When Obama gets re-elected there is a good chance we will see some progressive change.

[county worker]

I am becoming an optimist because of the Occupy movement. If we can re-elect Obama and regain majorities in both Houses of Congress, there will be less of a need for Obama to move right of center and less of a need for the right to destroy him since he will be a lame duck. There will be less of a need to compromise with the right since there is nothing to gain by doing so.

The Occupy movement is putting the ideas out there for all to grab onto. The combination of a positive election outcome in 2012 and the energy created by the Occupy movement is a powerful force I think.

I think 2012 could be the turning point.

[quinnox]

1. I'm not optimistic

I don't think the Democrats will get majorities like they had again, at least not in the next election. Plus, I don't think Obama is really a progressive or liberal to begin with. When he kept talking about how he wanted to be bipartisan and work with republicans to come up with solutions it seems he really meant that, or thats what it looks like to me from the way he has conducted the presidency.

[jaxx]

7. They'll get the majorities if Democrats get out there and vote.

President Obama is a liberal and the most progressive Democrat you've seen in office for many a long year.

It's really too bad that working together has become a detriment, we can all see how obstruction is helping! :sarcasm:

[quinnox]

9. No, only to someone who is wearing Obama fantasy land glasses

obscuring their sight completely. To say Obama is liberal or progressive is delusional when looking at his policies.

[jaxx]

11. Your comment isn't helpful.

Comments like that create problems where there should be none.

[quinnox]

13. I didn't much like your comment to start with

The feeling is mutual. Maybe its best to just refrain from commenting to me in the first place about my posts since you can't seem to stomach that I disagree with you.

[jaxx]

14. Go ahead and censor yourself.

I won't miss you.

[quinnox]

15. lol, nope, ain't gonna happen

But you are free to not comment on my posts in the future. Talk about not being "helpful".

[Obamanaut]

25. Didn't they recently have the majorities? nt

[zipplewrath]

27. As compared to what?

"President Obama is a liberal and the most progressive Democrat you've seen in office for many a long year."

I keep hearing this assertion, but it's like saying he's the brightest light in the cave. By "in office" you must mean the Oval office, since he doesn't come close to many such as Kucinich. There hasn't been a "progressive" in the oval office since.... probably FDR at best, and it took him a few terms to get there. Heck, one could easily make the case that Ike was more progressive than Obama. God knows LBJ was, and we threw him out of office.

Look, the entire point of the OWS movement is that the 1% are ruling this country for their own self interests (I'd argue it's the top 15% or so but the point remains). They argue amongst themselves about what those interests are, and they don't particularly agree. But none the less, from the mayor on up to the oval office, it is the top that is ruling this country, and it is demonstrable that the recent arc (last 30 years or so) have been to the DETRIMENT of the majority. Wars we didn't need to fight, "wars" on drugs that don't serve the majority, courts that find "free speech" has dollar signs in it, these aren't decisions that have served the majority. "Too big to fail, but we can't let the bonuses down", doesn't serve the majority. And both parties have been complicit.

Obama has been part of that overall trend. To presume that the last 4 would have been some sort of progressive panacea if he had just had a few more liberals is to ignore the degree to which he's gotten what he wanted. He wanted the Afghan war. He wants indefinite detentions without trial. He wants NO ONE prosecuted for torture. He wants extra-judicial killings.

You will note that, unlike the Tea party crap, no one is trying to coop the OWS movement. From Oakland to Washington, there has been a cautious standoffishness about the whole thing. The reason that no one in the political spectrum is trying to coop the movement is because it doesn't serve ANY of the entrenched political interests. Neither side of the aisle has much interest in the underlying political expression that this movement finds its base. The idea that the government, the culture, the economy, that business itself should serve the majority, and not merely protect the interests of the monied minority is so outside of the political mainstream than no one within the government is in a position to advocate such a thing. To do so would be to advocate against their very reason for existence within the government.

One can hope that re-electing Obama will cause some significant change, but it seems to ignore much of recent history to do so.

[EC]

2. I agree.

I think it would have happened even without OWS...I think he was planning on going left in term 2.

[Auntie Bush]

3. I have alway thought that he'd lean more liberal in a second term.

No need to compromise with the goons and no need to raise funds from corp and do their bidding. I see light at the end of the tunnel if we have a favorable 2012 election.

It's nice to see the crowds of occupiers out there. We can bet none of them will vote Rethug.

[Pab Sungenis]

4. We didn't see it when he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate

why should we believe we'll see it next time around.

[JoePhilly]

8. How many days did he have that filabusgter proof majority .... I know how many, do you?

Lots of others on DU also know .... but I am often amazed at how many think he had it for anywhere close to 2 years.

Well?

Do you know how many days?

[Old and In the Way]

12. Zero...am I close?

I've never seen an opposition party so ideological and willing to take this country down, just to further their electoral chances. They are a bunch of treasonous bastards.

That said, and knowing there was not much Obama or anyone could do to dissuade these Republicans to act in a bi-partisan manner, Democrats and Obama should have been setting up the legislation in 2008-2010 to make it very clear who was keeping this country from progressing. They did a lousy job of that and then the 2010 elections gave Republicans back the house. Now they control the legislative agenda and that's why we can't even get a filibuster vote done on important legislation.

Obama will be freed by term limits to pursue a more Democratic agenda, but I just don't see how that makes much of a difference until the morons stop voting against their best interests. It's not like the reality of what's been going down for a decade is unknown to anyone with a functioning brain. Give Obama a veto proof majority...then we'll see change we can believe in.

[JoePhilly]

29. You are close, but it was not zero .... the actual number is a little higher ...

I've provided a link to a good source on this at the bottom, but here is a summary of the particulars from that article, and some additional comments of my own.

Al Franken's senate victory should have given us 60 on the day Obama took office. But the GOP contested that election result, and Franken was not actually seated until July 7th 2009.

So that's the date the "filibuster proof" majority starts there.

Of course by that date, Ted Kennedy was so sick that he was unable to leave his home to vote. And so technical on July 7th 2009, the Dems had 60 votes, but in reality, we still really only had 59.

Regardless, let's count those days. Ted Kennedy died on August 25th 2009. Which is about 50 days later (depends if you count the day Franken was seated and the day Kennedy died).

So as of August 26th, we're back to 59. And we stayed at 59 through most of September 2009.

Then, Paul Kirk was selected to replace Kennedy, on September 24. He's a Dem, so we're back to 60.

And then, according to Mother Jones ...

"After that the Senate was in session for 11 weeks before taking its winter recess, followed by three weeks until Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in the Massachusetts special election.

So that means Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks."

So there you have it. About 14 weeks, if you count the period in which Kennedy was too sick to vote (drop that period and you end up with about 8 weeks).

And so, if we use 14 weeks and 8 weeks as a range depending on which days we want to include as having an "effective filibuster proof majority", its between 98 days, and 56 days.

If a year is 365, and Obama had 2 years of the "same congress", that would mean that out of 730 total days, his administration "enjoyed" a filibuster proof majority for either ...

1) 98 / 730 = 0.1342 .... or about 13.42% of his first term.

2) 56 / 730 = 0.767 ... or about 7.76% of his first term.

So when ever I hear some one jumping up and down about how Obama squander this awesome filibuster proof majority, I have to wonder if they have any idea what they are talking about.

Oh ... and of course all of these math counts Joe Lieberman as a DEMOCRAT, when he is in fact and INDEPENDENT who endorsed JOHN McCAIN in the general election.

And so if one could actually pick the number you provided .... ZERO, because Lieberman is not a Democrat and he's been very open about that fact. He does caucus with the Dems, but he is far from a reliable vote against any filibuster.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/about-filibuster-proof-majority

[Old and In the Way]

40. Thanks for the details.

I sort of knew there was a small window when they had a technical filibuster-proof majority, but it was, at best, theoretical. As you note, Lieberman and Nelson are not really Democrats and either or both would have sided with Republicans had any meaningful vote been made when it counted. Even if we had a real majority, Harry Reid would not have effectively used it, IMHO. Sad that we have this nice guy running the Senate when the other side are a bunch of shitheads when it comes to doing the right thing for this country.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. 49 days, but they had their "State Work Period" during a part of that

[FrenchieCat]

32. But didn't that super majority count include Lieberman and Ben Nelson?

And if so.....was that a "real" super majority? Cause I think not. :shrug:

[Pab Sungenis]

39. Enough.

There was already a huge backlog of bills from the House that could have been pushed through. They weren't.

No matter what Obama may choose to do, the Blue Dog senators will block it anyhow. We will see nothing different.

[ScarletFyre]

34. Obama only had a filabuster-proof Senate...

If you count Lieberman as a Democrat.

[mdmc]

5. Just like the Big Dog

O's second term is gonna be like woodstock..

[MineralMan]

6. I agree with you, as long as we can elect decent majorities

in both houses of Congress. That's going to be my main issue for 2012. I think President Obama wins re-election easily, given the poverty of choices in the GOP. So, giving him a Congress he can work with seems to be the main task for activists in 2012. I'm hopeful everyone will figure that out and pitch in.

[quaker bill]

41. Tough in the Senate

only 10 R's are up for election, this is the class of 2006, a good year for dems at the polls. If we take all 10 we can get the majority well above 60, where it needs to be.

[MineralMan]

48. Then I suggest we work very, very hard to do exactly that.

In Minnesota, my own state, it's not going to be even close. Our Senator, Amy Klobuchar, will be re-elected easily. There's not even a serious GOP candidate running against her. Now, she's not the most progressive Democrat on the planet, but she votes with the Democratic caucus every time.

I do not know how I can influence senatorial elections in other states. I have no money to donate. It will be up to the Democrats in every state where a Republican incumbent is running to elect a Democrat instead. I hope they do exactly that.

[dajoki]

10. Its a nice thought...

but there are too many "ifs" that must fall into place for that to happen.

[GeorgeGist]

16. I think there's a better chance we'll see more of the same.

I'd put approval of the Keystone Pipeline at the top of his re-election 'to do' list.

[Myrina]

17. Yeah, because waiting 4 years and blowing a SuperMajority was 'part of the plan' ...

WTF?

[quinnox]

20. exactly, Obama already blew a golden opportunity

To think he would go left when his every action has been to go right is wishful thinking.

[EFerrari]

19. There was no need for Obama to go right

because the Republicans were going to obstruct him no matter what.

And no, he will not become progressive after the election. He can't even see progressive from where he lives.

[quinnox]

21. Indeed, and I think he may even go more conservative

if he is re-elected because the congress will most likely be either the same or maybe even more republican than it is now.
In order to get anything done, he will have to go more conservative.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. This time it will be different? The audicity of...maybe?

*NO SALE*

[Obamanaut]

23. Many hoped for that this time. Why wait the four years betting on a reelection? nt

[DrDan]

24. could you share some of what you are smoking?

[Fearless]

26. Politicians don't create change. We do.

This is why we have failed so far.

[Rabblevox]

28. Sorry, no. False optimism. Obama is a Chimera, and the seeds of the Occupy...

movement will not sprout by next year. Electoral politics is not *COMPLETELY* irrelevant, but it's close.

The seeds the Occupation is planting are for long-term revolution. It's not gonna happen this year, maybe not in the next 10, but that's what happens when you plant.

A solid "blue tide" in 2012 will still mean almost nothing in terms of the real-world problems we are facing.

We need to turn the system on it's head, the sooner the better. Obama is nothing more than a mouthpiece and a member of the 1%.

[unblock]

30. i'm big on supporting obama but i'm also a realist: sequels are VERY rarely better than the original

this is certainly the case for second terms of presidents, and unless there's a MAJOR change in congress, we're very likely to have more of the same in the second term. obama's rhetoric may well swing more to the left, but nothing much of significance will be accomplished due to congressional intransigence.

the problem isn't the presidency, it's congress. only a sea change will make congress more responsive to the left. the occupy movement offers a ray of hope, but these things take time to have a real impact. at this point, i would say it's far more reasonable to hope for the election of 2016 to usher in an audible liberal presence in congress. prior to that, i don't see much hope.

[bowens43]

31. I doubt it. Obama is right of center because that's where he lives.

Obama is a conservative, make no mistake about it.

[bighart]

33. My first reaction after reading your subject line was

"there's at least as good a chance we won't."
After reading your entire post and pondering the last 4 years I can't help but think that he has positioned himself so far right in this first term that moving left at all will seem to be "progressive change". That being said, just because he moves closer to the middle than he is now, it doesn't mean it would be "progressive"

[Safetykitten]

35. Uh, no.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Can the OP explain what Obama gained by compromising with

the right? You claim there was a 'need' and things to 'gain' from doing so. What was gained? When did they come on board? Can you specify what you mean? I think the bipartisanship crap was his largest failure and a crashed tactic. You say he gained things and needed to. Show your work, if you will.
I ask this because you are attempting to co-opt OWS for Obama, and I do not think they are out there out of love for reaching across the aisle to my good friend Tom Coburn. Ya know?

[DerekG]

37. It's more like: We'll force the SOB to make change

Obama may be a con artist, but I highly doubt he'll want to see the White House stormed by us proles.

[Autumn]

38. Or not

If he does move "left" he will be one step left of the middle, and that's not progressive. His next term will just maintain the status quo. The only turning point I see in 2012 is in 4 years from there he will be gone.

[Raine]

42. NO, won't happen. nt

[Enrique]

43. you are assuming Obama wants progressive change

I think we need to start looking clearly at Democratic politicians, not projecting our progressive views onto centrist candidates.

[RebelOne]

44. My Rebublican sister, after seeing the clowns debate,

decided she may vote for Obama in 2012.

[DefenseLawyer]

45. I have no reason to believe that whatsoever.

But I would be very happy to be wrong.

[Edweird]

46. Yeah, whatever.

[bluestateguy]

47. You might be right. You might be wrong.

One school of thought would say that your reasoning is sound. Or he will follow the path of previous two term presidents and move more in the direction that is opposite their party's base.

But after a short window in 2013 (if that) his ability to get bills through Congress will be just about zero. And if you think the Senate elections this year are tough, take a look at all of the seats coming up in 2014.

[BlueIris]

49. Oh, we will see change. But not for the better. nt

[Lasher]

50. Your optimism is unjustified.

[LeftyMom]

51. I once knew a man who kept telling me he was sorry for all he'd done wrong and things would change.

They never did, except to get worse. We're divorced now.

Thinking that your abuser is a victim of circumstance, and will finally treat you right when all the stars align is dangerous and wrong.

[coalition_unwilling]

52. Good luck with that hope and change thing - n/t

[girl gone mad]

53. No chance of that.

Obama does what he believes. He's a neoliberal to his core.

[akbacchus_BC]

54. I wish I could support you, but no! He inherited both Congress and House and

fucked up. Guess your glass is half full. He is a major disappointment to me. He should have used his political clout to push through his agenda but no, he wanted fucking bipartisan shit and he still is doing the same old shit. Obama failed a lot of us worldwide!

[JFN1]

55. Krusty is coming...Krusty is coming...Krusty is coming...

I'l believe it when I see it, but in the meantime, I do appreciate your enthusiastically unrealistic optimism! Kudos! :P

[PurityOfEssence]

56. I say it again: all of his greatest achievements are in the future...and always will be

We were sold a man's character, with the triumphal insistance that, despite his corporatist and evasive legislative record he'd be all we hoped for.

I hope you're right, because he's the only game in town.

[Quartermass]

57. I really don't agree with you.

The OWS situation could've been avoided if Obama did one thing:

Bring charges against Wallstreet.

All presidents are owned by the big corporations, and nothing will change.

Obama will not bring any charges against Wallstreet, so I see no change, and I am not hopeful for the future.