Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Would Obama Win Again?

Would Obama Win Again?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

As most readers of my columns know, I am no big fan of our President, Barack Obama. I voted for McCain, a vote that I cast knowing it had a snowflake's chance in hell of meaning anything, and it didn't. At the time, Obama was riding high on his rhetoric, his campaign pledges sounded great on the surface, but to me, these policies implied a dark direction for the future of the country, its economy and national security. For general election voters bowled over by the image of this smart, young, handsome candidate, implications of the policies espoused by Obama were merely glossed over by a supportive media refusing to ask any serious questions. Certainly, some voters knew that a President Obama would mean higher taxes for all, increased role of government and government spending, and a reliance on the international community for our security. "Some voters" being the key phrase in that prior sentence — the vast majority of voters don't take the time to really understand policies or their implications, especially when those policies are never deeply discussed (present company excluded of course).

Obama reads from a teleprompter (no surprise)Obama has now been in office since late January, and the media has had no choice but to discuss the implications of Obama's policies. While some of the policies Obama has forwarded have fallen with a legislative thud, others are downright scary. Thus far, it's hard to argue that the fledgling Obama administration has done much, if anything, right; unless you are a bona fide Kool-aid drinker. I wouldn't expect Obama to govern from the right. However, the direction  in which he's taken the country is not in line with what I'd call a centrist, independent or even moderate Democrat view (full disclosure: I am center right, registered independent, though lately thinking of registering my disgust with the current administration by going Republican). As expected, Obama has been pretty clearly presiding over the country from a far left position. The only group which should be happy, liberals, is not satisfied that Obama has gone far enough on issues such as gay marriage, gun control and other liberal hot button issues. Of course, satisfied or not, liberals will stand by Obama because after all, (begin sarcasm) look at the mess he's inherited (end sarcasm). But liberals are a minority. The question is, now that we've been living in ObamAmerica for the last 5 months, if the election were held today, would Obama still win the presidency?

During the general election, many on the right with whom I spoke, citing their disaffection with McCain, were considering whether or not to even vote. The general view was, what's the difference between Republican-lite McCain, and seemingly moderate Obama? Of course, that was before Obama overturned the "Mexico City" policy, agreed to federally fund embryonic stem cell research, made "romantic" overtures to Chavez and Ahmadinejad while snubbing the UK and Israel, attempted to close Gitmo without a plan, and released the torture memos which described our tactics, while deciding to keep classified the benefits which justified America's use of enhanced interrogation to the world community.

Those in the middle with whom I spoke felt that after eight years of Bush, it was time to give the other side a try. That was before many trillions of new government spending, the public takeover of several private sector industries, expanded Americorps, the appointment of tax cheats and lobbyists, and the selection of judges based on their feelings as much as their constitutional adherence. And it was before Obama continued his campaign for the presidency well over 120 days after he was sworn into office.

Some of Obama's flaws are bi-partisan. Was anyone comfortable with the hubris and partisanship of "I won", especially coming from a supposed post-partisan candidate lecturing us to put away "childish things?" How about the endless war Obama has had with strawman positions, the constant and disingenuous mischaracterization of his opponents' views, or his lowering of the presidential office to fight with former Vice President Cheney or worse, the likes of radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh? Obama's constant blame-gaming of inheriting the worlds problems, after running for two years for the privilege of serving as president hasn't been very becoming, no matter which side of the aisle you are on. Worst of all, since electing the first African American to the highest office of this great country in a sure sign of true racial indifference and equality by Americans of all stripes, racial and identity politics,as well as political correctness have once again taken center stage as governing principles, setting race relations back to the Affirmative Action wars of the 60s and 70s.

Elections aren't won on the extremes, and despite the claims by the media that the country has somehow moved to the left, Obama was elected because of a deep disaffection with Bush, as well as the reasons described earlier. And while electorally, Obama creamed McCain, the popular vote separated both candidates, and thus the electoral votes, by about 7 million votes. Lose the extreme left or the right, and it's fine. Lose the centrists, and the independents, and you'll lose the election.

The media does their best to cover for this fact and their man. MSNBC's Maddow and Olbermann are in full-on spin mode. Pundits on CNN regularly give Obama grades no less than a B when asked, and their polling still has him in the 65% range. I put no faith in the punditry; as for polling, ever since 2004, when the polls all showed Kerry beating Bush, until Bush won that is, it's been hard for me to really take these stats seriously; especially now, when despite all of these developments, Obama's numbers stay so stable, no matter his actions or the outcome.

Those who were true believers will always be true believers. But when you turn off CNN or MSNBC, or talk to anyone other than die hard liberals, you sense there is a change in attitude. Those who were willing to give Obama a chance are starting to regret their vote. Those who were indifferent to the election are now starting to get riled up. People are wondering what is becoming of this great land that has provided a lifestyle unparalleled in the world, not just for them, but for generations of their families. Will America still be the engine that has forever changed the world for the better if we adopt socialist, Marxist, collectivist policies? Will our children have the same opportunities that we had or will future generations merely have health care and an overbearing nanny state? This is the discussion that should have happened in the summer and fall of last year, but which is only just happening now.

Perhaps this is just my orientation. Maybe I am hearing what I want to hear. Maybe I am wrong, and the polls and pundits are spot on. Perhaps Americans really do support government takeovers of industry, high taxes on tax payers, and greater government control and involvement in our lives in the name of the so-called common good. After all it was Alexis de Tocqueville (or was it Alex Tyler) who wrote that,

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

If the polls and media are to be believed, this statement rings true. And if so, then that speaks very clearly to a possible permanent Democratic majority, and the fact that America as we know it is gone forever. A distinct possibility for sure, but somehow I doubt it.

Some Americans might prefer a nanny state, in which government takes a much more active role in taking care of us and our needs at the expense of individualism and personal achievement. But I believe that most Americans appreciate the ideals that this country was founded upon; the very same ideals that have driven prosperity for generations, and which have elevated American quality of life beyond that of most other countries in the world. Were the election to be held today, with the country seeing first hand what Obama meant by "hope and change," this American thinks Obama would lose by a small margin. We'll soon see if I am right – stay tuned for 2010 and 2012.

Powered by

About The Obnoxious American

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos-/ Christine Lakatos

    “MSNBC’s Maddow and Olbermann are in full-on spin mode”: Oh my gosh — spin mode is an understatement, Maddow and Olbermann are outright obnoxious!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    “as for polling, ever since 2004, when the polls all showed Kerry beating Bush, until Bush won that is…”

    Um, no. The polls had Kerry leading through the end of August and the party conventions. After that the lead swapped about a bit, but with Bush steadily gaining ground. By the time of the election, thanks in about equal measure to the Swift Boat Veterans and Kerry’s clueless campaign, Bush had a small lead in most polls – though not enough for most pundits to call it either way. Which is just about how the election ended up turning out.

    When the polls close to the last election showed Obama applying forceful toe energy to McCain’s chair-communing appendage, there were a lot of objections along the lines that polls were unreliable. I disagree. Polls are a highly reliable weather gauge, as long as they are analyzed correctly and not cherry-picked or taken in isolation.

    So if numerous polls show Obama’s approval rating still to be high, you should probably accept that for what it is. It detracts nothing from your own disapproval.

    He would still win if the election were held today, and I don’t think it would make a great deal of difference who the GOP put up against him.

    Frankly, I think much of your incredulity stems from failing to recognize that many people may not consider higher (?!) taxes, bigger government, increased spending and greater reliance on international military cooperation to be bad things.

  • Bliffle

    This is a pretty boring article. Just a recitation of rightist diatribes against Obama, with nothing new added, nor any interesting new way of viewing old items. It’s a waste of time and attention. I suppose one would not expect better from OA.

    I noticed this brag by OA:

    “America is the greatest country in the history of mankind. Some might refer to me as the classic “obnoxious American,” because I refuse to be ashamed of my country.”

    I would have agreed 20 or 30 years ago, but I’ve seen our relative position deteriorate, especially over the past 10-15 years. While we’ve been standing still the rest of the world is moving forward. We’ve been standing pat, apparently content to defend an old position while other countries are advancing.

    And standing pat is very expensive.

    We need new models of social organization, business operation, and political representation. But we seem to be doing nothing. Even Obamas proposals don’t really represent anything new, mostly just re-hashes of past liberal policies, and pretty mild re-hashes at that.

    And the “Obnoxious American” sobriquet was earned by loudmouth US tourists who would loudly brag about how superior some US product was compared to a foreign product, aimed directly at any nearby foreigners. It had nothing to do with shame, but rather with bragging and scorn of foreigners.

    Those loudmouths didn’t succeed in intimidating the foreigner, who typically became incensed and insulted rather than instructed, but it did make life harder for the next American that the foreigner met. So all you accomplished with bragging was to harm some innocent fellow American. How stupid.

  • Arch Conservative

    Hindsight is 20/20 and given that Obama is an economic neophyte hell bent on bankrupting the nation I think he’d get crushed in a landslide if American were given a choice to trade him in for Mitt Romney.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Bliffle,

    Touched a nerve did I? Call me boring or any other names you’d like, or disparage my name, but it doesn’t change the point of the article. If the election were held today, Obama would likely lose. Especially with news like this coming out.

    Can you say buyers remorse?

  • The Obnoxious American

    Doc,

    I vividly remember the day of the election in 2004. My liberal co-workers were ecstatic of early Zogby exit polling that showed Kerry beating Bush. The next day I was laughing and they were horrified.

    Let’s not forget that the polls are always wildly pro-democrat by many points, there’s ALWAYS a drop from the polls to the actual numbers. And always, it’s the democrat that has the benefit.

    There are acknowledged issues with weighting, “likely voter” classification, and other things that mess with the numbers to skew them in some favor. At the end of the day, the old twain saw still stands.

    I believe these polls should be illegal. Isn’t a daily barrrage of polls at least some form of voter intimidation? After all we wouldn’t want to waste our vote voting for the loser, now would we?

  • zingzing

    yeah, archie, he wants to bankrupt the country he’s in charge of. good strategy. where’d you come up with that? mitt romney! mitt romney! maybe he’ll marry you (ok, that was crass).

    oa–you REALLY think obama would lose? you’re living in a fantasy world where he’s not fixing bush’s economic, military and international idiocy. he’d absolutely poop on anybody you right wing nutters could put up at this point. and i’m not saying that’s a good thing, but your ideas have proven so useless, so backwards and so awful that you couldn’t hope to get elected in a recession actually brought on by obama, much less a recession brought on by your own people.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    And what is the point of the article? Since you don’t make the case for anyone running against Obama, your only argument is that you don’t like his policies, and surely others must agree with you.

    Bliffle is right. This is a boring repeat. The TV networks no to offer new programming in June, so put a little thought and effort into it next time.

  • The Obnoxious American

    El Bicho,

    Obama would lose to “None of the above” right now. That I don’t talk about who’d be running against him is irrelevant. He won because he got away without getting into details, and now that he has, he is losing his appeal quickly. That’s the point of the article, it’s all there if you read it.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Just because you typed a lot doesn’t mean you said anything. Like the Doc said Obama’s approval numbers are still high today. We get that you wouldn’t vote for him, but with no alternative, your point is rendered moot because Obama and his team have shown themselves to be skilled at running a campaign, so it’s an incomplete question.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    It’s hard for me to understand how Obnox & Arch cling to their wishful thinking. Of course you and your ilk want desparately to believe that Obama would lose. But the fact is, that it’s highly unlikely.

    Obama has done nothing to date that would cause any massive “buyer’s remorse.” Most of the charges the right has made against Obama are nothing more than strawman arguments in the hopes that something, anything might stick. So far, nothing has.

    I have been watching in bemusement the incredibly destructive gyrations the Reps have been going through since the election. There are certainly any number of intelligent and thoughtful Reps out there, but they seem to have elected to take to the hills or hybernate while every nut job in the party has come out of the wood work, found a camera and grabbed a microphone. There is not one voice of reason among them. It’s actually embarrassing. If anyone thinks that any of them could make a meaningful challenge to Obama, they are just as nuts. You guys just don’t get it.

    You all want to go back to the the halcyon days – the days of Ike or more likely, Ronnie. Reagonomics has run its course and failed miserably. Take “trickle down” and shove it.

    It’s a far different world we live in than even as recently as the 1980s. Obama understands that. Apparently, you don’t.

    I can’t predict success for Obama’s plans. But it was more than clear that the direction we have been moving for the past several years was the wrong way. I truly hope those days are gone.

    B

  • Cannonshop

    Arch Conservative: the answer to your question is “Yes”. Obama’s actions, choices, policies, and rhetoric reflect the majority of American Voters both real, and Fictional. Fact is, we’ve gotten the leadership we deserve, god help us all.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Reagonomics has run its course and failed miserably. Take “trickle down” and shove it.

    I hear this claptrap all the time from the left, but never anything to back it up. Reagan left us with an economic boom. Want to bet that Obama won’t.

    And Reagan faced a banking crisis which was arguably considerably worse than this one, and dealt with it far more effectively and responsibly.

    I’m not even a big Reagan fan and these truths are obvious.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    A large part of what got Obama elected was animosity toward Bush but that is fading fast and will soon be replaced by animosity toward eight ball Barry.

    Even half of the idiots that voted for him will eventually realize that he is full of shit and has no clue what he’s doing.

    “I can’t predict success for Obama’s plans. But it was more than clear that the direction we have been moving for the past several years was the wrong way. I truly hope those days are gone.”

    Yes those days are gone. For the worse. Obama has already spent what Bush spent in his entire eight years.

    I’m not an economist but you don’t need to be an economist to realize that when you’re already deep in debt the solution isn’t to pile on more debt. Obama, Pelosi et al are digging us into a hole so deep we may never be able to climb out. But I’m sure they have the brilliant ideas like cap and trade, taxing healthcare benefits, and a national sales tax that will save the day. PLEASE!

    It seems like the only argument the Barry cultist will soon have left is “bush was bad for the economy.” While that may be true that does not logically prove that Obama is good for the economy.

    Obnox and I aren’t clinging to anything. Obama is a totally incompetent political hack who only got elected because of the mainstream media being on his payroll, the bad taste in people’s mouths from Iraq and the novelty of his skin color. That’s it. And it won’t happen again.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I looked through the whole article for one nugget of fact supporting Obnox’s argument that Obama would lose if the election were held today. I found nothing. There was nothing to offset the approval ratings or the polls other than Obnox saying, basically, that he doesn’t believe in polls. So…good? I get that he only believes in his own sense of things, but is that really all there is to it?

    Am I missing something or is this article all conjecture and wishful thinking based on this continued idea that America’s ruined?

    Honestly. Do you need to have your diapers changed? Looks like you’re carrying a full load.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’m not an economist but you don’t need to be an economist

    In the other thread you said “I’m not a doctor but you don’t need to be a doctor…”

    Here’s the thing, Arch: it helps. But you only listen to the experts that you agree with, yeah?

  • Jeannie Danna

    This is why I will continue to write for the culture section of this ” on-line magazine?”(I hear this claptrap all the time from the left, but never anything to back it up. Reagan left us with an economic boom. Want to bet that Obama won’t.) and you all wonder why there are only seven people who dare leave comments in the political threads here. I had to warn my family and friends to ignore the comments and call me at home instead. I don’t see any comments from your families and friends either…

  • M a rk

    Foolish imo. Alternatively, you could point to counter arguments.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’m beginning to think that what’s truly foolish is going over the same basic points with the same basic seven or so people. We’re all pretty much set in our ways, honestly, and most articles in this section are reduced to the same fundamental debates that go absolutely nowhere.

    It gets tiring after a while and I don’t blame Jeannie one bit for deciding to post elsewhere. It’s not the least bit foolish to choose to do something better with one’s time.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Jordan,

    It’s a speculative opinion piece. It’s here to spark commentary and discussion. I’m talking about what I think events may be in the future. What possible facts could I point to, aside from Obama’s horrid record thus far (which I have done ad nauseum in virtually every article I’ve written since January).

    Here are the facts: Obama’s policies, that were not discussed in any detail during the election are starting to come to light, and they suck. Knowing this, would people really vote for him? On today’s RCP, Dick Morris makes a similar point. But I guess he too needs his diapers changed eh?

    Attack me, attack my article. But I’d like to see you really attack that premise, that were the election held today, Obama would still win. Do you really believe that to be true? I don’t.

  • Ma rk

    You’re probably correct, Jordan.

  • Jordan Richardson

    What possible facts could I point to

    Approval ratings and their relevance, especially when your “speculation” isn’t related to how you would vote but how the majority of people will vote. In order to speak for voters, you should probably do a little more than provide your own speculation and your own opinion.

    Obama’s policies, that were not discussed in any detail during the election are starting to come to light, and they suck.

    They suck according to you, yes. But not according to the majority of voters thus far. If/when they do, you’ll have a case for Obama not being re-elected. Your article isn’t titled “Why I Won’t Vote Obama” or “Why Obama Sucks.” It’s titled “Would Obama Win Again” and you suggest he wouldn’t.

    As for the Dick Morris article, he says that it will “inevitably change.” How so? In what way? Why? Again, all unclear statements bolstered more by personal political opinion by the diaper-wearing freak who once said that Hillary hid behind the “apron strings.”

    Do you really believe that to be true? I don’t.

    I don’t know and I don’t presume to know. Would I vote Obama? Nope. He’s not “left” enough for me.

    And if you believe that other people won’t vote for Obama again, you have to go beyond “he sucks and I dislike his policies” and suggest why the MAJORITY of people agree with you!

    Again, prove your premise or restate it properly.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Looking over the thread here, there are basically two kinds of responses: Those that agree with me, and those that are attacking me (and anyone who agrees with me) on a purely ad hominem basis. Why not address the premise? Is it above your pay grade, or is it hitting just a bit too close to home for your comfort?

    From Btone’s calling us nuts and saying that the GOP’s resistance has been “destructive” (as if what the libs did for the last 8 years was honorable or something) to Jennie Deana’s suggesting that since our families are not posting, that we are somehow oddballs, to Jordan’s diaper humor, the absolute lack of any real response from those on the left says a lot about how right the article is.

    Sure, if polls are to be believed, Obama is riding high. But I think we all know that polling numbers are questionable, do I really need to post links to articles that say that? You have Obama saying that America isn’t a Christian nation, yet now he’s saying America is one of the largest Muslim countries. Not to mention his now emphasizing his Muslim roots, when during the election he outright lied about that. His MASSIVE spending programs, cap and trade, EIT insincerity, blah blah blah blah, do you really think this gravy train will keep running? I see the wheels falling off quickly.

    But, as I say in the article (had you read it), I could be wrong, perhaps the American majority really does favor all of this and if so, then that says a lot about the true future of this nation.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Jordan,

    Your assumption is that America is mostly left leaning. But it isn’t. Again as per the article, you have to look at why Obama was elected. It wasn’t because of his policies, the implications of which were never discussed during the election. Instead it was due to a disgust with Bush. But now, Bush is gone.

    Obama can only rely on his Bush foil for so long, and in this author’s view, that time has already passed. This is Obama’s presidency now and Obama’s policies are not good for this country (piling debt on top of debt, relying on the UN, cuddling up to despots). While Americans may have been dissatisfied with Bush, they aren’t, as a whole, socialists.

    Obama’s policies are now starting to come in clear as day now. Post partisanship and putting away childish things has been debunked. Instead of being proud of an election where race truly didn’t matter, we are now seeing identity politics writ large. All of these things are a drag on Obama whether you or the media’s polling want to admit it or not.

    These are the FACTS that I pointed to in the article. Perhaps they aren’t facty enough for your liking but that doesn’t change anything.

  • zingzing

    oa: “Obama’s policies, that were not discussed in any detail during the election are starting to come to light, and they suck.”

    how so? you pretty much say this, but you rarely have anything “in any detail” to discuss. so do so.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Zing,

    Rarely? Read my last ten article buddy. If I repeated every argument I made before in this column, it would be a whole lot longer and then you’d really have something to complain about.

    Again, instead of attacking me or the article, how about rebutting the premise. I suppose you can’t.

  • zingzing

    i did rebutt the premise. as did the commenter before me. but you ignored us. you don’t seem to realize how far the republican/right wing has fallen behind. you don’t have a viable alternative. and no matter how many of you there are, no one seems to want to vote for you.

    and i have read some of your articles, but i don’t find much of real substance there. there’s paranoia, hyperbole and fox news talking points, but there’s little else. (really, that one about “freedom under attack” is exactly the same thing i saw at the gym about 2 months back, and it was pretty ridiculous then.) i haven’t read anything in there that has made me change my mind. more often, it just embitters me against the right. i’d suppose you’d say the same thing about the left, but i find a lot of what you (the right) have to say incredibly myopic and comically wrong-headed.

    i’ve got my own problems with the way obama is handling things, but i’m not jumping to conclusions just yet. just because he doesn’t do something the way you’d want it done, doesn’t mean it won’t produce the result you’re after.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Zing,

    I didn’t ignore you, I responded to your posts. Anyone reading this thread can see that. And you should know that I watch CNN most of the time. It’s a typical lib tactic to start throwing around accusations of my watching of Fox, issuing talking points and whatever else. My articles are anything but had you cared to actually give them a read. It’s fine, you are deeply into the koolaid. nothing wrong with that. But don’t try to extend your koolaid drinking into my not having any substance, or offering a viable alternative. THESE are straight up CNN talking points, I should know, I have CNN on right now.

    This is becoming a bit too formulaic. Liberals don’t like the message, so they attack the messenger. McCain, Palin, Jim Kramer, Joe the Plumber, Newt, Cheney, me, and the rest of the so called fallen behind Right wing. How about ever attacking the premise with even half as much gusto? I guess you’d have to have something to come back with.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I vividly remember the day of the election in 2004. My liberal co-workers were ecstatic of early Zogby exit polling that showed Kerry beating Bush. The next day I was laughing and they were horrified.

    As I said, Obnox, the thing to do – which your colleagues either were ignorant of or disregarded – is not to cherry-pick or take a single poll in isolation. It won’t give you an accurate picture because there are too many variables.

    I, on the other hand, was monitoring the electoral-vote.com and Election Projection websites – one run by a left-leaning independent and the other by a conservative – which made predictions using algorithms based on an average of all or a large selection of the polls. Both sites ended up pretty much on the money, as they did in ’06 and ’08 as well.

    Assessing Obama’s current popularity with the American public is a bit trickier obviously, because there’s much less specific polling activity than in the run-up to an election. But FWIW, here’s the latest Real Clear Politics average, based on (unless my old eyes deceive me) seven different polls conducted over the last month. Based on which, would Obama lose today? Not with a 28-point spread he wouldn’t, unless the GOP put up Superman against him. Unfortunately Superman wears a blue suit. :-)

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “there are basically t[hree] kinds of responses: Those that agree with me, and those that are attacking me (and anyone who agrees with me) on a purely ad hominem basis, [and those who point out I never proved my article’s premise].

    Fixed.

  • Baronius

    It’s a tough article to rebut because there is no 8-month election cycle in the US.

    Are you saying that Obama’s less popular than he was in November? Probably. Not because of cap-and-trade though, that’s for sure.

    If we held another election right now, would Obama win? It depends; are we going to tell him that there’s another election or not? Does he have time to gear up? The press would have been running anti-Palin stories for months, and Obama would have been spending a fortune on advertising. Most importantly he wouldn’t have followed the same agenda during his first 5-month term. If he were running against the Maverick Senator, he’d win again.

    We did see a perfect example of a turnaround in popularity of the Iraq War. It took a lot of negative stories in the press, but when it turned, it turned quickly. An idea that had previously been unthinkable became possible, and the polls turned in a couple of months.

    Today, the average guy won’t allow himself to think that our first black president is incompetent. He hasn’t been in the office that long, and he inherited a bad economy. People need a reason to be able to think that Obama isn’t very good, and it won’t be an old idea about Ayers or his qualifications. In a few months, it’s going to be a political scandal, and gas prices are back over $3, and we’ve lost millions of jobs since he took over, and I’m not changing my mind about voting for the young black guy but this latest news story has me wondering if he even knows what he’s doing….

  • Baronius

    I should add that true political genius lies in knowing which issue or story will be a turning point. I don’t know and I’m not even going to guess.

  • Bliffle

    OA: the reason that we (all 7 of us on the BC political page) never discussed Obamas policies was because the anti-O folks insisted on diverting discussion to rightist claptrap, and the left countered with expressions of adoration. I asked for, and I sought, and I even volunteered O policy, but all concerned dodged it, preferring claptrap vs. adoration.

    Ptooey.

  • Bliffle

    Jeannie:

    “…and you all wonder why there are only seven people who dare leave comments in the political threads here. ”

    Best insight of the day.

  • Jeannie Danna

    remain teachable and we might just elect you again someday..:)

  • Clavos

    Are you saying that Obama’s less popular than he was in November? Probably. Not because of cap-and-trade though, that’s for sure.

    Only because few, if any, of the Great American Unwashed have even heard of C & P, let alone understand it.

  • Baronius

    According to Rasmussen, when asked to identify cap-and-trade, people say the following:

    30% don’t know
    29% regulating Wall Street
    24% environmental regulation
    17% health care reform

    I guess I’m thinking that cap-and-trade, embryonic stem cell research, and any of the other things that OA mentions aren’t likely to turn the tide against President Obama. They may have enraged anti-Obama conservatives, or unsettled pro-Obama moderate/conservatives, but if things turn against Obama (and in politics, things ALWAYS turn) it’s probably going to revolve around something new.

  • Clavos

    1 in 4 interviewed by Rasmussen had somewhat of a clue.

    1 in 4.

  • m ar k

    ‘Noxious, some questions:

    How do you explain the fact that you cite that in the polls, …Obama’s numbers stay so stable, no matter his actions or the outcome? Is it your opinion that we’re looking at some sort of a conspiracy here?

    On what evidence other than your gut intuition do you base your claim that: Those who were willing to give Obama a chance are starting to regret their vote. Those who were indifferent to the election are now starting to get riled up?

    Finally, can you give an example (hypothetical, of course) of evidence that would convince you that Obama would win were an election held today?

  • Clavos

    but if things turn against Obama (and in politics, things ALWAYS turn) it’s probably going to revolve around something new.

    Which will undoubtedly be irrelevant and inconsequential; similar in importance to the love lives of bratty Hollywood “actors.” Nothing that matters ever gets the attention of the peasants.

    Just bread and circuses.

  • Jordan Richardson

    These are the FACTS that I pointed to in the article.

    They are? Are they “facty” when you claim to know why the voters voted for Obama? How is that a fact in any language? It’s an assumption, a guess, a speculation based on your opinions of the facts. It’s an observation at best, Obnox, and the real fact here appears to be your inability to know the difference between citing something factual and citing an opinion/conclusion based on what you think happened.

    That’s why this article was greeted with “oh Christ, more of the same” and so forth. It wasn’t treated that way because you proved your premise, dude. It was treated that way because this article is basically yet another rant about why Obama “sucks.” Woopty-freakin’-doo.

    And you know damn well you’d be using polling data and public opinion if it swung your way, too.

    While Americans may have been dissatisfied with Bush, they aren’t, as a whole, socialists.

    And repeating that Obama is a socialist is insulting to those who actually are socialist. It’s not true just because you think it is.

    Obama’s policies are now starting to come in clear as day now.

    Okay. So in proving whether or not Obama would win an election again, why not set up the public’s response to such clarity? How do the voters feel generally about his policies? What do they think? Are they already growing impatient with Obama or are they willing to give him time to work? If Obama merely got in because of Bush, why did McCain (who was or was not Bush) not win the election? Why was there a largely Democratic swing? Why are less people identifying with the Republican party? And so forth.

    How can you suggest Obama wouldn’t win without at least exploring the answers to these questions?

    And by the way, I never said anything about America leaning one way or the other. I merely asked you to prove your premise, you know, in the article.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    The is still nothing that Obama has done that would alter the original election results. All there is are people like all the right wingers here who can’t see the forest for the trees. You people are clueless.

    Obama has dared to do something that no one else had either the intelligence or the balls to do. He has taken steps that just might, if given the chance take this country out of the nineteenth century and into the 21st century. The status quo had us stuck in the muck of the abuses of an unregulated economy.

    As the Reps become an ineffective, southern regional party perhaps there is hope that their strangle hold on both government and the economy will end.

    Obama has a brilliance that none of you can even imagine.

    B

  • Baronius

    “All” the right-wingers on this site didn’t agree with OA, Bar. Also, just so you can appreciate how crazy your last comment looks, consider the following:

    “David Koresh has a brilliance that none of you can even imagine.”

  • Jordan Richardson

    “David Koresh has a brilliance that none of you can even imagine.”

    “Baronius has body odour that none of you can even imagine.”

    I like this game!

  • Baronius

    Jordan, I’m some random guy on the internet, so it’s very possible that I’m stinky.

    But to believe that President Obama has a brilliance that no conservative can even imagine requires two things: first, that Obama’s intellect should be approached with reverence (obvious in Bar’s phrasing), and second, that the observer is so far above the conservatives as to represent a different species.

    Dick Cheney is a smart guy. The country was lucky to have him. However, even though I’m one of his biggest fans, I think that other mortals are able to comprehend how smart he is. I bet that when he stomped Lieberman in the VP debate, Lieberman walked away thinking “I didn’t do well, but I got my main points across”, not “Ughmwa! Bright light! Thinking man use magic words!”

    The biggest problem with Bar’s statement, though, is that it conceives of a messianic presidency. There shouldn’t be any difference if the top 20 people in government (POTUS, VP, Speaker, Cabinet, etc.) were unimaginably brilliant or just kinda smart. It’s not just that smart people make mistakes and brilliant people make catastrophes. It’s that our political system wouldn’t allow brilliance to shine forth, if it were followed correctly. To express great joy in a president’s brainpower is, by implication, to hope that he implements his ideas with unprecedented power.

    If we had “comment preview”, I’d be a lot happier with these tomes.

  • zingzing

    “Dick Cheney is a smart guy. The country was lucky to have him.”

    not disputing the first part… evil genius. the second part, however, is up for debate. i’d say he’s just about the most duplicitous, horrifying excuse for a politician we’ve seen in some time.

  • Baronius

    Zing, I mentioned him specifically because I know how disliked he is in some circles. I bet that if I started an “I Like Cheney” thread, there would be a lot of detractors. Now imagine if I said that Cheney possessed a brilliance greater than you are capable of imagining. That’s how over-the-top Baritone’s comment seems to me.

  • Clavos

    And me. Obama’s bright, but…

    He’s also devious and shifty and manipulative.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Baronius: “Ughmwa! Bright light! Thinking man use magic words!”

    LOL.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Clavos, aren’t you indulging in a little d, s and m yourself there? :-p

    I think you, and we, are all well aware that those qualities are required in politics to a certain degree.

    At least Obama seems to be somewhat more open than many of his predecessors, which is a welcome change to many, including myself.

  • Clavos

    Chris,

    Perhaps you’re right to some degree. I will rephrase:

    “He’s also inordinately devious and shifty and manipulative.

    I couldn’t disagree more with this:

    At least Obama seems to be somewhat more open than many of his predecessors…

    This goes to the heart of what I meant above; not only is he devious and shifty, etc., but because he’s smart, he’s better able to conceal it while making people think he’s “more open.”

    YMMV

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    I just think you seem somewhat jaded and not a little cynical, that’s all.

    As to the level of deviousness, you ought to spend some time watching our politicians. The currently playing storylines are like some tacky soap opera full of liars.

    Personally I am hoping both the Labour and Conservative parties break up or wither away as some more relevant political groupings begin to emerge. Maybe that will happen Stateside too ere too many more years…

  • Clavos

    I just think you seem somewhat jaded and not a little cynical, that’s all.

    Guilty as charged.

    But, I come by it honestly.

  • Ruvy

    this is fun!

  • Ruvy

    Hey! I’m back! My comments post again!

    Yayy!!!!

  • Baronius

    Ruvy, what’s the story? Bad connections, temporary censure, or too busy living a real, nonpixilated life?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Perhaps ever so slightly off topic, but not much: there is a frog in India which is worshiped as a god.

    Hundreds of curious followers flock to Reji Kumar’s home every day to pray and ask for miracles. . . .Lift worker Reji added:

    “By night the frog was dark yellow, and then it became transparent so you could see its internal organs.

    “It seemed like a miracle to me that this frog had so many different coats. So now people come to see him and pray to him.”

    Professor Oommen V. Oommen from India’s Kerala University, said it was not uncommon for animals to change colour.

    He explained: “Frogs do change colour to scare away predators.

    “But from what I have heard, the frog at Kumar’s place changes colour so frequently it is a bit unusual.

    Any parallel to President Obama would, obviously, be in extremely poor taste; I shall therefore suggest none.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Clavos

    Any parallel to President Obama would, obviously, be in extremely poor taste…

    …not to mention insulting to the frog.

    Ta-dum.

    I’m here all week, folks!

    Don’t forget to tip your waitress!