Anyone who voted for Obama in '08 not voting for him in '12?

[Agent Foxtrot]

I know this thread is a bit premature, but has anyone here voted for Obama last time and thinking of voting for someone else next year? Why?

[Chronos]

It should be noted that your post and your title actually ask different questions: He could lose votes by people choosing to vote for someone else, or he could also lose votes by people just staying home. The former would hurt him more, of course, but the latter is probably a lot more likely.

But don't mind me; I don't expect to fall into either of those categories.

[Inner Stickler]

The issues that he has disappointed me on are not standard bearers for the republican party. So unless the democrats have a super secret hidden candidate somewhere...

[Kolak of Twilo]

Given that the Republicans seem to be recruiting candidates almost exclusively in Crazytown & Dullsville I have to agree with Chronos that most votes he is likely to lose will be from people who simply stay at home.


I can't imagine a scenario where an Obama voter would go with anyone the Republicans appear likely to come up with but I suppose I could be wrong.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

I can't imagine a scenario where an Obama voter would go with anyone the Republicans appear likely to come up with but I suppose I could be wrong.

I voted for Obama because I despised what the Republicans had been doing under Bush; I just wanted the whole thing to stop, or at least slow down. Obama and the Democrats didn't just stop; they started doing stuff I also despised. And so I'll be voting to stop them, hoping again for purely negative results.

[Rhythmdvl]

Given that the Republicans seem to be recruiting candidates almost exclusively in Crazytown & Dullsville I have to agree with Chronos that most votes he is likely to lose will be from people who simply stay at home.


I can't imagine a scenario where an Obama voter would go with anyone the Republicans appear likely to come up with but I suppose I could be wrong.

This is why the modern Republican party and media machine depresses me. I wish there was a larger movement that supported reasoned and rational conservative principles. Instead, the messages from Beck et al drive the party's platform and we're currently looking at the Trumps, Bachmanns and Palins as possible candidates. Even if they don't run, they have a major influence on the overall agenda. That is, the current party seems more inclined towards the party of NO! than a party with ideas and principles to put forward.

Further depressing is that this is not limited to the GOP.

If there were a viable alternative I would consider switching. It's hard to tell, though, how much of Obama's actions (e.g., keeping military trials) are the result of political pragmatism responding to the media machine or if he never was serious about certain issues.

[Skammer]

I'll be voting to stop them, hoping again for purely negative results. In that case you're pretty much guaranteed to get negative results:D.

I can imagine a right-leaning Democrat or Independent who voted for Obama in 2008 being won over by a moderate, conciliatory Republican candidate. However I can't see the GOP actually nominating such a candidate so I doubt that will be an issue. I've been disappointed with some of Obama's compromises but certainly not because I think the Republicans ideas have been better.

[CaveMike]

The issues that he has disappointed me on are not standard bearers for the republican party. So unless the democrats have a super secret hidden candidate somewhere...Yes? You'll do what? Vote for him? Vote 3rd-party? Not vote at all?

[appleciders]

In that case you're pretty much guaranteed to get negative results:D.

I can imagine a right-leaning Democrat or Independent who voted for Obama in 2008 being won over by a moderate, conciliatory Republican candidate. However I can't see the GOP actually nominating such a candidate so I doubt that will be an issue.

Why? In 2008 the Republican primaries handily nominated the most centrist, moderate candidate. It was hardly a contest after Super Tuesday, not a close race like the Democratic primary. Granted, it's not clear now who that person will be, but given that so few Republicans are officially running, who knows? The Republican base steered clear of the nuttiest candidates in 2008, so they might do so again.

[CaveMike]

Why? In 2008 the Republican primaries handily nominated the most centrist, moderate candidate. It was hardly a contest after Super Tuesday, not a close race like the Democratic primary. Granted, it's not clear now who that person will be, but given that so few Republicans are officially running, who knows? The Republican base steered clear of the nuttiest candidates in 2008, so they might do so again.McCain might have started out the most centrist, but he moved away from center in his campaign in order to shore up his support from that base. The addition of Palin had the effect of moving his message even more right.

[appleciders]

Yes, he did move further to the right, but he still didn't reach the level of Huckabee or Romney, and especially not as far as Ron Paul (though Ron Paul's off in a whole 'nother direction). McCain also moved furthest to the right in the general election as he tried to fire up religious conservatives-- he was most moderate in the primary, which is what we're talking about.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

I can imagine a right-leaning Democrat or Independent who voted for Obama in 2008 being won over by a moderate, conciliatory Republican candidate. However I can't see the GOP actually nominating such a candidate so I doubt that will be an issue. I've been disappointed with some of Obama's compromises but certainly not because I think the Republicans ideas have been better.

Again, though, I'd generally like a do-nothing White House that's routinely frustrated by a gridlocked Congress -- by which I mean a House of Representatives that (a) doesn't want to do much in its own right, and (b) can't usually see eye-to-eye with the Senate on those rare occasions when said Senate isn't busy filibustering itself. So how should I vote in 2012, if I want the party that's less likely to get stuff done: invading yet more countries, pushing yet more bold new policies, bailing out yet more industries, all of it?

These are the reasons why I went for Obama and the Democrats in 2008; they're the exact same reasons I'm strongly leaning GOP in 2012.

[gonzomax]

Again, though, I'd generally like a do-nothing White House that's routinely frustrated by a gridlocked Congress -- by which I mean a House of Representatives that (a) doesn't want to do much in its own right, and (b) can't usually see eye-to-eye with the Senate on those rare occasions when said Senate isn't busy filibustering itself. So how should I vote in 2012, if I want the party that's less likely to get stuff done: invading yet more countries, pushing yet more bold new policies, bailing out yet more industries, all of it?

These are the reasons why I went for Obama and the Democrats in 2008; they're the exact same reasons I'm strongly leaning GOP in 2012.

Sure. the Repubs love to crank up the deb and give money to the super rich,, why should they be denied another chance to sink the economy.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Sure. the Repubs love to crank up the deb and give money to the super rich,, why should they be denied another chance to sink the economy.

Sure, the Dems have been cranking up the debt likewise since Obama took office. Why deny them a chance to keep doing it?

Near as I can tell, both sides enjoy spending like drunken sailors on stuff I disapprove of; lacking a realistic third option, I can but apply "throw the bums out" each time either disappoints me.

[gonzomax]

Sure, the Dems have been cranking up the debt likewise since Obama took office. Why deny them a chance to keep doing it?

Near as I can tell, both sides enjoy spending like drunken sailors on stuff I disapprove of; lacking a realistic third option, I can but apply "throw the bums out" each time either disappoints me.

The debt has a result of trying to keep the economy from blowing up after Bush's disastrous policies. TARP was installed by Bush, who was the president before Obama. The tax cuts were done by Bush. The unfunded wars, by guess who. All this by the previous occupier of the white house.
The Dems are far more fiscally responsible than the Repubs. That has been demonstrated for decades. If you do not follow politics and the economy more closely, you should investigate before coming to a decision. That one is wrong.

[F. U. Shakespeare]

I'm disappointed in the spending levels of the Obama administrations so far, although I realize that it was a tough decision whether to spend more temporarily to improve the disastrous economy they inherited.

I also wish they had waited until the economy was in a little better shape before attempting health care reform, and I'm not entirely happy with the reform they've enacted.

Otherwise, I have no really big complaints.

I don't have much more confidence in the Republicans to rein in the deficit - it's not like they haven't had the chance.

If the Republicans would nominate someone serious about deficit reduction who wasn't way to the right on social issues, I could see voting for them. Someone like Mitch Daniels. (But the electorate being as rational as it is, he can't be president because he's short and bald.)

Otherwise I'm probably voting for Obama again.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

The thing that bothers me the most is the cases where both major parties have the same position. Want to really get out of Afghanistan and Iraq? Too bad, neither party will do it. Obama seems siezed by a sudden scerosis whenever the subject of serious cuts to defense comes up (Eisenhower cut defense by 26%; Obama I don't think is proposing even 5% cuts). We have over 700 military bases around the world. We can't let even one of those go- really? And apparently Obama meant we had to elect him twice to end the Bush tax cuts for the rich, with no mention at all of taking things further than that.

Don't get me wrong, I do find a lot to like about Obama. But the choices seem to be between 'utterly stupid' and 'not really what you want'. If a candidate came along with a serious hard-on for cutting defense and wasn't otherwise crazy, I'd vote for them instantly. But in 2012 it seems we have only the sad choice of voting for not destroying the country, and no choice to vote what we really want. The action seems to be in 2016, though I am pessimistic about that too.

[sitchensis]

I would have probably gone repub in the next election until they started trying to save their rich asses by turning the poor against the middle class with all the union busting bullshit. I just don’t get what they are trying to do with that, if they would have hung back and just criticized everything the Dems were doing they probably could have won some support. Now a vote for the republicans is going to be taken as support of those stupid policies.

[River Hippie]

I have been disappointed in Obama's presidency in many ways but have come to admire his tenacity in standing up to the buzzsaw of criticism and contempt from the right. I would vote for a Republican candidate that I felt would stand up for what I believe in but that seems unlikely. Any Republican that has thus far shown an interest would be worse than Obama by my principles. If there was a challenge from a Democrat, I would be eager to find out more and would be open to voting for them.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

The debt has a result of trying to keep the economy from blowing up after Bush's disastrous policies. TARP was installed by Bush, who was the president before Obama.

Obama voted for TARP, right?

The tax cuts were done by Bush. The unfunded wars, by guess who. All this by the previous occupier of the white house.

And that's why I voted Dem in '08. McCain campaigned in favor of the wars Obama campaigned against; I would've voted for a ham sandwich over McCain; I also would've preferred that ham sandwich over Obama, but I preferred Obama over McCain, and still do.

The Dems are far more fiscally responsible than the Repubs. That has been demonstrated for decades. If you do not follow politics and the economy more closely, you should investigate before coming to a decision. That one is wrong.

What do I care about the Dems of decades past? I've voted for Dems in those decades past. Obama currently does wretched stuff sure as Bush did wretched stuff, and so I expect to vote against him -- unless his challenger stakes out an even more wretched position. (And I expect his challenger will be forced into Tea-Party-friendly talk about lower spending and limited government, so that seems unlikely.)

[Chronos]

I also wish they had waited until the economy was in a little better shape before attempting health care reform,I keep seeing people saying this... But a large part of our economic trouble is precisely the fact that our health coverage system is out of control. Any fix to the economy must necessarily include health care reform, and probably considerably more of it than what we got.

[pkbites]

He could lose votes by people choosing to vote for someone else, or he could also lose votes by people just staying home. The former would hurt him more, of course, but the latter is probably a lot more likely.


I contend that the outcome is equal in both cases: A Republican win.

You have to look at this electorally:

Obama will not have an easy time holding on to some of the swing states he won last time. I'm interested in how he expects to rewin the States he won by a whisker in '08 (Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina) that are historically strong Republican states.

Unless the economy improves drastically I believe Obama is going to have a tough time getting reelected in 2012. Even with a weak Republican candidate, even with a nut-job Republican candidate. I think many of you have way too much confidence in his reelection.

[appleciders]

I contend that the outcome is equal in both cases: A Republican win.

You have to look at this electorally:

Obama will not have an easy time holding on to some of the swing states he won last time. I'm interested in how he expects to rewin the States he won by a whisker in '08 (Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina) that are historically strong Republican states.

Unless the economy improves drastically I believe Obama is going to have a tough time getting reelected in 2012. Even with a weak Republican candidate, even with a nut-job Republican candidate. I think many of you have way too much confidence in his reelection.

Thing is, his victory was so large in 2008 that he can lose many swing states and still win the election. He could drop Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and either Ohio or Pennsylvania and still win the election. If he can pick up Arizona, which I think only went red because it's McCain's home state, that could cover losing Nevada and Iowa. Basically, if he can hold on to any two of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida I think his chances are good.

[pkbites]

Thing is, his victory was so large in 2008 that he can lose many swing states and still win the election. He could drop Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and either Ohio or Pennsylvania and still win the election. If he can pick up Arizona, which I think only went red because it's McCain's home state, that could cover losing Nevada and Iowa. Basically, if he can hold on to any two of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida I think his chances are good.


You're making a stretch here. You're talking about him losing states he had won, but then making a pick up of a state he lost? A state that historically voted Republican in all but 1 election in over 60 years?

Look, nowhere did I say he wasn't going to get reelected, I just contend that he's going to have a tough time doing it.

[Skald the Rhymer]

The ballot I cast will be in the D column, and I plan to again volunteer in the campaign. But I won't be voting and working for Mr. Obama; I will voting and working against the other candidate, as I expect the Republicans to nominate a nincompoop.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Thing is, his victory was so large in 2008 that he can lose many swing states and still win the election. He could drop Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and either Ohio or Pennsylvania and still win the election. If he can pick up Arizona, which I think only went red because it's McCain's home state, that could cover losing Nevada and Iowa. Basically, if he can hold on to any two of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida I think his chances are good.
AIUI, the South will be getting more electoral votes thanks to the recent census. Obama won two or three Southern states, but his gains over Kerry seem to have been largely in purple or red Midwestern states, IIRC.

[Chronos]

I contend that the outcome is equal in both cases: A Republican win.Well, that depends, of course, on just how many people are in each category. I can boldly predict that there will be some people who vote for the Republican in 2012 despite voting for Obama in 2008, but the mere existence of such people isn't enough to guarantee a Republican win.

[2ply]

I voted for Obama in 08 but am going to vote third party in 2012. I am so frustrated by Obama not addressing the unemployment rate.

[Koxinga]

I think the killer for Obama will be the vibe he gives of not really liking this job, and his concomitant lack of drive to win. Deep down, I wonder if he really wants to keep on being president, and that ambiguity will kill his support and encourage his opposition.

As for the OP: I would have voted for Obama in 2008, and have been awfully disappointed. I thought I was phantom-voting for simple competence if nothing else, but it seems that's just what's sorely lacking with this administration. Unless the Republicans do nominate a total loon for president, I'd either vote the other way or just stay home again.

[pkbites]

I can see a seriously strong 3rd party challenge arising in 2012. Such a candidate could draw significant votes from both Obama and the Republican candidate. I don't see a 3rd party win, but drawing away those votes from the other 2 sides could affect which does win.

I contend that if Pat Buchanan had not ran in the 1992 primary (weakening Bush) and if Perot had never ever entered the Presidential race, Bush would have squeaked out a win.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I am so frustrated by Obama not addressing the unemployment rate.
What would have had him do to address it, exactly?

[Profound Gibberish]

I voted for Obama and will vote for him again (or another Democrat) in '12.

He has a done a very good job under very trying cicumstances. His communication from and coordination of the exec branch could be better.

The Repubs have no clue where to go. Common-sense, practical governing has given way to the right-wing attack of everything not made of white bread and mayonnaise.

[RTFirefly]

I voted for Obama in 08 but am going to vote third party in 2012. I am so frustrated by Obama not addressing the unemployment rate.Since a candidate can win a state with a plurality of the vote rather than needing a majority (known by the extremely misleading moniker of 'first past the post'), the effect of this would be to increase the odds that we elect a candidate with no interest whatsoever in addressing unemployment.

I'm disappointed, too, that Obama has decided to operate within the 'government needs to tighten its belt' framework: forget deficit hawks, I want to see jobs hawks, employment hawks, 'put America back to work' hawks.

And I'd particularly like one in the White House, especially now that Obama isn't going to get anything through Congress anyway, so there's nothing to be lost by advocating for what he really wants. So I'm especially disappointed with Obama now.

But that doesn't change the fact that voting for a third-party candidate because Obama was weak on jobs will only help elect a Republican who doesn't give a flying fuck about jobs.

So I'll be voting for Obama in 2012. He's not been the President I'd have hoped for, but we could easily do far, far, far worse.

[Pleonast]

As a centrist Republican, I am happy with Obama and will likely vote for him again. Only in the slim possibility that the Republicans nominate a centrist (and I do not mean a former centrist who later veers to the right) will I have to think about it.

[Vinyl Turnip]

At the moment, I do not plan to give Obama my vote again. An essentially meaningless protest, as he has zero chance of taking my state anyway, but there you go.

My expectations were set low, and he has still failed to meet most of them.

[Crown Prince of Irony]

I voted for Obama, and was proud to do so. I didn't expect him to have easy answers on the economy, and in fact, I think the economy would have done somewhat worse without some of the actions he's taken. That said, I'm still very disappointed that Goldman Sachs is getting away scott free when they were in the swirling center of this shitstorm.

I voted for him in part because I wanted a president that respected the personal rights to privacy and protection against unlawful search, seizure, and surveillance that I believe the Constitution guarantees. Stupid me, I thought a liberal Constitutional scholar would respect these freedoms.

But I have been extremely disappointed in Obama's lack of response to ongoing curtailing of civil liberties - warrantless wiretaps; the resumption of military tribunals; TSA's underqualified, over-deputized goon squads having their way with American citizens (I'm not relying entirely on news reports here - I've seen absolutely boorish behavior from many of the TSA "agents" I've had the dubious pleasure of encountering); forcing travelers through untested, and potentially unsafe (http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2010/11/5810/ucsf-scientists-speak-out-against-airport-full-body-scans) medical imaging devices. All in the name of protecting us from the extremely unlikely possibility another 9/11.

A lot of folks are happy to look the other way, or chalk it up to the costs of a well-defended nation ("freedom isn't free" - what a nonsensical phrase). Not me. I de-registered as a Democrat, and became an Independent - after 21 years of voting in the D column, I called up every Democratic elected official who represents me, and told them exactly why the won't get my party vote any more. That's how much personal and civil liberties mean to me.

It seems to me we've been sold another bill of goods by the two-party system, and I'm about fucking tired of being hoodwinked. If this crap continues over the next 18 months, I'll write in None of the Above and be done with it.

[Evil Captor]

I will vote for almost any Democratic Presidential candidate against almost any Republican Presidential candidate in 2012. However, in the Democratic Presidential primary I will vote for any decent progressive like Kucinich against Obama. Obama is not a progressive, he is a centrist, and a right-leaning centrist at that. He's better than the loony right wing whackadoodles that are running the Republican Party at present, but that is not saying a hell of a lot.

[Little Nemo]

Anyone who voted for Obama in '08 not voting for him in '12?Ted Kennedy






Too soon?

[Koxinga]

Ted Kennedy


You're probably right. Ted wasn't buried in Chicago, was he?

[Khadaji]

I never decide who I will vote for until I see the candidates and examine their sides of the issues.

Right now, the Republicans have not offered up anyone that I would consider seriously, but there is plenty of time yet.

[RitterSport]

His performance on civil liberties and his decision to get into the Libyan conflict pushed me over the edge. I thought his performance during the health care debate was disappointing, but I was happy with his push (finally) to repeal DADT. I thought his agreement with the Republicans to extend the tax cuts was disappointing. I'm in a solid blue state so it doesn't matter, but I'm either voting third party or just not voting for the president, although I will vote in 2012 for other state and federal positions.

In my view, the Democratic party of today is to the right of the Republican party of 15 or 20 years ago. The Republican party has moved (in many ways) over to crazy territory. It's time for another, more progressive party, and there's no way to get that if everyone just votes for D's, no matter how conservative they get.

This is right out of the Simpsons -- don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

[tim-n-va]

I never decide who I will vote for until I see the candidates and examine their sides of the issues.

Right now, the Republicans have not offered up anyone that I would consider seriously, but there is plenty of time yet.

This! He has done nothing that I consider a dealbreaker but a hypothetical moderate or a social liberal, fiscal conservative candidate would get my vote. For the latter, think Paul Tsongas with a personality.

[kaylasdad99]

I can never give my consent to another Republican occupying the White House. Ever. If President Obama is the Democratic Party's candidate on the ballot next November, he will receive my vote.

[RTFirefly]

I never decide who I will vote for until I see the candidates and examine their sides of the issues. It's not like there will be a wide variation among the positions taken by the potential GOP nominees. You know where the GOP collectively stands on the issues; there's really no need to wait.

[appleciders]

You're making a stretch here. You're talking about him losing states he had won, but then making a pick up of a state he lost? A state that historically voted Republican in all but 1 election in over 60 years?

Look, nowhere did I say he wasn't going to get reelected, I just contend that he's going to have a tough time doing it.

I don't think it's that much of a stretch. Growing Hispanic populations in AZ will tend to vote Democratic, the overall trend in the West is toward a socially liberal policy while the Republicans trend in the other direction, and most importantly the Republican candidate will not be from Arizona. Obama picked up New Mexico handily in 2008, and while it's a bluer state than Arizona, it's similar in many ways. Besides, it's not uncommon for candidates to pick up different states in different elections. Clinton won Colorado in 1992 but lost it in 1996, while losing Arizona in 1992 and winning it in 1996. I absolutely think that Arizona is a state that will be in play for Obama in 2012, even if he does not do quite as well in the East as he did in 2008.

[HMS Irruncible]

I don't understand how anybody who voted for Obama could not vote for him again. Sure, he's disappointed on some things. But we have a choice of eating 1 serving of manure or eating 2 servings. Are you really going to protest being fed a load of shit by asking for an additional helping?

[boytyperanma]

I voted for Hillary in the primary and Obama in 08. I'll see where the polling ends up before voting for a third party candidate.

If things go as I expect Obama will pretty much be guaranteed Massachusetts electoral votes. At which point I'll throw in for a third party to express my disapproval of Obama. If there is any margin that shows Obama will have a chance of losing MA, I'd vote for him out of the fear of a Republican taking his place.

I want a leftist willing to lead by using the bully pulpit to advance his/her agenda. Knowing that what I want isn't a political possibility I'll settle for Obama over anything the sad state of the Republican party can put up.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Obama is not a truly great President.

He is, however, a fundamentally competent President.

Sadly, the Republicans have repudiated competency, in favor of gobbling insanity.

So, lacking a genuine non-Democratic party option--Obama in '12. <SHRUGS>

[threeorange]

If things go as I expect Obama will pretty much be guaranteed Massachusetts electoral votes. At which point I'll throw in for a third party to express my disapproval of Obama. If there is any margin that shows Obama will have a chance of losing MA, I'd vote for him out of the fear of a Republican taking his place.

I want a leftist willing to lead by using the bully pulpit to advance his/her agenda. Knowing that what I want isn't a political possibility I'll settle for Obama over anything the sad state of the Republican party can put up.

Substitute "Illinois" for "Massachusetts", and this is an accurate description of my position.

[JimH52]

I voted for Obama, and barring a miracle candidate from the GOP, I will vote for him again. The last republican that I voted for was Bush Senior, and he lost to Clinton. If the economy improves, which I am sure most of the GOP is praying against, Obama wins again. But if the unemployment stays above 8.5% into October 2011, Obama will lose.

[Koxinga]

The window may be much narrower than that. It's ironic that you mention George HW Bush, as he lost just as the economy actually was improving; IIRC economists went back and revised data to show that the recovery started somewhere in the summer of 1992. But because of delays in the actual figures, Bush Sr. lost on the perception that the economy was still as bad as ever.

[JimH52]

HW was a true moderate and he was a realist. That is what actually killed him with the far right. His "read my lips" quote was his downfall. I agree. The economy was on the upswing. Clinton played it perfectly. Between that and Ross Perot, the race was his. Could the same thing happen to Obama? Could the economy begin to improve in 2012, but too late for his second term? It could. We will see.

[BigT]

I missed this thread the first go round, and one month old is only mostly dead.

In my opinion, voting Independent is voting Republican (as voting third party always is against an incumbent). I'm not going to do it, no matter how bad Obama gets. The Republicans are okay with holding the budget hostage. They are okay with letting this Tea Party bullshit happen. And they are okay with making teachers make even less money.

[Recovering Republican]

The thing that bothers me the most is the cases where both major parties have the same position. Want to really get out of Afghanistan and Iraq? Too bad, neither party will do it. Obama seems siezed by a sudden scerosis whenever the subject of serious cuts to defense comes up (Eisenhower cut defense by 26%; Obama I don't think is proposing even 5% cuts). We have over 700 military bases around the world. We can't let even one of those go- really? And apparently Obama meant we had to elect him twice to end the Bush tax cuts for the rich, with no mention at all of taking things further than that.

Don't get me wrong, I do find a lot to like about Obama. But the choices seem to be between 'utterly stupid' and 'not really what you want'. If a candidate came along with a serious hard-on for cutting defense and wasn't otherwise crazy, I'd vote for them instantly. But in 2012 it seems we have only the sad choice of voting for not destroying the country, and no choice to vote what we really want. The action seems to be in 2016, though I am pessimistic about that too.

Well, no president in either party is going to cut defense. Simply isn't going to happen. (and I'm not sure why you want it to, exactly.)

No president wants to be Jimmy Carter, who presided over all sorts of defense cuts and then found himself standing impotently when the Iranians and Russians came a callin'.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, Well, Obama did call Afghanistan the "war of necessity", so I'm not sure why you can fault him for going in their bigger. It's what he said he was going to do. (I fault him for going in bigger without any kind of actual plan for victory.)

[JimH52]

Carter did get a bad deal. He had OPEC, the hotage crisis, interest rates at 18%. But since leaving office, the guy has done some good stuff. Well, except he seems to be teatering on Dementia as of late, with comments that are on the edge.

[Recovering Republican]

Carter did get a bad deal. He had OPEC, the hotage crisis, interest rates at 18%. But since leaving office, the guy has done some good stuff. Well, except he seems to be teatering on Dementia as of late, with comments that are on the edge.


No, Carter didn't get a bad deal, he was an incompetent president.

[Recovering Republican]

The window may be much narrower than that. It's ironic that you mention George HW Bush, as he lost just as the economy actually was improving; IIRC economists went back and revised data to show that the recovery started somewhere in the summer of 1992. But because of delays in the actual figures, Bush Sr. lost on the perception that the economy was still as bad as ever.


True enough. But what Bush had was a "V" shaped recession, where the bad happened very quickly and it bounced back very quickly.

This recession has been going on for three years now, and after a little progress in 2010, it appears to be sinking back into the mud.

The gist I get from the liberals on this thread is that none of them are actually thrilled with Obama's performance, but they hate the Republicans so much that they will stick with Obama no matter how bad it gets.

[Really Not All That Bright]

It's not that we hate the Republicans. It's that we're not going to elect people who are shilling the same policies that created the recession, and we're certainly not going to elect an ideologue.

Whether or not all the current candidates are ideologues, none of them can risk saying anything even remotely conciliatory or they're out of the primary. Hell, just look what happened to Gingrich.

[Koxinga]

Whether or not all the current candidates are ideologues, none of them can risk saying anything even remotely conciliatory or they're out of the primary. Hell, just look what happened to Gingrich.

Well, there's that old Vulcan saying, "only Nixon could go to China." Which is why I think the nomination is Perry's for the taking -- assuming he wants it.

[Ludovic]

The thing that bothers me the most is the cases where both major parties have the same position.Yeah, there isn't any one position where I agree with the GOP and not the Democrats, but sometimes I disagree with them both to the left (gay marriage for instance,) but often to the right as well (illegal immigration, fair trade,) and sometimes on the sane/insane axis (balancing the debt versus trillion dollar deficits, not confined to one political ideology these days.)

There isn't anyone for me to vote for on those topics these days.

[gonzomax]

The ballot I cast will be in the D column, and I plan to again volunteer in the campaign. But I won't be voting and working for Mr. Obama; I will voting and working against the other candidate, as I expect the Republicans to nominate a nincompoop.

They can not go wrong with the group that has announced. The cupboard is bare. A serious politician does want to get into that dog and pony show, But they have few serious pols now. They are employees of the wealthy.

[Evil Captor]

The problem is, the Democrats govern, but govern badly, and frankly, they are as owned as the Republicans when it comes to Wall Street (Mr. Obama has not seen fit to jail a single banker despite all the fraud that was happening prior to the Bush recession). But the Republicans ... their positions are so awful that it's like they think government is a clown car and the object is to see how fast they can put the economy upside down in a ditch with its wheels spinning, and how many laughs they can have along the way. No matter how disappointed I am in Obama ... and I am VERY disappointed in him, with regard to the economy and ending the wars ... the Republicans guarantee I will be voting for him, with their insane policies. Plus, of course, they've blocked efforts he's made to improve things ... health care would be a LOT cheaper if the Dems had had their way.