Talk Elections

#1 obviously

Depends on the situation. Of course, there is a clear example in Bill Clinton.

He wouldn't go the Clinton route. He is just too into himself.

It's funny how people think that he would change everything, but he cannot even change himself.

I think there's a lot of truth here. I really think that a Republican controlled Congress may make him even weaker because of this. If people are fed up with his policies now, the comparisons certainly won't be good for him.

Obama would be more successful in blaming problems and gridlock on the Republican congress; However, I don't think history will repeat itself.

It will help him greatly.  In 2012, he can warn voters that if they give the White House to Republicans, they can say goodbye to Social Security and Medicare and get ready for huge middle class tax hike(the "fair" tax). 

I think Obama would have to radically change course, and it would be difficult.

An improving economy would help.

#1, certainly.

It's far harder to not only unseat the sitting president, but also give a party total control, than it is to have a president get re-elected while also allowing for split control.

People believe they get moderation when the executive and legislative branches have different parties in charge.

Question: would he want to be President?

If so, then he would run a Truman-like campaign against a "do-nothing" or even "perverse" (he would find gentler words than the word "perverse", but not by much) Congress.

Republicans in Congress are now very unpopular, and if they got the majority back, they might offer solutions that most Americans would dislike. Who wants to work longer and harder under harsher conditions for less? Who wants greater risk of wars intended largely for the profit of war contractors? Who wants tax increases on themselves so that well-heeled people can be made exempt from them? Who wants the economy divided up among ruthless profiteers?

For good reason, Americans voted out Republican majorities in the House and Senate in 2006, and should they forget in 2010, they will find out again in 2012 why the voted them out.


I do not believe that the GOP will regain control of either House of Congress in November 2010. It has nothing new to offer except new hardships.  

Well, it depends.  If Obama pulls a Clinton and moves to the center, then he'll probably win re-election.  I just don't see that - not with his inner circle of Valerie Jarrett and the Chicago cabal.  There are only two people who can move him to the center.  One is Rahm Emmanuel and other dems are wanting his head right now.  The other is Robert Gates, and I imagine if you see any big move, it will be with him on national security.  I don't think that the GOP will take the senate, which helps the GOP more because he can't really argue that the GOP is in control.  The public knows that the senate is the more powerful body.

He can make some big steps to help him:
1) Fire Eric Holder and replace him with an attorney general more in line with the opinion of the public.  This is a must.
2) Send Biden on some assignment where he has little impact and is globetrotting or replace him with Clinton.
3) Stop the conflicting economic messages.  If he wants to re-sell the usefulness of his first stimulus package should the economy improve, he needs to get the advisors to have one unitary message.  You can't have Roemer and Jarrett out there saying the stimulus has already had its effect and the other saying that it hasn't taken effect yet.
4) Imaging - he needs to stop looking arrogant and out of touch with the middle.  No more arugula, no more secretly flipping off oponents when he's angry, no more secret messages to his campaign donors like the bitter comment that always get out into the media.  He needs to stop saying that he can do things because he's the president - its a touch Nixonian, people notice it and don't like it.

Rahm Emanuel will be dumped if the midterm elections go very poorly.  He is part of the reason why Obama is in this bind.  If Obama filips off the left anymore, he will draw a primary challenge so fast his head will spin.  His only hope would be to pull a Harry Truman and use the kind of in your face confrentational style with Republicans that would likely re-energized the core Democratic base.  If Obama cooperates with Republicans, the liberal base will almost certainly either primary him or support a third party candidate in the general election.  They saw what happened with Bill Clinton in the 1990's and dont want to fall into that trap again.

I would go with the first choice, more than likely. Once it sinks in that there is balance in the government, the American public becomes more tolerable of the President. It happened with Clinton in 94 going on to defeat Dole handily in 96. I still remember analysts believing he would be a one-termer.

Carter was a one termer with both houses in his party's control. Bush was a one termer with his party having no control of either house. Reagan, republicans I believe had control of the Senate initially and then lost it. Of course we know the 84 result.

In 2012, if the country's financial position is in the gutter than he's out as well and Repubs gain more seats. If he wins, it will be more or less the same count, perhaps some for Repubs.

He already has a more confrontational style than any president in history.  One of the rules for radicals is to get in people's faces and Obama is a student of Alinsky.    He has a rapid response team for any criticism, flips off oponents, demonizes them, etc.  If he moves farther left, he will lose in a great landslide.

More likely, since he could follow Clinton's lead and portray himself as a bulwark against GOP extremism. Only Obama would have a stronger case since many people remember what occured when the GOP controlled both the Presidency and Congress (under Bush Jr.) while under Clinton, Republicans have not controlled Congress and the Presidency together for 40 years.

Less likely because Obama just never learns his lesson. He will look like he's shifting the blame. Obama faces the toughest election in 2012 that I can find in any recent history. When you're in the majority games can be played too with the other party. In 2002 and 2003 the media was comparing Bush to his dad for being popular but not reelected. Now it's Obama being the next Clinton. History won't repeat itself. However, anything could happen and the election is a long way away.

The obvious follow up question is will Bob Dole be running in 2012?  If the Republicans can find someone who can finish a 4-year term and maybe even an 8-year term, then they have a strong chance of beating a weakened Obama.  My recommendation, find someone younger than 62 and they can beat Obama.

I agree with the Bob Dole statement. Also, the best thing for the GOP is if we win 215 in the house and 50 in the senate. That gives dems the tie breaker in the senate while some of their party still doesn't want to vote for Obama's ideas. In the House dems still have "control."

It would make a landslide against him  much less likely, as the threat of an all-Republican federal government should solidfy the Democratic position in the Northeast and West Coast, and is something Scott Brown should probably in particular be worried about. That said, the election will not  be won or lost in the places where the GOP domination threat on its own will be death to the GOP nominee regardless of who it will be. In places like Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida he will need to actually be a much better President and politician as he has hitherto been. And the biggest obstacle to that is the refusal of his braintrust to admit he is in trouble. Given that Plouffe and Axelrod are the same people running the Deval Patrick ship,  I think further inward-lookingness is more likely than not.

I think the American people are annoyed in that for the last ten to fifteen years they have been denied the post-war ideal, ie. a moderate Republican President and a Democratic Congress, which even Clinton was a pale immitation of. In 2012 they will have a choice between a bad option and a worse one; a Democratic President with a Republican Congress and a Republican President with a Republican Congress.

More annoying is that the American people have been denied a Calvin Coolidge type president for so long.

Coolidge understood what it was about. Bill Clinton figured it out by the end w. Neither Bush nor Obama has ever gotten it.

Honestly, if the GOP wins in 2010, a higher caliber of Republican candidates will jump into the race.  Some stay out of the race because they don't want to waste their time and lose.  If Obama is seen as weak, then Jeb will run and he will win Florida and Ohio.  What does Jeb have to lose, should he back down just because the media is anti-Bush?  He's not that much of a wimp.

Old statesmen like Dole and McCain and GHWB will always lose because voters would never be convinced they can finish a 4 year term.  They want youth, energy, and charisma.  Unless you are dan quayle. 

Republicans regaining Congress in 2010 is the best thing that could happen for Obama.

Now, if his agenda isn't passed, he looks weak and can't pull in his own party's legislators. If the Republicans control Congress from November, every time he doesn't get his way he'll be able to blame the "obstructionist Republicans in the Congress."

His chances of re-election are greatly enhanced with a Republican-dominated Congress in my opinion.

1. I would disagree for several reasons. For one in 1996 Bob Dole was the Senate Majority Leader. In 2012 the GOP nominee will likely be a Governor (Romney, Pawlenty, or Palin with a dark horse in Mitch Daniels).

2. The economy picked up rapidly in 1996 with March alone adding 700,000 jobs. Will the economy be growing that strong in 2012, I have my doubts . I think Unemployement will still be above 8% and thats if their isn't a double dip recession.

3. If the GOP gets congress, their will be a budget battle in like in 1995. Last time the GOP blew it. With the media in the Dems pocket the chance of winning the propaganda campaign is low but if they stay on message they will do better then Gingrich did and Obama might end up being the one conceeding defeat.

4. Its all about momentum with regards to obstruction. The GOP could claim they have it based on midterm win and thus Obama is the obstructionist. Considering the wide shift from -7 to 4 or so needed to win the majority back would be a double digit shift in the GOP favor.

5. Obama can't shift like Clinton did because the base would abandon him and primary him. The Truman approach is less palatable cosnidering that the country has moved much further to the right since the 40's. With independents having shifted heavilly to the GOP, that could actually destroy him. The path for him is not going to be very clear for Obama going forward, no where near as clear as it was for Clinton. So he will need to split the difference in which case he make get the worst of both worlds.

Also, I hear Dick Morris is more interested in destroying Obama then helping. lol

It mainly depends on how Obama handles the situation.

Clinton handled it well besides the Lewinsky scandal. Obama i am afraid will not be lucky.

Bush was reelected unlike his dad. Obama will be voted out unlike Clinton.

One must consider that it is generally very difficult to oust a sitting president. You need a top-tier contender (like Reagan and Clinton), and at least a somewhat favourable political environment (like 1980 and 1992).
If the GOP nominates an extremeist (like Santorum) or a moron (Palin), then Obama will win hands down, regardless of wheter the Republicans controll Congress, assuming that unemployment isn't 15%, or Joe Biden is revealed as a child- molester.

Not true about unemployment. If unemployment isn't below 7.5%, Obama is toast. Anyone could beat him whether it's Romney or Tom Delay. Also, don't underestimate the GOP's ability to make ads stating that our tax dollars should go toward defeating the terrorists and not towards their defense attorneys.

There are factors in existance beyond Obama. The question may well be undivided control of the national government by the GOP given the high prospect the GOP would take the senate in 2012. That gurrantees Obama 46% and probably close to 152(MA,NY,VT,RI,DC,MD,CA,WA) electoral votes regardless of economic conditions. To be fair though, this issue is probably weakest with someone like Romney. On  the otherhand, against someone like Palin, well, if Obama converted to Islam tomorrow he would still have difficulty dropping below 200 or so electoral votes.

I dont think Obama wants Dick Morris' "help".  Morris is a complete idiot who, if anything, stopped Clinton from getting 50% and kept Democrats from winning back the House with his strategy to have Clinton cave to Republicans.  This kept core Democratic voters from turning out in full force and made Republicans look competent to independent voters. 

I can see one way in which Obama wins with unemployment above 7.5% -- and that is in a postwar retrenchment of the economy in which the economy goes from heavy war production to peacetime production. Such would not be his fault.

Of course I know that the GOP can come up with appeals to a false patriotism in which people take offense at the idea that terrorists deserve defense lawyers. Does that imply the "need" for a kangaroo court, a Soviet-style troika, or a lynching?


Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have been tried and sentenced before November 2012. As a strict rule I do not predict the outcome of jury trials.

The Israelis paid for the cost of a defense attorney for Adolf Eichmann and for bullet-proof glass around his cage in the courtroom. Is any anti-American terrorist accused of anything as bad as Eichmann was convicted of?

I think that whether the Democrats maintain or lose control of the House and/or Senate, President Obama will have a good campaign machine behind it and strong campaign ads. if the Republicans gain control of one or the other (more likely the House), then he will run against what he will present as a "do-nothing Congress". 

 

The only President ever reelected with unemployment over 7.5% was FDR and he was able to do so because he passed legislation like public works, the WPA, and Social Security that linked millions of previously dissaffected voters to him and the Democrats.  Obama may be able to that with healthcare, but that is his only shot. 

Stick to at-least somewhat reasonable premises like "If the Democrats 75 vote edge in the House is trimmed to 35 and their 18 seat edge in the senate is trimmed to 8, how does it affect Obama's chances at re-election?".   Republicans would be in a much better position to obstruct but the public would possibly be wise to it and punish them more than the president in '12.  On the other hand, if Democrats can't sell the message that Republican obstruction is the big problem this November, they may be too poor at communicating to do so 2 years later.