It’s “Otb” Time: One-Term Barack

[The Hitman]

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2010111101/

Great article about how the media/politicos can overread a midterm; history shows such success do not translate to presidential election victories.

"Historically, incumbent presidents who have sought another term have won them by a two-to-one margin. Those aren’t impressive odds. How many of us would bet on a horse with minimal chances like that? Since 1900 only one incumbent president whose party captured the White House from the other party four years earlier (Jimmy Carter) has been beaten. The other incumbent losers—Taft, Hoover, Ford, and the senior Bush—were from a party that had held the White House for two or more consecutive terms. But the key is that Carter and Obama are practically twins; both won the Nobel Peace Prize. Enough said. Moreover, the present moment is unprecedentedly perilous for an incumbent president. There’s really no comparison in the existence of the American Republic, save for about a dozen crises like the Civil War, economic panics, the Great Depression, world wars, and 9/11.

Democrats may also place false hope in the fact that the next presidential election will have a turnout twenty full percentage points higher than we saw in the midterm—probably about 40 million more people than voted on Nov. 2. No doubt these “midterm-missing” voters are disproportionately 18-34 years old and members of minority groups, segments of the population that backed President Obama by margins ranging from 62% to 95% in 2008. Obama can’t seem to get them to cast a ballot except when he’s on the ballot. Well, yes, he’ll be on the ballot in 2012, but they’re likely disillusioned with him, too."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. Once people whom may not have voted (Democratic) this past election

see the candidates that the Republicans are going to be running for POTUS in 2012 and get slapped upside the head with the possibility of another 4-8 year stretch of the Republicans running everything from the WH down, I suspect that enough people will get over their "disillusionment" with President Obama pretty quickly. Those whom ran into the Republicans' arms this election our of fear, frustration, or whatever with the Democrats will probably turn back towards them too- once they see exactly how batshit insane (and how not at all interested in helping the average joe and jane) the teabaggers they helped elect by voting Republican reveal themselves to be during the next two years.

At least, we can only hope................

[craigmatic]

2. It's harder to get people to turnout to vote for a congressperson nobody's ever heard of than

the person who's going to be leader of the free world. The Obama voters will be back in 2012.

[pinto]

3. Authors - "It turns out that all news reports cited above were not published in the last ten days"

CORRECTION: Due to sloppy research by our interns, the authors would like to clarify a couple of points. It turns out that all news reports cited above were not published in the last ten days, but right after the 1994 Republican midterm landslide. Every time “Barack Obama” appears in print, you should substitute “Bill Clinton”. The acronym “OTB” actually stands for “One-Term Bill” not “One-Term Barack”.

And, fwiw, Clinton won re-election ~ pinto

[babylonsister]

4. Holy mackeral; I've never seen that before. Seems like the whole

OP is disingenuous, unless I'm not reading this correctly. Thanks, pinto.

[The Hitman]

5. uhhh

its written satirically. Read the article more closely.

[golfguru]

6. If Sarah Palin is their nominee,

people will come out of the woodwork to vote against her.

[The Hitman]

7. Definitely

I don't know what the midterm schedule is, but if she runs, watch progressives in open primary states (like VA) to flock to the GOP primary to vote for her in droves.

Then the elephant electoral bloodbath in November.

[Arkana]

8. Wow, did you even read the article?

Talk about disingenuous.

[The Hitman]

9. SATIRE!

Seriously guys, why is this going above everyone's heads!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. Sorry for my unrec! Should've read the entire article more closely

Given some of the stuff that's frequently published here (and elsewhere throughout the liberal blogosphere), it's getting very difficult to discern what's satire and what's not.
:pals: ?

[The Hitman]

11. My fault

I should have spelled it out a little more clearly.

I think in general (I will admit I am guilty of this too), people on DU too often have a knee-jerk reaction to read something that they dont, at least at face value, agree with and then assume the worst.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. No harm, no foul right?

:hi: