Obama: agenda over reelection?

[BM]

At all of his town halls since taking office, he's made comments about how he'd rather implement as much of his agenda as he can in his first term and subsequently risk reelection.  It sounds like more "I'm better than the other guys in Washington" bs, but what are the odds that he's serious?

I know most people here love to fantasize scenarios where Obama wins with all kinds of landslide victories, but I'm starting to think he either doesn't care or doesn't grasp just how quickly his support can unravel.  Republicans will almost surely be in a good position after another 3.5 years of the stuff that's been going on these first few months.

[Reaganfan]

Look, I believe it...but I fear that even though we might have the biggest right-wing President you can imagine on January 20, 2013...what the heck will happen to our country under this left-wing government before then!

[Landslide Lyndon]

I am not the biggest fan of Joe Klein.
But perhaps some people should follow his advice:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1886543,00.html

[Holmes]

Maybe he's trying to do agenda and re-election at the same time? Cause you know, actually talking to the people whom you are the president of about your plans... good idea y/n?

[BM]

That's fine, but he's the one acknowledging it. If it didn't come from his mouth every time he was unscripted, I wouldn't have considered it.

[Smash255]

At all of his town halls since taking office, he's made comments about how he'd rather implement as much of his agenda as he can in his first term and subsequently risk reelection.  It sounds like more "I'm better than the other guys in Washington" bs, but what are the odds that he's serious?

I know most people here love to fantasize scenarios where Obama wins with all kinds of landslide victories, but I'm starting to think he either doesn't care or doesn't grasp just how quickly his support can unravel.  Republicans will almost surely be in a good position after another 3.5 years of the stuff that's been going on these first few months.

We have to fix the utter mess the past 8 years have created, and its something Obama realizes we need to act now, and act fast instead of letting it get worse & spiral out of control even more. 

The fact he cares more about addressing and fixing the problems we face than the 50% + 1 Karl Rove mentality is a good thing.

[Eraserhead]

Look, I believe it...but I fear that even though we might have the biggest right-wing President you can imagine on January 20, 2013...what the heck will happen to our country under this left-wing government before then!

hahaha

[pbrower2a]

At all of his town halls since taking office, he's made comments about how he'd rather implement as much of his agenda as he can in his first term and subsequently risk reelection.  It sounds like more "I'm better than the other guys in Washington" bs, but what are the odds that he's serious?

I know most people here love to fantasize scenarios where Obama wins with all kinds of landslide victories, but I'm starting to think he either doesn't care or doesn't grasp just how quickly his support can unravel.  Republicans will almost surely be in a good position after another 3.5 years of the stuff that's been going on these first few months.

He doesn't mince words and (unlike Dubya) he doesn't play games with words.  He seems to say exactly what he means. Such is the result of a good training in law, and probably why so many of our Presidents were attorneys. (It's much the same with career military officers, too). Dubya had no such training -- and it showed with his weird use of words.

I think that Obama is well aware of how quickly his support can vanish. He won over 50% of the vote, that a bunch of people decided that he is the best answer after the fact even if they didn't vote for him, and that the public mood toward a President can go very sour very fast. I think that most of us can see how a failed Presidency would manifest itself on the first Tuesday in November of 2012 and how different levels of support would look like. In 2008 he had little record, widespread contempt for the then-current President, and much promise. BY 2012 he will need to make good on some of his promises and meet some unforeseen difficulties, and he will have an undeniable record as President.

Anyone who tries to predict the future, including an election, makes one assumption after another. I rely little upon the continuation of an inexplicable trend (the Democratic nominee for President in 2004 won 252 electoral votes, and the Democratic nominee of 2008 won 365 electoral votes, so Obama should win 478 electoral votes in 2012. (I can imagine scenarios in which Obama wins that many electoral votes, and for those to happen, a highly-unlikely series of events and veritable conversions of people in large numbers in some states to vote for him who didn't vote for him in 2008.


Heck, few Presidents were ever inaugurated with such high expectations as Herbert Hoover!

We need to remember that with a less-than-stellar first term of office, Dubya won re-election. Sure, the Democrats put up a turkey as a candidate -- someone who talked his way into a political trap. Can anyone deny a similar possibility in 2012 for the Republicans?

[Beet]

At all of his town halls since taking office, he's made comments about how he'd rather implement as much of his agenda as he can in his first term and subsequently risk reelection.  It sounds like more "I'm better than the other guys in Washington" bs, but what are the odds that he's serious?

What's wrong with this? You mean he wants to implement as much of his agenda as possible than to put it off into his second term? Isn't failing to accomplish one's campaign promises during one's first term generally considered a sign of failure? Why would he want that?

As for him not caring how quickly his support can unravel... I believe after the election he made a remark to the effect of "If we lost, I wouldn't have cared much as long as I put myself out there doing what I believed was right." I thought it was a load of crock at the time, but when you think of it, he didn't really try as hard in August or September or even in October as McCain. It was always McCain making the moves... McCain comparing him with Hilton and Spears. McCain bringing out Palin. McCain bringing out Joe the Plumber. McCain suspending his campaign. In fact McCain made so many moves he ended up sabotaging himself. But one thing you couldn't leve at him (or at Hillary Clinton, for that matter) was that he didn't care.

Obama? After the election he was called 'cool' and 'calm'... but the other side of that is apathetic, and (a particularly pernicious one, because it dovetails with an obselete racial stereotype) lazy.

That's why many Democrats like me wanted Hillary Clinton. She was always on the level and you knew she would be motivated to do a good job, regardless of for whose sake you thought she was ultimately motivated for. With Obama you just don't know. His campaign/organization has made very, very few bold moves (picking Clinton as SoS was arguably his biggest one) and most of the time has just been on cruise control, despite the horrendous damage he caused (and is still causing) to himself.

Sigh.

[RosettaStoned]

Look, I believe it...but I fear that even though we might have the biggest right-wing President you can imagine on January 20, 2013...what the heck will happen to our country under this left-wing government before then!

Wrong. We've gone through a realinement.

[pbrower2a]

Look, I believe it...but I fear that even though we might have the biggest right-wing President you can imagine on January 20, 2013...what the heck will happen to our country under this left-wing government before then!

Liberals frequently said much the same about Ronald Reagan early in 1981. They expected that Americans who got to know how far right Reagan was would reject any re-election bid in 1984. I was one of those liberals. Now I see similarities between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan in political skills, if not agenda. Ironic, isn't it?

[Reaganfan]

Look, I believe it...but I fear that even though we might have the biggest right-wing President you can imagine on January 20, 2013...what the heck will happen to our country under this left-wing government before then!

Liberals frequently said much the same about Ronald Reagan early in 1981. They expected that Americans who got to know how far right Reagan was would reject any re-election bid in 1984. I was one of those liberals. Now I see similarities between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan in political skills, if not agenda. Ironic, isn't it?

Big difference...Reagan ran as a far right-winger and won 49 out of 50 states. Obama ran the general campaign as a moderate and still couldn't pull that many states.

Obama said things infront of the Democratic primary audience that he moderated for the general election audience. Such as "not wanting to kill Osama to make him a martyr." He then stated in the debate "I'll kill Osama" or something to that effect. Liberals have to change who they are to win.

Republicans can win on an anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion platform...but do you think Obama would have stood a chance had he gone out there at rallies and loudly stated "I SUPPORT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, WHERE THE BABY COMES OUT AND YOU STICK A NEEDLE IN IT'S HEAD AND KILL IT!" Of course he wouldn't have.

Liberals have to hide who they are.

[Holmes]

My only comeback to that would be... if you think the country hasn't shifted in any way in the past 25 years, you need to get out more.

[Mr.Phips]

Look, I believe it...but I fear that even though we might have the biggest right-wing President you can imagine on January 20, 2013...what the heck will happen to our country under this left-wing government before then!

Liberals frequently said much the same about Ronald Reagan early in 1981. They expected that Americans who got to know how far right Reagan was would reject any re-election bid in 1984. I was one of those liberals. Now I see similarities between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan in political skills, if not agenda. Ironic, isn't it?

Big difference...Reagan ran as a far right-winger and won 49 out of 50 states. Obama ran the general campaign as a moderate and still couldn't pull that many states.

Obama said things infront of the Democratic primary audience that he moderated for the general election audience. Such as "not wanting to kill Osama to make him a martyr." He then stated in the debate "I'll kill Osama" or something to that effect. Liberals have to change who they are to win.

Republicans can win on an anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion platform...but do you think Obama would have stood a chance had he gone out there at rallies and loudly stated "I SUPPORT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, WHERE THE BABY COMES OUT AND YOU STICK A NEEDLE IN IT'S HEAD AND KILL IT!" Of course he wouldn't have.

Liberals have to hide who they are.

Obama did not run as a moderate and dont pretend that he did.  He ran as an economic liberal. 

[Holmes]

My only comeback to that would be... if you think the country hasn't shifted in any way in the past 25 years, you need to get out more.

Actually, not much has changed, really.

So for example, if Bush Sr. were a woman and had a pregnant non-married 17 year old daughter, the criticism from conservatives would've been the same in 1980 than it was in 2008?

[Holmes]

Isn't it?

How about the Republican nominee suspending his campaign to go to DC to lobby for the bank bailout? "McCain wasn't a true conservative"?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Look, I believe it...but I fear that even though we might have the biggest right-wing President you can imagine on January 20, 2013...what the heck will happen to our country under this left-wing government before then!

Liberals frequently said much the same about Ronald Reagan early in 1981. They expected that Americans who got to know how far right Reagan was would reject any re-election bid in 1984. I was one of those liberals. Now I see similarities between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan in political skills, if not agenda. Ironic, isn't it?

Big difference...Reagan ran as a far right-winger and won 49 out of 50 states. Obama ran the general campaign as a moderate and still couldn't pull that many states.

Then why was he called a socialist and the most left-wing candidate in history?

[Lunar]

Don't we generally prefer politicians willing to do what they feel is "the right thing" over reelection/popularity?  Isn't that what Bush always bragged about?

[Reaganfan]

My only comeback to that would be... if you think the country hasn't shifted in any way in the past 25 years, you need to get out more.

Actually, not much has changed, really.

So for example, if Bush Sr. were a woman and had a pregnant non-married 17 year old daughter, the criticism from conservatives would've been the same in 1980 than it was in 2008?

This is more of a general trend toward decreased sexual mores which started after World War II.  In fact, increased acceptance of wayward lifestyles is the only significant change since the 1980s.  Of course, you probably consider that 'progress'.

I think the Republican Party has bought way too much into the mainstream media's criticisms than even 15 years ago. 15 years ago in 1994, Rush Limbaugh was as big...if not even a bigger...influence on conservatism and helped with the Republican Revolution of the 90s...nobody was saying "RUSH IS THE GOP SPOKESPERSON" in a bad way then like they are now...and it got Republicans in power.

My advice to Republicans? Quit complaining about who our leader is or isn't. OH and quit listening to the media criticisms.

[pbrower2a]

Look, I believe it...but I fear that even though we might have the biggest right-wing President you can imagine on January 20, 2013...what the heck will happen to our country under this left-wing government before then!

Liberals frequently said much the same about Ronald Reagan early in 1981. They expected that Americans who got to know how far right Reagan was would reject any re-election bid in 1984. I was one of those liberals. Now I see similarities between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan in political skills, if not agenda. Ironic, isn't it?

Big difference...Reagan ran as a far right-winger and won 49 out of 50 states. Obama ran the general campaign as a moderate and still couldn't pull that many states.

Obama said things infront of the Democratic primary audience that he moderated for the general election audience. Such as "not wanting to kill Osama to make him a martyr." He then stated in the debate "I'll kill Osama" or something to that effect. Liberals have to change who they are to win.

Republicans can win on an anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion platform...but do you think Obama would have stood a chance had he gone out there at rallies and loudly stated "I SUPPORT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, WHERE THE BABY COMES OUT AND YOU STICK A NEEDLE IN IT'S HEAD AND KILL IT!" Of course he wouldn't have.

Liberals have to hide who they are.

Anyone who denies that America isn't very different in 2009 from what it was in 1981 trivializes the achievements of Ronald Reagan and the damage that George W. Bush has done, the overwhelming power that giant corporations have gotten, the rise of a corporate nomenklatura that manages the American economy entirely for its own class privilege, the rise and fall of the Religious Right, the increasing presence of non-white minorities,  intensifying economic inequality, the disappearance of Marxism-Leninism as an ideological threat to the United States and its friends, and the rise of aggressive causes that use Islam. The typical college graduate has become a peon to lenders through student loans, and America is drowning in personal debt as real wages plummet.

Add to that -- the states vote very differently from their behavior going into 1980.  Liberal ideology has hardened in eighteen states and the District of Columbia that have not voted for a Republican nominee for President since 1992. It may be hard to believe that California, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey typically voted for Republican candidates for President. In 2008 those states comprised 248 electoral votes that the Republican presidential candidates could reasonably expect to vote against them  in any election, which means that the GOP can lose no more than 20 other electoral votes and win.

These states will apparently vote for just about any liberal Democrat against any conservative Republican for President. They will vote for a Southern moderate populist like Bill Clinton. They will vote for a liberal ex-Southerner like Al Gore. They will vote for a New England ultra-liberal like John Kerry. They voted for a black man for President, something unthinkable not that long ago.   All of those states voted for Obama by a margin of at least 10% in 2008, so something must be wrong with the GOP message that it automatically fails to pick up any of 248 electoral votes. Could it be that the Religious Right, a group that tells its lemmings to vote for right-wing ideologues because the salvation of their souls depend upon voting for right-wing ideologues, is weak in those states? Or could it be that since the fall of Communism as an ideology these states no longer have a strong anti-Communist vote that consistently went GOP?

There is good news for the GOP: these states have been hemorrhaging population so much due to economic distress that  as of 2012 they will likely comprise 'only' 240 or so electoral votes. Winning despite automatic losses of 240 electoral votes is far easier than winning despite automatic losses of 248 electoral votes.


Now comes the bad news for the GOP:

1. They won three states (IA, NH, and NM) only once in the last five Presidential elections.  Those states combined for 16 electoral votes in 2008 and they will do essentially the same in 2012. These three states voted for Obama by margins of at least 9.5%. Add Nevada (5 EV) because it went for Obama by a 10% margin and the "tough nuts to crack" will comprise about 269 electoral votes.    

2. The economic migrants from the core Democratic states are changing the politics of the states to which they move. They aren't becoming conservative Republicans.  States that were 49/51 D/R in 2000 or 2004 might now be 51/49 D/R.  

3. The young-adult vote tends to vote heavily Democratic, and it votes in unusually heavy proportions for earlier young adults. Republican voters dying off in old age aren't being replaced with young Republicans, on the whole.

4. The GOP used to make inroads into Hispanic and Asian populations before 2008; such was reversed in 2008. (Maybe that was the result of the real estate meltdown that ravaged the valuations of houses of young homeowners, especially Hispanics who tend to make large investments in housing at great sacrifices of other things). At the same time these populations are growing rapidly, especially as electorates.  States with rapidly-growing populations of young Hispanic citizens, like Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona might become very solid states for Democratic support. Texas will be in this group.

Don't fool yourself about Arizona; it went for the Republican candidate for President only because that candidate is from Arizona. The Republican nominee for President in 2012 will not be from Arizona.  

There are just too many ways for the Republicans to lose in 2012. If they are practically assured of losing CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, IA, ME, MA, MI, MN, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, WA, and WI, then just about any state with 9 or more electoral votes wins for the Democrats in 2012. Such will be true until the political cultures of the states that voted for Obama by 9.5% or more in 2008 abandon their hostility to the Republican Party.  



 


 

[pbrower2a]

My only comeback to that would be... if you think the country hasn't shifted in any way in the past 25 years, you need to get out more.

Actually, not much has changed, really.

So for example, if Bush Sr. were a woman and had a pregnant non-married 17 year old daughter, the criticism from conservatives would've been the same in 1980 than it was in 2008?

This is more of a general trend toward decreased sexual mores which started after World War II.  In fact, increased acceptance of wayward lifestyles is the only significant change since the 1980s.  Of course, you probably consider that 'progress'.

As we have become more tolerant of homosexuality and interracial sex (good!) we have also become less tolerant of spouse abuse and sexual abuse of children (also a good trend). We have become far less tolerant of child pornography. At the same time our legal system has found better methods of detecting rapists so that they can be convicted of their crimes and sentenced to long penal terms.

Gay rights in exchange for more protection of children? I'll drink to that. 

[Four49]

Obama's just stuck in campaign mode.  That's all he's ever done, and now that he's reached the top, he doesn't know what else to do.  And not only is he still trying to convince the public that he's some kind of rebel, but it's actually still working.

[??????????]

Obama's just stuck in campaign mode.  That's all he's ever done, and now that he's reached the top, he doesn't know what else to do.  And not only is he still trying to convince the public that he's some kind of rebel, but it's actually still working.

The charade can't last forever.

[anvi]

Almost 70 million Americans voted for the Obama agenda.  So, he is pursuing it.  If he succeeds in delivering on his agenda aims, I presume he will win a good share of those same 70 million votes, and perhaps more.  He will lose votes if he either abandons the agenda he was elected on or if he fails to acheive or make substantial progress toward its aims.  Not really different from any other president in that sense.