Liberal Disenchantment with Obama is Real RJ

[PhDeac]

The Republicans' best argument against Obama in 2008 was experience. Now that argument favors Obama. W made this point in 2004 and got panned for it, but it's true. "Being president is hard work". I think it helped give him the edge over a lightweight Kerry and I think it would favor Obama over any of the lightweight Pubs.

 

[jhmd2000]

Because I find your encapsulation of the 2008 turnout to be pretty naive (I doubt you really mean it), and your prediction on 2012 to be largely hope-based. ***

.

Sorry, I had to edit this:

I can't imagine that after 2008, any other election could, even for a moment, seem "naieve[ly]...hope-based" by comparison (in our lifetimes, let alone in the same sentence).

This is the political equivalent of "Compared to month-old doughnuts covered in raw sewage, rusty bolts and moldy cigarette butts, this other meal appears bad for my health."

 

[jhmd2000]

The Republicans' best argument against Obama in 2008 was experience. Now that argument favors Obama. W made this point in 2004 and got panned for it, but it's true. "Being president is hard work". I think it helped give him the edge over a lightweight Kerry and I think it would favor Obama over any of the lightweight Pubs.

If the Pubs run an inexplicably arrogant, widow-jumping-gold-digging giggolo in 2012, then I will change parties. The punch line is Kerry(!) was the likable one on that half of the ticket.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

Because I find your encapsulation of the 2008 turnout to be pretty naive (I doubt you really mean it), and your prediction on 2012 to be largely hope-based.

Sorry, I had to edit this:

I can't imagine that after 2008, any other election could, even for a moment, seem "naieve[ly]...hope-based" by comparison (in our lifetimes, let alone in the same sentence).

This is the political equivalent of "Compared to month-old doughnuts covered in raw sewage, rusty bolts and moldy cigarette butts, this other meal appears bad for my health."

Did you just pick out some of my words at random and then string them together into a point I didn't make? Bizarre. And, frankly, pretty dishonest.

Can I quote you as saying: "[A]ny doughnut [is the] equivalent of... moldy cigarette butt...meal...for [your] health."

Of course not. Nor would I try. So why did you use quotation marks?

I wasn't talking about voter expectations. And I didn't refer to anything as "naively hope-based." 2&2 and I were debating the logistics of voter turnout. Your post makes no sense except to misquote me.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

There is no "anybody else" vote in American politics. This is not an up-or-down vote of confidence in the executive. The Pubs have to run an option, and, the field looking like it is -- and with the huge advantages Obama has in money and incumbency -- Obama looks a very solid bet for another four years. IMO, barring an intervening game-changer, the middle is more likely to be inclined toward Obama's familiar, placid pragmatism than toward a hard-right conservative retread without executive experience.

I'm not sure how you can say that. 2008 was an "anybody else" vote. Since then, Americans have simply gotten more impatient (thank you cell phones) and more pissed off (thank you economy).

The Pubs don't need to run anybody with any substance. They just need to run a non-scandalous puppet who can simply say: "The Stimulus sucked and didn't work. Obamacare sucks and needs to be repealed. The economy sucked when he went in, still sucks, and Obama made it worse and made long-term recovery even longer. Time to fire the sonofabitch in charge. Yes, we got Osama, thank you Seal Team 6 for your dedicated service." If he says that, combined with much lower Obama turnout, then Obama loses.

 

[jhmd2000]

Did you just pick out some of my words at random and then string them together into a point I didn't make? Bizarre. And, frankly, pretty dishonest.

Can I quote you as saying: "[A]ny doughnut [is the] equivalent of... moldy cigarette butt...meal...for [your] health."

Of course not. Nor would I try. So why did you use quotation marks?

I wasn't talking about voter expectations. And I didn't refer to anything as "naively hope-based." 2&2 and I were debating the logistics of voter turnout. Your post makes no sense except to misquote me.

Me think the poster doth protest too much.

Chillax, I was just stunned that someone could use the phrase "2008" "pretty naieve" and "hope-based" in the same sentence, and NOT (really?) link them together.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

That's your opinion, but it flies in the face of electoral history. Incumbents win 70% of the time (more money + experience is a powerful advantage). There's a reason that Obama trades as a prohibitive favorite right now in the places where people are willing to take your bet against his reelection.

In 2008, Obama didn't just win because he was merely "anybody else." He was quite clearly a better choice than McCain/Palin to the middle. Unless you have a legit candidate appear on the right, the middle will stick with the incumbent, like they always do. That's how an incredibly unpopular GW Bush gets a second term.

The GOP is about to run some right-wing version of John Kerry, get beat (but take Congress), and then be confused as to how that could happen.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

Me think the poster doth protest too much.

Chillax, I was just stunned that someone could use the phrase "2008" "pretty naieve" and "hope-based" in the same sentence, and NOT (really?) link them together.

Try reading the sentence.

Protest too much? How about just don't fabricate quotes.

 

[jhmd2000]

That's your opinion, but it flies in the face of electoral history. Incumbents win 70% of the time (more money + experience is a powerful advantage). There's a reason that Obama trades as a prohibitive favorite right now in the places where people are willing to take your bet against his reelection.

In 2008, Obama didn't just win because he was merely "anybody else." He was quite clearly a better choice than McCain/Palin to the middle. Unless you have a legit candidate appear on the right, the middle will stick with the incumbent, like they always do. That's how an incredibly unpopular GW Bush gets a second term.

The GOP is about to run some right-wing version of John Kerry, get beat (but take Congress), and then be confused as to how that could happen.

That's the Sex Panther Cologne(tm) stat of this election. What is the batting average on incumbents with sustained unemployment in excess of 9%?

 

[RJKarl]

That's your opinion, but it flies in the face of electoral history. Incumbents win 70% of the time (more money + experience is a powerful advantage). There's a reason that Obama trades as a prohibitive favorite right now in the places where people are willing to take your bet against his reelection.

In 2008, Obama didn't just win because he was merely "anybody else." He was quite clearly a better choice than McCain/Palin to the middle. Unless you have a legit candidate appear on the right, the middle will stick with the incumbent, like they always do. That's how an incredibly unpopular GW Bush gets a second term.

The GOP is about to run some right-wing version of John Kerry, get beat (but take Congress), and then be confused as to how that could happen.

I think it's 50/50 that the GOP may take the senate but lose the House due votes on Ryan's plan.

Voting to end Medicare is big problem.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

That's the Sex Panther Cologne(tm) stat of this election. What is the batting average on incumbents with sustained unemployment in excess of 9%?

Incumbents with sustained unemployment rates between 7% and 24% are undefeated in the last 100 years. The only way unemployment rates factor is if the rate dramatically increases during the incumbent's presidency.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

Because I find your encapsulation of the 2008 turnout to be pretty naive (I doubt you really mean it), and your prediction on 2012 to be largely hope-based.

Sorry, I had to edit this:

I can't imagine that after 2008, any other election could, even for a moment, seem "naieve[ly]...hope-based" by comparison (in our lifetimes, let alone in the same sentence).

This is the political equivalent of "Compared to month-old doughnuts covered in raw sewage, rusty bolts and moldy cigarette butts, this other meal appears bad for my health."

Last edited by jhmd2000; Today at 04:49 PM. Reason: I was too overwhelmed by how absurd that analogy was to appropriately mock it in during the first draft.

Is this a serious attempt at an edit? Again, that's not what I said at all, and you've pretty blatantly misquoted me. I was discussing's 2&2 theory regarding voter turnout, not voter expectation. I never used those words together, nor in the manner you seem intent to imply. Go ahead and stop using quotation marks in your post please.

Also, there was no analogy in my sentence, so you edit explanation line doesn't make sense either.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

That's your opinion, but it flies in the face of electoral history. Incumbents win 70% of the time (more money + experience is a powerful advantage). There's a reason that Obama trades as a prohibitive favorite right now in the places where people are willing to take your bet against his reelection.

In 2008, Obama didn't just win because he was merely "anybody else." He was quite clearly a better choice than McCain/Palin to the middle. Unless you have a legit candidate appear on the right, the middle will stick with the incumbent, like they always do. That's how an incredibly unpopular GW Bush gets a second term.

The GOP is about to run some right-wing version of John Kerry, get beat (but take Congress), and then be confused as to how that could happen.

Obviously we're not going to agree on this and we will see how this all plays out, but I don't think history is overly relevant in this situation (and even that history has a 30% failure rate using your numbers). We're dealing with a completely different society as far as information relative to political patience and satisfaction. Nobody is willing to wait for anything. We saw that in 2010. Honestly, if 20 years ago you said that a young Senator with virtually no experience at anything whatsoever other than "community organizer" would win the presidency then you would have been laughed at. From the start of the 2008 election cycle to finish, history was nowhere to be found.

Given the news elements of society, Obama's words and actions have been picked apart like no president before him, even Bush (I say that with regard to information availability, not that he is criticized more than Bush). People have already made up their minds whether they will vote for or against him again, I don't think it matters too much who runs against him so long as it is not a completely polarizing figure like Palin.

 

[PhDeac]

If the Pubs run an inexplicably arrogant, widow-jumping-gold-digging giggolo in 2012, then I will change parties. The punch line is Kerry(!) was the likable one on that half of the ticket.

Yeah and that's because of the Dems' horribly short bench. Look at who the Dems brought at the VP spot every four years over my lifetime.

Mondale
Ferraro
Bentsen (rare bright spot)
Gore
Lieberman
Edwards
Biden

Seriously? That's the best they could do for VP candidates.

I've hated Edwards with a passion, but it was clear Kerry had no other choice. Hillary would have been toxic as a VP candidate in 2004.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

Obviously we're not going to agree on this and we will see how this all plays out, but I don't think history is overly relevant in this situation (and even that history has a 30% failure rate using your numbers). We're dealing with a completely different society as far as information relative to political patience and satisfaction. Nobody is willing to wait for anything. We saw that in 2010. Honestly, if 20 years ago you said that a young Senator with virtually no experience at anything whatsoever other than "community organizer" would win the presidency then you would have been laughed at. From the start of the 2008 election cycle to finish, history was nowhere to be found.

Given the news elements of society, Obama's words and actions have been picked apart like no president before him, even Bush (I say that with regard to information availability, not that he is criticized more than Bush). People have already made up their minds whether they will vote for or against him again, I don't think it matters too much who runs against him so long as it is not a completely polarizing figure like Palin.

Fair enough, but I think your last paragraph essential denies the existence of a middle, which I can't agree with, since that group is the population that usually decides who wins a presidential election. And, IMO, the middle will stick with Obama over the current field of GOP hopefuls. The sitting executive usually wins that demographic. When he doesn't, it's usually because of third-party interference or a dynamic, invigorating challenger. Neither are likely to exist in 2012. Still lots of time though, we'll see.

Good posts.

 

[Wakelaw2006]

That's the Sex Panther Cologne(tm) stat of this election. What is the batting average on incumbents with sustained unemployment in excess of 9%?

Incumbents with sustained unemployment rates between 7% and 24% are undefeated in the last 100 years. The only way unemployment rates factor is if the rate dramatically increases during the incumbent's presidency.

And this is why I love Arlington.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Fair enough, but I think your last paragraph essential denies the existence of a middle, which I can't agree with, since that group is the population that usually decides who wins a presidential election. And, IMO, the middle will stick with Obama over the current field of GOP hopefuls. The sitting executive usually wins that demographic. When he doesn't, it's usually because of third-party interference or a dynamic, invigorating challenger. Neither are likely to exist in 2012. Still lots of time though, we'll see.

Good posts.

Yeah, I think your take on my post is correct - I don't think there is much of a middle in this particular election. Obama has been extremely polarizing over the past 2+ years, I don't think there are too many people in the middle at this point. As noted, if there are, I think they are people who voted for him initially but are now thinking about changing their mind. I don't think there are any who voted for McCain previously and now are on the fence as whether to change their mind to Obama.

 

[DeacinBama]

I consider myself relatively politically uninformed, which means I reflect a large percentage of voters. I'm also right-leaning, at least regarding the economy, and I didn't vote for Obama in 2008. FWIW, I will consider voting for him in 2012. I think that says more about the current Republican candidates than it does about me. For my money, any member of this group makes John McCain look like Reagan in '84. From where I sit, the anti-Obama sentiment isn't nearly enough to overcome 1) an incumbent's advantage, 2) Obama's near-certain fundraising advantage, and 3) the relative listlessness of whatever candidate emerges from the Republican primaries.

 

[PhDeac]

2&2, you think Obama has been more polarizing than W and Clinton before him? If so, does that have to do with Obama at all or just the political/media climate?

 

[jhmd2000]

And this is why I love Arlington.

^ Again, this is an absurd comparison, whether you cite stats from elections that predate WWII or not. People are fairly disenchanted with this first term (hello, thread title), and 9% unemployment ain't helping things. Remember that if we didn't pass Porkulus, we would get to 8% unemployment. Our country would kill for this admin's "or else" scenario.

It's not working, see 2010.

But by all means, cite FDR's ability to get re-elected during the Second World War. That's going to put him over the top.