Obama - One Term President

MeeMie

No Spam Here
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Posts
7,328
Obama - One Term President


Less than two months ago, buzzing from the president’s gutsy call to eliminate Osama bin Laden, liberal pontificators had practically sworn in Barack Obama for his second term. “For the GOP the sands are rushing through the hourglass,” Roger Simon wrote in a column whose title had wondered whether the president was “invincible.” He claimed that with Geronimo KIA, “the Republican field has been fried like an egg.” In reality, the president’s short-term popularity boost had fried the long-term judgment of his supporters.


The reasons to believe Obama a one-term president are many and well-grounded.

10. The Declaration of Independents

Candidate Obama attracted independents. President Obama repulses them. The president entered office with the approval of 62 percent of independents. The latest Gallup poll shows support of just 42 percent of independents. Similarly, the political moderates key to his election have deserted the president as immoderate policies have emerged. There simply aren’t enough liberals for Democrats to lose moderates and win elections. No Democratic candidate over the last half century has won the presidency without winning moderates.

9. A Redder America

Barack Obama faces a redder electoral map than he did in 2008. The 2012 presidential election is more than a year away, but the Electoral College has already shifted twelve votes away from blue states and toward red states. Most of the states gaining electoral votes in the census reapportionment voted for McCain. Almost all of the states losing electoral votes voted for Obama. Even the states that Obama carried that added electoral votes—Nevada and Florida, to name two—don’t seem locks to go for the president in 2012. The loss of electoral votes isn’t fatal to Obama. It is a handicap.

8. The Issues Have Changed

Gallup’s “Monthly Most Important Problem” survey is a problem for the president. What is troubling the American people? Over the first five months of 2011, Americans point to the economy (29%), unemployment (26%), the deficit (13%), and government (11%). The issues most salient to voters uniformly work to the incumbent’s disadvantage. When Iraq, health care, and Republican mishandling of the economy mattered to voters, Obama could go on the offensive. It’s difficult to see how he scores points in 2012 on the issues that resonate with voters. He will be on his heels.

7. The Blank Canvass Isn’t Anymore

Other than William Jennings Bryan and Wendell Willkie, who is the major party nominee with a skimpier record than 2008’s Barack Obama? He could vote “present” in the Illinois legislature and run away from U.S. Senate votes while running for higher office. But presidents can’t remain blank slates for long. Unpopular ObamaCare, a sedative stimulus, ineptness in the face of the BP oil spill, and defiance of Congress in starting a third Middle Eastern war have all painted a presidential picture that has calcified conservative opposition, alienated moderates, and disillusioned liberal supporters.

6. Demoralized Liberals

Left-wing activist Ralph Nader encourages a primary challenge. Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich sues the administration over Libya. Netroots conference goers boo White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. Rather than rejoice at a universal health-care bill that eluded predecessors or the introduction of open homosexuality in the military, liberals decry Obama for retaining Bush-era tax rates, playing warden over Guantanamo Bay, and launching a new war in Libya. Never can Democrats satiate their cannibalistic base. If you think this is an overstatement, feel free to examine the teeth marks on the political carcasses of Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon Johnson. Leftists may not primary this president or siphon votes through a suicidal third-party bid. But neither will they work or give at the levels they did in 2008.

5. Energized Conservatives

After eight years of big-government Bush, an underwhelming primary field, and a sclerotic general election campaign, conservatives could be given a mulligan for sleepwalking through the last presidential election. Conservatives, just 34 percent of the electorate in 2008’s election, comprised 42 percent of voters in 2010. From tea-parties to raucous town halls, the political dynamic of the country has been altered. It showed in 2010, when Republicans added 63 House seats, seven Senate seats, and six governors. Nothing invigorates a party’s base like an aggressive ideologue of the opposing party occupying the White House. The GOP clearly has the momentum heading into 2012.

4. The Political Ground Has Shifted Beneath the President’s Feet

A political lifetime has elapsed since Barack Obama’s election. Bailouts and big-government have yielded to tea parties and deficit angst. Gallup’s ideological identification survey registered the highest percentage of liberals in its history the year of Barack Obama’s election. Gallup’s most recent ideological identification survey registered its highest percentage of conservatives since the inaugural 1992 poll. Between the 2008 survey and last year’s, conservatives have gained seven points vis-à-vis liberals. To know liberalism isn’t to love it.

3. Historic Turnouts Aren’t Every-Four-Year Occurrences

Obama surfed to victory in 2008 on the crest of two historic waves. African Americans constituted a larger percentage of the electorate than ever recorded. And young people voted for the Democratic candidate by the greatest margin ever. Two-thirds of 18-to-29 year olds cast ballots for Obama. A staggering 19 out of every 20 African American voters pulled the lever for Obama. The precarious foundation of the Democrat’s election rested on the remarkable turnout, and the amazing one-sidedness, of two constituencies—African Americans and young people—who traditionally stay home on Election Day. That both groups have been hit especially hard by the economic slump makes it hard to envision a repeat of the amazing African American turnout and one-sided youth vote.

2. A Low Ceiling

Roger Simon wondered if the president was “invincible” in the wake of killing bin Laden. More perceptive observers saw vulnerability. Counterintuitively, the assassination of America’s most reviled enemy revealed Barack Obama’s political weaknesses, not his strengths. The president’s weekly Gallup approval average topped out at 51 percent following the bin Laden operation. The best possible week of Obama’s presidency yielded barely half of the electorate’s support. His enemies should acknowledge the man has a floor of support. His supporters should acknowledge he has a ceiling, too.

1. It’s Still the Economy, Stupid

The Misery Index, popularized by Governor Carter to hound President Ford only to be President Carter’s undoing, haunts Democrats again. The combined unemployment and inflation rates are at their worst level in twenty-eight years. The stock market has just spent six weeks in the red. The GDP grows at an anemic rate of 1.8 percent. The housing market has been in shambles for five years, and seems to be double dipping. Debt approaches GDP. Flat-lining and nose-diving trend lines make the president’s reelection precarious. Even a browbeaten Bill Daley, the president’s chief of staff, conceded to an incensed National Association of Manufacturers convention, “Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible.” He said it.



Barack Obama is a formidable campaigner. But he has governed ineffectively and stubbornly against the wishes of the American people. He could win reelection. But the preponderance of indicators suggests his defeat. This should make conservatives hopeful for change.
 
“It’s not as cool to be an Obama supporter as it was in 2008, with the posters and all of that stuff.”

Barack Obama
 
2012: The Media Can’t Save Barack From the Obama Economy


With the Obama economy limping along thanks in part to the Administration’s policies in favor of extreme dollar weakness, there’s growing speculation as to his re-election chances in 2012. Will a difficult economic situation that includes high levels of unemployment make Obama a one-term president? History says no given the power of incumbency.

Added to that, another popular narrative of late points to an Obama victory owing to the supposed economic illiteracy of the electorate, along with a media that will provide our weakened president with positive media coverage no matter the state of the economy. Of course the problem with this bit of theorizing is that Americans aren’t stupid, and after that, past elections suggest that those same Americans tend to tune out the media.

Ronald Reagan’s two terms in office tell the tale here. As USA Today media reporter Peter Johnson has put it, “Over the course of his campaigns and eight years in office, Ronald Reagan’s press peaked and fell but was always negative. … In his re-election bid in 1984, 91 percent of his coverage was negative.”

The above is important. Despite a rising economy and millions of new jobs, the media invariably stuck to a number of gloomy themes during the Reagan years, including the rising homeless population, twin deficits, and a generalized assumption that the supposed economic gains of the 1980s were only being enjoyed by the wealthy few. Amidst this constant negativity, Reagan was returned to office in 1984 with one of largest landslide victories in electoral history.

Back then, stocks confirmed what voters already knew — that the economy was doing very well. Despite a major recession brought on by Paul Volcker and the Federal Reserve’s needless flirtation with quantity money targets in the early 1980s, the Dow Jones Industrial Average still returned 134 percent during Reagan’s presidency. Markets and the Electoral College told the truth about an economy and presidency that the media regularly tried to cast in a negative light.

To put it simply, voters aren’t dim and they know when the economy is performing well. Conversely, when the economy is acting badly, voters are well aware once again.

For evidence supporting the above, we must first journey back to Jimmy Carter’s presidency. As William Greider put it in Secrets of the Temple, “Despite the aggravations of inflation, President Carter had presided over one of the longest and most expansive periods of economic growth in postwar history, four years of recovery starting in 1976.”

So while GDP, the frequently faulty measure of economic health, was rising during Carter’s presidency, neither the stock markets nor the electorate were fooled. The recession during the Carter years was the falling dollar, as evidenced by spikes in gold and oil. A falling dollar is always recessionary for limited capital flowing into hard, commoditized assets, and away from innovative ideas that fund our economic advancement.

Though the media certainly preferred Carter over Reagan heading into the 1980 elections, the electorate felt differently and handed Reagan a 44-state landslide. The economy was weak, voters knew it, and the Reagan Revolution began.

Moving to George W. Bush’s presidency, GOP partisans continue to talk about “52 months of uninterrupted economic growth”, along with mostly low unemployment that prevailed during his presidency. But thanks to a falling dollar that once again drove gold and oil skyward, voters expressed their displeasure.

Luckily for Bush, the dollar’s most substantial decline began after the 2004 elections, thus saving him from certain defeat. But by 2005-06 the dollar was in freefall, real estate was the hot asset much as it was during the Carter years, and as capital flowed into the proverbial ground as an inflation hedge, voters knew something was amiss on the way to voting out happy talking modern Republicans who wouldn’t know a supply-side principle if it smacked them in the head.

Of all people, the usually brilliant economist Thomas Sowell opined about the Bush economy in 2006 that the “liberal media and intelligentsia are strenuously trying to preserve the vision of poverty and economic distress”, but in truth, the voters didn’t need a media that disliked Bush to tell them something was wrong. They knew things weren’t right, the symptoms (rising gold, oil and all other commodities) of a weak dollar were the telltale sign of a weakening economy, and the Republicans rightly experienced major losses in 2006, followed by the White House in 2008.

Moving to the present, no doubt most in the media worship President Obama, and because they do they’ll strive mightily to create the impression that all is well, or at the very least that the economic malaise isn’t Obama’s fault. They would have a point, though for reasons none could articulate. Simply stated, the Bush bailouts remain a big weight on economic growth for failure always authoring capitalism’s advancement, not to mention that the Bushies handed Obama a dollar that was already severely debased.

Basically the Bush bailouts of banks and car companies “in the name of free markets” disallowed the initial economic cleansing necessary for a massive snapback, and then once in office, Obama’s economic team poured gasoline on the fire; most notably with policies meant to mimic the Bush economic disaster in the form of nosebleed spending and an even weaker dollar. The economy is weak, its weakness by definition has Washington and the Obama administration’s fingerprints all over it, and no matter how the media spin that which isn’t working, Obama is in serious trouble.

What’s unknown is if there’s a Republican who truly knows why the Obama economy sags, and who can talk about anything other than tax cuts which, at this point, are not the point. Specifically, is there a Republican who can explain to voters that $100 trips to the gas station are the direct result of the Administration’s currency policies, not to mention that a weak dollar decreases the very investment that drives company formation and job creation.

If such a Republican exists Obama will be a one-term president.
 
Obama: There Are Days Where I Say One Term Is Enough

President Obama did an interview with NBC’s Today show that aired this morning. After driving his fabled Bus of Career Oblivion over Anthony Weiner, who really belongs beneath those gruesome tires, Obama admitted “there are days where I say that one term is enough.”

Victims of Obamanomics shouldn’t get too excited. He’s fundraising like crazy – with decidedly mixed results, such as addressing a nearly empty stadium in Miami yesterday – and does very little else except run for a second term these days. He’s even morphing back into the non-partisan Lightworker of his 2008 campaign, telling those empty Miami seats that “if you were looking for a bunch of partisan rhetoric, I’m probably not your guy.”

In fact, according to Michelle Obama, poor Barack is working himself half to death. “I see the sadness and worry that’s creasing his face,” she told a Pasadena lunch gathering. “He reads every word, every memo, so he is better prepared than the people briefing him. This man doesn’t take a day off.”

As the impish souls at Fox News pointed out, Obama has, in fact, played golf for the past eleven straight weekends.

By now you might be thinking Barack and Michelle Obama are straight-up delusional. No, but they’re pretty sure you are.

Obama has floated the “one and done” idea several times before. During the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, his former campaign manager, David Plouffe, claimed Obama was “not concerned with re-election.” Obama himself mused that he’d rather go down as a “really good one-term president” than dilute his awesomeness into a superfluous second term. Liberal pundits and bloggers occasionally float the idea of mounting a primary challenge to Obama, when they’re really steamed at him.

The point of all this is not setting up a graceful exit if Obama’s poll numbers continue to crater. It’s hard to imagine how the Democrats could survive the political damage of swapping out a failed incumbent for a fresh-faced challenger at the last minute. Very few politicians could swallow the ego damage from stepping aside, and Barack Obama is most assuredly not one of them.

Instead, the “one and done” talk is meant to paint Obama as a noble hero, bravely staggering forward into a second term after fighting so very hard on behalf of the little people. Every now and then, he pauses to meditate in the cool shade of the Garden of Gethsemane, and allows himself to daydream about taking a well-earned break… but he overcomes these forgivable moments of weakness, and will consent to lead an adoring nation through a second term. When he talks about not running again, he’s pushing the narrative that he’s bigger than the presidency is. It is a burden we should be profoundly thankful he is willing to shoulder on our behalf.

“What keeps me going is a belief that the work that we started in 2009 is not yet complete,” he told the Today show. That kind of pronouncement should be accompanied by the sound of thunder, and muffled screams.
 
Obama - One Term President


Less than two months ago, buzzing from the president’s gutsy call to eliminate Osama bin Laden, liberal pontificators had practically sworn in Barack Obama for his second term. “For the GOP the sands are rushing through the hourglass,” Roger Simon wrote in a column whose title had wondered whether the president was “invincible.” He claimed that with Geronimo KIA, “the Republican field has been fried like an egg.” In reality, the president’s short-term popularity boost had fried the long-term judgment of his supporters.

copy & paste
copy & paste
copy & paste

:nana::caning::nana:
 
Yes they can.

No matter who the Republicans run (remember McSame was George W. Bush) Obama will be running against Sarah Palin.

We're going to be seeing massive data dumps due to lawsuits ala his "winning" Senate campaign back in Illinois...

We'll end up with the equivalent of Alan Keyes.

;) ;)
 
Every election is about prosperity and protection. Neither political party gets it. The dont get it cuz party elites are insulated from the realities and gnawing fear the middle-class and working-class live with. The middleclass and working stiffs know!

So the middleclass and Reagan Democrats are gonna wait and see how things are when the election comes around. If things are bad and worse, Obama is done.
 
The highest unemployment got under President Obama was 10.1 percent. Currently it is declining. The highest unemployment got under Ronald Reagan was 10.7 percent.

When Obama and Reagan were in office for the same amount of time, Obama's approval rating was usually higher.
 
I can't think so I insult!

I can't think so I insult!

I can't think so I insult!

I can't think so I insult!

I can't think so I insult!
.
.
.
:nana::caning::nana: :rolleyes: :nana::caning::nana:

Although you submit 53.83 posts per day you have little to say but copy and paste jobs from American Thinker, and quotes from Ayn Rand.
 
Although you submit 53.83 posts per day you have little to say but copy and paste jobs from American Thinker, and quotes from Ayn Rand.

I can't think, so I insult!
I can't think, so I insult!
I can't think, so I insult!
I can't think, so I insult!
I can't think, so I insult!
I can't think, so I insult!
I can't think, so I insult!
I can't think, so I insult!
.
.
.

:nana::caning::nana: :rolleyes: :nana::caning::nana:
 
The highest unemployment got under President Obama was 10.1 percent. Currently it is declining. The highest unemployment got under Ronald Reagan was 10.7 percent.

When Obama and Reagan were in office for the same amount of time, Obama's approval rating was usually higher.

It just went up...

Keep up.

We know actual thinking is kind of hard for you which leads to a high insult to post ratio.
 
The many "well-grounded" reasons in the OP omitted the one that trumps them all for its political effect:

1. "Atlas Shrugged" the movie was released and seen by hundreds of people.
 

What’s unknown is if there’s a Republican who truly knows why the Obama economy sags, and who can talk about anything other than tax cuts which, at this point, are not the point. Specifically, is there a Republican who can explain to voters that $100 trips to the gas station are the direct result of the Administration’s currency policies, not to mention that a weak dollar decreases the very investment that drives company formation and job creation.

If such a Republican exists Obama will be a one-term president.


Burn the witch!
 
"After eight years of big-government Bush..." I am amused by the revisionist history of the Bush era I continually see from people who literally never criticized him when it actually might have done some good.

"Conservatism hasn't failed; it's just never been tried!"
 
“It’s not as cool to be an Obama supporter as it was in 2008, with the posters and all of that stuff.”

Barack Obama

the 20 foot high Shephard Fairey mural up the street from my house is peeling off the wall
 
The highest unemployment got under President Obama was 10.1 percent. Currently it is declining. The highest unemployment got under Ronald Reagan was 10.7 percent.

When Obama and Reagan were in office for the same amount of time, Obama's approval rating was usually higher.

Unemployment isnt falling, its increasing. The government doesnt count newly minted college grads or high school grads or workers whove exhausted benefits or immigrants or fired workers. None of these folks spend money, and all of them eat air, so they dont count.

The other thing is, 10,000 people file for retirement every day. And they reduce the total worker-bee pool.

But the number of people filing for unemployment chex remains above 400,000 every week. Thats 1.6 million new applicants every month. And the total number of unemployed workers is 1.9 MILLION more than in February 2009.
 
Back
Top