Talk Elections

There has been a strong case to use 2004 as a case study for this November. I understand the argument: A divisive, but personable incumbent with marginally respectable approval ratings against an unlikeable, flip flopping, prone to silly gaffes, challenger who the base is even relecutant to rally around. That being said, I think you need to look much deeper; and when you do, I think it's impossible to conclude that even with these similarities, the differences are too detailed to prove the same result as 8 years ago.


Essentially, if you want to use the 2004 election as an analogy, you have to adjust for a few things:

1. Obama is running 5%-8% or so worse off than George W. Bush was at this time. It may seem slight, but in a close election it could prove critical.

2. While Romney's favorables are bad now, they only are so low due to the Primary. They will rise, especially with Republicans (see point 3 below). I think, ultimately, Romney is stronger than Kerry when it comes to appeal - he's much more enthusiastic and energized, and less prone to major gaffes.

3. The GOP base will rally around Romney. They are down on him now because it was a pick of Romney over several other Republican candidates. In November, it will be Romney against Obama. So while Romney may not have been the #1 pick of the deep conservatives out there, when it's a choice between Romney, Obama, or not voting (which would essentially be a choice for Obama), they'll turn out in order to dethrone the incumbent they so badly despise.

4. The number one issue of the electorate in 2012 is the economy. The number one issue of the electorate in 2004 was national security (was still the 9/11 aftermath). George Bush had a commanding lead with national security - the rally effect was still going strong, albeit starting to peter out, the anti-Iraq War brigade didn't even emerge yet, and hurricane Katrina was still a year away. Whereas now, Romney is seen trusted with the economy, while Obama's approvals on the issue are somewhere around the 30% mark. Sure, the economy is slightly improving, and if it does continue, and, more so, picks up pace, the better the chances are for Obama.

But this (4) is a huge hole in the 2004 analogy. GWB had a commanding lead over the major issue of the electorate, whereas Obama has been seen flailing, failing, and coming up short.

5. Now that I think about it, 2004 wasn't really a surprise - it took us right back to an almost 50-50 split, which was, essentially, the result of the prior 2000 election. My point? While Bush fell from 90% down to around 54% from September 12, 2001 to circa April 2004, that had more to do with the rally effect petering out rather than any perceived (at that time) faults during his first term. Compare that to Obama who fell from ~70% (these are rough estimates based on memory, too lazy to look every one of them up) to as low as 39% (now back to the mid to up 40s) over the course of his 4 years, but his story was one of his own making (unpopular health care, failed/unproductive stimulus, poor economy, Libya, etc).

Basically, my point here is that Bush was always divisive, hence the 2000 split, but people weren't intent on making a referendum against him on his first four years, but they are doing so on Obama's. Pretty important difference, if you ask me.

Overall. Overall, I do see why people think the 2004 election is an analogy. But remember, no election is like any other. While Obama may win a close election resembling how Bush won his in 2004, and while some reasons may be the same, it won't tell the whole story.

That being said, I think the differences outlined above also show that it could very easily go the other way.

I just think it's too simplistic to look at obvious similarities and think that it will follow the 2004 election - there's too many key differences that could easily dictate otherwise.

This simply isn't true. In fact, Obama is pacing Romney by a higher percentage than Bush was Kerry  in April 2004.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html



It's arguable as to who is more mind-numbingly boring between Romney and Kerry, but I would like to know how you got to that second conclusion. Kerry said one mush mouthed thing about his vote for Iraq and then made the mistake of going windsurfing; the rest was mostly a smear campaign. Romney is sorely mistaken if he thinks people will just forget about the ugly primary, another thing that Kerry didn't have to deal with.


Romney will win 90%+ of the GOP vote, of course. Unfortunately for him, the GOP's share of the electorate is going to drop if they can't find a way to get the grassroots working for Romney. At the end of it all, that may be the death nail for Romney more than the moderate enthusiasm on the Dem side for Obama.


The most recent CNN poll (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/16/cnnorc-poll-april-13-15-2012-election/) shows Obama leading Romney by 2% (44-42) on the issue of the economy, and by double digits on a multitude of leadership questions.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Obama's approval rating is an average 47-48, higher if you weed out the hackish Republican pollsters. The trend also shows increasing approvals for Obama, not declining.

Kerry did not have underwater favorables at earlier stages of the race, Romney is starting out with poor numbers and it's not all due to the primary, he's just an awkward candidate all around. A lot of negative perceptions are locked in.

Very typical that Democrats are missing the forest for the trees.

Poke holes in the details, but the overarching ideas of the original post are pretty valid. Romney is more competitive on the main issue of the day than Kerry was. Bush had better approval ratings than Obama. The Republican electorate is much more likely to come out to dethrone Obama than the younger Democrat electorate was for Bush'04.

I really hope Democrats keep underestimating Mitt Romney. This isn't going to be a blowout for Obama. It will be a close election.

Great post.

Romney is an infinitely better challenger than Kerry, and that's ignoring how much more personable and down-to-earth Ann is compared to Theresa Heinz. Kerry went after Bush on his strength of national security by highlighting his military experience, and Team Bush effectively Swift Boated him on the issue. Romney already has an advantage on the economy and the deficit, which are to 2012 what national security was to 2004. He will continue to strengthen his lead on these issues as the two candidates continue to speak. Unfortunately for Obama, there is no last-minute videotape that will be released which solidifies the issue of the economy/deficit in Obama's corner.

Clearly Obama is out of his depth when it comes to economics. There is no shame in that. Some people are successful businessmen and some people are community organizers. What do you want in your president, though? Are you really happy with this economy? Heck, is anybody really happy with this economy?

I'm glad that so many young Democrats are convinced that Obama is cruising to re-election. That means there's no need for any of them to bother voting in November. Tell your friends not to waste their time voting!

R-Money doesn't stand a chance, c'mon, you can fool yourself all you want, but you can't honestly believe deep down that he will do much better than McCain.

I understand the comparisons to 2004, but if you must compare: 1948 is a more apt comparison.

There's every reason to think that this will be a close election. But it's also true that Romney has much lower favorables at this stage than Kerry had at a comparable stage, and that Romney isn't polling as well against Obama as Kerry was against Bush.

For that matter, in 2004 the Republican ground game was much stronger than the Democratic ground game, which was probably critical. I don't see anyone claiming that the Romney ground game is better than the Obama ground game.

I more or less agree with the OP and would like to add the following important point: Romney is a centrist. Kerry wasn't. Therefore Romney is not seen as a scary candidate for either independents or moderate democrats. Romney inherently has a greater shot at winning independents over than Kerry had.

I still say this race is a toss-up with a slight advantage to Obama, that is tranformed into a disadvantage if the economy does not continue to improve.

Electoral map says otherwise.

Republicans need stop deluding themselves, unless something major happens Obama is going to win the question is how big the margin is.

Electoral map says otherwise months before either convention, oh no. Why don't we take a look at the electoral from this point in 2000, and then look at the final result. Did something major happen to make the election a tie?

Obama has 242 safe/lean Dems state already locked up. Lets be real, there are simply too many paths that can lead to an Obama victory, while Mitt has very limited options. Hell, it would be tough for a good campaigner to win with this map.....but a crappy one like Romney.

Alot of the states you probably consider locked up, I don't. This election hasn't started yet, Mitt's message of economic freedom has not yet reached the masses. Let's wait until the ads start at least.

Good luck selling that to the public..........

He is a sucky candiate who

If the election ends up turning on the ground game, then Romney will lose and likely lose badly.  His performance in the primaries indicates that he places little importance in a ground game, tho when the rules such as those in Virginia with its complicated ballot requirements required he build at least some ground game, he was able to.  So it's not a lack of ability to engage in the ground game, but rather a feeling that he is better off focusing on other campaign aspects.

Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.

I think the ground game matters in any close election. And it's worth remembering that the Obama campaign is really, really, good at it.

... is at least able to finish sentences?

You have two different candidates with different backstories and positions from 2004; of course, the results will be different. The country has shifted somewhat as well.


I assume this means approval ratings. I think he's doing a little worse (too lazy to check) but certainly not 5-8%.


Romney's favorables are artificially down now because Santorum and Gingrich supporters still don't like him -- when the 'get out the vote' push begins, that'll change. I'd have to agree with you on the second sentence -- Romney is a better candidate than Kerry, albeit not by much.


Oh yeah. Those Obama-hating, gun-toting Grizzly Mamas (and Papas) who supported Gingrich but still, deep down, think Palin should be President? They would turn out, in large numbers, for anybody (up to and including John Kerry) who has a legitimate chance of beating Obama.


Some spot-on analysis here.


Very true.


Not really. The 2000 election was close but not actually that negative -- both Bush and Gore, ironically, were demonized afterwards, Bush for his Presidency and Gore for global warming. It was the split -- the closeness, the Gore-gets-more-votes-but-Bush-wins phenomenon, that caused Bush to be so divisive. And 2004 was a referendum on Bush -- which Bush won.


Every election is different. While there are some superficial similarities, which may even include the results (Obama narrowly beating Romney by 3 points or so is very possible), the elections are not relatives - this is convergent evolution. The two are different, like dolphins and sharks - similar at first glance, but then, once you continue to study them, obviously different.


Everybody except the Occupy people hated Occupy back when it was going, and now it's over. Talking about how great Occupy was is the exact strategy Obama needs to get Romney elected by a significant margin.

If it's over, how did we get dozens of people out for the Occupy Campbell County rally yesterday?

I'm pretty sure you didn't, considering your Facebook page has a grand total of 14 likes, and one of the top posts is a guy who liked it from Maine. Obviously not everybody who attended liked it on Facebook, but that isn't exactly a grand show of strength.

There's also the fact that you're no longer getting any media attention or any attention from established politicians, and that people are losing interest. The best case scenario for the Occupy movement right now is that it is slowly but surely dying.

We did, and there's a photo on the way to prove it.


Ooh, the media and politicians hate us. Color me offended.

It isn't that they hate you. If they hate you they would demonize you (or at least try to), like what Fox News has tried to do to Barack Obama or Glenn Beck to George Soros. It's that they pay you no attention at all -- nobody thinks you're even slightly relevant.

Nobody likes Romney

except Republicans, and believe me Republicans will rally to him

except independents, moderates, who Romney has great appeal to

except conservatives, who will certainly not be voting for Obama and will be voting for Romney by default

except those who hate Obama's socialized medical scheme

 



   

Republicans will indeed rally to Romney -- polls suggest they already have. And Romney will do well enough with independents. But moderates are out of reach. Moderates quite regularly favor Obama 2-1 over Romney.

Moderates do not vote for Republicans like Romney and skew Democratic overall. Most people voting for Romney will not be those doing it because they like him, it will all be about issues and ideology.

Are you sure that the Obama Ground Game will be just as good this time around?

I'm seeing an Obama enthusiasm gap. 

In 2008, there was a lot of talk about voting for "Change" and that excited a lot of people. 

What do you think the rally cry will be for Obama in 2012?  We want free health care?

The volunteers were young people, but now the young people are unemployed and trying to pay off their college loans, they won't have time to canvas for Obama. 

Mitt has the Mormon volunteers, which love to canvas neighborhoods to convert voters. 

Granted, some Democratic supporters will be disappointed in Obama, and particularly for his having implemented a Republican health care plan. The Republican primary has helped there, in terms of sharpening the choices for people, and polls now show Democrats united behind Obama, and African Americans as the demographic most excited about voting in the fall. So I'm not convinced there's an enthusiasm gap, or at least not one favoring Romney.
But look, also, at how much money the Obama campaign has already invested in campaign offices and staff across the country -- remember that Obama had more offices in Iowa before the primary there than the entire Republican field put together.

there will still be a high african american turnout, but the hispanic and youth vote won't be as high for Obama this time around.  As mentioned, young people are concerned about the economy and getting jobs and paying off college loans.  In 2008, young people were concerned about getting drafted into a long war, and changing foreign policy.  I suppose you can say that 2012 will be about changing economic policy, but this mantra would favor Romney. 

If romney picks a hispanic-loving candidate like Rubio or Jeb Bush, then there will be a huge Hispanic turnout for Romney in Florida and the Southwest.  This Hispanic turnout may be higher than the african american turnout.  Remember, Dubya Bush had a huge Hispanic turnout in his favor, and that probably helped him win his 2 close elections. 

I just don't think Obama has a catchy slogan for 2012.  What do you think Obama's slogan will be?  "Hope for more change"?

I don't think hispanics are really going to go for republicans, even if with Rubio/Martinez on the ticket.

Also, Obama doesn't really need a new slogan. He just needs to be better than Romney.

That Occupy stuff is a BIG loser for the Democrats. Populism never works in a national campaign. Go ask Walter Mondale. It doesn't even usually work well at getting the Democratic nomination (see: Gephardt, Edwards, et al.)

Yeah, and go talk to Truman about it too.

Newsflash: He's dead and so are most of the people who voted for him. We might as well talk about Andrew Jackson next. The New Deal era died in the late 1970s. Stagflation was the legacy of naive Keynesianism. Why anybody thought things would turn out differently this time is beyond me.

The hilarious part: Romney, and people like me, want America to progress economically and technologically as we did over the past thirty years prior to the financial crisis. So-called "progressives" want America to simply stagnate until it withers into a wimpy shade of its former self (like most of Europe).

The progress of the 90's just created an artificial bubble and an inevitable bust.  High prosperity creates deep recessions, while steady growth means weaker recessions. You should know that.

Obama's slogan might as well be "don't worry, be happy."

Government policy (i.e., Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, repealing Glass-Steagall, etc.) created incentives that caused the 2008 financial crisis, so you'll have to excuse me for not having faith in more government. Government policy does not create results. Government policy creates incentives, which cause results. The old-style "more government is always better" policy is a recipe for further disaster down the road.

Free people and free markets power America. Government has a role, but too much government distorts progress.

1. I oppose the government encouraging people to take on loans they can't pay. It's a recipe for predatory loaning.
2. Yeah, I'm not exactly a fan of Clinton & Bush's policy towards Wall Street.
3. Repealing Glass-Steagall was a deregulatory action. Does that mean you support increased financial regulations? If so, good for you.

And finally, do you really think Romney would be a debt-slashing deficit hawk? Not only does he openly state he won't cut any defense spending, but he wants a 20% income tax cut and hasn't said a word on corporate subsidies. He'd effectively be a status quo president; deficits would increase thanks to the handouts he'd give to his buddies.

Your support of Obama indicates otherwise.


Reintroducing Glass-Steagall to separate commercial and investment banking is necessary sooner or later. Doing more than that, or doing something differently like Frank-Dodd (which is bound to be a pandora's box of perverse incentives and unintended consequences), is not necessary.


Romney is not doing anything for any "buddies." Unlike Chicago politicians, Romney is not going to give preferential treatment to his buddies. Unlike a certain president, Romney is going to care about one thing and one thing alone: Economic growth.

No, Obama can't. Yes, Romney will.

Really? The recession of 2001 saw an economic contraction of 0.3%. Seems to me that the 'Great Recession' followed a period that saw wealth become increasingly concentrated at the top as opposed to prosperity being more broad-based; while the recession of early 1980s was caused by some rigid dogmatic adherence to a contractionary monetary policy

Oh, I forgot to mention: "High prosperity" is rarely so when you look below the surface. You're right. I prefer growth that is steadier and more even.

When you have double-digit inflation along with double-digit unemployment, you have to crush inflation or else you'll eventually get runaway inflation that completely distorts your entire economy. Volcker's "shock therapy" was the lesser of two evils (i.e., runaway inflation versus higher unemployment with disinflation).

The 1992 recession was also mild, but I love how you ignore it and talk up how mild the 2001 recession was. This, despite the fact that Clinton did little differently from George H.W. Bush, not to mention George W. Bush doing little differently from Ronald Reagan, with regards to economic policy.

And Politico: I don't support Obama so much as I oppose the Republican Party.

Your support of Obama indicates that you prefer growth/unemployment more in line with Europe than America. Apparently you're fine with young Americans having difficulty finding quality jobs. Is the new Obama youth mantra the following: Yes, we can (live in our parents' basement forever)?

"Europe" is a broad term. I much prefer Scandinavian economics, for instance, to Italian economics.

"Europe" is a broad term, but so is "America" in the sense that we have 50 separate states that differ in many ways (e.g., I much prefer economic conditions in North Dakota to economic conditions in West Virginia).

The EU is a confederation; the United States is a federation. North Dakota and West Virginia may have different conditions and policies, but they have much less leeway than Germany and Greece do.

The point is moot. You can check out the unemployment rate in Scandinavia (excluding Norway, which gets a boon from natural resources just like North Dakota, for example), and you will see that my comment about you generally preferring European-style growth/unemployment, which traditionally lags behind America, as being valid. Scandinavia is not paradise on earth. No nation our size is even able to compare to our quality of life and traditional levels of economic growth.

Boys, it's just Politico. He is just as annoying now as he was before his apology for being such a jerk a couple of weeks ago.

Ignore him, maybe he will leave when nobody reacts to his remarks anymore.

2008 was Romney's yr and they instead nominated Sarah Palin as VP or John McCain as the prez. Mitt Romney should have been the VP nominee or the prez nominee because the Great Recession had a more profound effect in 2008 than now and the economy is his strong suit. Now, that the economy is recovering it is recovering fast enough for Obama to be reelected.

Northern Europe headed into the 'Crash of 2008' in, fiscally, stronger shape than either the US or UK, which enabled them to ride out the Great Recession more effectively

Quality of life in the Nordic and social market economies are nothing to be sniffed at. Austria, meanwhile, has managed to reduce their deficit to 2.6% of GDP, while maintaining the lowest rate of unemployment at 4.2% in the EU. The UK's is currently 8.3% (atrocious given the lack of an 'adequate' let alone 'generous' welfare safety net)

Southern Europe ... well they've got problems, while the 'Celtic Tiger', spectacularly, came down with a bang! It seems to link in with the extent to which European economies rode the 'housing bubble' or not

Even if nobody reads my posts, I still read theirs, and enjoy responding to some of them even if nobody cares to read my responses. Of course, this place is not nearly as informative as it was six or seven years ago. Alas, nothing lasts forever. People are free to choose not to read my posts just as I am free to choose not to read theirs. I'll never understand why anybody takes the tone of my posts as being disparaging. I can assure you I am respectful of different viewpoints, even if they may be completely wrong IMHO. This place is not Democratic Underground, so one should not be surprised when they encounter opposition to their Democratic sensibilities.

For a political forum, you would expect most everybody to have thicker skin...

A couple of weeks ago you apologized for being such a Romney hack. You said yourself that you were trolling around but that you were finished now.

And now you are doing the same thing again. That is annoying because it shows how much your words are worth.

I do not believe I am being hackish right now. I am not attacking Obama in the way that I attacked Santorum and Gingrich, in particular, back when I was being undeniably hackish.

Believe it or not, I fully support Romney and believe in his message of economic freedom. I strongly believe it is in America's best interests for Romney to become the 45th POTUS.

So, you are really serious when you blame Obama for the behaviour of the Secret Service agents in Colombia?

It can be bloody cold there I know that much

You've got that already ;)

What? I was talking about how the Obama Administration is responsible for the misspending on Gingrich's protection. It's a good example of the type of waste that is characteristic of this Administration. Obviously the Administration is not responsible for the actions of off-duty Secret Service agents. The situation there is completely different from continuing to waste resources on Gingrich's protection. Is somebody pretending to be me on the IRC chat again, and claiming that I have blamed Obama for the behavior of SS agents in South America? I've never been in the IRC room, and never will be (I barely have enough time for this place), so do not believe anything you see in the IRC chat room if it is coming from somebody claiming to be me. It's not me.

Right, sorry, that was Winfield.

But every candidate has the right to ask for Secret Service protection. And there was a moment in the campaign that Gingrich was leading so it's not totally weird for him to get that protection.

Using that as a sample of the waste within the Obama government is just nonsense.

That time was many months ago. We should not give Secret Service protection to people who clearly cannot win the presidency. For example, John McCain stopped receiving Secret Service protection immediately after the 2008 election results.

As for as I know it's law. After the murder of RFK every candidate has the right to have Secret Service protection when it's needed.

You might have dismissed Gingrich, but he was leading in the polls for a while. So he was a serious contender at the time.

Actually, RFK had SS protection, I believe. If memory serves, RFK did not follow the SS's proposed route for leaving the hotel. Or perhaps I am confusing the SS with his private security and/or local law enforcement.

I believe you can only get SS protection if there are credible death threats and/or you are a serious candidate who can win the presidency, either as an independent or one of the prospects for the nomination of a major party. Gingrich has not met this criteria in months. Any other administration would no longer be wasting resources like this.


And Romney is the presumptive nominee, but nobody in the Obama Administration knows how to properly handle resources, so nobody realizes it's probably prudent to pull the plug on Gingrich's SS protection. I am not arguing Gingrich should have never received SS protection. Obviously he was a serious candidate at one time who deserved the protection. I am arguing the SS protection should have been dropped quite a few weeks ago.

Politico- I think there are far bigger issues then the what- 10K per day that is spent on Newt's protection? Lord knows some whackjob could wake up and want to be in the news...God forbid.

As far as I know, RFK didn't have SS protection because he didn't qualify for it. He had local law enforcement protection but that is not the same off course.

As for Gingrich, it's not like Obama decides who gets protection or not. There are probably guidelines to follow and I presume those guidelines where followed. So it's nonsense to blame Obama for this.

We're talking about $40K/day, so over $1 million/month.

There are bigger problems, but this is symbolic of the type of mismanagement of resources in Washington under the Obama Administration.

As I just pointed out in another thread, when Newt stops getting protection is not up to Janet Napolitano alone, just as it was not up to her alone to decide when he started getting it.  She need to get an advisory committee consisting of Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, McConnell and a fifth person the four Congressional leaders named to decide that Newt is no longer a major Presidential candidate.

Besides, Newt's protection detail is a good holding place / training exercise for Ann Romney's detail, since she (and the running mate's spouse) can't get one until July 9 (120 days before the general election).

Politico can be annoying sometimes, but in this thread he's dead right.

A romney win isn't out of the question, but it's going to be hard. He's has to flip a lot of swing states. I don't know if someone as standard/average as him can do it. Plus, Obama is a great campaigner. If the economy dips again, Romney has a bigger chance.

2004 is a flawed analogy. First, the 2012 election follows an election on the brink of a landslide; the 2000 election was a squeaker. President Obama would have to lose more  to lose in 2012.  I can't see any constituency of 2008 that he could lose except for the nabobs of Wall Street who wanted someone to save the economy and now are more concerned with tax breaks. That is a few tens of thousands of voters heavily located in states that are going to vote for President Obama by 15% or more anyway. President Obama can lose those and win much as he did in 2012.  The other constituencies that voted for him -- minorities, women, organized labor, highly-educated people, government employees -- show no signs of going some other way.  


Second, Barack Obama is a far better President than George W. Bush. Of course, Dubya left much delayed damage in his wake before 2004 that few recognized as such.



Possible -- but Americans had yet to sour on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a prisoner, but things were not going to get better. Support for Dubya went from astronomical to abysmal; this time eight years ago his support was still strong.

It is more significant that the President is doing none of the things that can cause trouble. He is a cautious leader, and I can't see him risking re-election.


One way of looking at that is to say that we see his floor and he has plenty of room for improvement. But can he improve enough?


Partisan bases are never enough for winning a Presidential election.  Goldwater and McGovern both won the partisan bases of their Parties, but little else even if those bases were wildly supportive of their candidates.

You are right that many Republicans revile President Obama -- but unless they convince enough of those who voted for him in 2008 to vote for Mitt Romney the President wins re-election.


Conceded here -- it is the big issue. It was also the big issue in 1936, too. Expectations are down from where they were before the economic meltdown of 2007-2009 because people see a great fraud of a speculative boom as the cause of the meltdown.

Of course President Obama has failed to inspire a fresh speculative boom. Nobody would trust any politician who promises a new one. To his credit Mitt Romney has scrupulously avoided  any promise of a speculative boom. He has instead offered an intensification of old-fashioned trickle-down economics that promises pain for multitudes for quick gain by the few with promises of an acceleration of investment due to cheap labor and low taxes upon the super-rich.

If out of desperation he promises a fresh economic boom based upon speculative activity he    
dooms his campaign. Nobody will trust that. But "no speculative boom" also means nearly no chance of an economic meltdown.  
 


But the 2008 election was nearly a 53-46 split. Dubya was the definitive empty suit of a President, a stooge of interests that he did not understand. He was never a good speaker, and he frequently used language intended to obscure the ultimate agenda. His biggest legislative achievements were drains on the treasury without mitigation. He rode the early results of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to an electoral victory.

If you think that the Affordable Care Act is unpopular, then wait till you see how unpopular the Ryan plan to privatize Medicare is. Basically the elderly rich will get first-rate medical care, the elderly of the middle class will get second-rate care until their money dries up, and the elderly poor will just have to die. Separate the Affordable care Act into its components and those components are popular. The Stimulus began when Dubya was President when the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the head of the Federal Reserve Bank so dictated.

The stimulus worked. The economy is in better shape now than it was in 2009. A boom is impossible and about everyone knows that.

...Does anyone wax nostalgic for the tyrannical, murderous, terrorist-enabling, war-mongering regime of Moammar Qaddafi?  


The referendum works both ways.  President Obama has done well in achieving the promises that he made to core constituencies without offending a large group of potential voters. He doesn't need to make fresh promises to a part of the electorate that did not vote for him in 2008 to get re-elected (that's really the Carter analogue).  


Barack Obama became President of a deeply-divided nation with plenty of questions remaining about his stability, competence, core values, and experience. He has been a fine President from the standpoint of getting legislation passed when he had a cooperative Congress. He has proved an above-average diplomat and a fine Commander-in-Chief. He has not proved 'soft-on-crime'. Maybe he learned something from his experience as a Community Organizer -- that street crooks aren't 'misunderstood people who just happened to have been dealt a bad set of cards'. One would never learn that as a corporate lawyer who deals all the time with high-functioning sociopaths instead of the low-functioning sociopaths who deal drugs and pimp girls.  President Obama has wisely left what he knows least about -- military and intelligence operations -- to those who know what they are doing.

Maybe he isn't the starry-eyed, bleeding-heart, guilt-laden liberal as the Right wished to depict him.  I can assure you -- most liberals are patriots who have no illusions about criminals being 'poor little lambs who have lost their way'.
  

That being said, I think the differences outlined above also show that it could very easily go the other way.


The ideologues who want America to be a country of severe inequality between gross need and opulent indulgence will find more of a purist... and Mitt Romney has been pandering to them well. The people who would never under any circumstances vote for anyone not white have seen no change in circumstances. People who still think that he is a foreign usurper are not going to vote for him.

But people who had their fears and find those fears unfounded might to some extent vote differently in 2012.  Fewer Obama voters of 2008 are going to believe their 2008 votes mistakes and vote differently. He hasn't kissed up to crooks and he hasn't used the federal government as a patronage system to his core constituencies. If he has apologized for Dubya's blunders he has also given America much less for which to apologize.