Of course she would have been elected.




No he really isn't. Sorry. Leaders get shit done. He gives nice speeches. Hillary would have had health care passed in the summer.






No. Hillary would have passed it while the mandate was still fresh. For whatever reason Obama totally pissed that away.

(Respectively)

You're full of shit and completely wrong. I'll google some evidence in a bit, but since you didn't bother to bring 'back-up', neither did I.

Montana's not alone in foolishness. This has to be the most naive thing I've read in ages. We're more mature, because 40 years have gone by? Leaving aside that it's more like 20, where do you see evidence that we are not still exactly the same spoiled, entitled children we've been since the end of WW2?

Recycling programs? Do you really think if most municipal recycling programs weren't curbside more than a handful of us would even bother learning where to drop off our stuff, let alone do it on an even semi-regular basis?

All I see in Bush's admission is a canny bit of political cynicism in which a moment of seeming candor replaced any real impetus to change.

I suppose I ought to salute your undying optimism, but I just think we're screwed.

I love Dean Baker; he gets the wonky stuff, but understands when the wonky stuff is bullshit sophistry, and he calls it out without worrying about hurting his buddies' feelings.

In other words, he makes just enough sense to be marginalized by the major parties.

Schumer-Hatch: Money for Nothing

By Dean Baker - February 12, 2010, 5:38PM
It's great that the Senate is prepared to do something to help create jobs. Unfortunately, its most likely course of action, the Schumer-Hatch tax credit will probably create almost no jobs.

The basic deal with Schumer-Hatch is provide a tax credit equal to the 6.2 percent employer side of the Social Security tax. This credit would last for the rest of 2010. If the employee is kept on the payroll for a year, then the employer gets an additional $1,000. Only workers who have been unemployed for at least 60 days are eligible for the credit.

There are two basic problems with the credit. First, there are more than 4 million workers hired every month already. A firm could get the credit for any hires among these 4 million who has been unemployed for 60 days, even if they would have hired the person anyhow. This is a lot of money for nothing.

The second problem is that the credit is far too small to provide any significant incentive to hiring. We know from a vast body of research on the minimum wage that employment is not responsive to moderate changes in the cost of the labor. This is why a a 15-20 percent increase in the minimum wage does not lead to any measurable impact on employment.

If a 15-20 percent rise in the cost of labor does not reduce employment, then no one can believe that a 6.2 percent decline in the cost of labor (only for the rest of 2010) would increase employment. In other words, there is little reason to believe that the Schumer-Hatch tax credit would create any noticeable number of jobs. It truly is money for nothing.

We can boost jobs with the right tax credits. Germany and the Netherlands have managed to keep their unemployment rate from rising in this downturn by promoting work-sharing. They give firms tax credits to keep workers employed at shorter hours rather than laying them off. In Germany and the Netherlands workers are experiencing this downturn as longer vacations and shorter workweeks.

We could do that here if we weren't determined to waste money. (Work-sharing is even good for the environment -- if we could ever get the environmentalists to think about the environment.) Anyhow, for now it looks we have to throw out money in the garbage with Schumer-Hatch. Where are the deficit hawks when we need them?

i agree with the first paragraph, but have no reason to believe the second part is accurate. hillary changed her approach to health care significantly since back in the day (toward more compromise). i think it's quite possible she would've followed a similar path to that of obama

Ridiculous. The "mandate" of the people was change from Bush and anti-Republican sentiment in general. They got what they wanted. The specifics of what Obama was proposing - which were few and far between in his MLK-type speeches - didn't really matter. And yes, for the same reasons, I think Hillary would have been elected, too, but by a far slimmer margin (since it would have been far easier to run an anti-Hillary campaign than anti-Obama). People wanted NOT BUSH and they were drawn to the historical significance of Obama's election. They didn't necessarily want his politics.

That said, what the people wanted really doesn't matter when you've been elected and have air-tight control of Congress, as well. I think the Carter comparison is apt. I'm not for many of the changes Obama wanted to make, but the fact that he has struggled to get much accomplished in his first year and may be running out of opportunities depending on the 2010 elections shows that he's not quite the shrewd politician everyone made him out to be.

???

I have no idea what your point is.

The man is a fantastic orator. Am I putting him down by comparing him to MLK?

Did the Democrats not have a filibuster-proof majority when he took office?

And I don't mind being accused of naivete, because I'm actually pretty damn cynical about this country, Obama, or not.

America is still a crying, spoiled brat, and basically in our terrible "twos" compared to a lot of the world, particualarly Europe, "...where the history comes from".

Recycling, and the fact that more people seem be saying and/or doing something to reduce their carbon footprint, one way or another-- seemed like the easiest thing to point to, and say, "look, we've changed!" Baby-step, though it may be.

Again, I dont' really mind the Carter comparison, because as "lame" as he might have been, he was a peace trail-blazer in the Middle East, and he was the first president that wasn't afraid to tell Americans that the status quo wasn't good enough.

D'ya ever watch any of his old speeches? Guy had a lot more balls than he gets credit for. (Yeah, I know-- the helicopter crashed, blah blah blah)

They did not. At that point in time, the split was 57-41-2. If you want to count the two independents as "Democrats" then... I'll let you do the math.

I bet he was :huh:ing at your "air-tight" assertion. Obviously not the case, even in the now-past era of "60 Democrat seats".

PH and I seldom agree on anything. I'm pleased that we do here, but that isn't why I'm so convinced my point is valid. I think a lot of people on "my side" of the aisle have entered a state of deep denial. It's time to face facts, however: the Obama administration has lost control of the narrative. The narrative which prevails now is Obama's failure to lead. To ascribe all of that to fair-weather friends or unrealistic expectations is the equivalent of clapping one's hand over one's ears and screaming out the words to the Star Spangled Banner.

Obama had a Democratic congress and a supermajority in the senate, and yet Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman derailed heath reform on their own - sacrificing the will and desire of millions to their own agendas. In that scenario, a leader steps up and calls them out in public. A leader looks at the situation, acknowledges what isn't working in his game plan and adjusts. Obama continues to plead for bipartisanship, seemingly oblivious that his pleas not only fall on deaf ears but worse, look like weakness. Mixing my metaphors even more, there's blood in the water and the sharks are circling closer and closer.

And that's the nut. Obama had a window of opportunity to accomplish what he wanted, but rather than jump through he clung to his dream of bipartisan cooperation - even as it became increasingly clear that dream was nothing more than a masturbatory delusion. As things stand now, there is no reason for anyone, in either party, to cooperate with each other or Obama. Democrats face the daunting reality that they're going to have to spin like crazy to retain their seats come November. I predict we'll see a record number of them specifically request that Obama stay far, far away from their reelection bids. If that comes true, the Obama presidency will be finished. And it already may be.

Boy, you're ready to throw the pitcher out, even when there's still 6 strikes to go?

Hey, I'm disappointed too, and yes, I'm worried, but I still say it's way too early in this game to call it. You do make a good point about November though. If the GOP gets a smattering of wins, then I dont' know how the fuck Obama is going to ever get the bi-partisanship he's dreaming of.

I devoutly hope you're right. But I don't think you are.

Obama at evens on Betfair to win in 2012 is pretty much free money as far as I'm concerned.

1. the clear implication of your comment about the MLK type speeches was that they were not specific and as a result not practical or even useful... plus it's interesting that you go back to the most famous black guy to compare him to.
2. yeah, the air tight thing, even if there had been 60 dems at the time (there weren't), is ridiculous. Dems have always been the "large tent" party with plenty of DINO's around to cut back the usefulness of having a majority. Republicans have always been much more cohesive in their voting.
3. The whole mandate thing drives me crazy. Obama won. He became President. He should have taken advantage of his popularity to get something done. I mean, in 2004, Bush supposedly had some sort of "mandate" that helped him get things done, and his victory was much smaller than Obama's. It is always tough to put thoughts into voters' minds when the only choice they have are names in the voting booth, generally just option A or option B, and possibly protest vote option C. One could argue based on your theory Reagan had no "mandate" in 1980 because the people just didn't want 4 more years of Carter, they'd have voted for anyone to get rid of Carter.

So Mitchell, you think Obama's gonna win reelection? I tend to agree.

1. I said way back during the campaign that Obama's speeches were short on substance and mostly non-specific, feel-good crap (Yes We Can!). As far as the comparison to MLK, that was meant as a compliment to both Obama and MLK, without regard to race. Of course, yet another example of a lefty looking for issues of race where none exist. MLK was an incredible orator, not an incredible black orator, right? I apologize for the fact that two great speakers just happen to be black.

2. Obama had his super-majority and didn't keep it together. That's the bottom line. That's his failing as a politician. You can downplay/hindsight it all you want, but go back a year and read the threads about how this should be a slam dunk for the Dems to do whatever they want. The only question was whether they had the balls to do it (as I recall, Montana was all over the idea that they didn't). And again, that's Obama's failure for not being able to unite his party to take advantage. You can say it's just a Dem thing, but if you guys can't govern effectively when there are no impediments to take the country in the direction you want to take it, then why does this party even exist? To be the perpetual watchdog for when the Republicans have control? Enjoy that, I guess. I don't support their agenda and I don't think a majority of Americans do, either, but they earned the right to dictate the course and they blew it.

3. I agree. I think a mandate would come from one or two specific issues being at the forefront of a campaign, followed by broad public support for the winning candidate's proposed solution into the next year. I don't see that with any of Obama's proposals. EVERYONE agrees that health care reform is necessary. I don't see that as a mandate for HIS specific health care proposal, for instance. But more than that, given the last 8 years, the war, the economy, Bush's popularity, and the feel-good story of Obama (and I mean that sincerely, I was proud that we elected a black President, even if I didn't agree with him), it seems obvious to me that many people just wanted someone different. They didn't vote for Obama because they wanted national health care. But he still had that power well within his grasp, and he let it slip away.

I know he doesn't exactly have the best polling numbers right now but the GOP is unelectable at this moment, wing-nuts are only going to take votes away from the GOP, not from Obama.

I think we agree more than we disagree here. I just found some of your word choices a tad odd. Yeah, I knew you'd fall back on the "lefties see race everywhere" comment, but I still felt it was an interesting shorthand you used. Odd place in your argument for what you claimed to be a compliment. I'm not buying it.


Anyway, yeah, the Dems suck. They have too big a tent and no balls (as Montana might say). Republicans have always been much better at pushing thru legislation when they could regardless of the numbers they had on their side.

Yet somehow, the REpublicans have done a better job at convincing the media that Obama was "pushing thru" legislation merely by forcing votes or reconciliation (silly).

I totally agree that Obama's decision to try to be less partisan has bitten him in the ass in terms of costing him the good will he had to push thru what he wanted initially.

In effect he squandered his MANDATE. There's that word again. And yeah, I guess it's the right word for the concept I'm trying to communicate.

the dems are only a little better than 2-1 favorites to keep their senate majority come november. so there's very little chance they'll maintain the numbers they have now. the republicans are projected to be go up to 48-49 senators

in the house the republicans are expected to gain around 35 seats, which gives them at this stage an even better chance to wrest control than they have in the senate

of course, it won't make much of a difference anyway if the dems can't find a way to govern with the majority. hopefully we'll at least get filibuster reform out of all this

obama at 58% to win second term on intrade right now. seems a lot more reasonable than mitch's site. i'd even take him at 58% if i had to bet

rahm is expected to depart as chief of staff before the first term is over as well. and probably significant other shakeup as well

i give the obama admin about a C in their first year

I guess I don't get what slight to Obama and/or MLK you think I was communicating here. MLK was not a politician, therefore he didn't have to focus on anything but general, human condition-type points in his speeches. That's the comparison I was making between the two. Obama's speeches, as great as they were (and there's the comparison to another great speaker), were flowery, non-substantive (or less so than a typical politician) lectures about utopia and what we can accomplish if we really try hard. Yes, he sprinkled in policy stuff, but they were so vague that they were really just stepping-off points for his flowery, pie-in-the-sky speeches. Very similar to another great but non-political speaker, MLK (who obviously had no reason to bring specific policy issues into his speeches). Again, I apologize for being a white man making a point that happens to involve two black men. If I'm trying to be racist here, I've gone over my own head with it.

It's actually 2.08 at the moment. With Democrats 1.67 to win in 2012 and Obama 1.11 to be the nominee. Certainly a little bit of money could be made from those three.

I don't think you were trying to be racist. I suppose what you say makes sense. I just found that sentence to be an obvious dig at Obama and the MLK-type speeches was the shorthand term for why his speeches weren't helpful. I think it's natural to associate Obama with MLK as well. I'm sure Obama was inspired and influenced by MLK. The issue was that it seemed a negative association the way you phrased it.

Anyway, I guess I also just disagree with your premise that his speeches were any less specific than most politicians. Maybe the part that was most inspiring was not specific, but how inspiring is talking about numbers and passing laws. The inspiring part is ALWAYS the part that relates to the impact on people.

I defy you to show me similar CAMPAIGN speeches by other candidates that manage to inspire and be more specific than Obama's.

I'm probably too much of a cynic to be able to find any campaign speeches that really inspire. Anyway, I didn't really mean for it to be taken as a dig, just an acknowledgement that MLK, as a non-politician, wasn't attempting to bring politics/policy into his speeches. But I know we disagree about Obama's speeches. At least we agree that the Dems suck!

umm, obama was pretty damn wonky as a candidate. sure, his big speeches were heavier on the inspirational (naturally), but his regular campaign stops were full of policy detail -- especially w/r/t health care reform. honestly, this whole "obama is a great orator, but doesn't bring the details," or whatever, is such a GOP talking point eye roll. did you watch that recent Q&A he had w/ the GOP caucus? there was no lectern he was "reading" from, & yet he still managed to make the entire room look unprepared, unprofessional, and frankly, out of their league. & of course, that's why the republicans are now so scared & confused about what to do with the upcoming health care summit. they know, with cameras watching, that they'll look silly -- again.

Eh, I paid attention during the campaign and came away with the impression he cared more about impressing voters by sounding like a great speaker than trying to be a politician with specific plans and getting their buy-in that way. As far as now, I would hope as President he would be even more focused on policy than during a campaign, that just stands to reason.

health care reform is not unpopular & neither was the public option, fwiw. as to the rest of yr post, it's a mess of talking points, insult & insinuation, not really gonna take the time to go thru it w/ you.

That's basically it. Anyone scraming bloody murder about the Extreme Leftist Socialist Obama Agenda should take a serious look at how much "worse" things would be if Obama were actually a liberal, much less a socialist.

the media certainly latched onto that narrative, because, yeah, all his big speeches were big, inspirational things. plus they don't really like to cover policy all to closely, rather they prefer large & easy narratives & horse race stuff. but if you paid attention to his smaller policy-oriented speeches -- that he gave throughout the entire campaign -- you would know he knew his stuff. even the debates, where obama was supposed to be at a disadvantage because it wasn't a speech format, he came out ahead pretty much every time. so to with the town hall meetings, wherein he took apart mccain, even though that was mccain's supposed strong suit. hell the joe the plumber 'incident' even showed obama pulling out the policy chops.

i mean, do you really think obama just learned all this stuff post election day?

You're confusing what I think he knew/knows with how he ran his campaign. I'm not saying he's stupid. On the contrary, he ran a very smart campaign and is obviously a brilliant guy. But he also set himself up for unrealistic expectations from just about anyone who voted for him. I've been saying all along, he ran a perfect campaign to get elected, but a poor campaign to get re-elected.

That's not to say he won't get re-elected, because I agree with Mitchell that the Republicans still seem hell-bent on propping up unelectable candidates. The Tea Party crap and the fact that the only real visible conservative leaders still seem to be the O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Palin types, gives me very little hope that they will have a candidate I will want to vote for, much less one that can beat Obama. But compared to early 2009 when it felt like 8 years of Obama was a given, the fact that we're even discussing the possibility that if the Republicans get their crap together he could be in trouble, tells you all you need to know about his first year struggles.

gotcha. i likely disagree w/ some of the specifics (i.e. what his first year struggles were, how unrealistic his expectations were, etc.), but as an outline this seems pretty reasonable.

assuming no meaningful reform takes place this year it will be in large part because the health care industry purchased an extension on the status quo (and also the 60 vote threshold in the senate, scott brown, politics over policy, etc.)

Obama has had next to no ability to sell policy--he's leaned so far on the wonkiness that he's bled every ounce of emotion out of the fight for human health care. Seriously, if you can't sell health (and lowering the cost of health care), you're kind of fucked.

I can tell you right now what will happen in 2012, The GOP will pick a nominee that they want to vote for, to hell with the centre ground they'll run on the basis they weren't right wing enough in 2008. It's what the Conservatives did here in 2001 and to an extent in 2005 as they simply couldn't cope with Blair's cult of personality. Blair was electorial dynamite for Labour, millions of people voted for him, not his party. This year many of them won't vote for Brown, some will go elsewhere others won't vote. It's also worth noting though with the Tea Party stuff if the GOP aren't right wing enough, they might lose voters to the further right and the centre. Gives Obama an open goal.

What?! Then what happens? Or do I have to wait for the next installment?

The American public doesn't want to hear policy details in speeches. They want sound bites and slogans. Anytime Obama goes into details people complain he's lecturing or being to professoral. If people wanted details C-Span would have higher ratings.

I think Obama's biggest problem is that he's trying to be mature and adult and above the fray but sometimes to have to get down there and smakc a few heads and go off. The Republicans made it clear on day 1 they had no intention of being bipartisian and working with the Democrats. Obama and the Dems should have just said OK and gotten the stuff done that NEEDED to be done. Now time has passed and a lot of the things that Obama wanted to pass have not.

CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...rve-reelection-


52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.


44 percent of all Americans said they would vote to reelect the president in two and a half years, less than the slight majority who said they would prefer to elect someone else.

Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.

http://mccain2012.com/
http://romney2012.com
http://tancredo2012.com
http://gingrich2012.com/
http://reagan2012.com/
http://ronpaul2012.com/
https://sales.intrustdomainsonline.com/stor...r/palin2012.com

I didn't check, but I'm sure various iterations of rudygiulliani2012.com are available as well.

Come up with someone who can beat Obama, and you can beat him. It's as simple as that.

www.richardnixoncorpse2012.com

Hey man, how'd that civil service job work out for you?

It didn't, they only hire fat people

approximate chance of nomination as of today:

field 24%
romney 24%
palin 22%
thune 13%
pawlenty 9%
huckabee 8%

i like obama's chances

This is one of the most useless polls I've ever seen. 'someone else' isn't standing in 2012. It'll be a person that people will have an opinion on, not a made up Not Obama option.

If this young male exists and he wants to win in 2016 he will have to play from the Obama sheet. GOP will only win again by appealing to the voters they've lost to the centre, solidifying base won't help them.

Well yes, all this talk is not considering a black swan event.

Reagan was fairly unpopular in early 1982, by the way.

You have not been paying attention to the narrative.
Obama is not Reagan. Obama is Carter!

The sky is falling!

^ ha

Obama has finally released what he wants in the health care bill.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting

I'm disapointed there is no public option. Otherwise at first glance, it looks like it is a good start.