in a two-party oligarchy.

And I'm not saying this out of some sense of trying to beat the notion of party unity into your skull but the simple observation that we really have no other alternative, and the Republican answer is infinitely worse.

[otohara]

144. Who Got Fucked Over?

69,456,897 people voted for Barack Obama - are you saying we all got fucked over by the President?

[Selatius]

153. I meant figuratively over the long-haul. I even mentioned the two-party system we have.

At the end of the day, we only have the Democrats to deal with, even if they sell us out, like with NAFTA or the idiotic Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

[graywarrior]

43. I guess a stupid fuck like MEEEEEEEEE will vote for him in 2012

[MadHound]

51. That's nice, but will your vote make up for the ones that stay home?

That's the real danger here, people simply staying home. The reason that Obama won is that he energized a lot of people to actually come out and vote. Right now he is suppressing those people, who will in turn simply stay home.

You will vote, I will vote, but we won't be able to make for the millions of others who will stay home.

[saltpoint]

54. Are you wanting voters to stay home? And what if they don't and show

up and re-elect Barack Obama, which is what I think is going to happen?

"Millions of others" staying home? I don't think so.

[MadHound]

63. I'm not saying I'm wanting anything,

I'm simply using my long experience in politics to bring some questions to the forefront. Namely, Obama is pissing off some serious constituencies of his, and he seemingly doesn't care. Pissing off some of these constituencies is, sadly, rather normal (LGBT comes to mind). However some of these constituencies are a surprise. Show me the last time a Democrat went after teachers the way Obama has.

So again, the question becomes who does Obama thinks is going to vote for him if he pisses so many people off?

[cali]

65. every president pisses off constituencies.

Bush did. Was he re-elected? ding, ding, ding. Why yes he was. Clinton did. Was he re-elected? Uh, yeah. For someone who touts how knowledgeable he is on the subject, you certainly fail to consider history and context.

[saltpoint]

79. MadHound, a lot of people have answered your question.

There's no evidence to suggest that Obama's administration has alienated people in percentages that would suggest he will not be renominated or not win re-election.

I did not vote for the man in expectation that he would faithfully represent every single thing I wanted in exactly the way I wanted it and immediately if not sooner. In politics I don't think that would have been a realistic expectation.

There are any number of things I'd like changed to my way of thinking. In the off-chance that they don't lightswitch on right this very minute, I plan to navigate the known world as best I can.

The case against Obama is not strong. The case for him is far stronger and IMO is likely to lead to his re-election.

[MadHound]

91. No, acutally a lot of people are engaging the question like it is some sort of attack

Like I'm speaking heresy. Yet the truth of the matter, if you would bother to look at what is going on not just on these boards, but in the real world, is that there are large segments of the traditional Democratic big tent that are so discouraged by Obama that they will probably not even vote.

Let's take a look at teachers, one big example. Teachers have been a bedrock, solid constituency for the Democrats for years and decades. They were expecting an end to the assault on teaching that the Bush administration opened up with NCLB. They voted by the millions for Obama. Yet Obama has not only continued the assault, but actually expanded it. This has seriously pissed off many, if not most folks in the teaching profession. Yet you think that they'll come back for more in 2012. You have a lot more faith in humans' capacity for self flagellation than I do.

And that is but one group. Anti-war folks are another large constituency, as are civil libertarians, etc. Actions have consequences, and people aren't going to vote for a candidate that has not just ignored them, but actively attacked them.

[saltpoint]

103. MadHound, I have no crystal ball but I'm just not seeing the scenario you

cite where people aren't going to vote, or aren't going to vote for this president.

I know teachers who are exasperated with Arne and Obama both, but the crisis in public education runs deeper and wider than anything that's happened since 2008. I also know teachers who are life-long Democrats and despite their awareness of contra-indication, they'll be voting for Obama's re-election. I do not believe that teachers' unions will be endorsing the Pukes. Mitt Romney? Extremely unlikely. Huckabee? He'd remind them of their idiot superintendents. Haley Barbour? No chance.

I'm just not seeing the pieces of the puzzle. As it stands now, it looks like the mid-terms will not be nearly as great a watershed gain for the GOP as they'd hoped, in part because all they have to sling at Obama is the birther bullshit, the "secret Muslin" bullshit, and the "Obama's Katrina" bullshit, and none of it is working. And within their own ranks, angry fools have broken up, called themselves Tea Baggers, and are waving poorly-spelled signs at poorly-attended rallies with loud voices and short fuses -- and IMO to very little effect on policy but possibly enough to further erode the Republican Party's standing as an adult political organization.

As I posted earlier, people who like Barack Obama tend to like him a lot.

[cali]

117. Again, you're projecting without any evidence. polls seem to indicate

the opposite of what you're insisting is the reality. And you don't seem to be able to admit that you just might be wrong. it really does look as if you're engaged in wishful thinking and ignoring reality.

[MadHound]

119. Well, first of all, we both know the reliability of polls

Second, as you admitted yourself elsewhere on this board, you're simply not seeing the same type of enthusiasm. That enthusiasm translates into votes. Or not.

[Mr Generic Other]

166. i think you are making very sound points madhound.

i'm an old man. i have always voted and voted for democrats. but i am also a teacher and the betrayal that i and all of my teacher friends feel toward obama's education plans (not to mention his inaction on holding the bush crime family accountable and other disappointments in obama's leadership mentioned above) is enough to keep me from voting in the upcoming election.
i just can't vote against my own best interests.
who is the bigger threat, the enemy who proclaims his desire to destroy you or the "friend" who gains your trust and then proceeds to destroy you?
personally i fear the sneak far more than the publicly proclaimed enemy.

[cali]

57. really? You know that millions

will stay home? crystal ball gazing is just silly. You underestimate Obama's political skills and clearly overestimate the pukes. remember bushco got re-elected.

[MadHound]

106. Considering the numbers, yes, one can make pretty good predictions

What is the single largest political group in this country? Those who stay home, and it has been that way for decades now.

And each election cycle, with a couple of notable exceptions, that number has been growing because people are seeing less and less difference in the two parties, the two candidates. The first exception to this rule was Reagan, he pulled a tremendous amount of support out of the apathetic category, and he won. Obama was another exception, and he also one. The difference between Reagan and Obama at this point in their careers is that Reagan didn't turn around and piss on large segments of his constituency, instead he cultivated them, threw them some major bones. Obama isn't doing this, but rather the opposite. He is, in essence, turning supporters back into apathetic voters.

Which doesn't bode well for his reelection bid.

[graywarrior]

60. One person, one vote.

That's how it works. If I take one other person with me, I'm doing my duty. If I trash Obama all over the internets, it will be difficult to convince people on the fence to vote for him.

Why do I respond to these threads? They really go nowhere.

[CBR]

49. Me. My husband. My friends. My brother. My Aunt. My professors.

The same f***ing people that voted for him last time -- the ones that have somehow missed the alienation train. We all still really like him.

[alcibiades_mystery]

74. +1

The bloviators imagine themselves to be a much larger portion of the population than they are. They think massive constituencies have been "alienated," when it's usually just the subscribers to Z Magazine, who are perpetually alienated anyway as a matter of personal predilection. Add to that the holdover pouty Hillary supporters and you have a good sample of the nuttery that appears on this board. I'd say the only group with a legitimate argument - LGBTQ and supporters - have been doing a good job of arguing the position, which is precisely what we all should be doing. Apart from these very important LGBTC arguments, we just have our resident little Gripe Squad, and they are irretrievable, which really doesn't matter all that much, because they are also painfully unable to conceptualize the reality of American politics - leading to silly OP's like this one - and therefore also irrelevant. People like Allentown Jake are pretty much always wrong, so it doesn't really pay much to argue with them. Just let them rant, like crazy people on the corner.

[Number23]

340. "People like Allentown Jake are pretty much always wrong"

So true. But it's good to let him just go on and on, isn't it?? Helps the little guy sleep better at night, I'm sure. :)

[MadHound]

95. That's nice, but can your immediate family, friends and acquaintances make up for

Those same sort of people who won't vote for him again? Considering that number is growing, well, it's going to be a mighty long row to hoe.

[butterfly77]

377. Haven't you and allentown...

been asking these questions since early 2009?

[Tarheel_Dem]

231. +2

[Patriot 76]

68. Blue, Red, Third Party or stay home.

I think it's an easy choice for voters.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. I guarantee the repugbagnutter will drive even you to the polls. nt

[rasputin1952]

72. There have been quite a few positive changes under this

administration. The record is pretty good compared to the previous administration, that will put him over the top, quite easily I would say.

People tend to gravitate to the latest negative "situation", of course, when all tone is told is negative, through various aspects of the media, is there really a choice?

People are basically lazy, they do not research much and they tend to move in sphere's of influence that bolster their own positions on varying subjects. Some feel exceptionally passionate about an issue(s), and they look at a specific issue as the only point of progress. If we look at the larger picture though, we see positive movement on many fronts. To be sure, nothing has been "perfect", but what is? Things in politics move slowly, this is both good and bad, but it most assuredly the way things move.

The GOP has absolutely nothing, no plans, no ideas...the only thing they have is anti-Obama, looking at what has come about, and can come about through the end of this administration, people will realize they are far better off than under the R's. One thing that should become a serious reality though, is that since we have Congress in our grasp, we should shut down the GOP, just ignore them, and move forward. When PO made his "car in the ditch" statement, he threw down the gauntlet and challenged Congress to stop the GOP from acting like spoiled brats...we shall see if our D's take that challenge and crush the GOP into dust, it is doable, but it takes fortitude.

As for PO being re-elected, I see no problem at all...bring out the record, compare what his administration has done to that of bush or Reagan...people may be fickle, but they are not stupid...:hi:

[Ikonoklast]

73. Most everyone I know.

And a few Republicans I know whose party left them to pursue insanity.


The fringe left is *not* the base of this party, no matter how loud they squeak.

[Tarheel_Dem]

233. +1

[xiamiam]

75. IF a viable candidate stepped forward to actually represent us instead of big banks

Obama would have trouble in 2012

struggling homeowners have not been helped..there is NO end in sight to the housing and economic crisis until that happens no matter what any of you think...

I've had my cautious eyes open since he threw durbins bankruptcy bill under the bus..when he delivered Bushs' war speech on the escalation of Afghanistan, my disappointment grew and it grows everyday

I'm not alone..he looks great..smile is awesome..delivers great speeches..continues to inspire but there is no substance behind it..

I'd walk across the country with my bad leg for someone who actually represents the people and not the corporations...for someone who would like to hold war criminals accountable..etc etc...

I don't think Obama gets how many of us who believed in him are over it..

[salguine]

The corporate-controlled electoral system would make sure that no such candidate ever

made it through the primaries. Dennis Kucinich was a valid, ballot-qualified Democratic candidate, and they found a way to make sure that he was barred from some debates.

[socialist_n_TN]

192. I'm not agreeing with everything you said...................

but I do think that the only way that Obama could be in serious trouble in '12, short of some big time unexpected, is if he had a REAL primary challenge from the left, even the far left. THEN all those disaffected constituencies would have an true alternative.

If Bernie Sanders ran for the Democratic nomination (I'm not sure he can being a registered Independent/Socialist), I think that Obama could be in trouble. Not that Sanders could unseat him (highly unlikely IMO), but it's just that primary fights, ESPECIALLY when they involve incumbent presidents, can EASILY turn real bitter and cause people to stay home during the general.

BTW, I would vote for Bernie during the primary at the very least.

[MindandSoul]

76. If I am correct, he still has a 48 to 52 % approval rating. . .Who else in

the political world reaches that approval rating and is in a position to run for Presidential office???

After all, he only won with 52% of the vote. . .
And I would vote for him again!. . .

[Lilyeye]

303. according to a poster here that 48% to 52% is mostly black people.

:eyes:

[cali]

77. one more thing. look how pissed off people here are at Obama

but the vast majority of voters here will be voting for him.

[depakid]

88. How many will knock on doors and man the phone lines?

or help GOTV on election day?

There's a lot more to winning elections than casting votes for a candidate who some in various Democratic constituencies might view as the lesser of two evils.

[saltpoint]

92. I will, and I'm bringing a gaggle of pals with me, and I would be

honored to run into you doing the same thing, depakid.

[depakid]

97. I know many others who've said at this point that they won't

Maybe that will change, but given what we've seen thus far, my expectation is for more of the same triangulation- and alienation of the base. Perhaps some of those in the ephemeral center and on the right can be persuaded to volunteer their time to make up for who won't be around again in 2012?

[saltpoint]

105. I don't know. Good question. The president can't be alienating his

base if his approval rating reflects his victory percentage in 2008, and it currently does.

As for exactly who will be on his re-election teams at the various grassroots / regional levels, I expect a substantial returning percentage. I'm in a very progressive city and support for this president remains demonstrably high.

[AllentownJake]

99. There will be no Team Leader AllentownJake in 2012

I might help another candidate down ballot, but I'll be 6 feet in the ground before I do anything for this guy in 2012 unless I see a massive change.

I'll vote for the lesser of two evils if I have to, I won't give free labor to it.

[saltpoint]

109. Your call, and I respect it. But it just does not seem to me that

there will be such significant erosion of support for Obama to endanger his re-election.

And correspondingly, what about him is quite positive and affirming is still potent medicine. In addition, his advisors are a keen bunch. If you and I were Huckabee, and thank Jesus we aren't, we might have pause before undertaking a campaign to unseat this president.

[AllentownJake]

120. Huckabee isn't running in 2012

Heck of a time with his not beating up enough prisoners in a primary, he's the most dangerous because he has an economic populist streak with his dominionist theology.

I'm not going to try to unseat the President except in a primary, if there is a legit primary challenge, I will not cast a vote for President Obama unless his opponent is someone like Evan Bayh. I will consider doing as much work for the challenge as I did to beat Hillary in 2008. I'll have plenty of time to get around to that and it will be easier this time because I pretty much know how this works, no the mistakes I made in 2008 personally, and have gotten extremely efficient at what I know how to do and have a more substantive network when 2012 comes.

I have better things to do with my time, than to help this guy, and as a team leader and having spoken to some other team leaders, while it isn't a universal sentiment I put it at about 30% right now amongst them, and about the same of the volunteers I led.

If there is a candidate down ballot I believe in, I'll work for free, if not, I'm at my non-profit doing extra hours during that time frame, because it will be hours better spent.

[saltpoint]

126. As I said, I respect your call.

Bayh might have loved to challenge Obama but it isn't in the cards. I have no idea what Bayh will do with himself from this point forward -- maybe run again for governor. Coats is likely to win that Senate seat and Indiana will look the way it usually looks -- with 2 Republicans in the 2 U.S. Senate posts.

I hope along the way of your down-ballot volunteering you run into some cool folks and strike up new friendships. Grassroots work always lends itself to that. That alone makes it a worthwhile investment.

We could not agree more on Mike Huckabee's threat to democracy. But I think he is still toying with the notion of living in the White House.

[AllentownJake]

140. He can toy all he wants

Republicans eat each other in primaries and being perceived as weak on crime is about as much of a non-starter in a GOP primary as being pro-life is in a democratic primary.

Besides, he actually did let a very bad person back on the streets, it wasn't like he let some person on a drug or property crime go.

Bayh will go make lots of money. That is what Evan will do. He might turn up in a cabinet someday.

Secretary of Commerce probably.

[saltpoint]

143. I'm grinning (if sadly) at Evan Bayh as Secretary of Commerce in a

future administration. It sounds all too accurate a prediction.

He makes a more effective Democratic governor in Indiana than he ever did as a U.S. Senator. I still miss his dad. A lot.

[AllentownJake]

196. He's an executive

Not a Senator, and he does all he can to avoid his Dad's fate.

Lived in Fort Wayne for 3 year. Kind of a boring speaker.

Commerce or some other cabinet post similar is where I can see him coming back.

HHS or Interior is out given his wife's connections

[saltpoint]

199. AllentownJake, here is absolute proof that you are a profoundly

decent and charitable soul. You've just described Evan Bayh's speking style as "kind of ... boring."

That is certainly a generous and charitable assessment of a man whose speaking skills could put a hyperactive chimpanzee into a coma.

[AllentownJake]

202. He'd also make a perfect "bipartsan" pick

In a GOP administration when there is one in the future.

I saw Evan in 2004, he put me to sleep.

[cali]

110. I think the usual stalwarts will be doing those things

where do you see Unions going?

[AllentownJake]

121. I don't see Teacher Unions being keen on doing much federally

considering Arne Duncan's war on them.

[boston bean]

311. They will do what they did here in MA during the Senate special election.

the rank and file will not work for the dem candidate and the higher ups will feign support.

[butterfly77]

378. Seems as if this is a common..

threat I have been hearing since he took office about how they knocked on doors for him.did you knock on doors for kerry?Gore?Clinton/ and if you did so what..

Regardless,if many have been paying attention since day one they could see it wouldn't be easy and NO President EVER does what everyone wants exactly the way they want it especially with all of the backstabbers in the Democratic Party...

[saltpoint]

83. Bernie Sanders.

I bet Bernie Sanders will be voting for Barack Obama in 2012.

Barbara Boxer.

Russ Feingold.

Dick Durbin.

Jerry Brown.

James Clyburn.

-- and any number of other progressives.

[alcibiades_mystery]

84. You mean progressives who are tethered to reality

It's an important clarification.

[saltpoint]

87. In the case of the folks I listed as examples, I would say their

progressive-disposition-to-reality quotient is admirably high.

[DevonRex]

130. Pro-progress progressives as opposed to the all-or-nothing "progressives."

The all-or-nothings could use a little dose of reality, that's for sure.

[MadHound]

131. Hmm, are we making progress in education under Obama?

What about progress in peace? How about progress in restoring our civil liberties?

Too many glaring examples of not just lack of progress, but actually regression on the part of this administration.

[alcibiades_mystery]

159. So don't vote for him, if that's your reading

Better yet, primary him, so we can get a legitimate test of your political strength.

[MadHound]

161. Way to duck the question?

Again, do you think we're making progress in education? Progress in peace? Progress in civil liberties?

I suggest that you ask yourself these questions rather than telling me how to vote:shrug:

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

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

[Marr]

214. Sounds a lot more like

you don't have an answer and are afraid to think too hard about it.

Remember when we used to mock Republicans for doing that? Haha, good times. Good times.

[MadHound]

216. LOL, in other words you don't have any answers,

And you apparently don't want to disturb your beautiful mind trying to find them (heaven forbid your worldview is upset) so you're going to hurl snark and insults instead.

Well, since that is the case, enjoy life in your own private Idaho, and the rest of us will get on with life here in the real world.

[Tarheel_Dem]

237. Never say never. The "all or nothings" seem to be chomping at the bit...

for a replay of 2000. I don't even like to imagine how far we would have swung to the right had McCain/Palin won in 2008. I don't mind people having legitimate disagreement with this administration, it's the vitriol & hyperbole I can do without.

[ShortnFiery]

177. If you define "reality" as accepting America under a softer form of financial fascism.

Surrendering for semi-corrupt instead of fully corrupt representatives?

Yes, I bet they will.

Sorry, I'll "let go" with BELIEVING in CORPORATE CRONES with a democratic label before I will take the red pill and thus, lie to myself and compromise my value system.

[alcibiades_mystery]

184. It's not surprising

that the most fanatically deluded of the fanatics would jump on this one.

For the record, I don't take you seriously, so I'm not really interested in conversation with you.

[ShortnFiery]

190. No, the point is, I'm not fanatical ... that I live in the real world and have predicted the

disasters with both the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions.

I see President Obama continuing on with BushCo.'s American Crusade 2001+.

You, my fellow DUer are the victim. As more and more of our civil liberties and standard of living begin to wane, it is you who will not be able to deny "the obvious."

Many here called us "fanatical" when we begged others not to support either invasion.

I see what's coming on the horizon and it's not pretty.

We can CHANGE the course, but I fear not enough people NOW wish to listen.

Just please remember as everything falls to HELL, there still may be time to change?

Hope springs eternal. :hi:

http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/img/card-1984_instruction_manual.jpg

[DevonRex]

123. Don't forget Dennis. He'll be voting for Obama as well.

So will the 52% of Americans who approve of Obama. Democrats will vote for Obama and a good number of independents will, too.

[saltpoint]

129. That sounds right to me. The Pukes and FOX News have been throwing

just about everything they could get their hands on at the man and he's still at an impressively re-electable approval rating.

I think he's a two-termer.

[DevonRex]

134. You're right. When I think of all the mud being slung at him from the right

and all the disasters he's had to address, and all the mud being slung at him from the "other worlders" it's a very good sign that his poll numbers are so high. I almost feel like I can relax a little bit. And then I'll work hard to get him re-elected. :hi:

[saltpoint]

137. A lot of us will join you on that, DevonRex.

DUer babylon sister pointed out yesterday that people lined up on bridges to see Obama in his visit -- there were photos in the OP's post -- and commented on how many people lined up on bridges and overpasses like that when "idiot son" was in town.

I thought it was a great point. Obama is politically effective and well-positioned for re-election, but at least some of that comes from his being very well liked. People like him. And they seem to like him a lot.

- - -
edited to include the DU thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x298490

[ShortnFiery]

181. It won't matter if we THEN elect a Palin or McCain ...

because they will function as mostly figure-heads in the fully morphed totalitarian fascism that will pervade every aspect of America's existence.

By the end of Obama's second term the MIC and Wall Street will be working efficiently "hand in glove" with regard to all the major policy decisions.

Our politicians will be merely playing their assigned roles in order to "manufacture consent" of decisions that have ALREADY BEEN MADE by our OWNERS. :nuke:

[saltpoint]

200. McCain had his shot and came up well short. Actually he's had two

shots, and lost big both times.

He lost to Dubya owing to the (likely) Rove-instigated smear campaign in South Carolina, but overall to Dubya himself who is a complete nincompoop.

Then he lost to Barack Obama by some 10 million votes. Ten million is a lot of anything. If you and I were going to make sandwiches for ten million people, we'd be at it awhile.

We can't see far enough into the future to determine the nature of any president's end-of-first term, nevermind the second term.

As for Palin, she appears un-nominatable within the GOP and may lose in the Iowa caucus only to announce, say by 10:00 Central Time on the night of the 2012 Iowa caucus, that she is pursuing an independent campaign for the White House, very likely planned all along.

The old-time fools in the GOP are not going to hand the party ropes over to a nitwit like Sarah Palin. That isn't going to happen. The only threat she could make on the national stage is as an independent and given her very considerable stupidity, I don't think it will pose much of a threat to an incumbent president.

[ShortnFiery]

201. I'm talking about a model of right wing persona, not the particular individuals.

Read the post again and NOTE that neither personality nor political ideology of our NATIONAL representatives will matter after Obama's second term. By then, the MIC and Wall Street will have "their people" fully immersed within the Executive Branch.

The only difficult decisions will be writing the script for the major politicos to feed to the M$M.

[ShortnFiery]

208. p.s. Isn't it the SAME Pro- Large Corporation policies of Wall Street and the MIC

whether or not the GOP or the Democrats control the Executive Branch and/or the Congress? :shrug:

[saltpoint]

366. I disagree that your premonition is true in the first place,

and Palin and McCain ARE rightwing figures, of very different stripes.

There's significant data to suggest that a rightwing candidate 'A' would more electable than rightwing candidate 'B' because that's how demographic trends run. That's how they've always run. The data change as attitudes change in the culture at large but Romney, running well to the right of any of the 7 Democrats in the Democratic primary last year, could not shove McCain aside. Neither could Huckabee, yet another different sort of rightwing candidate.

Giuliani also ran from the far Right and had trouble in part because he governed more Left as NYC mayor.

We strongly disagree that "neither personality nor political ideology of our national representatives will matter after Obama's second term." That's a ridiculous claim.

[Coyote_Bandit]

94. He's banking on the fact

that there will be two major party candidates and most of us will be more than happy to vote for the best of two bad candidates.

Fuck that. Life is too short for me to settle for a candidate that does not serve to advance and protect my needs, interest and priorities - and those of millions more like me. If there isn't a candidate that makes that and an option then I guess I'll leave that part of the ballot blank and not vote.

[elocs]

98. There will only be 1 of 2 people elected President in 2012.

It will either be Barack Obama or the chosen Republican nutjob.

Would any sane person actually sit by and allow someone like Palin to be elected as President of the United States? (I don't count most Republicans and none of the freepers or teahadist as being "sane".)

[johnlucas]

401. If Obama is gonna continue on this course, then let Palin have it

It won't matter. If all you get to choose is the lesser of two evils, then you're still picking evils.
Maybe it's time for a overhaul of the entire system.

People expect less mediocrity out of the steaks they order. Why don't they expect better from the people who are supposed to be managing the nation?
Maybe it'll take crazy ass Palin in there to force people to overturn this outmoded inefficient system of picking leaders.

There's not enough repercussions for stupid bad decisions in politics. No punishment or garnishment for failed policies.
These politicians just screw things up & it's like "oh well". Then somebody else has to suffer for their idiocy.

These are supposed to be a bunch of college graduates. If they don't have the sense to do sensible things, then to hell with 'em!
One thing I respect about Greece, Haiti, & Thailand is that when their leaders 'F' up, they take it to the streets & start whooping ass.
I wish Americans had the guts to do this but that won't happen if we still have something to lose. There some degree of comfort in people's lives & that prevents people truly pushing for change.

For the change to happen it's gonna take tens of millions ready to take it to the streets. That won't happen until most people's backs are up against the wall.
John Lucas

[Mari333]

101. 2 heads of the same snake. which head to vote for, the less venomous one?

I guess. I either die slowly from the poison, or more quickly.

[cali]

108. un huh

palin and Obama or Romney or Obama are virtually the same. yep.

[Mari333]

111. no, one is less venomous.

one kills me fast, the other, slowly , while telling me it is for my own good.

I will hold my nose and vote against republicans. only because I hang on to a thread, a filament, of hope.

[Moochy]

191. One of the rationalizations required in modern political life

The 'Necessary Illusion' of Democracy.

[Missy Vixen]

226. Thank you

I'll be doing the same.

I also agree with the poster up-thread: We will give whatever we can squeeze out of the budget and our time to any progressive opposing Lieberman, and local progressives. I won't be doing anything at all to aid the reelection of the President besides voting for him if he is the Democratic candidate.

I can't remember the last time I was so disappointed by a political candidate, and I include John Edwards in my calculations. Barack Obama has repeatedly shown me, and every other progressive that voted for him, that he doesn't care what we think.

[AllentownJake]

114. Well I wonder what type of Health Care plan President Romney might implement

Perhaps one similar to the one he implemented in his state as Governor.

THANK GOD WE DIDN'T GET THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ingac70]

104. Because there is no way in hell I'd vote for Sarah Palin.

An although I'm not please with everything the Pres. is doing, I do like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the new student loan set up and loads more.

[Karmadillo]

112. He thinks accountability is for teachers, not for puppets of the oligarchy. He thinks corporate $$

and corporate media will be enough to give him four more years to further enrich the rich and to stifle real reform. Sadly, he's probably right.

[4dsc]

113. Dean

[saltpoint]

115. Dean's a peach but I don't think he will mount a challenge for the

nomination.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[cali]

127. yes ,of course you left out the majority of people who will be voting for him

you left out blacks, union members and low wage workers. you left out women who care about choice and anyone who cares about the federal bench and the SC. you left out the majority of GLBT people who will vote for him. you left out all the people that you profess to care about. not a surprise to see.

none are so blind....

[Upton]

128. Did I leave anybody out?

yeah...cops, judges, prison guards...and anyone else on the drug war gravy train.

[msongs]

132. all conservative dems need a primary challenge, including obama nt

[saltpoint]

133. Well. Who did you have in mind?

I'm not seeing anybody leaping to the challenge.

Must be a good reason for that.

[VMI Dem]

135. He has lost my vote.

Centrist apologists seem to like what he is doing.

[mitchtv]

280. mine too

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[MadHound]

139. Down under morons? So tell me just exactly who you are trying to insult?

Australians? They don't vote in our elections. Southerners, well I should hope you're wearing some flameproof undies because you're in for a roasting. Me? I'm not down under anything, so your vague attempt at an insult is more of a curiosity than anything else. And sadly, very telling about your personality and outlook on life. Perhaps you should work on that:shrug:

[boomerbust]

141. Look at who is flaming Obama

In this thread, one in particular.

[MadHound]

142. Ah, so daring to ask such a question,

Daring to point out that Obama's policies aren't popular with large segments of the population is heresy? Daring to point out political reality is now "flaming?"

Again, you're saying more about yourself than about me, none of it good.

[boomerbust]

150. You asked an honest question

And you got an honest answer.

[MadHound]

152. No, what I got was insult and snark from a person who

Either doesn't have either the intestinal fortitude or intellectual capacity to engage in the debate so instead simply hurls personal insults.

Stay classy:eyes:

[NorthCarolina]

146. Maybe there will be a Liberal/Progressive challenger to Obama in the primaries.

I know the odds of that happening are slim to none, but one can still hope. I for one have grown very weary of DLC New Dem conservative politics. America doesn't need two conservative political parties. America needs an alternative.

[saltpoint]

157. The rationale for a more left-leaning politics is definitely persuasive,

at least to me.

But it requires a mechanism.

Absent a mechanism I don't think it is likely to advance despite the dignity of what inspires it.

[TwilightGardener]

147. I will. He is what I thought he was--a moderate Democrat, governing like a moderate Democrat.

That's what I voted for in '08, that's what I'll be voting for in '12.

[MadHound]

148. That's good and good enough for you,

But what about millions of others who worked for him, donated to him, and now feel betrayed by him? Do you think they'll vote for him again, or will they stay home and not vote.

My bet is on the latter scenario.

[TwilightGardener]

156. I don't know. Maybe in 2012 some people will be more satisfied with him

than they are now--it's early yet. Got a couple more years to see what happens, and which Republican runs against him. I can only account for myself. He'd have to fuck up BIG TIME for me not to vote for him again, let's put it that way. He's nowhere near that for me. I think he's quite competent.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

172. you will never get a lefty president in the USA

never

[TwilightGardener]

185. Not solidly left, no. By the same token, I don't think a teabagger will ever be Prez.

Centrists will usually prevail, much to everyone's frustration here and on right wing sites. Even GWB himself was more center-right than far right--it was President Cheney's influence that brought us the wingnut policies.

[NorthCarolina]

245. Never say never!

;-)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

253. I wish though

[Tarheel_Dem]

239. Who are these millions? They don't show up in recent polling.

The president's approval is at or about the same percentage that elected him. 52% is nothing to sneeze at. I think there many more millions of us, than the millions you claim are with you. The president's likeability numbers are even higher than his approval, and that speaks volumes about his re-election prospects.

Any challenger, from the left, will be laughed off the stage, kinda like Kucinich was.

[MadHound]

240. Let's see here,

Teachers for one. Anti-war folks, the LGBT community, civil libertarians among others.

You're correct that a challenge from the left will be defeated, that's how the game is rigged. But the greater danger is in the general election, when millions will once again stay home. Those are the people who matter, and those are the people who simply aren't counted in polling.

[Tarheel_Dem]

243. "Obama Approval Continues Upward Trend" courtesy of politicalwirec.om via Gallup.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x299247

As your analysis seems pretty much based on a hunch, I'll stick to quantitative arguments. Inside those numbers, this president continues to enjoy huge support from self-identified "liberals". You know, his base? That must be quite a let down for those hoping to suppress voter enthusiasm.

[MadHound]

246. But wait, I thought that polls were bad when they were showing Bush's enormous popularity

And when they showed disapproval of Obama. Which is it, polls are good or polls are bad? I'm so confused. However what I do know is that polls don't count those who are undecided, I also know that there are several flaws in polling, and that the only poll that truly counts is the ballot box.

[Tarheel_Dem]

252. If you can find a post where I said any of that, I'll concede to your superior UN-scientific..

analysis. Polls are only a barometer, but you seem to think your hunches are somehow scientific. Please don't let me catch you trumpeting slipping poll numbers as proof of your hunches.

If we're honest, we know that some people here are still carrying grudges from the primaries. And others clearly weren't paying attention. If one just dropped in from another universe, he would think that this president ran to the left of Ralph Nader, if DU were the only source for "news".

:edited for missing word

[tammywammy]

158. +1 Me too. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

149. Everyone who won't vote for his opponent.

It's like the old joke;

Two hunters have been treed by a large angry bear. The bear is systematically destroying the trunk of thetree. It's only a matter of minutes before the tree falls to the ground.
"Why are you putting your tennis shoes on? Surely you don't think you can outrun that bear!"
"I don't have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun you."

In this system, Obama only has to be better than his opponent.

[MadHound]

151. Yes, but what about those who did vote for Obama,

And now, due to Obama's policies, won't vote at all in 2012? There are a lot of people who came up out of the "apathetic voter" status to vote for Obama. At this rate, a lot of those people will be slipping back into that same status. That is probably what hurts Obama's chances the most.

[ShortnFiery]

162. Back in 1996, my beloved husband as well as the Democratic establishment convinced

me that it was best to vote for Bill Clinton instead of Ralph Nader.

I don't know who exactly I will vote for in 2012, but unless President Obama's policies change from being pro- large corporations to decidedly for the American Working people first, it won't be for him. I'll most likely do a write in of either Kucinich or Grayson.

Today, no amount of "beautiful rhetoric" is going to convince me to vote for another corporatist.

[tilsammans]

187. That's the 'tude that helped to do us in here in NJ . . .

. . . and gave us Neocon Bushbot governor Chris Christie. :puke:

[MadHound]

228. No, it isn't the 'tude that gave you Christie,

It is the failure of the Democratic candidate and party to provide actual solid reasons to vote for their candidate. Parties and candidates aren't automatically deserving of votes, they have to earn them. If they fail to earn them, as in NJ, they lose. It isn't the fault of the voters, it is the fault of the candidate and the party.

[tilsammans]

310. True, but there was also plenty of voter apathy in the mix . . .

I knew people who just didn't bother to vote. That's really frightening! :scared:

[MadHound]

318. And that's what could very well destroy the Obama reelection

People get pissed off at both parties, give up and stay at home come election day.

That's why I don't understand why Obama seems so determined to piss off some his staunchest supporters and piss them off so much. It doesn't make political sense.

[Mike K]

393. Madhound,

I completely agree with your projections about 2012. Obama has indeed alienated a significant percentage of those who supported him and voted for him, and while many of them probably won't vote against him it is very likely they won't vote at all. I for one won't vote for him again. If anything, I will write in someone.

As to why you don't understand why Obama seems determined to piss off his supporters. It makes sense if you believe he never had any hope to win a second term to begin with. Based on what I've seen of Obama thus far I am convinced that he is a Trojan Horse, conceived, constructed and positioned by the kingmakers who realized that Bush had done so much damage that no Republican could win. I believe Obama made a deal with the devil and is fulfilling his obligation, which will cancel any hope for re-election short of a miracle.

Whoever runs against him in 2012 need only run clips of his broken promises and the "Yes, we can" bullshit and what today might show up as a 52% rating will be cut in half. People don't like to admit they've been flim-flammed by a glib con artist, which accounts for the 52% poll rating. But the privacy of their minds and the voting booth is quite another thing.

[ecstatic]

407. what crap.

[lumberjack_jeff]

247. So long as apathetic Democrats don't outnumber apathetic Republicans, it's all good.

[MadHound]

250. That's the problem, apathetic voters have always trended liberal

The one group, evangelical fundy Christians, that was historically apathetic on the conservative side got energized during the Reagan years and the 'Pugs have made a point to keep them energized.

Though Obama energized a sizable portion of apathetic voters during 'O8, he is in danger of losing them for '12, which is why I'm asking this question. If he drives people into being apathetic via his actions, who's going to vote for him?

[tilsammans]

312. I'll give the teabagging nutjobs one thing:

They aren't apathetic.

Ill-informed, bigoted, and vapid, yes. But they will GOTV. Especially this time.

[tranche]

160. I smell Gore = Bush

We'll never learn. At least DU can settle back into the comfortable habit of playing the victimized at the hand of the other party. It's just too confusing when you need to continue to work within your own party.

[MadHound]

163. Not talking about DU, but rather the world at large

As far as "working within your own party" don't toss out that line when you're a noob. You don't know me, and my guess is that I've been working within the party longer than you've been alive, or at least certainly far longer than you've been politically active.

[tranche]

176. I don't know why'd you call me a noob. And I don't really need your resume.

Talk about turning people away :eyes:

Getting lectured by old crusty hippies who are under the illusion that LBJ and FDR are not in fact dead; does more to drive younger people like me away than anything Obama has done.

[MadHound]

212. I called you a noob because of your low post count, and because it is obvious that you are

Relatively new to the political game. When you call for "working within the party" you are showing your naivete in a major league way. That is why I gave you my resume so you are aware that I and millions of others have been trying for years and decades to "work within the party" without any successful result, the party continues to move to the right and become more corporatist.

As far under the illusion that LBJ and FDR aren't dead, I'm under no such illusion. I am under the impression that as part of this big tent party, the various constituencies are supposed to get some sort of bone tossed their way as a reward for their support. Instead, those constituencies are either being neglected, or as is happening far too often, coming under attack by the same administration they helped put into power. Younger people may be down with that sort of thing, but those of us who've been around for awhile don't appreciate our lives and livelihoods being threatened or attacked.

[Godhumor]

197. I think he's done a bang-up job given the mess he came into

He has my vote.

[B Calm]

164. I will vote for PRESIDENT Obama

[donheld]

170. +1

[Rosa Luxemburg]

174. Me too!

[MadBadger]

171. Over 85% of Democrats

[EFerrari]

173. I've asked myself the same question more than once.

But when you realize he doesn't have to do well, just better than Sarah Palin (for example), pissing off key constituencies (or "the fringe left" as these are called here sometimes) doesn't seem like such a big deal.

He needs to do a little better than Lady BlaBla so he will get the lion's share of donations and positive media, which are the only real key constituencies that any of them seem to care about.

He can do that unless they find someone to out-Reagan him.

The real losers will be in state and local races where a marginal Democrat could have used the youth vote or the Latino vote or women or teachers, etc. And I think that's true even if the wars continue to go badly, even if jobs don't come back and even if the Gulf continues to deteriorate.

[The Damned]

179. Me

And he's right!

[Blue-Jay]

183. He's got my vote.

Yours too, if you have any sense.

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

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

[Blue-Jay]

213. Vote for whomever you want. I don't give a fuck.

I'm a teacher, too. Don't presume that you speak for all of us, mmkay?

[MadHound]

215. So you're a teacher? Really?

Ready to vote against your own self interests? OK with voting for a man who wants to base your pay on a test? OK with voting for a man who is going to be turning your profession over to a corporation? OK with a man who is going to drive down the achievement level of your students.

As I've said elsewhere, we used to laugh at those who voted against their own self interests by voting for Bush. :rofl:

You may be into self flagellation, but you are in the distinct minority. Do some talking around, do some listening next time you're at a major conference. What you'll hear will be distinctly against Obama.

[cali]

235. wowzer, does this post of yours make your denials of trying to convince

people not to vote for Obama, ring hollow. Not to mention your denial that that's what you want to happen. Why not just be honest about it?

And no, you're the one in the distinct minority. Your setting yourself up for quite the disappointment.

Furthermore, voting for Obama in 2012 if you're a teacher is less voting against your own interests than voting for a repuke or not voting and letting a repuke get in.

[DevonRex]

257. Yes, those denials do ring hollow, don't they?

That's why I won't play his silly little game.

[MadHound]

259. Either that or you simply lack the intellectual capability

I present you facts , you hurl insults, I present a logical argument, you respond with ad hominems. With a debate style like that I suppose I would stay on the sidelines as well.

[cali]

261. I'm pointing out that you did everything you possibly could to tell

the poster who said he was a teacher and planned to vote for Obama to call her a fool for doing so. it's so blatant as to not need any elaboration. And btw, YOU are hurling invective and insults. kind of pot kettle thing you got going on.

[MadHound]

263. I know what you're doing, I've known for a long while what you're doing

Which is why I choose to respond to you very rarely. Your act has gotten old and I see no need to continue to go over the same old BS with you time and again.

Get back to me when you come up with a new schtick.

[cali]

272. hahahahaha. you're accusing someone else

of saying the same thing repeatedly. you're so cute in a cogdis kind of way.

[Egnever]

395. LOL Holy pot kettle batman

[Name removed]

355. Deleted message

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

[Tarheel_Dem]

360. "leftier-than-thou". Can I steal that? That phrase sums up the situation quite nicely. (nt)

[Name removed]

362. Deleted message

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

[spanone]

186. me

[Scurrilous]

193. He's got my vote.

:thumbsup:

[DevonRex]

195. I'll vote for President Obama, as will the 52% who support him now

and by then even more voters will support him.

[Swamp Rat]

198. BP EXXON MOBILE AMOCO SHELL

[Greyhound]

223. Good one.

How you doin' these days?

[Swamp Rat]

230. Waiting to drown in oil

I have been working my ass off for 5 years trying to recover from Katrina, only to be greeted with an even worse disaster on a greater magnitude. :grr:

I guess I'll start on another PhD in geology or oceanography, so I won't have to rely on the government and private corporations ever again regarding preventing and mitigating hazards/disasters.

[Rex]

282. Man ain't that the truth! I'm terrified of hurricane season

It has new fear added - oil. :(

How did it comes to this...

[Greyhound]

374. Right, we will eventually have to band together just to survive, and the

more we know the better able we are to fix/ameliorate these manufactured disasters.

Peace. Now.

[ClassWarrior]

203. I'll vote for him, but I'm not so sure I'll go out of my way to campaign for him like I did...

...last time.

NGU.

[chillspike]

204. Never vote republican...never!

They will destroy the country. They are liars. They are corporate puppets. They are destroying the environment.

Democrats may be slow to move on change because of political strategic reasons, but they are sincere. You try to maintain power while fighting the ignorance of conservative constituents.

The Republican party must be weakened and then voted out of existence. Then the Democratic party can split and you will have a more nuanced choice between what kind of democratic policies, instead of these insane Right Wing policies, you want to vote for.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

206. He's counting on the Republicans to provide the "not as bad" meme.

And, his advocates to use it accordingly.

[amborin]

209. ruling elite loves tea party: let's them say to masses: it's a corporatist or the tea party

the masses seem to fall for this false dichotomy

[Marr]

210. The whole DLC idea is to get you to vote *against* things, not *for* things.

The corporate wing assumes liberals will vote against their far-right opponents if they draw lines along social issues that their corporate donors don't really care about. They figure you have nowhere else to go, and can be safely ignored.

This strategy isn't limited to the DLC, of course. The Republicans have been using it for ages, too.

I don't think it's a viable long-term strategy myself. You can't take your base for granted forever. Look at what's happening with the Republican right-- they're fed up with their establishment and have really broken the party.

[Individualist]

241. Correct!

They underestimate democratic voters.

[DevonRex]

217. You've immediately tried to dissuade people here from voting for him

when they said they would in response to your question. So, was your question really honest or was it just the vehicle you used to campaign against President Obama?

You don't need to answer that, by the way. I already made up my mind on that.

Edited to check spelling since dissuade didn't look right, even though it was spelled correctly.

[MadHound]

219. Actually, no, I haven't. I've asked a simple question,

And nowhere in this post have I said to anybody that they shouldn't vote for Obama. I have pointed out why certain groups won't be voting for Obama, but I haven't told anybody who they should vote for one way or another.

And the fact that you've made up your mind already, irregardless of evidence, simply goes to show how illogical and non-analytical your own thought process is. Congratulations, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[DevonRex]

220. You said irregardless. LOL. nt

[MadHound]

221. And you react with vapid, vacuous attacks that contain no substance. LOL!

You are trying to make up for your lack of intellectual firepower with snark and insults.

[ozone_man]

218. The economy will be the decider.

His support for Wall Street banks over Main Street will come back to haunt him. I don't think he expected how unpopular that was going to be, both for the left and right. He represents the authoritarian corporate middle, preserving the status quo. But, therein lies the risk that he will lose from not being able to have vision at a critical time when it is needed. He may be seen as a follower, not a leader, like FDR was. The economy will most likely decide things. Also, could a third party candidate arise, an independent who supports the Constitution vs. the fascist government we have become? An antiwar candidate, not afraid to take on Wall Street and the FED?

If we head into a depression or inflationary recession, which are likely scenarios, I think he is out. He may actually make it into a second term, but he also may end that term being more unpopular than Bush, if a depression/recession is in full force. He may get stuck with the label of Hoover of the 21st century. At least we live in interesting times. Personally, I think a revolution is possible in the next six years, peaceful or otherwise.

[Cleita]

222. We all will when we see the choice the other side has given us. n/t

[MadHound]

224. Depends on who that choice is

After all, 600,000 registered Democrats and self described liberals voted for Bush in Florida because of how much Gore had pissed them off with his pro off shore drilling stance.

But the real kicker is not that people will vote for the 'Pug, but they simply won't vote at all. Obama got where he is by inspiring people. Well, that inspiration has worn off and lots of folks aren't liking what they're seeing. So they stay home on election day, telling themselves why bother?

[Cleita]

232. And as the recounts proved, Gore still won the election in Florida. The

cheating by Florida governor Jeb Bush, Secretary of State Katherine Harris and the US Supreme Court overstepping their jurisdiction gave us Bush, not Gore for President who was the legal winner.

[MadHound]

234. Agreed, but it does show that even democrats and liberals will vote out of anger and frustration

As did those folks in Florida. If even ten percent of them had voted for Gore instead, the vote wouldn't have been close enough for the cheating to occur.

Or people will simply stay home in droves. The largest political group in this country are those who don't vote, and most of them are liberal. That number has been growing every election cycle with a couple of exceptions, one of them being '08. If these people get turned off by Obama, we lose those votes:shrug:

[Name removed]

242. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

266. Deleted message

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

[mstinamotorcity]

248. YES I CAN!!!!!!!!!

YES I WILL !!!!!!!!!!!

[Vinca]

254. Some of us will revert to voting for the lesser of two evils.

It's sad.

[Rex]

258. He might end up being a one termer...but I will vote for him again

if it means keeping a Repuke out of office.

[mmonk]

262. Registered Democrats are defensive voters.

They are smart enough to now know they have no representation but that Republicans are nuts. They always hope for the impossible to happen while trying to lessen the blow.

[cali]

264. Your posts in this thread make it pretty clear that this wasn't an honest question

[MadHound]

267. Just because you keep repeating your opinions up and down this thread doesn't make them right

Just because you keep spewing the same old shit doesn't make you wise either. We all know your opinion around here, and unless you have something new to contribute perhaps you should move on.

Oh, that's right, never mind.

[cali]

268. wow. you really are freaking out.

try and keep it together and exercise a wee bit of self control. you can do it!

:rofl:

[MadHound]

270. Speaking of control, I'm not the one repeating the same old shit,

Perhaps you should work on that whole self control thing yourself.

[cali]

273. sure you are. go read your own posts

and I'm not the one throwing a little temper tantrum here. That would be you.

[MadHound]

277. Wow, speaking of projection,

Look in a mirror.

Look cali, I know what you do, you find a thread topic you don't like and you insult people and spread shit and discord all over that thread until people stop going to that thread out of sheer disgust. You insult and degrade anybody who dares to disagree with you. You spam the same old shit up and down the thread in an attempt to get it knocked off the front pages.

So you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to wish you well, for you obviously need help.

Then I'm going to ignore whatever else you have to say on this thread. I'm not going to play your stupid, silly little game.

So go ahead, you have the last word here, spew whatever stupidity you want. I'm going to ignore it, and ignore anything else you spray on this thread because you know what? There are adults on this thread trying to have an adult discussion and I'm not going to waste anymore of my time with childish mewlings.

So have a nice day, thanks for playing, goodbye:hi:

[Forkboy]

349. Reading through this thread it seems to have bothered you more than him.

:shrug:

[cali]

365. huh? what seems to have bothered me more than him?

I doubt we're bothered by the same things.

[Name removed]

271. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[earth mom]

265. The sad part is that Palin and the other GOP whack jobs make Obama look ok to some.

Not to me because I'm not a sell out and refuse to kiss corporate ass! :puke:


Edited to add that those in denial can unrec this thread till the cows come home, but that does NOT change the truth about Obama and how he bullshitted everyone with his slick hope & change advertising campaign and that in fact he is nothing more than a corporatist. :puke:

[cali]

269. sigh. opinion is not fact.

I gather you don't plan to be here during the 2012 election season when Obama is the nominee.

what a dreadful loss that will be.

:rofl:

[earth mom]

274. Your act is getting OLD, really OLD and STALE. Fact is, more & more people think Obama is a sell out

and that number is increasing with every single day based on his crappy behavior.

You don't have a clue because you are stuck in the rah rah bullshit and lies of "hope & change".

The truth hurts and you can't take it. :nopity:

[cali]

279. and you are as unfamiliar with logic and as

unacquainted with facts as you are with reality, earth mom. And you have a penchant for being disingenuous. I'm hardly rah rah, earth mom. All and all it's just a charming package, earth mom.

:rofl:

[proudohioan]

336. Oh, Hell Yeah!

You go!

:)

[woo me with science]

275. Probably people like me

who are disappointed in some of his decisions, delighted by others, and have no significantly better alternative.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

291. High five!!

[sufrommich]

276. Well, me for one. I can't speak for anybody else. nt

[Crystal Clarity]

278. Me!!!

Am I disappointed?...... Yes
Do I feel mislead?..... Somewhat
Am I suprised?...... A bit
Could another D do better?....Possibly, but I doubt it,
Could someone further left of Obama succeed?... No (under current circumstances)

President Obama is politically astute. And like it or not, his pragmatism is essential in order to achieve even a small slice of what I/we on the left would truly wish to see. I think he's doing the best he can under ridiculously harsh political circumstances.

[MadHound]

283. Wow, you have incredibly low standards for a Democratic president who was elected by large majority

And who was given large majorities in both the House and Senate.

[Crystal Clarity]

300. You are right

Which is why I said I was surprised and disappointed. I believe Obama could have gotten more for us on (at least) Health Care. And perhaps other issues.

But so many people here seem to have WAY too high expectactions of what he can do...even with a majority in Congress.Perhaps they should try it for themselves and see how easy it is to go uncompromisingly through the process. THEN report back to us how well 'purity' worked for them.

[MadHound]

302. I actually think most people had reasonable expectations,

But what they weren't counting on is the outright hostility expressed by the Obama administration. Take teachers. We're weren't expecting miracles of funding, we never get that. But we were hoping for a rollback of NCLB, and at the very minimum to be left alone. Instead this administration has launched an all out war against public education and teachers. When's the last time you saw a president openly praise the mass firing of an entire school district's teachers and support staff?

This has been repeated across the spectrum of the traditional Democratic base, unions, anti-war, civil libertarians, etc. Not expecting miracles, but certainly weren't expected to be outright attacked by a Democratic president.

[Crystal Clarity]

315. I admit an approx. 10%

(or less) comprehension of this particular issue. Not that I don't care. But what specifically has Obama done or not done for teachers? Other then his failure to rollback GWB's NCLB? What makes him hostile to you?

[MadHound]

317. OK, let's take his latest initiative to "reform" education.

That's Race to the Top money. States have to compete for this money, imagine, being forced to jump through hoops in order to procure money for education. But that's not the worst part, the worst part is that states have to do away with any restrictions on charter schools in order to have a chance at this money.

Obama and his education secretary Duncan have come out time and again in favor of things like privatizing education, instituting merit pay based on a single test, increasing the range and scope of NCLB, doing away with tenure for teachers, hammering on the unions, oh, and when Central Falls RI fired all of their teachers and support staff over a pay dispute(without any bargaining mind you), Obama came out publicly in support of the move.

The most damning of these moves is that they're not just an assault on teachers, but education as a whole, and will consign an entire generation of kids to having a piss poor education and even worse life prospects.

[Crystal Clarity]

372. I take you at your word

that this is happening therefore, I guess I need to add it to my list of disappointments with this administration. Is he really trying to privatize education? Gosh, I hope you're wrong on that!!! It wouldn't effect me personally since my only child is grown, out of college, and building her career now. But the concept of decreasing funds for public schools in order to encourage charter or other private schools is disturbing IMO.

And for you, as a teacher, I'd say you have a legitimate gripe based on what you have told me. I'm very sorry that this administration is doing you teachers such a disservice. You folks were already way too undervalued and underappreciated to begin with.

That said, I truly hope you will take into consideration in 2012 the fact that any generic R would probably do the same or even worse damage if given the chance; for not only teacher interests, but so many other things as well. If Obama makes it out of the D primaries and is our 2012 nominee, I very much hope that you'll take into consideration how much worse having another R president would be... when you vote.

And who knows, maybe by then Obama will have reconsidered his position on this issue. Here's hoping anyway.

-Sorry I didn't get around to replying until now. I saw your reply to me last night but didn't have time to respond...had stuff to do.

Best of luck to you and your fellow teachers.

[KamaAina]

281. People who don't want Lady Blah Blah to be the leader of the free world.

:scared:

[yurbud]

284. he's relying on Rahm Logic: take care of corporations so they don't run ads against you

unfortunately, Rahm is a master of corruption, not persuading people to vote for candidates.

Obama has shit on the base in so many instances that unless the GOP runs a candidate as bad as Bush, a lot of Democrats will forget to vote.

My guess is the GOP will run Romney or some other seemingly inoffensive empty suit, and it would be difficult for the Democrats to criticize him after spending so much time telling everyone that they copied his health care ''reform.''

[MadHound]

285. You're right,

But ads don't equal votes. I'm as confused as you are wondering whether, and how, Obama is going to crank out enough votes to pull off a reelection. I just don't see it happening.

[yurbud]

327. If Rahm runs for mayor of Chicago, there's a chance. That guy is typhoid mary but

he rakes in the corporate bucks, so people in DC think he's a genius.

[WeekendWarrior]

286. Is there a President who doesn't piss people off?

We can have Bush-scale piss-offs, or Obama-scale piss-offs.

I'll stick with the Obama-scale piss-offs, thank you, unless the Dems put up someone progressive who actually has the chance to win. And I don't see that happening.

And since about eighty percent of Democrats love the guy, and he's playing to the middle, I think he'll be fine in 2012.

[MadHound]

287. Well, I tell you what, get back to me when your segment of the population is under attack

As a teacher I'm beyond infuriated with what Obama is doing to my profession. Not just because of the impact his actions have on me personally, but broader still what it is doing to my students now and in the future.

Second of all, pissing on your base, the unions, the teachers, the anti-war folks, the LGBT community, etc. etc. is something that you simply don't do, and least if you want to stay in office. Yet Obama is doing these sorts of actions on a regular basis.

Hell, even Bush didn't do this much damage to education as Obama has. And mark my words, it is going to be Obama who screws over Social Security. Are we supposed to simply ignore that?

So while you're all fat and happy, remember there are those of us out here, your fellow Democrats, you are being actively attacked by a Democratic president. That you're so comfortable with that says a lot about you, none of it good.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

290. I look forward to your posts attacking people for sporting Roosevelt avatars.

That guy totally attacked fellow Democrats and Americans. How dare all these non-Japanese fat-and-happy types just ignore that.

[bobbolink]

292. And who he doesn't "piss off", his supporters will.

:shrug:

[Liberal_in_LA]

295. wow... this thread grew fast

[Bluebear]

297. I think he has to worry about those who will be unmotivated to vote at all.

Clearly nobody in their right mind would vote for Palin over Obama, as much as those who think any criticism of this administration indicates that they just "want" Palin... but will the teachers, anti-war folks, LGBT, environmentalists, unions, the elderly, just stay home?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

298. I would think that would be the greatest worry.

[MadHound]

301. That's the real question,

Obama's '08 victory was due in large part to the fact that he was able to motivate millions of people who hadn't voted, or hadn't voted in a long time to come out and pull the lever for him. If he continues to discourage members of his base in this manner, they're not going to go Republican, they won't go third party, they'll just stay home.

[CakeGrrl]

306. Stay home, and lose your say in how things turn out. Simple. n/t

[MadHound]

308. And do you think that the people who stay home will really care?

If they stay home, they've already reached the point of not caring because they've come to the conclusion that they're screwed no matter who is in power.

Your little admonition makes for great copy, but in the end it is ultimately meaningless.

[krabigirl]

299. Soccer moms?

[gravity]

305. Only a small minority of Democrats disapprove of Obama

and when the Republicans announces their candidate, it will encourage them to vote for Obama anyways.

No matter what you do as a politician, you are going to piss off someone and some people are going to be pissed off no matter what happens.

[MadHound]

307. I guess we'll find out in 2012

Obama is pissing off large swathes of his base, with actions that they won't easily forgive or forget.

Constituencies do indeed get pissed off at politicians, but usually because of acts of omission, ie politician X didn't give me my particular bill. Obama is pissing off people by acts of commission, ie he is attacking members of his base constituency, teachers, civil libertarians, unions, etc. A whole different animal, and an act that I think won't be forgiven or forgotten. People understand if you can't push through a bill, at least to a certain extent. They don't understand when you attack them directly.

[gravity]

313. Criticizing the far left helps Obama win over independent voters

Obama is going to campaign as a moderate, like he did before in 2008.

You are overestimating the influence of those on the left who won't support Obama. The situation was even worst in 2000 and Nader still only got 2% of the votes.

[MadHound]

316. Gore wasn't actively attacking his constituency,

Obama is. Teachers, unions, civil libertarians, anti-war folks. These aren't members of the "far left", whatever that is, but rather people who are straight up, middle of the road Democrats, and they vote, and they influence others' votes.

Example, I'm a teacher and I'm not happy about the assault that Obama has laid down on education and teachers in general. Of course when I get together with family I mention this, and they take it to heart and become unhappy that their son, brother, uncle, etc. is coming under assault from the administration they voted for. Then they turn around and pass that on.

Obama could get by with this sort of tactic if he was only confining it to the "far left" and only doing so sparingly. But it seems like not a month goes by without him launching an all out assault on some major constituency that he needs to win in '12.

So the question becomes, again, who does he think is going to vote for him in '12 if he continues to piss off so many people?

[BzaDem]

326. While you keep SAYING that Obama is somehow pissing off Democrats, there is very little evidence to

back up that assertion.

Liberal Democrats approve of Obama in the high 80s/low 90s all year long.

So while there are some people (such as yourself) that he is "pissing off," these are a very small minority of the Democratic party, and from a purely electoral perspective, Obama should not be worried about this group. Most of this group will vote for him anyway. Rather than worrying about the ~10% of liberal Democrats who don't approve of him, he is going to worry about the independents and persuadable Republicans. All presidents do, and historically this helps them (not hurts them).

So while you may really WANT to believe that every imperfection in Obama's liberal policies might actually hurt him electorally, that just is not borne out by history or emperical evidence.

[marshall]

309. I haven't heard him say for sure that he is even running in '12

In fact he has said he would be perfectly find with being a very good one term president.

Perhaps he realizes that the change we need will rile up too many of the folks in high power, but he is willing to make the sacrifice for the good of the country.

[MadHound]

319. Trouble is the change he's making isn't benefitting regular folks very much,

But is certainly pissing off lots of the rest of us.

[marshall]

332. I think Obama is doing what he thinks is best

And if it costs him the next election, or the nomination, or the chance to even try for another term, so be it.

[MadHound]

347. Yes, but what does he feel is best?

Driving public education in the ground? Giving the insurance industry the gift of a mandated monopoly? Continuing to kill thousands upon thousands, sacrificing out treasure, lives and country on the altar of war?

What Obama thinks is best and what actually is best are matters that are very much open for discussion. As citizens in a democracy it isn't our duty to blindly following a leader, leaving decisions of what is right, what is wrong, what's best and what isn't to the discretion of that leader. It is our duty to join in the discussion, the decision making process and be an active part of what becomes of our country.

[BzaDem]

320. Contrary to some the belief of some people on DU, Obama doesn't have a problem with his base AT ALL.

On Gallup, for the last several months Obama's approval rating among Democrats has been in the range of 80-90% (with a higher approval rating among liberal Democrats than conservative Democrats). That is actually HIGHER than past Democratic presidents (and roughly on par with Kennedy and Johnson).

The reason Obama's approval ratings are hovering around 50% are because of Independents and Republicans, not Democrats.

So if Obama is going to take your concern about 2012 seriously, he would move to the right, since that's where people don't approve of him as much.

Of course, I don't think Obama should worry about 2012 at the moment and I certainly don't think he should move to right. There are always squeaky wheels on DU that are overrepresented compared to the whole Democratic party, and Obama should not worry (and he isn't).

[mvd]

321. The problem with that, though..

is that I have some problems with Obama not being progressive enough, yet I'd still say I approve if polled. He's better than the Repukes by a long shot. I think the issue is enthusiasm more than disapproval.

[BzaDem]

322. Correct, but the poster is asking who will vote for Obama in 2012

and I think most people who approve of Obama will vote for Obama in 2012.

After all, Obama is doing better than Clinton among Democrats, and Clinton was easily re-elected.

For any president concerned about getting re-elected, much of their political time is spent trying to appeal to independents. Taking that into account, Obama is managing to be remarkably liberal from a policy perspective while still keeping his approval around 50%.

While some people (like the OP) probably do not like or approve of Obama, these people make up a very tiny portion of the Democratic party. They are really saying by implication that they don't like or approve of any Democratic president going back decades, considering that other Democratic presidents had lower approval ratings among Democrats. Anyone who is in the group of people that disapprove of any modern Democratic president is (for the most part) a waste of time for a Democratic president to go after (from a purely electoral perspective).

[mvd]

324. I think he'd improve his approval if he was more liberal

When it comes down to it, people want someone who will take stands. That said, I am not worried about reelection yet.

[depakid]

330. You go on rationalizing and justifying the pandering to the right

The same dynamic will happen down the track with the Democrats (and the nation) as has happened before. Lost chances, lost elections, and dysfunctional policy.

Lots of wildcards here of course. The big ones right now being the long term effects of the oil in the gulf, and the state of the economy- and whether Republicans choose an ostensibly moderate and competent candidate when the time comes.

Or whether there's enough disaffection for a charismatic third party movement to grab hold.

[BzaDem]

333. My post was not advocating anything. It was simply describing why Obama isn't worried.

Obama's approval rating among Democrats (80-90%) and Liberal Democrats (a few above or below 90%) throughout the past year is higher than ANY modern Democratic president, and approximately on par with Johnson and Kennedy.

So as much as you whine about the impending collapse of the Democratic party (and I certainly respect your ability to do so), the evidence all points the other way. You are in a tiny minority, whether you like/believe it or not.

[depakid]

341. I take polls from outfits like Gallup for what they're worth-which isn't much

Indeed, as any grad student will tell you- relying on them in this context is laughable.

Oddly enough, we do in a sense agree. Losing the House would be a good thing for Obama's re-election prospects (gives him an excuse to wave at the base and also cover for his pandering and policy preferences). In addition, and, I've come to consider that he may well really want to work with Boehner in a "bipartisan fashion." Much in his life history suggests that could be the case.

On another point:

Like many no matter what the evidence you refuse to believe that America's a progressive nation based on credible evidence -when it comes down to the issues. Moreover, where political dynamics are concerned, many if not most people don't (as the evidence also shows) behave like enlightenment "rational beings" and choose the lesser of two evils.

If Democrats haven't figured that out by now- given all that's happened over the past two decades- there's a pretty good chance that they never will.

[BzaDem]

348. Your theories are unfalsifiable.

If I am going to present data, and every time you are going to say that data is worthless for x or y reason (or better yet, for no reason), then your theories are unfalsifiable. Since you rule out data and evidence, they can't be disproven as a matter of logic. Conversations about unfalsifiable theories are useless.

In reality, Democrats "haven't figured that out by now" (if we accept for the sake of argument that your theory is somehow true, and is something they should "figure out" at any point), and "there's a pretty good chance that they never will." But I doubt you will give up posting this stuff after it is clear that they haven't "figured it out" this time around. You will keep coming back with more and more statements that can't be proven or disproven because you rule out any data that works against you. Have fun.

[Synicus Maximus]

323. He thinks the Democratic party will vote for him. They only other

option is a Republican in the White House. Fortunately I don't think they have a viable candidate to run against President Obama.

[TransitJohn]

329. Registered Democrats. n/t

n/t

[proteus_lives]

339. Me, for one.

[uponit7771]

344. I will PROUDLY vote for Obama, I paid CLOSE attention to him during the campaign and he's EXCEED my

...expectations given his low majority in congress

[Egnever]

396. +1

He never had a majority in the senate. Despite what the numbers say.

[MadHound]

402. Never had a majority in the Senate?

Umm, you do realize that there are 58-59 Senators who caucus under the Democratic banner, don't you?

Or is this simply making an excuse for such a poor track record. Presto-change-o, that majority really isn't one:eyes:

[Egnever]

410. So because they caucus on the democratic side they are democrats?

Why are you bitching then as surely you approve of the votes of senators like leiberman and nelson and Byah and landrew.
Obviously you believe they represent your values well and you applaud the job they do of holding this presidents agenda in check.

After all they are all just rubber stamps for what the president wants right?

Not only was your OP not honest but your replies continue to show your complete disregard for reality.

Good luck with your little crusade. Clearly you aren't fooling many here.

[hay rick]

346. Voting is only part of it.

A lot of people who are disillusioned with Obama will vote for him again in 2012 when the Republican alternative is Romney, Huckabee, Rubio, or ________ (fill in the blank- they're all worse than useless). Some will not, but most will. Progressives are "stuck" voters- they are usually stuck with a choice between a mediocre Democrat and a terrible Republican. It's an easy choice. Not pleasant, but easy.

On the other hand, I think a significant number- maybe a majority- of progressive activists will sit on the sidelines in the next Presidential campaign. I donated time, effort, and money to Obama's '08 campaign. I can't see doing any of that in 2012. I expect to channel my efforts into supporting a congressman or two instead.

[HuckleB]

354. People who are paying attention?

:shrug:

[jillan]

356. Me! But you can go ahead and vote for Mittens if you want too.

[MadHound]

364. That's the problem, voters who are pissed off by Obama simply won't vote at all.

They won't vote 'Pugs, they might vote third part, but more than likely they simply won't vote. That was the key to Obama's victory, the sheer number of people he got to vote for him who hadn't voted in years or decades, if ever. He needs those people, and if he pisses them off, he loses.

[jillan]

373. If you don't vote, then say hello to Pres Romney - or Palin or whomever they pick.

The minority party is always more motivated to gotv in hopes they can get back in power.

I don't agree with Obama on alot of issues but I would much rather have him in office than anyone the teabaggers elect.

[scrabblequeen40]

357. Obama has exceeded my expectations.. my vote is his

Unlike you, I happen to beleive that Obama is doing far better than many recent presidents in their first term. Despite the over-heated partisan climate, he's managed to get health care done. He has my vote, and the vote of just about everyone I know who voted for him the first time (and that's a lot of people). FYI, I live in a red state.

[MadHound]

363. Really, health care "reform"

That mandated monopoly, a gift to the insurance companies?

Not much to write home about, meanwhile education is still under attack, the illegal, immoral wars are still going strong, and our civil liberties continue to be stripped. Do you support those as well?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

358. Well, there's the 90% of democrats who support him.

And plenty of moderates.

I mean it's not like he's really lost anybody who supported him the last time around.

[xiamiam]

414. really?

[Maru Kitteh]

359. Me, I would guess. And he'd be right.

[HillGal]

368. I was laughed at before when I said this, but I'll say it again, if the republicans

win in the midterms, and if they win big, and Obama's approval rating keeps going down, one of two things will happen, Hillary will start thinking of challenging Obama, if democrats are in an uproar over that then there's a chance Biden could resign and Obama puts Hillary on the ticket to get the base enthusiastic. Hillary kind of criticized Obama though recently so I'm sensing Hillary may be thinking of challenging him.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

379. Hillary ruled out future runs for the Presidency

As much as I would've been equally satisfied with her being elected POTUS in 2008, I just don't see something like THAT happening. As fractious and divisive as their 2008 slugfest was, an insurgency campaign against President Obama by Hillary would totally split us as a party and enable whoever the Republicans nominate to walk right through the front door. Hillary is smart enough IMHO to realize this. Not.going.to.happen. Sorry.

[jpak]

369. Polls have him at 22% ! Ooops - that was Bush

nevermind

:D

[readmoreoften]

383. Suckers.

[KoKo]

384. Independents and Repugs fed up with "Tea Partiers." eom

[MadHound]

390. And thus the political dialectic moves ever rightward.

That's what has been going on since I was alive.

[Raine]

388. He believes his base has nowhere else to go

well yeah he's right about that ... nowhere else to go so sitting at home and going nowhere to vote is what will happen.

[AuntPatsy]

389. Regardless of some being offended at the very idea of having be made to feel guilty

in not voting for a dem because one feels neglected and or outright ignored there honestly is little choice in today's reality based political climate, if you don't vote for the dem president it stands to reason the other one, the only other one that stands a chance ie the repub is sure to win..


Now be that as it may that this might seem another one of those, one must vote the lesser of two evils pushes it is not, it is just fact..

There are many things I find that have yet to be handled properly in our system which remains in a bit of a shambles ,

the main ones for me, constant war and limitless funding of such while other more viable issues continue to be ignored,

, the ignoring of our mental health community which in effect has resulted in an increase of homeless citizens and or crimes that might not otherwise have occurred

, lack of affordable and or viable health care which effects every single age level of our citizens

, the lack of dental care which people continue to ignore because it is pretended bad teeth is not the same as say a sprained ankle and it is a major health issue that could and has resulted in death when such goes untreated and as such dental should be part of every single health plan period, not separated,

the fact that not all american citizens are seen to be equal in having the same rights as others based on the outrage of a chose few which ensures that the very laws against some american citizens having the rights of others stands to reason this is out and out illegal when one realizes that a law that states we are equal continues to be ignored

, the fact that women are continual victimized and their present rights constantly under attack by the very government that once promised to protect those rights because again of a few select idiotic outraged loudmouths who could surely use that outrage for that which is really important and for political wedge issues when election terms pop op....

the fact that this government continues to push religious doctrine into it's core when our very laws state church and state must not mix...

the fact that not more is being done to help the citizens to become more eco friendly in an effort to save our very future existance...

the fact that big money still continues to call the shots and desire to be seen as some sort of royalty while ensuring that by citing themselves above the average citizens of this country it only ensures a continued abuse of power as well as a willful ignoring of certain laws that we the little people are forced daily to adhere to...

the fact that the bush term criminals continue to walk free and be allowed to thrive off the blood and sweat of others all the while openly laughing at any of those that dare to call for them to face justice, the very same justice that we the people again face daily...

the fact that our media continues to play games with the truth and we are powerless against the continued propaganda that spews out second after second, it is a no brainier that the fairness doctrine is in dire need of being returned to the law books,

Nafta should and must be repelled if we have any hope for a viable future for our citizens in order that they be allowed a better chance to be productive and masters of their own destiny by ensuring more jobs available, good paying ones, as it stands now, we are at the mercy of others as if we are nothing more than mere serfs made to serve their high and might overlords as in the days of old...what happened to the reason the english were run out of this country? How soon far too many forget the very reason our ancestors fought so long and so hard against incredible odds in order to escape the tyranny of a greedy and power hungry ruler / rulers, and yet, tyranny resides once again inside our very borders, money and power, greed, the reigning masters of our questionable future of living in a so called free country in peace or living in this country as servants and nothing more...

The fact that our men and women in the military are obviously seen as nothing more than bodies of armor to be used and discarded as their usefulness becomes questionable in winning the game....to be praised as heroes in the beginning and then left on the roadsides at the end is not something that proves to me at least that we honor in any way shape or form our military soldiers...expendable, is what they have become as more are being made to fill those empty holes in the front lines..

(there is an article in the bbc last week that I read that stated how the pentagon is running a study in how to ensure americans stay healthy and are able to breed for how else will they be able to ensure a high military number of soldiers in our ready future...honestly, the push for health now in this country is only being pushed because the military fear they will soon not have enough front men to do the dirty work while those that call the plays continue to remain safe and fully nourished, and as far as abortion constantly being mentioned as an issue for the law books, well, the more babies being born without hope of earning a living in anything other than the military ensures many future sign ups, you cannot win a war without a good show of brute force and a high number of ready and willing bodies all armed and ready to defend whatever it is they believe they are defending...bodies that can be replaced..thats all they care about, if one dies, another need take that place..the pentagon actually has stated this..makes me sick..

The fact that our school structure and ability to teach properly are being systematically attacked to the point where one day the only thing our children will be learning is what their government wishes for them to learn, an ignorant community has a problem realizing when they are being screwed over, so how else to ensure the average citizen become more of a servant type than one that dares to realize when they are being taken advantage of , well, ensure each generation becomes duller and duller to the point where all one will be able to worry about is personal survival with little time for contemplating a better future...

I am sure I missed some.

Point being, I am not exactly happy with the way things are, but continuing to allow they ensure we act like some bad actors in a daily soap opera is not my idea of a way to ensure change happens for the better..

The best way one can fight the present status quote is simple..

Be prepared to do the complete opposite of what they obviously want you to do.....

WE are being force fed our lines.,,,

why not write them for yourself instead of constantly repeating last years dialouge....

How to accomplish that?

Easy...know your history of tyrannical governments and or groups, how they started, how they ended, how they ruled, how they used propaganda and fear in order to remain in an unchallenged power hold over it's citizens, be they religious and or not doesn't matter, they are one and the same, understand fully how they governed and ruled and kept the citizens in an almost powerless state of fear and ignorance in order to ensure their rule was not challenged.....realize that religion is a tool that every single government used in one form or another to ensure another way of keeping it's people in check...know your history of how many religious societies came to be...and why so many are different, in the end, it was all about power, greed, you cannot know your history and fail to be suspicious of any group that attempts to achieve obedience and unquestioning loyalty from any of it's followers and or citizens...

share that history in discussion and debating styles with almost everyone you come into contact with...with your children, your neighbors, your friends..

as hard as it is....we have to realize one thing..the real enemy, the one that is the most threatening..is not the repub, the dem, the muslim, the christian, the jew, the gun owner, the kkk member, the socialist, the liberal, the conservative, the communist, any and all foreigners etc, .....those labels..they are lables given to groups in order to keep the people seprated...in order to ensure the rulers remain in power wealthy and satisfied with limitless riches,

the massive amounts of individuals worldwide (potential front line soldiers) need to be kept leery of each other, they need not only to fear those that bear slight differences be they visible or not they need to remain apart from them, they need to be unable to form any kind of relationship which could in effect lessen the once held fear and or unrealistic prejudice of others...

The enemy you know..is not you, its not me, its those that hold power that govern countries, there are a certain amount of others allowed in that make up the outer circle in order to enforce a kind of shield that the royalty of old possessed in the form of dukes, lords, knights etc...it is well known that the serfs tended to get at times restless so in order to help enforce a sort of protected wall around the core of rulers others are needed to help keep the serfs in a form of self imprisonment that requires far too much time leaving little of it to encourage and act on rebellion...all in all in order to ensure the wealth is not deflated too much and spread out to thin only that small circle is allowed the false impression of appearing as important as those which in their ignorance they help to shield...

Its a sad world we live in when someone is idolized and allowed to commit crimes against country and or countryman based on the amount of dollar signs that one has attached to his or her name...

As I understand it, america was supposed to end that which other countries embraced, royal families, birthrights that guaranteed importance in a certain society and yet....I guess such is not possible because as long as people allow that not all men and women are created equal depending on one's status in that society and or one's knowledge and supposed intellect we will remain divided and powerless against those that allow greed and power to rule their every thought and will do anything to ensure their desires never cease to be met regardless of the casualties those desires leave in it's wake.....


until we find a way to cross that divide and embrace each others differences, enjoy them learn from them, share them with others, we shall remain powerless and limited as to what we can do to change not only our own future for the betterment of man kind but the future of others not strong enough to do much more than be hopeful of a better life..



even on du, there is far too many that are just unable to truly embrace the differences that reside in this small community, their are those that feel others are beneath them be it because of knowledge, personal wealth or and supposed personal ideologies...sad very sad...

in the end I would say far too many of us suck enough that true change for the good of all mankind and or our life as it now stands has need of, as in mother earth is perhaps nothing more than a failed image of another's fairytale ending...I honestly feel that since the majority of humans are judgmental, greedy, selfish, and close minded we really don't have a chance, forget the fable of Armageddon, we don't need a fictional writer to tell us that in the end, we will not survive it all but the reason won't be because of a false believe of sinful behaviors as in the sexual behavior and or beliefs of others being the catalyst for our demise, nope, in the end, our survival will end because we have failed to actually find a reason to like each other finding the ability to hate each other and remain fearful of each other so much much easier to accomplish...


Oh well, long and boring but the urge to just rattle on took hold

[Radical Activist]

394. He has a very good environmental record so far.

If he can pass a decent climate change bill and sign a treaty then he'll go down as the greatest environmental President of all time.

[MadHound]

403. Pro-drilling, pro-nuke does not a great environmentalist make.

His work in Copenhagen was meaningless, and he has failed to provide the kind of stimulus for solar and wind that even Carter did.

[Radical Activist]

409. So uninformed. There are no nukes or drills yet.

But there are new renewable and efficiency investments. In fact, the stimulus bill did more to support renewable energy and efficiency projects than both Carter and Clinton combined. Plus, new CAFE standards to reduce oil consumption and ending mountaintop removal coal mining.

Everything looks bad when you ignore the accomplishments and hype the compromises.

[Egnever]

397. Can't wait to Vote for him again

Best president of my lifetime hands down.

And I am lilly white 40 something male. My wife who is a teacher loves him as well, no she doesnt like the idea of merit pay but she also realizes you cant have everything you want from a politician.

She also understands that if it werent for Obama she likely would have taken a 5% pay cut last year if not lost her job completely.

[Dr Morbius]

398. Objective and rational voters.

It remains to be seen whether the rational and sane among us constitute a majority.

[Hekate]

399. The 51% who think he's doing a good job now. And me.

Believe me, he cares about a second term. He's just getting started on cleaning up the shit the elephant parade left behind.

Hekate

[Mudoria]

404. I will be...

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

408. I'll vote for him.

He's go a lock on the nomination.

So, what am I gonna do? Vote Republican?

Nope, I'll vote for Obama again.

But I can understand if a lot of people don't bother to vote. Another four years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq? How exciting.

:hi:

[Echo In Light]

411. Our 'elections' are a complete sham anyway. Power decides who 'wins,' not The People

[greencharlie]

412. wow... lotsa' replies! nt

[harun]

413. Elections aren't about getting votes anymore. They are about Coporate $$$.

The Corporate Media takes care of the rest.

So to answer you question, Obama thinks the people will vote for who the Corporations tell them to vote.