More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Paul Abrams

GET UPDATES FROM Paul Abrams

2012 Will Be a Blowout Election: One Way or T'other

Posted: 10/20/11 10:08 AM ET

-"Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"--Thomas Hobbes.

How many more polls will tell us that the "American people want the parties to work together to solve problems" only to have the same American people vote for those who refuse to work together?

How many more polls will tell us that the "American people dislike negative campaigning" only to find the same American people vote for those who employ it most outrageously?

How many more times do we have to hear this pablum on national news, sanctimoniously regurgitated by high-paid political 'strategists' from both major political parties, with fawning anchors lapping it up?

These are the same sources that are telling us that the 2012 election is going to be very close.
It will not be. The 1980 election was very close in the polls -- until the last weekend, when people decided, in large numbers to go for Reagan.

2012 will be a blowout, one way or t'other.

The choice is very basic: are we in this together, or, is it every person for himself?

The American people are fed up with stalemate and inaction. They do not believe any of the traditional news sources anymore, and fewer and fewer people get their "news and information" from them.

And, polls to the contrary, the last thing the American people will believe is anyone who says that they are looking forward to working with the other side.

In 2012 the election will be about power, pure and unadulterated.

No one believes the indirect impact of this or that policy -- an incentive for corporations to hire workers, a tax cut to stimulate the economy. The only policy message that resonates anymore is the direct one -- spend this money, on this project, and it will create X number of jobs. Cut my payroll tax, and I will have more money to survive.

In 2012, the Obama campaign will be not just to re-elect him, but to give him a Democratic majority in both Houses, so he can enact his program that has been blocked by the Republicans. And, his program should be more ambitious than it currently is.

In 2012 the country will either re-elect President Obama, and have Democrats take control of the House and grow its majority in the Senate -- or, it will elect a Republican President, maintain the Republican control of the House, and have the Republicans take the Senate.

Republicans, including their Presidential candidates, have already pigeon-holed themselves into the "every person for himself" position. It is also no longer theoretical what that position gets you -- Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan.

Republican obstructionism provides the Obama campaign the opportunity to ask not only for his re-election, but for large majorities that will enable his programs to be passed. One suspects that an Obama re-election, holding the Senate and re-taking the House will be accompanied by a change to the filibuster rules in the Senate. A repeat of Republican obstructionism as in the first two years of the Obama Administration would be intolerable to those who vote for the "we are in this together" side.

One way or t'other, the 2012 election will be a blowout.

 

Follow Paul Abrams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pabrams2001

 
 
  • Comments
  • 28
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
05:34 PM on 10/22/2011
A republican controlled house and senate with a republican president would not be the worst thing but if democrats sweep all three it would surely mean a prolonged rescession,look what happened the first 2 years of Obama presidency,they passed the health care reform(which is a major reason why companies are not hiring) and the stimulus,which ,as time goes on is being revealed as one of the biggest payoffs to special interests and unions ever,and a clear sign of incompetence in Obama and his lifetime government chronies.Tell me this,why should the republicans support anything this president does,it all turns out to be smoke and mirrors and B.S.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Adam of CA
Independent Information Hunter
04:27 PM on 10/21/2011
The essential "stimulus" to contradict Mr. Abrams' forecast is this Winter of Discontent. When the Do Nothing Republicans prevail, the Mad-As-Hell Voters will create a new majority of a third Party. That Party could be named the Peoples' Mandate. Other Talking Heads have suggested, American Elect as the name for a new majority who will totally ignore the remaining elected chair-fillers whose terms will expire.

Because the two-party system has proven its uselessness, voters via computer elections will establish the Rise of the Third Party. Can such a drastic change take place in ten months?
Where there is a Will, there is a way. Twenty-one Talking Heads have published the time is ripe for the burial of the two-party system, and the birth of a new single majority.
12:39 AM on 10/21/2011
Yes because the Democrats didn't control both the House and Senate in Obama's first two years in office. They had a SUPERMAJORITY in the Senate and nearly a supermajority in the House. They didn't achieve squat but shoving an unpopular Obamacare bill down our throats. The Republicans still only control the House as well. This GOP obstructionism you liberals keep blabbing about is fiction. There have not been enough GOP power the last 3 years to obstruct much of anything.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:31 AM on 10/21/2011
Democrats had a majority in the Senate, not a super majority of 60. 60 votes are required to pass legislation which is why Senate Republicans have used the technique filibuster more often than any other Congress. A bill which passed our majority in the House was filibustered by the Do Nothing Republicans who Do Nothing but filibuster - they have that down to a fine Science, which I understand is the only Science they believe in.

"GOP filibuster blocks Obama's jobs plan"
http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/gop-filibuster-blocks-obamas-jobs-plan-1908529.html

"You can’t complain that Obama didn’t do enough to produce jobs when the Republicans filibustered his Jobs programs"

http://investmentwatchblog.com/you-cant-complain-that-obama-didnt-do-enough-to-produce-jobs-when-the-republican%C2%ADs-filibuster%C2%ADed-his-jobs-programs/

"Republicans Filibuster Small Business Bill:"
http://washingtonindependent.com/93079/republicans-filibuster-small-business-bill

"Democratic jobs bill advances past GOP filibuster"
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/democratic-jobs-bill-advances-past-gop-filibuster.php

"Dems break GOP filibuster on new jobs, state aid bill"
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/senate-jobs-bill-clears-key-opposition-hurdle.php

"Small business $30 billion credit clears Senate hurdle after Dems cracked a GOP filibuster"
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/senate-set-to-clear-30b-credit-for-small-business.php
12:13 AM on 10/23/2011
Thank you for pointing out how blatantly wrong that poster's last statement was. Perhaps she'll now question the other falsehoods Fox and Rush have been brainwashing people with. I'd feel so foolish to be so wrong in public and so easily manipulated by a 'shock jock' radio show.
BlackisWhite
GOP..Compulsive liars enriching the 1%
06:03 PM on 10/20/2011
The only thing that would be more frustrating than the three years of GOP obstructionism and cheering for the economy to stay in the dumps would be to actually have their party rewarded by achieving power in all three branches of this government. One can only imagine the degree of income and wealth inequality that would exist after even a short term of these politicians having control of the government.
Spanky231
I don't see left or right. I only see Americans.
03:40 PM on 10/20/2011
It will come down to the following states: Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Mark my words, you will see BOTH candidates spending tons of time and cash in each of these states.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:38 AM on 10/21/2011
If any state knows how American would look with a Repub. President it is FL. We actually have been protesting against the tea party and it's leader Gov Scott even before Wisconsin. Little chance a Repub gets Florida. Gov Scott has passed legislation to restrict the Democratic vote as every Republican governor has since taking office in the mid-term. Please check the laws in your state to make sure you can still vote and inform everyone.
02:36 PM on 10/20/2011
Re the last paragraph - as my mother used to say, from your mouth to God's ears.
02:23 PM on 10/20/2011
1. Obama had a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate for the first two years of his administration, and didn't accomplish very much with it. Why should voters believe he would propose a "more ambitious" program if he were to get such a majority again, or that he would make more effective use of having majority control than he did the first time he had it?

2. You assume that voters in other states care about what has happened in Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan. That may be true for voters in some of the states that border on one or more of those three, but it isn't likely to have any impact on voters anywhere else.

3. Republican obstructionism may give Obama the opportunity to ask for a large majority in Congress, but that doesn't mean he is likely to get it unless he can convince the voters in most of the states outside the South that adoption of his proposals, whatever they may be, will solve the jobs crisis and the country's economic and other serious problems.
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
03:36 PM on 10/20/2011
2. and 3.

-In an environment where, quite honestly, President Obama can take to the campaign, with the clear case that he's proposed a myriad of various ideas, across the spectrum, to try and improve things for the general public, only to sit and watch the Republican Party, en masse, decide that they'd rather not do anything, whatsoever, to help things for people, all in the name of winning an election, I think a national campaign would speak for itself.

Mind you, the map that is being considered for such a message is different from the one that I think you're think about.

The South that you're talking about, as far as I'm concerned, is not the South that the everyone else is looking at. North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida are not longer part of what constitutes 'the South' proper, and Missouri, for all intents and purposes, hasn't been a part of that discussion for a while either.

The West Coast, the Southwest, Colorado, the Northeast, "Scranton to Oshkosh", Florida, Missouri and the Mid-Atlantic.
01:28 PM on 10/20/2011
Not a chance. The partisan divide of today did not exist in 1980. The election will be decided by the same handful of swing states as always. 40 states are already rock solid either for Obama or his Reupublican opponent. "The American people are fed up with stalemate and inaction."? Are they? They voted for it less than a year ago today! The most likely scenario is the Obama will be re-elected without coattails, the House will still be republican, but slightly less so, and the Senate will switch to a small Republican majority. Depressing, right?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Paul Abrams
03:23 PM on 10/20/2011
That is the conventional wisdom. I don't think it will prove correct. We shall see!
12:09 PM on 10/20/2011
A bunch of DINO's lost their seats. Hopefully the President has a long tail and gets enough votes in the Congress to enact a fair chance for a change.
12:02 PM on 10/20/2011
I wouldn't be too sure on this. 1) "All politics is local" - I believe that was Tip O'Neill's quote, and he should know - the author references 1980, but even with Reagan's win, the Democrats held the House during his entire administration. Voters often vote for who they like regardless of party. 2) Recent history seems to show that the US voter likes divided government, no matter what anyone says - Reagan's administration never saw GOP control of both houses, the Democrats had a majority in both houses during the first Bush, 1992 saw Clinton elected to give the Democrats all three...and 1994 saw them lose both the House and Senate. The election of the second Bush in 2000 gave the GOP all three...and that didn't last either...and we saw in 2010 what happened to the Democrats after two years of all three again. Maybe 2012 brings some great sweep for one party or the other...but it doesn't seem likely...and if it happens, look out for 2014. We seem to prefer (probably wisely, since they both kinda suck) that neither of the two major parties become too strong.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Paul Abrams
12:57 PM on 10/20/2011
not any more
Of course, the parties need to make it a national election.
In the past, the rhetoric has tried to make big distinctions but people never connected to them.
Now, they do.
Relying on polls--fatally flawed to begin with--will be a huge mistake.
Both Obama and whomever the Republicans put up, should ask for a mandate. One of them will get it.
01:03 PM on 10/20/2011
The problem with your analysis is that things have changed since Obama was elected. The Democratic Congress could work with Reagan and reach compromised decisions, same with Clinton and the Republicans or Bush 2 and the Democrats. Right now, the Republicans have stated numerous times that they are in favor of nothing that would allow Obama to succeed. They make previously non-issues, like rasing the debt ceiling, a huge political fight and then potificate at the height of hypocrisy to decry programs they formerly supported. I think we used to like divided government, but now, we're begining to realize that divided goverment doesn't mean compromise, it means stalemate and the high probability that nothing gets accomplished.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimtodd
Unrepentant child of '60s
11:34 AM on 10/20/2011
I disagree somewhat with this opinion. I do believe the Dems will retake the House and increase its majority in the Senate, but I am not so sure Obama will be able to ride these coattails to victory, especially against Romney. The President is working overtime right now to alienate his base supporters. He has declined every opportunity to align himself with every day people, in favor of unbridled support of the MIC, banks, and Wall Street. Add to that his new attack on cannabis users of all types, at precisely the same time polls show a majority of Americans in favor of legalization, and the result is a very real possibility of a coalition of progressives and states rights proponents joining forces to defeat the police state he is trying to impose.
photo
errol44
Just in town for the GOP circus
02:40 PM on 10/20/2011
I agree mostly with what you are saying, Jim. Except it seems to me, that President Obama spent the first three years of his presidency thumbing his nose at his base begininng with his choice of Rick Warren for the inauguration and continuing with his selections of Bernanke, Geithner and Summers, giving away Single Payer and the Public Option, keeping GITMO open, extending tax cuts for the wealthy, huge giveaways to Wall Street, his attacks on Social Security and Medicare, sending out his surrogates with the "professional left" and "firebagger" accusations, etc; but that now, he is trying to convince us he is not really that guy, that he really is one of us, and that "next time" things will be different... zzzzzz...

The big question is, as you point out, whether we will stay in this Stockholm Syndromesque relationship, or turn to other abusers for protection.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
builder101
VOTE!
11:27 AM on 10/20/2011
Wow, go out on a limb. So the GOP or the Dem's will win in 2012, brilliant!
rocklandmike
Seeking Reason for no apparent reason
10:13 AM on 10/20/2011
Large sections of America have villified, even demonized, the other section's denial of so-called facts. Who are the voters who will change their closed minds? Electoral politics bestow a huge value on Florida. This will only affect the Presidency. Some voters will vote AGAINST a particular Party if that Party is too extremist. Given that in the Southern and Rocky Mountain states, extremism is valued, how can the House revert to Dem control and how can the Senate gain NON-Blue-Dog Dems?
photo
Buckeye54
...the One your mom warned you about!
09:59 AM on 10/20/2011
Yes, it will be a blowout. Think of those thunderous artillery barrages that hammered enemy positions in WWI. Lots of sound and fury—often to no real effect.

But that is where we find ourselves. If we thought 2008 was bad, when spending on presidential campaigns reached new levels, this with be the Niagara of all Niagaras.

I hope the American people wake up and realize that if you're not progressive, you're regressive. You might personally want to retreat to the "safe and secure past," but as a country we cannot afford to do anything but move forward. If we do not, China certainly will.

Four years from now it may be too late to catch up.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dinosaur David B
09:49 AM on 10/20/2011
What is the basis for this conclusion that the elections will be a blowout?