Can Obama Win Reelection?

President Obama has hit the lowest approval rating of his presidency this past week. It is now at 40%. Thus, his re-electability is in question. Obama is angering his own party for not being liberal enough while simultaneously angering the opposition for being too liberal. Obama, it seems, is not pleasing anyone. In my view, I don’t think that Obama is the liberal socialist that the Republicans depict him as nor the malleable centrist that liberals lambast him for being. As a liberal, I too have found myself angry with the president for giving in to Republican demands while not being given the credit for doing so. My theory for this is that he’s cognizant of the dangerous political climate of the 21^st century. He understands the powerful influence of the media and the impressionable character of the American voter. But in terms of Americans coming together, it seems that all can unify around their dissatisfaction with President Obama.

Reviewing the history of incumbent presidents running for reelection, one can glean from the statistics and come to the conclusion that Obama is more than unlikely to win than likely. Every president since FDR has lost their reelection bid when unemployment was above 7.2%; President Reagan won reelection when it was just that in 1984. Even the White House’s own economists project that the unemployment rate will be hovering around 8.2% in the fall of 2012, the time of the election.

Furthermore, approval ratings of a president in close proximity to a reelection bid are somewhat suggestive of the chances a president has to win. Since the 1940 presidential election, with the exception of Harry Truman, every President seeking reelection has won when their approval ratings were above 50% eight months before their respective elections. Obama would have to increase his approval ratings by at least 10% in seven months.

Therefore, President Obama has a chance, but just a chance at best, probably a bad chance. But since I’m supportive of Obama I’m optimistic. I want Obama to win reelection more than I wanted Ugs before the cashier at JC Penny told me they were for girls. The probability of Obama winning reelection would increase significantly if a non-formidable candidate like Sarah Palin somehow took the GOP nomination, or maybe Rick Perry with his politically incorrect rhetoric. But as I watch Mitt Romney looking strong and confident I’m afraid that he’s going to be our next president. It has little to do with his beliefs, his policy endorsements, or his history in the private sector or as Governor of Massachusetts. It has mostly to do with the economy and the lack of national approval of President Obama.

Contrary to the statistics, I still feel that Obama can win because of his incredible oratorical skills that took him to the White House in 2008. I think Obama has the rhetorical capacity capable of convincing me that having other guys take my girlfriend out on dates makes sense. You saw this if you watched President Obama on September 9 when he was pitching his jobs speech to Congress. He was in vintage form, speaking with a confidence that has been asleep for the past few years only to be abruptly awoken for this speech. I am also optimistic because I don’t think that Obama has been explicit in his accomplishments. When it comes closer to the election, he will have the opportunity to convey his accomplishments to gather that same enthusiasm he had last election cycle.

Kabul; New York

It's really odd to see America exposing the corruption in Afghanistan so viciously while at the same time not exposing the corruption in their own country. Clearly, America's trying desperately to portray Afghanistan as a country that is incapable of governing their own nation. Whereas America is a country that is capable of governing a multitude. Right. America; the nation that attacked Iraq for no other reason than to further its empire, or possibly to avenge George Bush's fathers death threat. Yes. We are competent. So competent that after the financial crises which featured an innumerable amount of devious bankers, CEOs, stock brokers, etc. not one of them, according to law suits, is a criminal worthy of jail time. They are just criminals worthy of settlements. Give us some money, says the Justice Department and the SEC, and we'll keep anything from going inside of a place that naturally pushes things outside of a place. Basically, the law is saying, fraudulently make tons a money and then give a small portion of it back. Think of it as a tax. Therefore, we both make money. The downside will be no one else will. But that's okay because their not us. And shouldn't we look after us, as opposed to the US. We're people too. We want a nice house too.

 Its hypocritical of America to portray the Afghan government as one of corruption when they're copying the same unethical and oligarchical tactics that America does. The Kabul Bank pays politicians to push their political agenda. How is that any different from corporate campaign donors. Why would they give huge sums of money to politicians unless they vote the way that they want them to? They wouldn't. Obama's largest campaign donor was Goldman Sachs. This is the explanation as to why he hasn't been hard on Wall Street. America needs to lead by example and not lead by hypocrisy; preaching the right thing to do while doing the wrong thing. And then subsequently condemning corrupt behavior when corrupt behavior is inherent in its own system. In Dexter Filkins article in the New Yorker he quotes someone as saying 'if this were America, fifty people would be in jail," speaking of the Kabul Bank and its corrupt financial relationship with the Afghan government. But how can one say that? The Financial Crisis has produced zero significant sentences. And the guys they are going after are the line coaches; they're barely in the game. If one of the Wall Street CEOs went to jail that would send a message with fire burning on the end. But they didn't know what was going on, they say, just as the main players at Kabul Bank, like Karzai's son, said. They didn't know. How could they? They were just the fucking guys in charge. It's like a football coach saying 'I didn't know my running back hasn't ran more than a five yard run in the past two seasons.' Send these CEO assholes to jail and miscreant behavior will decrease.