What if Obama loses? Must-read!

[LongTomH]

People here are telling each other that the GOP can't win, just can't win, really can't win in 2012. Johnathan Kohn at the New Republic begs to differ, and I think you need to read:

The presidential election of 2000 still makes me angry. Mostly that’s because of the grotesque way it ended, with five Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices shutting down the Florida recount. But partly that’s because of the liberal apathy that first put the outcome into doubt. Throughout the campaign, plenty of liberals told themselves the election didn’t really matter, because the differences between the two candidates weren’t that stark. A few of them even voted for Ralph Nader. Those votes were more than enough to change the eventual outcome.

Sound familiar?

History proved that these liberals were wrong. By any reckoning, the last decade would have been radically different if Al Gore, not George W. Bush, became president in 2001. And I’d like to think liberals will remember that in 2012, when the choice is between President Obama and the eventual Republican nominee. But I’m not sure they will. I certainly hear and read many smart liberals upset with President Obama, for things he’s done and (more frequently) for things he hasn’t done. I’m not sure how much they speak for liberals generally, but in a close election, like the one we’re likely to see in 2012, even modest changes in enthusiasm could change the outcome.

Kohn links over to the February issue of the Washington Monthly with the cover article: What if Obama Loses? with links to several articles by respected scholars on consequences of a GOP takeover.

Just some of those consequences would be:

• Repeal of the Affordable Care Act
  
• Gutting of the Environmental Protection Agency - ending any possibility of action on Global Warming
  
• Continued Conservative takeover of the courts
  
• Ending any effort to regulate the financial industry
  
• Have I mentioned a new war yet?

I know people are saying that: There's no enthusiasm for Mitt, and people won't vote for someone as bat-shit crazy as Newt or Santorum, and Obama will win in a landslide. But we have to face the facts:

• The GOP candidate will have half a billion dollars in his campaign piggy bank from the Kochs and others
  
• We're going to face more dirty tricks from voter disqualification to tampering with electronic vote counts
  
• The recovery, while real, is still shaky. Factors from the European economy to the price of gas could put us back in recession

A great comic actor, W.C.Fields, once said: "Time to take the bull by the horns and look the facts in the face!" It's time to face the possibility we might lose, and to buckle down to a hard fight, now until November.

[hedgehog]

1. I lost all respect for John McCain when he tried to put Palin

a heart beat from the Presidency. Now I wonder what the hell the entire Republican Party is up to!

I think our biggest effort needs to be on get out the vote so they can't steal it!

[LongTomH]

3. Agreed! Turnout may be the biggest factor in this election.

We need a coordinated grassroots campaign to get as many of the people who put Obama in office in 2008 back to the polls. We also need to get some more Progressive Democrats in office.

[Dawson Leery]

2. Fundies take over the country.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/147794/evangelicals%27_stealth_mission_to_sneak_jesus_into_our_public_schools/?page=2

[MADem]

4. Unless they send limos to the homes of the GOP voters and force them at gunpoint to vote for their

lad, I think the problem that half a billion dollars will not "cure" is a depressed voter turnout. The other problem is the number of GOP voters willing to hold their nose and vote for a Democrat.

After a certain amount of time, even if you support any candidate, those campaign ads get annoying. I would not be surprised if people turn OFF the network TV, and turn on the HBO, Showtime, Netflix, etc. just to avoid those frigging ads. I can tell you that some of the most annoying, and creepy in a Disney-esque Kodachrome way, ads were those of Mitt Romney when he was running for MA GOV. He had one where he was plonked in front of a typical "Cape Cod" church (white with a steeple) and the colors of the sky, grass, flowers, etc. looked like it was a scene out of the frigging Teletubbies--I half expected the purple one with the purse to come over the hillside and whack the shit out of that bigoted basstid!

I don't think our team should be complacent, but if we keep our focus on the issues, keep our eyes on the prize, we'll be OK. We need to do the things we know how to do--talk up the candidate, walk the precincts, drive people to the polls.

If we don't get lazy, we'll be fine. Confidence, not complacency, will win the day.

[LongTomH]

5. I agree with your last lines:

I don't think our team should be complacent, but if we keep our focus on the issues, keep our eyes on the prize, we'll be OK. We need to do the things we know how to do--talk up the candidate, walk the precincts, drive people to the polls.

If we don't get lazy, we'll be fine. Confidence, not complacency, will win the day.

[libinnyandia]

6. More than a few voted for Nader. A lot of them felt Roe v Wade was secure. What other issue

could come up before the Court?

[Vincardog]

7. Th OP postulates the votes for Nader cost Gore the victory. Bullshit GORE WON

the SCOTUS illegally appointed bush the lesser.
Where was all this insight when the coup of 2000 happened?

[needledriver]

8. Tail?

The Correct Quote by W. C. Fields:
'There comes a time in the affairs of a man when he has to take the bull by the tail and face the situation."

I'm not usually a member of the Quote Police, but W. C. Field's actual quote doesn't really support the the OP's original intent. Taking the bull by the horns is a forceful way to face the situation, which is what the LongTomH was going for. W. C Fields used to love to mangle platitudes. Taking the bull by the tail means you are basically facing an asshole, which sums up my opinion of the entire Republican field!

[zbdent]

9. On a side note about the 2000 (and 2004) election and the pResidency of George W. Bush ...

from 2000 on, roughly until the bottom fell out of the economy, I had heard all kinds of people claiming that "God gave us George W. Bush!"

Mainly from the religious types.

Then, after things went sour ... you'd never know that they voted for George W. Bush, or supported his actions, let alone recognized that he ever was President.

Did that mean that ... *gasp* ... God made A MISTAKE??? That God was WRONG???

[tfrey1225]

10. Liberals and progressives

can't give up and stay home or vote 3rd party. I'm normally someone who supports voting the issues and your conscience. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2008, it was my first time being eligible and living in Georgia I felt I could make a tribute vote to my political hero. This go around I'm putting all of my differences aside with Obama and I will vigorously support him. I'm not a huge fan of the AFA (I want UHC) and I'm not a fan of his civil liberties record, but there's too much at stake here. The GOP wants to repeal the 20th century. I mean basic women's rights are at stake.

[libinnyandia]

12. Welcome to DU. I am relatively new to DU but I've been interested in politics for a long time.

I wored for a Nader-inspired Pirg for most of the 80's. I hope the Democrats can be as united as the GOP. When we aren't united, they win.

[DCBob]

11. If the Republicans take the WH it will get very ugly.

They wont let this opportunity pass by to force massive changes like those indicated in the OP and more. We cannot risk letting these lunatics take over.

[Tiggeroshii]

13. been trying to tell people this for ages...

Good somebody's making some headway...

[provis99]

14. more liberal bashing...

[LongTomH]

15. Liberal bashing? Hardly!

The article I linked to merely states we can't let the GOP take the White House.

[A Simple Game]

16. Yes it is, it implies Liberal were the reason Bush won.

Did you read what you posted?

Not the Supreme court.
Not the Republicans that voted for Bush.
Not the ho hum middle of the road Democratic candidate.( Who I was enthusiastically supporting and voted for even though I am a bleeding heart liberal).

No, it implies that the liberals were to blame and you posted it. By association you are blaming the liberals.

It implies that if President Obama loses it will not be because he is right of center.
It will not be because the Republicans did not vote for him.
It will be because the Liberals did not vote for him.

So let's all just keep settling for the lesser of two evils and keep telling ourselves that everything is getting better, except it isn't.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. If that's all you and the poster took away from the article, then you're part of the problem.

When did liberals become so thin skinned? A persecution complex isn't cute, it's a serious medical condition. Your hurt feelings aren't worth the permanent USSC conservative majority that gave us such diddies as Citizen's United.

I can imagine a time when people who should be natural allies just tune out liberals, along with their "concerns", and that wouldn't be good for any of us. If there were ever a time when pragmatism should take precedence over idealism, it's now. We've all seen previews of what they're capable of, and my fear is that after 2012, much to our chagrin, we'll be saying "We're All Wisconsin Now".

[A Simple Game]

22. Thank you, I just thought I was a liberal, I didn't know I had a medical condition.

But calling me thin skinned and saying I have a medical condition isn't liberal bashing now is it.

I did get more out of the article, all of it old and recycled, if it was news to you, you need to expand your reading list.

The post I was responding to said that the article "merely states we can't let the GOP take the White House." I think it "states" much more. It assigns a large share of the blame for Bush winning in 2000 on liberals. I don't know who they blamed it on in 2004, I guess they haven't figured that out yet, which I find odd because they also assigns blame for President Obama losing in 2012 on liberals.

Retry your reading comprehension on the OP and pay particular attention to the references to liberals. Being a liberal apparently I see something nefarious about the article that you may miss.

And don't forget to get your annual checkup, you never know when you might come down with something, it could save your life.

[jimlup]

18. There is some truth to the liberal argument that the mainstream is essentially different branchs of

the business party. BUT there are substantive differences for the less privileged in our society which is why one must vote democratic in contested states. I knew that simple fact back in 2000 ...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

19. Right

All one has to do is look at what kind of legislation (and where it's tilted) comes out of a Democratic-controlled Congress vs. a Republican one or even a Democratic Presidency. Should be plenty self-evident which party stands for the 99%, reason, sanity, etc.

[jimlup]

20. Yeah - it would be a nice fantasy if there were actually a choice but in reality there isn't

I'm arguing with a RW guy on another site (we are in a constant state of argument) and he has essentially concluded that he can't support either of the two major parties. That's fine with me as it is one less Republican vote - God Help Us!

[Beacool]

21. It always boils down to the same thing: the lesser of two evils.

Both parties are mirror images of each other. What this country has needed for a long time is a viable third party that can shake things up.