Why Obame Will Be a One Term President With Tex Enemark

To contact us Click HERE




This article pretty wellexpresses my own thoughts on the matter. The margin of victory in 2008 was way too slight and the perfect stormof special circumstances, Obama’s impenetrable bubble and McCain’s weakness asa candidate provided only a slight margin. None of this can be properly recaptured today.
Obama today must totally reenergizehis support to just hold his own while Romney only needs to turn up the heatand maybe not even that.
Of course, lightening couldstrike and something unforeseen will make it work.  It is just that these elections consistgetting out the committed voters representing over ninety percent in realityand discouraging the weak ones on the other side.  Right now Obama is showing signs of peakingtoo early in any case.
In the meantime, Romney isshowing all signs of holding steady while pressing the attack and not going offmessage regardless of all the free advice running around.
My sense right now is that flubsaside and general silliness that any single event could derail Obama’sCampaign.  It may well come on theForeign policy front if it has not already happened with the Al Qaeda assassinationof the Libyan ambassador.  That wasinexcusable by the way.  If there wasever a post needing a marine security team it is that one.
Why Obama will be a one-term president
 BY TEXENEMARK, SPECIAL TO THE SUN SEPTEMBER 20, 2012
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinion+Obama+will+term+president/7275306/story.html
As much as I do not like it, Barack Obama will be a one-term president.Why? Because his 2008 election win took so much effort, resulted from suchunusual circumstances at a unique time, and cannot be duplicated.
In 2008, Obama was running against the record of an unpopular presidentwho doubled the U.S.national debt, started the Iraqwar, abused civil rights and led the country into the worst recession in 70years. His policies divided the American people as never before and abettedreligious and social divisions. He undermined science, knowledge, and anyattempt at national tolerance about anything. The techniques he used to capturethe presidency — twice — have put a stain of dishonour on his name.
Obama was also running against an uninspiring septuagenarian senatorwho chose an ignoramus as a running mate, and who became the campaign’slaughing stock. George Bush at least knew he could not see Mexico City fromMidland, Texas.
Given all that, Obama should have won easily. He did not. It tookextraordinary, enormous, unprecedented effort to identify, organize, andregister millions of citizens who had never voted before and get them to thepolls to cast that ballot. It was an effort that resulted in the highestpercentage voter turnout in 40 years. And Obama was able to raise and spendmuch more money than McCain.
But, in the course of the campaign, to extract both the funds and thevotes, Obama raised expectations so high for so many that, even in good times,they could not be met.
He has not been able to make real the dreams and aspirations of so manyof his supporters, largely because Republicans have gridlocked almosteverything in Congress, slowing economic recovery, and obstructed dealing withthe national debt. Obama can rightfully complain, but politics is anunforgiving business. This time, there will not be that degree of enthusiasm,that outpouring of emotion, money, and organizational effort.And the U.S.,despite the temporary revolution that resulted in Obama’s election, is at hearta profoundly conservative if not reactionary country.
Why is Obama doomed?
Three reasons: First, much of the idealism and freshness of the Obamaimage has been lost, and too many of his 2008 supporters have lost heart, andwill just not vote. Others have had their Obama-fostered idealism rubbed off.
Second, the Republicans are four years away from the policies,performance, and problems of George W. Bush. And vice-presidential candidateRyan is a knowledgeable, competent, articulate, serious politician, in starkcontrast to Palin.
But most important, in 2012, is money, which every practical politiciananywhere will tell you, “is the mothers’ milk of politics.” In 2008, McCain didnot have enough. This year, Mitt Romney will have too much, certainly much morethan Obama. The Republicans will almost be embarrassed by the tsunami of cashflooding into their election coffers, and, since court decisions in 2010, thereis now no limit to how much money can be spent by third-party advertisers,specifically Political Action Committees, or Super PACS, of which there are nowabout 220. Of even greater concern is that billionaires are giving millions ofdollars, while the merely rich are donating in never-before-seen amounts. Onevery rich couple, the Sheldon Adelsons had, as of July 1, contributed $38.6million US to various right-wing PACS. The Adelsons say they are prepared tospend $100-million this year to support right-wing candidates
The numbers gathered by the U.S. Federal Election Commissionconcerning expenditures during the first half of 2012 are truly startling. Ofthe $312 million raised by Super PACs of all political stripes, 73.8 per centof donors gave an average of $19,944, and 94 per cent of donors gave over$10,000. But 57 per cent of individual contributors gave a total of $230million, with 47 individuals giving more than $1 million each.
This is not the grassroots fundraising using Facebook and Twitterpopularized by Obama. This is a blatant attempt by a few very wealthy people todrown out the voices and choices of the many. Worse, many of the Super PACS arenot required to disclose the identities of their donors. Former president JimmyCarter estimates that $6 billion will be spent in this U.S. election cycle, anddecries a process he says is “corrupt,” in which the rich foster policies andsupport politicians that will further enrich them.
Evidence of the corruption in U.S. politics lies in howelectioneering takes place. Much money will be spent, not on standard TVadvertising, but on various exotic campaign techniques of polling, voteridentification and — of increasing importance to the Republicans, who havepractised it widely — voter suppression. That is, there will be major effortsto confuse or misinform or mislead hostile voters to discourage them from evencasting their ballots, or keep them off the voters list in the first place.None of this kind of “retail politics” comes cheap. In severalRepublican-controlled states, efforts have been made to disenfranchise voterslikely to vote Democratic.
What does this kind of campaigning mean for Canada? We have already seen therobocalls’ scandal, and other efforts to discourage and confuse voters. Thesetechniques will be further developed and expanded here unless Parliament andthe courts put a stop to them now.
Tex Enemark is a Vancouver-based public policyconsultant.