Could Obama lose? Well, yeah, but it seems unlikely given current trends

Saw this this morning on Twitter, from Political Wire:

Yes, Obama could lose…

To which I responded, “Yeah, and I could conceivably WIN – anything can happen – but what are the odds?”

ANYTHING can happen over the last 19 months (things that would turn this assessment around 180 degrees), but watching the sluggish “race” for the nomination to run against him — and seeing some of the characters getting the most attention (here’s a question for you conspiracy fans: Is the “liberal media” deliberately overplaying the likes of Michele Bachmann, Donald Trump and Sarah Palin in order to undermine conservative chances?) — it seems extremely dubious.

Dubious to the point that I’d really, really appreciate it if the opposition would stop acting like he’s somehow illegitimate, and seeking to undermine everything he tries to do (like the health care reform the nation so badly needs, as inadequate as his efforts in that regard may be). Because folks, not only did he win the last election, but he’s probably going to win the next one. And I think the stronger potential GOP candidates know that, which is why we’re not seeing much activity from anyone but the extremists.

By the way, did you follow the link on that Tweet, which quoted a Salon article asserting that, if the economy doesn’t get better, “the GOP will be well-positioned to oust Obama in 2012, provided the party doesn’t nominate a fringe candidate.”

Run that by again: “…provided the party doesn’t nominate a fringe candidate.” Right now, that looks kind of like a big IF.

In 08, we were blessed by having both parties’ nominees being the less partisan options. It seems unlikely that we’ll be thus blessed in ’12. Unlike Democrats, who are cheering for the GOP extremists because they want to run against them, I hope the GOP does come up with a mainstream, sensible nominee because… as I say, ANYTHING can happen, and I’d like to reduce the chance of a having a nut job in the White House. But will that happen? I actually suspect it will. But I do worry.

16 thoughts on “Could Obama lose? Well, yeah, but it seems unlikely given current trends

  1. bud

    I hope the GOP does come up with a mainstream, sensible nominee …

    Talk about your gold standards. This is the gold standard for oxymorons, a sensible GOP nominee.

  2. Doug Ross

    Obama’s current approval rating has dropped to 42% from 47% in the past few weeks. The factors driving that are probably a) the increasing gas prices that affect everyone’s pocketbook b) his handling of Libya and c) his inability to take the lead on dealing with the debt issue.

    A sitting President is bound to be impacted more by the way things are versus who he is running against. Who would have predicted a Bill Clinton victory over George Bush one year out?

    Obama will lose if gas prices stay around $4, the unemployment rate stays around 9-10%, and we show no signs of decreasing our military involvement around the world. He’s also going to have to get off the sidelines for once and lead instead of acting as the Moderator In Chief.

    I have no concern that the Republicans will put Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich, Trump, Barbour on the ticket. It may be Romney. I’d prefer Ron Paul or Chris Christie or Bloomberg.

  3. bud

    Just remember how high in the polls George H.W. Bush was in 1991. Most of the leading Democrats decided not to run. That paved the way for Bill Clinton to emerge. Sometimes we just get lucky.

  4. Phillip

    Brad, by the time you post this somebody else will surely have caught this, but is “Barbara Bachmann” a joke or a Freudian slip, thinking of Barbara Bach?

    On the main topic, though I would like Obama to be re-elected, I think the sluggishness of the economy puts all bets off. In the end, incumbent Presidents almost always rise and fall on pocketbook issues. And though I would dearly love to see the Republicans nominate Trump, Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich, or Santorum, I think in the end the party’s historical establishmentarianism will reassert itself (think 1996 & 2008) and the nominee will either be Romney, Pawlenty, with a possible wild card if Chris Christie or even Jeb Bush enters the race late.

  5. Phillip

    Also, just to be a nitpicker since I’ve seen you spell it a couple of different ways, Bachmann has two “n”s in her name. Like Eichmann.

  6. David

    And though I would dearly love to see the Republicans nominate Trump, Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich, or Santorum

    Whereas we live in a country that has only two choices for President, anyone cheering for one of those two choices to be an unelectable, crazy-type person, is essentially wishing on America that it would have no choice at all, let alone any kind of real debate on the issues that will face the next President.

    It continues to disgust me.

  7. Bart

    Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. just may be the darkhorse candidate who could walk away with the nomination.

    Good moderate, fiscal conservative, foreign relations experience, and what some consider a financial genius. He has the credentials and experience as a governor to do the job.

    He has been the ambassador to China for two years, out of the country. He won’t officially commit to anything for now because he is still ambassador and like the gentleman he is and a man of his word, will not go back on his pledge and promise.

    He can and will make the process very interesting.

    His intellectual credentials not only equal Obama’s but surpass them if reports are accurate.
    He has peaked my interest.

  8. Phillip


    I admit that my “cheering for one of those two choices to be an unelectable, crazy-type person” is rooted in my opinion that I see no one out there better suited to be President than the one we currently have, flaws and all, and yes it’s a purely horse-race opinion, i.e., who could Obama most easily beat?

    But the fact that the GOP field is chock-full with these loons, and conversely NOT filled with thoughtful exponents of a rational conservatism (that is, one devoid of paranoid rantings on birtherism, the president-as-socialist, president-as-imposer-of-sharia-law, death panels, let-us-have-our-incandescent-lightbulbism) means that we ALREADY don’t have a choice, or much of one, anyway.

    That’s disgusting to me, too.

  9. Kathryn Fenner (D- SC)

    Phillip– What about Lindsey Graham? I disagree with him on many points (workers as special interest group is just the latest), of course, but wouldn’t he be a decent Republican candidate?

  10. Doug Ross


    Wouldn’t he have to demonstrate some Republican traits first aside from the letter after his name?

    He’d be DOA on the campaign trail as soon as they asked him to defend his immigration policies… if he could remember which side he was on this week.

  11. Brad

    Kathryn… come on… please. It sounds like you’re writing copy for AFL-CIO press releases.

    Sorry, but “labor union” does not equal “workers.” That’s easy enough to prove just from looking at this one case. There are workers in Seattle who belong to a union, and workers in SC who do not.

    So if you do something to help the union, you are helping some workers and hurting others. Therefore, it is NOT logical to say that Graham is referring to “workers” as a special interest group…

  12. Phillip

    “So if you do something to help the union, you are helping some workers and hurting others.” True, just as if you send jobs overseas, you are doing something to help (overseas) workers and hurting others. Graham speaks of the “American” economy, conveniently forgetting that Washington state is part of America.

    Another way of phrasing this is “capitalism enabling a race to the bottom.” And when it comes to “the bottom,” nobody does that better than South Carolina.

  13. Nick Nielsen

    @Doug, that Lindsey Graham would be DOA on the campaign trail, and Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, and Michelle Bachemann aren’t, speaks volumes about the current state of the Republican party.

    None of that speech is complimentary.

Comments are closed.