Can Obama Be Beaten?

MaximusB · June 17, 2011, 2:24pm

Mufasa,

He is beatable, but by the current line up, I don’t know. Or should I say, I don’t think so.

I think this is the real reason why they wanted Weiner out so bad. He is just a nuisance that Dems neither want or need right now. With the economy/jobs situation not improving as the Dems would have liked or hoped, I think everyone would be singing a different tune if a reasonable candidate came forward.

I still think a Rick Perry/Marco Rubio ticket is the best chance at winning. I know people bitch and moan about Texas this and Texas that, but that guy has really avoided the plagues associated with this economy, and as we all know, “it’s the economy stupid.” Rubio is young, handsome, and captivating. He could also help ring in the Latino vote, which was key in Obama’s victory.

thunderbolt23 · June 17, 2011, 4:14pm

Yes.

The economy. More than bad economic performance (which can be bad enough in and of itself) is what is perceived as worse leadership on it. Obama has no head for economic matters, doesn’t like to talk about them, and his administration has avoided appearing busy on it.
Lack of prioritization. This dovetails with the economy - Obama has convinved a number of voters that thought he was more practical that he is very ideological through his lack of prioritizations, i.e., Obama is going to pursue certain policy agendas regardless of what needs are pressing. This has been particularly bad for him among independents who simply want competent focus on the most important issues of the day.
Libya. No one thinks Obama’s stance on Libya is good, excepting out the fanboys. The handling and justification of this has been just plain daft, and even people who don’t follow the nuances of foreign policy are turned off by Obama’s announcement that he doesn’t need Congressional approval to do what he did.
The rare split. Obama has managed - incredibly - to lose support among independents and his base at the same time. Independents are disappointed he isn’t a competent centrist. Hard-left types are disappointed he isn’t the “prgoressive” advocate that was going to make the oceans heal, etc. This is a hard combo to pull off, but Obama has done it.
Health care bill. It hasn’t gone anywhere, people still don’t like it, and come election time, Obama will not only have to defend the subsntance of it, he’ll have to answer for how it was passed (which reflects awfully).
No gravitas. Obama simply doesn’t carry the stature of a president since being elected. He doesn’t intimidate anyone. This isn’t alone enough to make him lose, but given how poorly things have gone for him, he just doesn’t appear to have the weight of “The Presidency” with him.
The media. The MSM will not be as forgiving this time around, and Obama doesn’t like tough questions. I don’t think the MSM will turn on him, but they won’t roll out the red carpet for him this time either. And when Obama has to answer tough questions from someone other than an adoring questioner, he does not perform well.

Tiribulus · June 17, 2011, 6:47pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< 6. No gravitas. Obama simply doesn’t carry the stature of a president since being elected. He doesn’t intimidate anyone. This isn’t alone enough to make him lose, but given how poorly things have gone for him, he just doesn’t appear to have the weight of “The Presidency” with him. >>>[/quote]I honestly think in this very image driven culture this will be bigger than you appear to think it will be. Which goes right into the next point. [quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< 7. The media. The MSM will not be as forgiving this time around, and Obama doesn’t like tough questions. I don’t think the MSM will turn on him, but they won’t roll out the red carpet for him this time either. And when Obama has to answer tough questions from someone other than an adoring questioner, he does not perform well.[/quote]I don’t know if I can go along with this especially if a fairly conservative candidate emerges for the GOP. Also any less than favorable treatment he gets will be from the faaaar left who doesn’t think even he’s been liberal enough. That does sorta go along with the split thing you mentioned above.

thunderbolt23 · June 17, 2011, 7:02pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

I don’t know if I can go along with this especially if a fairly conservative candidate emerges for the GOP. Also any less than favorable treatment he gets will be from the faaaar left who doesn’t think even he’s been liberal enough. That does sorta go along with the split thing you mentioned above. [/quote]

The difference this time - I think - is that Obama has a record to run on. He isn’t an image with nothing but a bright future ahead…instead, he has a body of work over four years.

And I think - though I could well be wrong - that even the most basic questions about his record will be asked by the MSM, none of which are particularly easy, and Obama will have to provide answers. These will be uncomfortable questions, and he does not handle those well.

If the GOP produces a pertty conservative candidate (and it won’t, among the choices, I’d bet, given the stakes), that might distract the MSM’s attention - but for all the perks of incumbency, one disadvantage of it is that you cannot have a stealth campaign. Even if Bachmann was the candidate, I still think the glare of the MSM will cause problems for Obama - as an incumbent with a record, I can’t see any avoidance of it.

Tiribulus · June 18, 2011, 2:24am

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< I can’t see any avoidance of it.[/quote]I hope you’re right in light of the characteristically strong points you make. I gotta say though. I am not so sure. When the stakes are whether Obama or a “right wing extremist”, which they call EVERY republican, is in the white house the following year? I can see the MSM stopping at almost nothing to see that he’s reelected. On the other hand, just about any question this time around MAY force Obama to attempt to at least indirectly defend his record… maybe. Looked at that way then you’re certainly right. He won’t be able to get away from his record altogether.

Menthol · June 18, 2011, 4:13pm

Thought Walter Russell Mead has a nice article today about what it would take for Obama to win - or redirect the current slip in his popularity.

“Can This Presidency Be Saved?”

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/17/can-this-presidency-be-saved/

Excerpt:

"In particular, he has said nothing memorable about the crisis that is shaking the global economy and undermining the American middle class. The meltdown of the blue social model is the great and inescapable fact of our time. In what many voters will feel as a sign of financial apocalypse, the AARP has dropped its opposition to cuts in Social Security benefits. At home, Democrats like Andrew Cuomo and Jerry Brown are slashing budgets and attacking the perks of public sector labor unions almost as industriously as Republicans like Scott Walker and Mitch Daniels. Abroad, Socialists like Greek Premier George Papandreou is cutting as hard as the Conservative David Cameron. Germany has passed a balanced budget amendment; France is debating its own version. Economic turmoil is shaking the political foundations; rising food prices helped set off the Arab Spring, the price of gold has gone through the roof, and China and other foreign creditors are increasingly skeptical about the long term value of their dollar-backed assets.

President Obama?s predecessor made many mistakes, but something is at work here that is much bigger than the faults of the Bush administration. It is not just a US domestic problem, because we see it in the more-regulated European countries as well as in the less-regulated US.

Americans are realistic enough to understand that the breakdown of the blue social model is a messy process and that perhaps no president can deliver a pain free transition to the next stage. But what they aren?t hearing from President Obama is a compelling description of what has gone wrong, how it can be fixed, and how the policies he proposes will take us to the next level.

What they hear from this administration are defensive responses: Hooveresque calls for patience mingled with strange-sounding attacks on ATMs and sharp, opportunistic jabs at former President Bush. The White House has responded to strategic challenges at home and abroad with tactical maneuvers.

Voters sense that we live in historic times that demand leadership of a different kind. What does President Obama think about the fiscal squeeze forcing trade-offs between state employee benefits and services to the poor? How much trouble is the American middle class in ? and what changes are needed to save it?"

Fletch1986 · June 18, 2011, 8:53pm

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]TheTick42 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]TheTick42 wrote:
Why is public education an oxymoron? Just because the U.S. system doesn’t work doesn’t mean public education doesn’t work. I also don’t see why we need to teach religion in school to teach civic duty, responsibility or morality. Perhaps teaching critical thinking and logic would be more helpful.

I also wonder why it is that criticizing a BAD Republican President like President G.W. Bush made you a traitor while threatening and making racist comments about President Obama is totally acceptable. Why is that? Surely the line “Respect for the office if not the man…” applies as much to President Obama as it ever did for President Bush.

I don’t consider myself a liberal/progressive, I consider myself an Independent, and before someone here says “You aren’t an American so you don’t count.” I will assure you I am American, born and raised. If the GOP wants my vote they have to run a serious candidate. So far the choices are underwhelming. Palin? No. Bachman? No. I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot but at least he’s a serious guy with some education, even if he can’t get the age of the earth right. Perry? The “Pray for rain” candidate? The guy who is cutting education spending and has a massive deficit but is spending tax money on Formula-1 racing? That’s not a serious candidate, or at least shouldn’t be.[/quote]

Unions have destroyed the public school system, because you simply cannot fire a teacher. With that in mind, teachers have no reason to work hard because there is no risk of recourse. So they got lazy, and kids today feel more entitled than ever before.

Who threatened the president and who accepted it? Should we not hold Obama to the same scrutiny as Bush? Is that not pulling the race card ? Political affirmative action ? Were ethnic groups racist against white people who hated Bush, or could it be that they hated his policies?

If you want to talk about respect for the office of the President, that was lost when people were calling for Bush’s head. But you see, the hate-whitey train MUST keep rolling on.

Perry with Rubio is the only ticket I see challenging O’Bummer. [/quote]

How is suggesting that racist cartoons are inappropriate saying “Presidential affirmative action”? Did we forget about Marilyn Davenport? How about the video at the top of the thread? While I don’t think this guy would actually take a swing at President Obama the point was disrespect for the office. It’s great to say President Obama is wrong. It’s another to suggest beating the President. Or shooting him? Like suggested by Ted Nugent. So a bunch of stupid liberal loud mouths wanted to “kill” President Bush…so what? They were wrong. That’s an excuse for Republicans to do the same? Ok…a good excuse?

I agree with you about the teachers union. It’s great to demand fair pay, which they don’t really get, it’s another to protect horrible teachers who need to be fired. Unions shouldn’t protect drunks, drug addicts, child molesters etc… Moderation seems to be the key. Also I don’t see why liberals get bent out of shape about testing kids. Canada has provincial exams. Most European countries have stricter standards as to who can pass to the next grade. Why can’t we. [/quote]

Racist cartoons? You mean like this ?..

Bush had a shoe thrown at him, which could have very easily been a grenade.

The Unions have become an abomination, they used to stand for something good, but now they are mafia-like. [/quote]

It really depends on the state in question. There’s problems with too little unionization and problems with too much in different parts of the US.
[/quote]

Can you provide an example of a problem caused by too little unionization?

Also, because I think it was you that said otherwise, teachers in Texas can indeed join unions. Many do. However, teachers are not required to be members of a union in order to teach in Texas.[/quote]

Technically, teachers are allowed to unionize in Texas. But there are no teeth in Texas teacher’s unions and they are powerless. A more appropriate title would a teacher’s association. Don’t be fooled by the labels.

The result of this is going to be shittier and shittier public education and if it keeps going this course it’ll be just as bad as Louisiana’s piss poor public education. If you live in New Orleans, the only way your kids will get a good education is through private school making it even more difficult to rise above the lot one is born into.

Too much unionization and people go out of business trying to meet union demands. Too little and you have companies violating people’s rights and well-being.

Otep · June 19, 2011, 1:58pm

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
When was the last time we had a president who didn’t have any shady dealings?[/quote]

Probably Washington. Maybe Coolidge. To be honest, I expect a little graft from my elected officials. But they don’t all hold fundraisers at the White House, and that was what I was hinting at. That and the lack of auditing of the internet donations from his 2008 campaign.

Otep · June 19, 2011, 2:02pm