Oil spill + November defeat = an end to Obama's presidency from a political POV??

[ProfJohn]

1. The oil spill is quickly turning into Obama's Katrina with the news media turning against more every day. Beyond the oil spill we have Obamacare and immigration and on neither issues is Obama very popular these days. From a political POV Obama is very weak right now.

2. If the election were held today the Democrats would lose 6 Senate seats (one going to independent Crist) and 37 house seats (assuming that the 35 toss up are split 50/50) AND 4 governorships. That would be a huge loss of the Democrats, one of the worst in recent history.

I think the combination of those events coupled with Obama's continued drop in popularity will result in the effective end of Obama's Presidency from a political POV. His agenda will be dead as the Democrats won't have enough votes to get any of it passed.

I think post November/January we will enter a two year period with one of these two things happening.

1. Nothing major gets accomplished as the far right and far left fight over every bill and neither side works with the other creating grid lock.

2. The moderates and congressional party leadership work together and create a moderate agenda for the country for two years. We get lots of little things like improvements to Obamacare, Medicare etc etc. But none of the big issues are solved and we essentially punt all of our problems to 2012.




Here is a good piece by Peggy Noonan about how the oil spill is a disaster for Obama politically:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...50789108846.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

 

[cubby1223]

Could go either way. If Pelosi & Reid stay as the leaders, it will be business as usual, and another 2 years of non-stop fighting in congress. Pelosi always finds the votes she needs, and Reid plans to write the cloture rules out of the next session allowing all legislation to pass on a 50 plus the V.P. vote.

If they do not retain their positions then it's anybody's guess what is going to happen.

 

[Patranus]

Raming health care down America's throats was the end of Obama's presidency from a political point of view.

 

[dullard]

2. If the election were held today the Democrats would lose 6 Senate seats (one going to independent Crist) and 37 house seats (assuming that the 35 toss up are split 50/50) AND 4 governorships. That would be a huge loss of the Democrats, one of the worst in recent history.

Explain your logic behind this one please. Define "one of the worst" and define "recent history". If you want to say recent history as in the last election, then yes, losing 6 seats would be worse than Democrats did in the last election. But if recent history goes back over the last few similar situations, losing 6 seats is a lucky outcome for Democrats.

 

[ProfJohn]

Explain your logic behind this one please. Define "one of the worst" and define "recent history". If you want to say recent history as in the last election, then yes, losing 6 seats would be worse than Democrats did in the last election. But if recent history goes back over the last few similar situations, losing 6 seats is a lucky outcome for Democrats.

Senate History:
2008 D +8
2006 D +6
2004 R +4
2002 R +2
1998 D +4
1994 R +8
1986 D +8

So a 6 seat loss would be equal to the last two elections and similar to the 94 and 86 elections which were both big losses to their parties. I'd say a 6 seat loss in the Senate would be 'bad' although not horrible.

House history:
2008 D +21
2006 D +31
1994 R +54
1984 R +16
1982 D +27
1980 R +34

So going all the way back to 1980 we have only seen one year with a change of more than 34 seats. I would call a loss of 34+ seats this fall 'one of the worst losses in recent history" easily.

2010 will be as bad for the Democrats as 2006 and 2004 were for the Republicans, but probably not as bad as 1994 was for the Democrats. Still it may end up ranking as the second worst election for either party since Watergate.

 

[ayabe]

No because you ain't got shit on deck, baggers are running your guys out of town and that far right BS isn't going to fly in the General. That's going to be the biggest story in November, the tea bagger flameout.

I love this Obama's Katrina shit, Jon Stewart put it best a couple days ago:

"Remember that terrible thing Bush did that we fought for 8 years to convince you wasn't bad but actually good? Well now we use those very incidents as the low water mark for your guy!"

Edit - http://vodpod.com/watch/3596434-release-the-kagan

 

[Daedalus685]

Raming health care down America's throats was the end of Obama's presidency from a political point of view.

Yeah.. but he didn't even do it right... If he was going to spend all of his political capitol on a ring around the Rosie of health care the least we could have expected was single payer... not some bastardized mutant step child of increased cost...

Socialist he is not... You folks need someone who is actaully left wing (more so I can watch the freak show of town hall meetings were an actual left wing candidate every doing anything) not some centre right hack .

 

[Patranus]

Twenty-eight percent (28&#37 of U.S. Voters now say the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. This is down three points form a week ago and marks the lowest level of confidence in the nation’s current course since the second week of March.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of all voters now say the nation is heading down the wrong track, the highest level of pessimism measured since the week prior to passage of health care bill.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track

 

[Daedalus685]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track

I must point out that these numbers do not mean that the country will swing republican. There must be a whole slew of left wing folk just as pissed at Obama as any right wing bible thumper.

 

[blackangst1]

I dont think this alone will be the deal breaker for him. I tihnk the health care debacle and extension of the unPatriot Act will though.

In regards to the oil spill, I think his (lack of) response has been a little...whats the word...Bush like (in regards to Katrina).

 

[Patranus]

I must point out that these numbers do not mean that the country will swing republican. There must be a whole slew of left wing folk just as pissed at Obama as any right wing bible thumper.

Never made the argument that it would swing GOP.
The thread was will the Obama presidency is done from a political point of view because of XYZ.
I answered he is done right now.

 

[dullard]

Senate History:
2008 D +8
2006 D +6
2004 R +4
2002 R +2
1998 D +4
1994 R +8
1986 D +8

So a 6 seat loss would be equal to the last two elections and similar to the 94 and 86 elections which were both big losses to their parties. I'd say a 6 seat loss in the Senate would be 'bad' although not horrible.

Ok, you were looking more recent that I was thinking.

Here are some other examples:
1947: Dem as president, midterm election, dems lost 12 senate seats
1959: Rep as president, midterm election, reps lost 12 senate seats
1987: Rep as president, midterm election, reps lost 8 senate seats
1994-1995: Dem as president, midterm elections, dems lost 10 senate seats

In comparison, losing 6 seats is nothing.

 

[Red Dawn]

I dont think this alone will be the deal breaker for him. I tihnk the health care debacle and extension of the unPatriot Act will though.

In regards to the oil spill, I think his (lack of) response has been a little...whats the word...Bush like (in regards to Katrina).

I don't think that's the case, seems they were on it with what they had which really wasn't much as there really wasn't any type of pre-existing plan to deal with such a catastrophe and BP literally sat on their thumb.

His political future totally depends on the economy rebounding . If things are still in the dumper towards the end of 2011 his chances aren't very good.

 

[senseamp]

Same way 1994 was the end of Clinton presidency

 

[Daedalus685]

Never made the argument that it would swing GOP.
The thread was will the Obama presidency is done from a political point of view because of XYZ.
I answered he is done right now.

I'm not familiar with all of the presidential laws in the USA.. but could the democratic party pull its support from Obama and present another candidate? This sort of thing is very common in a parliamentary system like in Canada..

I only ask because there may be a whole slew of democrats pissed with him but if he is who they have to vote for they will vote for him regardless. Mind you he may not be able to do much if the entire congress/senate is republican.

 

[dullard]

I'm not familiar with all of the presidential laws in the USA.. but could the democratic party pull its support from Obama and present another candidate? This sort of thing is very common in a parliamentary system like in Canada..

I only ask because there may be a whole slew of democrats pissed with him but if he is who they have to vote for they will vote for him regardless. Mind you he may not be able to do much if the entire congress/senate is republican.

No, they can't replace Obama very easilly. The best they could do would be to (1) impeach him which means to accuse him of a crime and then (2) convict him of that crime. #1 is fairly easy, but #2 is very difficult.

Having a republican congress and a democrat president is probably the best combination that we've ever had. The 1990s were fantastic in large part because of that combination. The president can still do a lot in the way of a veto. The republicans won't get anything they want unless they compromise and give the president what he wants. In a way, that is even easier for Obama to get his way with republicans in control of congress than with democrats in control. Democrats have a habit of bickering, delay, and watering down their bills when they are in control of congress. Suddenly if republicans are in control, then there is only one democrat (Obama) who gets to control what needs to be in the bills for the republicans to get their way.

 

[Red Dawn]

No, they can't replace Obama very easilly. The best they could do would be to (1) impeach him which means to accuse him of a crime and then (2) convict him of that crime. #1 is fairly easy, but #2 is very difficult.

Having a republican congress and a democrat president is probably the best combination that we've ever had. The 1990s were fantastic in large part because of that combination. The president can still do a lot in the way of a veto. The republicans won't get anything they want unless they compromise and give the president what he wants. In a way, that is even easier to do than with democrats in congress that bicker and delay. Suddenly, there is one person (Obama) who gets to control what needs to be in the bills for the republicans to get their way.

This. IMO often it's his own party led by Pelosi that's hurting him.

 

[JS80]

lol I would find it extremely satisfying if the thing that brought Obama down was something he didn't really cause nor could do much about. In any case some of us already knew

 

[werepossum]

I'm not familiar with all of the presidential laws in the USA.. but could the democratic party pull its support from Obama and present another candidate? This sort of thing is very common in a parliamentary system like in Canada..

I only ask because there may be a whole slew of democrats pissed with him but if he is who they have to vote for they will vote for him regardless. Mind you he may not be able to do much if the entire congress/senate is republican.

He can and probably will be opposed in the primary, but the chances that he will be replaced as the Dem candidate is between slim and none (and not in a position to see slim.) Voters do determine the candidate by electing a delegate for their preferred choice (well, more or less; the Democrats do hold back a third of the delegates to be selected by party officials to heavily weight the choice to the party's preferred candidate) but defeating an incumbent president in the primary just doesn't happen. Obama being the first black president, he'd have to spend October '12 on live national television screwing a live underage boy AND a dead girl to lose the nomination. Also, probably a lot of Democrat politicians are not at all displeased with him, they merely recognize that pretending to be angry at Obama is a sound political position at the moment.

 

[Slew Foot]

Republicans controlling congress with a democrat president is usually a recipe for success.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Same way 1994 was the end of Clinton presidency

It kind of was. He moved quickly to the right after that and wasn't ever the same.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I'm not familiar with all of the presidential laws in the USA.. but could the democratic party pull its support from Obama and present another candidate? This sort of thing is very common in a parliamentary system like in Canada..

I only ask because there may be a whole slew of democrats pissed with him but if he is who they have to vote for they will vote for him regardless. Mind you he may not be able to do much if the entire congress/senate is republican.

There is the possibility of challenging the president in the primaries, however that is likely to splinter the party (if the challenger has strong enough support) and would likely hand the presidency over to the opposition party.

For an example see LBJ and the 1968 presidential election. Although there was more to it than the simple fracturing of the party; it played a large roll in handing Nixon and the Republican party the presidency.

 

[Brainonska511]

No, they can't replace Obama very easilly. The best they could do would be to (1) impeach him which means to accuse him of a crime and then (2) convict him of that crime. #1 is fairly easy, but #2 is very difficult.

Having a republican congress and a democrat president is probably the best combination that we've ever had. The 1990s were fantastic in large part because of that combination. The president can still do a lot in the way of a veto. The republicans won't get anything they want unless they compromise and give the president what he wants. In a way, that is even easier for Obama to get his way with republicans in control of congress than with democrats in control. Democrats have a habit of bickering, delay, and watering down their bills when they are in control of congress. Suddenly if republicans are in control, then there is only one democrat (Obama) who gets to control what needs to be in the bills for the republicans to get their way.

The Democrats could pull support for Obama. Obama could face a primary challenger and lose the Democratic nomination. He'd still be able to finish his first term though and run for re-election as an independent (if he lost in the primary). There doesn't need to be impeachment and removal for the Democrats to remove him from the party.

 

[Genx87]

I am only replying to the title. I really dont think people will remember or care about the oil spill in Novemeber. I think what will hurt the democrats more is the immigration situation and the state of the economy.

 

[Genx87]

Republicans controlling congress with a democrat president is usually a recipe for success.

If republicans gain control of the house + senate. My 2012 vote will go to Obama regardless of who Republicans nominate.