Why Obama May Lose in 2012

Andrew Sullivan has had lots of debate on his blog today about the debt ceiling deal and what it portends for Obama in 2012. A lot can change between now and November 2012, and it's still open to debate as to whether or not the the Republicans will nominate a certifiable nutcase as its standard bearer, but I'm with those who believe that Obama may have shot himself - perhaps mortally - by allowing himself to be rolled by the GOP and the utter irrational folks in the GOP base. A number of readers and pundits have highlighted the potential negatives for Obama. Meanwhile, Andrew has remained an Obama cheerleader (remember that Andrew was way behind the curb in jettisoning the Chimperator and the GOP not that many years back). Here are some highlights from the naysayers when it comes to Obama's prospects. First, there is this one:

I have to say that I think that you are really overlooking just how depressed Obama's base is about this agreement. . . . . For the first time today, I got an e-mail from my little sister who does not follow politics closely at all. She was a first time voter in 2008. She is exactly the profile of the type of voter Obama will need again in 2012. Her e-mail to me had the subject line: "I am done." I opened the e-mail and she had written only one line: "I cannot support a President who seems incapable of standing up to bullies." I can't help but think of the many other young people in their mid to late 20s (like my sister) who have already decided that this President is not up to the task.

Between the young people who can't find jobs, the people of color who are living in the depression, and the party activists who feel as though Obama doesn't "fight" for their principles, it is truly difficult for me to see how Barack Obama is re-elected in 2012. If David Plouffe were living our here in the heartland, all of his hair would be grey. I think that this episode means the death-knell for Obama's re-election prospects.

This sentiment seems to sum up the views of my children - all of who voted for Obama - and my own. If by some fluke the GOP were to nominate someone sane like Jon Huntsman, I believe that Obama would lose a huge number of votes. Another post is this one (I've hit highlights):

A reader writes: You wrote: "While all the liberals are bemoaning their purportedly weak president..." I know we don't agree about this. But at least give me and all the others like me the benefit of the doubt -- our opinions on this aren't pure nonsense. This is not about losing some dick measuring contest. Here's a Pro-Publica article that's mostly a summary of economic stats:

The economy is bad. It is, by now, Obama's economy. I understand what Bush and Co did, and I know the role that Greenspan played, and all of that. But Obama can't say "I inherited this from Bush" if he's not making the requisite policy changes to prevent it from happening again. And he hasn't been willing to take on the people who would lose under genuine reform. He hasn't done what's necessary. He hasn't tried. This is where I'm coming from.

And then there's this one:

Adam Serwer echoes Seth Masket: . . . . Come election time, though, voters may simply decide that even if the recession isn’t Obama’s fault, he still failed to get us out of it. The presidency is not graded on a curve. Even assuming Republican intransigence and obstruction have given Obama the most challenging political landscape ever for a Democratic president, what matters is whether voters feel like he did what he was elected to do: Bring the American economy back from the brink.

If I were to be presented with a sane alternative to Obama, as of now, I'd pull the opposing lever - be it for a Democrat primary challenger or a sane Republican with a spine and a genuine concern for the country. Obama has been a HUGE disappointment.