Why Barack Obama is looking good for a second term in 2012

[DearAbby]

When Winston Churchill was defeated in the 1945 general election, his wife, Clementine, told him it was "a blessing in disguise". The grand old man was not convinced. He harrumphed: "At the moment, it is very well disguised." The pounding delivered by America's voters to the Democrats is a blessing in disguise for Barack Obama. The results of the mid-term elections were not at all bad for the president. I'd go further: his prospects of winning a second term look as good, if not better, than ever.

On the face of things, this is a perverse conclusion to draw after one of the worst drubbings suffered by the Democrats in many years. Resurgent Republicans gained more than 60 seats in the House of Representatives, handing them their biggest majority in that half of Congress since the 1940s. They added six Senate places, among them Obama's old seat in Illinois. Though this was not enough to give them control of the other half of Congress, it will make it that much more difficult for Democrats to overcome Republican filibusters. The Republicans also grabbed the keys to the governors' mansions in a slew of key states. Obama reacted to the defeats by ruefully observing: "Some election nights are better than others" and accepting he had taken a "shellacking" from the voters. Like Churchill, he must be inclined to think that, if this is a blessing, it is a very well disguised one.

So it is. To find the encouragement for the president, you first have to dig beneath a thick crust of inevitable headlines describing these elections in terms of a humiliating rout. Then you have to hack through a lot of predictable commentary on both sides of the Atlantic about the evaporation of the euphoria which attended Obama's election two years ago and talk about his "fall from grace". Only once you've done that do things come into perspective. It helps to have a sense of history. Heavy midterm defeats for the party occupying the White House are very common. Midterms are a safety valve which Americans often use to let off steam when they are in a discontented state. Franklin D Roosevelt took a thumping in 1938 and went on to win two more presidential elections. Ronald Reagan suffered a severe midterm defeat two years before being returned to the White House by a landslide. Bill Clinton followed a similar pattern. In his memoirs, Clinton writes: "After the 1994 elections, I had been ridiculed as an irrelevant figure, destined for defeat in 1996." As it turned out, he cruised to victory. In each case, midterm defeats galvanised the president to sharpen up his act while the other side misread what had happened.

More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/07/barack-obama-second-term-2012

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chulanowa]

4. Really?

So if he takes the primary - and I'm very certain he won't have any challenges in so doing - you're going to vote against him?

[Better Today]

7. Unless and until he starts resolving the middle class issues like jobs

current health care and health insurance costs, ending DADT enforcement, y'know the stuff he ran on, then I won't vote for him again. Not voting for him is not the same as voting against him, and I can't answer whether I'd vote against him until I see who the other candidates might be. I doubt I'd vote for any Repub, but I'd look at third party candidates.

[Chulanowa]

8. Actually it's exactly the same as voting against him

A vote removed from one candidate is a vote given to the other one. And in our system, a vote for a third party is exactly the same as not voting; Ergo casting your vote for the green party ends up being a vote for the Republicans, just as a vote for the Constitutional vote ends up being a vote for Democrats.

Contrary to common "wisdom" these methods do not "send a message" - or if they do, they send the opposite message than you intend. When the Republicans lose, they usually look for ways to moderate their message; when the Democrats lose, they look for ways to move closer to the center. However, when either party sees broad support for their politicians and their platform, that is when they will press to give you more of what the people apparently want. Politicians won't move their asses unless they see they have the support of the American people first - refusing to support them until they give you what you want is thus self-defeating.

Further, I want to explain a few things to you; The office of the presidency doesn't have a measurable effect on jobs; in the rare cases that it does, it's overwhelmingly a negative impact (see Reagan's union-busting.) The reason is, the president cannot just wave a magic wand and make jobs; congress has to approve any budget that involves a jobs package, and let's be frank, if it says "spend" anywhere in it, Republicans and a fair number of Democrats will shit their pants.

Second, health Insurance costs have been addressed. Not fully, but if you think they haven't been touched, you are either a liar or a fool. Additionally the framework is in place now to do more in the future; Unfortunately no branch of our government really has the authority to perform price-fixes, except in extreme or isolated circumstances.

Third, the president could end enforcement of DADT. This would be about as legal is if he decided to end enforcement of any other federal law, though; that is, the legality would be questionable at best. Doing so would result in a strong backlash from the new legislature (Hell, from our current one as well) and ultimately hurt chances for this law to be repealed or overturned. Ending DADT is a legislative or judicial issue, and NOT an executive one; Write your congressman, call your senator, sue over it, this is stuff you do that may actually end it. The very absolute best that the president can do is break the law for a stopgap measure that lasts only until the next guy is in office, and doing so would very likely cost him said office.

Do what you want in the primary. But if you think not voting, or voting for Republicans is going to get what you want, you're fucking stupid.

[Better Today]

9. No, it's not. I refuse to vote solely for the lesser of two evils.

I will vote FOR someone if they seem to deserve my vote. If you don't like that, well, tuff. There's no amount of explaining or bullying or anything else you can do to convince me that I must vote for Obama. If Obama wants my vote, he'll have to get busy, if you want me to vote for Obama, then you'll let him know he better get busy.

I have never thought that refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils will get me what I want, but neither does voting for the lesser of two evils, so why waste my time and energy when either voting or not voting produce the same results.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. So your binary measurement of worth is "everything I want, or nothing"?

"why waste my time and energy when either voting or not voting produce the same results" - since you regard the Democrats as the lesser of 2 evils, then you cannot be trying to achieve less evil, but just "what I want".

It's a remarkably selfish and self-centred attitude. Obviously you don't understand the concept of a political party, in which people with similar, but not identical, goals work together to help each other. I'm wondering if you understand the concept of a society either, because that's a bit like that too, and your '"what's in it for me - that's all I care about" attitude doesn't fit too well with that.

[Skidmore]

19. Lesser of two evils, eh??

So you would choose....pure evil.

Knock yourself out.

[Chulanowa]

24. It's not about you

Seriously, it's not. Voting may be a private matter in our society, but it is not personal. When you are voting, your decisions affect everyone around you. Yes, it's unlikely that your single vote could turn the tide - but it HAS happened before (Ask Al Franken, or look at 1960.) The way you vote has an impact on your entire city, county, state, and nation, BT.

Voting is a responsibility and, in my opinion, a duty. It's not about who you personally prefer, it's about who would serve the community best. And right now out of all contenders, that IS, in fact, Barack Obama. The Republicans have nothing in the running there, he's not likely to get any Primary challenges, and the other parties have no chance of winning in our system. Ergo the only logical vote is Obama. And no, he's not perfect - but there isn't anyone in any party who WOULD be perfect to most standards held by those of you who loathe and revile Obama.

By the way, speaking of Third parties; if one DOES win, it won't be one that you want to see winning; It'll be the Constitutionalists, the Libertarians, or some new conservative (possibly Nativist) party that springs up between now and then. The Democratic party is still going strong; it's the Republicans who are faltering and extremely disaffected with their own party. Thus it's more likely that they will defect with enough numbers to bring a third party into the scene.

[FrenchieCat]

11. +100000000000000000000 , Hell I"m bookmarking this post....

You just handed someone their ass....and then some.

[Xithras]

12. He has two years to repaint himself as a liberal.

You make a good point, but you're missing a big one. There's no point in voting for a Democrat who is just going to act like a conservative.

Obama has been a disappointment. I've voted Green many times in the past, and if he doesn't turn his politics around, I may do so again. This India outsourcing crap was the last straw for me.

[Chulanowa]

21. A centrist Dem is still several steps better than a moderate Republican

Be honest here; do you think we would be faring better under John McCain? Despite his pandering to the right during the campaign (a sad effort to scrub off his RINO image) he actually is rather moderate for a Republican. Would he be working better for progressive interests than Barack obama currently is?

We don't have a magic crystal to scry alternate realities to find out, but my guess is NO - Obama is leaps and bounds better for us. He's no conservative - I'll grant he's not the bearded, bereted waver of a red flag who screams "REVOLUCION!" like some apparently demand, but he's certainly not even toeing over that center line. There's a BIG difference between "Not as Liberal as I'd like" and "conservative."

Obama disappoints you... So you're going to vote green. Xithras, if you're trying to avoid disappointment, that's about the silliest decision you could make.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[displacedvermoter]

31. Actually, here in New York many of us will feel

pretty free and easy when it comes to voting for President in two years. With the Electoral College working the way it does, and the reality that there is no chance for Obama not getting New York's votes, those of us who are no longer comfortable voting for Obama then will be able to vote for a third, fourth, fifth or tenth party candidate. Just like I was able to do with Cuomo being so far ahead in the polls last week.

So, no, it is NOT the same as voting against him in all cases.

Thanks for the concern, though!

[Chulanowa]

32. Why not just stay home and masturbate then?

It's the same thing, only you save gas and feel better after you're done.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MBS]

2. this is a great article. Thanks n/t

[DearAbby]

3. Kick

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Ah a nooze story published in a nation

that actually has a sense of history.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. And all the examples cited had something in common.

In each case the national economy grew dramatically in the following two years. (38-40, 82-84, 94-96)

That is obviously not going to happen for Obama so the whole premise of the article is nonsense.

[Better Today]

10. I'm not ready to predict that it won't, but unless Obama gets busy and gives up

this foolish idea that his only error was in not communicating his wins as well as he could have, then you'll be correct.

And yes, for those who'll jump in, I know it isn't just up to Obama, but he had better start showing some leadership and push back, then if it doesn't happen we'll clearly be able to blame the Repubs. If he keeps his current tone and ineffectiveness, then he'll rightly hold a good deal of the blame.

[FrenchieCat]

13. I'm not ready to predict that you'll ever have anything positive to say about Obama,

cause you have yet to in the entire time you've been at DU.

It's so interesting to watch those who like you jump in every thread
to pile it on as though they are saying something new......

In fact, it's comical. :rofl:

[Catherina]

14. +1 n/t

[nxylas]

17. Yep, Rawnsley says as much in his article

"If there is a double-dip, Obama is certainly toast". So you can bet that the Republicans will do their damnedest to wreck the economy even further, something they're very good at.

[Skittles]

15. Clinton turned it around

but, I don't know

[Scurrilous]

18. K & R

:thumbsup:

[SidDithers]

20. K&R...nt

Sid

[Occam Bandage]

22. Most political writing is nonsense. This included.

It's. The. Economy. It's always the economy. It's only the economy.

[caty]

26. I don't vote just for the president.

I vote for the Democratic Party because they have the platform I approve of. If I ever voted for a repub, I would leave the voting booth gagging. :puke: If President Obama runs, I will vote a straight Democratic ticket as always. If he decides not to run another term, I will vote the same. After eight years of bush/chaney and the rethugs, I would vote for any candidate for president if he/she ran as a Democrat.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toward Progress]

28. 2012 will be a breeze.

The results of the midterms were an example of a desperate public; demoralized and frightened by the fact that, for a lot of them, things just haven't gotten better yet. The Republicans took advantage of that fear and were able to get a few seats. Now that they're in place, though, those voters will see that they're the same obstructionist, selfish bastards that they've always been. Any shiny veneer that's on the R-party will quickly come off.

[Scurrilous]

29. Welcome to DU.

:thumbsup:

[Toward Progress]

30. Thanks!

:)