The Water Cooler
See other The Water Cooler Articles
Title: Obama's a Lock in 2012
Source:
DailyBeast
URL Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs- ... =NgjnPL&om_mid=_BMrbayB8VGxJxi
Published: Oct 7, 2010
Author: Peter Beinart Info
Post Date: 2010-10-07 19:32:13 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 16937
Comments: 33
Sure, things look grim for the Dems this fall. But the base will rally, the economy will turn up, and the GOP will shoot itself in the foot—ensuring the president a second term. Arnold Schwarzenegger made headlines this week by declaring that “Obama will get a second term in office,” especially if Republicans win the House. You’ve got to hand it to the grand Teuton. Even when he says something blindingly obvious, he makes news. Of course Barack Obama is likely to be reelected. For starters, American presidents usually get reelected. In the last 75 years, incumbents have lost a grand total of three times: in 1976, 1980, and 1992. And what did Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush all have in common? They had serious primary challenges within their own party (from Ronald Reagan, Ted Kennedy, and Pat Buchanan, respectively). The last president who lost reelection without a major primary challenge was Herbert Hoover in 1932. A president who isn’t challenged in his own party can usually count on a decent turnout from his party’s base. (If party activists aren’t alienated enough to throw up a primary challenger in the spring, you can usually drag them to the polls in the fall.) A president without a primary challenger also has the space to move to the center to neutralize political weaknesses: That’s what Reagan did in 1984, when he toned down the Cold War rhetoric that was frightening moderates; it’s what Bill Clinton did when he signed welfare reform in 1996; and it’s what George W. Bush did when he signed a prescription-drug bill in 2004. I doubt Obama will move as sharply to the center over the next two years as did Clinton, but he can do so to neutralize key weaknesses if he wants, because there is zero prospect that he’ll be seriously challenged in the primaries. No challenger would have any chance of stealing the black vote, of course, and even among white lefties, for all their grumbling, Obama has no national rival. In 1996, Clinton was petrified about a primary challenge from Jesse Jackson. But there’s only one Democratic pol who could keep Obama up at night, and she’s safely tucked away at the State Department. The second reason Obama will likely win reelection is, oddly, the economy. Historically, when voters evaluate a president for reelection, they judge the economy not against some abstract standard but against the economy he inherited. That’s why Franklin Roosevelt could win 48 states in 1936 with the U.S. still mired in depression, and Ronald Reagan could win 49 in 1984, even though unemployment on Election Day was still 7.5 percent. Obama doesn’t need the economy to be booming in 2012 to win reelection, he just needs voters to feel that it is better than it was when he took office and heading in the right direction. If that’s the case, and most economists seem to think it will be, Republicans won’t get very far by harping on the deficit. In 1984, you may remember, a presidential candidate told voters to ignore the nation’s nascent economic recovery and focus instead of the country’s swelling debt. His name was Walter Mondale. Finally, Obama’s third big advantage is his opposition: the GOP. The party has had great success in mobilizing older white conservatives, who weren’t particularly fond of Obama in the first place, and in a midterm like this one, in which younger and minority voters don’t turn out, their rage will loom large. But this very short-term success is preventing the GOP from grappling with its deeper problems attracting the Hispanic and “Millennial” generation voters who tilted heavily to the Democrats in 2008 and will comprise an even larger share of the electorate in 2012. As Schwarzenegger suggests, a GOP victory this fall will likely exacerbate the problem. With the Tea Party shaping the congressional GOP, the party’s immigration views will further alienate Hispanics. The Tea Partiers will also put pressure on the party to attack popular government spending, as the Gingrich Republicans did after 1994. It’s worth remembering how Bill Clinton clobbered Bob Dole in 1996: He tied him to Gingrich’s assault on spending on education and health care. Obama could do something similar in 2012, proving that while Americans hate government in theory, in practice they demand it, especially in bad economic times. It’s hard to recognize it now, with the economy in the tank and Democrats running for cover, but take a step back and you can see that we’re still probably in the early stages of an era of Democratic dominance. It’s going to be a while before another Republican wins the White House, and when they do, I bet they have less in common with Sarah Palin than with Arnold himself.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
There is one thing though. Lets just face it. Obama is black and he has lost the white vote. Can he get it back? I doubt it.
It's more than one thing for his upcoming loss. He will lose in 2012. No one will dispute that here.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yeah there are a lot of reasons to vote him out. But the racial thing has never been a factor for reelection. Now many whites will not vote for him again. They blacks wont vote for the white nominee either.
Obama will win in 2012 by a wide margin. I also see him as doing the role switch with Clinton and Biden, with Hillary running and winning in 2016.
Hillary said she is not replacing Joe Biden.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pretty much the way I see it. A GOP takeover of congress gives him cover if the economy weakens however he can claim credit should it improve.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
Mike you blow with the wind on your opinion sometimes. Obama probably wont win reelection but he might. If he does it will not be by a wide margin. It will be close. The greatest president of the 20th century Ronald Reagan won by a large margin. Mike he won 49 states. No democrat will ever do that.
Wrong. Here is how it will play out.
Saw that. She says that now, what will she say during the primary season? I also predict Ted Kennedy's seat will return to Demo hands in 2012, and predict Obama and Democrats will vastly improve their standing with the rank and file voter including the all important independent voters - a group I belong to as a Pacific Green Party member.
Reagan was a jerk who never should of been POTUS. I have always loathed him to the extreme, and that you can count on never changing. President Obama is a far better president then Ronald Reagan was, and this will become even more obvious as the years go on. Whereas with Reagan he diminished to a whimper at the end of his run. Reagan build the size of government far more then anyone before him, had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR, and was a friend of corporations and the military industrial complex, not the rank and file Americans who cast their votes for POTUS and VPOTUS.
Reagan won 49 states. No liberal will EVER do that. Liberals such as yourself are jealous of Reagan. He is loved Obama is hated. That is a fact.
Was Franklin D. Roosevelt, hands down. If Reagan had handled the Great Depression and WW II we would all be speaking German and Japanese, and never had an economic boom in the late 1940s,50s, and 60s.
And called for protesting students and faculty in California to be shot by police and national Guardsmen until saner staffers quickly exercised their well practiced role as handler of this doofus and had him do a 180 degree change of opinion on this. His intellect was thin, and he was an extremely shallow and mean spirited man.
Franklin Roosevelt was the worse. He illegally closed banks. Stole the gold. Prolonged the depression. Spit and pissed on the constitution. He was a usurper. Where is his grave I might go shit and piss on it?
Nixon did almost as well against better qualified George Stanley McGovern in 1972, and had to resign a year later in disgrace for the Watergate crimes that had caused the House to vote for an Impeachment trial to take place in the U.S. Senate. Big deal. The Supreme Court also stole the election from Al Gore and crowned the Smirk and Snarl show as biggest latest clown act to be put in business since Raygun and GHW Bush had mismanaged and bugled the job of POTUS in the 1980s and very early 1990s.
America loved and loves Reagan. That is why he won 49 states. Obama is a hated baby killer usurping president.
Mike. Most of Americans aren't liberals. You're in the minority.
Obama is no Bill Clinton. He is not going to learn from his mistakes and change direction. He will be a one term loser like Carter.
The banks he closed to reorganize needed to be closed to get on a sound footing, he ended the Great Depression, and the prosperity we enjoyed due to him was largely due to a redistribution of wealth back to the little guy and it lasted decades until the rich managed to steal much of it back. He was an inspired leader, and I wish he had gotten William O. Douglas to be his VP instead of Truman as the party hacks made him settle on in 1948. Douglas would of made a far better president then Truman did.
Stone, stop telling me what I am with a one word label. And stop insulting Americans by inferring most of them are too dumb to be anything but Conserva Nutzies.
He did it without congressional authorization. Then he amended the trading with the enemy act to include Americans. So he in essence delcared Americans Enemies of the State. He did that to steal the gold then once the gold was unlawfully taken he doubled the price of the gold. He was an asshole.
Mike. You are in the minority.
FDR had unprecedented support for much he did from Congress, and he did what people wanted and needed; was a strong and decisive leader who restored the economic vibrancy of this nation and healed it's spirit. He was a great man who also was largely responsible for our great success in winning WW II so decisively. He won the presidency four times. Four times Stone. I think that means the American People thought of him more in the way I do for a long time. He was one of out greatest leaders of all time.
Not as I see it. The Supremes have put mega bucks back into the driver's seat with is the ONLY reason some Repugs and Tea Fleas are doing well at all. We all are in the minority now to picking winners in elections; in the back seat to the big bucks of the rich and big business.
He was an ego maniac. He should have stepped down. Why do you call a usurper who ignored the constitution a great President? He prolonged the depression. People back then didn't have access to the info we had. FDR is a gold thief and destroyer of the constitution.
Mike don't kid yourself. It is opposition to Obama and love of country. Obama hates America and wants to tear it down and build it back up in the image of Venezuela.
He was a great leader. He fought a horrible disease that crippled him and worked for the common good when he could of sat back and led a life of comfort and opulent ease. You talk about me bing in the minority, well buddy; when it comes to how people feel about FDR, you are great with the crackpot opine on him; but are in the extreme minority when it comes to who agrees with you about FDR. He will always be considered one of the great too; that won't ever change.
Dude, you can't even get his religion or place of birth right. Start doing that, and I'll take you more seriously. The above quote by you is bizarre and very wrong if you want the mild and understated version of my opinion of it.
Where shall we start? Here is just a brief overview... Foreign policy: FDR: Was well aware of the threat in Europe and Japan, but chose to put his head in the sand until thousands of American lives were lost in Pearl Harbor. (This is not to say, to his credit, that he didn't EVENTUALLY do the right thing.) Reagan: Was well aware of the threat that communism within USSR and Eastern Europe posed to the world and chose to stand up, often alone, and call evil for what it is--evil. He won the Cold War, preemptively I might add, via a "peace through strength" ideology, and thus, no nukes needed to be dropped on anyone. Domestic Policy: FDR: Tried to emulate socialism through big-government programs and wealth redistribution with his New Deal promises. His tax hikes, aimed to help support his socialistic programs, prolonged the Great Depression rather than alleviate it. FDR erroneously THOUGHT the answer to the problem was bigger government. Reagan: Created tremendous economic growth through middle-class tax cuts and ownership incentives and almost immediately withdrew our nation from the Jimmy-Carter-induced economic disaster. Reagan KNEW the answer to the problem was less government intrusion. Ideology: FDR: A "New Deal" welfare state where people cannot survive without government programs and we are hopeless without them. Reagan: A promise of hope and that we can be self-reliant. "Whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears; to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with Liberty's lamp guiding your steps and Opportunity's arm steadying your way." --President Ronald Reagan Source(s): Briefly: COMMON SENSE and... http://www.districtadministration.com/pu… http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/a… But I could go on....
Except FDR supplied material and capital to keep England from falling and faced a strong isolationist movement that wanted to keeps out of the new war. He also had to deal with a strong Nazi Bund movement the Bush family was involved with. He was wise to wait until Pearl Harbor united us decisively against the the Germans and Japanese. I don't have time right now to go into an unexpected slugfest to debunk your talking points. But if I have time before work tomorrow morning, I'll do that. I'm suppost to go meet someone in the EntropiaUniverse.com game right now.
That sounds nice, but the reality is that Reagan expanded the size of government, signed the biggest tax hikes ever into law, bailed out social security, expanded tax credits for the working poor, and gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. And he added another cabinet department.
He was wise to wait until Pearl Harbor united us decisively against the the Germans and Japanese. he didn't have a choice, there was little support for entering the war until Pearl Harbor.
it all depends on who he runs against. If it's Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Palin or Gingrich, Obama is a lock. Thune, Daniels might make things more interesting.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#3. To: WhiteSands (#2)
#4. To: Brian S (#0)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#5. To: Ferret Mike (#4)
Obama will win in 2012 by a wide margin. I also see him as doing the role switch with Clinton and Biden, with Hillary running and winning in 2016.
Liberals are now pro nuclear proliferation and support fundamentalist religion.
#6. To: Ferret Mike (#4)
Obama will win in 2012 by a wide margin. I also see him as doing the role switch with Clinton and Biden, with Hillary running and winning in 2016.
#7. To: Ferret Mike (#4)
#8. To: Ferret Mike (#4)
#9. To: WhiteSands (#5)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#10. To: A K A Stone (#7)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#11. To: Ferret Mike (#10)
#12. To: A K A Stone (#7)
"The greatest president of the 20th century..."
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#13. To: A K A Stone (#11)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#14. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#11)
"Reagan won 49 states. No liberal will EVER do that. Liberals such as yourself are jealous of Reagan."
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#16. To: Ferret Mike (#13)
#17. To: Ferret Mike (#15)
#18. To: Brian S (#0)
Rule of law: B students wind up working for C students. A students teach.
#19. To: A K A Stone (#14)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#20. To: A K A Stone (#17)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#21. To: Ferret Mike (#19)
The banks he closed to reorganize needed to be closed to get on a sound footing
#22. To: Ferret Mike (#20)
#23. To: A K A Stone (#21)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#22)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#25. To: Ferret Mike (#23)
#26. To: Ferret Mike (#24)
ONLY reason some Repugs and Tea Fleas are doing well
#27. To: A K A Stone (#25)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#26)
"Obama hates America and wants to tear it down and build it back up in the image of Venezuela."
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#29. To: Ferret Mike (#27)
#30. To: A K A Stone (#29)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#29)
Reagan: Created tremendous economic growth through middle-class tax cuts and ownership incentives and almost immediately withdrew our nation from the Jimmy-Carter-induced economic disaster. Reagan KNEW the answer to the problem was less government intrusion.
Reality check - Obama is more popular than the tea party
#32. To: Ferret Mike, A K A Stone (#30)
Except FDR supplied material and capital to keep England from falling and faced a strong isolationist movement that wanted to keeps out of the new war. He also had to deal with a strong Nazi Bund movement the Bush family was involved with.
Reality check - Obama is more popular than the tea party
#33. To: A K A Stone (#1)
There is one thing though. Lets just face it. Obama is black and he has lost the white vote. Can he get it back? I doubt it.
Reality check - Obama is more popular than the tea party
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]