We are going to get “Trashed in 2012 Elections”

[FreakinDJ]

Ok – there I said it. But before you go lambasting me, posting “I’m bookmarking so I can laugh at you in November” – Well, I was 100% correct when you were all uttering in disbelief and bookmarking my post in 2010 – and look where that got ya.

The only real bump Obama has seen is when he started iterating some of the language of the 99% / Occupy movement. Other then that he has been flat or slightly behind Republican candidates even with them being “Looney Tunes” and all.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

But these are people living day to day having to deal with the harsh realities of our corporate controlled recession. They are honestly acting out of “Gut Reactions” to what is the reality of their day to day existence.

They understand the SEC has mutated into some sort of “New York Mafia like Protection Racket” accepting “No Fault” fines from Banksters and then promptly destroying all the evidence as to hinder if not deter any meaningful State Prosecutions.

They understand ALL elected officials in Washington (Democrat and Republican alike) have thoroughly been corrupted by the Corporate Elite. Meaningful change just isn’t going to happen at the hands current system – and they know that. They have been waiting and hoping for relief for years and all they have gotten is lip service while their futures and the futures of their children deteriorate even more. What, the Dems are going to promise to “Fix Social Security” – ya we’ve seen how they have been putting the fix in on that one.

Plain and Simple – Ya got Nothin

You have nothing to offer the Working Class citizen except more of the same and that just isn’t going to get it any more.
You can forget about the youth vote - They have been completely disenfranchised by the current Corporate Regime and politics as usual in Washington.

Now before all the politicos get on my case reiterating “Hold the Line, Hold the Line” first try some thing really refreshing, admit to your Boss (the powers that be) “Its an uphill battle and our chances are ify at best” – “Your best bet is to actually do your job and represent the best interest of the people who elected you and not the corporations who donate to you” Any way – its about time the corporations took one on the chin. Gawd knows all the Working class Americans have been taking it in the shorts for years.

[banned from Kos]

1. Well, at least you are not endorsing Ron Paul.

Right?

[think]

3. Or calling liberals #@$%ing retards......

[FreakinDJ]

4. Been at DU a lot longer then you will be

and fighting for Democratic / Progressive governance at lot longer to

Doesn't mean I'm going to stick my head in the sand and sell out my principals

[think]

9. Was referring to Rahm's calling liberals fucking retarded in defense of your reasoning.

sorry if it didn't come across that way.....

[CakeGrrl]

11. Which is NOT what he said or in that context,

but carry on propagating the misinformation to keep the anger running high.

[think]

20. Sorry for taking it out of context. He called liberal's plans to take on dinos f-ing retarded

[BlueCaliDem]

26. And he was proved right.

Or have you forgotten November 2010 when liberals whined and stayed home, and the TBaggers came out, en masse, and swept the House, state governor houses and state legislatures?

But, at least they held on to their principles. Thing is, the Leftists are worse4 than TBaggers. At least the TBaggers don't abandon the party they have the most in common with and get the power while the Left is left whining and wailing that we're not making progress.

[think]

42. Rahm said it in reference to liberals taking on Dinos on healthcare reform which Dinos apposed.

I don't consider calling out corporate health care shills like Max Baucus unhealthy:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/07/23/52433/max-baucus-health-contributions/

Either Baucus needs to clean up his act and distance himself from the health care lobby or Democrats need to find a better politician to take his place.

As for the mid terms I don't recall any liberals calling for a boycott of the 2010 elections but you may know otherwise. If some did then in that context I would agree with Rahm's sentiment that it was a terrible plan but probably not with his choice of words for supporters.

[That Guy 888]

43. Rahm was wrong

Did the "blue dogs" ever back the President when he needed it? I seem to remember our majority in the Senate existing solely on the whim of the "blue dogs" who gave us all the finger and sided with the 'pukes too often.

As far as "Leftists", which ones do you mean, the ones who lose us the election, or the ones who are a tiny unimportant minority in the party? I hear both (on this site, not your post), but can't wrap my brain around the cognitive dissonance.

[phiddle]

50. Factually incorrect

The liberals turned out in 2010 in about the same proportion of the electorate as 2008. The Republican base rebounded from a low turnout in 2008 (were energized by the tea party nonsense) to vote in high numbers. The big difference was that the great middle, confused by all the craziness on the right and being offered only very tepid policies by the Obamacrats, stayed home in high numbers. More Republicans, and less middle, not absent liberals was the recipe for the 2010 disaster.
Short version, Rahm was wrong

[A Simple Game]

61. "Leftists are worse than TBaggers." Do you know this is a liberal forum?

It gets pretty tiresome when the people that don't deserve your vote blame you for not voting for them. Kind of like blaming the wife when the husband beats her, isn't it?

Some people need to wake up and smell the coffee! I thought only Republicans felt their candidates automatically deserved their vote, now apparently anyone with a D after their name should also get the automatic vote also. Not from me, they have to earn my vote.

[BlueCaliDem]

68. Elections aren't about you and your pride.

It's about the country as a whole. The world doesn't revolve around you or I. Never heard united we stand, divided we fall? At least the TBaggers have the wherewithal to understand that basic concept and that's why they keep putting their loons in positions of power while the Left kvetches and depress themselves.

Look at TBagger Queen O'Donnell. She's supporting Romney for chrissakes! He goes against everything she was supposed to stand for, but she knows he can stand toe to toe against Obama, and he has the best chance to win. And that's what this is all about: winning.

[A Simple Game]

83. You seem to have a strange admiration for the Tea Party that I won't go into.

Do you really know why the Tea party stands behind their candidates? Because their candidates try to give them what they want!

So the Tea party is behind Romney, that's news to most of the nation.

I know it means I lose for bringing this up, but, the German people were united behind Hitler. That worked out real well, didn't it. Understand this, a politician must earn your vote, it should not be automatic. As soon as they know your vote is automatic, many will start to take you for granted.

[yardwork]

65. Wrong. Leftists voted Democratic in 2010. It was centrists who stayed home or voted Republican.

You are spewing right-wing talking points. AND you are defending teabaggers and saying that they are better than Democrats (leftists).

[BlueCaliDem]

69. If Leftists had really voted Democratic

in 2010 the centrists wouldn't have stood a chance and we'd have more Democrats - no Blue Dogs - and a stronger Senate. Even Maddow admits that.

But the Leftists were just as misinformed and pissed off about the HCR as those in the middle and right and that's why we have a House full of TeaBaggers now.

If you think I'm defending TeaBaggers, you really need to reread my post.

[yardwork]

85. This is not true. You are wrong.

Leftists - including me - turned out in our regular numbers and voted Democratic in 2010. It was the centrists and independents who swung right. Check your facts.

[mmonk]

66. Yes, we are shit and have been told as much.

But who lost the most members? The Blue Dogs.

[eridani]

73. The statement that "liberals stayed home" is dim and silly and stupid and wrong

The people who stayed home were the unattached infrequent voters who saw no point, given that their lives still sucked. I went through a lot of trouble to get some of these folks registered and voting again in 2008. One woman had not voted since 1992. What does that year tell you? Obviously, back then she thought that putting a Democrat in would help people in her lower income bracket. What she got was NAFTA and welfare "reform." She didn't bother again until so many got caught up in "hope and change" thing. She got business for the 1% as usual.

Also, young people stayed home. I know several people who were too young to vote in 2008 and still worked their asses off for Obama. Two didn't even bother to register to vote when they turned 18.

Anyone who thinks that the above people are in any way liberal issue junkies is delusional.

[LiberalAndProud]

80. Do you really hold the "Leftists" entirely responsible for the 2010 losses?

Would you consider that even if Rahm was proved right, (which is in some dispute) he was also proved stupid? He alienated the very people he needed to inspire and persuade. It was a fucking idiotic thing to say, to borrow his vulgar language. (He must take his lessons in charisma from DU ) He utterly failed to reignite any excitement by voicing his contempt for the Left. Many of the "Leftists" cast their first presidential vote for Obama. Perhaps recognition and a modicum of gratitude might have been a more diplomatic approach.

I think accusing Leftists of whining and wailing isn't likely to bring them to the polls in droves in 2012 either. What do you think?


On edit: Wow, I didn't realize how many had replied before me. You really struck a nerve.

[BlueCaliDem]

86. Yes, I really did strike a nerve, and that's a good thing

I hope it'll make people think, and knowing Leftists and how intelligent they are, I know they'll at least think about the ramifications of supporting idiot snake-oil salesmen like Ron Paul or not voting at all.

Having one's pride, ethics, and morals intact by doing either of the above (NO progressive should even consider voting for the most conservative Republican in Congress since 1937 - no matter how sweet his rhetoric sounds in one's ear) is a poor substitute for higher unemployment, the destruction of our social safety net, and the furthering of fascism in this country, because that's what the Republicans want and it's what they'll get if they win back power.

[FreakinDJ]

16. Sorry about that

No denying a lot of the Politicos don't really care if they win or lose - just that they collect lots of money for running

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. Thank you for speaking up so eloquently and forcefully.

[BlueCaliDem]

35. Has he answered you yet?

[JackRiddler]

44. Because all matters in life are subject to strict, cartoonish dichotomies.

Right?

And at least you are not endorsing continued bankster impunity and tyranny?

Right?

[quinnox]

2. While I think there is a lot of wishful thinking going on

When I see things like "None of the republicans have a chance" or "Obama will win easy", because Obama does indeed look very weak when you look at his numbers, the trends, and the continuing economic problems like unemployment, that he will be held accountable for.

My feeling is Obama may indeed lose the presidency, but the people will give the Congress back to the Democrats as a kind of consolation prize. Which would not be nearly as bad as your OP is predicting. I don't see the elections being a total apocalypse in favor of the republicans.

[yardwork]

23. I think that the opposite could happen. I feel that Obama will be reelected, but

I'm worried about Congress. The Republicans took power in a census year and got to gerrymander a lot of states' districts (like mine). It's going to be difficult to get the House back and I'm worried about losing the Senate.

We need heavy turnout among Democrats on election day.

[quinnox]

28. alright, good

We have the exact opposite prediction, lol. Let's wait and see what happens.

[LiberalAndProud]

81. What path do you see for taking back congress?

I ask because I was trying to puzzle it out for myself earlier. I just don't have a grasp for any of the nuances, except that our side has more incumbents retiring.

Taking the House back would be thrilling, but I don't see how that doesn't translate to Obama's reelection.

[rustydog]

5. In order to lose the presidency, Obama needs to face a formidible opponent

Ron Paul? Really? he has tried his snake-oil charms three times...It does not sell.

Man on Dog Santorum? Are you fucking kidding me? Now he is talking tough saying he'll nuke another nation with brown people.Man on Dog is like the general in Mars Attacks calling his wife to tell her he gets to rpresent the president meeting the martians: paraphrasing the line: "I told you honey, if you lay low and don't create waves, good things can happen!" That is Man on Dog. He is a Christian Conservative who bragged about nuking Iranians.


Newtered Gingrich? Breakfast, lunch and dinnner at fucking Tiffany's Gingrich? You need to up the prescription dosage pal. Break out the jam because Newtered is toast.

Michelle Bachmannnnnnnnn? really? Really?

Willard Romney? He tied his fucking dog to the roof of his car on a family trip (probably too fucking cheap to board him in a kennel) and then claimed to "love that dog".
The man who beats his wife "loves his wife."
How many tens of thousands of jobs did he ship off to foreign lands in order to shove more money into still-empty orifices? He runs on being successful...This off-shipping of OUR jobs is his idea of success.
It is succcess in multi-millionaire America, not my America.

[Lionessa]

25. For Obama to need a formidable opponent to lose, Obama would have to be formidable first; he isn't.

[BlueCaliDem]

33. Thanks to naysayers like you. True.

President Obama is a formidable opponent because he's proven the PL and their sheep wrong time and time again.

The PL wailed that unemployment will pertinently NOT fall, but that we'd go from 9.1 to maybe even 10 by election day. Guess what? 8.6 and falling.

What the bots for the Professional Left don't understand is, the PL only makes money and wins lots of face time on teevee that in turn makes more money, when there's a Republican in the WH and controlling the Congress. Bad for the country, good for their bottom line.

Liberals are generally good-hearted and only want the best for the country, but I've seen enough of their "leaders" - or in Glenn Greenwald's case, MISleaders - to know they're being led astray in the hope Republicans will sweep back into power so more outrage will bring in more profits.

And it's always, always about the bottom line. Ask Arianna Huffington. Michael Moore. Glenn "Ron Paul luvr" Greenwald. Daily Kos. MoveOn.org. All those so-called lefty groups who have seen a decline in their donations and profits.

IF you're a liberal, you should think about this, and then you should stand behind President Obama and Democrats this November.

[Lionessa]

40. Apparently your standards for formidable are low enough for Obama to pass. Not mine.

He has been a disappointment starting before his inaugural with his choice of prayer leader, then continued with his choice of financial secretaries, and it's been downhill since then. The worse financial years of my entire 5 decades life have been under Obama. They may have started under Bush, but Obama came in and didn't do squat to help the average middle class folks. And still things aren't much better for anyone I know who is under or unemployed.

The only Dems I know that still think Obama is in anyway formidable are those that are at or near the 1%ers in their financial security.

[rustydog]

41. President Obama,ANY president for that matter does not and cannnot make law

he can try to influence legislation, but he can only sign it into law or veto it.
The worst financial years of your 50 decades on earth was due to legislators de-regulating, being bought and paid for for decades. it is not the President's fault, but the Prex gets the blame.
Blaming him for Republican and some Democratic congresspersons politicizing a great depression for a few votes and political gain shows a tad ignorance of the political system.

[Lionessa]

45. Then he didn't lead, he didn't get the job done, however you define the job, unless you're saying

Obama is only a figurehead, and I think I already agreed with that. Certainly have watched through the years as presidents led, even some who led Congresses that were populated with majorities from the other side.

Apologize for Obama all you want. I accept both his and your apologies on his behalf, but it doesn't change the fact that as you point out, he has been ineffective in his job.

[FreakinDJ]

46. You defined the whole problem - "A pretty speech does not make a Leader"

action does

I think more accurate - Obama's "White" handlers are completely paralyzed by the openly Bigoted responses to the president

[tledford]

51. How did you know that Lionessa was 500 years old? eom

[A Simple Game]

63. President Obama defenders most definitely know he is in trouble.

You can almost smell the panic in their posts, blaming the people that may not vote for him instead of blaming him for giving them no reason to vote for him.

They don't understand that the old "vote for the lesser of two evils" just isn't getting it done anymore.

Their fear of Ron Paul is almost visible in the air, they know if he gets the nomination, or runs as a third party candidate, he will take a good percentage of his votes away from President Obama.

[LiberalAndProud]

82. Glenn Greenwald is a Libertarian, not a Liberal.

Please don't conflate his worldview with mine.

[Old and In the Way]

31. All of the Republicans have fatal flaws.

A lot can happen between now and November, obviously; but, assuming Obama and the Democrats have learned something from the last legislative screw-up by republicans, they can continue to use the process to contrast the agenda between the 2 Parties. And, really, polling for head-to-head match-ups is a waste of time now. Once both candidates are locked in, then lets see what the real numbers are. And I guarantee that Mitt's going to get his closet examined quite closely.

The big question are 3rd party candidates. If the Republicans fund a progressive challenge to Obama's left, it will shave off some votes. That could be somewhat neutralized by a 3rd Party challenge to Romney's right.

[FreakinDJ]

47. You haven't factored in the "Slur Machine" and the RNC is

There - I just spilled the entire contents of the RNC play book for the 2012 Election Cycle

But lets look a little harder -

What "Slur Politics" really accomplishes is to keep the voters home, to breed political apathy, and thus why it works so well to the RATpubliCON's favor. No secret they want to disinfranchize as much of the American public as they possibly can. By either making it harder for them to vote and by turning them off to the election process all together

[Old and In the Way]

52. Well, the slur machine is capable of backfiring, too.

The republicans have a reputation of doing this pretty effectively, no question. But it could become a point of diminishing returns. If their smear machine overreaches in their attacks, it could have the opposite effect - people determined to vote against the electoral tactics of Republicans.

[seabeyond]

6. "We are going to get “Trashed in 2012 Elections”", says the repugs. nt

[FreakinDJ]

8. Didn't you bookmark my 2010 predictions ?

It's not like I want it to happen - but I see no advantage in sticking my head in the sand and hoping for the best

- just sayin

[seabeyond]

13. lol. no. alas, i didnt. did you bookmark mine when i said perry didnt have a chance

when he first stepped into the ring and everyone was so afraid. or when i said palin wasnt gonna run. or bauchmann would fizzle. or they would elect a mormon. lol. i think the repugs look the fool and worse, like they are hurting the people.

i dont think they will win.

[FreakinDJ]

15. I'm thinking late entry

[seabeyond]

19. now, if that happens, all bets are off. will have to see. i did think of that

a week or so, ago.

on edit... lol, is that what your OP was about, cause honestly, i was replying to your title.

[FreakinDJ]

21. Honestly my OP is about the Dems are getting too Out of Touch

with their constituents to win the election

[seabeyond]

22. ah, lol, thanks freakindj

nothing personal. i just got out of reading the back and forth with politics. i only jump in every once in a while, like this, without much time and energy.

people so have their positions. so i have pretty much stayed out of the politics. easier with bushco. harder with obama to make sense out of it. and i see it differently than most so i dont fit either camp

[OmahaBlueDog]

7. 11 months is still an eternity in American politics

A lot will depend on what the price of gas it and what the unemployment rate is in the fall.

A lot will also depend on who the GOP nominates. To me, the biggest challenge will be getting people out to vote this time. There is a lot of disgust and disillusionment on both sides of the political spectrum.

The Dems will lose the Senate. This is a near mathematical certainty. The GOP keeping the house is not so certain.

2012 will look a lot like 2000 and 2004 in terms of who wins what states. I like Obama to win, but by a razor thin margin. Think John Kerry + 1 state.

[FreakinDJ]

14. And yet it could be massively turned around to the Dems favor

You nailed it - Getting people to the polls is the key.

Gas/Fuel prices are not going to improve. You can search DU for some of my earlier post about Exporting Fuel keeping fuel prices high. Look for the same thing to happen to electricity and natural gas too in the very near future too.

As for the over all economy and jobs numbers - I see little if any change from this stagnet recession. The problems with the American economy are more structural then any thing else and that takes major change. Some thing the current political climate won't allow to happen

but politics as usual has nothing to offer the peoiple and therefore no incentive to get excited about - any thing

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. not according to my crsytal ball

sorry, just not seeing it.

kind of foggy off in the distance.

[lacrew]

12. IMHO, the VP Pick is the Wild Card

The GOP VP pick will determine success or failure for POTUS, since all the current candidates are seen as weak. The House?...will stay in GOP hands. The Senate?....will be close, but will stay in DEM hands.

[MoonRiver]

17. I think we're looking at Lose-Lose.

I've pretty much checked out of politics, except when I want to bitch, moan and groan.

[LadyHawkAZ]

18. I wish I could disagree with this n/t

[BlueToTheBone]

24. Let's increase our chances

Let's work for our progressive Candidates, not just moan on DU. If you can't find one in your district, go to DFA, they have a slew who need us all. http://www.democracyforamerica.com/campaigns

[Proud Liberal Dem]

27. 2012 has different dynamics than 2010

Obama wasn't on the ballot in 2010 and turnout among progressives/Democratic-leaning voters was extremely low, allowing the hyper-energized Tea Party freaks to run away with that election. People will have had almost two years to live with teabaggers controlling the local, state, and federal level and, judging by the polls, most people don't seem to care for them or their *policies* much. It's possible that a lot of freshmen teabaggers might be swept right back out. Despite his overall plodding approval polls, Obama still enjoys higher approval/favorability ratings than Congress (with one House completely controlled by the Republicans and another almost completely co-opted by them), the Republican Tea Party, and any of the presumptive GOP nominees. Assuming that our people get out to vote, I feel pretty confident Obama can win re-election. Depending on crazy the Republican Tea Party gets THIS year, we also stand a pretty good chance of holding the Senate and maybe even winning back the House. Let's just say, going by the scientific principle of Occam's Razor, it is far more likely that President Obama will be re-elected than not IMHO, mostly because the GOP has no formidable let alone mildly tolerable candidates. Obama will likely win with a lower margin/fewer states but I think he will still win.

[pinto]

29. Early polls, fwiw. That said, Obama leads in *all* head-to-head match ups save 3.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Don't see how that can be inferred to be a likely trashing in 2012.

I think the OWS actions around the country have injected some new focus on electoral politics and offer another reason, reasons, to be involved.

[treestar]

30. So you think we should give up now?

Why should we, with an entire 11 months left?

[FreakinDJ]

36. Absolutely NOT

I also beleive they could win by a landslide if they actually began representing the constituents that elected them to office. Nothing meley mouthed - an honest heart felt hard working fighter for the American Working Class would win by a landslide

[Trajan]

32. I dont buy this one bit ...

Though, perhaps I should take advantage of your extraordinary powers of prognostication - What will be the most favorable stock to buy in 2012 ? ....

Seems like you have a magical touch with fortune telling ....

[Major Hogwash]

39. Well, according to some, there are some others who think somewhat differently about it

And we'll have to wait until after Tuesday to see just how trashed we will be.

9-9-9!

I'm jus' saying . . don't count your chickens until they've been hatched.

[Sherman A1]

34. Congressional & Senatorial, perhaps

The WH will stay in Obama's hands for the next 4 years. Romney is the GOP placeholder for this cycle and the one to watch is their selection of VP for 2016. The GOP really doesn't want the WH now, they want to make the Dems look really bad, block progress for the next 4 years & take it for what they think will be a longer period in 2016.

Long term strategy vs short term.....

[Kahuna]

37. Get over yourself. nt

[FreakinDJ]

38. Go Ahead - bookmark it - you know you want to

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. I'm bookmarking this so I can laugh at you in November

[FreakinDJ]

49. Like I said - its happened before

and I would gladly be proven wrong - however I am not so sure that will be the case

[PurityOfEssence]

70. Scoffing and ridicule

It's a standard choice for some.

Will you admit your mistake if you're wrong?

It's far too early to tell; national politics turn on a dime.

[Dewey Finn]

71. You're bookmarking this?

I'm sorry I even read it once.

[MilesColtrane]

53. It's been pretty amazing to me that a lot of posters here think Obama's reelection is a given.

The number one reason given is that the Republicans have nothing to offer in their candidates.

...like George W. Bush was a keen debater with a stellar record of governing.

[PurityOfEssence]

72. Citizens United has yet to be truly exercised

Corporations outspent Unions by 14:1 in 2010. Just you wait, Henry 'Iggins, just you wait.

The 2000 election is an interesting point of comparison. Gore didn't really excite anyone from the left, and his ultra-cautious distancing of himself from the "tainted by sex" Bill Clinton easily cost him the race.

How many are truly enthused with Obama at the moment? Repeat that question over and over and listen to the dull reverberation in your head. The right is energized, even if they don't have anything resembling a candidate.

Those who are enrapt with the genius and character of Obama don't realize that many on the right hate him and many on the left are disgusted. The assumption that his winning personality and character will sway doubters is held as a given to the true believers, but it's baseless.

The monies that will be spent will be astonishing.

[Safetykitten]

55. I do not think Obama will be re-elected.

I have always maintained this, the economy being reason number one. Of course there are the green shoots again, but this summer and into the fall, the economy will be much worse.

[eridani]

74. He could if he acted (not just spoke) as if he were on the side of the 99%

FDR got solidly re-elected in 1936 even though the economy was still in the shitter, because average people thought he was on their side.

[roseBudd]

56. RepubliTEA has completely jumped the shark and low turnout midterms are anomalous

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/us/politics/tea-party-support-falls-even-in-strongholds-survey-finds.html

In Congressional districts represented by Tea Party lawmakers, the number of people saying they disagree with the movement has risen significantly since it powered a Republican sweep in midterm elections; almost as many people disagree with it as agree with it, according to the analysis by the Pew Research Center.

Support for the Republican Party has fallen even further in those places than it has in the country as a whole. In the 60 districts represented in Congress by a member of the House Tea Party Caucus, Republicans are now viewed about as negatively as Democrats.

The analysis suggests that the Tea Party may be dragging down the Republican Party heading into a presidential election year, even as it ushered in a new Republican majority in the House of Representatives just a year ago.

Other polls have shown a decline in support for the Tea Party and its positions, particularly because its hard line during the debate over the debt ceiling and deficit reduction made it less an abstraction than it was a year ago. In earlier polls, most Americans did not know enough about the Tea Party to offer an opinion.

“We know that the image of the G.O.P. has slipped, but to see it slip so dramatically in Tea Party districts is pretty surprising,” said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Center. “You think of those as bedrock Republican districts. They are the base.”

The number of people who disagree with the Tea Party has also risen among the general public

[frazzled]

57. "They understand the SEC has mutated ..."

"They" don't even know the three branches of government; you really think they know what the SEC is, much less are thinking about how it has "mutated"?

The Working Class Citizen you cite may well vote for Mitt Romney, but it's not because they're somehow enlightened about the depredations of corporate control. It's because they're ignorant of how much worse things could be under a Republican administration (which largely caused the current situation). And how is electing a Republican going to help anything about corporate control?

You used the word corporate as an adjective too many times to be taken entirely seriously about this, imo.

[FreakinDJ]

59. The Occupy Crowd understands all too well

and that is what has fueled their movement.

But ....

just as the Ohio Tea Party was originally formed over the issue of Banks performing Illegal Home Foreclosures (Robo-signing) - rest assured the Democrats well miss the boat of this one once again

Is that technical enough for ya

on edit : Your reply proves my point - the Democrats in office take their constituents for granted assuming they are nothing more then a bunch of beer swilling couch-potatos

Good luck with that one

[Hawkowl]

58. Yes we can!

Yes we can bail out the banksters!

Yes we can prosecute whistle blowers!

Yes we can push for more offshore oil drilling disasters!

Yes we can turn a blind eye to war criminals!

Yes we can.....

You get the picture. Obama never specified what he meant by "Yes, we can!"

Now we know.


Great interview of Harry Belafonte by Charlie Rose on PBS the other day which gave me the gist of this post. So don't write it off as simply the ravings of a DU malcontent. As Belafonte said, there isn't a single person at Obama's table offering a left perspective, a liberal perspective.

The dissatisfaction is real. The danger of Obama losing is palpable.

[savalez]

75. I am wary of reducing complicated issues to one liners

so I have no comment on your opinions except the "bankster bailout". TARP was signed into law in 2008 by GW Bush during his administration. It seems fitting that if the buck stops at the president, then that one should stop at Bush.

[Hawkowl]

76. It was continued by Obama

Congress passed and Obama signed the disbursement of TARP funds. Furthermore, the Justice Department under Obama has prosecuted virtually zero banksters for fraud and crimes. Contrast this with the THOUSANDS prosecuted under Bush the Elder for the Savings and loan debacle of the 80's.

[Art_from_Ark]

87. Savings and Loan debacle and Bush the Elder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Bush

[Drunken Irishman]

60. You were right in 2010?

Really? Wow. And I can predict that tomorrow, somewhere, there will be a sunny day.

I hate to break it to you, but many people, the same people who are predicting an Obama victory, were saying 2010 was going to be a curb stomping. You don't get any extra points for being one of many who didn't drink the Kool-Aid when it came to the '10 elections. It doesn't make you anymore a soothsayer than the rest of us who knew the clouds on the horizon were devastatingly dark.

In the end, you're forgetting some simple facts that were there in 2010.

1) Congress had a record disapproval rating throughout much of 2010. Only the hard-line partisans or those who buried their heads in the sand couldn't see what was coming down the pike. Democrats, who held control of Congress, had low, low, low approval ratings - record lows.

That isn't a recipe for success and certainly something many saw as indication the Democrats were about to get their butts handed to them.

2) History was not on the side of the Democrats. Traditionally, the party that holds the White House loses seats in the midterms. Sure, the degree varies and some presidents were able to buck the trend, but history is history and we knew the potential was there. Couple that with record disapproval for Congress and you certainly can see why Nov. '10 happened.

3) A united opposition. The Republicans were unified in 2010. Democrats were not. In the end, Republicans went to the polls, Democrats stayed home and the Republicans won in a mid-term landslide.

So, knowing those three, let's look at it in comparison to the general election.

1) Obama does not have record disapproval. His approval rating today isn't much worse than the last three presidents who won reelection - Bush, Clinton and Reagan. It certainly could be better, but it's not at the low-level of either George H.W. Bush or Jimmy Carter.

It's remarkably shortsighted to suggest there is any comparison between the numbers seen from Congress in '10 to Obama's current polling in '11 - they're dramatically different, with Obama holding far more stability in his personal numbers than the Democrats were in Congress.

Moreover, Republicans saw a huge spike in their numbers heading into 2010. They were seen as the better alternative near-universally. That isn't the case today. The Republican name is more toxic, as poll after poll suggests, than that of Pres. Obama or even congressional Democrats.

2) History indicates the incumbent will win reelection. Only twice since the end of Hoover's administration has the incumbent president lost reelection: Carter in '80 and Bush in '92. Every other incumbent running for reelection (which discounts Johnson & Truman, who never officially ran for reelection and Ford, who hadn't been elected) since Roosevelt's second term has won reelection. FDR (three times), Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush - history suggests that the incumbent wins reelection far more times than he actually loses.

There is a reason for that. Presidents are almost always more popular than other Washington politicians. Americans don't always approve of the job a president is doing, but since he's just one man and not an entire party or an entire body of politicians, he has more wiggle room.

It's why a president can win nationally and have little, to any, coattails - as was the case for Clinton throughout the 90s. In '96, Clinton won in a landslide, yet Democrats only saw a net gain of two seats in the Senate and only 3.9 in the House - not monumental movement.

People vote differently at the presidential level than they do the congressional level. The comparison between the two is just not there.

3) There is more unification in a general, between parties, than what you get in a midterm election. Most Democrats and most liberals who voted for Obama in '08 will head to the polls in '12 and vote for him again.

Why? Because they'll spend the next year or so seeing the alternative and it's going to scare them shitless. Will all who voted for Obama in '08 head to the polls and vote for him in '12? Of course not. Will it be enough to cost him the election? It might - but, if I were a betting man, I would say it doesn't.

Which takes me to a new point: bets.

Intrade.com, which, like you, called the Republican massacre of 2010, has the odds of Obama winning reelection (based on party, since we know he'll be the nominee) at 51.5%. The Republicans? 46% - or a pretty comfortable margin.

The predictions suggest that, at the moment, Obama is the favorite.

Can that change? Sure. Will it?

Well, let's look at your link. We've been in an election cycle now for almost two years and out of those two years, Mitt Romney has led in only 25 polls - going all the way back to 2010. Obama has led in 25 polls...going back to just October.

There has not been a bump because his numbers have been generally consistent throughout the last two years.

This without truly campaigning - as Romney has been doing since, really, 2006.

Yes, the margin is narrow, yes, this election is no slam dunk - but nothing you say equates to a trashing. Obama has consistently defeated Romney not only in national polls, but holds solid enough leads against Romney in most swing states (http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/841714/electoralmap.html) - which, as we all know, decide the election.

This with an economy that, for the last year, has been up and down at best and was, until recently, thought to be heading straight for a recession.

This with the focus for the past year almost entirely being on the Republicans and their primary as they attack and attack Pres. Obama.

This, as you predicted so very well, on the heels of an embarrassing and ugly loss a year ago in the mid-terms.

What I do know is that Pres. Obama's personal ratings remain remarkably high. You might dismiss those numbers, but someone as acutely aware of politics as you claim to be would realize that personal favorability ratings are huge for candidates. It's something that dogged the losers in every past election and something that won't dog Obama in '12. Americans might not approve of everything he's doing, but they generally like him. Just like they liked Clinton and, whether people want to admit it or not, Reagan in the 80s.

They had reservations with guys like Kerry, Gore, Dole George H.W. Bush, Dukakis and Mondale.

What do you know, all lost in the general.

I also know that Obama isn't just running against the mood in the country. He's running against the ideas of the opposition party. As I mentioned, the Republican name brand is far less popular today than it was a year ago. They won't have the added advantage of Americans being on their side.

So, it also comes down to the opposition. Not every sports game is equal, right? Good teams wallop on bad teams all the time, even with their flaws.

Well a guy like Romney doesn't bring much to the table for the Republicans.

He's got a personality problem - Americans don't really like him. He's got an issues problem - Americans don't really think he stands for anything and he's got a base problem - Republicans don't trust him.

All three of those things make it that much more challenging for Romney and something that, ultimately, won't bog down Obama.

Obama doesn't have a personality problem. Americans generally like him.

He doesn't have an issues problem in the same sense, as most polls indicate Obama has been a fairly decisive leader.

And he doesn't have a base problem, as most polls of the Democratic base (Hispanics, Blacks, Liberals and Blue Collar voters) show them supporting his reelection and his presidency by solid numbers.

The problem with your overall post is that you're doing a lot of assuming and basing it off on little data. There is no evidence of what you speak, unlike in '10 when you made the outlandish (ha) prediction Democrats were about to get their asses kicked.

Will Obama beat Romney like he beat McCain? Maybe, maybe not. But to suggest anything you've stated in this post proves Obama and the Democrats are about to get trashed in '12 is absolutely, positively silly. So, I can only assume this post is mostly projection - a hope of what you want and not an argument based in reality.

Because, as most pundits will tell you, the same pundits who saw the writing on the wall a year ago and predicted a blowout Republican win, are saying, at worst, Obama is facing 50-50 odds to win reelection.

You can't spin that into a trashing - and that's probably the worst case scenario.

Especially when the polls you linked to, the ones you say prove your point, show Obama beating Romney.

So, do what you must. Make the predictions, feel your prediction in '10 somehow adds any value to this, but at least make a more substantial argument - one that has more evidence than polls that show Obama winning, when you then turn around and say he's going to get trashed. Okay?

[Trajan]

62. +100 RECs ...

Some people just like to feel bad ..... and will do everything they can to get there ...

[FreakinDJ]

64. Not bad for the ramblings of a Drunken Irishmen

I'll grant you that

and I'll also succeed Obama's is the safest of them all.

Other then that - its open season

[JoePhilly]

67. Great response

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

78. +1000

Amazing. Wish I could write like this.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

77. You can just repeat "We're gonna get trashed" every year. You'll be right every few years

Only the total ostritches couldn't have seen the 2010 red tidal wave coming.

2012 is a totally different animal. Remember the GOP HoR has a 9% approval rating. I don't see the House flipping, but I think the Democrats can cut the margin enough to almost negate it. The Senate is a different story.....matchup wise the cards just don't fall in our favor this cycle. I suspect we'll lose it barring a really postive upswing in the economy.

As far as Obama, the numbers you posted look fine for him. I think the Republicans are in for a rude awaking, much like we were in 2004. No one thought Bush could possibly get re-elected with so many people who seemingly hated the guy, and yet he did. Mainly because John Kerry, as much as I like him, was not an attractive enough candidate to get people to change horses. Mitt Romney, as a candidate, is just like John Kerry. No one, even in his own party, is really excited about him. Non-partisans sense that. Wanting to beat the incumbent is not enough reason to vote for a guy. Obama has a core support of people, like those who supported Bush, who'll vote for the guy no matter what, and he likely has more of them. They don't care about politics, they like him, they'll vote for him. No GOP'er in the race has that.......Palin is the only one the party has like that, and her negatives outnumber them.

[joshcryer]

79. I kept Colorado blue. Got 200 people to the polls, about 10% what we won by.

So there.

I'm going to make AZ blue.

[WI_DEM]

84. Most people assumed 2010 was going to be a bad year for the dems.

and yes, I'm bookmarking this so I can laugh at you.