Is the Republican party really this dumb?

[Fern]

I think he needs to point out the Repugs blatant obstructionism especially for people who don't follow politics.

He might do that. But IMO he needs to be careful. He's spent the last 2.5 yrs laying blame elsewhere as often as possible. It can become worn out, and it can look like whining instead of being a strong leader. And it's certainly not the type of message that inspires people to get off their butts and go vote for you. His '08 campaign was quite successful at creating inspiration in people.

Fern

 

[Lanyap]

They are chaff for the left.

 

[Ausm]

I'm not so sure about that. He might have a point if he took that approach, but the Republicans are almost certainly guaranteed to run a disgustingly nasty campaign against Obama, whichever one of them wins. Playing the blame game right back could just make it look like a choice between two assholes. Trying to stay positive might make Obama look better by comparison.

Good point but doesn't President Obama taking the "high road" make him look like a weak leader? I want to see him stand tough on an issue...any issue because being played like a cheap fiddle by the Repugs doesn't look Presidential imo. I guess trying to appeal to the left and independents is one hell of a balancing act.

 

[Ausm]

He might do that. But IMO he needs to be careful. He's spent the last 2.5 yrs laying blame elsewhere as often as possible. It can become worn out, and it can look like whining instead of being a strong leader. And it's certainly not the type of message that inspires people to get off their butts and go vote for you. His '08 campaign was quite successful at creating inspiration in people.

Fern

True and good point.

 

[Rainsford]

Depending on who the candidate is and their advisor's strategy there may well be little "positive" to their campaign. I've heard many strategy types say they'd recommend running a campaign 'against' Obama instead of one "for" something.

Sort of how just 'not being Bush' was pretty powerful in '08.

Fern

It was, but I think it backfired in 2004. It's one thing to say in 2008 that the era of Bush was over, and Obama was just the man to help us move on. It's another to say that you should explicitly pick Kerry over Bush in 2004 just because Kerry wasn't Bush.

I think it's interesting that many polls have shown a generic Republican beating Obama in a hypothetical election, but the actual Republicans having more trouble. Some people read this as "anybody can beat Obama", but I see it as some hypothetical candidate can beat Obama, as long as the voter can define that candidate however they want.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Nothing will change as long as the monied interests control Congress. Obama is between a rock and a hard place, the left has become disappointed in him because he has proved that the position of President just doesn't have the power to make the changes that he campaigned on. And the right hates him becuase he would undo their policies if he could and they know it.

I think Obama truly believed he could hold the right to task by taking the argument to the people, but he underestimated the right and the lefts ability to give the finger to public opinion and pander to their special interests.

The only difference between Dems and Repubs in Congress is Dems pretend to represent the working class and will vote as such as long as it doesn't cross their particular corporate handlers, the Repubs don't try and hide the fact that they are bought and paid for.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I think it's interesting that many polls have shown a generic Republican beating Obama in a hypothetical election, but the actual Republicans having more trouble. Some people read this as "anybody can beat Obama", but I see it as some hypothetical candidate can beat Obama, as long as the voter can define that candidate however they want.

I think you're right, and anybody thinking "anybody can beat Obama" could be setting themselves up for a big disappointment.

IMO, trying to unseat a sitting President is a difficult feat. Some days I see the economic, employment and housing data and wonder how Obama will keep his office. Then I look over and see how relatively little enthusiasm the Repubs seem to have for their current slate candidates and wonder how he could lose.

As far as Repub enthusiasm, 2012 is looking a lot like 2008 ATM. It's early so that could change. And I wonder how the change in the Repub primary will affect things. IIRC, it's no longer winner take all (delegates). Back in '08 it seemed to me like the primary was over almost as soon as it started. A long tough primary certainly comes with risks, but I can't help wonder if it can also create more enthusiasm.

Fern

 

[Ausm]

Nothing will change as long as the monied interests control Congress. Obama is between a rock and a hard place, the left has become disappointed in him because he has proved that the position of President just doesn't have the power to make the changes that he campaigned on. And the right hates him becuase he would undo their policies if he could and they know it.

I think Obama truly believed he could hold the right to task by taking the argument to the people, but he underestimated the right and the lefts ability to give the finger to public opinion and pander to their special interests.

The only difference between Dems and Repubs in Congress is Dems pretend to represent the working class and will vote as such as long as it doesn't cross their particular corporate handlers, the Repubs don't try and hide the fact that they are bought and paid for.

Great analogy there!

 

[trenchfoot]

Great analogy there!

Yup, that there just about sums it up pretty good.

 

[Craig234]

And the right hates him becuase he would undo their policies if he could and they know it.

The reason the right hates him is because they want power for themselves and he's not on their team. They're basically fanatical about that pursuit of power.

So they don't actually hate him. They'd destroy the country in the pursuit of power, but like a mob hitman breaking your knee, 'it's not personal, it's business.'

I think Obama truly believed he could hold the right to task by taking the argument to the people, but he underestimated the right and the lefts ability to give the finger to public opinion and pander to their special interests.

And the left's?

I think you have that backwards about the left pulling Obama the wrong way.

The only difference between Dems and Repubs in Congress is Dems pretend to represent the working class and will vote as such as long as it doesn't cross their particular corporate handlers, the Repubs don't try and hide the fact that they are bought and paid for.

That has some truth to it about the corporatist Dems, the progressive Dems that's not accurate generally.

 

[Craig234]

He's spent the last 2.5 yrs laying blame elsewhere as often as possible.

Wrong.

Republicans are relying on being able to blame him for things they did.

It can become worn out, and it can look like whining instead of being a strong leader. And it's certainly not the type of message that inspires people to get off their butts and go vote for you. His '08 campaign was quite successful at creating inspiration in people.

That's why it's hard for him to blame them nearly as much as he should, and they're getting away with this 'burn the place down then complain about the smoke'.

His campaign was full of hot air, which is not going to help him this time.

 

[kranky]

The only difference between Dems and Repubs in Congress is Dems pretend to represent the working class and will vote as such as long as it doesn't cross their particular corporate handlers, the Repubs don't try and hide the fact that they are bought and paid for.

This is why I like what the Tea Partiers are doing. They anger both mainstream parties, and that's exactly what is needed. The two parties are simply too comfortable. The elected TP can thumb their nose at lobbyists because they owe them nothing. We need more elected officials who can do that, no matter what their political stance.

 

[Craig234]

This is why I like what the Tea Partiers are doing. They anger both mainstream parties, and that's exactly what is needed. The two parties are simply too comfortable. The elected TP can thumb their nose at lobbyists because they owe them nothing. We need more elected officials who can do that, no matter what their political stance.

You're half right. The two parties are too - not equally - corrupted. But we don't need ANY group to come in. Not the Nazis or KKK or anarchists or Stalinists or Tea Party.

The Tea Party trying to not raise the debt ceiling, fighting to cut things like the agencies that collect loose nuclear materials, are not helping.

The problem is the excessive role the corporations and wealthy are allowed to have in our elections. The Tea Party - coincidentally for destroying the EPA - are not helping.

 

[Craig234]

I'm not so sure about that. He might have a point if he took that approach, but the Republicans are almost certainly guaranteed to run a disgustingly nasty campaign against Obama, whichever one of them wins. Playing the blame game right back could just make it look like a choice between two assholes. Trying to stay positive might make Obama look better by comparison.

The thing is, what would be nice to work and what does work in politics don't usually match.

Obama benefited greatly by what was effectively an incredibly negative campaign against Bush in 2008 - that Obama had nothing to do with it. It was the economy.

The fact the country so clearly blamed Bush for blowing up the economy gave Obama the benefit of a 'negative campaign'. He wasn't doing as well even against McCain/Palin, as terrible a ticket as they were, as bad as Bush had been, before the economy crashed. Negative campaigining is what works.

Let me try a math explanation.

Obama's approval rating is 26%. Congress' is something like 17%, as are, let's say, Republicans.

Now, is Obama going to do better appealing to the 26%? Or to the 75% opposed to Republicans?

This is where people don't vote 'for', they vote 'against'. Run for and you lose, as Obama did so terribly in 2010.

We can easily have a repeat of 2010 - the Republican are playing that game, keep the country down and get the people to vote against Obama for them.

If the country isn't against the Republicans for that, how can Obama win? One thing in Obama's favor is the Republicans nominating only monsters so bad he has a chance.

But even some of these monsters have an ability to win over too many Americans - the 'smooth' Romney, the huckster Perry, that big buck marketing can polish. See Bush.

That draft-dodging power-abusing insider-trading coke-distributing creep was turned into some 'hero of America' to many, many Americans.

Karl Rove saw his pretty blue eyes and picked him to market. Rove also at one time picked Rick Perry and created him as a larger figure. (Thanks, Karl, from the US).

 

[kranky]

You're half right. The two parties are too - not equally - corrupted. But we don't need ANY group to come in. Not the Nazis or KKK or anarchists or Stalinists or Tea Party.

The Tea Party trying to not raise the debt ceiling, fighting to cut things like the agencies that collect loose nuclear materials, are not helping.

The problem is the excessive role the corporations and wealthy are allowed to have in our elections. The Tea Party - coincidentally for destroying the EPA - are not helping.

Well, the Communist party has put people on the ballot for decades and never made a dent, so I'm not worried about the Nazis or the KKK or the Stalinists putting people in office by running openly on those beliefs.

There is so much waste in government that cutting budgets is not going to cause disaster. They all need a wake-up call that there is not an endless supply of funds. They can learn to be more prudent with their operations. If they can't then get people to run them who know how to do it. It's absolutely necessary that there are people in Congress who aren't beholden to moneyed interests, and if that means Tea Partiers, I can live with that.

 

[Darwin333]

Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman? Seriously, this is the BEST you can field?

NONE of these candidates has a snowball's chance in hell of defeating Obama in a general election. Both are already being painted as lunatics by the media and suburban voters will simply not vote for either of these candidates.

Obama is in a very weakened position right now and it really would not take much to defeat him should the economy stay roughly where it is today next year. It's pretty hilarious to watch how utterly insane the GOP has gotten as of late, first Palin and now Bachman and Perry.

Yes they are.

I thought the same thing when Jr. was in his reelection race.

 

[Craig234]

Well, the Communist party has put people on the ballot for decades and never made a dent, so I'm not worried about the Nazis or the KKK or the Stalinists putting people in office by running openly on those beliefs.

There is so much waste in government that cutting budgets is not going to cause disaster. They all need a wake-up call that there is not an endless supply of funds. They can learn to be more prudent with their operations. If they can't then get people to run them who know how to do it. It's absolutely necessary that there are people in Congress who aren't beholden to moneyed interests, and if that means Tea Partiers, I can live with that.

You missed the point. It's not about whether the neo-Nazis have a lot of votes now, it's about the point that not just 'any' party that gains power is ok.

This is actually how the worst parties get into power - by riding discontent with one party and the people voting for 'an alternative' not realizing it's worse. That's the tea party.

It is important that we elect people not beholden to the big money interests - that's not the tea party. When they scream 'abolish the EPA', that's the corporate agenda.

They've been less friendly to Wall Street, but still share some of the agenda, and the part they don't - well, not raising the debt ceiling wasn't the reform we need.

People riding Koch-funded buses to the rally are not the anti-money reformers.

 

[Carmen813]

I think you're right, and anybody thinking "anybody can beat Obama" could be setting themselves up for a big disappointment.

IMO, trying to unseat a sitting President is a difficult feat. Some days I see the economic, employment and housing data and wonder how Obama will keep his office. Then I look over and see how relatively little enthusiasm the Repubs seem to have for their current slate candidates and wonder how he could lose.

As far as Repub enthusiasm, 2012 is looking a lot like 2008 ATM. It's early so that could change. And I wonder how the change in the Repub primary will affect things. IIRC, it's no longer winner take all (delegates). Back in '08 it seemed to me like the primary was over almost as soon as it started. A long tough primary certainly comes with risks, but I can't help wonder if it can also create more enthusiasm.

Fern

I think a major challenge Republicans will face going negative is that despite his relatively low job approval performance, President Obama remains a well liked and respected person among the electorate. It's been a while since I've seen the numbers, but it was near 60% last time I checked a month or so ago. Running a negative campaign against him may backfire, while he has some room to be negative because people do not generally perceive him as being as partisan as other politicians.

I think a large portion of the population wants to see solutions and not just more red meat. We've been in this perpetual campaign for nearly 6 years and it's tiring.

The two republican contenders I like most (Huntsman and Paul) don't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

No, Romney is the best they can field.

Mitch Daniels is the best they can find but he isn't running.

 

[IGBT]

Yep, Obama was a fantastic campaigner.

Maybe it's just me, but I haven't heard an Obama speech for quite some time that I thought was as impressive as those he gave during the campaign. I've been wondering if Axlerod should be given more credit.

Kind of curious what Obama's campaign in 2012 will look like. "Hope and Change" cannot be used again.

Fern

he'll continue to look thru the rear view mirror and play the blame game. He won't be able to run on his ruinous record. Make no mistake about it. This is the obama economy. His finger prints are all over it.

 

[Ausm]

he'll continue to look thru the rear view mirror and play the blame game. He won't be able to run on his ruinous record. Make no mistake about it. This is the obama economy. His finger prints are all over it.

The worse thing he did was embrace a lot of GWB's policies.

 

[nonlnear]

The worse thing he did was embrace a lot of GWB's policies.

The greatest thing he did (and continues to do) was convince a good portion of his devotees that he did so reluctantly. You got to give it to the man, that's genius.

 

[Craig234]

he'll continue to look thru the rear view mirror and play the blame game. He won't be able to run on his ruinous record. Make no mistake about it. This is the obama economy. His finger prints are all over it.

That's a bunch of crap, but many will have that opinion.

 

[Meghan54]

I thought unfunded public pensions (fed, state, local govts) was a huge amount?

Are you saying it's not?

What's a bigger problem in your opinion?

Fern

Well, defense spending is a higher percentage of the budget than any other part, esp. when you include the portions of defense spending that's moved into other areas, like health care (VA Admin. health care for vets is counted in the health care spending by the gov't, not direct defense spending) as well as retirement spending for retired vets not being included in defense spending. Easy to hide the huge spender of the budget, defense, when you can move huge portions of it into other areas via accounting tricks.

 

[Fern]

I think a major challenge Republicans will face going negative is that despite his relatively low job approval performance, President Obama remains a well liked and respected person among the electorate.
-snip-

Good point.

Fern