I get a kick out of the folks around here who suggest that Obama won't be re-elected or renominated

[WI_DEM]

There is no sense of knowing history.

Obama is actually in a better position now than Bill Clinton was in 1994--and what happened? Clinton won a big re-election victory. Obama is actually in a better position than Ronald Reagan was in January of 1983 (according to polls) and Reagan creamed Mondale. Despite everything Obama's numbers in the Gallup Poll have been stable all year (between 45-50 percent approval) despite economic problems, health care debate and now the oil spill.

Those who think that other Dems will challenge the president for the nomination? Not likely. The president will raise a ton of money and besides other dems can see the polls that despite the ups and downs of Obama's job ratings Dems approve of his performance overwhelmingly. It's usually 85-90 percent or more. Obama is not Jimmy Carter II. He actually has had a solid record of legislative accomplishments in a year and a half. The economy is improving under Obama not getting worse and more to the point Democrats and independents like Obama more than they did Carter. I'm not trying to put down Jimmy Carter, who I admire very much, but those who remember the Carter era know the difference between then and now.

You just look at what is happening today without a thought about what will be the case a year or two from now. The economy still sucks for many, but it has improved under Obama and will continue to improve and by 2012 he will have a stronger economy to run on than he inherited. In the end people vote their pocket books and economy is improving under Obama. IRA's are up. Jobs will begin to grow.

He will win easily in 2012.

[SoxFan]

1. No, no, the people will flock the Kucinich/McKinney ticket!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Richardo]

5. ...

:spray:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[HughMoran]

4. Picture says it all

[emulatorloo]

7. Interesting picture. Thanks for posting it.

[lamp_shade]

6. There's a bunch of 'em, but they appear to be "go-alongs" with a very small

handful of OP's. Typical.

[Captain Hilts]

9. It happens from both sides, actually. nt

[dmallind]

11. Both sides of what? Reality and pipedreams? NT

[lamp_shade]

13. Both sides? Please explain.

[Captain Hilts]

17. Some are constant critics, others are constant defenders. They're all mindless. nt

[lamp_shade]

20. We're talking about whether Obama will be re-elected. The only OP's I've ever seen on this

subject are the critics.

[Captain Hilts]

22. He will be renominated and re-elected. Only stupid people think otherwise. Ignore them. nt

[lamp_shade]

26. There are no stupid DUers. There are a bunch of uninformed/misinformed and these I do not ignore.

There are only 8 or so DUers on my ignore list; all write OP's that are constantly and consistently flame bait.

[Captain Hilts]

8. They're idiots. He's a sure thing and the Republican party is doing all they can to help him. nt

[AspenRose]

12. They aren't living in reality.

DU isn't reality (thank God)

[Captain Hilts]

18. That's exactly right. nt

[saltpoint]

10. There's no siege engine out there that can conquer Castle Obama.

History has its quirks and none of us knows what's going to happen, but the landscape right now is mostly free of gathering revolt.

Of course there's the far-Right propaganda noise from FOX News and other hate-host programming. And there are the squawking few dozen Baggers here and there.

But you just don't bring a castle down on sentiment alone. There have to be compelling political tools and a powerful siege engine to topple the walls. I don't see Tim Pawlenty leading the charge, ladies and gentlemen.

[Jennicut]

14. What President at or near 50% wouldn't run for re-election?

Just pure stupidity.

[depakid]

15. It's always interesing to see people rationalize and prognosticate the future

My guess is that 2012 will look a lot like the election of 1980 in terms of poor economic conditions and unsettled events abroad.

A look at the electoral map- and the nature of the events leading up to the last election bodes trouble for the administration if Republicans nominate an ostensibly competent candidate.

Whatever the case- if that happens, 1996 or 1984 it ain't.

[WI_DEM]

21. Sounds like that is what you are doing. How can the election of 2012

be the same as 1980? Carter had higher unemployment and double digit inflation and interest rates. He actually had inherited an economy that was showing inflation, interest rates and unemployment going down. Obama inherited an economy near depression and it has stabilized and now is growing. IF the trend continues Obama will enter 2012 such as Reagan did in 1984 with a growing economy and falling unemployment. That is not rationalizing the situation it's looking at trends and historical data.

[depakid]

25. Carter inherited a TON of economic problems not of his own making- and a GOP in disarray

Poor economic conditions are just that- doesn't really matter whether they match up directly on the types of stats- though if I had to guess, I'd say real unemployment and underemployment will remain quite high and Americans will see higher gas prices to boot, which means inflation in the absence of higher wages.

The wars we're already in will still be going on- and there may be others on the horizon in the Middle East or possibly Korea.

Then of course, there's the catastrophe in the Gulf, which WILL only get much worse- with most of the reckoning still to come.

While I doubt there will be a primary challenge, that's certainly a possibility (two of the last three Democratic presidents faced one- over health care and the economy in Carter's case- over a quagmire with respect to Johnson). Probably depends on what the poll numbers look like mid next year- and whether Republicans take back Congress.

Ironically, if they do- I think that virtually assures the administration another term.

And one never knows what the prospects might be for a third party candidate. Bloomberg was mentioned last time out- and there may be others with enough gravitas or charisma to step up and fill the void(s).

In short- 2012 is unlikely to be a shoe in- and if it is, that will be by the Republicans' own doing.

[WI_DEM]

28. True, the OPEC crisis, but that doesn't change the fact that inflation, interest rates and even

unemployment were lower than when Carter came in. The fact that it was over conditions he had little control over doesn't usually resonate with voters who were waiting in long gas lines and paying more for goods and services.

[depakid]

30. We can surely agree on that...

[Demit]

16. You're looking at what's happening today without a thought about what will be the case in a year or

two. You're assuming some sort of stasis in anything further bad happening. That is, that the only change possible will all be to the good. Remember, two months ago—April 16th—the oil rig disaster hadn't happened yet. God only knows what else can and will happen in the next two years. I get a kick out of you too.

[treestar]

19. These people would trash a President Kucinich

They are in the business of not being satisfied with anything.

No kidding. Rachel and Keith would be doing the same thing to President Kucinich right now.

They are in the business of making fun of the people who really have to do the real work.

[WeDidIt]

27. BINGO, no talking head in the business gives a shit about real problems

They only care about ratings and the bottom line.

Yes, even Rachel Maddow.

[bigwillq]

23. A kick and a rec for you.

I agree with a lot of what you have to say. Obama remains very popular in real life, and I think, if the election were held today, he would win fairly easily. He will get a lot of support from the party, and he'll raise a lot of money.

[tridim]

24. IMO the real problem is that the "true left" is just as afraid of change as the right.

We're seeing the result of the circular graph of political leanings, where far-left meets far-right and become virtual allies.

I don't get a kick out of that observation, believe me. It makes me sad.

[vaberella]

31. I've noted this for a long time.

I have noted the tones used, sadly even the same language. It's reached a point where threads from right wing sites have been posted on this site to justify anger towards Obama or expound on a policy. Sadly---those are the same writers who tried to destroy good bills that Obama wanted pushed through and sadly never made it through. Now these writers are given vindication on this site when they can turn the "left" against the "left."

[Orangepeel]

29. "re-elected" we can't take for granted, although it is likely. Renominated is a given

barring some unforeseen personal reason that makes Obama decide not to run

[Kitsune]

32. Oh, he'll certainly get renominated and almost certainly get reelected.

If there's one thing the man knows it's how to be a politician.

I just find it unfortunate because at best he's a mediocre president at a time when we need a transformative figure on a level with FDR, not someone who works to maintain the status quo and sweep the literal crimes of the past and present under the carpet.

[WI_DEM]

33. We disagree on that. He has accomplished some remarkable legislative

accomplishements despite almost total GOP opposition and conservative dem opposition in the Senate.

[Cha]

34. They're only thinking about

their tiny little selves.

[dionysus]

35. they really think there's millions of like minded larouchies out there. i laugh.

[Jester Messiah]

36. Obama will win, here's why.

First off, if the Democratic Party de-nominates the first black president, it would be an act of political suicide. Black voters would stay home in droves, or worse defect to the Republicans out of spite. On the other side of the coin, we can expect said voters to mobilize for Obama once again in 2012. This is a no-brainer.

Second, whomever the Dem nominee is can expect solid Hispanic support after the fiasco in AZ. Assuming no Democratic politician starts spouting racist diatribes against hispanics, we can club the 'pubbies over the head with Brewer and the Minute Men.

Third, the TeaBaggers will drive independent voters with any shred of rationality into the arms of moderate candidates. Obama has proven himself a centrist (no matter what the 'baggers say) and will be a very attractive choice, especially if his competition is Bootstrappy Barbie.

[TheKentuckian]

37. I agree that the President is likely to be re-elected

My question is why anybody that works (or would like too) for a living much cares?

It does us little good if he is just going to be a facilitator for big business and a preserver of the status quo.

[CakeGrrl]

38. Then there's the dumb notion that he'll step aside for 2012

I don't get the reasoning there. He'd step down because...people are mad at him? Because he should be ashamed of the way he's performing?

:wtf:

Methinks some are either projecting their own weaknesses on him or their latent primary resentments are surfacing.

[Robbins]

39. Obama

Both Reagan and Clinton were down even lower at this time and both were easily reelected.

Obama has to contend with a hostile press.Yes you heard me right.With a media giving so much airtime to Palin,Teabaggers,and
their lies.

Plus some expecting Obama to single handly solve all the problems.Gitmo Isn't closed for example because he can't get funding by congress.And has Republicans fillbusting everything In the senate.Not to mention Lieberman and some so called Dems Like Ben Nelson
and Lincoln.

Obama's stimulas had tax cuts for 95 percent of working familys as he promised and none for the wealthy.He Is letting the Bush tax
Cuts expire.Eventully the rich will ahve to pay more for Health care reform.BP Is going to have to pay 20 Billion for relief.And while it doesn't get attention very much Obama Is pushing for regulations on Businesses.Big Business despite what some say are not
In love with Obama.

[Scurrilous]

40. Great post.

K & R :thumbsup: