If Obama loses

[nobodyspecial]

what do we gain?

[RandySF]

1. A lot of people patting themselves on the back.

Taking comfort in the delusion that no one can win unless a president does everything they want, exactly the way they want it.

[PA Democrat]

20. "A lot" ??? Seriously?????

Holy CRAP. That is quite a statement.

A lot of people are disapoointed that Obama has not fulfilled some of his campaign promises, but I call BS that "a lot" of them will be "patting themselves on the back" or "taking comfort" if Republicans take the White House.

[MjolnirTime]

36. They like to falsely inflate their numbers.

In reality, it's just a handful of blowhards.

[HangOnKids]

56. You are an expert on blowhards it seems n/t

[killbotfactory]

2. The anti-Obama left wins some schadenfreude points

But we all lose.

[Hawkowl]

5. Pivot to capture left leaning independents

Or become irrelevant as a party. Obama virtually single handedly revived the REPUBLICAN Party with his reach across the aisle bullshit, after receiving an overwhelming mandate for change.

Ignore that at your peril.

[roseBudd]

7. an election is not a mandate

FDR had a mandate

Obama did not

[killbotfactory]

18. Disasterous republican economic policy, along with their obstruction

and the embittered left leaning voters who grew disillusioned with the rate of progress revived the republican party, temporarily.

Independents tend to want someone who is competent at their job, Obama offering to work with republicans and watching them try to bite his hand off for doing so, makes the republicans look bad to independent voters.

Ignoring the political reality of our electoral system and the compromises it requires to get anything of worth done accomplishes nothing but misguided indignation against the democrats in office. If the left wants to actually effect policy, they have to do more than whine about how Obama failed to meet their expectations.

[murielm99]

27. Enormous amounts of money that does not have to be accounted for,

nasty, nasty racial and ethnic prejudice and a media more interested in celebrities than actual news revived the repubs.

We the human race are an ignorant bunch, willing to accept easy answers, idolize the rich, and hate anyone who is different. Education may change those tendencies, but where is anyone getting a decent education these days? TPTB want to destroy that, too. Ignorance helps them stay in power.

[MjolnirTime]

38. You aren't going to win. Obama will beat you. Every time.

[Curmudgeoness]

3. It is way too early to start this

sort of speculation. Can't we just focus on making sure that doesn't happen?

[nobodyspecial]

4. I'm just trying to understand

what some of the posters here are thinking. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Dewey Finn]

21. You have to allow for the possibility

that maybe some of them simply aren't thinking.

[HangOnKids]

61. You Sure Have DU Figured Out

After a wolloping 21+ days. Amazing Dewey. Really. Spectacular.

Sorry Dewey my first post had you here for 80 days more then you have.

[Dewey Finn]

73. Guess my secret?

Give up? Nine years here in March. Don't forget to tell the kids, old-timer.

[roseBudd]

6. Nothing good for the 99% & the best chance the 1% will ever have to undo the New Deal

Say Hello Lochner Era Redux

[vi5]

8. We won't gain anything and will lose a lot....

That being said I also don't believe that if he wins we'll gain anything either. He will continue his whole "reach across the aisle" bit and will continue gaining nothing from it other than the accolades of the "centrist" pundits whose approval he so desperately desires.

In short, the best we can hope for is to not have any gains reversed and the only way to do that is for an Obama win.

[tnvoter]

9. a nightmare

let's make sure it doesn't happen!

[customerserviceguy]

10. It depends

If it's a last minute loss, we lose a hell of a lot. However, if polling shows that the President is doing very poorly as we approach Election Day, perhaps some who want "balance" will vote for a Democratic candidate for Senator and/or the House, so as to be a check on a possibly rabid Republicon president.

Let's face it, four more years of gridlock is what we're going to have if the Rethugs keep the House and take the Senate, and Obama wins. And we're still going to need a fresh candidate for president in 2016, anyway. Why not have one who's done the best job of opposing Romney/Santorum/whateverPuke?

[CakeGrrl]

11. Nothing good unless you're the 1%.

[cowcommander]

12. Democrats gain the realization that moving the party to the right is the WRONG direction

[tpsbmam]

15. Nah, they'll blame it on the liberal faction of the Party....

as quite a number of DUers are busy doing already. Damn, I feel like I've entered enemy territory! And all for criticizing a president for the things he's done that almost all of us were having fits about during the hell years of Bush.

[Charlemagne]

55. It was Nader's fault

The people who voted for him caused it. They should have just sold out and voted for Gore. (sarcasm)

That argument is tired and old. But yes, Democrats will blame the liberal faction of the party.

[nobodyspecial]

19. Who are these Democrats?

Is there a chance they may not be as liberal as you?

[joshcryer]

58. That's what was said when we sat home in 2010.

It was wrong.

[Telly Savalas]

64. When has the defeat of a Democratic candidate ever led to that happening?

Why would it be different this time?

[SixthSense]

13. an historic opportunity

We gave Obama strong majorities in both houses of Congress and what they produced was health care fascism.

If he wins we are stuck for four more years trying to spin right-wing corporatocracy as somehow being progressive.

If he loses we can clean house with clean conscience. And this time fight to make sure that the people in leadership are not beholden to the 1%.

[nobodyspecial]

17. Please map this out more clearly for me

How do we clean house? The GOP will have hit the trifecta again. Who are these people not beholden to the 1%? What is your strategy for getting them in office?

[SixthSense]

26. Here's the strategy

anyone who gets large amounts of money from any financial company, lobbying group, or megacorp (read: offshoring your jobs and factories) should have the Scarlet Letter

Not only should no one vote for such a person, but no one should associate with them either - no returning their phone calls, no doing business with them, not even to sell them food. If they're willing to fuck the rest of us - and acceptance of donations from such companies proves they are - then they should get absolutely no cooperation in anything they do, public or private. They should be treated as outlaws and not permitted to associate with decent people. We can set up a poli-leper colony for them where they can live out the rest of their lives fucking each other over, leaving the rest of us alone.

The 2009-2011 session proved that it doesn't matter at all how many Democrats we elect. It only matters how many honest Democrats we elect.

The illusion of Democratic control over the Senate and Presidency is just that - an illusion. None of what they do is Democratic in character - it is by-the-book fascist.

The solution is simple: no more fascists. Ye shall know them by their votes on NDAA.

[Telly Savalas]

65. OK, so we've made clear who need need to vote against.

So who do we vote for? Until we have names on the ballot, hypotheticals are pointless.

[mazzarro]

28. Cleaning the democratic party house will be my wish, but ...

I have my strong doubt that it will happen. Instead, you will see a torrent of blames being heaped on the left wing of the party as the ones responsible for the debacle that will ensure - thus absolving the DLC/Third Way corporatists of any blame. And a more emboldened DLC/Third Way faction will move to garner more/total control of the party and close down most of red state democratic party by filling them with rethug-lite democrats - blue-dog DINOs.

So please, if I am wrong, do show me how we clean house and reclaim the party. The Obama administration has not engendered much love on my part with its capitulations and constant shifts to the right of the political spectrum until lately.

[SixthSense]

48. Here's the first step

Go district by district in the House. Any Democrat in a reasonably safe district who is not 100% on our side, dump them now in favor of a peoples' candidate. Any Republican holding a seat in a Democratic district should be publicly and relentlessly exposed as a fascist and replaced with a peoples' Democrat if at all possible. (I hate that I have to qualify using the word "peoples'" but the distinction is important.) In swing districts, always work to dump the incumbent (regardless of party) in favor of a peoples' candidate, unless they are already proven to be allies. In GOP districts, go for the throat, relentlessly expose the connection between the rep and the economic damage people are experiencing - in the US of A, pocketbook issues are what matters, always - and these days more than ever!

In parallel, we need to take over the DNC and other campaign organizations for real. I don't know the policies and procedures there but I'd wager there is some way to push out the crooks and put decent people in, in their stead. If we cannot get control of these organizations, cut off all funds to them and set up new organizations to elect Democrats that we control.

It's important not to get wedded to particular people. The moment anyone accepts a donation from the corporatocracy, they should be gone, finished, kaput, and it shouldn't matter how good they were previously - only a zero tolerance policy for corporatists and corporatism will keep our coalition free from fascism. In our political system, particular people shouldn't be important - that there are people who are individually important goes to show that we're not really a democracy any more but a masqued aristocracy.

No more making excuses for those who betray us for political expedience. A few aggressive recall elections as well as the willingness to dump treasonous incumbents will serve to show we are serious.

This would be together as "Step 1" - consolidate and maximize our political strength so that we can effectively lever it to produce actual policy results. Just look at what the teabaggers did... they didn't elect more than a couple dozen reps, and it was enough to produce a major shift in policy. It worked - let's duplicate and improve on it. Playing the political game as-is hasn't worked, year after year after year after year no matter who we elect things progress in the wrong direction.

These are just off-the-cuff suggestions, I'm sure someone can improve this strategy and I hope someone will more skills in politics than I picks up the idea and runs with it.

[Zoeisright]

44. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Wow. Just wow.

[TNProfessor]

46. Good luck with that nt

[JackRiddler]

14. Those most responsible for it will have the consolation of scapegoating "the left."

Same story in 1980, 1984, 1988, of course 2000, and 2004. The punditry will claim Obama was too far to the left for America after all, regardless of how far to the right he goes. Along with the DLC-type factions, here on DU a certain set who have declared themselves as the most committed to Obama's reelection -- although their policy ideas and style of rhetoric don't help his prospects -- have already established that they will be blaming leftists within and without the Democratic party for wanting too many ponies and being too mean to Obama.

[FarLeftFist]

16. Anarcho-Capitalism.

[girl gone mad]

66. Little different from our current system of corporate communism and oligarchical collectivism..

combined with 'survival of the fittest' anarcho-capitalism for the masses.

The current slogan of our .01%: "Socialism for me but not for thee"

[Old and In the Way]

22. It'll be 2000 all over again!

We can restart the cycle of picking up the pieces in 8 years. Then we'll get to do it all over again.

[nobodyspecial]

23. I'm truly afraid that there will be very little to pick up

I'm envisioning a return to the early 1900s.

[mmonk]

24. More of the party needs to move right thingy.

We get that win or lose.

[leeroysphitz]

25. We don't "gain" anything. We get Mitt and nobody will notice the slightest difference.

So it's more of a lateral shift than an up or down kind of thing.

[Old and In the Way]

30. Right, I almost forgot the key point here.

"There's not a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans."

Bush = Gore. Romney = Obama.

[leeroysphitz]

32. Well, I could be wrong. We'll find out more at the debates.

If they can find anything to debate about...

[whatchamacallit]

33. Sounds about right

I'm of the opinion the corporatocracy has mastered the art of covering all the bases.

[Union Scribe]

40. It seems the only difference is the speed

at which all us nobodies are sacrificed to the haves. Fast or medium, those are our choices.

[Charlemagne]

62. thats what I was thinking

The talking points will be different. Policy wise, not sure of any monumental differences.

[Karmadillo]

29. We'll finally be able to move the party to the right instead of letting the liberals blackmail

us into lefty compromise after lefty compromise.

[monmouth]

31. Say what????

[Fumesucker]

37. +1

[Pab Sungenis]

34. That depends on the lesson we take away from the loss.

If we look at the fact that he lost because he alienated his base and "compromised" away all his core principles, then MAYBE we get a real Democrat as our 2016 nominee.

If people swallow the lie that Obama lost because he was "too liberal" and force a DNC-style Blue Dog on us in 2016, then we lose everything because the "center" will shift even further right.

And if he wins? It will mean just a slower march to the right unless we get a REAL Democratic successor for him four years later.

[bhikkhu]

70. What lesson was learned from the ass-kicking of 2010?

...I'm guessing if we get beat down again in 2012, we'll just learn that lesson again. (wash, rinse, repeat - you know)

[LeftishBrit]

35. Nothing

With the exception of a few very rich people, and a few ideological nutcases, nobody will gain anything.

And the entire world loses.

[Motown_Johnny]

39. Well we should gain a war or two, starting with Iran

Then we can gain some new conservative supreme court justices.


We should also gain a huge increase in military spending and some increased subsidies to big oil.


Oh, and a social security system run by for profit companies.


I'm sure we will gain more than just this but I need to go throw up now.

[stevenleser]

43. But lets concentrate on bashing Obama because that seems more important to some?

And anything we point out is fodder for them to ridicule. They already have a bingo game so maybe now they can make a monopoly board?

[Motown_Johnny]

47. I saw their bingo card, the problem is that they have 3 million playing

on that one card

[joshcryer]

59. Yes, we will very likelt attack Iran.

Possibly even Venezuela if they have a coup there as Chavez loses the Presidency.

[Jon Ace]

41. Depends on who he loses to.

Best case scenario is Romney, with his flip-flop past, he might actually screw over the GOP.

Wishful thinking.

[Zoeisright]

42. The end of the country.

Bush and Cheney almost ruined it, but not quite. Another repuke in the White House would be the end.

[Bonobo]

53. You must be very young. nt

[ProSense]

45. One

of these people: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002103936

[dennis4868]

49. we do the same thing...

we did after Liberals turned on Carter and Reagan won...watch conservative RW policies go into effect for the next 30 years...but hey, we got Obama out of there

[lillypaddle]

50. bunch of smug DUers

It's called "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face." You know who you are ...

[joshcryer]

60. Yep, same people who celebrated blue dog defeats (while ignoring progressive defeats)...

...in 2010.

[southernyankeebelle]

51. We gain nothing. Maybe we all will work together to help each other because if the republicans

have their way they will take everything that means anything to the working people away.

[Pholus]

52. I'd be more impressed if you guys could articulate what exactly we will gain if he wins.

Over and over again I see this theme that "the alternative is worse." Look guys, I ain't no marketing genius but the lesser of the two evils jingle isn't going to win this one. Try to be more positive for the sake of the team, m'kay?

That being said, the President Obama who just made the house Republicans cave in under a week has me pretty enthused right now -- THAT is the guy I thought I was voting for.

[stevenleser]

54. If I could tell the future, I wouldnt be here posting about what Obama might do.

That being said. SCOTUS justices for a start and appointments to the federal bench who arent bigots against the LGBT community and women to round out the appetizer?

A second shot at comprehensive immigration legislation.

Instead of Health Care reform being repealed, we get improvements made. IIRC Obama has said he intends to help states that want to opt out and go for single payer.

A shot for a President who has already indicated he doesnt like DOMA and wants to at least poke holes in it instead of a President who would try to strengthen it.

Thats just off the top of my head without research

[Pholus]

69. All very good reasons. Much better than "the alternative is worse!"

That's the kind of message that we need more of!

[stevenleser]

72. There is another reason. We are going to lose the senate for the forseeable future. If we also lose

the Presidency, the Republicans will have a no-obstructions superhighway through which to push regressive legislation. See:

http://www.demconwatchblog.com/diary/4989/2012-dcw-senate-forecast

The above link lays it out. We are screwed for the forseeable future as far as the senate is concerned. After 2012, it will be at least 2022 before we have a realistic shot at regaining the senate.

[nobodyspecial]

63. Didn't realize I was "you guys"

I'm actually very liberal. I treasured hearing Bernie Sanders speak in person and voted for Kucinich in a primary in my state when little was at stake.

I was seeing a lot of posts criticizing Obama today and it's been a trend. I'm sincerely curious by what others think can be gained by him losing. Hell, if someone could make a convincing enough argument, I might be persuaded. I just haven't seen it yet. This nebulous let's destroy things so we can start over just doesn't cut it for me.

[Pholus]

68. Nothing is gained by the President losing this election.

But for the longest time by his actions it kind of seemed like he didn't want to win the election either. That's apparently changed and so I am actually pretty happy right now.

But seriously, "the alternative is too horrible to comprehend" doesn't cut it for me so I guess it is a case of YMMV.

[bhikkhu]

71. I'd like to see the end of the war in Afghanistan

Full withdrawal scheduled by 2014, currently. I'd trust Obama to keep his word on that, based on his record on that sort of thing, while a republican president wouldn't be bound at all. Its still a good testing ground/springboard there, if one is so inclined.

I still cling to the idea that Obama could bring the "war on terror" to a formal close - as in retiring the AUMF. Maybe not a complete close, but international events have conspired to make Al-qaeda and jihad against the west much less interesting...again, that would be a great thing, but I can't imagine a repug who wouldn't come in and stir the pot the other direction, given the chance.

[Xicano]

57. ¡Ya Basta!

[quickesst]

67. Easy....

nothing... but we lose everything. People, use your brain. Thanks.
quickesst