Democrats can say what they want about President Obama, but they won't beat him.

[bigtree]

Neither will republicans . . .

Despite the latest polls which try and sell the idea that President Obama is unpopular and close to being overtaken by the likes of Romney, Huckabee, and 8 points away from Palin, the Illinois Democrat isn't going to face any noticeable challenge in the Democratic primary and voters are not going to replace him with any of the past republican losers.

There's absolutely no evidence at all that Democrats are ready to abandon the President. The Quinnipiac University Poll that claims so many Americans don't think he deserves reelection also says that Democrats are firmly behind him. That's something that's frequently ignored when Democratic critics point to republican disaffection with the President and republican's* attraction to their sorry pack of quitters and losers. We can grouse all we want about the lack of enough 'progressive' progress from this administration and the perils of that fact in the 2012 election, but there isn't any Democrat standing today who is in any position to knock that Democratic base of support out from under the President.

Besides, republicans will put the fear in recalcitrant Democrats, especially if they really are serious about defending the progressive issues and initiatives they say they're so concerned about.

Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute states in the report that, 'the thing (President) Obama has going for him when it comes to his re-election may be that at this point the Republicans don't have a candidate who is both nationally well-known and well- liked by a majority of voters." Moreover, Palin's negatives are already through the roof. That puts the republican appeal to independents on its heels right out of the gate, no matter how many of their base of voters flock to the polls.

The fact is that republicans are more divided as a party than ever. Their front-runners are doing everything in their power to pull the republican party to the far-right. The most dominate factor in all of that pulling is the Palin candidacy which is all but announced. She will have the effect of both defining the republican party as a fringe organization that welcomes nutters, birthers, bigots and everything independent voters rejected the last presidential campaign. Then, there's the outright hostility of their rhetoric, platform, and agenda toward minority voters; a stalwart constituency who had a defining presence in the election of President Obama and have not shown any sign whatsoever of abandoning him.

Finally, there's still the benefit of the incumbency and the elevated platform the President has to both communicate his positions in the campaign and endeavor to put many of them into effect. All republicans will have is their disfavored Congress whose activity in the next two years should be a perfect poster and target for the President's reelection campaign; all the while, with Palin and others harping on them from the far-right.

The vast majority of our Democratic party is going to be united behind President Obama for his reelection. We can, and certainly should, continue to challenge him to do what we think is best, but, until critics on either side of the political aisle come up with a candidate with as much of a public profile and with a record of accomplishments to match, there won't be much of a contest in 2012.

Now, tell me all about how the scary republicans are going to prevail over our Democratic president.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

1. Fact is, as playing the head of state role, he's pretty danm good.

[piratebay]

2. Now, tell me all about how the scary republicans

are going to prevail over our Democratic president.

LBJ hammered in the primaries, result Nixon.

Carter hammered in the primaries, result Reagan.

Can't. Happen. Here.

[bigtree]

3. there won't be any significant or noticable hammering

What Democrat do you believe is actually willing to challenge the President?

Besides, there's really no debate in public or in Congress over the military deployments that comes close to mirroring the discontent Johnson faced. Carter never had the base of supporters Barack Obama has, and republicans have been searching for another actor to play Reagan's role for decades.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

4. If Mitt or Huckebee is the nominee --

I would not be cracking the champagne yet. I think both would have a very, very serious chance of unseating O. Especially if unemployment and the housing crises have not improved significantly.

[bigtree]

5. Romney probably won't be conservative enough for republicans to nominate

Huckabee isn't going to beat this sitting Democratic president.

Romney on the economy? Ezra Klein:

"You can separate this into a few buckets: mostly regressive tax cuts that might spur economic growth; massive legislation with huge implications but no details or obvious paths to passage (trade agreements, entitlement reform, energy bill); and cuts to public-sector jobs that will raise the unemployment rate."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/mitt_romneys_got_a_plan.html

[TBF]

10. Especially if they team up - or add Rubio on as VP. nt

[H2O Man]

6. The republicans couldn't

beat President Obama if they had a good candidate. They quite simply don't. I doubt that their party elders are seriously thinking they have anyone who can make a good challenge in 2012.

What they'll look for is someone who won't sink their Congressional and state candidates. This is why they are cringing at the thought of Sarah Palin running. A Mitt Romney-type wouldn't sink their ship, but a loose cannon like Palin will.

[bigtree]

7. if Palin does lose the republican primary

. . . she could end up 'going rogue' to keep the money flowing and stay in until the finish.

I don't think republican voters like Romney and Huckabee as much as the polls suggest. The republican electorate is a rabid bunch who is desperate to discredit and banish this president from office. The more lurid the campaign, the more support one of their candidates will get from them. That posture isn't normally appealing to any significant number of independent voters.

Their party may well want a more controlled campaign, as you suggest, H2O Man, but they haven't shown much skill or wisdom in managing their little revolt, so far.

[H2O Man]

8. Exactly.

A number of times on DU, I've referenced Taylor Branch's book, "The Clinton Tapes." President Clinton tells the author about a conversation with Bush the Elder, where the ex-president explains how the establishment republicans are concerned about the rising tide of radical, right-wing extremists within their party. Those who are "out-of-control" simply cannot, by definition, be controlled.

Thus, a 2012 republican primary could indeed start out with Cariboob Barbie; a plastic Ken doll named Willard; a Fox News host of a bibical Mayberry RFD unreality show; and a splattering of VP hopefuls. Willard "Mitt" Romney may be acceptable to the Wall Street republicans, because they can count on him to advocate their domestic corporate policies, and easily control him in foreign affairs. But he has no more chance of winning the presidential election, than he does of beating Manny Pacquiao in the "Fight of the Century."

Huckleberry is far less acceptable to the republican elders, though he might become more popular with the religious right wing of the party's grass roots. My understanding is that the administration views him as the republican's strongest challenger at this time. However, the 2012 election is for President, not Bishop. In a head-to-head contest against Barack Obama, he would be exposed for the huckster that he is.

Palin poses the republican establishment's biggest headache. She could actually win two of their first three primaries. She knows that, and they do, too. The establishment forces would have to openly oppose her. That risks offending the rabid right tea-partiers, a faction of the religious right, and the women of their party. At this point, Karl Rove is playing point for the anti-Palin forces. It is not hard to imagine Palin using him to define the establishment as old, fat, crooked white men, out of touch with the more passionate forces within the party. As I noted in the summer of 2008, Palin has an extreme borderline personality disorder, with histrionic features. When a person with that make-up has a cash flow, they do not go gently into the good night. They triangulate, and split from anyone who dares reject them. John McCain found this out.

I suspect that the republican elders are engaged in an effort to find someone "new," who would be acceptable to the majority of their party, and who could help them in Congressional and state races. I'm not able to figure out who that might be at this point. Do you have any thoughts on this?

[bigtree]

16. heh

If I did know someone who could thread that crooked needle, I wouldn't admit it to anyone.

Thing is, the establishment republicans found that there really isn't a positive message they can conjure that their voters want to hear. For the next two years they'll be caught in a tug from Democrats and the President (and the public) to accomplish something concrete to address the effects of the economic quagmire, and a shove from Tea Partiers who are hell-bent on just busting something up to make room for their sweet selves. I'd predict that any button-down, policy-oriented republican is going to become a target for that conservative opposition from among their ilk.

Of course, Texas and Florida are always a good bet to find a republican populist with electoral appeal.

[grahamhgreen]

9. He is beating himself by failing to enact policies that favor people over corporations.

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. +1

[Bandit]

12. Oh boy we elect Obama again and Republicans get everything they want.

It is a win win for the Republicans while Democrats only win because Obama has a D after his name just like Ben Nelson does..

[BzaDem]

18. Oh, Republicans are not getting what they want. The fact that you think they somehow are getting

what they want just shows that you are confused about Republicans.

[leeroysphitz]

13. Ok so you have a formula to use when betting on the "big game" but...

The reality is that the Republicans could sit 2012 out and still be pleased as punch with the results of Obama's second term and while our team might win the big game the whole country may lose.

If Obama and his cat food commission succeed in taking Social Security then the Republicans will have won the sweetest plum on the tree regardless of who sits in The White House and what letter appears after his or her name.

It's what they've wanted for decades and it looks as though a "socialist librul" Democrat is bending over backwards to give it to them.

[defendandprotect]

14. At this point we should be noticing how bereft the Democratic party is of

any real liberal leadership --

We now have one right wing party and one radical right wing party --

and don't think anyone should be celebrating it or gloating over it!!

[kctim]

15. Good post bigtree

I wouldn't worry about Palin one bit. She only appeals to the fringe of the Republican party and she will do nothing but split the Republican vote. She is nothing but the rights version of Nader and that will only help Dems.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

19. There's a reason why 86% of liberal Democrats support Obama, and why he has the highest Democratic

approval rating of any President in 50 years.

You are spot on, at least assuming nothing unforeseen dramatically changes.