What happens when Obama becomes unpopular?

[opebo]

Bush didn't really become unpopular until after the 2004 election.

Yeah but he's a white.  White americans regretted Obama from the get-go.

[Jensen]

America finds itself a convenient excuse to never vote for a black person for President ever again.

Oh, and it also never votes for another political newbie who talks a lot about "hope" and "change" and very little about substantive policies. Until the next time.

Ding ding ding.........right on.

I keep saying this but in year 7 and 8 even libs will want to run him out of town......but Joe has it right.

Thos of us from the Bernie Sanders side of the aisle (far left, over by the cloak room)...we're kinda ready now. It's the just thought of a President Romney or Palin that keeps us somewhat loyal.   ;-)

Exactly. 2008 was the best opportunity to elect a liberal as President, and instead we elected a corporatist with poor leadership skills who lies about change.

Ironically, Obama was the candidate that catered to people like you, while Hillary was viewed the other way. Now, Hillary, sure, she is a corporatist, but I think she has the leadership skills on her side, at least. Now Kucinich would be the real candidate for a leftist, but his support was limited. Who did you vote for?

[Psychic Octopus]

I'm of the opinion that the Democrats should have nominated Hillary. She may not have been as leftist, but she certainly would have paved the way for a new progressive era. She probably would have had a bigger victory then Obama, and maybe on her coattails Democrats would pick up a few extra senate seats, maybe getting a margin of 62 in the Senate, (When Specter switched). That would give them no problem in passing new legislation.

[Beet]

America finds itself a convenient excuse to never vote for a black person for President ever again.

Oh, and it also never votes for another political newbie who talks a lot about "hope" and "change" and very little about substantive policies. Until the next time.

Ding ding ding.........right on.

I keep saying this but in year 7 and 8 even libs will want to run him out of town......but Joe has it right.

Thos of us from the Bernie Sanders side of the aisle (far left, over by the cloak room)...we're kinda ready now. It's the just thought of a President Romney or Palin that keeps us somewhat loyal.   ;-)

Exactly. 2008 was the best opportunity to elect a liberal as President, and instead we elected a corporatist with poor leadership skills who lies about change.

Ironically, Obama was the candidate that catered to people like you, while Hillary was viewed the other way. Now, Hillary, sure, she is a corporatist, but I think she has the leadership skills on her side, at least. Now Kucinich would be the real candidate for a leftist, but his support was limited. Who did you vote for?

What people like jfern don't understand [and that the DLC and pragmatic Dems did] is that they can't be catered to in a normal political system. It takes an economic crisis of epic proportions for the type of extremism to arise that could lead to the rise of politicians that would satisfy the likes of jfern. Unfortunately, the Democrats got caught on the wrong side of the crisis. Had the bubble burst a year or two earlier, you would see someone like Dennis Kucinich win the Democratic nomination then win the Presidential election. Instead, they got stuck with conventional politicians in an unconventional era. Now the GOP is going to sweep '10 and increasingly likely, '12 running extremist conservative candidates. Sometimes it's all about timing. Is it fair? No. Does it fit with the overall right-wing trend of the world of the past 40 years? Yes.

[Vepres]

America finds itself a convenient excuse to never vote for a black person for President ever again.

Oh, and it also never votes for another political newbie who talks a lot about "hope" and "change" and very little about substantive policies. Until the next time.

Ding ding ding.........right on.

I keep saying this but in year 7 and 8 even libs will want to run him out of town......but Joe has it right.

Thos of us from the Bernie Sanders side of the aisle (far left, over by the cloak room)...we're kinda ready now. It's the just thought of a President Romney or Palin that keeps us somewhat loyal.   ;-)

Exactly. 2008 was the best opportunity to elect a liberal as President, and instead we elected a corporatist with poor leadership skills who lies about change.

Ironically, Obama was the candidate that catered to people like you, while Hillary was viewed the other way. Now, Hillary, sure, she is a corporatist, but I think she has the leadership skills on her side, at least. Now Kucinich would be the real candidate for a leftist, but his support was limited. Who did you vote for?

What people like jfern don't understand [and that the DLC and pragmatic Dems did] is that they can't be catered to in a normal political system. It takes an economic crisis of epic proportions for the type of extremism to arise that could lead to the rise of politicians that would satisfy the likes of jfern. Unfortunately, the Democrats got caught on the wrong side of the crisis. Had the bubble burst a year or two earlier, you would see someone like Dennis Kucinich win the Democratic nomination then win the Presidential election. Instead, they got stuck with conventional politicians in an unconventional era. Now the GOP is going to sweep '10 and increasingly likely, '12 running extremist conservative candidates. Sometimes it's all about timing. Is it fair? No. Does it fit with the overall right-wing trend of the world of the past 40 years? Yes.

Kucinich couldn't even be nominated, let alone win. How could the financial crisis have been timed better for Dems? It happened two months before a national election after all!

[Beet]

People continually underestimate the effect economics has on politics [and vice versa, but that is not at the forefront at the moment]. Gradually, slowly, it's dawning on people, but there are still pockets of ignorance. But anyone with the slightest familiarity with history ought not to be surprised.

The reason there's such a huge effect is that unlike things like the Iraq war, which directly hurt maybe 10,000 soldiers and their families and friends, say a universe of 100,000 or 200,000 people, the economy directly affects a majority of the US population. And if poor execution of a war that directly affected only 100,000 or 200,000 people could have resulted in '06, just imagine what poor execution of an economy that affects millions would result in. Granted, in war there's death so that makes it more serious, ultimately. But Iraq was a very very small war.

Yes, if the economic timeline had been shifted a year or two earlier, then some very extreme populist Democrat like Dennis Kucinich would have won the nomination. Just like today, some very extreme populist Republican could win the Republican nomination, I believe.

And yes, it could have been timed better for Democrats. Depending on how long it lasts, its timing may very well be the worst possible for Democrats. Because if it lasts into 2012, then a 2 month shift of Lehman's collapse into November might have resulted in a McCain win and the GOP taking the blame for everything. On the other hand, any shift earlier than September would give the administration elected in '08 more time to deal with the crisis.

[Vepres]

People continually underestimate the effect economics has on politics [and vice versa, but that is not at the forefront at the moment]. Gradually, slowly, it's dawning on people, but there are still pockets of ignorance. But anyone with the slightest familiarity with history ought not to be surprised.

The reason there's such a huge effect is that unlike things like the Iraq war, which directly hurt maybe 10,000 soldiers and their families and friends, say a universe of 100,000 or 200,000 people, the economy directly affects a majority of the US population. And if poor execution of a war that directly affected only 100,000 or 200,000 people could have resulted in '06, just imagine what poor execution of an economy that affects millions would result in. Granted, in war there's death so that makes it more serious, ultimately. But Iraq was a very very small war.

Yes, if the economic timeline had been shifted a year or two earlier, then some very extreme populist Democrat like Dennis Kucinich would have won the nomination. Just like today, some very extreme populist Republican could win the Republican nomination, I believe.

And yes, it could have been timed better for Democrats. Depending on how long it lasts, its timing may very well be the worst possible for Democrats. Because if it lasts into 2012, then a 2 month shift of Lehman's collapse into November might have resulted in a McCain win and the GOP taking the blame for everything. On the other hand, any shift earlier than September would give the administration elected in '08 more time to deal with the crisis.

Obama is the most leftist candidate who could have won. The economy has huge effects on politics, but nobody advocating for single-payer healthcare among other things could not win. It would be laughable.

That's like saying Ron Paul could have won.

Generally, Presidents who are significantly to the left or right of the nation are still long established people. FDR, LBJ, Reagan.

[Beet]

Disagree. Rand Paul advocates a return to the gold standard no? That's no less laughable or extremist than single payer health care. Arguably it's far more so. Yet Rand Paul is about to win in Kentucky. And at this point I believe he would be competitive-- even favored-- nationally as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Someone like him could win, yes. Like his son.

[Vepres]

Disagree. Rand Paul advocates a return to the gold standard no? That's no less laughable or extremist than single payer health care. Arguably it's far more so. Yet Rand Paul is about to win in Kentucky. And at this point I believe he would be competitive-- even favored-- nationally as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Someone like him could win, yes. Like his son.

Rand doesn't come off as a nut like his dad (from what I know of him)

No, he'd be slaughtered nationally. Keep on fantasizing about Kucinich having a chance, you have the right to dream, no?

[Mint]

Keep on fantasizing about Kucinich having a chance, you have the right to dream, no?

Way to miss the point entirely.

[Beet]

Ok, fine, let me revise. A candidate with identical positions as Ron Paul, and rhetoric as Ron Paul, but who is younger, more vigorous and charismatic as Ron Paul, could win the GOP primary, and *could* win the national election, as of today. As of 2010.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here's a recent poll from FOX:

Obama 47
Romney 35

Obama 55
Palin 31 (!)

Obama 53
Gingrich 29

Obama 48
"Tea Party Candidate" 23

I think it's clear people aren't screaming for some extremist or that they'd win now.

Yes Rand Paul can get elected...in Kentucky. Not exactly a microcosm of the country.

[Franzl]

America finds itself a convenient excuse to never vote for a black person for President ever again.

Oh, and it also never votes for another political newbie who talks a lot about "hope" and "change" and very little about substantive policies. Until the next time.

Ding ding ding.........right on.

I keep saying this but in year 7 and 8 even libs will want to run him out of town......but Joe has it right.

Thos of us from the Bernie Sanders side of the aisle (far left, over by the cloak room)...we're kinda ready now. It's the just thought of a President Romney or Palin that keeps us somewhat loyal.   ;-)

Exactly. 2008 was the best opportunity to elect a liberal as President, and instead we elected a corporatist with poor leadership skills who lies about change.

Ironically, Obama was the candidate that catered to people like you, while Hillary was viewed the other way. Now, Hillary, sure, she is a corporatist, but I think she has the leadership skills on her side, at least. Now Kucinich would be the real candidate for a leftist, but his support was limited. Who did you vote for?

What people like jfern don't understand [and that the DLC and pragmatic Dems did] is that they can't be catered to in a normal political system. It takes an economic crisis of epic proportions for the type of extremism to arise that could lead to the rise of politicians that would satisfy the likes of jfern. Unfortunately, the Democrats got caught on the wrong side of the crisis. Had the bubble burst a year or two earlier, you would see someone like Dennis Kucinich win the Democratic nomination then win the Presidential election. Instead, they got stuck with conventional politicians in an unconventional era. Now the GOP is going to sweep '10 and increasingly likely, '12 running extremist conservative candidates. Sometimes it's all about timing. Is it fair? No. Does it fit with the overall right-wing trend of the world of the past 40 years? Yes.

Kucinich couldn't even be nominated, let alone win. How could the financial crisis have been timed better for Dems? It happened two months before a national election after all!

Read more closely, you didn't understand his argument.