Why Another Democrat Wouldn’t Do Better than Obama in 2012 (Nate)

[jefferson_dem]

Why Another Democrat Wouldn’t Do Better than Obama in 2012
By NATE SILVER

You know that a president is having a rough time when you start to see speculation that his party would be better off if it replaced him on the ticket.

There has been more of this recently: the political scientist Matthew Dickinson argued that Democrats would improve their chances if Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama in a primary challenge. The astute Ed Morrissey of the blog Hot Air wondered if Democrats might benefit if Mr. Obama simply declined to run for a second term.

President Obama’s re-election bid is in quite a lot of trouble, with falling approval numbers and sour economic forecasts. But it’s probably mistaken to assume that those problems would just go away if Democrats replaced him with another candidate.

The evidence, if anything, points in the opposite direction: Mr. Obama is more popular than his policies, and probably gives the Democrats a better chance of maintaining the White House than another Democrat would. Three pieces of data to consider:

<SNIP>

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/why-another-democrat-wouldnt-do-better-than-obama-in-2012/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[dmallind]

1. Valid and accurate, but DU somehow knows the country would go gaga over Dennis or Bernie

No matter how unlikely that is.

[vaberella]

15. Or even HRC. n/t

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrTriumph]

2. Bunk. Obama will drag down the entire ticket. We need to replace him.

Mr. Nice Guy won't cut it in 2012.

[Pirate Smile]

3. Sure. Just because you said so. Forget Nate and his math and statistics and stuff.

Just go with your gut.

[TheWraith]

5. And forget that Obama's still the most popular Democrat in the country. nt

[Pirate Smile]

6. Yeah, forget that stuff.

[swilton]

31. There is a disconnect between the public's emotional

attachment to Obama reflected in his popularity and their intellectual dissatisfaction with his policies....

He can not ride on his charisma for the 2012 election.

[Cirque du So-What]

4. Show us the math, please

That's what I thought.

[jefferson_dem]

7. Ace rebuttal.

No needs for Nate's regression models... with that deep analysis.

[RBInMaine]

34. Kindly find your local planet.

[TrainToCry]

43. You will fail in your efforts to stop Obama.

[dionysus]

55. ROFL

:spray:

[Whisp]

61. phft.

there are a lot less mongerers of gloom and doom than you hope for.

the bellyaching on DU is only just a sliver of a tiny slice of the many millions still happy with Obama.

sorry to break the 'bad' news to you.

[Lasher]

8. Is that the only thing that matters, winning in the General election?

I like the idea of at least trying to have a nominee who is likely to support values that are important to me as a Democrat. But the focus here is to 'win', regardless of whether the nominee does or does not.

[CakeGrrl]

10. Yes, WINNING is usually the point of running for office, is it not?

Seriously, do you just want to put someone in there to make some pretty Progressive speeches knowing they don't realistically have a chance to defeat a Tea Party-fueled GOP?

That's really more important to you than the damage that this incarnation of the GOP would inflict on this country?

Nope, I'm not down with that.

I want someone who has a chance to WIN against them and keep them out of the WH.

[Lasher]

12. We have somebody in there right now who makes pretty speeches.

I don't agree with your assertion that a progressive Democrat could not win. I believe a progressive nominee would have a much better chance than Obama would. We lost our way in the 1980s, thinking we had to become neoliberals in order to compete with neoliberals. This has been the biggest single reason for our losses against the GOP since then.

[CakeGrrl]

17. When you can explain why Feingold and Grayson couldn't HOLD their seats,

let me know.

Losing happens when people don't fill out their ballots.

You're assuming that they're all of one mind like a chunk of DU in the reasons they didn't vote. I think many of them need education...about the dangers of the GOP.

If you're so convinced of Progressive success, where is this massive grassroots effort and how is it doing in the face of the fact that the President still has 70+% overall approval from Democrats?

[bahrbearian]

18. People didn't vote because by 2010 everyone knew Obama wasn't really a Democrate

[pnorman]

20. "everyone knew Obama wasn't really a Democrate"

Are you going to hold to that?

[Telly Savalas]

32. Feingold and Grayson were on the 2010 ballot, not Obama

[RBInMaine]

38. There is no "e" on the end of "Democrat," and your statement is fringe nonsense.

[Lasher]

21. One reason Feingold and Grayson lost was because disillusioned progressives stayed home.

Ask yourself, what was the difference between the elections in 2008 and 2010? Hope and Change Obama turned out to be just another neoliberal, did you notice? Or do you care?

If I may be so bold, I really don't think I need an education from you about the dangers of the GOP. And you presumptuous charge about my assumptions is pure fantasy.

The lack of a more progressive effort is my complaint. You cite the same thing, hoping to demean my argument. You are begging the question. Progressives are stifled by the neoliberals (DLC, New Democrats, Obama, et al.) who have infiltrated the Party.

Since you have chosen to selectively cite Obama's approval rating, I have to ask: Have you bothered to notice at all that his overall approval rating is at an all time low right now?

[CakeGrrl]

23. Blaming Obama for Feingold and Grayson's losses is bull.

They can't win on their own merits? Progressives who didn't support them DESPITE whatever they thought of the President only have themselves to blame for the loss of more Progressive voices in Congress.

As for the President's approval numbers, it's worth noting them in context and relative to others in Washington: Congress fares even worse. People don't like the way things are going, but they know it's not the President at the crux of the problem.

I don't know what you assume other than thinking a Progressive has a viable shot in a national election. But I guess that's only if enough Progressive voters are in a good enough mood and don't feel like they've been "hippie-punched". Apparently when that happens, they can't manage NOT to take it out on other Progressive pols. At least, that's what I PRESUME you implied about 2010 and the fate of Feingold and Grayson. That's some pretty sketchy 'support' when they can't be trusted not to shoot themselves in the foot and look at the bigger picture.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Of course, in 2010 those two were the exception to the rule

and most of the Party's losses came to the conservative Democrats. More than half the Blue Dog Coalition lost their seats to Republicans, and that accounted for fully half of the losses the entire Party had in 2010.They went from 54 to 26 Blue Dogs in the House.
Conservative Democrats were slaughtered wholesale in 2010.

[Lasher]

27. Portraying him as an innocent bystander is ridiculous.

And if you don't mind my being repetitious, I said progressive disillusionment with Obama was one reason for their defeat. I didn't lay that entirely at Obama's feet but you are trying to absolve him of any responsibility.

Congressional candidates do not win or lose only on their own merits. Their success is particularly influenced by the behavior of a sitting President of their own party. You surely must know this.

Yes, I am convinced that a progressive candidate has a viable shot in a national election - a much better chance than Obama does. I think there is a hunger among the vast majority of Americans for someone who would meaningfully stand up for values that the Democratic Party used to embody.

The Democratic Party is a coalition of people with differing priorities. I don't believe you empathize with New Deal Democrats like me. You cannot win the next election without us. If neoliberal New Democrats end up being "hippie-punched" in the 2012 elections I hope you'll reflect on this reality instead of blaming the victims.

[CakeGrrl]

51. Bottom line:

Make double-dog damned sure your Super Progressive has the viability to unseat the President in the primary and the GOP challenger in the GE.

The blah-blah about President Obama being as bad as a Republican is bullshit. I have the good sense to vote a straight Dem ticket because I don't believe that GOP equivalency crap in the least.

WHO is this individual, by the way? What is it in their accomplishments that will sell the American public on their ability to make things actually HAPPEN? Where's their portfolio of accomplishments?

[Lasher]

52. There is no gurantee that Obama or any other candidate would win in the General election.

You are trying to impose a condition that cannot be satisfied. The outcome is uncertain.

I have never said Obama is as bad as a Republican. And I'm pretty sure I have a longer record of voting a straight Democratic ticket than you do, so please don't preach to me about your good sense.

We have come full circle to the question I first posed to the OP: Is winning in the General election the only thing that matters? Particularly with so much disappointment in Obama, should we rule out a different nominee, with the Democratic National Convention a full year away? Some people clearly think we should. I don't.

[CakeGrrl]

63. OK, so what are you and others doing about it?

I'm curious to see those who think as you do involved in any plans of action.

Once again, WHO has the desire to start running? WHO has the buzz? Who's building their war chest?

These questions matter because despite all the talk about whether winning is important, SOMEONE is going to occupy the WH after the 2012 election.

Does it matter to you who that is or not?

[Lasher]

64. I represent no one. What I am doing is keeping hope alive for myself.

I am hoping a decent Primary candidate emerges but until or unless they do there is little I can do to predict who that might be. I have made it plain that this is a symptom of a larger problem. The DLC/New Democrats have taken over the party and they do their best to ensure that our only choice is another fucking neoliberal. They have so far been effective at this. I am hoping someone will rise up against them.

[karynnj]

28. You are right - Both Feingold and Grayson had their own problems

Feingold was GROSSLY outspent. He has never been good at raising money and he refused some of the money he could have had because the DSCC and other Democratic organizations accepted PAC money. (He did let Kerry send an email in support of Feingold) It is noble that he was so principled, but it may have cost him his seat.

Grayson grossly distorted a sentence his opponent said by using only part of it in an ad. The issue - his opponent's view of the position of women was a good one, but he got called on using the part sentence - where the full sentence changed the meaning greatly - and he should have. It likely cost him votes of people deciding between the two. It neutralized the real concern and made him look slimy to sign his name to the ad.

Obama tried to help Feingold with an appearance in WI - but it was not enough.

[RBInMaine]

39. In other words, a bunch of whining crybabies who needed to grow the hell up.

Grow up and get the hell into adulthood and political reality. "Stayed home because they were disallusioned." ????? "Disallusioned" with the MOST progressive amount of accomplishment in a fucking generation HANDS DOWN. Maybe not perfect purity, but this whining, bitching, pissing and moaning which is completely unjustified in the adult world is getting sickening. So they were unhappy and stayed home like whining children who can't always get whatever they want at the grocery store. Are they happier now with many more RePukes in office? Jesus H. Christ. How nice it would be if more "progressives" would actually value PROGRESS without sulking off and whining when they don't get purity.

[Lasher]

48. Learn to spell. It's 'disillusioned', the way I spelled it, not 'disallusioned'.

Since you lectured bahrbearian just upthread on the correct spelling of 'Democrat', I am hoping you will be receptive to this criticism. That's the way it is in this adult world you think you understand. When you dish it out you need to be ready to take it.

[RBInMaine]

35. McGovern LOST, Carter LOST (2nd time), Mondale LOST, Dukakis LOST. Clinton WON TWICE. Learning yet?

[Cosmocat]

59. Big call out ...

for spewing the right wing talking point "giving pretty speeches."

:wtf:

[Lasher]

65. Right wingers do not have a monopoly on the phrase.

As a matter of fact, it was used earlier in this thread by another DU member and no one attempted to label their verbiage as a right wing talking point. And in Obama's case the charge is deserved.

[Cosmocat]

67. That, sadly, is the point ...

But, take pride in spewing what republicans spew ...

I mean, it is ALL BS, except the stuff about the democratic president. The negative framing of our democratic president, THAT is really true ...

[Lasher]

69. You're not paying attention at all.

I was responding to CakeGrrl, who had first dared 'spew' the same phrase in her argument against mine. But you failed to notice that, even after I gave you a strong hint. Learn to read.

[Vicar In A Tutu]

14. If Obama loses, the next Democratic President will be much further right.

That's simple political logic. If the American people show that they want another eight years - and it will almost certainly be eight if they make Obama a one termed - of Republican leadership, that's not going to make Democrats think "hold on...the country wants us to veer much further to the left, which is why they voted in a radically right-wing party!". It's going to make them think "we should've paid more attention to the plurality who thought Obama was too far to the left. They wanted something more conservative, they got it".

It's mind-numbingly simple. The GOP built up huge, huge momentum with Reagan and Bush. Clinton, for all his flaws, dialled it back a bit despite having a hostile congress for the majority of his tenure. Then Bush came in, reversed that and plotted another right-wing course. Obama, despite his failures, has done plenty to stem the tide, but he's been dealing with an even more depraved, weird as fuck version of the GOP. Reagan, Bush and Bush ensured that right is the new centre. A Tea Party backed Republican only four years after Bush finished his eight would have a golden opportunity to ensure that future Democratic contenders would have no choice but to adhere to their new version of the status quo, one backed by millions of voters.

Every time you hand the GOP the key, the harder it gets to dial it back. It's much easier to knock something down than it is to build it. I think that's worth keeping in mind when wondering why a Democrat cannot repair and restore as quickly as a Republican can desecrate and destroy.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. Exactly

Some people talk about how political debate keeps shifting the debate further and further to the right but it ain't happening because this country keeps getting Democrats in the WH and/or Congress. In the past 31 years, we've only had two Democratic administrations a third of the time and for approximately 6.5 years of that, the Republicans have controlled Congress and for almost as much time (6 years) the Republicans held the WH AND Congress, so who's kidding who when some people complain about how President Obama hasn't turned the country back towards the left in 2.5 years? Heck, even the incremental shifts to the left/center he's made during the last 2.5 years have unleashed a wave of brainwashing from the right-wing that have somehow managed to sucker a lot of people into believing that he's nearly turned the US into Canada, France, Germany, or any number of "socialist" welfare states (as though that would be horrible thing- but most people don't know better how "awful" their citizens have it :eyes:). :banghead:

[CakeGrrl]

26. +1. Anyone who thinks we can just 'let the GOP have it for now'

is being very, very naive about 1) the GOP relinquishing power, never mind having a compliant MSM in their pocket; and 2) overcoming the damage they do in office.

I wonder how easy it will be to undo the damage done by the GOP governors of FL, WI and OH?

[jefferson_dem]

11. If we want to continue progress...

Absolutely.

[Lasher]

13. Your definition of progress is clearly different from mine.

[TrainToCry]

44. You'd rather lose everything?

[Cosmocat]

58. Sweet Jesus ...

Dude - I get it, he isn't a raging progressive/liberal.

The bottom line is the choice is him or Perry/Romney.

So, yeah, the focus is on winning.

You want the killer liberal, get him or her nominated in 2016.

It may hurt people's sensibilities, but the choice in this election is a democrat, and like it or not, BO is most assuredly a DEMOCRAT, and a lunatic republican.

[Lasher]

66. Let me put this as simply as I can.

The Democratic National Convention is a full year away. It is premature at this point to declare Obama our presumptive nominee, even though a viable contender has not so far emerged. I would love to see a 'killer liberal' nominated in 2012.

[Cosmocat]

68. I would LOVE to see a Killer Liberal

as president, too ...

I can say for a fact, the sun is going to rise this morning ...
I can say for a fact, the republicans are not going to nominate a sane person as president ...
I can say for a fact, Barrack Obama is the only democrat capable of winning the white house in 2012 ...

You want the liberal dream presidential candidate, get behind someone for 2016.

Again, the ONLY choice for 2012 is Obama, Romney or Perry ...

Side note, I have my disappointments with Obama, but he is a better than you want to think he is.

[Lasher]

70. You want to declare the Democratic Primary a foregone conclusion. I object to that.

You are stating as fact things you cannot know. It is presumptuous, to be kind, to claim that you know for certain that only one of these three people could possibly win an election that will not occur for another year and three months.

You don't know what I want to think about Obama. As a matter of fact I have in the past been foolish to expect great things of him. I had hoped he would inspire a new generation of progressive Democrats. I was wrong. My current realization about him is the result of a long and painful process.

You want to get out the pom-poms right now for Obama's General election campaign, and berate anyone who dares skip your pep rallies. Contrary to what you think you know, there is a slim chance a progressive candidate could defeat Obama in the Primary and then go on to win in the General. But we have no chance whatever of doing better if we don't try.

[CakeGrrl]

9. Nate's talking realistically.

That won't be well-received.

[Pirate Smile]

22. This place feels like crazy-land half the time.

[RBInMaine]

37. Yup. Welcome to Fringe Underground.

[TrainToCry]

45. Ad revenue must be too good to clean this up and turn it back into a productive place for Democrats.

[David Sky]

60. Focus upon the President's popularity is silly..focus on Republican members of

Congress, run people to replace them.

Each and every one.

Then Obama will have a chance against those low-life Rethuglicans in the House, who stop him from doing what's right, and force him to compromise by giving it all away to them.

[Pirate Smile]

54. It is just f@#king bizarre to see all these supposed Democrats act like they are just fine with

letting Republicans take over the Presidency in January 2013. As if no one noticed what happened when Republicans took over so many Governorships & State Houses - in Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, etc.

To have watched that and then be on here posting that it doesn't matter if we let Republicans win in 2012 is just .....that is just too stupid and counter-productive to treat with respect. It is too damaging to too many people. I think people have just lost their frigging minds.

[Tiggeroshii]

16. I've been trying to tell people the problem is with the establishment not the figurehead.

If we want real change we need to keep the most liberal figurehead, and change the establishment at the grassroots. Not blame the figurehead, wait for it to get worse, and do nothing but complain... Hopefully we will learn =)

[Gregorian]

19. When "hesitant " voters see who Obama's up against, they'll vote for Obama.

I think Nate's not correct on this aspect. Anyone who is hesitant enough to not vote this time, they probably wouldn't have voted anyways. I mean, it's Satan versus Obama, in this case. You'd have to be more than hesitant. More like suicidal.

[Skittles]

33. but that is the PROBLEM

we need someone to vote FOR, not AGAINST

[Gregorian]

41. I know. They own the media. So our best are demonized.

And not only that, but the big money in Washington won't allow a Kucinich to run their show. The truth is, it's OUR show.

We've got to get some kind of fairness in media, and money out of elections. Until then, it won't be Kucinich. It'll be a short little gnome with ideas of UFO's. I hate this mess we're in. America is like a drunk who doesn't know he's ill.

[craigmatic]

29. Nate is usually right with very few exceptions so I'll take his word for it. He knows numbers.

[swilton]

30. Hillary and Obama are from the same DLC wing of the

Democratic Party - having Hillary challenge Obama would not be change in policy.

And policies not likeability are what is at stake for the country and for American families.

The argument of Obama's popularity put forth in the referenced piece is the nature of cognitive dissonance - the inability of the public to separate Obama the public figure/celebrity from his performance and policies.

That Obama is more popular than his policies speaks to his charisma not to his success as a leader or visionary, or even reflect his empathy for other Americans. The inability to associate his perceived personality with his policies (bail-out of Wall Street, back-room deals with pharmaceutical companies, putting medicare/social security/medicaid on the table) and performance (lack of leadership as evidenced by negotiations with opposition party rather than standing for Democratic values).

[RBInMaine]

36. More fringe blather. Yawn.

[ClarkUSA]

46. Wrong. Pres. Obama is not now nor has he ever been a member of the DLC . He rejected them early on.

Proof of this FACT:

“I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC,” said Obama, in a statement that substantially reflects a telephone conversation with Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, this weekend.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

Ben Smith of Politico knows this fact too:

"The DLC sought for a time to identify itself with Obama's message and his campaign, but found itself relatively unwelcome there and the final move cements its place as a central force in Clintonism and the Clinton historical record."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0711/DLC_records_to_Clinton_Foundation.html

[ibegurpard]

49. DLC brand was tainted

They're called New Democrats now...same thing different name

[Lasher]

53. Correct, Hillary and Obama have similar positions on most issues.

There would be little point in replacing Obama with her.

[RBInMaine]

40. WAY too early to spout "Obama's in trouble", Nate's no guru, and Perry is HUGELY attackable.

Romney is too, but especially Perry. If Perry gets the nomination, we will attack this TeaNut asshole severely hard. AND, Dems and labor will be HIGHLY motivated this time at the state level due to state RePUKE overreach. I'm not too worried.

[TrainToCry]

42. Obama is in no trouble. He will be reelected with no problem.

[Glimmer of Hope]

62. I think so too. This primary nonsense is not going to happen and would be

a disaster.

[ClarkUSA]

47. "Relatively few voters blame Mr. Obama personally for the performance of the economy..."

"Another Democratic candidate would not magically turn 9.2 percent unemployment into 5.2 percent unemployment.

Nor is it likely that another Democrat would advocate policy positions that differed substantially from Mr. Obama’s, which are very close to those of the typical Democrat in Congress. Few Democrats argued against the need for economic stimulus. The health care proposals advanced by Ms. Clinton and John Edwards during the 2008 campaign were not much different from Mr. Obama’s now-unpopular one. Few Democrats have any ideas about how to substantially reduce unemployment that could pass through the Republican Congress."

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/why-another-democrat-wouldnt-do-better-than-obama-in-2012/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Awsi Dooger]

50. I emphasized the same point in one thread a month ago

I've never been a huge Obama supporter but he's easily our best hope in 2012. If you dump him, you forfeit the benefit of a doubt allowed to an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term. As I posted in that thread a month ago, as a gambler I can comfortably assert that our win likelihood right now minus Obama would be considerably lower than the 50/50 currently offered on Obama's re-election.

Knocking out your own incumbent only makes sense if the popularity of the party is markedly greater than the approval ratings of the specific person. For example, Sarah Palin was able to take advantage of Frank Murkowski's very poor approval numbers in 2006. Otherwise, Alaska Republicans realized that Tony Knowles would steal back the gov seat. Similarly, the Nevada GOP knew it had to get rid of laughingstock incumbent governor Jim Gibbons last year. They held the seat with Brian Sandoval.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. A Primary Challenge Even If Successful Would Irreparably Fracture The Party

And is also doomed to fail.

That being said if he decided not to run (which is beyond ridiculous) Hillary Clinton would have a much better shot.

However, the election is still fourteen months away and much could change.

[lumpy]

57. This BS is getting really old.

period.

[LetTimmySmoke]

72. Obama 2012: Protecting the banks so Romney/Perry doesn't have to!

[Beer is God]

73. Stating the Obvious

I won't unrec, but this post is irrelevant.