If the economy is so terrible, why is Obama winning?

[Swede]

This guy writes about it,but he doesn't like it one bit.

snip
On the road (the campaign trail) and at home (Washington), Mr. Obama keeps winning because he effectively defines the terms of the debate to suit his advantages, and the GOP has not offered voters a credible and exciting alternative.

The president is simply outplaying his opponents on all venues. If Mitt Romney indeed emerges as the Republican nominee, he must expose the president's tactics and convince voters he offers something that is better and will solve the nation's problems — and that he is strong enough and smart enough to get it done.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-obama-politics-20111120,0,1785632.story

[JackRiddler]

1. Because people prefer bad economy and injustice to an even worse economy and greater injustice?

[Autumn]

2. No one else is running on the Democratic side.

So of course he can win against these idiots, they are all fucking crazy.

[CakeGrrl]

16. Why not? It should be a cakewalk against a so-called "failure", no?

Where are all the Liberal heroes you would so happily follow?

[Autumn]

18. Did I say I had Liberal heroes I would so happily follow?

Why no, I did not. I gave a response to a question giving my opinion. Is that all you got? Cause you got nothing but "failure"

Edited to add: I do have one Liberal hero I would happily follow. That would be, Bernie "I will be damned if we will balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children and the poor," Sanders
Of course he isn't a Democrat.


:shrug:

[Chef Eric]

26. Umm, no. The corporate media would NOT stand for a challenge from the left.

In case you haven't been paying attention, over the past several years, the corporate media have become less and less tolerant of those candidates who even SEEM to pose a challenge to the status quo.

Remember when Howard Dean ran for President? He wasn't even a true liberal, but the media feared he was, and so they portrayed him as a raving lunatic. Dennis Kucinich? Well, he's a true liberal, so OF COURSE the media portrayed him as a nutjob.

No, there can be only one Democratic candidate for President. Barack Obama. Approved by Wall Street!!

[Skittles]

33. CORRECT

they pick the anointed ones

[JoeyT]

29. Incapable of getting massive amounts of money

to mount a primary challenge against someone who hasn't met a principle he wouldn't sell out on.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Do ya think it might be because the occupants of the GOP clown car

scare the crap out of a whole lot of people?

[rocktivity]

15. One GOP clown car, coming right up!

Cue the Benny Hill music!



:headbang:
rocktivity

[lapfog_1]

4. Possibly because enough people have figured out

that the repukes are intentionally trying to wreck the recovery so they can use unemployment against the President.

[Tippy]

5. Bingo...we have a winner!

[GoCubsGo]

10. Yep, and despite that...

The economy IS improving, granted it's very slowly doing so. People are also realizing that the President is limited in what he can do to improve it. Of course, it doesn't help that every last one of the GOP candidates is full of shit.

[brewens]

6. People have to actually get to vote and have their votes counted

for him to win anything. I get what you mean and it's good he's looking alright in the poles, considering the alternative anyway. I'm not sure at all that it means he has a very good chance of winning.

I'm surprised Obama isn't making a move against all the voter suppression laws. Maybe they think they know it won't be effective. I've wondered if the Republicans know what they are doing? Limiting old and poor people will cost them votes too.

[Pirate Smile]

14. "Obama Fighting Back Against War On Voting"

Obama Fighting Back Against War On Voting
by Adam B

Joan McCarter has been dogged on these pages in documenting Republican efforts to prevent traditionally Democratic voters from voting through new restrictions on voter registration and early voting, as well as burdensome identification laws.
As today's WSJ reports, the Obama campaign has noticed as well, and is fighting back:


By this spring, the Obama re-election campaign will mount what Mr. Bauer called an unprecedented "voter protection" effort, fielding thousands of volunteers in battleground states to help navigate new election laws, months earlier than past efforts.

"We will look at what the state has done, look for ways to counter it, through litigation sometimes, through administrative interpretation sometimes. But beyond that, you have to have a program that actually goes out and shows voters what they need to do," a senior Obama campaign official said....

More than 30 states have changed voter laws since 2008, including seven that added requirements that voters show photo identification at their polling places. Republicans say limits on early voting are needed to cut the administrative costs of elections, and new I.D. requirements are necessary to defend polling places from fraud.

Democrats say both types of rules are aimed at suppressing their vote. The Obama campaign was adept in 2008 at bringing first-time voters to the polls during early voting periods, and groups it's now targeting—students, the elderly and the poor—are the most likely to not have a government-issued photo I.D.

In Ohio, Obama for America helped gather over 300,000 signatures, successfully blocking Republican efforts to restrict early voting. In Wisconsin, efforts are focusing on voter education to counter the state's new Voter ID law, which bars students from using their college IDs when voting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x809979

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/02/1032459/-Obama-Fighting-Back-Against-War-On-Voting?via=sidebar

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203707504577012121315643772.html

[Hutzpa]

17. The message should be

your livelihood depends on it, the campaign should do commercials, internet ads etc about
voter documents, what voters need when they go to polling stations and this should be for
every states.

[patrice]

7. Because people understand what happened in PRIVATE business/Wall Street that wrecked the economy.

[RoccoR5955]

8. Because the alternative would be worse! n/t

[dkf]

9. He is simply lucky in his opponents this time around.

[opihimoimoi]

11. Obama wins because he is Head and Shoulders ABOVE the GOPers

Most of the Baggers are of the Cain cut....they are all just like him....smart wise...

All of the GOPers are so stupid ...their debates confirm this...that America is getting a close look as to why this nATION IS FUCKED UP...

Its because of the GOPers COLLECTIVELY FUCK THINGS UP

Wanna see the DOW reach 18000?

2% Unemployment?

Milliuons of Good paying Jobs? Safe long term JOBS?

THEN VOTE THE OBVIOUS....BLUE

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. +1

:thumbsup:

[rocktivity]

12. Obama is winning because he didn't CREATE this econmic crisis

He could have done more in terms of eliminating the conditions and policies that CREATED the crisis. But he DIDN'T create it himself -- and more important, the voters seem to understand that the giving political power BACK to the people who created the crisis is not an option.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[and-justice-for-all]

13. People generally understand who is at fault for this mess...

my neighbors, in the 60s and 70s said to me the other day 'Obama inheritated the majority of this mess and people expect him to fix it over night.' My neighbors do not blame Obama, and I think they can see rather well the madness that is the repub noms.

[Fearless]

19. Lesser of several evils?

[progressoid]

21. Yup. n/t

[great white snark]

23. Lesser of 2 evils is still evil. Thus, you are calling President Obama evil.

Your cliches need updating.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. Maybe because a lot of people understand

that the GOP field is awful and that President Obama is doing the best he can under difficult circumstances. Things are not only bad but there's a determined group of people in Congress and elsewhere constantly kneecapping him from being able to really fix things like they need to be fixed. Can anybody see the public electing anybody on the Republican field next year? The greater challenge for us IMHO will not only be (possibly) having a Democratic majority in both houses but also figuring out how to prevent the Republicans' obstructionism to continue to make it impossible for anything meaningful to get done. This past year has been friggin' disaster with divided (aka dysfunctional) government and I hope that the people whom wanted it so badly last year choose differently next year. I wish people would only elect people to government whom actually believe in....umm...governing but I'm not sure that that is possible unless we have a more informed public guided by a REAL news media in this country.

[tavalon]

22. He's running unopposed

look at the republic field.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Because The Republiclowns Can't Provide A Credible Alternative

.

[TheKentuckian]

25. Because the opposition is ideologically bankrupt and has a slate of nut jobs.

It would be vexing for those clowns to have a punchers chance over a jug of warmed over spit.

None in their field is of the quality of junior Bush and that worthless fuck is clearly one of the very worst in the history of a nation with none too few ineffective and/or crappy Presidents.

[slackmaster]

28. Two simple reasons. 1. Incumbents have to really screw up in order to lose.

2. The opposing party has to come up with a credible alternate candidate.

[treestar]

30. Going to be tough for Mitt to do that when it was their

Republican ideas that caused the mess in the first place.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

31. Because the repub party will make it even worse,

they want to finish dubya's hard work!

[Skittles]

32. because everyone else sucks worse