The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I do think there is a lot of wierd hindsight happening. I seem to remember thinking regardless of who won the GOP primary, they'd get smoked by Obama simply because Dubya was so utterly hated. I think people forget that.

True, but by mid-2008, McCain was shockingly in the race, even with Palin. (At least, I was shocked)

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I do think there is a lot of wierd hindsight happening. I seem to remember thinking regardless of who won the GOP primary, they'd get smoked by Obama simply because Dubya was so utterly hated. I think people forget that.

I didn't mean to suggest that if McCain had picked Romney instead of Palin he, for certain, would have won the election. I was just saying that given what happened in September, 2008, if McCain had picked Romney a few weeks earlier, they might have had more of a chance than McCain/Palin did in November. Of course, by that point it was too late: McCain had already picked Palin. Plus, given the common wisdom you reference from over the summer, Romney may not have wanted to hitch himself to a likely losing campaign anyway.

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

McCain/Romney was about as likely as Obama/SteveMax58 though.

True, thus my point about Schmidt being a Rove disciple. Selecting Palin was an obvious move right out of the Rove playbook.


In hindsight it's, if not ironic then of interest, that they one guy whose "experience/image" on financial matters might have helped the ticket considerably during the financial collapse was pretty much shut out from Day One in the process whereby the campaign selected a VP candidate.


Of course, maybe we should doubt the Rove mantra that Presidential elections can be won by energizing the base, given that the proof of this comes from two Presidential elections against two particularly bad Democrat nominees.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Of course, maybe we should doubt the Rove mantra that Presidential elections can be won by energizing the base, given that the proof of this comes from two Presidential elections against two particularly bad Democrat nominees.

How much worse of a nominee could the D's have found? They chose an underqualified & overmatched (to the job, not the race) fencepost turtle as it was. How worse would it have to get for the comparison to remain? I mean, my God, Obama makes Dukakis look like Solomon.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I have to imagine that we differ significantly on what represents "beneficial to the country"

You (not YOU specifically) can nit pick (and we all do), but, you have to admit that strictly dogmatic beliefs or doctrines don't do a whole heck of a lot of good for the masses. I don't like taxes, but, I do like driving on streets and freeways that don't have pot holes or bridge collapses. So, there is a mutually beneficial outcome for taxes in that regard. I think it would be awesome if we got to pick where our tax dollars were spent, but, I'm holding out as much hope of that happening as seeing John Lennon live in concert.

I won't disagree. But when one side consistently does a better job of presenting logical/acceptable/preferable options then it's pretty tough not to become de facto "sided".

It's kind of like my praise for Kerry's initial choices (based on some logical assumptions about the reasons behind them), I give a shit if he's a (D) if he's right then he's right.

But, that's just it, BOTH sides are consistently horrible at doing their supposed jobs. Those logical/acceptable/preferable options are more the exception than the rule, for both sides. I owe allegiance to no party, not because of some elitist voter snobbery on my part, but, because no party has even come close to earning it. My standards are pretty high when it comes to our elected officials, simply because of the power that they yield is so much and wide reaching.

And your praise of Kerry makes sense, given the platform of the GOP regarding taxes and being the side that you have chosen. I'm fine with that. Whether or not I agree or disagree is completely irrelevant. What I'm not fine with is the elected GOP persons acting like he just made the most grievous of insults is absolutely ridiculous when you know that they would do the exact same thing.

I don't know if any of that makes sense and I'm not trying to sway you one way or another, but, not everything isn't so absolute or black and white. What is pretty absolute though is the complete crappyness of the political talent in this country, regardless of the animal they ride.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

How much worse of a nominee could the D's have found? They chose an underqualified & overmatched (to the job, not the race) fencepost turtle as it was. How worse would it have to get for the comparison to remain? I mean, my God, Obama makes Dukakis look like Solomon.

I wasn't talking about the job, Jon, I was talking about the race. For the purpose of actually winning the race, Obama was a considerably better candidate than Kerry or Gore. Or, for that matter, McCain.

So, Rove won two races for Bush by emphasizing energizing the base. The same strategy did not work for Rove disciple Steve Schmidt when he enacted it by helping to pick Palin for McCain. Thus, should we conclude from this that Rove's strategy is discredited because it only works against terrible Democratic campaigners, or that Rove's strategy still has merit because McCain was a terrible campaigner (or Obama was a transcendent one)?

The question is important (for electoral politics, at least) because the GOP is going to have to decide exactly how far right they want to shift their party to appease/fire up their base (represented most vocally by the Tea Party at the moment) and whether, in so doing, they'll actually hurt their electoral chances.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I won't disagree. But when one side consistently does a better job of presenting logical/acceptable/preferable options then it's pretty tough not to become de facto "sided".

Yet in spite of this you still oppose Democrats?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Of course not, it's not 1980. I guess we could go 'round and 'round on this, but if the best way you can find to discredit Ronald Reagan is to say his 1980 platform doesn't equate to the 2010 platform, than you got it. We don't need to beat the Soviets anymore. We don't need to sort out the Iran Hostage crisis. So yes, I would disapprove of somebody with those things in mind.

No one is discrediting Reagan at all. Just saying he would be called a RINO or moderate today. His conservative legend is a myth. Like I have said and others, he was a very good President.

It's more of a shot at partisians who bash Obama for doing the same stuff Reagan did.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And how's that working out? We've seen the abject failure of nominating a weak ass excuse like McCain. Further, more & more people seem to be realizing that such a hollow victory really isn't much cause for celebration.

No Republican was going to win in that election cycle. McCain stole votes away from Obama from those who wanted experience. Palin rallied far-right. Anyone farther to the right of McCain would have been slaughtered.

I know there is this delusion between partisians that they believe the extremes of their party is what the people want. It's not. Moderates win Presidential elections. I can't even think of the last fringe candidate to win the Presidency.

[SirFozzie]

GWB pretended to be moderate, at least..

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I wasn't talking about the job, Jon, I was talking about the race. For the purpose of actually winning the race, Obama was a considerably better candidate than Kerry or Gore. Or, for that matter, McCain.

Well there's the race card that guaranteed him a block of votes, I'll give you that one. He seems to have a knack for connecting to the terminally naive, which sure doesn't hurt anyone regardless of party when it comes to getting votes. Otherwise, getting someone with no qualifications into the job actually strikes me as one of the greatest political machinery success in 200+ years. And I say that with admiration, not as criticism.

His primary takedown of Hilary is something that I marvel at, although in fairness I'm not sure how much was good work from his side versus a terrible effort from her side. Still, I'll likely always be impressed by the success they had for whatever reason.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No Republican was going to win in that election cycle. McCain stole votes away from Obama from those who wanted experience. Palin rallied far-right. Anyone farther to the right of McCain would have been slaughtered.

I know there is this delusion between partisians that they believe the extremes of their party is what the people want. It's not. Moderates win Presidential elections. I can't even think of the last fringe candidate to win the Presidency.

I really hate when someone says a politician "stole" votes. It infers a sense of entitlement.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

so "the black vote" was inconsequential.

Not in getting through the primaries it wasn't.

Also, we were talking about his assets as a candidate, an area where his color was second only to "not being Bush". The self- loathing white guilt complex that seems to affect so many liberals seems to fall under "the race card" that I referred to. I'll admit it isn't something that gets a ton of play so the reference was likely too subtle.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

GWB pretended to be moderate, at least..

He was pretty moderate. Despite rhetoric about social issues, he never really tackled any of them despite a strong hold on the House and Senate. He was also far from a fiscal conservative.

[JPhillips]

Romney would have been an anchor for McCain. He ran a company that made it's living on buying companies, trimming the workforce and outsourcing jobs. That economic expertise wasn't going to help in 2008.

[rowech]

Just glad he found time to go on The View. Wish he could decide if he wants to be a celebrity or the President.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Really? Really? Because ya' know, the President is usually so unknown. I have no doubt that if the View existed in 1983, Reagan would've ended up on it or if it existed in 1943, FDR would've ended up on it. Hell, JFK would've banged Hasselbeck in the dressing room beforehand.

Whatever. He's pathetic.

[JPhillips]

I'm so old I remember when people used to complain about Bush Derangement Syndrome.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Hell, JFK would've banged Hasselbeck in the dressing room beforehand.

This, my friends, is what happens when an otherwise well-meaning poster takes hyperbole too far. Now we all have to clean our brains with bleach. Let this be a lesson to you all, folks: don't let it happen to you.

[DaddyTorgo]

Interesting Pew Poll Results

http://congressionalconnection.natio...idates-who.php

and for the DailyKos look at it (where I saw the poll results initially)

Daily Kos: Sorry, tea party: Voters prefer government projects

Originally Posted by kos

If you look at the net impact of each hypothetical on a liklihood of support (in other words, subtracting the less likely number from the more likely number), you get, in order:

1. Government projects: +39%

1. Barack Obama: -1%

1. Candidate is neither Dem nor GOP: -6%

1. Tea party: -9%

1. Sarah Palin: -20%

So it turns out that the tea party's austerity message is a lead balloon for the GOP. Instead, voters want somebody representing them who will deliver the goods for their district. Even among Republicans, voters are just as likely to support a candidate who delivers government projects and money to their district as one who has the backing of the tea party.

Moreover, it turns out the election really isn't about any one national figure, but if it were, it would be Sarah Palin that was a detriment -- not President Obama.

The more you see numbers like this, the clearer it becomes that vulnerable members of Congress shouldn't spend their time running from programs like the recovery act. Instead, they should be touting the benefits of what the stimulus has delivered to their districts. And they should be running on a platform of doing even more of it to get the economy going. As the numbers show, it's not a close call.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

With that being how the country really thinks, it's a wonder the Democrats ever lose a single election!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

With that being how the country really thinks, it's a wonder the Democrats ever lose a single election!

Pork-barrel politics cuts across party lines and it's disingenuous of you to even suggest that it doesn't.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

My point, which was not disingenuous, was that of course everyone like government projects in a vacuum. The fact that they don't like to pay for them is why Republicans manage to get elected.

[JediKooter]

I think what people have a problem with is pork projects that the specific elected official has a vested interest in. Seems to be a conflict of interest in my opinion. However, I don't think people have a problem and have never really had a problem with elected officials bringing money into their district in general.

[JPhillips]

It's not just the filibuster. When there's no penalty for obstructing everything, the minority party ends up running the government off a cliff.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Looks like everything was going fine until the Democrats started Borking people.

[DaddyTorgo]

That's ridiculous JPhillips. Wow. I had no idea it was THAT bad.

cue Jon ("You mean that good. Only way it could be better is if it was 0%.")

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's not just the filibuster. When there's no penalty for obstructing everything, the minority party ends up running the government off a cliff.

Also keep in mind Obama has purposesly assigned how many people when Congress was unable to confirm them?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's not just the filibuster. When there's no penalty for obstructing everything, the minority party ends up running the government off a cliff.

Isn't it completely ridiculous to compare these kinds of numbers between a sitting president and former presidents? Wouldn't Obama's numbers include dozens of recent nominees? How many of that 60% can anyone definitively blame Republicans for?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

First, there's no evidence that Obama's appointees have been any more out of the mainstream than Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II. That's not shocking because Obama's a standard issue center-left Democrat.

Second, to Molson's point. Let me steal a quote, "the Alliance for Justice found that in Obama's first year in office, the Senate confirmed a mere 23 percent of his judicial nominees. By contrast, Presidents Carter and Reagan had 91 percent of their nominees confirmed in their first year. That number dropped to 65 percent for George H.W. Bush, 57 percent for Bill Clinton, and 44 percent for George W. Bush.

As I wrote last month, you can attribute the massive change in confirmation rates to the GOP's strategy of hyper-obstruction through abuse of Senate rules; through routine filibusters and holds, Republican senators have kept dozens of judicial nominees from leaving committee or coming to a vote. And while it's true that Democrats aren't always without a reliable 60 votes for cloture, breaking each filibuster eats away at floor time and keeps the majority from considering its other priorities.

That said, President Obama isn't entirely blameless in this game. Yes, the Senate has confirmed precious few of his nominees, but he's also offered far fewer nominees than his predecessors. In his first year, Obama offered a slim total of 26 judicial nominees: 12 to the U.S. Court of Appeals and 14 to U.S. District Courts. By contrast, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush offered a respective 47 and 65 nominees in their first years. As of today, there are 82 vacancies in U.S. District Courts and 35 pending nominees. Filibusters aside, Obama has yet to offer nominees for 47 court vacancies.

To be honest, I'm completely puzzled by Obama's unwillingness to take judicial nominations seriously -- even with Republican intransigence, the 111th Congress was the best shot he had for getting the nominees he wanted. Obama is making a huge mistake if he thinks that next year is the time to get serious about making judicial nominations. By then, the GOP will be stronger and far less willing to defer to the president's preferences. Judicial confirmations will slow to a trickle, and Obama will deserve a lot of blame for the vacant judiciary."

I'm increasingly coming to the belief that the guy is clueless AND is being poorly advised. Very disappointing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Amazing stuff in one of the first votes to Obama's health care mandate and its insurance requirements/penalties. With 70% of the votes counted, Missouri voters have voted by a 3-to-1 margin to opt out of several of the main portions of the Health Care Act.

Missourians Rejected Obama Health-Care Reform - Politics News Story - KMBC Kansas City

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Amazing stuff in one of the first votes to Obama's health care mandate and its insurance requirements/penalties. With 70% of the votes counted, Missouri voters have voted by a 3-to-1 margin to opt out of several of the main portions of the Health Care Act.

Alas, nothing I've read seems to indicate this has much more weight than a straw poll, pending the outcome of the likely court battles.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Alas, nothing I've read seems to indicate this has much more weight than a straw poll, pending the outcome of the likely court battles.

Most of the media this evening was discussing whether the Missouri referendum would go to court or not. I was a bit surprised to hear that.

What was even more telling from a political standpoint was how quiet the Democrats in Missouri were (some of whom voted for the Health Care Bill). Most privately said that they feared for their political life if they came out against this Proposition C. Given the voting results, they were correct to be apprehensive. To have a bellweather state vote so strongly against the Health Care Bill is a red flag to Obama and the majority party.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I suppose all those people will now say no longer want the opportunity to keep their kids on their own health insurance until 25 or still want health insurance companies have the ability to deny them for preexisting conditions?

Of course not, this is something that attacks the most unpopular (because of conservative mantra of 'services now, taxes never!) aspects of the health care reform bill.

I think you'd be very surprised how many don't want that opportunity in this state, but I'm guessing you didn't want an actual answer to your question other than one that fits your argument. Even the Democrats in Missouri are very conservative when it comes to fiscal responsibility. People in this state generally want less government intervention even if it means it doesn't ultimately provide them a benefit. I know people in other areas don't think that's possible, but it's a reality in many Midwest states.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think you'd be very surprised how many don't want that opportunity in this state, but I'm guessing you didn't want an actual answer to your question other than one that fits your argument. Even the Democrats in Missouri are very conservative when it comes to fiscal responsibility. People in this state generally want less government intervention even if it means it doesn't ultimately provide them a benefit. I know people in other areas don't think that's possible, but it's a reality in many Midwest states.

Good. You all can join the "New Confederacy" with Jon and his Southern states and those of us who live in states where we pay in more in tax dollars than we receive in federal spending will finally get to see a real return on our tax dollars being spent on our citizens.

win win for everyone as far as i'm concerned.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Amazing stuff in one of the first votes to Obama's health care mandate and its insurance requirements/penalties. With 70% of the votes counted, Missouri voters have voted by a 3-to-1 margin to opt out of several of the main portions of the Health Care Act.

Missourians Rejected Obama Health-Care Reform - Politics News Story - KMBC Kansas City

Don't get so excited. Less than 15% of the population voted and there was almost no campaign against it because eventually this will be decided in the courts. Missouri may have a majority opposed to a mandate, but this vote doesn't mean 75% of Missouri is against the ACA.

I'm so old I remember when the insurance mandate was a Republican idea.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Don't get so excited. Less than 15% of the population voted and there was almost no campaign against it because eventually this will be decided in the courts. Missouri may have a majority opposed to a mandate, but this vote doesn't mean 75% of Missouri is against the ACA.

I'm so old I remember when the insurance mandate was a Republican idea.

75% of the voters voted for the Proposition. You can spin it however you want it, but 100% of the voters had the opportunity to come out and vote. There was no campaign against it because anyone who opposed it knew it would be political suicide in this state. That may not be the case if a similar proposition came up in your home state, but it definitely is here. Obama and Democrat are four-letter words in this state right now no matter what you'd like to spin it as. That's a fact and it doesn't have any relation to party or race.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

75% of the voters voted for the Proposition. You can spin it however you want it, but 100% of the voters had the opportunity to come out and vote. There was no campaign against it because anyone who opposed it knew it would be political suicide in this state. That may not be the case if a similar proposition came up in your home state, but it definitely is here. Obama and Democrat are four-letter words in this state right now no matter what you'd like to spin it as. That's a fact and it doesn't have any relation to party or race.

Actually it's not a fact, it's an opinion. Your opinion.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

75% of the voters voted for the Proposition. You can spin it however you want it, but 100% of the voters had the opportunity to come out and vote. There was no campaign against it because anyone who opposed it knew it would be political suicide in this state. That may not be the case if a similar proposition came up in your home state, but it definitely is here. Obama and Democrat are four-letter words in this state right now no matter what you'd like to spin it as. That's a fact and it doesn't have any relation to party or race.

There's plenty of special interest money that could have campaigned against the proposition if they felt like it was important. The mandate is going to be decided in the courts and these symbolic propositions don't matter. If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional the whole ACA falls apart, so I can assure you there would be plenty of campaigning if these propositions really mattered.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Actually it's not a fact, it's an opinion. Your opinion.

Well, it is a fact that only 34% of MO residents approve of Obama's work.

MO Sen: Blunt Takes 6-Point*Lead - Real Clear Politics – TIME.com

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Well, it is a fact that only 34% of MO residents approve of Obama's work.

MO Sen: Blunt Takes 6-Point*Lead - Real Clear Politics – TIME.com

Real Clear Politics? What's their house bias against (D)'s again? I don't recall, but I know they're hardly viewed as an impartial pollster. And that's without even looking at the poll you linked.

[albionmoonlight]

I so rarely get to type this, but MBBF is right. Y'all forget that Missouri voted for McCain in 2008. And the President is less popular nationally than he was then, so it would make sense that Missouri is stridently anti-Obama right now. So, some straw poll comes out that lets people stick a thumb in the President's eye? What do you think will happen? I'm surprised that 25% of the people motivated enough to vote supported the President's reforms.

If we had a Presidental election today, I doubt that Missouri would even be contested by the parties.

[JPhillips]

I don't doubt there's majority disapproval of the mandate, but there's no way it's at 75% of the population. Even with Obama's 34% you'd have to believe a third of those who support Obama want the mandate repealed.

I doubt you could get 75% of the population of Missouri to agree on anything, even whether or not they live in Missouri.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Real Clear Politics? What's their house bias against (D)'s again? I don't recall, but I know they're hardly viewed as an impartial pollster. And that's without even looking at the poll you linked.

I wish we could put a (D) or a (R) next to every link we posted here. That would save us all a lot of uneccessary confusion.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I wish we could put a (D) or a (R) next to every link we posted here. That would save us all a lot of uneccessary confusion.

and consternation.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

It's certainly easy to always be right when you discount any evidence to the contrary.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If we had a Presidental election today, I doubt that Missouri would even be contested by the parties.

This part of your comment has to be the most surprising part, but your exactly right. Missouri has only picked the loser in 2 elections since 1900 (one being the last election as you correctly note, though it was only 3,000 votes difference). If Obama and his party are in this much trouble in a state like Missouri, it doesn't bode well for either of them.

Just as an example, my House Rep is Ike Skeleton, who is a helluva good guy and a Democrat who I've voted for every election. He's having to spend in this election alone copious amount of money on his campaign, which is something he's never had to do before. Granted, he's getting up there in years, but to see him have to work this hard to get elected is shocking.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

It's certainly easy to always be right when you discount any evidence to the contrary.

Who's discounting it? I'm just saying you have to take into account the various biases.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If Obama and his party are in this much trouble in a state like Missouri, it doesn't bode well for either of them.

Well, I think that the Dems will lose the House and barely keep the Senate, so they are in trouble by any definition of the term.

But I don't really see Missouri as symbolic of that. It swung red in an election where the President got 53% of the popular vote. Missouri has gone from a national swing state to a GOP stronghold. But that seems to have much more to do with Missouri than it does with the national mood.

Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia seem to be the new national swing states. (IMHO, North Carolina and Indiana are still only going to go blue in Democratic blowout elections).

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Who's discounting it? I'm just saying you have to take into account the various biases.

So how many percentage points would you in your wisdom discount the RCP poll? Taking their bias into account, of course.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't doubt there's majority disapproval of the mandate, but there's no way it's at 75% of the population. Even with Obama's 34% you'd have to believe a third of those who support Obama want the mandate repealed.

I doubt you could get 75% of the population of Missouri to agree on anything, even whether or not they live in Missouri.

I think the central to midwest portion of the US is really pissed off.