E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn the last couple of days, the New York Times' Peter Baker and National Journal's Matthew Dowd have argued that Democrats losing the House could actually help President Obama as we begin to pivot to 2012.
The reality of presidential politics is that it helps to have an enemy. With Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, they shoulder responsibility for the country’s troubles. No amount of venting about George W. Bush or the filibuster rule has convinced the public otherwise. But if Republicans capture Congress, Mr. Obama will finally have a foil heading toward his own re-election battle in 2012.
The president needs Republicans to pick up the House or the Senate so he can either: 1) Blame Republicans for what does or does not happen in the next Congress; or 2) Reach authentically across the aisle to get things done in a bipartisan way and tell his own party that he has to do it. Either scenario would help the president’s political standing going into his reelection.
Leave a Comment:
"Winning by Losing"...?
Hilarious.
Let the rationalizing of the debacle on November 2nd begin.
Who's waiting?
It is a valid contention MB. After the '82 mid-terms, after the 2002 mid-terms, the party that got "spanked" turned around and kept the exec branch and made up or almost made up for their losses in the previous congressional elections.
The economy isn't going to get much better in the next 18 months and the republicans will have a share of the blame in 2012. Will 2012 be the 4th anti-election in a row? Who will the bums we throw out the be?
If it's a republican congress and unemployment is still above 8%...republicans will be complaining about outside money or some other distraction as the reason why they are being shown the door...
In two years, Barry will be toast.
Not sure how this is going to play out, dangerfield.
Certainly, significant Republican majorities in Congress would result in Republicans correctly being held accountable for failure in 2012...just as Obama and the Democrats are being held accountable now, and the Republicans were held accountable in '06 and '08.
But, I believe that when the dust settles after the elections next week, Republicans will win the House, while Democrats hang onto a razor-thin majority in the Senate and of course, President Obama remains in the White House.
Had the economy and the jobs picture rebounded significantly between President Obama's inauguration and the midterms, congressional Democrats and the White House would surely have reaped the benefits of that improvement in the upcoming elections...or at least not suffered typical midterm losses for the party in power.
Since the government will likely be split going forward...it becomes harder to predict how improvement, regression, or continuation of the status-quo in the economy will impact Democrats and Republicans for 2012.
My comment referred solely to what I'm certain will be part of the near-term narrative to rationalize the large numbers of lost Democratic seats in Congress.
Heads are going to roll in the Democratic Party leadership if the wave is as large as it now appears...any arguments intended to deflect that accountability aren't to be taken seriously. At least, not by me.
That was the point of my remarks.
But.....but......Joe in Albany just told us again this morning over on First Thoughts that he and George Will had already figured out that the Democrats catching up and WINNING more races would be (and I quote) "the worst possible outcome for Barry and the Dems".
So if winning can be losing, why can't losing be winning?
The race for this week's Golden Pretzel Award is the one that's really getting tight! :)
I don't agree that losing seats is a good thing. I do agree that it takes away once and for all the Republicans last excuse for not doing anything constructive--that as the minority it's not their job. Since they're already on record that their strategy is to defund, obstruct, and occupy as much time as possible with witch hunts it's hard for me to see this coming out all that badly for Democrats in 2012.
If the voters pay attention consistently from now through the 2012 election, it will not matter if Mr. Obama miraculously becomes bipartisan, or if he tries to blame Republicans. Majorities now understand a few things very clearly, and if they sustain understand and activism, all politicians are on notice. Among the clear issues voters now appear to understand: Washington is broken, not America and not the American people; the days of politics as ususal are over; both Republicans and Democrats had better get the financial house in order, lower taxes, reduce regulation, reduce the size of government and reduce deficits, or the people will put officials in place who will finally do the will of the people. Furthermore, we are fed up with govenrment micromanagement. We want freedom and more of it, and we want a strong national defense. Unless politicians get back around to serving the will of the people, they'll be thrown out on their ear, and that includes the President most likely because he will not be able to engage in a bipartisan fashion (his ego won't let him and besides he has made too many enemies), plus he enjoys vilifying conservatives. He is divisive and will remain so, and consequently, he will be shown the door in 2012.
From your finger tips to God's ears...
Replace "We" with "I" and you are right on. What you're talking about is mainly what Republicans want, not necessarily what the independent voter wants, or will want in 2012. It's wishful thinking to believe that mindset of the country has changed for good. Independents are a fickle group, and that is why the analysis in this article is right and you are not.
Allan, if that is your real name:
How do you balance a budget, by lowering taxes??? The US is in such a ditch because of four things: 1. Fighting two wars until recently, one of them totally unnecessary, 2. The Medicares prescription drug law enacted under GWB and a republican congress, 3. The Bush tax cuts from 2002, 4. Stimulus spending to avoid an even higher unemployment rate.
The first three actually make up about 3/4 of the structural deficit for the next ten years! Nothing president Obama is responsible for, but republicans.
The TARP money, enacted under president Bush (!!!), is actually coming back and even with a nice premium on top of it. In the end, it might have cost nothing. Even if it would, vent your anger to George W.
Obama took office at the height of the greates recession most people living now have ever experienced. There were basically two avenue for him: 1. Do nothing and have the great forces of capitalism heal everything, 2. Stimulate the economy.
He did so by LOWERING taxes for the vast majority of americans, giving federal money for infrastructure projects ( repair highways, sustain bridges who threaten to fall down like in Minnesota, fast rail, local commuter routes etc) and help out states who were dramatically running out of money (many deep red states among them!).
If Obama had choosen the former, he would have gotten crucified by everybody, reviving memories of GWB during Katrina. Almost all economists also say, economic growth would have plummeted and unemployment skyrocketed even further that 10%.
Then he chose the stimulus way, by eneacting the biggest TAX CUT in recent american history (attributing for almost 1/3 of the stimulus) and now republicans in their well known dishonesty and partisan rooting for american failure (which they would simply call treason, if the roles were reversed!) accuse the president of socialism (obviously without knowing what socialism really means).
Again: You dont shrink budget deficits by lowering taxes. You actually expand deficits that way. So the main policy plank of the republican party right now calls for something that will make the situation even worse. Trickle down economics has been thoroughly discredited since Reagan.
Then they want to repeal health care. In their alternative reality (called FOX "News") they believe, it will lower the deficit. But the non-partisan CBO has come to the conclusion that HCR will actually reduce the deficit by 300 bllion dollarys over the next ten years. Again: Republicans advocating for higher deficits.
In other words: The current republican election campaign is a complete fraud, the most dishonest demagoguery in many years.
Jusge politicians by their accomplishments and not their words. Look at what republican and democratic presidents did with the deficit and soon you will find out, that neither party (with the exception of Bill Clinton) can honestly call itself fiscally conservative. But one party still does: the republicans and it couldnt be further from the truth!
Mark:
Excellent post. Right on point. Fact filled, and without insults, name calling or profanity. Keep up the good work.
However, excuse my cynicism, but I doubt that Allan, or his buddies, are at all interested in facts. Allan probably won't respond; facts usually scare these guys off.
Bill
A democrat Controlled congress Tends to out Spend Republican Controlled Congress by a 2.5 to 1 Rate.. The Democrats lied to the American people to get elected in 2006. and then again in 2008,,, the American people are now Realizing just how badly they were lied to by the Democrats..
How did they lie to the American people? Seriously I want to know, how did the democrats lie to the people? Truth they didn't they have held up their promises and have gotten legislation that they wanted passed. So may I be so bold to ask as, what the hell is your problem? And where do you get your facts? If the answer is PBS, or The NYtimes I will submit that you might have a point, but if either of those answers are Beck, Limbaugh, or Coulter, go soak your head. And I'm serious about that douse your head wake up read and then base your OPINION on what you READ no watch or listen.
That's a brilliant argument Steve, it has everything except facts. Oh look, here are some now, and they fly in the face of your argument. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/revenue_spending_mismatch.html
Fairly Simple.. The democrats have that Bush Lied to them About WMDS. .when it fact it was the Democrats that First claimed that Iraq had Wmds.. it wasn't a lie. it was Bad information that the previous Administration passed on ..
http://i44.tinypic.com/34g1xu1.jpg I understand you liberals dont like facts ...
Oh, speaking of facts, who signed those budgets? Which party brought us the concept that tax cuts for the wealthy solve every problem? http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
You can Cry all you want John. but the facts are the liberals are the ones that submitted the "Budgets".. I know you wish to blame Bush for the Budgets the Crooked Democrats passed . but it doesnt fly with me or most of the other people that actually understand the "Separation of powers act".
This analysis is dead on right....
Here's my over-under for the election next Tuesday;
Congress; Repubs 45 seats
Senate; Repubs 6 seats
My guess is:
House - Repubs 30 Seats
Senate - Repubs 4 seats
Might be some Democrat turncoats if the Dems barely hang on by a few seats.
Yeah, it's all about Obama. The guy is an absolute walking, talking, drama machine. Interesting enough, there's no talk about why Obama will find himself in this predicament, such as how badly he's led the country, how he's divided it, how his populist rhetoric sounds good to his base, but has killed off any job creation by companies because they have no idea what tax/regulation he'll put on them next.
Obama acts like he has no responsibility for the huge losses his party will incur next week. You can see the blame game he's playing blaming everybody and everything but himself, and it isn't playing well, especially in the rust belt where there will be huge losses for the Democrats. You can be sure the game this week that he and his political advisers will be play will be to distance Obama from the major losses that will occur next week. After that, he'll get out of town for 10 days or so to keep the failure, his failure, from being pinned on him. Trouble is, during that time, the Republicans will have a free run at setting the agenda for the next two years.
JoAnna, President Obama works and works hard for the American people.
The GOP who win in November have no intention of working alongside him.
Work. When is the last time anyone in the GOP actually worked?
Beats me. They take all the perks the taxpayers give them, yet do nothing for us. And you are fine with that because you can't stand President Obama.
The blame game JoAnna.
What has your party taken responsiblity for? Nothing. Two stupid wars, costing billions and billions of dollars. Thousands and thousands of innocent lives.
No stimulus for anyone. No health care reform for anyone. No help for the auto workers.
Your party is something else. Liars. Irresponsible. Unable to govern. Racists. Bigots. Big babies. Whiners. Out to help the rich.
And a little short in the brains department.
How low your party has brought this country. How much lower do you want to go?
I work everyday unlike you it seems.
Oh, Pat, you did not go there. Wait, I read it again. You did.
The champion of 'taking the perks the taxpayers give' is Obama, and you know it.
How much did it cost us for him to fly the wife to Manhattan for dinner and a show? Sure, he paid for the tickets and the dinner, even threw in first class airfare. All of which was about a tenth of what it cost the taxpayers for that little date.
He plays how many rounds of golf a week? Takes how many vacations a year? And, please, spare me the Bush comparison. We are not talking about Bush, as he is no longer president.
What do those Wednesday night socials cost us? The ones with just enough cabinet secretaries, Democrat representatives and/or Senators, invited so that the taxpayers have to foot the bill?
How much did it cost the taxpayers to shut down six blocks of D.C., using 12 vehicles and a hoard of Secret Service personnel, so the first lady could go to Whole Foods? There was no one in the White House kitchen she could have sent with a list?
Do I need to mention her excellent Spanish vacation?
Please. This job is ALL about the perks for Barack and Michelle "let them eat arugula" Obama.
And the electorate knows it.
dangerfield - your senate over/under is right on (5, maybe 6), but I'll put every dime on the Congressional-under (25-35, Boehner-go-a-cryin'!)
howdy no joe - hope you had a nice weekend; and that's PRESIDENT Barack and 2016 PRESIDENT-ELECT Michelle "let them eat arugula" to you!
<*sarcasm*>
Yeah, lock them up in the White House. Dont't let them mingle with commoners like you and me on the streets of DC.
Why can't they send their slaves to do that.
And while we are at it: Why have secret service protection at all. Wouldnt that just be an excessive impediment to someone like Lee Harvey Oswald to do their patriotic duty? <*/sarcasm*>
NoJoe - If you're going to keep repeating that rant, then don't go leaving out the Paul McCartney concerts every week, okay? It's my favorite part!
Oh, and you also forgot to accuse all liberals of "worshipping" Obama.
But hey, at least you remembered to bring up the Bush comparison for us.....
NoJo
I used to take you seriously despite your often times 180 degree viewpoints.
However, in my opinion, your rant against Obama golf trips, vacations and secret service details pushes you in with the other right wing fringe posters.
NYT writer Peter Baker and Ntional Journal writer Matthew Dowd must have been living on anothe planet. The polarization of the two parties allows for little common ground and the Tea Party candidates who will win have no interest in solving America's problems.
Blaming the Republicans for voting NO hasn't worked so far. Why does anyone think it will work on November 3rd.
Spin it any way you want. We The People plan to neuter Obama and his agenda of socialism and spending. 2010 we neuter him, 2012 we throw him on the trash heap of history next to Jimmy Carter. Just say NO. NOvember 2010. NOvember 2012.
Fish gotta swim
Birds gotta fly
Cows gotta moo
Lions gotta roar
Leaders gotta lead
And Presidents have to explain, persuade and sometimes even inspire
Obama hasn't
W was able to sell America on WMDs in Iraq
President Obama hasn't sold Americans on the Recovery package or on HCR
Too busy 'channeling' Michael Dukakkis?
LEAD, EXPLAIN, PERSUADE
Maybe if they loose congress, the Dems can swipe one from the failed war-on-drugs campaign:
"Just say No." Wonder how that'd play until 2012?
There are still a lot of variables for this to work. One, Obama has to propose some legislation and stick to it - be it repeal of DADT, middle class tax cuts, or deficit reduction (he may even have to embrace the deficit commission regardless of the recommendations to out flank the GOP). Then he has to hope that the Baucus/Lieberman/Nelsons of the Senate don't bring any others with them, i.e. Webb or Conrad. Lincoln, Dorgan and Bayh are gone, so the GOP gains little with theirnew GOP votes, but the Dems must hold a solid 53-54. Otherwise they have an even worse wishy washy 48 and I doubt they have the stomach to filibuster. Obama will have to re-nominate his judicial selections. He needs to do that immediately, and fill the rest of the docket - then push for confirmations. He has to set that as a priority and argue that the GOP wants a dysfunctional court system.
Absolutely...they Republicans will have too put up or shut up...
If they want, campaign to get it with lies...then they'll pay the price for NOT having solutions...or willing to work to obtain solutions...
Corrections...I didn't get the screen...
If they want to campaign to get in with lies...
Did you hear what Mitch McConnell said in a recent interview? He is going to do all he can to make sure President Obama is a one term President in other words just say NO for two more years. Thanks for telling us Mitch, now President Obama can plan his strategy..
So? That is not a crime Dottielou. He should never have been President in the first place. He is not fit for the office , he inexperienced and can't bear to stay a minute in that office. We'll make him join the club Carter is in. And what strategy will he plan? Another Marxist/Socialist policy which he can get away from. He's is not a free enterprise type of guy. His policies are a disaster for the couuntry.
No experience? Based on the term he didn't serve in the senate, or based on the years of public service he didn't give Chicago. Join the club Carter was in hmmm. Is that the lets not have to use foreign oil club? Or maybe it's the peace not war club. Or better yet the screw the better president with a hostage scandal club. Also, have you ever read anything by Marx? I doubt it. If you have read the oh i don't know COMMUNIST MANIFESTO then you would know that his Obama is not a communist nor does he have socialist policies. And why in Science's holy name would we want MORE FREE ENTERPRISE!?!? Have you been paying attention at all at what has gotten the country into this mess? Two word, Free Enterprise, or as i like to put it, Greedy Bastards.
Free enterprise got the country into this mess? Good God, you ignorant little troll, that's one of the least intelligent things I've ever read.
You kiddie Marxists make such asses out of yourselves. Sort of funny, but mostly just sad.
How so? Or did you not read of the private "free enterprise" rating companies that lied about the ratings of mortgages? Did you not hear of how the "free enterprise" has been committing over 2 billion in tax fraud? And I'm willing to bet you didn't because good ole gold promoting beck told you it didn't happen. And I am not a Marxist I'm a democrat I am the person who is here to prevent snow crash from becoming a reality. Maybe you should should get some more grey matter in your head and come back with an intelligent argument instead of, "you're wrong because i say so."
What an incoherent mess. Does anyone here speak moron? I'm gonna need a translation from moron to english, please. Consider this little bit of brilliance: "Did you not hear of how the "free enterprise" has been committing over 2 billion in tax fraud?"
I can't even begin to guess what in God's name that mess is all about. I mean seriously, you typed words into your computer...are they supposed to mean something?
And generally speaking, do you have even the slightest clue what "free enterprise" refers to, you hopeless idiot? Ugh...the stupid, it burns!
Hmmmm....Let's see "stupid", "moron" and "idiot". Now the reason/s for the given insults were, "I can't even begin to guess what in God's name this is all about." Yes that make you sound very intelligent. Did it ever occur to you that if you are as brilliant as you are insinuating, you would easily be able to understand the meaning of my statements despite the grammatical inconsistencies. However you can not begin to comprehend them which only insults yourself for do
ugh, time limits are annoying. now to continue that response.
"for do" not those of intelligence enjoy solving puzzles?
By the way, you are bad.
You do not need to worry about Obama running in 2012. If he has not resigned or charged with a criminal offense by 2012, he will not submit to the proof that is needed to be a eligible candidate for President.
This president is all about himself and nobody else. So what does he care if a few career politicians get the boot? It's all about him. To him it's all about finding a way to keep himself in power. And his nagging wife off his back. He may have to actually start spending his own money on her extravagancies soon.