Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Democrats Looking To 2016 Midterms and 2016 Presidential Distancing Themselves From President Obama...

by: Les carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


I am generally not a supporter of the democratic agenda, it being way too progressive and starry eyed for me.

Democrats of late are distancing themselves from President Obama fearing he will hurt rather than help their election or reelection chances in 2016. Could this mean the democratic party is really more conservative than the President whose whose choice for the democratic nomination in 2016 is Senator Elizabeth Warren, the ultra progressive senator from Massachusetts? Or does it mean the party base is becoming even more progressive and believe (rightly or wrongly)America wants a president more progressive than Obama has been?

With two and a half months until midterms and two years two and a half months until the presidential election a lot can happen and it should be interesting.

At any rate a recent McClatchy-Marist poll reveals some not so good news for the democratic party. If the President is hurting democrats because of his liberal as well as inconsistence policies it is a very good news for republicans going into the 2014 midterm elections.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is dragging down his party and hurting the prospects of fellow Democrats as they head into midterm elections that will determine who controls Congress, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.

Obama is beset by problems at home and abroad. Just 40 percent of voters approve of the way he’s doing his job, tying his worst mark in three years and the second worst of his presidency.

Just 39 percent approve of the way he’s dealing with the economy and only 33 percent approve of how he’s dealing with foreign policy, the worst of his years in office.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/08/11/235995/obamas-standing-among-voters-is.html#storylink=cpy

Something tells me this could be why President Obama is hitting the links so often and likely keeping the ibuprofen or aleve close at hand.

Much more BELOW THE FOLD

Via: Memeorandum
.

4 comments:



  1. "...the President whose whose choice for the democratic nomination in 2016 is Senator Elizabeth Warren..."

    The NY Post picked up on that speculation by Ed Klein, whose reputation for "creative" non-fiction is well-known in journalistic and writing communities, IOW, he has a reputation for making stuff up. Plus he is a partisan, so his writing is not what anyone would call nonpartisan.

    "As Adam Chandler notes at The Wire, Obama has mostly governed from the center of Democratic Party ideology, which is closer to where Clinton stands than Warren.

    would Senator Warren really defend Obama’s legacy, more so than Clinton? That’s no given. As Adam Chandler notes at The Wire, Obama has mostly governed from the center of Democratic Party ideology, which is closer to where Clinton stands than Warren.

    “This idea that a Clinton presidency would ‘undo and undermine’ the president’s policies just seems silly,” Mr. Chandler writes.

    Plus, if anyone would really undo Obama’s legacy, it would be a Republican. All indications are that Elizabeth Warren would be a weaker general election candidate than Clinton. Keeping the White House in the hands of the same party for a third term will be a difficult task. You’d think Obama would back the person who makes that more likely.

    But we’ll set all this aside. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Obama does want Warren, not Clinton, to succeed him.

    Given that the president’s approval ratings are now underwater, it would make more sense for him to endorse the person he wants to lose, right? That’s what a clever and ruthless politician might do."


    Re: President Obama's job approval. American's have very poor memories. George W. Bush left office with an approval rating of 28%, one of the lowest in presidential polling. But just recently the American people decided he wasn't so bad after all, and his numbers have improved. So one minute the American people say a president is yucky, the next minute they say he's not so bad. Also, President Truman left office with horrid approval numbers, but is now considered by historians to have been one of our greatest presidents of the 20th century. --Christian Science Monitor

    ReplyDelete
  2. Guess I hit a nerve. First I do not believe H. Clinton would undo Obama's "legacy" nor did I say she would. Second, center is relative to ones perception of where center is relative to where a person views their own position.

    Clinton, who is more to center than Obama would simply slow the leftward trajectory more than Warren. Everyone I speak with shares that view.

    Warren would be a disaster and given a choice of another poor republican choice and a democrat I'd opt for H. Clinton. If the choice were Warren the republican would get my vote.

    I am hoping Gary Johnson makes another run. Or Huntsman as a Libertarian or independent.

    Stay with the progressive partisan path. You're good at it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I hate to think that far ahead in this age of instant changes, but IMO, the GOP's biggest challenge is
    picking the right presidential candidate out of a broad buffet of potential runners. (I know a person who is still outraged that Fred Thompson didn't get it. Although Fred seems good a hawking reverse
    mortgages).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well BB Idaho I essentially am in agreement.

    In my view the progressive wing of the democratic party is pushing the party to the hard left and the conservative/libertarian wing of the republican party is pushing the party to the hard right. This is very unfortunate IMO because what America needs and wants is a Bill Clinton style pragmatic and centrist president. One who will negotiate and compromise as needed for the good of the country. Nixon and Reagan had these qualities as well. As did Gerald Ford.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.