How Obama Haters May Help Democrats in Midterm Elections

[RandomGuy]

[I know this may not fit with the Fox "News" narrative, but I thought I might present something from outside the coccoon.--RG]

By MARK HALPERIN Mark Halperin – Wed Jun 2, 6:00 am ET

The late, longtime New Yorker critic Pauline Kael was said to have expressed confusion over Richard Nixon's landslide re-election in 1972 - because no one she knew had voted for him. To borrow that notion, conservatives today imagine that everyone views the current occupant of the White House as they do: Barack Obama is the worst President ever. Conventional wisdom posits that this potent right-wing, anti-Obama sentiment will diminish the President's power - enough for Republicans to vanquish Democrats in November, regain control of Congress and weaken the incumbent for 2012.


But this myopia has been created within an electronic cocoon of Fox News, talk radio, conservative websites and rhetoric from Republican leaders, all passionately reinforcing the message that the Obama Administration is disastrous on a historic scale. It's a message that is being transported as gamely by rank-and-file Republicans as it is by erudite conservative columnists with national readerships. (See 10 elections that changed America.)


Of course, in this modern age of extreme polarization, only one President these past 30 years (George H.W. Bush, the pÈre) has escaped the regular damning hyperbole of "worst ever." But the condemnation of Obama seems somewhat more extreme.


The blue-red divide, by almost every measure, has gotten worse, and the ubiquity of electronic media spreads intense political and cultural disdain in the blink of an eye. The always enlightening Google reveals that typing in "Obama worst president ever" yields 3.4 million results, vs. 1.8 million for "Bush worst president ever" and 1.2 million for Clinton. That stat seems representative of where we have arrived as a nation and illustrative of the relationship between the incumbent President and his critics. (See the top 10 political defections.)


Conservatives from the upper echelons of elected officials in Washington and state capitals, presidential-candidates-in-waiting such as Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, 2010 stars such as Rand Paul, and testy Tea Party activists all believe they have an objective case to rank Obama as 44th out of 44 Presidents. Not only do they think his policies are misguided and out of step with America's greatest traditions of individual liberty and free enterprise, but they are convinced that his relative lack of experience and youth confirm the pre-election suspicions that he is not up to the job. (Comment on this story.)


The times of crisis in which Obama has governed only exacerbate the situation. It doesn't take a degree in psychology to recognize the explanatory formula "economic/environmental/international crises + search for a scapegoat = widespread Obama hatred." And it is evidence of how much matters have deteriorated that it's impossible to imagine conservatives rallying around Obama in the face of a new disaster, like the left did (albeit briefly) after Sept. 11 for President George W. Bush. Even if the President were to repel a Martian invasion, the right's reaction would likely be the same as it was after the Christmas Day bombing attempt, or the failed Times Square attack, or the current oil spill: denigration of Obama's competence, suspicion of his motives and implicit (or explicit) hope for his failure.


The experiences of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are instructive. Like Obama, they accomplished a fairly high percentage of their campaign promises, even as their enemies deemed them failures from those Presidents' first days in office. Both Presidents benefited by staying focused and on course, sidestepping the increasingly hostile rhetoric thrown at them by their foes. Clinton at times would explode, letting such verbiage get his goat, but Reagan did not, and in that sense, he is Obama's closer analogue. Obama has become prickly at times during these past 16 months, but he is more apt to brush off the barbs as proof positive that the opposition is losing - and losing it.


In the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, we have already seen that the anti-Obama forces are expressing their disagreements with the Administration in terms far more personal than political, tinged with an apocalyptic irrationality. The centrifugal force exerted on conservative leaders toward the extreme wing of their party is bound to lead to even more magnified rhetoric in the next few years. The contrast between those excessive attacks and Obama's famous cool will serve him, and the Democrats, well.


Within the overheated conservative bubble there is little room for discussions of serious policy alternatives to deal with America's problems, reminders that the country is typically drawn to optimistic candidates (like Reagan and Obama) and weighty appeals to the center of the electorate. If Obama is the worst President ever, as conservatives seem to believe, why do they need to say anything more than that to take control of Congress and then get rid of him? But while the conservatives' ultimate condemnation rallies their core supporters and resonates with some centrist voters, over time it is unlikely to produce a majority against the Administration.


It can't be pleasant for Obama to be the subject of such attacks. And solving the country's major problems in a bipartisan fashion will be difficult under these rancorous circumstances. But as long as those trying to beat him are blind to the fact that tens of millions of voting Americans think Obama is doing a fine job, this President has a great ally in his enemies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599199305000

[DarrinS]

I guess we'll find out, won't we?

[RandomGuy]

I guess we'll find out, won't we?

Yup. It is a certainty that the Dems will lose seats. The only question is how many.

I think the general craziness of some of what is going on in rightwingland has been a bit more of a turn-off for moderates and independents than many realize.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The dems will keep both the house and the senate..then what for the dead enders?

[George Gervin's Afro]

In the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, we have already seen that the anti-Obama forces are expressing their disagreements with the Administration in terms far more personal than political, tinged with an apocalyptic irrationality. The centrifugal force exerted on conservative leaders toward the extreme wing of their party is bound to lead to even more magnified rhetoric in the next few years. The contrast between those excessive attacks and Obama's famous cool will serve him, and the Democrats, well.

It's very personal and based on emotion....conservatives don't rely on emtional arguments..:lmao

see jacksommerset

[RandomGuy]

It's very personal and based on emotion....conservatives don't rely on emtional arguments..:lmao

see jacksommerset

There is a conservative meme out there that says that "liberals" alway deal with things using emotional arguments. Darrin even posted a fairly well circulated essay to that effect.

When one gets into frays here with "conservatives" they tend to use pretty emotional arguments as well. Granted it takes a certain motivation to get into political arguments, so the conservatives here may not be representative of the overall conservative population, but from what I have seen it isn't too far off the pale.

[jack sommerset]

It's very personal and based on emotion....conservatives don't rely on emtional arguments..:lmao

see jacksommerset

I'm hurt by this intellectual analysis.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm hurt by this intellectual analysis.

you're an emotional poster jack..we have your posts to verify that.

[Ignignokt]

[I know this may not fit with the Fox "News" narrative, but I thought I might present something from outside the coccoon.--RG]

By MARK HALPERIN Mark Halperin – Wed Jun 2, 6:00 am ET

The late, longtime New Yorker critic Pauline Kael was said to have expressed confusion over Richard Nixon's landslide re-election in 1972 - because no one she knew had voted for him. To borrow that notion, conservatives today imagine that everyone views the current occupant of the White House as they do: Barack Obama is the worst President ever. Conventional wisdom posits that this potent right-wing, anti-Obama sentiment will diminish the President's power - enough for Republicans to vanquish Democrats in November, regain control of Congress and weaken the incumbent for 2012.


But this myopia has been created within an electronic cocoon of Fox News, talk radio, conservative websites and rhetoric from Republican leaders, all passionately reinforcing the message that the Obama Administration is disastrous on a historic scale. It's a message that is being transported as gamely by rank-and-file Republicans as it is by erudite conservative columnists with national readerships. (See 10 elections that changed America.)


Of course, in this modern age of extreme polarization, only one President these past 30 years (George H.W. Bush, the pÈre) has escaped the regular damning hyperbole of "worst ever." But the condemnation of Obama seems somewhat more extreme.


The blue-red divide, by almost every measure, has gotten worse, and the ubiquity of electronic media spreads intense political and cultural disdain in the blink of an eye. The always enlightening Google reveals that typing in "Obama worst president ever" yields 3.4 million results, vs. 1.8 million for "Bush worst president ever" and 1.2 million for Clinton. That stat seems representative of where we have arrived as a nation and illustrative of the relationship between the incumbent President and his critics. (See the top 10 political defections.)


Conservatives from the upper echelons of elected officials in Washington and state capitals, presidential-candidates-in-waiting such as Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, 2010 stars such as Rand Paul, and testy Tea Party activists all believe they have an objective case to rank Obama as 44th out of 44 Presidents. Not only do they think his policies are misguided and out of step with America's greatest traditions of individual liberty and free enterprise, but they are convinced that his relative lack of experience and youth confirm the pre-election suspicions that he is not up to the job. (Comment on this story.)


The times of crisis in which Obama has governed only exacerbate the situation. It doesn't take a degree in psychology to recognize the explanatory formula "economic/environmental/international crises + search for a scapegoat = widespread Obama hatred." And it is evidence of how much matters have deteriorated that it's impossible to imagine conservatives rallying around Obama in the face of a new disaster, like the left did (albeit briefly) after Sept. 11 for President George W. Bush. Even if the President were to repel a Martian invasion, the right's reaction would likely be the same as it was after the Christmas Day bombing attempt, or the failed Times Square attack, or the current oil spill: denigration of Obama's competence, suspicion of his motives and implicit (or explicit) hope for his failure.


The experiences of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are instructive. Like Obama, they accomplished a fairly high percentage of their campaign promises, even as their enemies deemed them failures from those Presidents' first days in office. Both Presidents benefited by staying focused and on course, sidestepping the increasingly hostile rhetoric thrown at them by their foes. Clinton at times would explode, letting such verbiage get his goat, but Reagan did not, and in that sense, he is Obama's closer analogue. Obama has become prickly at times during these past 16 months, but he is more apt to brush off the barbs as proof positive that the opposition is losing - and losing it.


In the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, we have already seen that the anti-Obama forces are expressing their disagreements with the Administration in terms far more personal than political, tinged with an apocalyptic irrationality. The centrifugal force exerted on conservative leaders toward the extreme wing of their party is bound to lead to even more magnified rhetoric in the next few years. The contrast between those excessive attacks and Obama's famous cool will serve him, and the Democrats, well.


Within the overheated conservative bubble there is little room for discussions of serious policy alternatives to deal with America's problems, reminders that the country is typically drawn to optimistic candidates (like Reagan and Obama) and weighty appeals to the center of the electorate. If Obama is the worst President ever, as conservatives seem to believe, why do they need to say anything more than that to take control of Congress and then get rid of him? But while the conservatives' ultimate condemnation rallies their core supporters and resonates with some centrist voters, over time it is unlikely to produce a majority against the Administration.


It can't be pleasant for Obama to be the subject of such attacks. And solving the country's major problems in a bipartisan fashion will be difficult under these rancorous circumstances. But as long as those trying to beat him are blind to the fact that tens of millions of voting Americans think Obama is doing a fine job, this President has a great ally in his enemies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599199305000


It may not fit with the 2010 election results narrative either.

Good luck sucker.

[RandomGuy]

I'm hurt by this intellectual analysis.

:lol

That was a good one.

[RandomGuy]

It may not fit with the 2010 election results narrative either.

Good luck sucker.


Yup. It is a certainty that the Dems will lose seats. The only question is how many.

I think the general craziness of some of what is going on in rightwingland has been a bit more of a turn-off for moderates and independents than many realize.

I didn't see any need to re-type.

I don't think it will be the landslide that Fox "News" commentators are drooling over.

We'll see.

Maybe whottt will give us a solid prediction. :lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

I didn't see any need to re-type.

I don't think it will be the landslide that Fox "News" commentators are drooling over.

We'll see.

Maybe whottt will give us a solid prediction. :lol

Fox News is doing thier best to see that this happens..

[boutons_deux]

Rasmussen always come through. Are they financed by RNC and US C of C?

http://www.openleft.com/tag/national%20house%20ballot

[DarrinS]

The dems will keep both the house and the senate..then what for the dead enders?

My new sig after Nov.

[George Gervin's Afro]

My new sig after Nov.

Good luck with that.. I know Fox news/ talk radio/tea potties are all keeping their fingers crossed.. Are you going to keep it as your sig when they do keep control?

[boutons_deux]

Repugs electioneering well under way (and under water)

GOP Reintroduces Pathetic, Fake Health “Plan” Nobody Wants

Posted By stevebenen On June 2, 2010 @ 8:45 am

Way back in November, House Republicans unveiled their health care reform “plan,” to serve as an alternative to the Democratic proposal. The GOP proposal was fairly pathetic, and even some Republicans wanted nothing to do with it.

And yet, seven months later, it’s back. Christina Bellantoni reported yesterday:

Just in time for the midterm elections, the Republicans introduced legislation to scrap “Obama care” — even parts that voters like — and sub in their own version.

As a refresher, their plan would let people buy insurance across state lines, give states more power and would include tort reform to end so-called “junk lawsuits” that the Republicans say make health care costs more expensive. The CBO score last fall found the GOP plan would cover just 3 million more people “leaving about 52 million” without insurance at about the same as the 2009 share of uninsured people. It would reduce premiums by between zero and three percent, CBO said…. It reduces the deficit over time, but so does the Democrats’ law.

The GOP plan is now its own bill (H.R. 5424), and though Congress is on recess, it already has 30 co-sponsors.

I’m not entirely sure why Republicans are bothering. Presumably, GOP candidates want to be able to campaign this fall, saying, “We’re not the ‘party of no’; we even produced our own alternative health care bill!”

And while there will be some truth to that, let’s not forget, as a substantive matter, the GOP plan was nothing short of laughable — it largely ignores the uninsured, does nothing for those with pre-existing conditions, and offers nothing for those worried about losing coverage when it’s needed most. While the Democratic proposal was put together out in the open, with Republican ideas, and subjected to months of public hearings in five separate congressional committees, the GOP plan was an entirely partisan proposal, written in secret. The Republican approach to reform sought to create a system that “works better for people who don’t need health care services, and much worse for people who actually are sick or who become sick in the future. It’s basically a health un-insurance policy.” And as we learned last year, the plan included provisions that “mirror the suggestions put forth by the lobbying entity of the private insurance industry way back in December 2008.”

That Republican lawmakers now want to re-introduce the same package, apparently as some kind of election-year stunt, suggests the party is convinced that voters are fools.

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/02/gop-reintroduces-pathetic-fake-health-plan-nobody-wants/

============

Repugs always appeal and demagogue to most-dumbfuck-denominator. The very existence of the Repug party is an insult to civilization. You Go, America!

[Spurminator]

I'm not one for self-promotion, but here's something I posted in 2004 when Bush shocked left-wingers by winning re-election. Most of the pictures are dead links now, but they represented the faces of the most ardent and vitriolic Bush/Republican haters in the mainstream that year.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5428

The 2010 Right is a lot like the 2004 Left. Maybe worse. Not sure if the effect will be the same for regional/local elections as it was for a Presidential Election but if this were 2012 I'd put all of my money on Obama. The Right is mobilizing the Left.

[boutons_deux]

The Repugs are mobilizing the red-state/"Christian" dumbfucks, as always, who are duped into voting against their best interests.

The Repugs have NOTHING to propose, NOTHING of a record to run on, NOTHING AT ALL but paranoid fear-mongering, slandering, lies.

[DarrinS]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/139331/Republicans-Move-Ahead-Generic-Ballot-Congress.aspx



PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences shows Republicans moving back ahead of Democrats, 49% to 43%, by two points their largest lead of the campaign to date. Registered voters' preferences had been closely divided for the last several weeks.


http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ykff9mwklektxscqrx8myg.gif

[admiralsnackbar]

I'm not one for self-promotion, but here's something I posted in 2004 when Bush shocked left-wingers by winning re-election. Most of the pictures are dead links now, but they represented the faces of the most ardent and vitriolic Bush/Republican haters in the mainstream that year.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5428

The 2010 Right is a lot like the 2004 Left. Maybe worse. Not sure if the effect will be the same for regional/local elections as it was for a Presidential Election but if this were 2012 I'd put all of my money on Obama. The Right is mobilizing the Left.

I apologize for not reading your link, but just from your intro, it sounds like you may be leaving out the most decisive (to my mind) reason for Bush's re-election, which was the Iraq war. I don't think there's anywhere near as much support (to say nothing of interest) for continuing in Afghanistan.

[Spurminator]

I apologize for not reading your link, but just from your intro, it sounds like you may be leaving out the most decisive (to my mind) reason for Bush's re-election, which was the Iraq war. I don't think there's anywhere near as much support (to say nothing of interest) for continuing in Afghanistan.

This Gallup poll from August 2004 would suggest Americans were not necessarily bullish on the war at the time of the election.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/12688/update-american-public-opinion-iraq.aspx

[ElNono]

It's the economy...

[jack sommerset]

There is really no debate the house is gone. It's the Senate that is up in the air.

[admiralsnackbar]

This Gallup poll from August 2004 would suggest Americans were not necessarily bullish on the war at the time of the election.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/12688/update-american-public-opinion-iraq.aspx

Fair enough, man -- you have data to back your position while I guess I only have anecdotal suspicions.

[RandomGuy]

There is really no debate the house is gone. It's the Senate that is up in the air.

Can I quote you on this when it doesnt' happen?

My understanding is that the Dems will lose seats, but likely not the majority needed to name the speaker.

[ChumpDumper]

There is really no debate the house is gone.:lmao

[George Gervin's Afro]

There is really no debate the house is gone. It's the Senate that is up in the air.

which house seats are the dems going to lose? since there's no debate this should be easy for you.

[xrayzebra]

I love Obama, he is the greatest thing that ever happen for the Conservatives. Only
thing better would be seeing Pelosi on youporn with Harry Reid and Barney..

[RandomGuy]

My new sig after Nov.

The dems will keep both the house and the senate.

I'll say it too.

Best evidence I have seen doesn't have the Dems losing enough seats to pass control over to the GOP for either house.

[RandomGuy]

I love Obama, he is the greatest thing that ever happen for the Conservatives.

Yes and no.

Yes, it energized the GOP base like nobody's business.

No, because it revealed just how crazy and generally uninformed some of that base is, via rather scary tea partyier comments.

Double edged sword, my friend, double edged sword.

[ploto]

I do think that over confidence has caused some to reveal their true colors as opposed to the usual tactic of playing to the center. I think they believe that more people hate Obama and his policies than actually do.