News Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[Vanadium 50]

In 2012, voters need to evaluate whether a person with roughly 1.5 to 2 years of actual Senate service, with no experience other than as a "community organizer" or lecturer (it could be said all he's ever done is talk about doing things) is qualified, sufficient, competent, and adequate to successfully function as Chief Executive of the most powerful country on the planet?

I disagree. That was the question in 2008. I think the question for 2012 is "Are you happy with his job performance, and do you think he would do better than his opposition?"

 

[BobG]

my bold
In 2012, voters need to evaluate whether a person with roughly 1.5 to 2 years of actual Senate service, with no experience other than as a "community organizer" or lecturer (it could be said all he's ever done is talk about doing things) is qualified, sufficient, competent, and adequate to successfully function as Chief Executive of the most powerful country on the planet?

I disagree. That was the question in 2008. I think the question for 2012 is "Are you happy with his job performance, and do you think he would do better than his opposition?"

I agree with Vanadium. Voters will need to evaluate whether a person with 4 years of Presidential experience is more qualified than a person with 0 years of Presidential experience.

And if they're not happy with his job performance, the answer to that may be "No".

But that answer would be based solely on the economy. People are mostly happy with his foreign policy and performance in other areas. Kind of tough to shift the conversation to the areas where the answer to that question would be "Yes", though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When David Axelrod said this - I wonder if he was comparing President Obama's career to the Titanic - big, bold and modern - then sunk into the cold depths of history?

Obviously not and you just wanted to use the metaphor.

 

[daveb]

But that answer would be based solely on the economy. People are mostly happy with his foreign policy and performance in other areas. Kind of tough to shift the conversation to the areas where the answer to that question would be "Yes", though.

Which is odd since democratic presidents are usually trusted more with economic policy than foreign policy, and the reverse goes for republican presidents.

 

[WhoWee]

I agree with Vanadium. Voters will need to evaluate whether a person with 4 years of Presidential experience is more qualified than a person with 0 years of Presidential experience.

And if they're not happy with his job performance, the answer to that may be "No".

But that answer would be based solely on the economy. People are mostly happy with his foreign policy and performance in other areas. Kind of tough to shift the conversation to the areas where the answer to that question would be "Yes", though.

Normally, I would agree with regard to 4 years of Presidential experience - but it's not clear (to me) he's learned anything about the economy. The other problem is the cumulative effect of developing stories about Solyndra and Fast and Furious, along with the revelation the first time around the projects weren't "shovel ready".

 

[mheslep]

...
He has to make up those voters somehow. He has three choices:

• Try and get them back.
• Try and convince an equal number of voters in a different demographic to switch to him.
• Increase the base turnout to compensate.

Of these, from recent events, it looks like the campaign will concentrate on the latter.

Is that possible? ...

I agree with this analysis. I heard a pundit suggest that the administration probably also recognizes these alternatives, but may change options over time. That is, to fund raise and run a campaign Obama must court the base now, but later, say end of next summer with a well staffed fifty state campaign it then pivots right and attempts to bring back some independents. In the mean time class warfare continues to be the theme.

I expect to see a dramatic piece of legislation proposed very late in the campaign that is very popular to the left, but so late in the campaign it can't possibly be voted on before the election. A wealth tax is one possibility. Cap and trade is a third. Maybe he'll go all the way to a citizen's basic income.

Here we disagree on timing. I think we have already seen the legislation popular with the left in the form of this jobs bill that will go nowhere. Later near the general election I expect a shift to the middle.

 

[Char. Limit]

Normally, I would agree with regard to 4 years of Presidential experience - but it's not clear (to me) he's learned anything about the economy. The other problem is the cumulative effect of developing stories about Solyndra and Fast and Furious, along with the revelation the first time around the projects weren't "shovel ready".

That doesn't really matter. He still has experience in being a President. Would you say someone who doesn't do the best of jobs as a plumber for four years has no experience in being a plumber?

 

[WhoWee]

That doesn't really matter. He still has experience in being a President. Would you say someone who doesn't do the best of jobs as a plumber for four years has no experience in being a plumber?

If I knew a plumber with 4 or 40 years of experience "who doesn't do the best of jobs as a plumber" - he would not be hired to do my work.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd definitely pick a plumber who might do it wrong over a plumber I had seen do it wrong every chance he got. Heck, I've actually made similar choices before!

 

[Char. Limit]

I don't think you guys saw the point. I wasn't saying "Vote Obama!" I was saying "Yes he does have experience".

 

[BobG]

I don't think you guys saw the point. I wasn't saying "Vote Obama!" I was saying "Yes he does have experience".

Maybe so, but if the "no experience" argument worked in 2008, then surely it will work again!

Wait... it didn't actually work all that well in 2008.

That argument is even worse than desparate!

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here we disagree on timing. I think we have already seen the legislation popular with the left in the form of this jobs bill that will go nowhere. Later near the general election I expect a shift to the middle.

I don't think the shift to the middle is in the cards. We haven't seen it yet, and when it is forced upon the president by circumstances, he holds a press conference complaining about it. Also, it is very difficult in politics to quickly regain a disenchanted middle quickly, while one can quickly re-energize a disenchanted base.

Furthermore, you can't re-invigorate a base with a bill a year before the election if you can't pass it. You can if you propose it right before the election.

Suppose he proposed a Guaranteed Citizen's Income of 1.5x the poverty line. That would arguably end poverty, remove the concern about unemployment, and zero out spending for unemployment, Medicaid, and Social Security. It would cost $3T, of which $1.6T can come from the elimination of those other programs, and $1.4T on unspecified taxes on "corporations and the wealthy".

The left would eat it up, and the right won't vote for him anyway.

 

[BobG]

I don't think the shift to the middle is in the cards. We haven't seen it yet, and when it is forced upon the president by circumstances, he holds a press conference complaining about it. Also, it is very difficult in politics to quickly regain a disenchanted middle quickly, while one can quickly re-energize a disenchanted base.

You can't just announce, "Peace is at hand"? (Henry Kissinger, Oct 26, 1972)

What a strange election that was. Nixon led McGovern 62% to 38%, yet resorted to things like Watergate and "Peace is at hand" pronouncements to ensure his victory.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/9457/election-polls-vote-groups-19681972.aspx

The other strange thing? Voters with college educations usually supported the Republican candidates back then, while now college education voters seem more likely to support the Democratic candidate. (I could understand that when Bush was the Republican candidate, except Bush actually did well among college educated voters.)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111781/blacks-postgrads-young-adults-help-obama-prevail.aspx#2

 

[WhoWee]

Might we label this the "Solyndra Double Down"?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/52653377-68/energy-loan-solar-department.html.csp

"Obama administration approves two solar loans worth $1 billion"

On the other hand , this will create jobs. my bold
"SolarReserve LLC, of Santa Monica, Calif., the parent company for Tonopah, is privately held. The Energy Department said its rules prevented it from discussing the company’s financial information. Sempra Energy of San Diego, which owns Mesquite, is publicly held.

Energy Department spokesman Damien LaVera said the two projects had extensive reviews that included scrutiny of the parent companies’ finances.

Chu said the Nevada project would produce enough electricity to power more than 43,000 homes, while the Arizona project would power nearly 31,000 homes. The two projects will create about 900 construction jobs and at least 52 permanent jobs, Chu said.

"If we want to be a player in the global clean energy race, we must continue to invest in innovative technologies that enable commercial-scale deployment of clean, renewable power like solar," Chu said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is a strong supporter of the Nevada project, which he says will help his state’s economy recover. Former Gov. Jim Gibbons, a Republican, also supported the project."

 

[mheslep]

I don't think the shift to the middle is in the cards.

As you successfully argued earlier, the president must do something to turn independent voters. Otherwise he might as well hunker down in the WH signing executive orders until Jan '13.

Suppose he proposed a Guaranteed Citizen's Income of 1.5x the poverty line. That would arguably end poverty, remove the concern about unemployment, and zero out spending for unemployment, Medicaid, and Social Security.

That's effectively a guaranteed minimum wage of $16.50/hr for sitting at home which would likely triple unemployment, triple inflation, collapse exports ... so it would be a disaster for everyone. But to follow along on the math for fun...

It would cost $3T, of which $1.6T can come from the elimination of those other programs,

Yes in a fictitious static world that math works...

and $1.4T on unspecified taxes on "corporations and the wealthy".

but this does not. Again as you have frequently pointed out the money is simply not there. The only way to collect that much additional revenue annually given current GDP is to increase taxes on those earning less than $250K/year.

 

[Vanadium 50]

No, I don't think the president has to regain the independent voters, provided he replaces each one that stays home with one from the base, and each one that votes for his opponent with two from the base. It certainly would be numerically easier to try and shift to the middle, but he could adopt the same strategy Speaker Pelosi did in passing ObamaCare - don't worry about losing the 34 democrats in the center so long as you don't lose any on the left.

The beauty of a proposal like Citizen's Guaranteed Income is that it doesn't have to be practical, or even passable. It just has to drum up votes from the base. The numbers don't work, but the degree to which they don't work is comparable to other plans where the numbers don't work. That will let the talking heads gush about it on TV.

 

[DoggerDan]

I don't think you guys saw the point. I wasn't saying "Vote Obama!" I was saying "Yes he does have experience".

Finally. He doesn't seemed to have learned much or gained much common sense during his time in office, though. He's still pursing ideals rather than making decisions based upon facts.

 

[WhoWee]

The beauty of a proposal like Citizen's Guaranteed Income is that it doesn't have to be practical, or even passable. It just has to drum up votes from the base. The numbers don't work, but the degree to which they don't work is comparable to other plans where the numbers don't work. That will let the talking heads gush about it on TV.

I think the President would lose all credibility with the center if he attempts such a proposal. Worse yet, he might lose the unions - when they calculate the tax increases required in the $40K+ income range to pay for such a plan. Do you recall the push-back about taxing the "Cadillac" health plans enjoyed by unions?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think the President would lose all credibility with the center if he attempts such a proposal.

That ship may have already sailed. Did you see the latest polls? Only 22% of people say they approve of the GOP leadership, and the president is still running neck and neck in the polls against "unnamed republican".

 

[WhoWee]

I like what Newt is doing - wider brush strokes for now - the specific details will be posted a month or 2 before the 2012 election.
http://www.latimes.com/health/healthcare/la-na-0930-gingrich-20110930,0,3829718.story

"Gingrich presents another 'Contract with America'
The Republican presidential hopeful unveils a set of policy proposals, much like he did in 1994. His plan addresses healthcare, taxes and the border, among other issues."

When asked for a few specifics - Newt said he would fire all of the "czars" and re-work healthcare reform through formal Congressional process and in the open - with all hearings televised this time.

 

[WhoWee]

I received 3 invitations to contribute to the re-election campaign today - Michelle, Barack, and Joe Biden emails. Apparently there is a deadline of some type this evening? At least Michelle and Barack are offering a dinner - Joe just wants me to send cash (same as the guy yesterday and the day before, and the day before that). I really do love America!

 

[WhoWee]

Is it possible to raise $1Billion in election funds and still be the underdog?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pres...erdog-2012-race-white-house/story?id=14656286

"Calling himself an "underdog," President Obama today said the faltering economy is a drag on his presidency and seriously impairing his chances of winning again in 2012.

"Absolutely," he said in response to a question from ABC News' George Stephanopoulos about whether the odds were against him come November 2012, given the economy. "I'm used to being the underdog. But at the end of the day people are going to ask -- who's got a vision?"

The American people, he conceded, are "not better off" than they were four years ago.

"The unemployment rate is way too high," he said of the 9 percent jobless rate, the highest in more than half a century.

Obama said his proposed American Jobs Act will put construction workers, teachers and veterans to work and give "more consumers more confidence.""

*******************
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...bout-the-money/2011/04/04/AFflkfcC_story.html

Apparently, the $1Billion isn't enough unless the base is motivated to hit the streets?

 

[WhoWee]

The time frame for investigating Attorney General Eric Holder of perjury charges (in front of Congress) could not be worse for President Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/eric-holder-investigation_n_994429.html

"House Republicans have asked the White House to appoint a special counsel to determine whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied during his testimony about a botched gun-trafficking operation, Fox News reports.

Documents obtained by CBS News show that Holder knew about the operation, dubbed "Operation Fast And Furious," as early as July 2010, which would contradict his testimony in May of this year, during which he said, "I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."

A Justice Department official told The Huffington Post that the attorney general "has consistently said he became aware of the questionable tactics in early 2011 when ATF agents first raised them publicly, and then promptly asked the IG to investigate the matter.""


I find this very strange. Is it even possible that Holder didn't bother to open the file - to see what went across his desk (and when) - prior to testifying (on the subject) in front of Congress? Why would the Attorney General testify unprepared in front of Congress?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Sure it could have come at a worse time. The election is 13 months away.

 

[WhoWee]

Sure it could have come at a worse time. The election is 13 months away.

An investigation of this type might require 13 months.

 

[Vanadium 50]

By that time, people will have forgotten all about it.

 

[WhoWee]

By that time, people will have forgotten all about it.

Not if it results in perjury charges against the Attorney General - an agent was killed with one of these weapons.

 

[WhoWee]

President Obama mentioned the other scandal in his news conference.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/white-house-donor-george-kaiser-lobby-solyndra/story?id=14676071

"President Obama said Thursday that his administration has loaned billions to start-up high tech firms like the now-bankrupt solar firm Solyndra based not on political influence, but "on the merits."

"I have confidence decisions were made based upon what's good for the American people," Obama said in a press conference Thursday in response to questions from ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper. "There were going to be some companies that did not work out. Solyndra was one of them."

The president addressed multiple questions Thursday about Solyndra, the first recipient of a government loan under a program to help finance start-up companies in the fledgling field of green energy. Solyndra declared bankruptcy last month, locking out 1,100 workers. The Energy Department loan is now the focus of investigations by Congress and by the Department of Justice.

"All I can say is the Department of Energy made these decisions based on their best judgments," Obama said, defending the decision to make Solyndra the country's first loan guarantee recipient."

President Obama may regret the words "on the merits" and "decisions were made based upon what's good for the American people". Perhaps future loans exceeding a half billion dollars should be evaluated on the company's ability to repay - not on the "merits"?

 

[WhoWee]

I visited the Department of Labor website today - to gather the latest jobs report (unemployment 9.1%) - and found this.
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/opa/OPA20111474.htm

"Statement by Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis on September employment numbers"

""In September, we saw 34,000 local government workers lose their jobs, including 24,000 teachers and other education professionals. The American Jobs Act will stop these losses and give municipalities the support they need to put our educators back in the classroom. Giving our youth a first-class education is critical to our long-term success in the global economy.
"Independent forecasters estimate that the American Jobs Act will create as many as 1.9 million jobs and increase economic growth by as much as two percentage points, if enacted. That's more than 150,000 additional jobs a month. It's crucial that this bill gets an up-or-down vote in both the House and Senate. If leaders in Congress refuse to put the bill to a vote, respected forecasters believe we will see lackluster GDP and job growth in 2012. Inaction is not a responsible option for any lawmaker who is serious about putting this country back to work.""

While it may be acceptable for her to comment on political issues - I think she should be held fully accountable (along with the President) for definitive statements.

 

[WhoWee]

I thought President Obama wanted to help US Green Energy firms compete in the global market? Shouldn't the companies receiving loan assistance - especially $1.2 Billion in loan assistance - be owned by US companies and citizens? my bold

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/10/12/dept-energys-sunpower-loan-guarantee-under-fire/

"Here’s why people should be upset at yet another Department of Energy guaranteed loan to a solar company:

The company, SunPower, got a conditional guarantee for a $1.2 billion loan from the Energy Dept. back in the spring, according to the DOE's website.But this company was getting financing in the capital markets. Why hit up taxpayers to get backstops on loans?
And soon after the project run by SunPower got this loan guarantee, SunPower sold a big stake in itself, an estimated $1.3 billion, to French energy giant Total, at a 46% premium to its shares at the time

Total also gave it a $1 billion credit line, according to the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Total deal, along with the loan guarantee, helped SunPower's stock rise.

A SunPower spokesman confirmed all this, but said the company is in a quiet period in advance of its next quarterly profit report, due out in early November. The Department of Energy did not return calls for comment, but its press statement on this loan guarantee says it conducted "months of rigorous technical, financial and legal due diligence" on this project so it met "the requirements of the program -- helping America win the clean energy race and create new industries for American workers." "

There's more

"This project will only create 15 new, permanent jobs, according to the DOE website. If it fails, that would come at a cost of more than $80 million in taxpayer money for each of those jobs. "