"Why won’t Obama voters `break up’ with him?" by Greg Sargent at WP

[applegrove]

Why won’t Obama voters `break up’ with him?

by Greg Sargent at WP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/why-wont-obama-voters-break-up-with-him/2012/09/06/e4831e06-f84c-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_blog.html

"SNIP...........................................

Americans for Prosperity is also running an ad featuring former Obama supporters saying (again more in sorrow than in anger) that they feel duped by Obama’s promise of hope and change.

But the thinking underlying these ads may neglect another possibility: What if the Obama supporters the Romney camp is trying to woo (but apparently has yet to win in the numbers he need) are reluctant to part ways with him for substantive reasons?

The two ads cited above do make something of a substantive case against Obama. The first cites the debt and the failure of Obama’s council; the second says Obama failed to bring new jobs or reduce spending, with one former supporter saying: “he inherited a bad situation, but he made it worse.” The basic idea is that many Obama voters have decided he fell disqualifyingly short but need to be told they can feel okay about ending his presidency.

But what if this isn’t how they see things? Perhaps these targeted voters are taking a more nuanced view of the economy and the Obama presidency, and are in the process of choosing between Obama’s ideas, priorities, values and vision and those of Romney. In his speech, Bill Clinton may have articulated another strain of their perceptions and thinking when he said: “No president, not me, not any of my predecessors, no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years. He has laid the foundation for a new, modern, successful economy of shared prosperity. And if you will renew the president’s contract, you will feel it. You will feel it.”

...........................................SNIP"

[progressivebydesign]

1. the Obama voters leaving him is a Right Wing Media myth.

And Romney is figuring that out.. and his focus and his PAC $$$ focus is going to shore up his base that is sitting home instead of voting. It's a full court press on the Nascar Races (this weekend,) Christian college, putting Pat Roberston in the front row of today's Romney speech, etc. Soon Romney will be over at Bob Jones University...

We don't want to "break up with Obama." that's just fucking juvenile. The "enthusiasm gap" is also a myth. The President is drawing overflow crowds of thousands of people... and they're fired up like crazy. They like him, and in fact America's consumer confidence is also surging this month.

[central scrutinizer]

2. or maybe

the other guy who is wooing you is a total creep who makes your skin crawl.

[frazzled]

4. or maybe

These people who want to "break up" with Obama are really members of the Romney campaign staff.

[freshwest]

7. Aleady caught some of them.

[patrice]

3. I wonder how many people actually speculate in any detail about exactly how things get done.

Presidents are NOT kings. He can't just order most things to happen. He doesn't even write legislation. The legislative process is very complex; the process itself involves hundreds even thousands of people; in any given piece of legislation hundreds of details play play off against other details and different bills are negotiated relative to one another; timing and less directly related contextual factors affect how many decisions are made by many different people.

And that's just the obvious stuff.

I get very impatient with what appears to be so many people, many of whom haven't paid very much attention to any of this for a very long time, if not most of their lives, just delivering these summary judgements without the least consideration for the thousands and thousands of things that they don't know.

[JRLeft]

5. Thank you for teaching civics. Presidents have limited powers and the House controls the purse.

[patrice]

8. This puts everyone in a difficult situation when we try to do as we really should and talk to

one another and interact on the issues like citizens would. However, because of our current culture, that's difficult, because we're so often in the position of saying something more or less TTE, "You don't know what you're talking about" without insulting someone.

All of us are more or less uninformed, or outright ignorant, but the difference between opinion and knowledge no longer appears to be significant. If only discussions could begin with the recognition of that difference and if opinions were owned PERSONALLY as opinions, so that knowledge might stand a chance of being independently valued for what it is, we would stand a chance of relating to our elected representation as peers, rather than as ill-tempered, spoiled children, or bullies.

[freshwest]

9. +1,000

[kurt_cagle]

38. Absolutely Agreed

I think this should be broadcast widely.

The Republicans want kings. Scratch a Republican and you will find a Royalist - someone who believes that the President has absolute power (or at any rate can be controlled by kingmakers to exercise absolute power on someone else's behalf). Aristocracies generally like this kind of structure, because it makes it possible for decisions to be made that generally benefit only the aristocracy, usually at the expense of the peasantry and the mercantile class. It's ironic given that the Republicans essentially started out as mercantilists, who have traditionally been the yeoman middle class, but not all that surprising.

I think most Democrats actually prefer a weaker president, one who does not have absolute powers, even in times like now when we could wish that we had control of the House back. They prefer distributed power, believe that checks on authority keep people honest and root out corruption, and that informed debate actually improves the quality of legislation. They believe in the power of government, but also believe that government needs to constantly police itself lest it become captured by one or another constituency, and that the role of the electorate is to watch the watchman.

Democracy is a messy process, it can move slowly, and it can be frustrating for those who want direct, rapid action to happen. But there is a reason why the legislature is called a deliberating body, and why the president isn't all powerful.

[patrice]

40. Yep. Some of those who scream loudest about "Freedom" are actually absolutists and/or ideologues.

I think the key solution is much more directly active and involved voting populace. Many, many, many more people who write letters and make phone calls and are unafraid of talking openly with anyone and everyone about everything. That alone will correct at least some of the information deficit and ameliorate at least some electoral and campaign finance corruption, though I hope that someday we'll achieve enough of a critical mass of that sort of citizenship to demand both authentic electoral and campaign finance reform.

This is one of the reasons I stay committed here at DU and on FaceBook to some extent, though I do get tired.

[CheapShotArtist]

6. Because

a.) The other guy is totally inept and shouldn't even be seriously considered for the presidency
and
b.) Why change course when the country is headed in the correct path? http://obamaachievements.org/list

[freshwest]

10. Yes, we are on the correct path!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

11. Because

The Koch suckers and the Mittbot do not offer a reasonable alternative. Just the same shit that got us into trouble in the first place.

[freshwest]

12. "Breaking up," huh? Did we have an affair? I don't think so. Just more lies.

[whathehell]

26. Yeah, isn't that a weird way to put it?

Answer: 'Cause he hasn't given me my ring back yet"?

[freshwest]

29. Fits to the juvenile middle school or elementary school level of the right. Immature bullies.

[Jennicut]

13. Who in their right mind leaves an intelligent caring man for a robotic unfeeling jerk?

The breakup is not happening because Romney is unlikable and Obama voters are not idiots about what Repubs have done in obstructing him on the economy.

[neeksgeek]

14. But what if this isn’t how they see things?

I'm an independent, leaning very strongly left. I voted for Mr. Obama in 2008. I've commented in other posts, in detail, about how I've spent the years of President Obama's administration. To sum it up, for the last three years I've either been unemployed or badly under-employed. Is this Obama's fault? No.

I've heard the right-wing explain how I deserved to be unemployed and poor. That I did not deserve any help with this situation, either (for various reasons, I was ineligible for any government benefits whatsoever, including unemployment benefits). I have lived the past three years very much in the "I'm on my own" mindset, and let me tell you, it was hard. But I've gotten through it and finally found a good job again. Things are looking up for me personally, and if somebody asks me if I am better off than I was four years ago, the answer is YES. Is this President Obama's doing? To some extent, it must be. I saw what was happening in 2008, and I suspect I would not feel this good right now if McCain was President.

Now, I believe Obama is a very good President, perhaps as good as FDR (time will tell). But! Even if he was only as good a President as the Chimp, I would STILL vote for him over Romney (let alone any of the other wierdos the Republicans put out there for our consideration).

[dreamnightwind]

15. I would love to dump Obama

I am no fan, he talks a good game at campaign time then lets the corporate goons do what they want after the election. I still can't believe we couldn't primary him from the left. An Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Matt Damon, anyone who represents the 99% rather than the corporate donors. (for the record I don't like the Clintons either).

That said, there's no way in hell I'd look to the right for anything better. And if there's any doubt about who will win the POTUS election in my state, I'll grit my teeth and vote for Obama.

The attempts of the Romney people to court disaffected Obama voters are beyond pathetic. What do they think they have to offer us?

Seriously, though, we can't continue to run this country without a voice that supports the policy changes needed, rather than warmed over Republican leftover policies. That road leads to disaster, again and again. I don't know how many on DU feel the way I do, but I do know that plenty of people in this country feel this way.

[SilveryMoon]

16. Well said

Last edited Sun Sep 9, 2012, 04:27 AM - Edit history (1)

I agree with you on this.

But the problem is, alot of people just aren't ready to abandon the illusion of "work hard enough and one day you'll be wealthy". So therefore we get stuck between a far right and a moderate to center right political party.

And this country is no where near ready.

IMO

[dreamnightwind]

17. Thanks

Last edited Sun Sep 9, 2012, 03:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Yeah lots of reasons people put up with it, no doubt that's one of them. Also, unfortunately, the real push for change won't come until a large portion of our population is in dire straits. Of course by then it will be too late for some things and for some people. No time to lose...

[Drunken Irishman]

19. You couldn't primary him because Democrats don't think like you...

You're irrational. I know that sounds harsh, but you are. Most Democrats, specifically even liberals like Elizabeth Warren, support Obama unequivocally, even if they've been disappointed with him at times. Unlike you, they don't want to dump him because they know he represents a huge step in the right direction ... even if he isn't going to be the one who gets us there.

I mean, look at your own list of candidates you wanted to potentially run against Obama in the primary.

1. Elizabeth Warren - she's in battle for a senate seat in one of the most liberal states in the country and struggling.

2. Matt Damon - seriously? You trollin' us? Matt Damon is an actor who, while very intelligent, has absolutely zero political and governing experience. If he primaried Obama, he would've absolutely gone nowhere as a candidate and been the butt of a million jokes.

3. Bernie Sanders - Uh, he's not a Democrat and I doubt he'd register as a Democrat to just run against Obama.

As for anyone else, obviously the high-profiled people (read: those who count) didn't want to dump him like you.

Again, it comes back to irrationality. You're irrational. You expect Obama to make a hard-left turn, run this country as if he had all the control, and reverse 30 years of politically damaging polices that have been in place pretty much non-stop since the Reagan era.

Give me a break. I hate to break it to you, but Democrats can't do better than Obama. Not right now. If Obama decided to not run in this election, and unless he was replaced by Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney would have walked to the White House.

Liberals need to understand how the process works - it doesn't happen over night. It takes a step in the right direction to just get us moving and Obama is that step. He might not be what you're looking for ... but he's the best we can realistically get and I'll tell you, I'd take that 100 times over than nominating someone you think is politically pure who gets his or her teeth kicked in by the Republicans. The Democrats have tried that in the past and it has failed. It is not a surprise the two most successful Democrats nationally, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, have been called turncoats and Republican-lite by the party. It boggles the mind how, after decades of getting embarrassed in presidential politics (from McGovern to Mondale to Dukakis to even Kerry), many liberals are right there saying "thank you sir, may I have another..."

Well that type of mindset is exactly what ceded control of this country to the Republicans. Because we punted the presidential elections of '72, '80, '84 and '88, Republicans were able to move in, push their agenda so much for so long that it dominated the political discourse for decades.

Remember this, Reagan didn't just manifest out of nowhere. It took the Republicans regaining the White House with a moderate (Eisenhower) after years of Democratic control JUST to get their foot back into the door and once that door was nudged slightly open, it provided Nixon a chance to waltz on through eight years later (after again the liberals crippled Democrats by destroying their convention and failing to unite around the fairly liberal Humphrey), which laid the foundation for Ronald Reagan.

But Republicans get it. They've always gotten it (well up until the past few years ... but now they find themselves repeating the mistakes of Democrats by running ideologues). They knew you couldn't just up and change the dynamics of the country. They had to stomach the more moderate politicians just to ease the pendulum a bit to the right every election until finally, in '80, it allowed them to nominate, and elect, Ronald Reagan.

Imagine how far the left movement would be if, in 2000, Al Gore had followed up the Clinton presidency. But because purists, and I'm not suggesting you were one, were so dissatisfied with Gore and Clinton that they went out and voted Nader, or didn't vote at all, Bush won and continued pulling this country even further to the right. Well, let's not make that mistake again. Obama winning is an important step for liberalism, even if liberals don't see it.

If you want to sell your ideology, you've first got to package it in a way that moderate and independent voters can tolerate it. No other president, at least a Democratic president, has done it as well as Obama. He's come out in favor of marriage equality, which four years ago no candidate would ever imagine doing, he's come out in support of a woman's right to choose more than any recent presidential candidate, he's opened the door to the idea that, gosh, the federal government isn't such a bogeyman after all when, for 30 years, we've heard, even from a Democratic president, that we needed smaller government ... he has taken once toxic issues for liberals and made them moderate and that's how you sell your ideology. Because of Obama, deregulation is a bad word. Because of Obama, the rhetoric against illegals isn't nearly as awful and damaging as it was in 2006. Because of Obama, healthcare reform isn't necessarily a bad thing anymore.

He has made many liberal issues moderate enough where independent voters can get on board with those ideas. It's why Reagan was so successful in the 80s and so was Nixon in the 70s - they took positions that were more right of center than where the nation might have been, but masked it in moderate rhetoric and the people accepted it.

But having a flaming lefty in the White House ... having Dennis Kucinich running a national campaign ... that ain't gonna get you anywhere.

[babylonsister]

21. BRAVO!!

[johnlucas]

22. In time I have come to see that your point of view is correct

In 2010, I was so angry at Obama I didn't vote in the 2010 elections.
I gave up on politics altogether.
I tuned out of anything Obama or political.
I barely posted in DU from then to 2011.

I said if you want a job done right, do it yourself.
And I just planned to save my money & figure out a way to change the course of discussion in this country.
I knew media was the key. I knew that even before I fell out with Obama.

Then news came that Osama Bin Laden was killed.
I'm like whoa wait a minute. That means these wars will finally end & the money can come back to the domestic plane.
Osama's death woke me up.

And from that time to now I have muted my anger at Obama for punting on certain political fights & extending what Bush has done.
I'm still not happy about it but he keeps showing me signs that his 2nd term might be different than his 1st.

I'm 36 & I have lived under this Reaganomics crap for all of my life.
Ever since I was a little boy I wanted that political philosophy dead & buried.
I knew it was bad way back then.
So I wanted so bad for it to be gone that I lost patience with the Democrats who seem to roll over for that crap time & time again.
I had hope that Obama would begin the change in that party to make them fight for what is right.
And when he played those halfway games too I was like there's nobody in politics who will get this done.
Why won't they kill Reaganomics? It's been too long! Destroy this nonsense & let's get back to FDR/JFK.

But subtly Obama HAS been changing the Democrats.
They Rope-A-Doped the Republicans into embarrassing themselves with the Tea Party crap, with the Birther crap, with that insane Paul Ryan "kill the New Deal" policy, with the mindless obstructionist crap.
Now I'm looking at a Republican Party that is going extreme trying to hang on to that fading Southern Strategy.
The Democrats are no longer seen as weak on defense.
I see independents looking more favorably to Obama.
That coalition is finally crumbling!!!

Obama didn't have to bark & bite. He used the soft touch.
In time those bad policies can be reversed or revised.
The whole time you see a cool-headed President asking to work with the other side to solve problems for the country.
They don't see bitter partisanship from him. He's putting country ahead of party.

I will NEVER AGAIN fail to vote. EVEN if I don't fully believe in the candidates.
My cynicism will only go as far as saying voting is like a lotto ticket. Just play it & you might win. If not well, that's the odds.

I still believe in Barack Obama to be a Strong Progressive President. His background shows me that it is within him.
I KNEW he would do right by the Gays. I KNEW it. I never bought into that "my views are evolving" crap.
He was doing the same thing Lincoln did when it came to the slavery issue.
Buying time with political cover & then pushing forward with he righteous agenda.

You gotta work with what you got.
Change HAS come & more Change is coming if we keep marching Forward.
I don't like his capitulation but I believe ultimately he will do what's right for this country in the long run.

In time I have come to see that your point of view is correct, Drunken Irishman.
John Lucas

[broiles]

27. Excellent!

[Progressive dog]

28. Reality speaks-thank you nt

[riverbendviewgal]

30. Wise words you write my friend

very true all that you write.

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. DI, may I buy you one?

AWESOME! RIGHTEOUS! RANT!

[kurt_cagle]

41. Definitely

Societal change is hard, and slow. I've found with Obama that one question I have to ask when he manages to push a policy or appointment that I have problems with (and there have been more than a few) is whether this was his decision to make or whether he was trying to do the best he could in an unfavorable situation. Usually, after digging into the issues and moving beyond the headlines, what becomes evident is that if he doesn't have the political capital to accomplish a specific change, he will accomplish what he can then put it on the back burner for a bit, and that the action will be intended to block the GOP from turning that change into a campaign issue and bringing the moderates and undecideds on board. He plays a VERY long game, and there have been several times he's managed to turn a seeming weakness into a major policy shift overnight by putting the GOP into a position where they could not act.

(The closest literary character that I can think of to Obama is Lord Vetinari from Terry Pratchett's Discworld series. Harlock Vetinari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havelock_Vetinari) is the Patrician of the city of Ankh-Morpork, and holds power largely by balancing the competing interests of the city against one another, effectively neutralizing any one faction while at the same time making sure that the system continues to work. While originally cast as a mastermind villain, Vetinari has become one of the most loved of the characters in the series, in great part because the character is highly intelligent, actively cares about the city-state under his care, and more often than not keeps those with too much power from harming those with not enough, not because he wishes to stay in power himself, but because that's what a good leader does.)

It may take a generation or longer to undo the damage that the conservatives have inflicted upon the body politic and get to the point where it is possible for a political leader to take a truly progressive stance. However, now is not the time. Now is the time to shift momentum back towards the true center politically, giving the president and the congress the balance necessary to apply both progressive and conservative principles as necessary to meet the needs of the country (and recognize that both are necessary when applied in balance).

[dreamnightwind]

42. No, because all of the money said to not primary him

"You're irrational. I know that sounds harsh, but you are."

They do, and I am not.

"they know he represents a huge step in the right direction"

Matter of opinion, and I strongly disagree, I believe he has validated large portions of the Bush agenda which were previously viewed as the over-reaches of a rogue executive (George W. and Dick).

"You expect Obama to make a hard-left turn, run this country as if he had all the control"

No, but I expect him to fight for issues on their merits rather than their expediency, to be willing to lose some policy fights knowing that these kind of losses prepare the ground for future victories, and sometimes you can move opinion for an unforeseen victory. A quick half-assed list of some of these issues I am looking for leadership on:

100% publicly financed elections
single payer health care
defunding the war machine and surveillance state
decriminalizing so-called victimless crimes and letting our citizens live freely rather than incarcerating them
a Manhattan Project scale effort to save our planet from global warming
a maximum wage and a liveable minimum wage
ending the dark markets of unregulated financial derivatives
fair trade not free trade
a small financial transaction tax to slow down the computer traders

I know he can't just make them happen, but he can do a lot more to put us on the road to making these happen by sticking his neck out and supporting them. Honestly, the situation this triangulating centrism (Obama's, Clinton's, and a large portion of the congressional Dems) has gotten this nation into is tragic. The truth is, these people (and quite possibly you, too) don't agree even in principle with most of these issues, or if they do I'd never be able to tell because they don't say so. These sorts of positions are not even perceived as reasonable (rational?), the powers that be have decided otherwise. I'm taking the position that they only get to decide this if we play along and let them.

"I mean, look at your own list of candidates you wanted to potentially run against Obama in the primary"

No need, none of them had a chance against the machine, no doubt. I was not serious about any of them as an alternative to Obama, other than as people who would ideologically be people I could get behind. I do believe a primary opponent is the correct vehicle for advancing real debate on some of these issues, for making the case and getting them put on the table, whether that candidate is viable or not. We have to start somewhere.

I didn't support voting for Nader in 2000 (or ever), it was a close election, Nader would make a lousy president anyway (he's an agitator not a leader), and the Republican opposition was bat-shit crazy bad guys we don't want in power. Note my focus on a primary opponent for Obama, not a general election opponent.

Look, nobody has to tell me about the pathetic state of the American Left, it's stomped on at every chance by every other segment of society and is buried by every monied interest I know of. So it's up to the little guy to do what he/she can to change this dynamic. Is it enough? Never, but it's the right thing to do, and somebody has to do it, we as a nation are not on the right road at all, any number of statistical analyses show the depth of our problems (incarceration rate, distribution of wealth, people living in poverty, the insane burden of military and security apparatus that is financed by the U.S. taxpayers while its benefactors are mostly corporations, the lack of upward mobility, the shredded social safety net, the absence of leisure time for U.S. citizens, etc.) and the corporate centrists are more interested in boosting the profits for the industries behind these problems rather than solving the actual problems.

I do believe that part of the game being played on us is for the Republicans to go insanely right, and for the Dems to fill in as the reasonable alternative, positioned in a similar political position on most of the important issues as the Republican party was in the years of Reagan. This works out quite well for certain sectors of our society, not so well for most people or for the planet in general, tragic in fact. This game has to be short-circuited, and I know of no other way than for a movement of the left to fill this vacuum. I know, good luck with that, gotta fight for what I believe in though, hopefully I'm not alone in this.

I don't think I have much of anything in common with someone like you, so I don't expect to win you over on any of this, nor am I going to swallow your perspective as a rational respose to our nation's current political state (quite the opposite, actually). I felt compelled to clarify where I'm coming from on some of these issues. since in my opinion they were misrepresented by your post. Cheers.

[Drunken Irishman]

43. I have facts on my side...

And that makes my point better than yours. You're working right through the lens or your ideology. But let me ask you - when was the last acceptable president to you? I'm guessing you'll have to reach all the way back to find one.

That's the flaw in your argument. If it was a no-brainer, if it should have happened, it would have happened already. A great deal of liberals can't see the forest through the trees. And because of that, your ideology, the one you advocate for so strongly today, has taken such a damaging hit over the last 30 years. Stay partisan, only hope for the left of the left, and then watch as the entire country rejects your ideology because it's wrapped in the type of rhetoric that turns voters off. It's why McGovern, who is beloved by the left, got his teeth kicked in and why Mondale, who told it like it was on raising taxes got clobbered and it's why Dukakis, who was defined as a tax-and-spend liberal, couldn't even beat George H.W. Bush.

That's the template you're advocating and it doesn't lead to anything we haven't seen in the past - landslide, embarrassing defeats that leave the Democratic Party the butt of every national joke. You might be okay with that, since you're losing with honor, but realize every one of those candidates who went down to defeat lost to a Republican who pushed this country further and further to the right.

You're right, though, you and I have nothing in common. You're okay with nominating loser purists and I'm not. I want the best guy we can get into the White House because I've seen what you propose and it hasn't worked out. Liberalism today is a former shell of itself NOT because of guys like Obama or Clinton, but because liberals put ideology over ANYTHING and they don't care that it puts the ideology at risk. Let's face it, it's not the compromisers who are killing liberalism ... it's the ideologues. The people who have no chance to ever shape the country because they can't get elected in the first place. Primary Obama! Yes! Because that worked out so well in 1980, didn't it?

That type of rhetoric is a nonstarter for me because it's a failed rhetoric. You can either continue pining for a liberal savior or you can wake up and realize Obama has done more for liberalism than any president since FDR.

[dreamnightwind]

44. You completely miss what's happening

It's about consolidation of power verses distribution of power, that's why the left is left out. That might not trouble you but it troubles me. It's no surprise that the forces of money and power are winning out, it's often that way, until power oversteps the tolerance of the people, which it always does, and is doing now. There are cycles of these flows, we'll see where it goes. I know what I'm working for, I won't shut up about it and neither should anyone else. And as far as this discussion, I probably have better things to do. Good day.

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. Those "conversions" are fake, IMHO. I talk to Dems daily, and never once have I heard one.....

spouting shit about the "national debt" and "reducing spending". Most actual "democrats" realize this economy needs stimulation in the short term to achieve long term gains. These are rightwing talking points, and unless they're really conservative Dems, I'm not buying it.

[Drunken Irishman]

20. Thing is, you're always going to find 'conversions' every election cycle...

I'm sure there are thousands of voters who voted Obama in '08 that won't vote for him again in 2012. It's the nature of the game. Still, I'm sure there are thousands of voters who voted McCain in '08 that won't vote for Romney in 2012. It happens every single election. People switch, but unless it's a massive switch, which isn't the case, it's a non-story.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. The national debt never makes it into any conversations I have with people

It's mostly about health care, college costs, personal income, etc. The debt and deficit are problems that will need to be addressed at some point but there are lots of ways- mostly ways that right-wingers don't want to even discuss-that we can fix the debt/deficit, as well as ensure long-term solvency for Medicare and Social Security that don't involve the middle-class being even more burdened and/or having to completely shred every social program out there.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. I'm sure it may come up in some circles, but I've never heard anyone in my family, or....

on my job, or in the checkout line talking about debts and deficit. You're absolutely right, they talk jobs, the solvency of Medicare & Medicaid, and other heathcare related issues, but never about debt and deficits.

As DI pointed out, and which I realize, there are some defections from '08, but these ads come across fake to me, because I don't anyone "personally" who voted for the president in '08, who nows plans to vote for Romney/Ryan. There may be some, I just haven't heard from them.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

35. Whoever shifts so easily from Obama to Romney

wasn't very committed/bright to begin with in the first place IMHO- unless you just haven't been paying attention to what's going on out there.

[treestar]

23. "He made it worse" is simply false

These people are all Republicans.

We can thank the professional left for harping on this idea long enough that the Republicans picked up on it. We can only hope it does not work.

[JoeyT]

24. Show of hands:

Who was mad at Obama for not decreasing the debt or not reducing spending? No one? Yeah, that's what I thought.

It's telling the stupid right wingers can't even get what many on the left disagreed with Obama about correct. Instead they substituted what the Teabaggers were pissed off about, which was things that mostly weren't even true.

[UCmeNdc]

31. I often wondered why Mitt Romney supporters don't leave him?

Mitt Romney has flip flopped so often why do his supporters still trust Mitt Romney? That is really the question.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

37. They don't really like Romney. Nobody really does

But they HATE Obama and need their "autopen" for getting their radical agenda and, well, voting for Romney is their only way to get Obama out of office and get their radical agenda through (if they also capture Congress).

[still_one]

32. It is very simple. The republicans have said they want to dismantle social security and medicare.

They have said they do not want abortion, even in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

They have said they want to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan

Oh, yes, many also realize no matter how the MSM paints it, the republicans blocked the jobs bill, and almost everything this president has done

[Proud Liberal Dem]

36. Because people don't have those sort of relationships with their politicians?

[indepat]

39. Any thinking person knows it is much better to have a reasoning right-of-center moderate rather

than any of the frothing-at-the mouth radically far of extreme right loons/buffoons now in control of the Republic party: their party platform and Rayn's budget say it all.