This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Please post your response to post 2 here. Please be specific in your praise or criticism of your classmate's post. Please state who you are responding to. If you use or refer to sources please be sure to cite them in your post.
posted by maby-keirstead @ 7:06 AM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
27 Comments:
@ Julie
First of all, I would like to state that I am generally in agreement with you about Obama's main challenges, and the actions Obama has done and should do regarding them. Obama needs to take an aggressive stance towards the economy, and the American Jobs Act is just such a stance. The bill is aimed at cutting payroll taxes to incentivize hiring, aiding small businesses, and reducing taxes on approximately half of all Americans.(1) Also included are infrastructure stimulus programs. This should, with its combination of tax cuts on the body of Americans and stimulus programs to add infrastructure, be theoretically approved of by both parties. The proposed method of paying for this would mostly entail removing tax deductions on the wealthy, with some small amount of closing corporate loopholes. An almost negligible amount (relatively speaking) would come from increased taxes on corporations and funds. (2) This last item seems to have angered several prominent Republicans, who are completely anathema to the words "tax increase" in any way, shape, or form. (2) Herein lies Obama's key to victory; that many Republicans seem to be unwilling to compromise personal political ideology for such a minor thing as helping the country. If Obama looks reasonable and the Republicans do not, Obama has considerably better odds of reelection.
The points I am in disagreement with you on are the methods the Republicans can use to hurt Obama, and the likelihood of a strong third party candidate stealing the election. I feel that the Republican deadlock on Congress is establishing them as unreasonable and excessively partisan. For instance, in the recent debt-ceiling debates, a vast majority of those polled - over 80%- said that they felt that the entire debate was more about political advantage than America. (3) A slighter but still very much present majority felt that the blame for the talks rested primarily on Republicans. (3) And disapproval ratings for Obama remained relatively level, but disapproval ratings for such prominent Republicans as John Boehner skyrocketed. (3) The Republican deadlock on Congress is casting them as more devoted to themselves than America in the public's view- a dangerous position for would-be presidential candidates. And while Republican attacks will probably hurt themselves as much as Obama, I do not think that it is likely that some third-party candidate will seize the election by surprise. There has never been a President that was not a member of one of the two major political parties at any point in the nation's history. (4) In 1992, Ross Perot pulled off 18.9% of the vote, only to fall to 8.4% in the next election. (4) In the most recent election, the most prominent third party candidate was Nader, at 1% of the reported vote. (5) By comparison, Tom Horner won a respectable 12% of the vote in Minnesota's gubernatorial race. (6) In Minnesota, a third party candidate can win. But I suspect on the national level, third party candidates are unable to raise funds and get their message out to a sufficient degree that they could win the election. With a strong third party, it can be possible perhaps- but if any third party were strong enough to push a candidate all the way to office, wouldn't we have heard of them by now?
(1)http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act
(2)http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us/politics/13obama.html?scp=5&sq=American%20Jobs%20Act&st=cse
(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/politics/05poll.html?ref=megantheebrenan
(4) http://thisnation.com/question/042.html
(5) http://2008election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=1953#3rd
(6) http://election.townhall.com/election-2010/state/mn/
I’m responding to Will. Wuddup Will? I am finding it basically impossible to disagree with anyone’s posts so I’m just going to go ahead and agree on this one. Will is definitely correct that Obama’s biggest hurdle and most politically influential one is the economy and the fact that he looks like he hasn’t made real progress. Even without coherent economic plans, Americans think that Mitt Romney and even Rick Perry would be better for the economy than Obama. (1) His standing with Americans is directly correlated with his perceived success with the economy. 49% of voters said Romney would do a better job than Obama and only 39% said Obama would be better for the economy than Romney. I also think you’re correct that Republicans have done virtually nothing to help Obama fix the economy. This is probably for the very same reason this is his biggest hurdle: the economy drives voters and they want the White House back. Currently their positions on his jobs bill are making it impossible to get any legislation passed, creating a stalemate in Congress. Bernake’s warnings that the economy is faltering makes the situation even more time-sensitive and Obama is clearly getting frustrated with their lack of compromise. (5) You’re right that nominating Perry would be the best thing Republicans could for Obama but I also find that very unlikely. His extremely conservative stance on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, arms control, immigration and obviously capital punishment make him only appealing to republicans, and even then only very socially conservative ones. (2) Romney would be very dangerous for Barack Obama. 54% of Independent voters said they would vote for Romney while only 41% said they would vote for Obama (3) Republicans could definitely make some ground by attacking Obama, especially at the point where economic numbers will be in their favor. You’re right that it wouldn’t be that hard for Obama to turn their words back on them. This is because they don’t have legitimate plans for economic reinvigoration, as well as the fact that Obama’s image is still one of respect and sophistication. His message may be somewhat different from 2008 but I do not think his image has been particularly tarnished. He has had success by staying calm and reacting well to smears. This is proven by his reaction to the “birth certificate scandal”. (4) Basically, it is clear that Obama is working against a slowly (hopefully) recovering economy as well as a divided “do-nothing” Congress, making his reelection campaign complicated. It appears that those are much more formidable opponents than his Republican counterparts.
1. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/06/poll-perry-romney-better-than-obama-for-economy/
2. http://2012.candidate-comparison.org/?compare=Perry&vs=Romney
3. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/06/poll-romney-holds-advantage-over-obama-among-independents/
4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
5. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19056220
@Andrew
First of all I would like to agree with you that President Obama’s main hurdles are the economy, health care, and somewhat the Solyndra scandal. As for economy, I agree that something more needs to be done to help create jobs, and boost the economy. However I would like to point out that President Obama has created a plan that is meant to create “jobs and lay a foundation for a strong economy,” as you say. This program is called The American Jobs Act, and has many ways proposed that would help to create jobs, and boost the economy. (1) Even though the economy is not completely fixed, Obama has been trying, and has a plan to begin to fix it as of now. I also agree that if the Health Care Bill is repealed, that will definitely be another hurdle that Obama will have overcome. However, only 51% of voters polled are still in favor of the repeal of the bill, which is a new low since May, as opposed to the 63% in May 2010. (2) I also do not understand where the information on how support of Obama will fall if the Health Care Bill is repealed, or why the Republicans would continue to attack it even if found constitutional. I feel that if the bill is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, Republicans would only get negative criticism for attacking a constitutional bill that is meant to help the public. (3) On to the Solyndra scandal. The grant that was given to Solyndra was only about 1.3% of grants given out by the loan-guarantee program of the Energy Department. These grants have been given to 40 different projects, yet Solyndra is the only program to go bankrupt. (4) This shows that the government, and President Obama, do not just give out grants to anyone or anything, and that there were probably many reasons for why Solyndra was given this grant. Also, I do not see how fox news can be cited as a reliable resource as it has been called “the most biased name in news” on countless occasions. (5)
I agree that the republicans can use the poor economy against Obama in the upcoming race, but I also feel that this could backfire upon them. If Obama’s economic mindset is called into question, there is no doubt that the Republican candidates’ economic mindset will also be called into question. However, I do feel that the Republicans are trying to sabotage Obama’s campaign, in that in the race the point is to poke enough holes in your opponent’s platform, and to cover up your own holes so that you come out the better choice. (6) many candidates do such this, including Republican candidate Pawlenty, when he addressed “Mr. Obama” in one of his speeches saying that President Obama did not understand the meaning of the constitution, and saying that Obama had personally “never balanced a budget in his life.” (6) This shows the lengths in which candidates are willing to go to make themselves look better than their opponent, crossing the line of sabotage.
1. http://moneyland.time.com/2011/09/12/the-most-overlooked-and-important-proposal-in-bamas-jobs-plan/
2. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
3. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html
4.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/five-myths-about-the-solyndra-collapse/2011/09/14/gIQAfkyvRK_blog.html
5. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
6. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/26/pawlenty-continues-stepped-up-political-attacks-appeals-to-tea-party-crowd/
@Jan
First off, I agree with your statement regarding the divided nature of Republican criticism of Obama. Honestly, this is extremely fortunate for Obama, because if the Republicans unite and all agree on one front of criticism it will be more difficult for him to stave them off. I personally believe that right now the Republican party is not presenting such a strong front by offering up some of the most, how to put this kindly, interesting candidates available, namely Bachman, and Perry. I understand why though. Sarah Palin was a significant popularity boost for the McCain campaign in 2008. What I find amusing, however, is McCain did not get elected (likely because America was terrified by the thought of Palin being “one heart beat away from the presidency”). The way I see it, the Republicans are trying to bring in a plethora of candidates to appease the masses and to distract from the fact that Obama has made progress in the past three years. Slow progress but progress nonetheless, as I pointed out in my post to this topic.
You pointed out that Obama’s momentum has slowed from the invigorated state it occupied during his campaign, and while there is no denying that the speed the campaign once held above its competitors has slowed, it slowed by the need to settle into office. I feel that any candidate would do the same, unless by some stroke of fortune they were able to efficiently affect change in the most drastic of ways. I also believe that Obama’s ‘slowness’ is actually beneficial to moving meaningful legislation and policies forwards. Actually, the system set up in the Constitution is geared for slow painstaking decision making processes to temper factionalism and to evenly distribute jurisdiction amongst the national government (1). Despite the public wanting fast action, the current system simply doesn’t allow for it.
As far as Republican stonewalling, well, that’s politics, and honestly, its their job to defend their collective platform with the steely resolve they have demonstrated thus far. While I personally believe that it is inefficient and adds unneeded complications to the political process, that is simply how it works. Also, Jan, you pointed out that a deathmatch between Perry and Obama would help Obama stand out from the Republicans. This is a point I thoroughly disagree with, I feel a gladiatorial match, with Obama wielding a trident and net, would be much better suited to the political analogy you made.
1.) The U.S. Constitution/ the Federalist papers
@justin
Justin, I admit that my last response to you was a bit mean spirited and focused too much on spelling errors. To atone for my grievous behavior, I will ignore them and do as a gentleman does by not pointing out that “hurtle” is incorrect.
Now that we have gotten to know each other a bit better, I will begin my response with a kind hearted compliment. I agree with you that the poor economic climate and Obama’s low approval rating are both large obstacles that require circumvention. I also agree that his approval rating is an Everest that can be climbed, an English Channel that can be swum, a 4 minute mile that can be broken, and a Red Sea that can be parted. However, I don’t believe that his approval rating is guaranteed to rise between now and 2012 and that the low numbers are a result of radical policy propositions. Thus far, Obama has proven himself to be more of a pragmatic centrist than a fiery ideologue. This can be seen in his handling of the debt crisis, where he compromised with the Republicans, and in his health care bill, which was very market-friendly and was in no way the government takeover of the industry that some pundits and fluffy faces made it out to be. (2) In fact, some journalists have even labeled Obama’s views as those of a moderate Republican! (1) With this in mind, it will be impossible for the President to make political gains through your projected strategy of “not proposing radical things”.
Your analysis of the economic issue, while vague, seems mostly correct to me. I don’t think that the single final solution that you mentioned to the economic downturn exists, and I believe that the Republican efforts to sabotage Obama you speak of hypothetically already have been happening for multiple years now. Regardless, what matters in the end is what voters think, and in general they seem to blame Obama for things he had no hand in. I propose that we model our government after Hobbe’s Leviathan, with Ms. Aby serving as Supreme Chancellor of the Republic.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-revealed-a-moderate-republican/2011/04/25/AFPrGfkE_story.html
(2) http://www.athensnews.com/ohio/article-30704-health-care-bill-a-moderate-response-to-a-huge-problem.html
@ jessica
I agree with you on the fact that Obama’s biggest hurtle are the current state of the economy and his ratings. Everyone is getting frustrated with the slow to no progress of the bills Obama has been passing. "The political challenge for the president will be whether he can make voters believe his eventual GOP opponent is a carbon copy of the former president," said Brown. "The fact that voters are unsure whether the economy will improve if he is re-elected is not a good sign for Obama" (1). The people are losing their faith in Obama. His bills are not stimulating the economy fast enough, the public wants results now. In a poll against Republican running mate Mr. Romney, 49 percent of registered voters believed that Romney would help the economy more than President Obama would (1). Making things worse for Obama, 32 percent have blamed Obama over Bush (carrying %2 percent of blame) for the United States recession (1). The publics praise for Obama is clearly decreasing, which will be Obama’s main hurtle in the upcoming election. His overall ratings are at 43 percent, one of his lowest standings yet (1). This rating barely exceeds nearest republican rival Governor Mitt Romney. (1) Republicans are clearly making a gain in the polls.
I agree with you that Romney would be a bigger threat to Obama’s campaign. As of now I think people have a better fondness for Romney than Perry. Perry was unable to defend himself after Romney attacked over the issue of the “Ponzi Scheme”, which Americans depend heavily on Social Security (2). In addition, Romney has a more conservative view than Perry (2). I think this will help Romney over Perry because of the decrease in the trust of government, as we have been learning in class.
1. http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/09/obama-aide-axelrod-acknowledges-hurdles-president-election/IOwjvDnoVSoeEPD9PMug3O/index.html
2. http://www.economist.com/node/21530979
@Arthur
The greatest hurdle for our class appears to be the vast majority of like-minded individuals, which, although it speaks well for our future, does little to improve our ability to intelligently argue an opposing viewpoint. Purely for the intellectual stimulation, I will attempt to assist Arthur in his arguments, by pointing out any of the (assuredly minor) logical flaws in his post. Initially, you declare that one of his greatest “hurdles” is creating jobs, which you illustrate through the opposition to his jobs bill. Although I wholeheartedly agree that unemployment is perhaps the most important issue for most voters, I believe that the political nature of the bill can only stand to increase his standing, due to the claims that Obama is far too moderate. This will prove to the voters of his party that he is willing and able to propose bills which address those topics for which they have concern. (1) Although the Tea Party is presenting a challenge to President Obama, his slowly evolving position towards Liberal issues is bringing back the radicals to counteract the reactionaries. Obama historically has managed to convince “staunch conservatives” to vote for him, and thus counterbalances any votes stolen by the Tea Party’s abduction of liberals. (2) Also, your statement that listeners to conservative talk show stations are more likely to vote is most definitely true; it is equally true that listeners to progressive stations will vote in every election. (3) Unfortunately for you and me however, is that the number of conservative talk radio stations and number of minutes broadcast are much higher than progressive stations, leading your point to be ultimately correct. (4) I can in no way disagree with your statement that the American public’s views about Obama’s ineffectiveness and apparently failing policies will seriously hurt his campaign, no matter how untrue those perceptions are. Similarly, I agree that the republicans have little they can do to negatively affect his campaign without also hurting themselves.
You only neglected to mention the impact that a unity of the republican party behind a single candidate would have, seriously boosting their currently fractured image. Overall I agree with many (if not most) of your points, and most (if not all) of your views in general, although I do believe your points could have been more eloquently made, and you have the potential for a more concrete and unassailable wall of logic.
.1 http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-inside-job/2008/11/21/obamas-change-was-moderate-before
2 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html
3 My mother listens to way too much progressive talk radio, and votes.
4 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html
@ Rutger
I agree that being seen as ineffective by voters is a serious problem for Obama’s reelection campaign. However, I think the fact that he is specifically seen as not having done anything useful about the economy is more important than a perception of general inefficiency. After all, he has accomplished several other things in his presidency, such as the discovery and killing of Osama bin Laden, which has been seen by many as a very important national goal sine 9/11 (1). If Obama is generally seen as ineffective – and I do not doubt that he is – it is probably due to the fact that general dissatisfaction with the economic situation clouds the view of many Americans and makes them see him as less successful in general. Obviously, this is mainly my opinion, as the Gallup poll you cited did not ask citizens why they thought Obama had been ineffective (2). Another Gallup poll shows that American confidence in the economy has been almost exclusively declining since mid-July, which is likely to be related to the public perception of Obama (3). However, yet another Gallup poll (looking up these things is kind of addictive) states that underemployment and unemployment have declined in September, which seems to show some success in improving the economy (4). It is possible, though, that past failures may have made Americans jaded and less likely to look kindly upon Obama. When considering reelection, how the public perceives Obama is more important than what he’s actually done, so being seen as ineffective is definitely a severe problem.
While Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry have been popular, both have recently declined in the polls (5). I agree with you that radicals can be briefly popular but are probably not electable. I also think that Michele Bachmann being nominated could be good for Obama, although my gut reaction is sheer terror that such a thing could be possible. The Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan once said, “If the Republican Party wants to make Michele Bachmann the voice of the party, that's more than fine with us,” basically summarizing the Democratic viewpoint that Bachmann is too radical to be taken seriously by enough of the population to be elected (6). If Bachmann does gain the party’s nomination, I think it would be more beneficial to Obama than if any of the other candidates are chosen. However, due to the polls I cited earlier, I don’t think it will happen (5). I also agree with you that the worst thing for Obama’s campaign would be the Republicans uniting on one strong candidate. As for relying too much on his catchphrase, I think that Obama is aware that he needs to do more than that and will definitely be focusing on emphasizing real change instead of just repeating the word during his next campaign. For example, the bumper stickers recently given to supporters by Obama’s campaign read simply “2012” instead of using any slogans (7). Regaining his old supporters by using more than a catchphrase is definitely something Obama will have to work on, but I think he is aware of that and has already begun taking steps toward that goal.
(1) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/01/national/main20058777.shtml
(2) http://www.gallup.com/poll/149765/Half-Say-President-Congress-Doing-Worse-Predecessors.aspx
(3) http://www.gallup.com/poll/149765/Half-Say-President-Congress-Doing-Worse-Predecessors.aspx
(4) http://www.gallup.com/poll/149957/Underemployment-Declines-Slightly-September.aspx
(5) http://politicsinminnesota.com/2011/10/despite-perry-decline-bachmann-continues-poor-polling/ - This link requires a subscription to see the whole thing, but the information I needed was in the preview.
(6) http://www.startribune.com/politics/69284347.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue
(7) http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-offers-2012-election-supporters-change-they-can-believe-in--next-term/2011/08/25/gIQAJz9AhJ_story.html
@Jessica
I’m going to break this down sentence by sentence, starting with “Obama is facing an abundance of economic issues.” First, I don’t think this is true- Obama will take flak for the poor economy [1], but voters don’t go to the polls thinking about how GDP growth is low, unemployment is at 9%, we are facing a potential trade war with China and our federal interest rate is virtually zero, which gives the fed little maneuverability in times of future crisis. Instead, they will vote against Obama if they don’t have a job or if they are conservative, and will vote for him if they have a job and are liberal. Plainly put, voters don’t care about these various economic issues. They don’t care about the “decidedly political nature” of his economic plan. They care about their job. If they don’t have one, empirics and human nature says that they will blame Obama and vote against him [1]. Now, you are saying to yourself, “but I said his biggest obstacle was unemployment and jobs. What is Arthur talking about?” Valid point, Jessica. What I am talking about is that I don’t understand what hurdle you are claiming Obama has to get over. You say that he presented a “jobs bill,” that he lacks a plan to “create more jobs” and that he should have “a concrete plan, like the jobs bill.” This just doesn’t make any sense to me. Is the hurdle that he introduced a jobs bill? Is the jobs bill key to get over a hurdle? What is the hurdle? These are questions that I feel go unanswered in your blog post. Oh, you also say he should change “his behavior in his previous Presidential campaign.” What are you implying? The magazine Fast Company rated Obama’s campaign as the most successful branding project of 2008. By all accounts it was a masterful strategy, incorporating social media at an unprecedented level and taping huge grassroots organizations. What is the “behavior” that he needs to change? Can you give an example? I think that you have it backwards- he needs to get enthusiasm back to 2008 levels. Currently, Democrats aren’t excited about voting, with only 45% saying they are excited about voting in the 2012 elections, according to a Gallup poll [2]. Compared to 2008 levels, this is abysmal. He needs to get this number up to have any chance at winning the election. Also, I think this is where you make the “poll numbers as a hurdle” argument. I noticed that most people in the class made this argument, and it bothers me. First, poll numbers themselves aren’t actually a hurdle; they simply show the public’s opinion of Obama. When Ms. Aby says that polls are important because they tell us why people think certain ways, I think what she means is that poll numbers can tell us that Obama is perceived poorly because of the economy. If you read your article more carefully you will see that it says that his poll numbers are low because of stagnant unemployment levels. That is the hurdle, not the poll numbers.
still @Jessica
The next part of your post is the part where you look at the Republican field. You start by saying that “many… are virtually unknown and new to the national stage.” Besides the beloved Jon Huntsman, every Republican contender has above 50% name recognition, and 7 have 80% recognition or above. Romney, Perry, Bachmann and Paul are comfortable on the national circuit, while Herman Cain has the highest positive intensity score out of any candidate (for more on PI scores, visit the link). Next, you say that “the Republicans need to unite their front and get behind a popular candidate.” No. That is what the primaries are for. Right now candidates are building their base. The election is still over a year away and it is just silly to suggest that the Republicans need to pick a candidate now. You say that if they don’t consolidate they will hurt their chances and help Obama, but if you look at the past few weeks in conjunction with the Gallup poll data I cited previously, you will see that straw polls have identified two different Republican candidates in California and Florida, both whom were not Perry of Romney, but simultaneously Obama lost popularity to the Republicans, and would currently lose a general election to a generic Republican candidate. Therefore, I do not believe that the Republicans are hurting their chances by not getting behind Perry or Romney, and the numbers back me up, not just “my opinion.” You next say that Romney would be the best candidate to beat Obama. I believe that you are suffering from what Jon Stewart calls a severe case of “pundititis” and that you are thinking about this too logically. The conservative base that will be crucial in the election likes Perry better, they like gun rights and the death penalty and dislike gay marriage and abortion. Perry got raucous applause at the mention of Texas’ death row execution record during the debates [4]. Let’s face it, Perry will ignite that base better and poses a more severe threat to Obama than the vanilla Romney. The last point you make is that “if they could fix the economy before the election, maybe that Republicans could make sure that Obama’s reelection was not a possibility. I hate to point it out, but that isn’t possible. I would italicize that if blogger would let me, but it won’t. Anyway, not only is it impossible to “fix the economy” in under a year (How? What is the plan? When will it be implemented? Who will do it? Perry? Romney? The split Congress?) but “the Republicans wouldn’t get credit, Obama would [1]. You say it would be “hardly feasible” but what you meant to say was “just kidding.”
[1] http://www.economist.com/node/21528624
[2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/149759/Democrats-Dispirited-Voting-2012.aspx
[3] http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
[4] http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-14-2011/indecision-2012---second-republican-debate-is-a-success
[5] @Rutger’s response to me- Republican’s is capitalized, I answered your point on liberal voting here and I don’t understand how Obama kicking the can on jobs will help him win over conservatives. That is all
In response to Rutger: Alright, well it's hard to disagree with anyone because they are all saying pretty much the same thing. I found it interesting though that you brought up the point of Michele Bachman winning the nomination. Personally I would agree with you in saying that if she won, the majority of the public wouldn't vote her in for president. I just don't think the American people are ready for a female president, but, then again, they proved me wrong when they voted for an African American to be president. I think it would be beneficial for Obama to address the strikes on Wall Street and try to end it because right now, I don't see an end in sight. This would help Obama get a better public opinion by showing that he can control rough situations. I am going to disagree with you about when you said Rick Perry and Michele Bachman are radicals. I don't think that their policies that are they are putting forth are too radical. I think their policies may seem radical because they are completely different from Obama's policies. Other than that, I would agree with the hurdles you stated and the opponents sabotage.
@Will
Hello Will. I would first like to say that this a wonderfully written blog post. Your use of tone and diction was phenomenal. I especially liked your use of the phrase “bumbling idiot.” I think that that you made an interesting point in saying that the Republican party is really hurting their chances by drawing out the nomination process. Republicans have actually enacted a new rule which will draw out the nomination process even more. Delegates are awarded to candidates in proportion to the amount of votes they receive, which prohibits them from winning large numbers of delegates, and thus announcing a candidate early on (1). With all of the republican candidates constantly competing to win over conservatives, they are spending more time fighting with each other than they are building their arguments against Obama.
The fact that Obama has not been able to make a huge difference in the state of our economy is definitely a problem. However, I think it can be mainly attributed to Right wing members of congress who refuse to pass anything Obama comes up with. When he found republicans to be stubbornly against his jobs bill, he called out the Republican leader of the house, asking him “to come down here to Dallas and explain what exactly in this jobs bill does he not believe in,” implying that he sees through their plan to shoot down all of his pieces of legislature without concrete reason (2). The Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell attempted to put the jobs bill directly to a vote because he knew there had not been enough discussion about it to have won over the number of votes needed for it to pass. (2).
Lastly, I think you make a good point in saying that the constant tearing-down of Obama by republicans is actually a turn-off for independents or otherwise undecided voters. If someone were basing their vote solely off of what he or she had heard from debates and campaign ads, not on any background knowledge, it can be assumed that said person would vote for someone who is able to base their campaign on what their own strengths are, not solely on the weaknesses of their opponents.
1. http://www.midlandsconnect.com/news/politics/story.aspx?id=668304
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/obama-jobs-bill-president-challenges-gop_n_995328.html
@Bryan
Hi Bry-Bry! As is to be expected for everyone but Arthur, I generally agree with the points you made in your post. However, I feel you may have oversimplified Obama’s motivation for the jobs bill by assuming that it will fail. Although you could not have known this at the time, Obama has announced today that he will attempt to split the bill into separate votes per part, to further pressure Republicans. This shows that, although President Obama knows that the bill could easily not pass, he is aware that he can likely get parts of it past, which still shows progress [1]. But you are correct in that this puts him in an even better position to avoid blame, because if Republicans do not cave into the individual pressures, it will be even clearer where the fault lies. I fully agree that Obama’s aggressive stance against Wall Street could easily hurt him. He disapproves of increasing banking fees, such as Bank of America’s recent move to charge customers a monthly fee for using a debit card [2]. The President seemingly agrees with you that the Republican candidates certainly talk a big game, but have no actual plan to realistically implement their ideas [3].
[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203476804576614823138026068.html
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/06/us-obama-idUSN1E7950UK20111006?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obama-to-media-stop-pretending-the-gop-has-a-real-jobs-plan/2011/03/03/gIQARDEVQL_blog.html
@Brooke H
I agree with you that Obama faces the two main hurdles of the economy and unemployment. However, I disagree that the Tea Party members in the House are responsible for ruining many of Obama’s attempts. Beginning with the debt ceiling, the source cited (1) is from July, and is an opinion based letter to a local newspaper from an individual with no political credentials. This being said, the issue of the debt ceiling legislation passing has also come and gone. The bill did pass in Congress, with the consensus that any further legislation on the matter would likely also pass (4). Even if the bill had not passed in the House and Senate, Congress would have unlikely met the 2/3 threshold for passing the disapproval legislation (4). A recent vote in the House was used to show “disapproval” of the increase in the debt ceiling, however this vote was only symbolic and representatives agreed that although they did not like the idea of increasing the ceiling, they did see it as one of the only ways for the American economy to survive. (4)
You bring up the issue of Republicans in the House voting in line with the Tea Party, however, the fact that the debt ceiling increase did occur proves that this obstacle is easily overcome by Obama. You also discuss a recent poll that shows Americans wish for Republicans and Democrats to work together to pass legislation. If anything, this poll only indicates that Obama looks favorable in the eyes of Americans, as he consistently calls for bipartisan support of his plans. Recent Congressional activity also shows that Washington is acknowledging the need for bipartisan agreement, as a trade deal that has been in dead-lock for five years is now being supported by both parties. (2) The fact that Obama is making gains towards getting Republicans and Democrats to work together will only make him look appealing to voters.
You state that Republicans have wrongly blamed Obama for the deficit issue, however the specific quote in the article you cite comes from Obama. Of course Obama will blame Bush, especially with reelection just around the corner. Additionally, compared to Bush, Obama has increased the deficit further. Brink arguments in this situation do not hold merit however, because past presidents have been able to decrease the deficit (Bush to Clinton decreased dramatically, and Reagan to Bush also decreased). (3) The comparison in the deficit between Bush and Obama also brings up the fact that Bush’s increase in debt occurred over an eight year period, and Obama oversaw his share of the increase in only four years. I agree that Obama came into the presidency facing economic difficulties in America, but using the former president as a scapegoat is the oldest trick in the book. The Republicans also should NOT use the fact that the Bush Administration “caused all the problems” to push towards a victory over Obama, as it reflects badly on their own party.
I disagree that the most important thing that Obama should be doing is leaving Washington to campaign. Yes, campaigning is important for the election, but Americans can easily judge his new policies without Obama coming for a visit. Also, the majority of those who attend campaign events already support the candidate, so the events will do little to sway any moderates. Obama’s main concern right now should be to improve his approval ratings, which he can do by focusing on passing more successful legislation before the election occurs. The fact of the matter is, no matter how many cities Obama holds rallies at, Americans will still head into election day with a close eye on how the Jobs Act is working, and how the economy is sitting.
1. http://www.mlive.com/opinion/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2011/07/tea_party_enclave_is_stonewall.html
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/bipartisan-trade_b_996400.html
3. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/05/in-pictures-debt-by-president-obama-leads-the-pack/
4. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/14/house-vote-marks-disapproval-of-debt-ceiling-increase/
@Julie
First off, I agree with what you said about what Obama will need to overcome in hopes of reelection. As basically everyone has stated, it is clear that the issues of the economy and unemployment pose big roadblocks for Obama, and therefore something must be done to come up with a solution and put himself in a better position for being elected again. What I really concur with that you said regarding Obama’s proposed solutions, is that they more so will raise morale and faith in the public, something that is essential to his campaign. I think the Jobs Act will, in theory, look like said solution, and therefore put Obama in a better spot, something he’ll need with his current ratings. According to the Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, Obama is at 43% strong disapproval, and 56% overall disapproval, which has already gone up by 3% since these blogs were first posted (1). These are extremely high disapproval ratings for someone holding office, and campaigning for a second term. However, like you also stated, the Republican blockage of Obama’s proposals is a big hurdle in his way. I completely agree with what you said about the Republicans’ refusal to vote in favor of any Obama-proposed bills making Obama look like a president (especially to the public that doesn’t delve deep for a lot of information, but mainly the big ideas) who is not doing enough to help the country’s crises. Really it is highly due to the fact that none of his proposals are making it through. While it may be “hurting his reputation”, this is something that Obama is going to have to deal with and get around for his campaign. But besides all of this that I essentially agree upon, I will move on to what I do not agree with. You state that the Republicans’ sabotage could hurt their own candidates’ chances of winning the election. Yes, I think this is partially true; some voters, especially undecided ones, are not going to want to see Republicans creating such a deadlock for their own personal gain, and not what may be best for the country. However, I do not think they could ever go so far as to whip out a candidate from a third party to be president. You said “they might decide to choose a completely random and unusual choice for president.” Some may and undoubtedly will do this, but I do not believe it will be nearly enough to swing the election to a virtually “random” candidate. You make a good point in saying that Jesse Ventura was able to win the election as governor, but this was on the state level, and the national level is a much grander and often more complex scale. Ralph Nader was the biggest third party contender in the 2008 election, and he received only .55% of the national votes (2). I just do not think it would be plausible. There are so many potential candidates from other parties than the Democrats and Republicans, (2) that I don’t think one could ever reach a majority, or even be well known enough to get enough electoral votes. That being said, I see your point about this since there is no outstanding candidate yet, but I do not see any threat of a third party candidate becoming the president, even through dissatisfaction with the current candidates.
(1) http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
(2) http://www.indypendent.org/2008/11/07/third-party-results/
(3) http://www.politics1.com/p2012.htm
@Brooke H.
I would like to start my response by complimenting the informative and poetic nature of your post. ‘Twas a scholarly and esoteric work.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, especially about the hostility of the Republican Party. They have been vehemently rejecting any and all of Obama’s proposals, simply because of their antipathy for him. Of particular contempt is their rejection of Obama’s jobs bill, however, Obama has given a fantastically incensed response (1). By calling out, or “dissing” Eric Cantor, he has finally stood his ground, something he will need to do on the election warpath. I personally love the new, riled-up Obama. Instead of growing gloomy and saturnine due to his lack of progress, he is instead talking the fight to the Republicans with a zeal previously unseen. I feel he is showing another side of himself that the American people will really respect and identify with, due to the “stone-walling” of the Republicans.
The most interesting point you bring up is the (slight) improvement to unemployment that Obama has made (2). It is a vexing contradiction that this topic has not been covered further, while the pedantic coverage of the Solyndra scandal runs rampant (3).
I also concur with you on topic of Republican strategy. They certainly could make the argument that they would be better for the economy, however, I believe this argument to be pretentious and futile. Lowering taxes wouldn’t stimulate business, not as much as aid packages and infrastructure improvements will (4). Also, the fact that the Republicans have been extremely bitter about any sort of compromise may work in the President’s favor, if he can portray the Republicans as greedy and malicious(5).
However, one point I feel you could have brought up is the difference in Republican candidates. One one hand, you have Mitt Romney, who, until very recently, was the converse of evrything the Republican Party stood for. He (was) pro-life, he provided the model for Obamacare in his state of Massachusetts. He has even changed so much and so frequently that there is a Wikipedia page solely devoted to tracking the changes in his political stance on various issues. (6). On the other hand you have Rick Perry, who I would describe as a die-hard Republican’s perfect candidate. While he has great appeal to the far-right, he may be too conservative for the general election, and be unable to win over independent voters. In an Obama vs. Perrry matchup, Obama wins 10 times out of 10. However, in an Obama vs. Romney matchup, the margin gets much smaller.
Sources
1. http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/oct/06/obama-calls-out-gop-on-jobs-bill/
2. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
3.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/06/obama-defends-528-million-federal-loan-to-bankrupt-solyndra/
4.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/us/politics/obama-says-he-would-accept-a-surtax-on-high-incomes.html?_r=1&ref=politics
5. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/dowd-one-and-done.html?scp=6&sq=obama%20reelection&st=cse
6.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney#Abortion
@Andrew
Everyone pretty much so mentioned the same hurdles in their post for last week, however, your post also mentioned some other hurdles rarely mention or not mentioned at all; so nice job on being different from the rest of us. To begin, there were many points that I agree with you on, but also some that I disagree with. The original post asked the class to discuss the “main hurdles” facing President Obama in his re-election. While I agree that all the challenges you listed are hurdles, I don’t feel that all are major hurdles (emphasis on major), rather mere bumps that may slightly deter his chances for re-election. Obviously the economy is one of the largest obstacles facing Obama, so I completely agree with you on that point. In President Obama’s first State of the Union address, he promised to help lead America out of its recession and called for bold economic action [1]. Thus far, it has not been done. However, there is some optimism with Obama’s recent jobs plan, which according to a Gallop poll has garnished public support for most aspects of Obama’s American Jobs Act [2]. In your solution to this economic hurdle you also mention that Obama can “compromise with Republicans and make a bill that most people are happy about.” While this is true, I don’t feel that this is much of a solution. If would undoubtedly be the simplest solution, but it is without much merit and is implausible considering the current state of our world. Obama has tried to compromise with Republicans in the past, but the great bipartisan in Congress is becoming too great to overcome. Now regarding the health care bill, I also agree that this is a hurdle Obama has faced and will continue to face. I don’t necessarily agree with you on the fact that the main problem regarding the bill is the repealing of it, but rather the bill itself. What I’m trying to distinguish is that the repeal is a result of the passing of a bill that wasn’t completely full of support before it was passed [3]. A majority of people are now in favor of a repeal of the health care bill, although recent support for repeal has been dwindling [4]. The repeal definitely won’t look good for Obama, but I think to suggest that this could really decrease his numbers is a bit far-fetched. If the repeal does happen, Obama will obviously have to rethink his health care strategy and consider new options to solve this dicey problem. Now I must disagree with you in regards to the Solyndra scandal. First off, I must say that when I read this in your post I had no clue what this was (and I wasn’t alone in this). After doing some research on this and watching CNN, I now know what the Solyndra scandal is. Clearly, this scandal shows an error in judgment on behalf of Obama and his administration, and will certainly not reflect highly upon him. I consider this scandal to be more of a bump than a hurdle in regards to President Obama’s re-election campaign. Now while I’m glad that you offered some different hurdles than the rest of the class, I do feel that his low approval ratings definitely should’ve been mentioned. A president’s approval rating and image definitely play a factor in his chances for re-election and should not be neglected.
As far as ways that Republicans can damage Obama’s re-election chances, I definitely agree with you on bringing up economic issues. As I stated before (and mentioned in my own post), Obama had promised change for the country and while some has been happening, it has not been enough. You didn’t mention anyways that the Republicans can help Obama’s campaign, which I definitely feel that that are. My thoughts towards this can also be seen in my original post. I also agree with you on the fact that the Republicans aren’t trying to sabotage Obama’s campaign. As you said they are “simply stating what they see and believe” which is always a part of politics, but this doesn’t always make their opinions right. The Republicans are obviously trying to cast doubt on Obama, which they’re supposed to do because they don’t want him to win and is the reason for running against him. I consider sabotage to be more vicious and what they’re doing is “fair” in the game of politics.
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2501544.htm
[2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/149567/americans-favor-jobs-plan-proposals-including-taxing-rich.aspx
[3] http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/slim-margin-americans-support-healthcare-bill-passage.aspx
[4]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
@Sam
First off, I agree with your opinion on how this current recession is very similar to the Great Depression and the New Deal. In both times, there was a recession and the dominating issue was “economic equity” [A]. In fact, some political scientists believe the New Deal hindered economic growth [B]. World War II allowed the unemployment rate to drop to under ten percent because it created a mass quantity of jobs and was war fought overseas and at home [B]. In the end, the New Deal has become so glorified because of its long term benefits. For instance, the New Deal helped create a system which reinstated the people’s trust in the banking system. With a now gives people a feeling of security in the banking system [B]. In addition, with the start of Social Security, the New Deal has helped senior citizens maintain a retirement life without the pressure of needing a job [C]. It is now time for society to become realistic with their goals and expectations of the president’s solutions to the current economic crisis. Personally, I believe that times are much different than when the New Deal occurred, so the program ideas, such as Social Security, need to be modernized and redone.
Additionally, I completely agree with your stance on how the Republicans can hurt and help Obama’s presidential reelection campaign. If Congress remains in a deadlock for passing bills, the economy is just going to get worse. They need to figure out a way to compromise, rather than just saying it’s my way, or no way at all. In regards to your statement, of “ the massive amount of blaming,” I believe it is much more productive to solve the problem, rather than search for a scapegoat for the economic crisis. For instance, there was almost a government shutdown after a deadlock in Congress for the decisions of the current fiscal spending for the rest of the year [D].
I somewhat disagree with your views on President Obama’s hurtles. Yes, he did not get as much done in office as he planned. On the other hand, with the current economic other topics, such as Guantanamo Bay and moon missions are almost impossible to deal with if the government does not have proper funds. The main issue with Guantanamo Bay is that we do not have the funds to come up with, fund, and put prisoners on trail [E]. It’s not like we are able to just dump supposed dangerous criminals on another country, or even get the proper funding to relocate these people [E]. Contrasting, President Obama has made progress in the area of civil liberties. For example, the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law was formally repealed in September 2011 [F]. In addition, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed by Obama to protect woman from discrimination of pay in the work force during the January of 2009 [F]. In conclusion, President Obama has made significant progress in some areas of the government and political rights. Completing all of Obama’s goals in his 2008 campaign would take more than the four short years and are even more of a hurtle with the poor economic state.
[A]http://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS125/articles/smith.htm
[B] http://www.stlouisfed.org/greatdepression/qa.html
[C]http://www.fdrheritage.org/new_deal.htm
[D]http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/06/29/Obama-Chastises-GOP-over-Taxes-Debt-Deadlock.aspx#page2
[E]http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/guantanamobaynavalbasecuba/index.html
[F]http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil-rights
@Sam
I’d like to start off by saying that I liked your blog post; it was very well written. On the issue of the Republican obstruction of Obama’s efforts, I strongly agree with you that the Republicans need to compromise more with the Democrats. Especially if they wish to regain office, Republicans must stop laying the blame on the President. It seems like they are trying to keep the economy in bad shape in hopes of defeating Obama in the upcoming election, because voters will be so fed up with the economy that they’re just desperate for some sort of change, and may possibly vote for the Republican [1]. This seems ridiculous to me. The fact that Republicans are more worried about winning the presidential election than the wellbeing of the country definitely stands out to me. This only hurts the nation because, rather than focusing on constructive solutions, the majority of the energy is being channeled into blocking progress. These efforts work against Obama as he tries to do his job, and it is simply counterproductive. Obama has said that one thing that has contributed to voters’ cynicism is the fact that their voices through things like public opinion polls are not being taken as seriously as they would like. He blamed Congress for this, saying that he is completely willing to compromise with Republicans, given that they pull some of their weight as well [2]. As Obama makes these compromising proposals, Republicans seem partially uninterested because it seems as though they don’t want to do anything to help. They want the economic situation to become so terrible that Republicans can win the next election due to voter frustration with Obama and his failed attempt at improving the economy. Obama has harshly criticized the Republican leadership, saying it has chosen to “filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress” by blocking votes on agenda items the president says would breathe life into the economic recovery. “These steps aren’t just the right thing to do for those hardest hit by the recession.” Obama said, “They’re the right thing to do for all of us.”[3]
1. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2011/09/republicans_vs_economics.html
2. http://www.cbsnews.com/2102-501708_162-20116952.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
3. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/17/obama-slams-gop-obstructing-economic-progress/
Jan, I agree with you about the economy being a main hurdle. I also agree with you that the republicans, aka fluffy faces, have been bashing his "shenanigans" a lot making his victory's seem less significant. A way the president will overcome this campaign is by looking to his past slogan, like mentioned, and reminding the American people that change is still coming and change has happened in the past three years. So like the 4 minute mile Obama will need to lace up his spikes lead the race for three laps and them hope the other runners don't have a kick because if they do Obama will get passed in the last 200 meters after locking up. As far as the economy it may affect Obama's campaign the most but its like the wind while running the 4 minute mile, its blowing on him the hardest because he has been leading the longest. What Obama has to remember is the wind affects everyone running the race.
@Hannah
Hi! I was particularly impressed with your upper level of rational and analytical thinking in your blog post. For the most part, I agree with your stated positions.
I particularly liked the way you presented the bit about Obama’s Jobs Act. Until your post, I had only thought of the Jobs Act in terms of the effect it would have on the campaigns of Republicans. I primarily talked about how Obama could use the topic of the bill to displace blame for the economy, IF it was not passed by congress. I had completely overlooked the possibility that even if Obama is able to pass the bill through congress, it could still fail to revive the economy, leaving our incumbent president in a very poor place for the election in 2012.
I agree with your assessment that “Obama needs to emphasize the fact that the Jobs Act will take time to change the economy.” This simple statement, if made correctly, could influence public opinion to a high degree, if the job act becomes a staple issue of the 2012 election. I also agreed with your point that Obama needs to assert that changing presidents in the middle of this economic crises would undo all of the positive progress that has been made. I predict Obama will use this strategy later on down the road.
@Hannah I agreed with many of the points that you presented in your post. I thought that it was well-written and very logical, as well. The way that you explained the Obama Jobs Act was also very informing and helped me understand it better. Your points made it clearer to me that if Congress chooses to pass the Jobs Act, it may not succeed. In order for Obama to put the presidency “in the bag” again, he must make sure that the Job Act succeeds, if it is passed. In order for our president to be reelected, he’ll need to present more ideas and possible policies that will act as “economic band-aids” and prove that he can be the change that he consistently referenced in his 2009 campaign. I support the following statement: “Obama needs to emphasize the fact that the Jobs Act will take time to change the economy.” I believe that this statement alone could effectively sway the public opinion, if the Job Act is indeed one of the issues of utmost importance to the 2012 election. Obama also needs to propound the possible negative effects of electing a new president during our nation’s time of economic crisis. I am sure that Obama will use this as a weapon as the election draws nearer. Obama is already a strong contender for the presidency, he just needs to find a policy to sway the voters in his direction once again.
Jan proposed, "I propose that we model our government after Hobbe’s Leviathan, with Ms. Aby serving as Supreme Chancellor of the Republic." I accept. ;)
Interesting use of "evidence" Rutger: "3 My mother listens to way too much progressive talk radio, and votes."
@B. Hendricks.
Your point of the Tea Party candidates having stonewalled the plans Obama had is all too valid. The method for solving this issue is all too apparent. On the campaign trail, if any one should target him by saying he was not able to get anything done, he can point out that it was members of that candidate's party who stopped him. If you are right in assuming that the biggest issue is his lack of progress, and the cause of that is the tea party congress, all he has to do is blame them, and the republican party. If he can do that, then it will be easier for the tea party congressmen to be voted out of office, because they will look like the sole reason that nothing they wanted done will get done. Obama can use that negative image against the rest of the Republican party, just not in an explicit manner.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home