POLITICS JULY 13, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I recently argued that an increased deficit among the white working class could sink Obama’s re-election chances. That’s particularly the case if Obama is already weakened by relatively poor support from his base. Right now, that looks like a distinct possibility.
This can be seen by looking at Obama’s two key base demographics: the minority vote and the youth vote. Start with minorities, the heart of the Obama coalition. In 2008, Obama received 80 percent support from minorities, who were 26 percent of all voters. Can he replicate that performance in 2012?
Consider first the probable minority share of the vote in 2012. Recently released data from the 2010 Census have underscored just how fast the minority population is growing in the US. Over the last decade, the minority population increased by 30 percent (Hispanics alone grew by 43 percent), while the white population grew by a mere 1 percent. Because of this dramatic difference in growth rates, minorities accounted for virtually all (92 percent) of the country's population growth over the decade. And the overall minority share of the population ticked steadily upward while the white share declined. The 2010 minority share of the population was 36 percent, up more than 5 percentage points over 2000. That's a rate of increase of around half a point a year over the decade.
Applying that rate to the four years between 2008 and 2012 indicates that the minority share of voters should be about 28 percent in 2012. Of course, that rate is based on the overall minority population not minority voters. Should the trend rate of increase be lowered to account for this difference? No, if anything it should be increased. Exit poll data show minority vote share increasing at a faster rate last decade than overall population growth, so a 2 point estimated trend increase in minority vote share may actually be conservative.
So if the electorate stays on trend, the minority share of voters in 2012 should not only match but exceed its share in 2008, significantly helping Obama’s re-election bid. But will these voters show up in their expected numbers? That is where Obama could run into trouble. The real guarantor that they will is voter enthusiasm. Lacking that, the expected increase in minority vote share might well not appear. After all, in the 2010 election, when enthusiasm was not high, minority vote share dropped to 23 percent, a poor performance even for an off-year election.
And enthusiasm does appear to be a question at this point. As documented in a recent Pew poll, as economic pessimism has mounted, approval of Obama has dropped. And that has definitely affected minority enthusiasm for Obama. Approval of Obama among blacks has declined by 10 points from recent highs and judging from Gallup data (Pew does not break out Hispanics) there has been a decline of similar magnitude among Latinos. Indeed, these data show Obama’s approval rating among Hispanics dipping below 50 percent, a very poor performance among a group who must turn out solidly for minority vote share to increase.
And what about Obama’s 80 percent support from minority voters? Can he plausibly hope to maintain that? That’s a tough target. In the two other presidential elections of the last decade, Democratic Presidential support among minorities was lower: 71 percent in 2004 and 75 percent in 2000. My estimates suggest that he could live with the mid-range of recent results—75 percent—perhaps driven by some falloff in black support from its astounding 95 level in 2008. But lower than that and I believe his candidacy is seriously weakened.
Obama’s other key demographic is young voters, members of the Millennial generation. In 2008, the 18-29 year old age group (all Millennials) voted 66-32 in his favor and were 18 percent of voters. Moreover, that 18 percent figure actually understated the level of Millennial influence in that election because the 18- to 29-year-old group did not include the oldest Millennials—the 30-year-olds who were born in 1978. Once they are figured in a reasonable estimate is that Millennials were around 20 percent of the vote in 2008.
And that figure should be significantly larger in 2012 as more Millennials enter the voting pool. About 48 million Millennials were citizen-eligible voters in 2008 and they have been increasing at a rate of about 4 million a year. In 2012, when Millennials will be the entire 18-34 age group, there will thus be 64 million Millennial eligible voters, 29 percent of all eligible voters. Assuming a reasonable turnout performance, that should translate into roughly 35 million Millennials who cast ballots in 2012 and an estimated 26 percent of all voters.
Ah but there’s the rub. Will Obama get that reasonable turnout performance? Economic pessimism has also taken its political toll among this group, not surprising given how hard the poor economy has hit young people. In the Pew poll, Obama approval among the 18-29 year old age group was 55 percent against 37 percent disapproval, an 18 point spread that is down considerably from the 30 point spread he recently enjoyed. That does not augur well for 2012 turnout among young voters who are typically the most volatile of all age groups. In the 2010 election, when young voter enthusiasm was tepid, the 18-29 year old vote share dropped from 18 to 12 percent, bad even for an off-year election.
For the same reasons, it will be hard for Obama to retain that 66 percent support level from 2008. Young voters still like Obama but they clearly don’t like him the way they once did. Congressional Democrats received 55-42 support from 18-29 year olds in 2010; it’s possible Obama may not do much better.
What can Obama do to forestall a fatally weak performance among his demographic base? It’s pretty simple if hard to do: replace economic pessimism with economic optimism. That means jobs and growth which have been conspicuously lacking lately.
Pundits chronically underestimate the extent to which poor economic performance matters among sympathetic Democratic constituencies and chronically overestimate the influence of rhetoric or policies that are deemed insufficiently liberal. The latter may horrify liberal activists and writers—a very small part of Obama’s base—but it is the former that saps the enthusiasm of tens of millions of ordinary rank-and-file Obama supporters who are very sensitive to their pocketbooks and the state of the job market. Reagan’s base was so enthusiastic in 1984 not just because he did and said conservative things but because he was riding a wave of growth and jobs into that election. They could look at their candidate and say: “See, his policies work; screw you, you dumb liberals.” Obama supporters can make no such claim.
Perhaps the latest abysmal jobs report, released on Friday, will persuade Obama’s team that they need to pay attention to this factor. The deal they are trying to strike on the debt may or may not be a good one and may or may not provide some marginal political help among swing constituencies. But if they want his core supporters to be there in big numbers come November, 2012, it’s time to get back to job #1: jobs.
Ruy Teixeirais a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
29 comments
I'm a member of another component of Obama's base: college-educated liberals. In 2008 my vote helped Obama be the first Democrat since Carter to take North Carolina. I won't be voting for him a second time.
- AaronW
July 14, 2011 at 2:13am
And just how is he supposed to do this? Republicans are implacably opposed to anything that might create jobs and affirmatively doing their best to sink the economy, all with a view to making Obama's re-election impossible. He might have been building pubic pressure for action if he had been making jobs and job measures a constant rhetorical and political object of his administration, with the Democrats proposing one thing after another for the Republicans to shoot down. He didn't even do this in the period after the ACA was passed and the Democrats still owned the House. That's what I said right here at TNR the Dems had to do the moment the bloody ACA fight was over: jobs, jobs, jobs. Nothing. Is politics magic? Do you magically win when the zeitgeist moves your way and lose the rest of the time? Or is there always political work to be done? Obama has not done his political work. He has not led his party. He has not set out a coherent-sounding agenda to address public needs, even if it could not get by the Republicans in the Senate and now the Republican House. He has no public agenda, period. He flubbed the Bush tax cut negotiations by leaving himself open to the debt-ceiling hostage-taking. He has sat in the White House and sort of parried the worst excesses of the Republicans. He has not been the champion of the people whose support he needs. So what the hell is he supposed to do now other than pray that the Republicans blow themselves up? How is he to put on even a convincing display that he is concerned about jobs?
- roidubouloi
July 14, 2011 at 7:16am
I'm a member of that Millenial generation; I, too, voted for Obama in 2008, and he's not getting my 2012 vote either. To be honest, the economy is a big factor in my loss of support for Obama. I haven't just been looking for the economy to pick up, though (part of that - most of that - is beyond Obama's control). What I've been looking for rather is any sign that Obama will fight to make things better rather than worse - a pretty simple, basic test if you ask me. Instead, I see Obama making constant, unnecessary concessions on taxes for the rich, and David Cameron-esque proposals to slash the domestic budget. My friends who are in college right now will get less financial aid, meaning more debt for themselves and their families, all while the federal government continues cutting thousands upon thousands of jobs beyond what the GOP would have rendered necessary. It's starting to look like all Obama was good for was to give us a fraction of a good stimulus package, and a health care overhaul that could have been far, far better, but will still provide much-needed support for my mother, father and two sisters. Now that Obama has accomplished those two tasks, it's getting harder to see the point of having him in office. I'm sure Bachmann or (God forbid) Tim Pawlenty would be worse, but the quality of GOP policy is no excuse for Obama to sink to the next-lowest common denominator.
- whyamihere
July 14, 2011 at 7:23am
"What can Obama do to forestall a fatally weak performance among his demographic base? It’s pretty simple if hard to do: replace economic pessimism with economic optimism. That means jobs and growth which have been conspicuously lacking lately. . . Pundits chronically underestimate the extent to which poor economic performance matters among sympathetic Democratic constituencies and chronically overestimate the influence of rhetoric or policies that are deemed insufficiently liberal." These two sentences can't both be right. After all, economic optimism is in large part a function of rhetoric (unless liberal rhetoric ipso facto is not optimistic). My criticism of Obama is that his rhetoric hasn't been consistent, that he hasn't communicated a clear path to morning in America. Instead, he has alternated between an optimistic message (remember those green shoots) and a pessimistic message (remember his "concession speech" following the 2010 election). While it's true that rhetoric alone won't guarantee his re-election, voters respond to a positive message (I call it framing) as long as that message lays out a clear and plausible path (and it doesn't take much to be plausible, America, like the Jews, being blessed by God). In the context of the debt ceiling negotiations, I see Obama laying the groundwork for a positive message. Americans are concerned about deficits, and a message that includes a plausible path to the end of deficits has to be a winner. Which is why Obama's Grand Bargain is more important to him than the Republicans, because it will be the basis for the positive message that we have turned the corner and are on the path to morning in America.
- rayward
July 14, 2011 at 8:03am
The new Q-poll out today confirms that, no, Obama does not have a problem with his base. His base is very securely behind him. I count myself as part of that. From the poll: >>>>When it comes to Obama's job approval, his base remains intact. Democrats give him a thumbs up 81 - 11 percent, while disapproval is 83 - 13 percent among Republicans and 53 - 40 percent among independent voters. Obama gets a 50 - 41 percent approval rating among women, but men disapprove 51 - 43 percent.<<<< These enthusiasm numbers are nonsense. Measure them again during the heat of a real campaign, when a right-wing GOP nominee is attacking Obama every night. I'm pleased some who voted for Obama last time will not be doing so again. Part of building a strong progressive movement is weeding out the unreliables, people who would rather see a nihilistic GOP win than vote for someone who has proven to be a mortal man, not a messiah. These are not the sort of voters any successful party or campaign ever want to rely on. You may get their vote once, but not again because they find the reality of politics too revolting. [And they flatter themselves this revulsion is a sign of moral uprightness.] They will easily be replaced by new voters. I'm a fan of Mr Teixeira and read most everything he writes, but this is, alas, the sort of thing even good writers do to fill up space and time between real presidential campaigns.
- DC Spence
July 14, 2011 at 8:57am
AAron, huh? That is like saying you are not happy with the Weimer regime so you will be voting for the Nazis instead. You say you won't vote for Obama, so I take it you will vote for Bachmann or Perry or whatever Repub. they vomit up. Or are you saying you won't stain your hands by voting for either, making you a superior person. A lot of PUMA's swore they would never vote for Obama as punishment for him defeating Hillary, most came around. The Republican party is batshit insane. They must be kept as far from power as possible, that means turning out next time, not sulking.
- blackton
July 14, 2011 at 10:44am
The alternative to Obama at this juncture is absolutely unthinkable.
- roidubouloi
July 14, 2011 at 1:10pm
Your analysis is refuted ed by yesterday's announcement that the Obama campaign has raised the largest amount of money of any presidential campaign at this point before the election, about double what the combined Republican candidates have collected. Moreover, the Obama campaign acquired several hundred thousand new donors, and the average contribution was $60. Many of my friends are indeed upset with Obama's compromises on key issues. But not one of them plans to abstain in 2012, for fear of the reactionary, nutty Republicans. The "refuseniks" sound like the disappointed Hillary supporters immediately after the 2008 convention who said the same thing; as we know, this sentiment totally dissipated as soon as reality sunk in. My own view is that Obama is proving himself a master of strategic maneuver: Instead of matching the Republicans rant for rant, he's gradually painting them into a corner where they can't and won't escape responsibility for their policy absurdities and failures. Those who compare Obama negatively to FDR forget that Roosevelt had a Democratic House and Senate for his entire presidency. By contrast, Obama seems to have taken Lincoln as his model (he's known to have studied Lincoln's presidency in depth). A quick review of the vast literature reveals Lincoln's careful balancing between his party's unionist and abolitionist factions, his successful long-term effort to undercut the "peace Democrats," and his understanding the importance of not getting too far out in front of the general public.
- David_Becker
July 14, 2011 at 1:27pm
Wow, there are a lot of Naderites writing in today. "Let's hand America over to another George W. Bush-style Republican, but one who's even more right-wing!" I also helped Obama win NC in 2008. I will be voting for him again. No, he's not a fighter, and he hasn't done enough on jobs, but he pulled the economy out of a free-fall and passed historic health care legislation. He's been a damn good President.
- polcereal
July 14, 2011 at 3:22pm
Obama is a disappointment compared to perfection. Compared to his Dem predecessors, however, he's way above average, having accomplished more in office than Truman, JFK, Carter and Clinton (though less, of course, than FDR and LBJ). He's the only president other than Clinton to pass progressive legislation without a single Republican vote, and the only president in history to pass legislation on a party-line, filibuster-busting vote. His accomplishments include: the Affordable Care Act, the Recovery Act, Wall Street reform, student loan reform, Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, new regulation of the credit card industry, new regulation of the tobacco industry, a national service bill, expanded stem-cell research, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and the most sweeping land-protection act in 15 years. He undid Clinton's DADT and stopped defending Clinton's DOMA in court. He's also been better than GW Bush, and better than McCain would have been. Those guys, and the guys and gals running for the Republican nomination, do not share any of our values, but are actively hostile to them. They are also hostile to federal regulation - as W showed repeatedly. We don't know a lot about what's going in the regulatory world these days, but if you think Obama is as negligent or hostile as a Repub would be, then you're just batshit crazy. Oh, and Obama put Sotomayor and Kagan on the Supreme Court. I would guess that a Repub would not have nominated either one of them, but might instead have nominated someone like all the other hateful ideologues appointed by Repubs. One thing that conservative and liberal partisans have in common is that neither is willing to give Dem politicians the benefit of the doubt. This is actually healthy for Dems, as it helps us stave off epistemic closure. It's good to hold Obama's feet to the fire. But sometimes it helps to take a deep breath, a step back, and see things with a little perspective. Not only could things be a lot worse, they are almost certainly better than we could reasonably have expected based on past history.
- GeoffG
July 14, 2011 at 3:25pm
AaronW: "I'm a member of another component of Obama's base: college-educated liberals. In 2008 my vote helped Obama be the first Democrat since Carter to take North Carolina. I won't be voting for him a second time." whyamihere: "I'm a member of that Millenial generation; I, too, voted for Obama in 2008, and he's not getting my 2012 vote either." Brilliant! Nader 2.0 here we come. Recall those morally superior and idealistic Nader voters which gave GW the presidency, and a couple of Supreme Court appointments, the Iraq invasion, torture, the Bush tax cuts, etc. I'm sure a President Bachmann's Keynesian economic policies will create more jobs, she'll appoint more liberal judges, not renew the Bush tax cuts, expand Social Security, implement Medicare for all (hello single payer). Oh yeah, I can't wait.
- wkwami
July 14, 2011 at 3:38pm
blackton, did I say I would vote for the Republican? View my position as analogous to that of a striking worker, if you like. If workers (voters) will supply their labor (votes) for whatever shitty contract (candidate) that management (political party) deigns to offer, then the contracts (candidates) will remain forever bad and the workers (voters) will forever get screwed. And my vote-witholding strike is active, not passive. I have joined NPA, new progressive alliance, an organization seeking alternatives to the current Democratic Party leadership, and I have written to Democratic officials informing them of my displeasure with their policy and politics and thar I will be withholding my votes as a result. Suppose tens of millions of liberals like me withheld their votes? (Altogether unlikely, I understand.) Yes, Republicans would win a landslide victory--THIS time. But conciliationist DINOs would get ousted, making way for true progressives. If I voted for Obama, THAT would be a surrender and an abdication of my responsibility as a citizen of a democracy.
- AaronW
July 14, 2011 at 6:31pm
Yeah right let the GOP win in a landslide to prepare the way for the "true progressives." Similar arguments were made about Reagan's victory preparing the way for a liberal return, I think we know how that turned out. I'm all for a strong pressure group from the left but withholding your vote will not convince anyone of anything or have any demonstrable effect. Building a long-term coalition isn't going to be accomplished by childish stunts. Voting in a democracy has an impact, not voting accomplishes nothing. What you're proposing is merely an exercise in self-aggrandizement that will burnish your self-regard while the country goes under.
- Pnaut
July 14, 2011 at 7:26pm
So, you reckon that in a functioning democracy the key thing to look for in deciding how to vote is the party label, eh, Pnaut? The Democrats can nominate any hedge fund pirate with an Ivy League degree that they like so long as he supports a woman's right to choose and I should vote for him? What do you think has caused the Republican Party's dramatic rightward shift over the past thirty years? Numerous factors have played a roll, I'm sure, but one of them surely has been the activist base's refusal to vote for relative moderates such as George HW Bush even if it meant that a Democrat won the election. You get the government that you vote for. I don't like the government I'm getting from Barrack Obama. I'd be a fool to vote for him. "I'm all for a strong pressure group from the left but withholding your vote will not convince anyone of anything or have any demonstrable effect. Building a long-term coalition isn't going to be accomplished by childish stunts." You're correct, withholding my single vote won't convince anyone of anything. But neither will granting my single vote. Politics in a democracy is about aggregate behavior across a population. If a single worker goes on strike, it accomplishes nothing, but if through the example he sets by going on strike and communicating his displeasure with management he encourages other workers to join his strike, then it has the potential to be effective. And there is nothing childish or stunt-like about the expression of one's displeasure with the range of candidates made available.
- AaronW
July 14, 2011 at 7:46pm
I’m a left-center guy who voted for Obama in ’08 and will do so again next year. The thought of President Bachmann is horrifying, but not implausible considering the current climate and rhetoric. Does any objective, thoughtful person believe that if McCain were elected we wouldn’t be in the exact same boat – if not worse – as a country today than we are today? Considering the degree of difficulty in which this president inherited / and has faced, he’s done as well as could be expected and is executing the long-term plan. Concur DC – through today’s lens the discussion is like coverage of preseason football. Speculation until real games are played.
- OkiSaru
July 14, 2011 at 8:24pm
Fair enough Aaron, I just hope you vote for something.
- Pnaut
July 14, 2011 at 9:25pm
"Does any objective, thoughtful person believe that if McCain were elected we wouldn’t be in the exact same boat – if not worse – as a country today than we are today?" No. Nor is that my contention. My contention is that as the Republican Party has drifted far to the right, the Democratic Party has followed in their wake to the point that we now have a Democratic president who routinely espouses positions that would have warmed Ronald Reagan's heart. If the Democratic left continues to hold its nose at the polls and vote for candidates that support policies that are anathema to its, the left's, liberal ideals because a win by a crazy Republican is too scary, then the rightward drift of government as a whole will never be impeded.
- AaronW
July 14, 2011 at 9:31pm
Agree, AW, that the Republican party has apparently shifted so far right that a guy like Boehner is considered traitorous for any semblance of *compromise.* My (albeit shaky) hope remains the same: there are enough objective, reasonable voting citizens who care about the best direction for the country first, above and beyond who occupies the White House. What concerns me is that the bat-shit crazy and / or inflexible (see Cantor) element seems to be out-muscling even the most conservative wing of the GOP.
- OkiSaru
July 14, 2011 at 10:07pm
Obama will lose because his ideology, social democracy, has high unemployment as a feature, not a bug. By encouraging unions, heavy regulation and high taxes on business the left creates a high-wage labor aristocracy at the expense of the rest of the working class. If you set the price for X, in this case labor, artificially high, then guess what, the market for X doesn't clear. Economics 101. Socialistic countries traditionally have high unemployment. You can't lay anybody off, so of course they are careful about hiring. Which country has more productive workers, France or the US? The surprising answer is France. That is because in France employers hire only the best workers, while the rest live on the dole. That system works, I suppose, but at what human cost? The millions who rot in government housing projects are deprived of the dignity which comes from being able to contribute to society. Cf. the US experiment in social democracy, "the Great Society".
- bulbman1066
July 14, 2011 at 10:42pm
bulbman, I'll hate myself in the morning for bothering to respond to your nonsense, but in what universe is Obama's ideology "social democracy"? MY ideology is social democracy, and I am deeply disappointed with Obama for failing to so much as pay lip service to that ideal.
- AaronW
July 15, 2011 at 2:01am
Read Obama's political history. In calling his ideology social democracy I am probably playing down the extent of his radicalism. When has he ever repudiated the combination of Marxism and anti-white racism that characterized his past? He talks a centrist game. How could he do otherwise when only 19% of the electorate of this country are liberals and only some fraction of that 19% is hard left? OK, he's a Menshevik, not a Bolshevik, OK, he's New Labour, not Old Labour - whatever analogy you want to use. But none of that changes the fact that what he stands for is alien to what this country is all about. His belief that ordinary people should be wards of the State and have their lives directed by their betters among the "liberal" elite is deeply offensive to the majority of Americans. Don't you feel just a bit embarrassed to call yourself a social democrat? That's a bit like being a Communist in 1989.
- bulbman1066
July 15, 2011 at 2:49am
"Suppose tens of millions of liberals like me withheld their votes? (Altogether unlikely, I understand.) Yes, Republicans would win a landslide victory--THIS time. But conciliationist DINOs would get ousted, making way for true progressives." Today, Aaron, you are making me laugh. It's awfully sweet that you've reached the age you are and feel this way. It's especially surprising because you're usually such a pragmatist.
- MOLLYSIMON
July 15, 2011 at 5:48pm
By the way, the whole premise of this article is laughable, given that Obama is on course to set yet again to make the largest campaign dollars ever.
- MOLLYSIMON
July 15, 2011 at 5:50pm
Molly, it's good of you to be so obnoxious to Aaron without responding to the substance of his argument.
- Curran1
July 15, 2011 at 7:15pm
bulbman: "In calling his ideology social democracy I am probably playing down the extent of his radicalism." I have yet to hear those who call Obama a socialist list any serious specifics to support that claim. Is it health care reform that was modeled on what "socialist" Republicans offered in the 1990s, more conservative than what "socialist" Nixon proposed, didn't have single payer even on the table, a dropped public option, with a result endorsed by those "socialist" former Senate Republican leaders Bob Dole and Bill Frist? Is it cap and trade, which never made it into law and in any case was supported by those "socialist" John McCain and Sarah Palin during the last presidential campaign? Is it allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthy, which would merely return them to the levels we had during the years of the "socialist" Clinton administration? Is it the bank bailout, which was instituted by the socialist Bush and supported by socialists Mitch McConnell and John Boehner? Is it the stimulus, which was of moderate size, apparently a one-time expense, and largest part of which was socialist tax cuts and aid to the states? Most of these initiatives were, in fact, Republican mainstream proposals not too long ago. So this idea that Obama is a socialist only shows how far right the right has gone. As for the article, even if Obama has a "problem" with his base, which is debatable, he gets hurt only if his attraction to moderates fails to compensate for it. The author doesn't address this question. But the polls have him significantly ahead of all of his challengers at the moment, even in this poor economy.
- dsimon
July 15, 2011 at 11:39pm
dsimon, if Obama is the bland centrist you claim he is, why has he spawned so much opposition among the public, going far beyond the usual right wing suspects to include vast numbers of centrists? A huge grassroots movement has arisen in opposition to the Obama administration's attempt to turn the US into a European style social democratic state, basically government by experts, aka technocracy. Social democracy works in a small mono-ethnic society like Sweden*. It fits the Swedish culture, which emphasizes conformity at the expense of individualism. But social democracy doesn't at all fit a sprawling, multi-ethnic, multiculti democracy like the US. Americans are individualists. They don't hate the rich - they want to get rich. And God bless 'em, they often do. They admire people like Steve Jobs who contribute to society, and don't admire the professional pissers and moaners like Gloria Steinem, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan and Michael Moore. In the US there are three kinds of "liberals". 1) Bureaucrats, people wo make their living bossing others around. 2) Peons on the liberal plantation, i.e. people who are willing to be bossed in exchange for government handouts. 3) Journalists and academics who resent the fact that businessmen who contribute to the economy make more money than they do. Is there a fourth kind of liberal? Yes, there are the Joe Liebermans and Martin Peretzes, liberals who really do love this country. But they are, sadly, few and far between
- bulbman1066
July 16, 2011 at 11:10pm
*Social democracy worked in Sweden so long as Sweden was mono-ethnic. The admission of large numbers of Muslim immigrants who have come there to take advantage of the welfare state has become a major threat to Swedish society.
- bulbman1066
July 16, 2011 at 11:16pm
Obama can't catch a break. Rightwingers call him socialist, which is a lie. And some on the left, like Aaron, inaccurately call him a Reaganite Democrat. I'm not completely happy with him, mostly for some of the reasons Aaron has been laying out, and for the fact that he tries too hard to be non partisan. I think he is a solid man of the center left though, doing the best he could under very difficult and negative conditions. (Aaron, sitting out the election is not a good option because that would effectively be casting a vote for the nutters on the other side.)
- scrubby
July 17, 2011 at 2:32pm
bulbman: "dsimon, if Obama is the bland centrist you claim he is, why has he spawned so much opposition among the public, going far beyond the usual right wing suspects to include vast numbers of centrists? A huge grassroots movement has arisen in opposition to the Obama administration's attempt to turn the US into a European style social democratic state, basically government by experts, aka technocracy." bulbman, you didn't answer question. You didn't provide serious examples of Obama's supposed left-wing extremism. Many if not most of his proposals are to the right of what used to be Republican positions. Come up with some facts, then we can have a real discussion. Why is Obama not as popular now as when he was elected? Just about no president satisfies that requirement. Why are people unhappy? The economy sucks. If McCain were president in this economy, people would be unhappy too. As for his supposed alienation of moderates, I think that's a hard claim to maintain when Obama leads every Republican candidate in current polling. Sure, there are right wing free market fundamentalists who are furious. They were furious at Clinton too, who was no left-winger. By the way, I don't fit into any of your mischaracterizations of "liberals." Maybe you should read up more on the subject before telling us who we are. Now, again, tell me what about Obama's actual policy proposals are so left-wing, or stop making assertions based on nothing.
- dsimon
July 18, 2011 at 12:15pm