←
→

What are President Obama’s Chances Being Reelected in 2012?

Posted: August 21, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: just because |34 Comments

Via Zero Hedge, Right now his chances according to InTrade are only 49.4%.

Real Clear Politics’ average of Obama’s job approval ratings across polls: 43% approve, 50.5% disapprove.

Obama himself admits he’ll be judged by voters on how well he handles the economy. His Gallup approval rating on that last week was only 26%. His weekly average for last week in the Gallup tracking poll was 40%. Only 11% approve of the way the country is going, and their number 1 issue is jobs.

Now check this out from Robert Reich:

Repeat after me: Workers are consumers. Consumers are workers.

We’re slouching toward a double dip, and the stock market is imploding, because consumers – whose spending is 70 percent of the economy – have reached their limit.

It’s not just the jobless who can’t spend. It’s mainly people with jobs. Median wages continue to fall. Weekly wages in July for Americans with jobs were 1.3 percent lower than eight months before.

America’s median earners are now earning less (adjusted for inflation) than they earned ten years ago.

Every CEO of every company that continues to squeeze payrolls (Verizon, are you listening? Ford?) needs to understand they’re shooting themselves in the feet. Where do they expect demand for their products and services to come from?

Of course Dakinikat has been telling us this forever, but in DC (and the wealthy part of Martha’s Vineyard) no one seems to be paying attention.

Maybe this was not such a good time for the President to take a vacation? Maybe it’s not such a good time to gut the New Deal and Great Society programs either? But we know he’ll keep trying. So what will he do to try to improve his chances of reelection?

At Zero Hedge, “Tyler Durden” suggests Obama’s only “good” option is to start another war. What do you think he’ll do?

34 Comments on “What are President Obama’s Chances Being Reelected in 2012?”

  1. bostonboomer says:
    August 21, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    Even MoDo has turned on Obama.

    Is Obama so isolated he can’t see that Americans are curled up in a ball, beaten down by a financial crisis, an identity crisis, a political crisis and a leadership crisis?

    He got the job by blaming Washington. But once you’re in the White House, you are Washington. It’s like the plumber who came to fix the sink waiting for the sink to fix itself.

    I covered the first President Bush when he took a slide from Iraq war hero to one-term president. A turning point came in the fall of 1991, when Americans were getting jittery about the economy. Conservatives urged Bush to adopt an aggressive agenda and a muscular stance toward Congress. But relying on the disastrous advice of his budget adviser Richard Darman, Bush waited for more than a month until the State of the Union address and repackaged the same tepid agenda.

    President Obama bashed Congress on his bus tour. But after delegating to Congress time and again with disastrous results, he continues to play the satellite to Congress.

    Gee, Mo. Too bad you worked to hard to trash Hillary. We could have had a competent, decisive, experienced President instead of President Pushover.

    • Minkoff Minx says:
      August 21, 2011 at 8:06 pm

      I cannot stand Dowd…she was horrible. And seeing her realize how bad Obama is just makes me more angry about all she did to Hillary…

    • northwestrain says:
      August 21, 2011 at 9:36 pm

      She’s been testing the waters with a few anti 0bama zingers. I rarely read what modo has to say — she tends to copy others.

    • djmm says:
      August 22, 2011 at 1:20 pm

      Yes, BostonBoomer — I used to enjoy Ms. Dowd’s columns occasionally, but quit reading them after reading the venom she directed towards then Senator and Presidential candidate Clinton. She fawned over Obama, particularly after the first debate when she suggested he hold Hillary’s chair when she rose after a debate and behave more like a gentleman — and then he did. I think it was pure ego that he (or someone working with him) had read her column.

      djmm

  2. Minkoff Minx says:
    August 21, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    I think he is going to sit back and do nothing…and wait for the GOP to nominate one of the jesus freaks aka Bachmann or Perry. Then Obama will get the lesser evil vote.

  3. bostonboomer says:
    August 21, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    Rebecca Traister rationalizes, claiming Hillary would have been about the same as Obama.

    No, Rebecca, Hillary would not have started a war with Iran by now.

    • Valhalla says:
      August 21, 2011 at 10:13 pm

      BB — I’m stealing this from my own comment elsewhere, but here’s some excerpts from Traister’s alleged history as a Clinton supporter:

      Yeah, so here are some quotes from alleged Clinton-supporter Traister (all from Salon, I wasn’t sure about loading up on links so it’s just the quotes):

      “I’m not a Hillary supporter, but …” …To my surprise, it’s a phrase I’ve heard myself uttering… 1/9/08

      I am a loud feminist and a longtime Clinton skeptic who was suddenly feeling that I needed to rationalize, apologize for, or even just stay quiet about my increasing unease with the way Clinton was being discussed. 4/14/08

      Clinton’s campaign is not yet cold (and, I suspect, will probably maintain a reptilian pulse in the months between now and Denver)… 6/8/08

      Learning to embrace Hillary — despite my still-real criticisms, and in part because I felt somehow thrown in her boat as soon as I cast my nearly accidental vote for her — has been an extraordinarily formative political experience. 6/8/08

      So I suspect Traister’s sudden historical revisionism started in 2010 when she began promoting her book, Big Girls Don’t Cry, allegedly cataloguing the sexist treatment of Clinton during the 2008 campaign. One can imagine that she got more attention promoting her book as a Clinton supporter rather than as “not a Hillary supporter” or “Clinton skeptic” or an accidental voter or someone who associates Clinton’s campaign with a “reptilian pulse.”

      AFTER Clinton had been removed from consideration as a candidate (I won’t say defeated bc she wasn’t), suddenly Traister had all these fabulous things to say about Clinton. Until this week, when she dipped back into her hopium stash, evidently.

  4. Fannie says:
    August 21, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    If he wins, it will be far worst than dreadful……………..and it sure as the hell won’t be historic.

  5. Minkoff Minx says:
    August 21, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    It is people like this who freak me out: Fundamentalism springs eternal for GOP – Guest Voices – The Washington Post

    This article has a picture of three women holding up signs, and the caption under it says:

    Lori Sheridan, left, Carol Helm and Naomi Kohen, all of Tulsa, Okla., stand outside of the Bartlesville Community Center in Bartlesville, Okla in December 2010. The conservative activists were protesting the Republican party’s placing the state’s struggling economy ahead of social issues such as abortion.

    Anyway, from the link:

    The threat of fracture may bode well for Rick Perry. Policy-wise, he differs little from Michele Bachmann, but where she’s typecast (inaccurately) as nothing but a raving social conservative, stalking gay rights rallies from behind Minnesota bushes, Perry presents as a triple threat. The Texas governor is a business conservative, a social conservative, and, oh yeah, a man.

    Let’s not let the rise of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann blind us to that last “qualification” – as passions ebb and tide within the social conservative movement, one commitment remains constant: “male headship,” God the father, and even, as an increasing number of homeschoolers are coming to call it – favorably – The Patriarchy. The movement’s increasingly religious economic conservatism is cast in gender terms, as a quest for the restoration of masculine dignity, a revival of breadwinning in an era of genuinely humiliating economic conditions. What do social conservatives want in 2012? Same thing they’ve always wanted. “One man, one woman,” and a passel of kids. A family, narrowly defined, daddy in charge, with maybe some gentle wisecracks about how the wife is really in control. It’s the relative modesty of that ambition that justifies the extremes of social conservatism in the public square, the Bachmanns and the Perrys who pop up every four years, each crop a little more potent than the last. The candidate who understands this passion play best will always steal the show; and maybe, this time, the nomination.

    • djmm says:
      August 22, 2011 at 1:26 pm

      If that’s what they want, they are welcome to it. They just cannot be allowed to push their choices onto others who do not share their beliefs and/or would prefer another lifestyle.

      djmm

  6. JeanLouise says:
    August 21, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    I have the same concerns about the rightwing nutjobs who are running for president as I did about Mitt Romney four years ago. No one who takes the idea of Armageddon seriously should ever have the nuclear codes. People who literally and passionately believe that Christians (or in Romney’s case, Mormons)will win that “battle” should ever hold the presidency, no matter what their denomination.

    I get so tired of people telling me that there’s no religious test for the presidency. While the Constitution does specify that, it doesn’t say that we have to vote for someone who might blow up the world out of religious conviction.

    • bostonboomer says:
      August 21, 2011 at 9:33 pm

      I seriously doubt if Romney is religious, but I still don’t want him to be President.

  7. northwestrain says:
    August 21, 2011 at 9:32 pm

    What gets me about that style of religious fundamentalism — they are demanding to get the government out of business regulations and most forms of government regulation — except when it comes to women’s bodies and women’s absolute right to control her own body. At one time young German women returning to Germany were pull of the train for a physical exam to determine if they had left the country to have an abortion. With the Boarder Crossings between so many states it wouldn’t be hard to have a room set aside to examine every woman of breeding age to determine why she left the state. It COULD happen in a Dominionist style State Government.

    The wingding religious right wing nuts will use every bit of modern technology to get their word out– they drive the latest cars with all the techno gadgets and yet these same creeps want full control over women. Even women who are not part of their cults. And the religious right will use every bit of modern science to impose their will on the female “breeders”. These same extremist want to ban birth control.

    From MM’s link above ” The conservative activists were protesting the Republican party’s placing the state’s struggling economy ahead of social issues such as abortion.” When economic times are hard — and the moms can’t feed the children they have — this is one of the biggest reasons for abortions — for the survival of the children she already has. Oh and the good ‘ole christians want to cut any aid single mothers get (to encourage them to return to their husbands).

    How are the religious wingnuts able to avoid cognitive dissonance? Could be that they tell lies and believe lies to the point that they can no longer distinguish truth from fiction.

  8. Valhalla says:
    August 21, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    I’m increasingly convinced that John Smart has called the right shot on Obama: his job now is to lose in 2012. Only by staying in the race can he box out any real Democrats from running and at the same time ensure that his masters, who will just transfer their affections to whomever wins, will get what they want.

    I realize this is all deeply cynical. Still find a great power in history that when, at the moment it was passing its peak, did not behave this way. When they can not longer take, elites grasp, manipulate, loot what they can. They set up people to facilitate this. This ought not surprise anyone. I submit to you the possibility that Obama’s prime objective in the next act, his last, is to lose. That’s his job now. In losing he assures the seemless transfer of power to the next errand boy.

    Otherwise he’d quit. Decline to run again. Collect his I’m historical cards and go home. But the Obama hologram has one more purpose; ensure no real agent of change can enter the race and win.

    The corporations and other vampire squid don’t really care whether he wins or not. If he wins, fine, 4 more years of a president they own. If he loses, they’re betting they’ll also own his competitor in any case.

    It’s like playing a rigged card game. Aside from the pure entertainment value, there’s really no point, if you’re not the player who owns the marked deck.

    The reason I really like this idea is that it explains why Obama and pals haven’t even made a P.R. effort on employment. Not that he would have done (or will do) anything substantive on jobs (rationalizing the patent laws? srsly?), but I just couldn’t figure out why he wasn’t firing up the laundry meme spin machine to try to make people think he was.

    Plus he said more than once that he’s ok being a one term president. His job in ’08 was to box out Clinton, it’s still his job now, only now it’s to also box out anyone else who might do anything for the 99.9% of we non-super-richies.

  9. ralphb says:
    August 21, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    I don’t think Obama believes it but I think he’s going to get his butt handed to him in November by some nutjob from the GOP. The best bet may be to get the least objectionable nutjob nominated to run against him.

    Just my personal opinion but, compared to Perry and Bachmann, Palin is a great candidate.

    • northwestrain says:
      August 21, 2011 at 10:22 pm

      I’m suggesting that we concentration on voting in the Republican primary — it happens to be easy to do in my state. Fact is that the Republicans in WA State really count the primary vote while the Dems hold caucuses which have been bought and paid for by 0bowma.

      Other states have different rules — some require a change of registration.

      My personal plan is to vote for the least objectionable Republican in the Primary. Beyond that — I know I will NEVER vote for 0bowma.

      All the predictors (like unemployment and lack of leadership) point to a loss for 0bama in 2012.

      Republicans often encourage their side to switch sides for one day — seems like it is time to return the favor.

      • bostonboomer says:
        August 21, 2011 at 10:27 pm

        I think I might do that too. But who is least objectionable?

      • Valhalla says:
        August 21, 2011 at 11:31 pm

        Aye, there’s the rub. Who’s the least offensive? Romney’s actually the least fundamentalist, the least tax-cut crazy, and at this point, the least creepy. But “least” doesn’t equal “not” any of those things. Plus being from Mass. I just couldn’t bring myself to vote for him. He’ll probably win the state primary anyway, so it’s not as if being an R for a Day would affect things.

        I disagree with all Palin’s political views. She’s the most interesting to me from the point of view of a candidate who refuses to be owned by the party leadership. I don’t really agree with her Marlboro Woman brand of feminism (if it is a brand — I’ll leave that open for now), but at least she acts as if women matter. None of the rest do. I doubt she’ll win but she’ll give them all a run for their money.

        But a mild analytical interest in the way Palin conducts her campaign isn’t enough to overcome how repellant her views are.

        Sigh. Maybe there’s a dark horse out there somewhere…

      • dakinikat says:
        August 21, 2011 at 11:37 pm

        Huntsmen isn’t insane even though I disagree with him on a lot. But the dark horses are the ones that aren’t insane, they’re just wrong and dull and pre-Southern Strategy Republicans. There’s not a republican I’d vote for at this point. I’ll most likely sit home unless I really feel the need to pull Mary Landrieu’s cookies out of the oven again.

      • djmm says:
        August 22, 2011 at 1:33 pm

        Unless there is a challenger for Obama in the Democratic primary, Northwestrain, that is my current plan. I will decide who is least offensive later, but it is not Perry, Bachman or (if they run) Ryan or Christie.

        djmm

    • dakinikat says:
      August 21, 2011 at 10:54 pm

      I don’t see how any one could possibly vote for Palin. She’s a 1/2 term governor with absolutely no substance on any issue. And she’s wrong on everything.

      • ralphb says:
        August 21, 2011 at 11:00 pm

        And Perry and Bachmann aren’t wrong? At least when she was in office, she governed as a moderate.

        She hasn’t even decided to run yet anyway. I sure don’t see anyone better.

        • dakinikat says:
          August 21, 2011 at 11:33 pm

          She “governed” for maybe a year before she campaigned as a VP candidate and then quit. Alaska and Wasilla don’t like her at all. She’s like the anti-Hillary. She said Rick Perry was right to talk about the FED chair that way. Her policy positions make no sense at all. She seems like a nice person but I wouldn’t trust her with the keys to my house or my car let alone any higher position. She’s the republican Obama.

      • joanelle says:
        August 22, 2011 at 7:20 am

        yes, and O was in his Fed seat for 143 days when he started running for Prez

  10. ralphb says:
    August 21, 2011 at 11:17 pm

    Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2T in Loans

    Citigroup Inc. (C) and Bank of America Corp. (BAC) were the reigning champions of finance in 2006 as home prices peaked, leading the 10 biggest U.S. banks and brokerage firms to their best year ever with $104 billion of profits.

    By 2008, the housing market’s collapse forced those companies to take more than six times as much, $669 billion, in emergency loans from the U.S. Federal Reserve. The loans dwarfed the $160 billion in public bailouts the top 10 got from the U.S. Treasury, yet until now the full amounts have remained secret.

    Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s unprecedented effort to keep the economy from plunging into depression included lending banks and other companies as much as $1.2 trillion of public money, about the same amount U.S. homeowners currently owe on 6.5 million delinquent and foreclosed mortgages.

    Shame the Fed loaned the value of all those mortgages to the banks instead of using the money to help out 6.5 million homeowners.

    • dakinikat says:
      August 21, 2011 at 11:40 pm

      The Fed can’t do anything to help homeowner’s. It’s not in their charter to deal with consumers at all except as an intermediary for the treasury on taxes, savings bonds, and treasuries. It would be illegal for them to do that. It’s the fault of Bush, Obama and the congress. It would’ve been worse if the Fed hadn’t do what it had done, but that being said, Hillary was right when she said there needed to be something like the HOLC reinstated to help home owners.

      • dakinikat says:
        August 22, 2011 at 11:33 am

        Homeowners need help

        Tens of millions of Americans are being crushed by the overhang of mortgage debt. And Congress and the White House have yet to figure out that the economy will not recover until housing recovers — and that won’t happen without a robust effort to curb foreclosures by modifying troubled mortgage loans.

        Instead of pushing the banks to do what is needed, the Obama administration has basically urged them to do their best to help, mainly by reducing interest rates for troubled borrowers. The banks haven’t done nearly enough. In many instances, they can make more from fees and charges on defaulted loans than on modifications.

        The administration needs better ideas. It can start by working with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-run mortgage companies, to aggressively reduce the principal balances on underwater loans and to make refinancing easier for underwater borrowers. If the president championed aggressive action, and Fannie and Freddie, which back most new mortgages, also made it clear to banks that they expect principal reductions, the banks would feel considerable pressure to go along.

        The housing situation is an other example of how Obama ignores policy changes that could help people.

←
→