Americans like strong presidents, not weak ones

[brentspeak]

Context: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010_Elections/poll-2010-elections-confidence-in-obama-drops/story?id=11146584">Poll: Confidence in President Obama Drops, GOP Congress Gains Support

FDR: strong, bold, made no apologies for standing up for the average American. Reelected three times, including that all-important first reelection - despite the U.S. still gripped by the Great Depression (so much for the myth that a poor economy will necessarily kill a politician's -- or even a whole party's -- reelection chances)

Truman: firm, resolute, no-nonsense -- reelected

Ike: firm, went against his own GOP's most greedy members -- reelected

LBJ: had no idea what he was doing with the Vietnam War, gave up

Nixon: a Republican who vowed to end the war and who adopted progressive economic policies -- reelected

Carter: projected meekness, lost reelection

Reagan: a giant wrecking ball, but did project an image of strength -- reelected

Bush I: also projected meekness, lost reelection

Clinton: projected strength through political savvy and fending off clumsy GOP political attacks -- reelected

Bush II: an exception. Did not project strength and projected total cluelessness, but reelected thanks to a) the weak campaign by his rival, b) the new corporate media, and c) an increasingly dumbed-down electorate

Obama: projecting conciliatory "bipartisanship" all over the place, despite the fact that America put the Democrats in the majority for a reason

[Lydia Leftcoast]

1. Americans feel powerless, so they like politicians who project confidence and a

"take on the world" attitude.

That's the reason for the popularity of wingnuts like Michelle Bachman in some circles. She obviously doesn't care what people think of her. The fact that she is spouting nonsense doesn't register with low-information voters. They just respond to her attitude.

I've seen some of my low-information relatives respond to both right-wing and left-wing politicians simply from how they presented themselves, without reference to their ideas. Hell, their ideas hardly enter into it.

And a politician who appears meek and conciliatory might as well wear a "kick me" sign on his butt.

[tridim]

2. Weak post. nt

[Wickerman]

3. BIG link

[impik]

4. Americans will get exactly what they deserve in 2012

Instead of the serious, decent, smart, hard working and devoted public servant president they have now.

[Robb]

5. I'll let the President know you want him to move to the right.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[impik]

13. Funny.

[OHdem10]

7. It is better to Strong and Wrong than Weak and Right.

Bill Clinton.

[jaxx]

8. It's been pointed out in other threads

that President Obama's approval rating is at 50%. Not too shabby.

He'll win in 2012. Most people like him and think he is doing a good job against the odds.

[brentspeak]

11. Read the article again

His job approval rating has slipped to 50 percent, tying his career low in ABC/Post polls, with 47 percent disapproving. Those who "strongly" disapprove outnumber strong approvers by 7 points, the widest such margin to date

That doesn't preclude reelection, but coupled with the fact that enough of the dumbed-down electorate wants to see the GOP retake Congress doesn't bode well for reelection. A continuing pseudo-reform "bipartisan" performance by Obama, coupled with the appearance of a GOP opponent who's more inspiring to the dumbed-down masses than a Bob Dole or an aging John McCain might change your prediction.

[jaxx]

16. If you mean a teabagger or Palin......

they'll inspire 25% of the voters. The rest are smarter. And most Democrats have no intention of not voting for the President....which is why he's still at 50% and not lower like preceding prez's were at this time.

A teabagger won't change my mind, no pub will. How about you?

[brentspeak]

17. No, I didn't mean a teabagger or Palin

The GOP will recruit someone like Scott Brown, who they hope the public will be dumb enough to elect.

A teabagger won't change my mind, no pub will. How about you?

Nice going. You're close to violating DU rules.

[Spazito]

32. He is plummeting! He dropped....wait for it....

2 pts since last month and 1 pt from his numbers in Dec/09! It's over, he's cooked, might as well resign now!

:rofl:

[tularetom]

9. Clinton unfortunately did not project strength

After getting elected on a Democratic platform he groveled to the republicans and pushed policies like welfare "reform", media consolidation, and NAFTA. More than anything he wanted be accepted by the DC inside crowd instead of treated like a hillbilly.

And it worked to some extent. The pictures of him sucking up to both bushes are enough to make you puke.

[blm]

12. yeah...Dems appear strongest when they roll over for Bushes, Jackson Stephens, Dubai/Saudi royals

and the overall fascist agenda.

Clinton only SHOWED a political ability to snow the left while serving the right.

[brentspeak]

14. I'm completely in agreement that Clinton sucked on domestic issues

He's as responsible as Ronald Reagan and the Bushes were for helping to destroy the blue-collar and middle classes. I should have also mentioned that he had the benefit of facing about as weak a GOP candidate for reelection.

[blm]

10. You're wrong about Bush2 - he showed ALOT of muscle PLUS corpmedia protected his image, and, in fact

he even had Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and most of the best known Dems in DC carrying his water for him as they sided with his military leadership over the Dem nominee who was criticizing those decisions. hmmmm....couldn't be they were also planning an 08 campaign then, eh?

Bush didn't GIVE A SHIT about anything but furthering the Bush family's fascist agenda and THAT singlemindedness made for his strength....a singlemindedness he could afford with all the newsmedia cowering before him.

[brentspeak]

15. To me, it appeared that his campaign platform, "Ok, I suck. But we can't change horses in midstream"

Or something to that effect when it became clear to the whole world that the Iraq War was a joke that should never have been started.

[blm]

18. Not in 2004....you forget Bill Clinton used his summer2004 book tour to vigorously defend Bush's

decision to invade Iraq. Even Biden was on TV and siding with the invasion back then, and didn't come around to the view it was a mistake until 2006.

[brentspeak]

19. He partially defended Bush's Iraq War

And mixed accurate observations about the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz cabal with monumental DLC B.S. while doing so. He does end up sounding like a DLC clown, and he did Kerry no favors:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54905-2004Jun19.html

Former president Bill Clinton said he agreed with President Bush's decision to confront Iraq about its potential weapons programs, but thought the administration erred in starting a war in 2003 rather than allowing United Nations weapons inspectors longer to carry out their work.

"In terms of the launching of the war, I believe we made an error in not allowing the United Nations to complete the inspections process," Clinton told CBS News's Dan Rather in a "60 Minutes" interview to air tonight.

Clinton made similar comments in an interview with Time magazine, in which he said he "supported the Iraq thing" but questioned its timing. Portions of both interviews -- part of the publicity campaign in advance of this week's release of Clinton's memoirs -- were distributed in advance by the news organizations.

The Time excerpts, in particular, leave Clinton's views on Iraq somewhat jumbled. He both defends Bush for confronting a threat of which Clinton also spoke in dire terms while president, and minimizes the size and urgency of the problem posed by Iraq's suspected weapons programs.

Noting that he has "repeatedly defended President Bush against the left" on Iraq, Clinton dismissed the notion that the Iraq war was principally about protecting petroleum or financial interests.

Instead, he asserts that Bush acted primarily for ideological reasons and that the president was under the sway of Vice President Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. "We went in there because he bought the Wolfowitz-Cheney analysis" that defeating Iraq would help transform the greater Middle East toward democracy.

[blm]

22. On LKL and in every BROADCAST interview he sided with Bush's decision and leadership...and the only

time he walked it back was when he went on Daily Show and played to audience.

Historically, LKL and other mainstream news programs is where he always manages to show he backs up BushInc.

[karynnj]

20. Many of these are historical rewrites

Truman won election by the skin of his teeth. The more positive image has gradually developed.

Eisenhower. I just watched day 1 of the 1960 Democratic Convention at NYC's Paley Center museum. The Democrats ran against the Republicans on restoring our strong image abroad and reviving the economy. This was the CW in the later 1960s when I studied that time period in a history class.

LBJ - LBJ opted not to run to concentrate on the Vietnam peace talks. To say he did not know what to do with Vietnam diminishes what he did here. It is also not all that clear that had he announced both the peace talks and that he would stand for re-election that he would have lost. Incidentally, Nixon also ran on a platform calling for ending the war. Had the Democrats united behind the extremely decent, liberal, progressive Humphrey, he would have won. It likely was the riot in Chicago and liberals holding back their votes, that gave us Nixon.

Clinton - in 1996, he did NOT project strength. He did project charisma and many thought all the Republicans attacks were unfair - which they were. If anything, the outlandish charges led to me not even considering others for which there could be some truth. Dole was an extremely poor opponent.

Bush II - Kerry was as strong a candidate as the Democrats had and I can EASILY argue that he ran a better campaign than Clinton did in 1992 - the difference GHWB was at 33% approval. The fact is that Kerry did project strength - enough that the RW spent billions on a dishonest campaign to lie about his service to destroy his genuine image of integrity and leadership. (I am NOT saying his actions as a 25 yr old were why he show be president - his 2o years in the Senate were, but they showed extraordinary character. He might have done better with a more capable VP behind him, especially because Edwards did not even deliver what could reasonably have been expected - that he would be a team player and show the same enthusiasm he did in the primary. It also would have helped if the Clinton allies (Begala, carville etc) in the media had even tried to cover anything positive on Kerry - rather than clearly waiting for the restoration.

[brentspeak]

21. Don't forget that Truman's GOP opponent was running almost as a Democrat

Truman had to deal with a pro-New Deal Republican in Thomas Dewey. It was almost like Truman was campaigning against someone who held the same ideology as he did. I think Truman's no-nonsense personality, which he always made sure to convey to the voting public, gave him the edge enough to win reelection.

I agree that Kerry was easily the stronger personality (and candidate) than Bush was. But, yeah, the media and the smears did Kerry's campaign in. He didn't do a good job campaigning, however, but that was also the fault of the Democrats in general, as you point out.

[blm]

24. He did everything needed, including his winning all three debates DECISIVELY. McAuliffe's DNC

made sure that the party infrastructure in states like Ohio were fully collapsed long before Dems would even know who their nominee would be for 2008. McAuliffe and his cabal didn't prepare to win 2002 or 2004 because they were focused on 2008.

[brentspeak]

25. And now we've got new DNC chair Tim Kaine pulling another McAuliffe

We went from Howard Dean to the likes of Tim Kaine, for whom we can "thank" Rahm.

[blm]

26. I hope not, but, fear you may be right. So many Clintonites in the WH... Obama bought in to MSM

meme that WH experience was somehow a 'good' thing for this country.

[karynnj]

27. As to Kerry's campaigning - the problem was not Kerry - it was the media

I wonder if years from now, when the passions of the last decade are gone, if someone will actually analyze the impact of the media on 2004.

In the primaries, Kerry really won on the basis of who he is and face to face campaigning - particularly in Iowa and NH. You can find, looking back at the media in 2003 and very early 2004, journalists who were clearly advocates for Dean, Edwards, Gephardt -- and even Lieberman. But rarely Kerry. A few years ago, someone posted this You tube of Iowa excerpts of all the candidates. Now, I know that editing can bias things, but it does match what the only Iowan Democrat I ever spoke to said. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1KTHmM2mzk (Earlier - you ca see the depth of his connections here. Kerry speaking in Iowa on vet issues - very emotional - as a wife of a disabled vet asked the a question and it is about the most detailed comments on what Kerry did for vets. (This was Kerry at his best - the woman's story clearly affected him and his response very genuine.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4nY8wkPTTM&feature=related

In the general election, Kerry broke all earlier rally records. That NEVER was covered. I remember in 1992, how the media showed the size and the enthusiasm - that greatly helped Clinton. In 2004, the Kerry rallies were not really shown - other than in very short clips (usually the anti-Bush lines) taken at narrow angles to not show the crowd. Often the segment with the talking head standing in the parking lot was longer than the one showing Kerry himself.

Now, CSPAN, where I watched the campaign - had entire rallies. They were spirited, moving and incredibly positive. Something NOT seen in the MSM coverage. (I would suggest that if you used "positiveness" rather than "strength", it would be a better predictor. (It would err with Humphrey/Nixon and here - Kerry (CSPAN) easily beats Bush (CSPAN), but looking just at the MSM, it would be Bush. (Carter 1976 was positive)

Having just watched most of the 6 hours of CBS coverage of Day 1 of the 1960 convention, what I can see is that many things I saw many things that really surprised me. I was shocked how adamant Eleanor Roosevelt was that Kennedy should NOT be the nominee - arguing that he could not get the black vote and that the Catholic issue was not resolved - but greatly preferring a Stevenson/JFK ticket. The PUMAs had nothing on Eleanor. I was surprised at the reports that many delegates had little enthusiasm and feared a ticket headed by JFK. Now, that clearly changed as the campaign went on. (I was 10 and only vaguely remember it, but I followed it enough to have picked sides (against my parent's choice) - for JFK. In truth, it was because of his adorable little daughter rather than issues or because he was Catholic (as I was).

Good point on Truman's opponent - it really shows that the parties did overlap on the issue - making things far less polarized.

[Jennicut]

23. Clinton had Dole to run against....older then McCain! It was his turn and Rethugs threw that

election away.

[treestar]

28. When did Bush I project "meekness?"

No meek person gets elected POTUS. The whole thing is silly. They all do some bipartisanship and compromise.

And you've left out that the Rs are using the filibuster on everything. That alone makes Obama the strongest one on the list.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DevonRex]

30. ....

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

[dave29]

31. Wow, I remember this from the primaries

.