feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

Obama Losing The Left - Guess Possible Challengers

(21 posts)

  1. HD

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,723

    'A new poll from Marist University is suggestive of a potential worst-case scenario for President Obama. As he endures criticism from his left over his handling of the tax policy debate with Republicans, his approval rating has declined among liberals, according to the poll: 69 percent of them now approve of his job performance as compared with 78 percent in November. Likewise, his approval rating has declined among Democrats: to 74 percent from 83 percent. However, there has been no comparable improvement in Mr. Obama’s standing among independents.'

    This sets up the scenario for a possible primary challenge to Mr. Obama. Who will it be, as there's a distinct shortage of marketable leftist candidates right now. Mike Gravel? I think reasonable-seeming former governor Bill Richardson is up to the job, but he's not wild-eyed enough for the radical socialist democrat wing.

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/poll-suggests-risks-for-obama-if-liberals-feel-taken-for-granted/?ref=politics

    Posted on December 15, 2010 - 09:46 AM #
  2. Brianl

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,102

    I'm a BIG Bill Richardson guy ... but he's not electable I don't think. He lacks charisma, and he had that pay-to-play scandal involving some of his political donors that would rear its ugly head. If it cost him a seat on Obama's cabinet as commerce secretary, it would certainly cost him a nomination shot.

    Who is out there to challenge Obama, if the Democrats WANTED to? Seriously, Herb? And you pointed out the problem that Obama faces with his fellow Democrats too - he is getting heat from the left because, well, he hasn't been nearly far enough to the left for their liking. And liberals are PISSED at his compromise with the GOP on the budget and tax cuts.

    Posted on December 15, 2010 - 10:24 AM #
  3. HD

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,723

    Kucinich-Franken.

    Think that would satisfy the leftist base?

    Unless the socialists in his party throw him under the bus,I believe Mr. Richardson's time is coming. He has gravitas, particularly given his time negotiating with North Korea.

    A guy like Sandy Berger, who tried to smuggle secret documents in his socks is unelectable. However, Mr. Richardson could overcome naysayers, in my opinion.

    Match Mr. Richardson with a very solid candidate like Sam Nunn, and the democrats could revitalize their party and bring Independents onboard again.

    Posted on December 15, 2010 - 10:56 AM #
  4. Based solely on that info, 69% of "liberals" and 74% of "Democrats" are still commanding leads. In the (broken) system we have, you still only need 268 out of 535 (~50.1%) Electoral College votes to win.

    Besides, most presidents have their approval ratings fall during their term.

    I'm not a member of any political party, and didn't vote for either major candidate in 2008 (although I did vote). Having said that, based on information available at this time, I can't imagine any reason why Democrats would want to change course. They are a highly hierarchical organization, with those who challenge the upper leadership quick to find their own power either diminished or outright fully taken from them.

    Is it too early to "ask" that someone please sit Ralph Nader down to ask him to NOT run in 2012? IMO, he'd be much more effective if he instead backed a fresh face who supports his advocacy and ideals.

    Posted on December 15, 2010 - 11:02 AM #
  5. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,352

    Right now, Obama has more support from the general public than Republicans do.

    Thom Hartman did a fine analysis today. I think Thom is barking up the right tree.

    Truth is Obama is demonstrating that he will work to get things done, despite considerable opposition from the GOP, and to a degree Democratic party leadership.

    Over longer periods of time, this may prove quite effective, because it simply CANNOT be said that Obama was the obstacle in getting reform done. That's on either party leadership, depending on the issue and their willingness to actually get something done for the people, as opposed to advancing whatever agenda is in play.

    I think this is notable, and it perfectly explains how Obama has governed so far.

    If Thom is correct on this, Obama will remain consistent in terms of reaching out to make things happen, and the quality of those things happening will be up to how well the parties legislate.

    As President, he gets to set the agenda, and has done so.

    He doesn't write the law, and that's where this strategy gets interesting.

    People want health care, for example. Rather than set some unrealistic expectation, based on the severe party conflict, he sets expectations that are realistic, and expects them to get done.

    Well, it did get done. In fact, quite a few things have gotten done, and those add up to ordinary people, tired of being caught between two self-serving parties.

    "loosing the left" is all about whether or not progressive minded people can understand the longer term implications, and the position Obama is operating from.

    For me personally, I recognize the progress, but am frustrated at the cost.

    Well, that's not Obama's deal, and he's making that very clear, and again, that's notable.

    The cost of progress happens to lie with both the GOP, and Coin Operated Democratic leadership, both of whom are finding it difficult to improve the state of things, and retain massive corporate support, with only the Progressives actually standing for a more left leaning reform agenda economically.

    That's where the frustration is, and I think that frustration won't endure over the longer term, if Obama actually is entertaining the strategy that Thom presented this morning.

    Very interesting!

    When it comes time for the election, Obama will be able to sum up what happened during his term, and will be able to cite EVERY instance where he made the agenda clear, that he won the election entitling him to do that, and where he operated with both parties for the best implementations possible at this time.

    So, if the folks are not generally happy with what got done, or how it got done, the referendum is on the party leadership, rank and file, not Obama.

    I'll buy that.

    For me, as a Democrat, this Obama approach did make clear the difference between Progressive Democrats and "third way" Democrats, which was never clear to me before. The product of that is a clear desire to insure that we get more Progressive Democrats, so that better legislation will be brought to Obama. Of course, seeing less of the GOP helps with that, as that entire party is corporate first.

    IMHO, the people will learn a interesting lesson this mid-term. They didn't get more of what they wanted, and changed up the Congress, while maintaining a fairly good approval of the President.

    This was confusing to me, but not any more. At a macro level, Obama is doing what he is supposed to be doing, and I've few to no issues with the agenda items on the table, thus, I approve.

    That's true for a lot of the country.

    So, the lesson is, simply voting one or the other party out of anger, or the need to do something, or to punish isn't going to be all that productive.

    If Obama is successful in teaching that lesson, the next election could see more change ups, but toward anti-corporate congress people, so that the legislative impact will be positive for the people.

    I find that general approach very difficult to argue against, and it aligns perfectly with my own position where people generally need to be more engaged in their civics, or that process simply won't work well for them.

    That's proven out nicely so far.

    While you all are thinking about this thread and what it means, go take a really hard look at the members of your party, and pick 10 or 20 or so, that really need to go.

    That's what a whole lot of people are gonna be doing.

    Then, think about those people that actually will work to legislate things for you first, instead of the usual wealthy interests.

    Clearly, there is a "WE" in "Yes WE Can!", and this particular President may well prove more resolute, and considerably smarter than most of Washington currently gives him credit for. Given the approval trends, many Americans are picking up on that.

    Because of these things, it is also very difficult to make the case for this being a repeat of Clinton. We are seeing some new dynamics in play here.

    Good times ahead, IMHO!!!

    Posted on December 15, 2010 - 11:47 AM #
  6. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,352

    Also worth noting was Thom's conclusion, that a thoughtful, reasonable populism is on the rise in this cycle.

    I would generally concur with that, and would like to note our little forum here is actually trendy in that we practice that more often than not, perhaps leaning a little "forward" in our perception of the politics, compared to what most of the media currently is doing.

    A quick straw poll, taken here, would reveal that reasonable, but get it done position would resonate with most of us here, on most issues, most of the time. Perhaps, our small sample, and the general dynamics of how we work are in play all over the nation right now.

    People just want it to improve and be productive. That's deffo my view on a macro, "just another American" level, party politics aside.

    Posted on December 15, 2010 - 11:49 AM #
  7. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,955

    Bill Richardson said some wacky things during that 2008 primary campaign about foreign policy that made me not want to support him, whereas prior to that I would have considered him. I think he said something to the effect that, we should feel free to install a new leader in Pakistan(!) if the current one didn't suit the US. I don't recall the exact question, but I was listening carefully at the time and I remember being shocked at his answer.

    Obama made no such statements during the primaries that made me jump like that. He said at one point that he supported the war in Afghanistan and that he would use force in Pakistan against terrorists as a last resort if America's security was at risk and Pakistan would not act. That seemed to ruffle a lot of feathers, but it was one thing Obama said that made me support him more.

    Posted on December 15, 2010 - 01:05 PM #
  8. Alfredo_T

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,118

    On this board and elsewhere, I have heard people make comments that the agenda of the Obama administration (that is, not just one politician, but the gestalt of the President, his cabinet, and anyone else on his staff) is not ideologically pure enough for their liking or that it is not bringing about reforms in the quantity and/or speed that they expected. I would like to counter that champions of the two-party system would probably say that the Obama administration is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing.

    The viewpoint that these two-party system people espouse is that that it is a good thing that the American political system lends itself to "big tent" parties and politicians by being sluggish and averse to radical changes because these characteristics lead to a stable government. I am not a two-party champion (although I am steadily losing hope that any party other than Republicans and Democrats will manage to get itself taken seriously in the foreseeable future), but I do agree with the stability argument.

    If I may turn this thread around in the direction of a question, I presume that you (Herb) do not agree with the economic or foreign policy objectives of people whom you perceive to be on the left. Thus, shouldn't the current actions of the Obama administration be somewhat of a relief for you?

    Posted on December 15, 2010 - 02:27 PM #
  9. HD

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,723

    A fair question, Alfredo_T.

    Frankly, I wish the democrat party was more moderate to compete for more votes and help shape our nation for the better.

    As long as both parties are willing to sell their espoused values for dollars, a majority of Americans will be left wanting.

    From what I've read, I like some things about candidates such as Sam Nunn, Bill Richardson and other democrats, too.

    Republicans are not perfect, as I've stated before. They're wrong on NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, big tobacco and more.

    I'm not saying vote for weenie candidates. But there should be room for a moderate democrat, just as there should be room for a moderate republican. I'd vote for either, and the life issue is easily enough for me to vote for a democrat over a republican any day of the week.

    Posted on December 15, 2010 - 04:57 PM #
  10. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,955

    Herb: Frankly, I wish the democrat party was more moderate to compete for more votes and help shape our nation for the better.

    LOL!!!! More MODERATE? Sheesh - what were you thinking: John Birch Society for "moderate?"

    Republicans have gone about as far to the right as you can. Richard Nixon would be kicked out for being too liberal. Eisenhower would be thrown in jail for being a Communist.

    The Democratic Party is full of liberals, moderates, and "blue dogs." In fact, voters in November sent packing a lot of conservative "blue dog" Democrats - so thanks to the voters, the Democratics in Congress are now more liberal on average.

    Posted on December 15, 2010 - 06:05 PM #
  11. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,022

    MoD:"Based solely on that info, 69% of "liberals" and 74% of "Democrats" are still commanding leads. In the (broken) system we have, you still only need 268 out of 535 (~50.1%) Electoral College votes to win."

    Don't forget the 3 electoral votes that DC gets. That makes the total in the electoral college 538, which makes the magic majority number 270.

    (also, a majority is not "50.1%", but rather 50%+1 (one more than half), a very different number. Example: A majority of 1,000,000 votes cast is 500,001, whereas 50.1% would be 501,000.)

    Posted on December 15, 2010 - 06:55 PM #
  12. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,457

    Truth is Obama is demonstrating that he will work to get things done, despite considerable opposition from the GOP, and to a degree Democratic party leadership.

    Which is way different from the way that DUHbya had it. He had a stacked CONgress back then until 06'. They just rammed crap down everyone's throats which is why we're in such F'd shape. TRILLIONS of GOP earmarks and shitloads of money WASTED on 2 wars lead to TRILLIONS of $'s wasted and raising the deficit to levels not seen ever!
    You can thank shitty Bills like the Patriot Act and TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of dollars wasted on Iraq.

    Thanks GOP!

    Posted on December 15, 2010 - 07:15 PM #
  13. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,457

    This sets up the scenario for a possible primary challenge to Mr. Obama. Who will it be.

    It looks like a good Dem vs a Dem run to 2012. Which would be a good thing for America. That way whomever the GOP runs. LOL! It looks like a clear choice that America will have a (D) in the White House till 2016.

    RUN PAINlin RUN!
    RUN Romney RUN!
    Run Newt RUN!
    Run any CON RUN!

    Posted on December 15, 2010 - 07:21 PM #
  14. Don't forget the 3 electoral votes that DC gets. That makes the total in the electoral college 538, which makes the magic majority number 270.

    (*smacks hand across face*) I knew I forgot something. And I knew DC had electoral college representation. So, that would be ~50.2% of the 538 votes.

    (also, a majority is not "50.1%", but rather 50%+1 (one more than half), a very different number. Example: A majority of 1,000,000 votes cast is 500,001, whereas 50.1% would be 501,000.)
    If a Presidential candidate received 269 of the 538, they'd have 50%, which isn't a majority. Unless they change something, a fraction of a vote isn't possible. As the 2000 Presidential Elections shown, for President it doesn't matter who wins the popular vote.

    Now if we're talking any other elected office or a ballot measure, yes a majority is 50%+1.

    Posted on December 15, 2010 - 09:59 PM #
  15. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,022

    If a Presidential candidate received 269 of the 538, they'd have 50%, which isn't a majority.

    Correct. That's why they need 270 to win in the EC.

    Unless they change something, a fraction of a vote isn't possible.

    Correct again. I know of no election where a fraction of a vote is possible. And no one is proposing a fraction of an EC vote, nor a fraction of a popular vote. My "1,000,000" example was to illustrate the difference between 50.1% and 50%+1, which are often confused.

    As the 2000 Presidential Elections shown, for President it doesn't matter who wins the popular vote.

    Correct a third time.

    Now if we're talking any other elected office or a ballot measure, yes a majority is 50%+1.

    Incorrect. We're not talking "any other elected office", we're talking every single stinking time an election happens - a majority is 50%+1. Even in the electoral college: 269 (50%) + 1 = 270, the minimum number needed to win a presidential election. The Constitution is crystal clear on this.

    (MoD, are you confusing majority and plurality?)

    Posted on December 15, 2010 - 10:44 PM #
  16. You're an idiot, Zealot-Herb.

    Feel free to archive this: There is a 100% chance President Obama will NOT face a primary challenge in 2012. I can't be bothered to explain to you why as you've proven immune to logic and reason. There’s not a serious, informed, thinker anywhere who disagrees with that analysis.

    You may recall I correctly pointed out both the results of the 2010 mid-term elections and it's political impact about six months beforehand as well. I explained, in detail, why your conclusions were badly flawed and I was proven entirely correct. You simply, as per usual, scuttled along to the next topic never bothering to acknowledge how you blew it yet again.

    You're wrong again. Completely. Totally. It's not going to happen anywhere other than in your fevered imagination.

    Posted on December 16, 2010 - 10:35 AM #
  17. His party got hammered in the midterm election, he's taking heat from fellow Democrays for compromising with Republicans on taxes, and his job approval levels are hovering around 45 percent, but a new survey concludes President Obama's prospects for re-election in 2012 are fairly strong. Conversely, Sarah Palin's numbers continue to be weak.

    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/15/obama-in-good-shape-for-2012-despite-current-woes-poll-finds/

    Posted on December 16, 2010 - 11:45 AM #
  18. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,457

    Run PAINlin RUN!

    Posted on December 16, 2010 - 02:34 PM #
  19. Run PAINlin RUN!
    Doesn't look good for her. It looks like Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) will probably win over the "Fail"in-backed Tea Party candidate as a write-in.

    Posted on December 16, 2010 - 11:12 PM #
  20. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,457

    DAMN!

    Posted on December 16, 2010 - 11:15 PM #
  21. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,352

    The lousy Republican wanna be Dems got hammered. Most Progressive ones did just fine.

    Posted on December 16, 2010 - 11:16 PM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.