If the economy continues deteriorating for the next year, a ham sandwich will be able to beat Obama

That's just the way things work. The President gets the credit when things improve and the blame when they worsen.

And yes, that means that Sarah Palin or whoever is the repub nominee, could be elected.

And they are doing it.

Unfortunately, it is likely impossible to explain to the average person the difference between the usual "cyclical" and the current "structural" employment downturn. So the Pres is going to have to fight like an animal to stop the Rep job-killing spending cuts campaign, or he may well loose to the "ham sandwich" as you say.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

... been on that train for a couple of years. And the apparent glib assumption that every thing would work itself out by 2012, well that turns out to be pretty dumb.

Obama, and the rest of us, will pay a heavy price for his decision to let the banksters run wild.

Wall Street imploded on September 15, 2008. It was George W. Bush who signed TARP into law. What are you talking about?

One thing I've noticed is that voters jump up an order of magnitude in awareness as soon as they take it in the wallet.

Since November, the plan has been to let the Republicans in the House run wild, which in turn has put the GOP on the ass-end of every single issue of monetary importance to 70% of Americans.

They held our tax cuts hostage, they tried to kill off the sick, they choose war over recovery, military spending over collapsing infrastructure, rich people over poor and corporations over the people, and the golden shower of "trickle down" economic theory, which has still never worked.

All of those issues will be visited time and again over the next year, until even the most opaque voter begins to realize that the President can't do what he wants when there is a pack of rabid corporate criminals holding him back in Congress.

The Republicans are further certain to choose a batshit crazy candidate with a built-in 40% unfavorable rating who will be unable to set himself or herself apart from the disasters of the previous decade. And whomever that person is, Newt Gingrich will do his best to damage the viability of that candidate so that he himself can ascend to the throne he imagines is his right.

The plan that the Democrats have long since put into place is so good that I stand firm on my prediction that President Obama is on a 500 electoral vote trajectory, has an excellent chance of flipping the House with his coattails, and the Dems may even, against all odds, add a seat or two in the Senate.

The next election was in the bag the moment the Republicans "compromised" on the tax cuts, putting another vote on an extension out of reach of Republicans in the Senate until after the next election, so all Republicans will have to defend holding our tax cuts hostage. That alone was enough to ruin them, and they've walked into half a dozen more traps just like it (see Medicare, womens' rights, etc.).

My primary concern is that there is so much money floating around in this election that some Republican, somewhere, is going to resort to measures I don't even want to describe in print. But you know what it is.

I say this as a former legislative analyst and electoral process writer. You don't have to believe me. Just keep it in the back of your mind as a possibility as the entire electorate shifts 70-30 in favor of the Democrats.

and are quick to blame Democrats, especially Obama.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

welcome to DU.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I thought I had responded politely, with links to my own prior statements and the suggestion that my predictions since December have in fact been demonstrated in actual practice.

With the permission of the moderators, I would still like to add those links to this conversation, perhaps later today.

Obama in a landslide

Don't be knockin' on the Spam.

Ryan type shenanigans. I could see a situation where Obama and the republican nominee are viewed as shit and shittier, with Obama being the lesser of two evils in voters' eyes, even with an awful economy. That said I believe you're right that it's going to be very difficult for him absent substantial economic improvement.

we deserve whichever leader we get.

That is the way things work, sad but true.

Bill Clinton explained it well when he said that if repubs don't give you what you want then you take your case to the public and attack them for it. Obama had a majority in the house and the senate during his first two years, he could've done a lot more for the economy.

He's been a successful pres compared to others but what we needed was someone who'd go all out on the economy.

Any blue dogs among the party could not join with the Republicans in a filibuster.

Also, which dem/obama economic policies did the republicans filibuster during obama's first two years?

Depends on how well informed and honest voters are. This recession is not like past recessions because so many jobs have been offshored and automated in the interim.

"The American Prospect also estimates that, since 2001, 42,400 American factories have closed their doors, and roughly three-fourths of those employed over 500 people while they were in operation."

http://www.economyincrisis.org/content/more-american-factories-closing

Plus a lot of tech jobs, call center jobs, etc.

And no doubt some who voted for Republicans in the 2010 midterms because the economy was not improving fast enough are having regrets. After the midterms Republicans quickly switched their messaging from "jobs" to "deficits" (because they couldn't deliver on jobs).

People have to know what their choices are. If they think a Republican will do a better job, Obama will be a one-term President. After 4 years of Republican rule, voters will then be able to make a comparative study. Unfortunately, 4 years can bring a lot of suffering and it will. It is sad that Obama and the Democrats were so out of touch with reality that they could not see the change that was needed in 2008. Bi-partisanship was the enemy of the time. It was a time for big change. They blew it.

the Republicans would not extend unemployment checks for those that need them. What a short-sighted bunch of political thinkers! Might I say, stupid?

the destruction of Medicare.

Letting the tax cuts expire was the smart move.

Then you pass unemployment as a separate bill.

We are being played.

Unfortunately, there were many on DU that should be about full of crow right now.

produce government jobs and keep government jobs in states that are laying off, etc. As you well know.

Why do you do that?

Our country to a balanced budget, and return us to prosperity.

Why do you think the greatest generation taxed the hoarding class at 90%

Because it works.

Well said. Thanks.

risk pools in health insurance.

where you going with those complete details, SDuderstadt?

But with big big big conditional caveats.

Yes, low information voters tend to vote a "throw the bums out" line when the economy tanks and stays tanked. But they tend to vote it uniformly. So yes, there is a very real risk that Obama will lose the White House if the economy stays sunk (or have a very close race) but in the circumstance that it's close there is no way the GOP will continue to hold the House and unlikely they'd make the necessary gains to take the Senate, especially if their primaries get "tea-jacked" again. (Conversely, a tea-party shutout will cause RW voter rage and the tea-loons might just vote in the Presidential race and let the GOP get routed down-ticket.)

Unless we've hit the point where 'home invasion' is the hottest new job trend, there is zero chance of the dingbat doing anything but splitting the Right by taking the Tea'ers away from Mitt or whomever.

They goal has been to slow or stop any progress anyway they can.

i would have agreed with you before the bin-laden killing, but i think that earned him back a lot of goodwill from potential voters, in spite of an anemic economy.

Some people do realize that Presidents aren't kings. It's the extremes on both sides that think like that.

They aren't voting on who they most want for President but, rather, on who they most don't want for President.

:puke:

Obama would probably still win because Mittens is such a used car salesman and lacks conviction but in a general the polling would tighten a lot.

And thats not going to happen because she isn't capable of it.

People will bring up the "Reagan got elected" crap, but lets face it, Ronald Reagan and George W Bush were/are both a hell of a lot smarter than Sarah Palin.

and people will buy almost anything if they're desperate.

let's try something else. That is really about all it takes. With an incumbent, the challenger just has to get the voter to think retrospectively rather than prospectively. If they can do that, the incumbent, with jobs numbers and an economy like this and the endless wars, is in a very tough spot.

The same 30-year "Trickle Down" crapola that put us into this mess in the first place? It has to be. The GOP isn't smart or willing enough to push anything else.

I'd REALLY like to believe American voters aren't 32 YEARS-stupid, especially after the rogue wave of fascist govs that left no ambiguity about the GOP labor/worker/poor/middle-screwing agenda.

Obama was postpartisan when he should have been bold. Timid solutions turned a two year downturn into a six year one.

Obama extended their damn tax cuts, that obviously didn't spur any massive job growth. Is Palin going to propose raising taxes and using the extra money for a government jobs program?

It won't matter that they will be proposing failed policies. Voters will hear that it is different than what Obama has done. It will be a retrospective look at the past four years under Obama.

Americans are nothing if not superficial.

No question that it could happen, in the circumstances you note.

Things aren't THAT bad.

Besides, most Americans have seen Paul Ryan's "ideas". And a president who thinks like Ryan would be a nightmare.

I hope to God I'm right.

Most can name all of the Kardashian sisters and none of the Supreme Court justices.

I was away this weekend so just checking out the GD threads now. You are absolutely right about this. There are the minority of partisan dems/repubs who actually belong to the parties and visit message boards like this. Most folks, however, really don't sit around obsessing over elections. They may feel some sort of civic duty to vote in major elections, and it's going to be very basic decision processes they employ - like "am I doing well or does my life suck in this economy". They know whether they have a job, are scrimping to pay their bills, etc... Obama will be judged on that in a very basic way whether it is all his fault or not that the economy is tanking.

It is the power of the people to fight economic oppression.

The power is real.

That power is on the streets.

.............that ham sandwich would be overwhelming front-runner.

See, here's the thing about all the people hand-wringing over this upcoming election: while it's true that circumstances are not ideal, and we're in a horse race where our guy is riding a horse that looks pretty slow, the other guy is riding one of those plastic horses you see in front of department stores. Trust me, there is absolutely NOTHING to worry about.

The republicans are not going to run a ham sandwich. Their candidate will have a whole bunch of negatives, making him or her a weaker candidate than our president.

due to ONE MONTH of bad news, I choose not to worry. I choose to focus instead on getting out the vote efforts and electing MORE progressives to local, state, and congressional offices.

I wish Democrats would PLEASE stop embracing opposing narratives and get to work. When the Republicans suffered badly in 2006 and 2008, did they sit back and feel sorry for themselves? No! They stepped their game up. If they couldn't win on the national level, they went crazy at the state level, election far right, wingnuts to municipal and state offices--not to mention judgeships.

If we Democrats don't get our act together and start unifying around the idea that we must work from the grassroots level to get things done, then we have already lost. And if one month of bad news is going to destroy our changes for 2012, then we most definitely have already lost. We might as well hand over the U.S. Supreme Court to the wingnuts now.

Let's stop feeling sorry for ourselves, giving into defeat, and suffering from our collective inferiority complext and get to work!!!!

I'm talking to you, swing voters.