Yes, the right wing scream machine, fully funded by big business, would have tried jumping all over Hillary, or anyone else. The difference is in leadership style. Obama has been hands off in several aspects, and hasn’t done a great job of tooting his own horn, selling his and the Congresses’ accomplishments.

Look at how he handled the health care law. Most of the provisions that everyone agreed on, (most of which aren’t really talked about), including keeping children on their parents’ insurance policies until the age of 25, not allowing coverage for children to get dropped due to prexisting conditions, (the same for adults in 2014), many preventive care procedures can’t have a deductible, no more lifetime limits on essential benefits, and so on, all these great things could have been agreed upon and made law within a few months of Obama taking office. He just sat and watched the congress painfully drag out the process for over a year and in the end he had to push to get it passed anyway. The one provision that is talked about constantly, the mandated coverage, this should have been kept out. Whether or not it is important isn’t the issue, he could have pushed through a bill in his first few months in office that had all the things that everyone did agree upon, and he would have built up a lot of power and credibility, this is how politicians succeed.

All new presidents are held up to the FDR standard of his “first 100 days in office”. If you accomplish a lot, you build power and can go back and do more. If you aren’t seen as a strong leader during this time, your support and power decline, as Obama’s has. His approval rating was over 60% when he was inaugurated in January, 2009, now it is in the low 40’s. Once he started looking weak, the opposition saw a huge opening. He also has this bad habit of going into negotiations and “showing his cards” before the process really starts, which makes him look weak, for example negotiating with the drug companies before the process really got started.

I realize that the lack of jobs is what has everyone upset, but, how much discussion is there of where the jobs went to, and how do we get them back. Hint, blue collar Democrats are abandoning the Dems in droves because our manufacturing base has been ripped up and sent to China, India, Mexico and so on. The idea that we will all do service jobs in the future, is elitist. We need a balanced economy so that all kinds of workers can participate. Jobs and the economy should have been the main thrust of this administration, and it hasn’t. The stimulus did help save jobs, but the government can’t make new jobs, business has to do this, and if we are going to compete with other countries, we have to motivate companies to grow and expand in the US, instead of going elsewhere.

I realize that this is a political website, not a economic website, but, a strong leader can do a lot to encourage and inspire people. Obama is a calm and easy-going guy, (similar to Bush in that respect) but we need a much more hands-on leader. When Harry Reid loses his reelection bid, and hopefully Chuck Schumer takes over as majority leader, you will see how much a strong and engaged leader can accomplish, even without having 60 votes in the Senate. (And I have a feeling that all the Democratic Senators that Schumer helped get elected in 2006 will be supporting him.)

Daniel,

Great analysis, as always. It seems that in most of the competitive contests, I see them as the Republicans to lose, in other words, if the Democrat candidate could give a reason why they would be better and when they actually offer an alternative, they have a chance. But, it seems as though they are all playing defense, and saying vote for me because my Republican opponent is really far too extreme. Yes, the Republicans are very extreme, but, the Democrat has to say would they would do differently to get the economy going and what the next 2 years would look like under Democrat control. Yet, I haven’t seen this. The Dems are playing defense.

In Pennsylvania, the GOP candidate for governor has led in the polls all year and even got a major newspaper endorsement that said he should be supported just so as to change parties, from having a Democrat governor to having a GOP governor, not for any other substantive reason. The GOP candidate is ahead and will probably help the GOP US Senatorial candidate. Pennsylvania has 1 million more registered Democrats than GOP members, and yet the 2 US Senate candidates are tied, or the GOP candidate is ahead by a nose. The polls in the past 2 days have been all over the place. Sestak, the Democrat, hasn’t closed the sale yet and I don’t know what else he plans on saying to make it happen. Whenever I see him on a news show, he talks more about his opponents flaws than his own strengths, even though he is really a very impressive candidate. Toomey is more extreme than former GOP Sen. Santorum, who lost by double digits, and Toomey is cruising along. If it becomes a default situation, the GOP wins.

Illinois seems to be falling in line for Kirk, and the weak Democrat gubernatorial candidate isn’t helping. In Nevada, GOP Sharon Angle is so extreme, and yet is still neck and neck with Democrat Reid, so what else can he do but push turnout. He has brought lots of federal money into the state, and yet that isn’t registering in the polls. In Colorado, GOP Buck keeps putting his foot in his mouth and yet he is tied up with Bennet, the Democrat. Raese, the GOP candidate in West Virginia is so obnoxious and imperious, and yet is also tied in the polls. He isn’t even in favor of the minimum wage, in a poor state like West Virginia, that’s amazing, and he said he made his money the old-fashioned way, he inherited it.

I think Colorado and West Virginia are the 2 best hopes at this point, but, as you noted, it is changing everyday. At least in the states with early voting, the Dems who haven’t voted yet can see the GOP candidates who are ahead in either early votes or early party turnout, and get motivated to come out and vote, in other words, they don’t have to wait until election night and then realize it is too late. If I was in Nevada and saw Sharon Angle doing well in early voting or the GOP doing well in early turnout, that would scare me into voting, for sure!

I agree that California and Washington State look good, particularly California, with Jerry Brown at the top of the ticket running for governor, he has put out some amazing ads recently and this will help turnout for Sen. Boxer.

The fact that Obama, Biden, and Clinton are mainly campaigning in true blue states is telling. During 2008, Obama was in Indiana, Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina at the end. Now, he is in Washington, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and so on. The excitement among the GOP in the house races will also bring out many voters and that will impact the Senate races, especially the close ones.

Unlike 1994, the Dems this year had plenty of early warning of voter discontent, and yet it doesn’t seem as though they really addressed it. If Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton were in office, they would have been throwing everything at these problems all year long, not just holding back. I realize that no one can fix our problems overnight, but taking action makes a great impression on people.

This is so frustrating after the huge gains we made in the last 2 election cycles, but there it is.