Obama's Democratic Base Crumbles

[we vs us]

I don't know if it was yesterday's pitiful "I want more money" speech, or a combination of events, but it seems there may be the hope of some competition on the Democratic side of the election.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/obama-poll-jobs-democratic-base-crumbling.html



While I don't actually think there will be a primary challenger, at least now there is some hope the Democrats will be offered another choice, and if we continue to see a lack of leadership, that door may open even wider.

I don't think you have any sort of desire to actually talk about the horserace aspect of this . . . you're posting it because it's another great way to type "lack of leadership" and "Obama" in the same paragraph.  I also don't think you have the least bit of sense about how the Democrats actually view Obama's progress.  This is mostly because you think that anyone left of Ron Paul is despicable and a traitor to the Free Market. 

But for what it's worth . . yes, I think Obama's coalition is "crumbling," though that's not an apt word for what's happening.  Maybe "shifting," or "grumbling." There is, regrettably, nowhere else for liberals/progressives to go, and Obama has indeed done a good job of getting the independents to pony up.  Already his 2012 campaign is on pace to break his own record from 2008.  So at this point, though there may be a growing desire to challenge Obama or make him more responsive to more traditional lefty concerns, his fundraising to date makes the issue moot.

So there are really only two options for L/Ps in 2012:  vote for O or sit it out completely.  I don't think the L/Ps are freaked out enough (yet) about Obama's centrism to hang out on the sidelines -- especially when the L/Ps view the Tea Party as such an existential threat to the country.  In fact, Obama's gotta be pretty awful in comparison to force the L/Ps out of the arena altogether.  This is because at this point, there's more of a value to keeping the Tea Party away from the Presidency than there is to finding someone who better represents liberal attitudes. 

I think 2012 is going to be much more anti-Tea Party than was 2010.  In fact,  I think there's going to be a whole lot of folks who will turn out specifically to undo what the Tea Party's done.  Not sure what sort of success they'll see, districts being as gerrymandered as they are, but there will be a sizable anti-Tea Party vote nonetheless.

[Breadburner]

I know when I over spend I just go ask my boss for a large raise....He never has an issue with it......

[we vs us]

I know when I over spend I just go ask my boss for a large raise....He never has an issue with it......

The awesome thing is that your hypothetical relates in no way to what's happening in our economy right now.  I do appreciate you restating the conventional wisdom for the umpteenth time, though.  Thanks!

[Conan71]

There are some Republicans, like this real life experience former Congressmen, whose conservatism I appreciate because they are tempered with pragmatism and respect for their opposites. Joe Scarboro wrote this piece back on the 18th when 4 trillion was on the table and Boehner et al refused to even return phone calls. These are hard truths for Americans of any politics.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59262.html

Joe really put the wood to President Obama throughout that piece. 

Personally, I've not been happy with Boehner from day one, he ranks right up on my list of favorite House Speakers with Pelosi and Gingrich.  It's truly sad what a somewhat tenure-based system produces in leadership.

[Breadburner]

The awesome thing is that your hypothetical relates in no way to what's happening in our economy right now.  I do appreciate you restating the conventional wisdom for the umpteenth time, though.  Thanks!

You have prepared your screaming circle haven't you.......

[JCnOwasso]

I know when I over spend I just go ask my boss for a large raise....He never has an issue with it......

Yes, when you state it like that it is unreasonable, but lets look at the whole story.  10 years ago your boss had a bad investment and was struggling and was close to closing up shop and he asked you if you wanted to give up some pay and keep your job.  You agreed and everyone was happy.  Over the next 10 years your boss started making money hand over fist but never reinstated your pay at the previous level.  Now you are going broke and you go to your boss and ask if he can reinstate your pay at the previous level.  

In this story you are the boss and the government is the worker.  Sounds a little less condescending, doesn't it.

[Gaspar]

I don't think you have any sort of desire to actually talk about the horserace aspect of this . . . you're posting it because it's another great way to type "lack of leadership" and "Obama" in the same paragraph.  I also don't think you have the least bit of sense about how the Democrats actually view Obama's progress.  This is mostly because you think that anyone left of Ron Paul is despicable and a traitor to the Free Market. 

But for what it's worth . . yes, I think Obama's coalition is "crumbling," though that's not an apt word for what's happening.  Maybe "shifting," or "grumbling." There is, regrettably, nowhere else for liberals/progressives to go, and Obama has indeed done a good job of getting the independents to pony up.  Already his 2012 campaign is on pace to break his own record from 2008.  So at this point, though there may be a growing desire to challenge Obama or make him more responsive to more traditional lefty concerns, his fundraising to date makes the issue moot.

So there are really only two options for L/Ps in 2012:  vote for O or sit it out completely.  I don't think the L/Ps are freaked out enough (yet) about Obama's centrism to hang out on the sidelines -- especially when the L/Ps view the Tea Party as such an existential threat to the country.  In fact, Obama's gotta be pretty awful in comparison to force the L/Ps out of the arena altogether.  This is because at this point, there's more of a value to keeping the Tea Party away from the Presidency than there is to finding someone who better represents liberal attitudes. 

I think 2012 is going to be much more anti-Tea Party than was 2010.  In fact,  I think there's going to be a whole lot of folks who will turn out specifically to undo what the Tea Party's done.  Not sure what sort of success they'll see, districts being as gerrymandered as they are, but there will be a sizable anti-Tea Party vote nonetheless.

Good thoughtful reply.

You may be right.  There has been significant effort to push Tea Party philosophy on this current crisis, and I am not totally convinced it's a bad idea.

Republicans and Democrats have been complacent. . .no. . .collaborative on the growth of government.  The efforts to demonize small government movements by pulling the race card or class warfare weaponry is the typical defense that the Democrats use.  Republicans simply view these groups as unsustainable political annoyances.  

I am not convinced that the Tea Party is sustainable, but if some of the philosophy of fiscal responsibility rubs off or at least causes the dominant parties pause before spending, that is a good thing.

The media is not good to President Obama today.  His plea of desperation last night was an indicator that he relies on the backing of activism rather than any personal leadership or negotiation skills.  I don't think you fail to see that, I think you simply don't want to recognize that.

We've raised the debt ceiling successfully dozens and dozens of times. The Tea Party philosophy has made the public in general aware that the government's spending problems do not have to be solved on the backs of the American people, and Republican leadership is taking a big gamble by acting on that.  To their credit, they have found themselves up against a weak opponent.

I don't know what will happen if they don't come to an agreement by the imaginary date of Aug 2nd, but I do know that raising taxes in an economy recovering from a recession will effect it negatively.  On the purely emotional side of the argument, I can't imagine what it will do to business owners looking for some small shred of confidence in taking future risk.

[JCnOwasso]

The Tea Party movement is flawed though.  They want small government, they want the government out of their wallet, they want the government to let them live their life... Unless you disagree with their religious or moral beliefs.  Then they want the government all up in that.  We don't want government to get involved with religion, unless it is a religion that doesn't fit with what they believe to be right.  They don't want government to get involved with marriage, unless it is someone who is wanting to go outside the perceived "normal" marriage.  They want the government involved when it suits them and them alone.  The problem is, you cannot have a government like that.  Chaos would rule the land. 

You have 3 separate parties now.  But one party has "taken its ball and gone home" (or in the words of cartman: "screw you guys, l'm goin home") because they want everyone else to play by their rules.  This is not a productive method of government. 

[Breadburner]

Yes, when you state it like that it is unreasonable, but lets look at the whole story.  10 years ago your boss had a bad investment and was struggling and was close to closing up shop and he asked you if you wanted to give up some pay and keep your job.  You agreed and everyone was happy.  Over the next 10 years your boss started making money hand over fist but never reinstated your pay at the previous level.  Now you are going broke and you go to your boss and ask if he can reinstate your pay at the previous level.  

In this story you are the boss and the government is the worker.  Sounds a little less condescending, doesn't it.

Well...That clearly went over your head.....

[Gaspar]

The Tea Party movement is flawed though.  They want small government, they want the government out of their wallet, they want the government to let them live their life... Unless you disagree with their religious or moral beliefs.  Then they want the government all up in that.  We don't want government to get involved with religion, unless it is a religion that doesn't fit with what they believe to be right.  They don't want government to get involved with marriage, unless it is someone who is wanting to go outside the perceived "normal" marriage.  They want the government involved when it suits them and them alone.  The problem is, you cannot have a government like that.  Chaos would rule the land. 

You have 3 separate parties now.  But one party has "taken its ball and gone home" (or in the words of cartman: "screw you guys, l'm goin home") because they want everyone else to play by their rules.  This is not a productive method of government. 

None of that orange stuff is in their platform.  It does however express to some extent what the left needs them to have in their platform. You did however leave out the raciest element.  This is very important because without it, the other charges don't hold up.  

So, for future posts, your primary negative assertion needs to be that the Tea Party is raciest, then you need to claim it is anti-woman, then finally you can add Christian and anti-homosexual.  This allows you to build a strong foundation and bring up visions of white robes and old fat men before you launch into the other, less impact-full minutia.

[nathanm]

The problem with attempting revenue increases is that you create an Ouroboros.  As the economy continues to shrink at new taxes, the revenue then falls more significantly, and you either need more cuts or more revenue increases.

Didn't happen to St. Reagan. Didn't happen to Clinton. Yet you think it will happen now. Here's the thing: There's about 1.6 trillion in money sitting on the sidelines right now. Taxing some of that will make zero difference to the economy.

Although, as I've said earlier, this concern that both parties have with the debt is pretty much ridiculous, but they've created the expectations in the market now, so it's become necessary to at least say "in x years, we will be cutting this much and raising taxes that much."

Also, all these comparisons to personal finance are just plain stupid. I'd be more sensitive and call it misguided or something, but it's not, it's just stupid on many levels. I don't know about you guys, but I don't control the currency. I don't get to mint coins and print dollars. Moreover, government is us and we are government. It is not a business, it is not a family. It is government.



And I wouldn't bother placing blame, but Gaspar brought it up...

[AquaMan]

Joe really put the wood to President Obama throughout that piece. 

Personally, I've not been happy with Boehner from day one, he ranks right up on my list of favorite House Speakers with Pelosi and Gingrich.  It's truly sad what a somewhat tenure-based system produces in leadership.

Yeah, he is a Republican after all. But Joe really put the wood to intransigent Republicans as well, who are missing opportunity by their fear of TP's. He fears a crumbling of the huge middle of his party. I personally doubt many of his assumptions and conclusions but he does speak from experience in how government should be working.

I'm afraid good leadership has become a term similar in understanding to "good Christian".

[Teatownclown]

Joe is likable only because he has Meka sitting next to him.

[Conan71]

Ever see this trashy effort to trash Joe?

http://surftofind.com/scandal

[Teatownclown]

Ever see this trashy effort to trash Joe?

http://surftofind.com/scandal

You do realize Joe has had similar sexual issues of other republican government office repressors don't you. That post is ridiculous. Why bring that garbage up?  Joe deserved to be trashed for cheating. He's gotten better with age.