|

Here’s another conservative political analyst who thinks Obama likely will do well in 2012 election

obama-smiles.jpg 

Michael Barone has joined the parade of conservative pundits who say President Obama is not nearly as likely to be defeated in 2012 as some of his right-wing detractors think.

Barone isn’t saying that Obama is a sure winner in the next election, but he WARNS that last month’s midterm voting is not necessarily a harbinger of things to come.

An excerpt:

Obama has obviously figured out that Americans prefer to see their president describe the glass as half full rather than half empty. That’s a good lesson for him, and for Republicans as well, especially those who believe that the Obama Democrats’ shellacking in the midterms means that Obama himself will definitely lose in 2012.

History should provide some caution for these folks. Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush saw their parties fare pretty well in their midterm elections. But they were defeated for re-election anyway.

In contrast, pundits thought that Ronald Reagan’s Republicans took a shellacking in 1982 (actually, about half their losses resulted from redistricting) and Bill Clinton’s Democrats definitely did in 1994. But both the 40th and 42nd presidents were resoundingly re-elected, carrying 49 and 31 states.

Several factors will likely work less strongly against Obama in 2012 than against the Obama Democrats in 2010. Turnout will be different, for one thing. We may see again the record turnout of blacks we saw in 2008. Young people who pretty much shunned the polls in the midterms may turn out and vote…

Meanwhile, the latest Gallup Daily Tracking Poll SHOWS that more Americans now approve of Obama’s job performance than disapprove.

At this point in Ronald Reagan’s presidency, disapproval of his job performance was 17 percentage points higher than the approval rate.

Share:

12 Comments

  1. If he works to look like he moving to center working with Republicans in Congress, he most likely will be re-elected. If he would try to continue far left policies only he will be defeated. He will look to be in the center enough and work with the Republicans enough, like the recent tax bill to get in enough people’s good graces for them to forget that he is forcing them to buy healthcare insurance.

  2. If liberals are true to their word, he will have a difficult time garnering their support in 2012. I have seen on this very blog all kinds of comments from progressives and liberals who vowed that Obama will lose their support if he does _____. Including extending the Bush tax cuts for those darned rich criminals making more than 250,000 a year.

  3. Don’t worry, doc. The progressives will forgive and forget as soon as the Republicans nominate some wingnut.

  4. Hogwash! Every reputable conservative pundate would agree that Obama is most likely to be defeated in 2012. Sure some isolated individuals are saying otherwise but name one reputable conservative body that has consistently said Obama will be reelected in 2012. Can’t name one? Ha! You must be wrong then. (See what happens when you use a liberal tree hugger’s tactic)

  5. rick: You’re a dimwit. Karl Rove says Obama is likely to be re-elected. So does Charles Krauthammer.

    Granted, wingnuts like Rush Limbaugh disagree, but nobody with half a brain has ever considered him a respectable pundit (or “pundate,” as you would put it). He’s just a guru to the booboisie, which probably means he’s one of your favorites.

    By the way, rick, have you found any reputable scientific organizations that don’t subscribe to mainstream theories on global warming? I didn’t think so. Let us know if you come up with one, OK?

  6. Pat, I am no more a dimwit than you. You are naming individuals instead of “reputable conservative bodies” as I stipulated in my challenge to you. I failed to meet your challenge no more than you failed to meet mine. The very nature of both “bodies” is to find evidence to support their theories and promote their own agendas and those who have different opinions are cast out. In the case of the scientific organizations, I maintain that it would be self defeating for them to promote the conclusion that:

    THE EARTH IS WARMIMG (but it’s not our fault and there’s nothing man can do about it)

    And:

    THE EARTH WILL COOL DOWN AGAIN (also not our fault and there’s no way to stop it)

    It also wouldn’t be very newsworthy. Conversely, the conservative organizations wouldn’t come out with an official unified conclusion that Obama would most likely be re-elected for the same reason. Therefore, as I have just illustrated, your requirement that I produce a single “body” is just a ruse.

    Reject the analogies and sling personal insults if you want Pat (and nitpick the typos) but it boils down to this fact: You want to believe that man is directly responsible for global climate change and you won’t even answer a simple question. Apparently, doing so would blow big holes in your theories. If you don’t want to answer the question, then stop repeating your ridiculous challenge.

    Here’s the basic question again:

    What impact did man have on the Earth’s cooling that led to the ice ages and subsequent warming periods? Could man have done anything to prevent these events from happening?

  7. rick: You still don’t seem to understand that every single scientific organization of national or international standing that has addressed the issue of global warming agrees with mainstream theories regarding MAN-MADE global warming. There is not even one reputable scientific organization that has maintained a dissenting opinion regarding MAN-MADE global warming. Not even one.

    You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t have science on your side. All you have is silly right-wing rhetoric.

  8. rick: One other thing:

    Your questions (“What impact did man have on the Earth’s cooling that led to the ice ages and subsequent warming periods? Could man have done anything to prevent these events from happening?”) are silly and irrelevant.

    Human populations were very small during even the most recent ice ages. And if you’re referring to the so-called Little Ice Age in Europe around the middle of the second millennium (which wasn’t really a full-blown ice age), there are various theories regarding human impact on climate change during that period, but none of them have any direct bearing on the global-warming theories of our modern times.

    Scott A. Mandia, a professor of climatology and meteorology at various schools, including the State University of New York, has written extensively on the Little Ice Age. He’s also had this to say:

    “My position on the current global warming is the same as the overwhelming majority of international climate scientists: the current rate of global warming is unprecedented and is being caused by humans. In no way can my summary of the research regarding the impact of regional climate change on the Viking civilization and Europe during the Little Ice Age be used to ‘prove’ the current global warming is due to a natural cycle.”

  9. Pat, I’m equally shocked and grateful that you answered my question. It’s too bad though that you have to belittle the relevance of the question. But still, I’m satisfied by getting some kind of response. As they say, you have to learn to crawl before you can walk.

    Can anyone prove that it I’SNT DUE to a natural cylce? Wouldn’t you concede that it is possible that industrialization may have occurred and is still occurring during a general warming trend that would have happened anyway? If you think scientifically about it you would have to conclude that it is possible. Probable? I guess you’d say no. I just don’t understand how any person who is a critical thinker could be so solidly convinced that it’s man-made. I’d think you’d leave some room in your analysis for the possibility that you are wrong. You wouldn’t want to be perceived as being arrogant now would you?

  10. Peanut,

    If that’s how you view and characterize those with opposing views then you are one sad individual. Your comments are very divisive and are typical of many liberals.

    OH NO! I just looked outside and noticed it is much marmer than yesterday. Holy cow! It’s supposed to be even warmer tomorrow. You guys must be right. EVerybody panic!!!!!!!!

  11. That really is how Peanut views those with whom he disagrees. He won’t apologize for it because he somehow thinks his bilious conviction makes his viewpoint more correct. His attitude is why I once dubbed him “Sad Peanut”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>