Why Obama will Lose in 2012 (Objective Analysis)

[vroomvroom]

Interesting read...

There is nothing remotely ideological or personal in my prediction that President Obama will lose the 2012 election. Both parties are equally out of touch with reality in my view, and both support the same things: a global Empire, an increasingly intrusive Savior State, a shadow banking system which is no longer under the control of State institutions (rather, the banks control the institutions), and various crony-capitalist cartels which fund political campaigns and partner with the Central State's bloated, unaccountable fiefdoms. The only visible difference between the two parties is slight variations in the relative growth rates of the most-favored cartels and fiefdoms.

...snip...

President Obama has several key flaws which have doomed his presidency.

1. His leadership style is one of consensus and compromise. This works OK in a caretaker setting in which there are no crises and no demands for bold changes of course. Unfortunately, this era is defined by structural crises, and a leadership based on gaining consensus and compromise is basically a rudderless one in this environment.

2. He does not understand economics or finance, nor is he secure about making decisions on financial topics. As a result he deferred to the "experts," who just happened to be Wall Street cronies and insiders who easily swayed the President with their hobgoblin stories of financial meltdown and ruin if we didn't "save the banking sector from losses."

...snip...

4. He has no visible core beliefs beyond a vague sense that the Federal government and its extension,...

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-will-lose-in-2012-2011-4

Breaks my heart that Obama had a chance to LISTEN to the people but chose to side with big business. Yes i understand that there is very little difference between democrats and republicans but still i figured Obama would see above that.

Will i vote for him in 2012? Sadly, i have no choice but to vote for him. However, I wish there was someone who gave a damn about the people though and not their Wall Street buddies.

Here is for a potential Anthony Weiner or Alan Grayson or Russ Feingold running in 2012.

[liberal N proud]

1. WOW`

You actually had guts to post that here?

[LoZoccolo]

2. The author can't just take a list of reasons that he wants Obama to lose

and then claim that he'll lose because the majority agrees with these reasons. There is a lot more to prove before it can be said that Obama will lose because of these things.

I believe that Obama will win.

[ladjf]

3. Your prediction might be wrong due to the fact that the Republican

hopefuls are even worse. nt

[joeybee12]

5. That, i think, is what will get Obama re-elected...nt

[tridim]

4. I unrecced at sentence #2.

"Both parties are equally out of touch with reality in my view, and both support the same things"

Complete and utter bullshit right there.

[gateley]

13. Agree -- I don't believe that about the majority of Dems. Problem is, the system

is so firmly in place we can only chip away at it, so it looks as though we're supporting the status quo.

And I think O HAS to compromise - he's President of everyone - but like a lot of people, just wish he wouldn't compromise SO MUCH.

I didn't even click at the link.

[flamingdem]

6. UNREC both parties out of touch w/reality same amount? yeah, right nt

[Shiver]

7. Oh, I see a small mistake there...

"Here is for a potential Anthony Weiner or Alan Grayson or Russ Feingold losing in 2012."

Fixed it for you. Figure it had to be a mistake because of those three, Feingold is the only one who could come close to winning, and as much as I love my (sob) former Senator, I doubt he could do it.

[Akoto]

8. Anyone who sees no difference between the parties doesn't live my life.

I am disabled at age 26. It took a long fight for me to win disability, but I did, and it was a tremendous relief due in large part to receiving Medicaid. I no longer had to feel like a financial burden to my parents, who had been footing my bills up to that point, because the coverage handled my doctors and four pain management drugs.

The Republicans swept into power, and now they're trying to turn Florida's Medicaid into an HMO. I get $449 a month to live on. How the hell am I supposed to pay HMO fees? That's excluding the cuts they have done to harm all sorts of other people. Women, people who live in homes for the disabled, mental health, etc.

[HughBeaumont]

9. I would think NOT having widespread WI, OH, FL, NJ, IN, etc would be reason enough.

In fact, the actions of the Koch-Is-It govs in those states may have cooked the GOP goose for 2012 and beyond.

[CakeGrrl]

10. Unrec. The author is just waving around another opinion.

And how many times do people need to be reminded that Feingold has said he would not challenge the President in a primary? I guess some ignore what they'd rather not hear. Never mind the fact that Grayson and Feingold couldn't even get elected back to their seats in the House and Senate.

[Peacetrain]

11. No, just the opposite.. The GOP just cooked its own goose

[arcane1]

12. I fail to see, based on this, how a republican could win n/t

[ProSense]

14. "He has no visible core beliefs beyond a vague sense that the Federal government and its extension"

Let's replace him with this President.


The detractors are getting desperate.

[Richardo]

15. I fell asleep when I hit the word 'Empire'

:boring:

[sharp_stick]

16. Where in the world did you drop

this steaming pantload? Not too often do I so happily unrec a really lousy post and then enjoy clicking the unrec button again and again even though it doesn't work anymore.

[okieinpain]

17. man that was some of the most funniest shit I've read since

yesterday. I'm really starting to believe all of this obama ain't this obama is that crap has to do with the color of his skin.

[JoePhilly]

18. Plus he hates puppies!!!!!

[NYC Liberal]

19. Talk about nonsense.

Can't wait for November 2012 when Obama is reelected!

[ProSense]

20. Here:

I Am The Kind Of Democrat Who Is ALL IN For President Obama

[JoePhilly]

21. Having to say "Objective Analysis" is like when Newt Gingrich says "Frankly ... "

[Zoeisright]

22. Objective my ass.

This is a bunch of shit.

[Drunken Irishman]

23. This is about as objective as FOX.

Nice try, though.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. The author spends the entire article turning his first sentence into a lie

It's all an ideological argument, except when it's a personal attack on Obama. Any realistic analysis would have to consider if any Democrat stands a chance of winning the Dem nomination instead of him (looks like no-one could at the moment), and what Republicans might be able to beat him (which would actually involve talking about them, which the author doesn't bother to do).

[center rising]

25. Nothing like being a Debbie downer.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Thanks for sharing this totally unsubstantiated bullshit op-ed garbage from Business Insider.

For someone who claims to be concerned about Wall Street's influence, you don't have any similar qualms about quoting them when they're in the business of attacking the only Democratic presidential candidate. :sarcasm:

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. Every once in a while, one slips through.

:thumbsdown:

[onenote]

28. That was a chuckle

Here's a tip: if someone says that there is "nothing remotely ideological or personal" in a prediction about the outcome of an election and they go on to do nothing but spout ideological and personal opinions with virtually no substantiating data and, more importantly, not even the remotest speculation about the opposition candidate that is going to defeat the candidate that person is predicting to lose, they're lying.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. Welcome to DU

:eyes:

[fascisthunter]

30. I Accidently Unrecced you post...

I agree, but with the dem leadership being a bunch of corporate sellouts, I don't see how any other dem would have a chance.

[retread]

31. "Objective Analysis" Hahahahahahaha, thanks for the laugh!!

[wisteria]

32. I believe Pres. Obama will be reelected and he has a much better chance than the others

you have mentioned. You see, Democrats can not be classified into one neat catagory.

[Logical]

33. We have to support Obama in 2012. At least vote for him! n-t

[jefferson_dem]

34. Biggest crock of dung I've read here in a long, long while.

And that's saying sumthin'....

[frazzled]

35. "He does not understand economics" -- from a "novelist"

Yes, that is the author's bio: he's a "novelist and commentator." I bet he sure understands a lot about economics. Right.

[wyldwolf]

36. I'll wager you $100. - to your favorite charity - that Obama wins by a substantial margin

double digits.

[Ikonoklast]

37. Oh, it's you again.

Unrecced the steaming turd pile op-ed presented as 'fact'.

Business Insider??

Really?


Please.

[ncteechur]

38. Don't come posting some piece of shit moronic crap.

[AtomicKitten]

39. LOL.

[jeanpalmer]

40. He's trying to be Ronald Reagan

30 years behind the times. He bought into right wing trickle down and his main concern seems to be getting re-elected.

You actually do have a choice. If you keep voting for compromise and surrender, pretty soon you'll be penniless and naked and living in a cardboard condominium. It's better for the long run to bite the bullet, take the hit, and send a message. It's the only way we can get strong people in there who support us. Weak cowering to these sellouts will only generate more weakness. But, looks like that's what we're headed for.

[BlueIris]

41. "If..Obama had fought for fundamental structural reforms he..would still have support."

"Yes, Congress holds the pursestrings, but let's not forget the President appoints his own staff and advisors, and wields great power via Executive Orders. He could have submitted a 5-page Financial Reform Bill and promised to veto anything else. If the Power Elites watered it down, then he could have vetoed it and gone directly to the public. But he did none of these things."

This is only one of many reasons I do not buy the "Congress stood in his way on everything" blanket excuse issued by his defenders. He had the power to effect the change he promised and chose not to use it.

[leftynyc]

42. This is crap

And anyone who believes there is no difference between the parties doesn't deserve to be listened to. Anyone who thinks Alan Grayson or Anthony Weiner could get elected nationwide is also delusional.

[WI_DEM]

43. Here is my objective analysis--he will win in 2012--why?

1) The GOP doesn't have a candidate who connects/inspires people
2) While many people may not like Obama's policies-they like him personally
3) The economy while not robust is in better shape than it was when he came into office
4) The GOP congress is going to go overboard by moving to the far right which will turn off independents.
5) They will nominate a rigid conservative out of their primaries
6) Finally Obama will hold the Democratic states (blue) and this has already been shown to be the case in early polls, and will win enough purple states to be re-elected.

[WI_DEM]

44. objective? and then you say Weiner, Grayson or Feingold should run

Feingold isn't going to and has stated it many times. We're hoping in WI that he will run in a recall election against Walker next year. Weiner and Grayson couldn't win a national election, let alone in Grayson's case win re-election to congress. Weiner happens to be lucky to serve in a strongly democratic district. Obama will be re-elected easily and without a serious primary challenge.