Patterico's Pontifications

9/30/2011

Obama Charts a New Route to Re-election?

Filed under: 2012 Election — Karl @ 3:57 pm

[Posted by Karl]

That’s an inaccurate headline at today’s New York Times:

With his support among blue-collar white voters far weaker than among white-collar independents, President Obama is charting an alternative course to re-election should he be unable to win Ohio and other industrial states traditionally essential to Democratic presidential victories.

Without conceding ground anywhere, Mr. Obama is fighting hard for Southern and Rocky Mountain states he won in 2008, and some he did not, in calculating how to assemble the necessary 270 electoral votes. He is seeking to prove that those victories on formerly Republican turf were not flukes but the start of a trend that will make Democrats competitive there for years.

***

While Mr. Obama’s approval ratings have slid across the board as unemployment remains high, what buoys Democrats are the changing demographics of formerly Republican states like Colorado, where Democrats won a close Senate race in 2010, as well as Virginia and North Carolina.

There’s nothing new about this. The left eyed the Mountain West and Southwest as fertile ground for its Emerging Democratic Majority in 2008 (and well before that, really).

However, if you look at the latest Purple Poll (or .pdf) from the new, bi-partisan Purple Strategies, the head-to-head numbers for Obama against Romney or Perry in the “Wild West” (Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada) and “Southern Swing” states (Virginia, North Carolina and Florida) are both within the margin of error of the numbers in the “Rust Belt” of Ohio and Pennsylvania.  That’s why TNR’s William Galston does not think Obama should be focusing on the electoral map:

The last Democrat to win the White House without carrying Ohio was John F. Kennedy, who pulled off the feat with 73 electoral votes from south of the Mason-Dixon line and another 26 from the border states of West Virginia, Missouri, and Arkansas. Obama’s likely haul from that territory: zero. And as Seib points out, the president is facing an uphill climb in much of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic region—including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, all of which went his way by larger margins than did Ohio. (For more evidence, see the latest Pennsylvania survey, which finds that 54 percent of registered voters disapprove of Obama’s performance and 51 percent don’t think he deserves reelection, while it has him running even with Romney in a state he carried by 10.3 points in 2008.) In short, the president won’t have the luxury of building his campaign on a solid-blue foundation of 242 electoral votes in 2012.

So what does this all mean? Barring unlikely circumstances, the core challenge facing the Obama campaign is not to execute a thread-the-needle Electoral College strategy. It is rather to spend the next thirteen and a half months giving the people credible reasons to believe that the economy will fare better in a second Obama term than it did in the first. (Emphasis added.)

Of course, that is why Camp Obama is spending time with the maps.

–Karl

95 Responses to “Obama Charts a New Route to Re-election?”

  1. If he’s already calling audibles, it ain’t good.

    the bhead (a31060)

  2. If I were a native born citizen I would have a better chance of getting elected than Obama. Unlike him I don’t have a history of disaster to defend. Joe Biden might be the only person legally qualified to be president that has an even lower chance of getting elected president than Obama. Which explains why he was selected to begin with along with his indisputable lack of intelligence.

    cubanbob (ad2274)

  3. 2. “giving the people credible reasons to believe that the economy will fare better in a second Obama term”

    Not remotely possible.

    A huge increase in taxes if the mandate is separable from Obamacare.

    A significant ratcheting upward of inflation, for any number of reasons already in the pipeline, beginning with foreign currency wars begun when the Swiss pegged the franc to the euro.

    Hedge funds the world over are seeing 25% redemptions.

    Banks in the West are coming to an end of days when Greece defaults as they must.

    We can go on but, really, what’s the point.

    Dead Meat is worth nothing alive to Dimmis.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  4. That’s not a “route” to reelection. Its rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  5. I doubt he is charting any kind of a ‘new route’ to re-election.

    Why would he, as he (and liberals in general) doesn’t think he won a fluke election (lousy opponent, demonized and incompetent Bush, lousy economy).

    He thinks he won because he persuaded people that his policies would make everything right (oceans receding and all that). To adopt another strategy would be an admission that he isn’t/wasn’t all that he thinks he is.

    And when have we ever seen Obama (or any hardcore) liberal ever admit they aren’t always right?

    steve (254463)

  6. Pour over those maps boys, perhaps you’ll find an interesting route to take you home in Jan-13.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2)

  7. If Obama loses the rust belt, I fully expect him to lose in a Landslide along the lines of the Carter/Reagan election. Seeing as he is actually been much worse than Carter, I’d put my money on Obamanomics producing an historic defeat for the Democrats. I just hope we nominate the right person, one who is willing to drastically downsize the size and scope and overreach of Washington.

    Texas Mom 2012 (cee89f)

  8. I just hope for a Congressional Leadership, on both sides of The Hill, that will have the guts to repeal a whole lot of this BS that President Millstone has saddled us with – and while they’re at it, they could look seriously at undoing some of their own handiwork going back 40 or 50 (or more) years.

    Taxed Enough Already!
    I’m tired of paying for The Great Society, and I don’t think too favorably of The New/Fair Deal, either.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2)

  9. I agree with steve.

    For comparison, Bush knew during his first term that many had lost confidence in how he was conducting the War on Terror, especially in Iraq, but he persevered in the face of bad polls because he was convinced his policies were sound — and eventually they did succeed. Obama doesn’t seem to realize the public has lost confidence in his failing economic policies because there is no evidence he plans to change them, which means it’s unlikely the economy will improve. Obama perseveres because he’s convinced he’s The One and, apparently, is hoping for another marketing miracle. My guess is that kind of lightning doesn’t strike twice.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  10. Comment by Another Drew – Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! 9/30/2011 @ 3:40 pm — Heh!

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  11. A few weeks back was listening to Rush after AttackWatch launch. A grandmother of 12 from Charlestown, NC, SC, whatever, called in to confess she’d been stranded in traffic by the President.

    Got out of her car as the limo went by to flip him off.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  12. With Awlaki stiff, ofungus must be #1 on the list to do harm to America.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  13. what the little president man needs is he needs his media like the National Soros Radio and the CBS and the Time magazine to make people hate hate hate the person Team R nominates

    I can’t stress enough how key this is for him. A robust campaign built around hate and fear is absolutely vital to any path to victory in 2012 for Obama.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  14. You do realize that what you’re predicting is right out of Orwell, don’t you?
    But then, a lot of people have compared the actions of this administration to those of “Big Brother”.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2)

  15. Perhaps Obama thinks bitter, clingy people respond to hate and fear.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  16. yes! Orwellian tactics are what’s called for.

    It’s sort of a shame but Obama has alienated so many people that there’s just not a whole lot of wiggle room on strategy this time around.

    bless his heart

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  17. DRJ wrote: “Obama doesn’t seem to realize the public has lost confidence in his failing economic policies because there is no evidence he plans to change them, which means it’s unlikely the economy will improve.”

    Worse, DRJ, Obama introduced a fake “jobs” bill, where the bill did not even exist even though the White House had spent a month doing nothing but filming propaganda ads for it, building websites to push it and campaigns that call for its passage. So he isn’t even changing policies, he’s faking the existing policies to pretend to be doing something. When in fact, its nothing but a front for a campaign tour.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  18. If Obama loses the plutocrat scumbag Wall Street handout support, he might not reach his fundraising goals anytime soon. This doesn’t speak well of Romney, and indicates he is also big on crony capitalism. But possibly the Big Money people are finally beginning to tire of the class warfare nonsense combined with Obama’s begging-

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-28/dimon-said-to-meet-romney-after-candidate-s-call-for-repeal-of-bank-rules.html

    Bugg (4e0dda)

  19. Perhaps Obama thinks bitter, clingy people respond to hate and fear.

    we do DRJ, just not in the way he wants us to.

    this country wasn’t founded by scared, soft, helpless people waiting for a handout, and there are still large numbers of us all over the country, even in the bluest of blue states.

    the only way our SCOAMF can win re-election is through fraud, deceit, or some other subterfuge.

    when people in Los Angeles ask you when you think the riots in the street will start, you *know* he’s in trouble.

    unfortunately, that means we’re in trouble too, because Ear Leader will drag everything down with him.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  20. DRJ: Obama and Bush are alike, but different. Both ignored the polls (Bush on Iraq, Obama on everything) because they just knew they were right (and while you agree with what Bush did, there are inexplicably millions of people who even today still believe Obama is on the right track). Obama still believes his economic policies are the right thing to do and will result in the country being more along the lines of what he wants it to be… thus, just like Bush, he ain’t going to change. Change is for people with defective products and/or those who don’t believe in what they’re selling (i.e., Clinton)…. neither is the case in Obama’s view.

    And from Obama’s point of view, he wasn’t the beneficiary of a ‘marketing miracle’. Marketing miracles are what people who have nothing to sell need. Obama doesn’t view himself or his policies in that way. He probably thinks McCain was a tough opponent rather than, as I believe, in over his head. And because he has such a good product, he doesn’t need a miracle this time. All he needs to do is some good old fashioned comparison advertising where he simply points out how inferior the competition is.

    steve (254463)

  21. A few things are clear:

    1) Obama will win no state that McCain carried in 2008.

    2) Obama will use demagoguery to such an extent that he will become known for it, much as Joe McCarthy is. It is going to be VERY ugly, and may well incite violence against the upper middle class.

    3) The administration will say or do ANYTHING to win. If they have to fake labor statistics, hide inflation, bomb Iran, Afghanistan or France they will.

    4) Biden is not going to be the running mate. Either Hilary or someone on the far left like Feingold.

    5) If it gets much worse, Obama may not be the nominee. The Dems do NOT want a 50-state loss and a generation in the minority. I’m not sure what their limits will be, but right now they’re looking at a McGovern.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  22. You know, for all the low approval ratings and talk of threading the needle (or of canning him for Hillary), he’s still polling even or ahead of any potential opponent.

    Keep in mind this is before that opponent is turned into the second coming of Bull Connor in what will be the most destructive character assassination in American political history.

    I’d say he’s not in bad shape. I’d not be happy were I a Democrat running for something else next year, but I’d say Barack isn’t in bad shape. He’s way ahead of where he should be considering how he’s done. We all know the reasons why, but those factors will still be in the mix on election day.

    Pedro (3c9af6)

  23. I voted for you

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  24. Joe Mccarthy was right in some of what he said.

    So do the wall street protesters have a problem with police brutality against tea partiers?

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    DohBiden (d54602)

  25. The fact is Obama has California, New York and Illinois sewn up, add in New Jersey, Washington, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Oregon which are so strongly leaning Dem, it is hard to imagine him losing those. Throw in the New England States, he is nearing 200 EV, which means he can pick and choose where he spends his billions in advertising. I fully expect Obama to win the presidential and the Dems to lose the Senate and be further reduced in the House.

    MunDane (8daa8a)

  26. “The administration will say or do ANYTHING to win. If they have to fake labor statistics, hide inflation, bomb Iran, Afghanistan or France they will”

    Bombing France does have a certain amount of appeal.

    And, it sure worked for Roosevelt.

    Dave Surls (28f866)

  27. Obama will expose himself as a muslim and invade israel?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  28. New Jersey, Washington, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Oregon

    Michigan is very problematic for the Dems – there just aren’t the UAW members there used to be; and, if you think the national UE rate of 16% for Blacks is bad, you haven’t seen anything compared to MI.
    Minnesota is well within the margin of cheat.
    Wisconsin is currently in a state of revolution and come next November, the indies who have been a reliable vote for the Prog/Dems will have an opportunity to reflect that perhaps Republicans aren’t so bad after all when they look at two-years of successful governance by a GOP Gov & Leg.
    Oregon is interesting in that it was the one West Coast state that Obama did not stop in on this last fund raising trip. Couldn’t they put together a fundraiser that would look significant in this most reliable of Liberal State?

    NY, IL, CA, DC – those, at this time, are a given, and that’s about all.
    When CT polling shows Obama down, anything can happen.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2)

  29. steve,

    I agree with everything you say, including that Obama probably believes he can win without compromising his goals. But it’s hard for me to believe his advisers are that confident, especially given the chorus of concerns from a wide range of Democratic leaders and political experts (and probably journalists, too, if we could see their private emails).

    Obama still has plenty of time to move to the middle and appear centrist, but his time to move to the middle on the economy when there was still time to change things has all but disappeared. I don’t understand letting that golden political opportunity slip away, especially since he could have done things that wouldn’t have dramatically undercut his policies. In other words, he’s hurt his chances for re-election for no real gain. (In that sense, Obama reminds me of Bush when he refused to fire Rumsfeld prior to the midterms, when it would have helped the GOP politically, only to fire him immediately after the election.) Perhaps this is the special hubris of Presidents but, if so, Obama seems to have an extra dose.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  30. Perhaps this is the special hubris of Presidents but, if so, Obama seems to have an extra dose.

    We’re concentrating on understatement?

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2)

  31. and i’m sick and tired of being compared to anti-irish people because I
    oppose illegal immigration of all races got that?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  32. California has very high unemployment and a lot of folks who are just plain disaffected. The KoolAid is s**t-flavored this year. There’s not a lot of Dems who are going to go to the polls enthusiastically for 4 more years of this.

    Unless a state went for Obama last time AND has low unemployment AND has a natural Dem advantage, it’s in play. Unless the Republicans run a clown candidate, the have a shot in California if they can get their side to turn out.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  33. Funny you should mention that it’s time for Jack Dunphy to weigh in on why it’s OK for high ranking cops to nonchalantly pepper-spray loud-mouth women protesters already penned in by police on Wall Street.

    Larry Reilly (983eb4)


  34. It is rather to spend the next thirteen and a half months giving the people credible reasons to believe that the economy will fare better in a second Obama term than it did in the first.


    Oh, yeah. THAT‘s gonna happen. Uh-HUH

    You know, with all the aerial porcine excreta dropping from the sky on 1-20-13, now would be a Great Time to augment your Solar Panel porfolio with some Reinforced Umbrella Maker stock

    Hey, whaddya know, I even have a Reputable Broker’s name and number in my phone… anyone want it?

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)

  35. DRJ: you’d think someone on the White House staff would say something along the lines of ‘hey, wait a minute, this isn’t working, let’s try something different’. But I think you’d be wrong.

    Obama is a true believer. True believers surround themselves with other true believers. They have no interest in compromising nor do they even think they need to compromise… being ‘right’, they’re convinced that the only thing keeping them from enacting their agenda are (1) dummies who need to be lectured over and over and over again, (2) their evil and corrupt (sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.) opponents who need to have someone step on their necks, and/or (3) bad polling techniques that don’t truly capture how wonderful Obama is. And when things don’t turn out the way they expect, it is never because the policy is flawed, it is because they didn’t push hard enough (more lectures, more stimulus money, more loans to solar companies, more pressure on Israel, more apologizing for America, even more demonizing the opposition). Thus, anyone who even remotely suggests compromise or a change in direction is revealed to be a non-believer and relegated to the sidelines. (look at how a lot of criticism of Obama is coming from liberals arguing that he hasn’t been liberal enough).

    If the White House (or the Democratic Party as a whole) had any adults, would they have pushed through the things they did in the face of public opposition? How many Democrats in the House and the Senate from purplish districts drank the koolaid of health care reform? They never thought they’d lose their seats and their majority… yet they willingly went along with the true believers off to their (political) death.

    steve (254463)

  36. If you opposed illegal immigration of eastern european descent the perrykrishnas would agree that they need to be deported but since they are majority mexican the perrytards accuse you of nativism with no legit opposition to illegals.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  37. Obama’s campaign promises have all been broken. He did not deliver on card check, cap & trade, immigration reform, repeal of DOMA, or green jobs. He is cutting and running in Iraq and he is losing in Afghanistan. He has us fighting in Yemen and Libya in violation of the War Powers Act. Gitmo is still open and rendition, still in the toolbox. He lost Egypt and Tunisia and may well have green lighted the end of Israel.

    Housing is still in a depression. Gasoline prices have doubled and inflation has already hit the supermarkets. Unemployment has increased from 7.6% to 9.2% in spite of a nearly $1 trillion stimulus. His signature piece of legislation, ObamaCare, has increased cost and is already rationing care. It will be repealed in January 2013 unless the Supreme Court strikes it down earlier.

    As a campaigner, he has hurt, not helped those for whom he spoke. In Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia the democrats lost. In the midterm, he lost 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. In NY9 where democrats hold a 3:1 advantage, Obama was the issue and he lost. Without strong majorities in Congress, his agenda is dead.

    His popularity has dropped from 70% and is now bouncing from the low forties to high thirties. He has lost support among blacks, Jews, Hispanics, women, unions, youth and independents. Even democrats are complaining about him.

    The answer to every problem is another Obama teleprompter lecture, talking down to us. Everyone is sick of the sniveling pimp. If you want to get rich, invent a program that recognizes Obama’s voice and automatically mutes or changes channels.

    Obama is in denial. There is virtually no way he will be reelected.

    Arch (0baa7b)

  38. Obama is in denial. There is virtually no way he will be reelected.

    The former is true, the latter not necessarily so.

    The liberals will vote for him, they fear ANY Republican more than they’re upset with Obama for not getting enough through. The battle will come down to who gets the middle. And as bad as his numbers are with them, the GOP can shoot itself in the foot with this group, not only by who they nominate but in the way that candidate runs his campaign. It isn’t as if the GOP hasn’t screwed up in the past… McCain, anyone? Bush in 2004, a whole lot closer against Kerry than it ought to have been? A GOP Congress sticking with a very unpopular President and going along with him in blowing up the budget, so much so that they got tossed out the same way the Democrats did last year?

    The absolute last thing the GOP can afford to do is to nominate some fire-breathing conservative whose positions and performance scares the mushy middle into voting for Obama. The GOP candidate needs to soothe the middle, not scare them.

    Of course, this means nominating someone who doesn’t toe the conservative line 100%… someone who can compromise a bit in order to get the votes he needs, someone who knows the way to get elected is to not play to the most hardcore of the right. We know there aren’t any adults on the Democratic side, time will tell whether there are any realistic adults on the GOP side of the aisle.

    steve (254463)

  39. The absolute last thing the GOP can afford to do is to nominate some fire-breathing conservative whose positions and performance scares the mushy middle into voting for Obama. The GOP candidate needs to soothe the middle, not scare them.

    Yeah, like Juan McRINO.

    No, thanks.

    Darth Venomous (c8614a)

  40. Steve:

    Obama won not because he had the left or because independents voted for him at 2:1. He won because he ran on a set of vague idealistic notions that he would make things better. Today, he has a record and things are not better. He has made things much worse. In 2008, conservatives did not support the McCain; they stayed home.

    In 2012, reapportionment will add 10 to 15 seats to Boehner’s majority, but the contest to watch will be in the US Senate. 23 democrats are up for reelection with only 10 republicans running. Twelve seats are all it would take to give the GOP a veto proof majority.

    I still contend that Obama has no chance next year. Even McCain could beat him.

    Arch (0baa7b)

  41. new route through china
    secret backdoor funding of
    democrat black ops

    ColonelHaiku (a4b693)

  42. 36) thankfully he did not come through on most of these, although the EPA and The NLRB is working around two of these, not to mention the FCC,

    ian cormac (ed5f69)

  43. ==Yeah, like Juan McRINO. No, thanks==

    Really? John McCain would not have appoined the wise latina and the lovely and talented Ms Kagan to SCOTUS.

    elissa (752602)

  44. anyone who says
    RINO worse than socialist
    needs head examined

    elissa (752602)

  45. ________________________________________________

    The last Democrat to win the White House without carrying Ohio was John F. Kennedy,

    Philosophy and politics aside, I wonder how much more narcissistic and pathetic the culture of the US presidency has become post-Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton? And almost certainly post-Obama (God willing, as of November 2012).

    I believe the record indicates Democrats of the distant past, including Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman, zipped their lips and maintained a proper, courteous low profile following their time in the White House. It’s possible Kennedy, somewhat rooted in traditional culture, would have done the same thing should he have survived.

    I don’t believe any modern-era Republican president upon the end of his administration, including Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr, ever ran around (or has run around) spouting off in public the way that Carter and Clinton have done.

    Liberal biases in people — who are older than, say 30 or 40 — seem to reflect innate immaturity and an inability to progress, to acquire wisdom through one’s years—assuming that most people on the left also were liberal in their youth.

    If Richard Nixon were a staunch liberal, he very well could have been — in spite of his infamous, tarnished reputation — no less shameless and no less full of ego and vanity than Bill Clinton.

    Now with Obama, Clinton and Carter all occupying the glorious pantheon of the Democrat Party — and with Obama’s notorious self-absorption and truly extremist ideology and background — (and assuming Jimmy Carter goes well beyond his 87th birthday, of today, btw), the future really will be like the Three Stooges gallivanting around the world, happily flapping their gums in the wind. Although the Three Stooges probably had a better sense of class than Carter, Clinton and Obama.

    Politico.com, Sept 30: Bill Clinton thinks he deserves more credit for reforming welfare and balancing the budget.

    “I go crazy every time I read the conventional wisdom,” he said Friday night at his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark. “So part of the Republican narrative is that I was ‘saved’ from myself by the election of the Republican Congress [in 1994] that ‘forced me’ to do welfare reform and ‘made the balanced budget possible.’”

    Clinton said reporters and commentators “keep saying this, overlooking all relevant facts.”

    “And yet I kept reading how this was ‘a Republican idea,’ just because President Reagan had a good story about a welfare queen and a Cadillac who didn’t exist,” Clinton said.

    Mark (411533)

  46. ______________________________________________

    anyone who says RINO worse than socialist needs head examined

    It is ironic that conservatives who have a “my way or the highway” approach to politics and voting may inadvertently (or purposefully?) steer this society further to the left, towards an even ultra-liberal direction. I say “purposefully” because I’ve heard some rightists theorize that if the political system (and government) becomes too leftwing, than that will open the door to staunch conservatism. But so much damage will have been done by that time — and due to the history of most societies (eg, France, Mexico or Argentina) generally remaining tilted towards the left in spite of moments of liberalism gone berserk — that’s a risky or even foolish proposition.

    Mark (411533)

  47. Is a Compassionate Conservative worse than a RINO? Or, are the terms synonymous?

    ropelight (e415b4)

  48. Well that’s an interesting theory, take California, for instance, what did it avail ourselves of having
    Schwartzenegger, as Governor, as he capitulated to most of the left’s demands in time. Yes Jerry Brown
    is worse, not to say anything about Kamala Harris.

    ian cormac (ed5f69)

  49. “Do you believe in sin?” Cathleen Falsani, the religion correspondent for the Chicago Sun-Times, asked then Senator Obama. “Yes,” he replied. “What is sin?” “Being out of alignment with my values.”

    So… Obama worships at his own feet.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2011/09/29/obama-i-don%e2%80%99t-think-ethics-was-my-favorite-class/

    ColonelHaiku (a4b693)

  50. Schwarzenegger (or any governor) does not have control of the U.S. Supreme Court appointments and other federal judgeships, or the FDA, the EPA, or the DOJ, etc. And, as Ian points out, Ahnold may have been a disappointment as governor, but Jerry Brown is waay worse. It’s impossible to even keep up with all the crazy new laws and rules since Moonbeam has been back in office. Maybe Schwarzenegger deserves more credit than he gets for being able to reign in even any of the leftist lunacy in Kalifornia.

    Certainly, we can all agree that it is impossible to elect a true conservative in California so why waste time pining for what can not happen at any time in the forseeable future?

    elissa (752602)

  51. do you believe in magic?
    in a young man’s heart?
    the self idolatry freed him
    right from the start
    and it’s magic
    that made him feel groovy
    pardon me if I throw up
    all over breakfast smoothie

    ColonelHaiku (a4b693)

  52. If Richard Nixon were a staunch liberal, he very well could have been

    Richard Nixon was raised in a Quaker family and culture, and fit perfectly within the Progressive political culture initiated in CA by Hiram Johnson.
    The particular mark of his political life that caused the Left to cast him as “Right Wing” was his staunch Anti-Communism,
    and his “take no prisoners” style of campaigning seen in his House run against Jerry Vorhees, and Senate race against Helen Douglass –
    the Left could never forgive him for that.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (5ac6ff)

  53. steve,

    I wanted Obama to win the Democratic nomination instead of Hillary because I thought he was more liberal and would support more liberal policies that (I hoped) would convince Americans to move back to the right. He did and I think they will. In addition, as a conservative, I don’t see much benefit from going through the Obama experiment, only to voluntarily lean left to capture your “mushy middle.” In my view, if Americans won’t move right at this point in history, they never will again.

    But death by a thousand cuts has never appealed to me. Maybe it does to some.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  54. Mitt Tancredo never met a mushy middle he couldn’t stiffen right up

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  55. _____________________________________________

    The particular mark of his political life that caused the Left to cast him as “Right Wing”

    I think it was also due to his often explicitly and clearly saying things like “liberals do this…” or “liberals do that,” and obviously in a negative way.

    In comparison, I recall George Bush Sr, when expressing disapproval of liberalism (and liberals), used a phrase he coined, that being “the L word.” So he was more low key about coming out and saying “liberal.”

    I don’t recall George W Bush ever using “liberal” in his rhetoric, and, if anything, was more likely to sprinkle things like “compassionate conservatism” throughout his verbiage.

    I don’t believe Ronald Reagan even necessarily honed in, or was explicit about, “liberal” and “liberalism” or “leftism” in his rhetoric.

    I’ve read articles in the European press that seem to use “leftwing” and “rightwing” more freely or nonchalantly than the US media does.

    I notice a variety of people, here and elsewhere, who, for any number of reasons, also seem to refrain from saying “liberal” or “leftist.” Or they’ll just as easily use “progressive” or “lefty.” I’m not sure if that’s because perhaps everyone has some (or once had) leftist biases in themselves, or is connected to friends or family members who are of the left.

    The fact that even I wasn’t truly aware of the very revealing differences (based on surveys and statistics) between liberals and conservatives in the areas of generosity, compassion and non-racism until not too long ago — and how stereotypes therefore really deserve to be switched around — makes me think greater candor about the way that ideology affects humans is long overdue.

    Mark (411533)

  56. == don’t believe Ronald Reagan even necessarily honed in, or was explicit about, “liberal” and “liberalism” or “leftism” in his rhetoric==

    Mark, you need to watch the entirety of Reagan’s 1964 “A Time for Choosing” Speech.

    elissa (752602)

  57. “I go crazy every time I read the conventional wisdom,” he said Friday night at his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark. “So part of the Republican narrative is that I was ‘saved’ from myself by the election of the Republican Congress [in 1994] that ‘forced me’ to do welfare reform and ‘made the balanced budget possible.’”

    Well, he did veto it twice and was overridden twice. The worst danger to the country right now is the low information voter who believe this stuff

    One of Obama’s problems is that his black base is going to higher information levels.

    Mike K (8f3f19)

  58. ==Mark, you need to watch the entirety of Reagan’s 1964 “A Time for Choosing” Speech==

    And please report back here after you have completed your assignment. :)

    elissa (752602)

  59. Mr. Feets – You need to honor what a great country we have when Obama’s illegal alien Uncle Omar who has been the subject of a deportation order since 1992 apparently has valid ID to work legally in here:

    “Immigration authorities yesterday told the Herald they would look into whether Obama has legal authority to work under the terms of his release but did not respond to repeated follow-up calls.

    Conti Liquors owner Parimal Patel, who has steadfastly stood by his trusted longtime clerk, and previously said Obama had a valid ID and Social Security number, declined to speak with a Herald reporter yesterday.”

    Jobs Americans would not do?

    http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1369876

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  60. ______________________________________________

    you need to watch the entirety of Reagan’s 1964 “A Time for Choosing” Speech.

    Elissa, I was focusing on the time when Reagan was in the White House, or perhaps even when he was serving as governor. IOW, the partisan rhetoric — for a variety of reasons — is ratcheted down.

    Then again, I believe Nixon also toned down his use of the “liberal” label once he entered the White House. But for some reason I always think of him as using and stressing that word more than any other Republican over the past 50 years. Or maybe it’s just because he seemed to have an oddly combative (ie sullen), pro-ideology quality about him.

    I recall his saying that a candidate moves to the right (or left) during the primaries and then moves to the middle during the general election. So perhaps his great awareness of ideological biases — and desire to manipulate them — makes me think he was was open about saying “liberal.”

    Mark (411533)

  61. And please report back here after you have completed your assignment.

    Don’t forget to submit your notes for review.
    And remember, elissa is a tough grader, so be complete.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (5ac6ff)

  62. Mark, when Nixon was in the Congress between 47-53, he was highly partisan, and made his mark by looking for the “Alger Hiss'” that had wormed their way into govt during the New Deal and WW-2 years.
    I’m sure that working with Ike for 8-years took a few rough edges off as Ike was famous for being able to work with (or at least tolerate) famously disruptive forces such as Monty and Patton, and don’t forget deGaulle.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (5ac6ff)

  63. Eat your mush!

    Romney 2012!

    happyfeet (a12946)

  64. National elections these days are decided mostly in the midwest – Obama is cooked (assuming the lack of a surprising economic turnaround) unless he can engineer a 3rd party run for a Bloomberg or, maybe, Paul. If he runs at all. I still think California polling, and money, will cause him to drop out for ‘health reasons’.

    The best way to get a 3rd party candidate is to get a fire breathing R nominee. I think O thinks that is Perry and is hoping it breaks that way. Perry must have no deficiencies that Obama has. Crony capitalism can be rebutted with Solyndra. What can’t be rebutted? THAT is what the media will run with.

    I remember McCain running and my leftie uncle said he wouldn’t vote for him because of his age (and that was a big campaign issue, even ‘booming’ for a bit when Palin was announced). Jerry Brown just won the governship. If you were thinking Brown’s age, he’s about the same age as McCain, was a factor in his election you’d be wrong. The media will focus on what’s important – getting the Democrat elected.

    East Bay Jay (19f566)

  65. AD and Mark–obviously I was joshing y’all about the report. But that speech so forever defined Reagan and his views on liberalism, and was so clear and well laid out and so uncompromising that he did not need to constantly repeat it. In 1964 there were few Americans who owned TVs who did not watch that speech and for decades everybody knew exactly how Reagan felt about liberalism. That’s why the left so hated him.

    I’m sorry, but I got the vapors when it was suggested that RR was not explicit, and/or did not hone in on the evils of liberalism.

    elissa (752602)

  66. Mr. Feets – Why you wanna be a boner killer?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  67. Time for your tasty Thai, vegan gruel, feets.

    ColonelHaiku (a4b693)

  68. I’m at breakfast back later mr. Daley

    happyfeet (0845e7)

  69. ______________________________________________

    That’s why the left so hated him.

    I’ve always sensed that it was Richard Nixon who triggered more of a visceral disdain among a larger cross section of liberals. In some ways, Nixon is to the left what Bill Clinton is to the right. IOW, odd quirks of personality and history, more than ideology alone, associated with the two is what really turns off their opponents.

    I know that Clinton — for purely non-ideological reasons — strikes me as truly scroungy and even loathsome, or much worse than Obama or Carter—although the latter two are, in some ways, more dogmatic or leftwing than Clinton.

    If my take on Nixon and Clinton is correct, it’s probably not coincidental that both of them happened to trigger impeachment proceedings, originating from the devious and unethical nature of the two. More telling, Nixon and Clinton also are located closer to each other (ie, Nixon being very squishy behind closed doors) on the socio-political spectrum than, say, Clinton and Reagan.

    Mark (411533)

  70. I’m sorry, but I got the vapors

    And you are just a delightful sight what with your fan just goin’ a mile-a-minute, you sweet child.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (5ac6ff)

  71. Good comment, Mike K.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  72. “Good comment, Mike K.”

    I agree DRJ.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  73. “I’m at breakfast back later mr. Daley”

    Mr. Feets – I hope you don’t choke on your breakfast and force somebody to give you that squeezey heimlich thingy and squirt a hunk sausage across the room what to start breeving again, cuz that would not be a good start to the day if that happened.

    You mistake my comments here. I am not advocating Romney as the Perrybots suggest. I am just trying to correct misinformation.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  74. oh. I did mistake your comments. I am so sorry.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  75. In 2008, conservatives did not support the McCain; they stayed home.

    That seems to be a matter of controversy, but in some states, it made the difference. If you only look nationwide, I think the truth is a little less clear.

    I think this tendency is even worse now than it was in 2008. Some think pure rejection of Obama will mean the right will stay in line. 2010 is proof this is completely wrong.

    If we nominate a RINO in 2012, we will see a lot of voters show tremendous frustration with their choices, we will see third party voters, and we will see Obama smiling. That’s a shame. Even if we nominate Huntsman or Romney, everyone should vote for the GOP nominee. But let’s avoid that.

    Perry is closer to what Steve’s asking for. A conservative who is moderate enough on pragmatic issues to be realistic. But he’s principled enough to have credibility. And he’s experienced enough to present a terrific argument to low info and high info voters alike. He doesn’t grab guns or sign tax increases like his primary competitor, and his personal character is on display every time he stands up for an unpopular or heavily demagogued against position, such as Romney’s loud firey attempt to recharactize Perry’s view as abolishing social security.

    Also, Perry is simply the better man.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  76. I didn’t stay home I voted for the Team R douchebag but I made a vow that day that never again would I willingly debase myself in such a fashion

    DO YOU HEAR THAT MISS MITTENS GALORE???

    Never. Again.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  77. It’s interesting that even Romney’s loudest defenders usually say they don’t even support him. You hear it all the time.

    This is a red flag, isn’t it? Why not support him? Because to support him is to support a very fervent pro choice* tax* and spend* anti-reagan* liberal* whose life story just plain doesn’t inspire.

    *except when shamelessly flip flopping

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  78. Which is why I respect Haiku for just owning his support of Romney, on terms of electability for the most part.

    That’s rare, and that’s hard to do. I’ll never agree with him on this, but I can’t think of another person articulating a reason to support the guy.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  79. ______________________________________________

    Also, Perry is simply the better man.

    Since I suspect both he and Romney will be prone to philosophical squishiness (or “centrism,” if not liberalism) on occasion, I find myself judging the two based not on ideological grounds but more on how they’ll play out tactically.

    So I ask myself, which of the two will turn off the most or fewest non-Republicans, independents, liberals/Democrats? Which of the two will appeal (or not appeal) to the greatest number of Republicans or conservatives? And if the candidate displeases a larger share of the Republican base, will that be offset by his being more acceptable to independents, if not a handful of Democrats? Or visa versa.

    Since I can’t get into people’s minds, I really don’t know the answer to all this. So I still feel agnostic about the top two candidates, not to mention Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Chris Christie, etc.

    If I had confidence in the common sense (or sanity) of the American electorate in 2012 — IOW, that they too are going to automatically vote for “anyone but Obama,” meaning the Republican candidate winning next year is a given — then I could happily start focusing on the purely political side of the candidates.

    Mark (411533)

  80. Dustin please take this in the spirit in which it is intended. Other than being certain that we will be voting ABO, I suspect that many of us (unlike you) have not settled on a candidate yet. And in fact, here in early October of 2011 I suspect many of us see no reason to do so at this point. I know for example that my choice may be influenced by who leaves or could still enter the race, and I will certainly be open to being influenced by other changing circumstances or factors such as all the candidates’ performances in future debates and interviews.

    In other words, your insistence that people stand up– right now–and both identify and defend their candidate, coupled with your apparent irritation when some of us who do not know Perry as well as you do, raise questions about him and his positions just seems, well, kinda crazy.

    elissa (752602)

  81. Elissa

    Most voters have never heard of most of the non front runners.

    Romney has been out there since 1994, Perry since 1994, Gingrich since the lte 1980’s

    For people to be window shopping and hoping and guessing while we are in peril?

    For people to be undecided means they are never going to decide – and that is a large part of the electorate.

    EricPWJohnson (ad993a)

  82. Which is why I respect Haiku for just owning his support of Romney, on terms of electability for the most part.

    Not true. In the interest of full disclosure, I supported Romney’s candidacy in 2007 and early 2008, with financial contributions, as well.

    Those contributions continue. I like the man, what he stands for and believe that he has the necessary tools to help lead us out of this mess.

    But I also believe it important to not write others off… with a few exceptions. And I know that,even within my own party, there are ignorant people who find Romney’s Mormonism something worthy of ridicule and something that also makes a candidate unworthy. I wish that were not so, but I am a realist.

    I also sincerely state, may the best candidate win and whoever that ends up being, they will have my full and complete support.

    ColonelHaiku (a4b693)

  83. ==For people to be undecided means they are never going to decide==

    Eric–I wish I could muster the emotion to be crushed that you do not approve of my (and many other people’s) thought processes in choosing the best person to support for winning the White House. This really is not a decision that must be made today- for an election that is more than a year away.

    elissa (752602)

  84. Here’s a little exercise that means absolutely nothing:
    If Romney, Perry, and Cain, are the acknowledged front-runners, how would the other two fit into the Presidency of the third?
    ie: what cabinet post would Cain offer Romney or Perry; or Perry offer Romney or Cain; or Romney offer Perry or Cain?
    Is there a place for any of them, or all of them?
    Personally, I don’t think Newt has a chance, but he would be excellent at State.
    Where would you place a Santorum, or Bachmann; or even Huntsman, Pawlenty, Johnson?
    And, for just desserts, Paul at the Federal Reserve!
    Regardless of the identity of the Presidential nominee, I think the strongest VEEP nominee would be Daniels.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (5ac6ff)

  85. Well you don’t have to decide for a while, but the timestable has been moved up a bit, just this week.

    ian cormac (ed5f69)

  86. “For people to be undecided means they are never going to decide – and that is a large part of the electorate.”

    EPWJ – WTF? In spite of your enthusiasm, unfortunately people outside Texas really don’t know crap about Perry other than he’s been a conservative governor in a red state. Tough duty? Not exactly.

    If Romney has been around for so long and everyone knows everything about him, why is such a barrage of misinformation surfacing about him? Is that all due to the Perry campaign?

    I completely share elissa’s sentiment. I did not like a two year campaign in 2008 and would like them all to be shorter than they are. I view the crap you put out about Palin in the same category as much of the crap being written here about Romney, more representative of progressive trolls than regular commenters and have no problem correcting where it needs correcting.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  87. I like Romney better than Palin

    also I like herpes better than a brain aneurysm and gingivitis better than leprosy

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  88. Really? John McCain would not have appoined the wise latina and the lovely and talented Ms Kagan to SCOTUS.

    Are you sure about that? Are you absolutely, positively sure? Perhaps, Your Clairvoyantness, you can graciously regale us all with the details from Juanita McComity’s short list of SCOTUS nominees.

    anyone who says
    RINO worse than socialist
    needs head examined

    Perhaps, while you’re at it, you could tell us the difference, no?

    Otherwise, you can kiss my conservative ass.

    Darth Venomous (c8614a)

  89. I like happyfeet a little less each day.

    ColonelHaiku (a4b693)

  90. Jon. Huntsman.

    tifosa (731af4)

  91. Romney is cruising to the nomination by whipping up Team R’s hatred of the illegal mexican peoples what come over the borders their weak feeble laughably broke and chinese-dependent government is unable to secure.

    He’s a pathetic cowardly whore what will say absolutely anything, adapt absolutely any position, for to ascend to the office of the presidency that is his by right.

    Romney make two pathetic cowardly whores in a row that Team R has nominated.

    This would be one of the odd cases where two makes a pattern I think.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  92. sorry that should say Romney *would* make two pathetic cowardly whores in a row

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  93. Obama’s faux jobs bill still has no cosponsors in the House or Senate. Over a 190 Democrats in the House do not want to be associated with Obama and over 51 Democrats in the Senate refuse to be associated with Obama.

    Path to reelection? Bwaaahaaahaaa.

    SPQR (26be8b)


  94. Perhaps, while you’re at it, you could tell us the difference, no?

    Some things should be self-evident.

    steve (254463)

  95. Some things should be self-evident.

    You don’t have an answer, either.

    Yeah, thought so.

    Darth Venomous (c8614a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.6890 secs.