Oct 05 2011

Anyone But Barak Obama

A lot of people thought I may have jumped the gun in declaring President Obama a one term wonder after the debacle that was the debt limit debate, but it was not that hard a call. When the man who won on being the post-partisan hope for change failed for the umpteenth time to really lead as a non-partisan, it became clear Obama’s time was over. Poll numbers out today from many quarters confirm again Obama is heading towards a 2012 defeat.

From Rasmussen, we get the ‘anyone but Obama” result which is a death knell:

Election 2012: Generic Republican 47%, Obama 41%

There are few poll indicators that spell doom. This is one of them, where the incumbent is polling below 45%. That is almost guaranteed to result in a big loss at the election booth.

Even worse, when there is clear and firm resistance to a candidate above the 40% mark:

The “anyone but Obama” crowd is getting larger and more strident in its opinions, while the president’s base is growing less and less strongly supportive of how he is doing his job.

Forty-three percent of independents — a group the president spent the better part of the last year courting — strongly disapprove of the job he is doing.

To that point: 43 percent of self-identified Democrats said they “strongly” approve of the job Obama is doing, while 74 percent of Republicans strongly disapprove.

“Strongly Disapprove” means lost, not coming back. Gallup has had Obama under water with ‘adults’ for weeks now, many times peaking over 50%. When that transitions to ‘likely voters’ it will be clear President Obama’s days are numbered now.

No wonder. Big Government liberalism has failed. Miserably. The Democrats represent that failure. And Obama is the leader of that failure.

15 responses so far

15 Responses to “Anyone But Barak Obama”

  1. oneal lane says:

    I think perhaps Obama’s popularity will not matter. The Left is planning a “coup” by exciting radical class warfare and pushing for a collapse of the old system.

    A classic Leftist mis-direction play.

  2. WWS says:

    anyone but Barak – but now we know that it won’t be Sarah.

    I think she’d make a great Secretary of the Interior.

    Once the Dep’t of Energy is dissolved, it’s few vital functions can be handed back to that Dep’t, which is where they always should have been.

  3. dbostan says:

    Well, after I thought about abolishing the dept. of Energy, I think it could be useful by starting energy companies using new and expensive technologies and then, transferring them to the public domain, thus increasing competition.
    This was the original idea behind starting it, but it got sidetracked.
    Another part of this dept., the research section, could be transferred to the pentagon

  4. WWS says:

    dbostan, you have a point that it *could* hypothetically work that way – but in the real world, all we have to show for the effort is 30 years of failure. Instead of starting a viable energy company we get a Solyndra, with $500 million gone and nothing at all to show for it.

    It’s worse than that; up until now the MSM has been ignoring the long list of ridiculous failures this department has sponsored. One of my favorites was the plant in Georgia that was going to make gasoline out of cellulose – sounded like a good theory. The DoE gave the company nearly $200 million if memory serves (this was 2009) and they eventually DID make gasoline out of cellulose – at a literal cost of $1,000,000 per GALLON!!! Brilliant!

    The company’s scientists then stated that with a lot more development, they thought that one day they could get the cost of their gasoline down to $1,000 per gallon, but they didn’t think the process could do any better than that.

    When asked why they even started this plant if this was the prospect, they stated that no one had really worked things out ahead of time and they were all surprised how hard it was.

    This is the kind of idiocy that happens when Uncle Sugar is throwing around greenbacks like Crazy Eddie. This is why that model can *Never* work. This is why the Department of Energy needs to be ABOLISHED!

    and in memoriam: RIP, Steve Jobs, the truest of enterpeneurs who *Never* needed the government to step in and help him change the world. He saw what could be done, and he did it. Brilliantly!
    It’ll be a long time before we see his like again.

  5. ivehadit says:

    Yes, wws, it is a sad day. We have lost one of our best.
    Rest in peace, Steve. You brought so much joy to so many and so many thrills from your creative mind. It will never be the same.

  6. archtop says:

    “RIP, Steve Jobs, the truest of enterpeneurs who *Never* needed the government to step in and help him change the world. He saw what could be done, and he did it. Brilliantly!
    Itll be a long time before we see his like again.”

    Yes, we’ve gone from 80s innovators Apple, Microsoft to the 21st century bunglers like Solyndra.

    One of the many lessons of Steve Jobs’ life – he had a vision of technology, brought it to life, and wasn’t afraid to fail.

    Think about it – the iPod concept didn’t come from a government lab, but it has had a more profound effect on society than billion dollar science projects coming from the government.

    Meanwhile, we have a whole generation of lazy, spoiled hypocrite kid-adults protesting “greed” on Wall Street while sipping lattes and playing on their iPads.

  7. crosspatch says:

    This is all going to come to a head in May when both the NATO and G8 summits are held in Chicago. I suspect there will be a slow heating of various protests that will come to a full rolling boil in Chicago in May.

    The strategy seems to be:

    1. Bail out the banks (or at least the ones that supported your campaign) so they are basically unharmed by the market conditions and making good money.

    2. Vilify the very banks you bailed out as some sort of example of “greed”.

    3. Vilify the G8 as another example of “fat cats” and since there is also a NATO summit, you get to bring in all the European anarchists and maybe a foreign terrorist or two to create total mayhem.

    4. Portray your political opponents as allied with the “greedy” banks and “evil corporations”, militaristic supporters of NATO and friends of the “fat cat” G8

    5. Blame all of society’s ills on these folks, cast the Republicans as representing them, and then rally support for the notion that people must vote against the Republicans.

    Basically not having anything positive to hold up to get people to vote FOR, they are creating turmoil and attempting to link it to their opponents to scare people and give them something to vote AGAINST.

    So few the labor unions and news media appear to be on board.

  8. crosspatch says:

    Meant “so far the labor unions …”

  9. WWS says:

    Agree with you that this is the plan, Crosspatch. What almost amuses me (if the consequences weren’t so disturbing) is that they have no clue that this is rapidly going to get completely out of their control and bite them in the ass.

    Think the riots of Chicago, 1968, crossed with the financial collapse of 1931. And they think somehow they will benefit by *Causing* this to happen???

  10. ivehadit says:

    The American people are in no mood for this foolishness. And it IS foolishness…contrived. They are making a huge mistake and miscalculation, imho. The public is on to their alinsky ways.

  11. dbostan says:

    I do not want to scare you, but they are following to a T the 1917 bolshevik revolution blueprint.
    This is exactly what Beck described as the “bottom up, top down”method.
    Buckle up, very rough times are coming.

  12. ivehadit says:

    The good news, db, is that we know what they’re up to.

  13. dbostan says:

    Reid just gutted the amendment filibuster rule in the senate.
    Well, if we take the senate next November, we could use a little bit of jiu-jitsu on the demsheviks, to teach them a lesson to remember a long time.

  14. AJStrata says:


    I will say it again, the left can follow the socialist plan all day long and it will fail. The problem with Russia and Germany between WWI and WWII is that the masses were used to being ruled by so-called royalty. The feudal system is culturally ingrained in Europe, and so they tend to follow leaders.

    Americans are just not cut of that clothe. We are also modern members of a society that has ALWAYS had individual freedoms. We know the difference.

    The left is so damn arrogant AND naive they think they can play these childish games and no one will figure it out. Too bad for them. All this foot stomping and complaining is killing what credibility they had left. They will soon become repulsive – and then the Democrat party is finished.

  15. dbostan says:

    You are right.
    That was historically true.
    The only question is to what degree was the left successful in brainwashing generation after generation and making more people dependent on the gov.
    I hope we have not crossed the threshold of no return.
    In any case, the election of BHO was the best thing possible to the USA.
    It shocked the proverbial frog out of the (no longer) slowly boiling water of marxism/statism.