Herman Cain on Libya

[Guest American Woman]

Obama hasn't really run for selection to completion yet. The name you're looking for is probably LBJ.

Nope. Johnson chose not to run for another term. And Obama has chosen to run for another term.

Edited November 17, 2011 by American Woman

[WWWTT]

I believe Ford - and of course, Obama.

This seems odd?

So if the democrats say OK Obama we are not going to back you then does Obama have to step down?

Has this ever happened before?

Can Obama still run as an independant?

Wouldn't this hurt the party and allow the opposing party come up the middle with an easy victory?

Its just seems very odd and unlikely to me

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

This seems odd?

So if the democrats say OK Obama we are not going to back you then does Obama have to step down?

Has this ever happened before?

Can Obama still run as an independant?

Wouldn't this hurt the party and allow the opposing party come up the middle with an easy victory?

Its just seems very odd and unlikely to me

No, it has never happened before and I do think it's highly unlikely. And yes, it would hurt the party. I added a link to my previous post which touches on all of your (very good, imo) questions.

Edited to repost link: Should The Democrats Challenge Obama In The Primaries?

Edited November 17, 2011 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

I believe Ford - and of course, Obama.

Ford was never elected president or vice-president though.

[Guest American Woman]

Ford was never elected president or vice-president though.

'Seeking a second term' would be more accurate since he assumed the presidency, but I was simply quoting my source. For that matter, G W Bush, technically, wasn't "elected" president either - but was determined to be POTUS by the Supreme Court. (I had a button that said "re-defeat Bush in 2004.")

[cybercoma]

Elizabeth Warren in 2016!

[sharkman]

So does no one think that Newt has a chance? He's proving to be the smartest one in the room and has more experience in his little finger than Obama.

[guyser]

So does no one think that Newt has a chance?

He has a chance , so does Buffalo in winning the Super Bowl this year.

IOW , Nope !

His mouth has got him into far too much trouble in the past, all which can be recycled again and again.

Newt wins the Nom, Obama wins in a landslide

[cybercoma]

So does no one think that Newt has a chance? He's proving to be the smartest one in the room and has more experience in his little finger than Obama.

The problem is that Newt Gingrinch is using the old Culture Wars paradigm of divide and conquer. It was Obama who got past that by framing the argument as engaged vs disengaged voters. If any of the Republicans are going to beat Obama, they are going to need to either 1) get past the Culture Wars rhetoric and engage the disengaged voters, or 2) Obama needs to drop the ball by disenchanting those newly engaged voters that got out and supported him last time. The Republicans need to temper their message and move away from the conflict politics of the Culture War era.

edit to add: don't mistake what I'm saying to mean that the GOP needs to target moderates and centrists. That doesn't work because it's still part of the same political model that has been turning voters away from the system for years. They need to move beyond that model by looking at voters as engaged or disengaged. They need to ignite or re-ignite the civic values of those that have optioned out of the political process. Obama was successful because his "Yes We Can" message promised an America where everyone worked together.

Edited November 28, 2011 by cybercoma

[sharkman]

The thing is, Obama's gamer changer(if that's what it was as you suggest) has turned on him. He has now swelled the ranks of the GOP voters by his disaster of an effort on the economy, jobs, mortgages and energy policy. Nothing energizes disengaged voters like losing your job for 2+ years, or losing your house. When you can't run on the record of your previous term, you are in trouble.

You can now see Obama making every decision based on whether it will please his base or not. That is no way to run a country.

[Jack Weber]

I thought the party that has a sitting president automaticlly sends him as their candidate,No?

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Obama.

After all there has bein many republicans elected to the senate and congress in 2010 and they haven't bein able to turn the US economy round.There will be much blame to go around and I believe many American voters may still side with Obama after the TV debates.

WWWTT

Not necessarily..

Remember 1968 and Lyndon Johnson declining the nomination...

[cybercoma]

The thing is, Obama's gamer changer(if that's what it was as you suggest) has turned on him. He has now swelled the ranks of the GOP voters by his disaster of an effort on the economy, jobs, mortgages and energy policy. Nothing energizes disengaged voters like losing your job for 2+ years, or losing your house. When you can't run on the record of your previous term, you are in trouble.

You can now see Obama making every decision based on whether it will please his base or not. That is no way to run a country.

The problem is that "his" base were the disengaged voters. Since the Republicans have made it their mission to undermine anything he has tried to accomplish, this is going to work against him. He was elected on a "let's work together" platform and the GOP is not interested in compromising on anything. Thus, Washington is killing democracy. People are going to go back to being disengaged even more disappointed with the system than they were to begin with.

All of this can be seen as the sort of impetus that was necessary for people to step back and look for a new way to become politically engaged. Hence we get things like the initial Tea Party movement before it was co-opted by the Republicans and dragged through the dirt and OWS.

The problem now with OWS is that it will lead to more disenchantment if they don't begin making progress and explicitly advertising what that progress is and how they're responsible for it.

[Guest American Woman]

So does no one think that Newt has a chance? He's proving to be the smartest one in the room and has more experience in his little finger than Obama.

Obama has had almost three years experience as POTUS.

[Michael Hardner]

You can now see Obama making every decision based on whether it will please his base or not. That is no way to run a country.

To add: his base is extremely ticked off with him, as he has caved on major initiatives such as healthcare and raising taxes. Not sure why you're saying that he bases his decision on whether it will please his base, as it seems that he's instead trying to play the middle.

[cybercoma]

The only strategy I can see making sense for Obama's campaign is to try to re-appeal to the voters that were disengaged in the past by underlining how he has worked to build bridges in Washington, but show that the Republicans have blocked those attempts and have no interest in the politics of compromise. I think people are tired of the politics of divisiveness, but they don't see any way out. Obama offered hope not that he was a Liberal and would create a new social safety net, but that he would compromise and seek to bring people together, to build bridges. His campaign, I believe will only be successful if he shows that he has been trying to build bridges, but the Republicans have worked overtime at torching them.

[Michael Hardner]

I like that approach, cybercoma. Kind of like making his failures to achieve consensus into successes at attempting them. But if the economy doesn't improve I think he'll have a tough time of it anyway.

The type of person that would be needed to break the logjam is the last person we would need: I think the only one who could pull off major changes would be an American Mike Harris type.

[sharkman]

Obama has had almost three years experience as POTUS.

IMHO Newt has more experience than Obama's 3 years.

[sharkman]

To add: his base is extremely ticked off with him, as he has caved on major initiatives such as healthcare and raising taxes. Not sure why you're saying that he bases his decision on whether it will please his base, as it seems that he's instead trying to play the middle.

I am saying that at present, not 1 or 2+ years ago, Obama is sticking his finger up in the air before he does or says anything. He didn't used to do that but with the election a year off and his numbers being what they are, he is basing everything he does on what the wind is doing.

[Michael Hardner]

IMHO Newt has more experience than Obama's 3 years.

Definitely true, and I have a suspicion that his excellent knowledge of congress and the system, as well as his intelligence, would make him the candidate (of both parties) most likely to get a LOT done.

But I fear his steely gaze, and I expect that America would turn back the clock 80 years if he had his way.

[Michael Hardner]

I am saying that at present, not 1 or 2+ years ago, Obama is sticking his finger up in the air before he does or says anything. He didn't used to do that but with the election a year off and his numbers being what they are, he is basing everything he does on what the wind is doing.

That's the exact opposite of playing to his base. "His base" is hardcore Democrats, unless I misunderstand what you meant. Maybe we're saying the same thing.

[sharkman]

The only strategy I can see making sense for Obama's campaign is to try to re-appeal to the voters that were disengaged in the past by underlining how he has worked to build bridges in Washington, but show that the Republicans have blocked those attempts and have no interest in the politics of compromise. I think people are tired of the politics of divisiveness, but they don't see any way out. Obama offered hope not that he was a Liberal and would create a new social safety net, but that he would compromise and seek to bring people together, to build bridges. His campaign, I believe will only be successful if he shows that he has been trying to build bridges, but the Republicans have worked overtime at torching them.

He should try to re-appeal to voters that were disengaged? Do you mean those who have become so under his administration? Because those voters are going to be once bitten twice shy.

I would suggest to you that Obama has never worked to build bridges in Washington. Never. He rammed Obamacare down their throats with a you-have-to-vote-on-it-before-you-can-read-it strategy. Having majorities in both houses, this is how he operated. It was this behavior that directly got him a slap down in the mid-terms and he lost his majority in the House.

He simply can't run on a record of 'trying to build bridges' or reaching out or whatever. He can't run on his record on any level. The economy, jobs, his crazy spending, it all adds up to trouble for him, and he is finally realizing it with a year to go.

He will fight dirty, Chicago style, attacking his opponents rather than saying that he deserves another term for his fine record.

Edited November 28, 2011 by sharkman

[cybercoma]

I like that approach, cybercoma. Kind of like making his failures to achieve consensus into successes at attempting them. But if the economy doesn't improve I think he'll have a tough time of it anyway.

The type of person that would be needed to break the logjam is the last person we would need: I think the only one who could pull off major changes would be an American Mike Harris type.

Yeah. I think his strength lies in the fact that he was a charismatic leader that spoke to particular values that the disengaged voters hold. Namely the longing for people in Washington to work together to come to compromise, rather than the Culture Wars rhetoric that has been the focal point for 20-30 years. As Obama's 2004 speech mentioned, there are gay couples in Red States and gun owners in Blue States. They're all American. Obama embodied the values of moving past the conservative vs progressive agenda, quite literally in the sense that he's biracial. He is the physical embodiment of the values of compromise and working together. The Republicans have a hard time dealing with this because they want to paint him as a socialist or a liberal, but Obama appeals to people beyond that paradigm.

Now, the problem is that not producing results deflates the charismatic persona by disenchanting people. They will no longer view Obama as the embodiment of that ideal of compromise. And this is key... if he can show that he's still working for compromise, but the system is broken and will continue to be broken by politicians that don't believe in that ideal, he could potentially win this thing. However, the Republicans will work overtime to ensure that people see him as a failure, so they can disenchant those disengaged voters that bought into Obama's values. I believe that's the path they will take. Unfortunately, this works for the Republians by keeping people at home on election day. Those that see politics as a war are more liekly to come out and vote for the Republicans to try to ensure their conservative values "win".

Long story short, nobody is going to win in Washington or the United States unless politicians stop trying to win and start trying to work.

[Michael Hardner]

Now, the problem is that not producing results deflates the charismatic persona by disenchanting people. They will no longer view Obama as the embodiment of that ideal of compromise. And this is key... if he can show that he's still working for compromise, but the system is broken and will continue to be broken by politicians that don't believe in that ideal, he could potentially win this thing.

If Romney, the eventual candidate, is too wonkish or conservatives tear him apart, or his personal characteristics work against him that will help too.

...and I'd like to add that I really hate the fact that political discussion tends to be about campaigns rather than ideas. This is one of the reasons the system is borked.

Long story short, nobody is going to win in Washington or the United States unless politicians stop trying to win and start trying to work.

The system is set up for short-term rewards, i.e. winning elections. Fundraising, lobbying, and the whole roulette wheel is an election winning machine. But I'm Canadian, so it's just a fireworks display on the other side of the lake that I'm watching...

[cybercoma]

He should try to re-appeal to voters that were disengaged? Do you mean those who have become so under his administration? Because those voters are going to be once bitten twice shy.

I would suggest to you that Obama has never worked to build bridges in Washington. Never. He rammed Obamacare down their throats with a you-have-to-vote-on-it-before-you-can-read-it strategy. Having majorities in both houses, this is how he operated. It was this behavior that directly got him a slap down in the mid-terms and he lost his majority in the House.

He simply can't run on a record of 'trying to build bridges' or reaching out or whatever. He can't run on his record on any level. The economy, jobs, his crazy spending, it all adds up to trouble for him, and he is finally realizing it with a year to go.

He will fight dirty, Chicago style, attacking his opponents rather than saying that he deserves another term for his fine record.

This would certainly seem to be the case for someone who's observing the politics from the perspective of Culture Wars. Voters are not going to see it as though he hasn't tried to build bridges. Obama's team are going to paint it as a deliberate attempt by the "powers that be" to keep the political rhetoric polarized and divided. It's impossible not to see Obama as some sort of "saviour" that rises above the rhetoric and unites a nation when he's not even making his political arguments from the same paradigm. While conservatives and progressives are battling it out for the cultural values of society, Obama offers a solution to the divisiveness by calling on people to work together. This has the benefit of painting any of his failures as a problem of the "Other". It was their unwillingness to compromise. They blocked progress. They're dividing America. They're not fit to lead because they're more concerned with dissonance than harmony. Again, it's not an argument about conservative vs progressive from Obama's camp, it's an argument about functional vs dysfunctional. They're going to paint all of the problems with his administration as the dysfuntion of Washington and only Obama can make it functional.

[cybercoma]

I'm Canadian, so it's just a fireworks display on the other side of the lake that I'm watching...

QOTD!