It's a fact, nonetheless..

Why do you think so many Democrats are retiring and the ones that are actually going to fight for their seats are running from Obama as fast as they can??

Because they know that, as Obama falls, so shall they fall..

Michale

There's an easy answer to that: it keeps me busy and off the streets, once a month, like clockwork.

Heh. But seriously, I think checking on the public's job approval numbers is still important. During the reelection campaign, I had to remind people constantly that this wasn't a measure of the campaign (Obama v. Romney) but just job approval.

Michale [20] -

I don't buy the "if Obama falls the Dems fall" argument. I mean, you may have a point, but it's a limited one at best. As Americulchie pointed out, from now on it'll be more about Congress and about the next Dem to run for pres.

Americulchie [21] -

Well, I'm always cautious when trendlines shift. Don't want to get too far ahead of reality, in other words. If Obama's numbers recover to the 47-48 percent approval range, I'll get a lot more confident in these analyses.

Paula -

Good point about the GOTV thing. Anything which depresses the base vote is important in a midterm year.

-CW

Need proof??

WHO saved the NSA???

Was it Republicans??

No...

It was NANCY PELOSI...

If THAT ain't a clue and a half, NOTHING is...

Michale

What planet are YOU on??? :D

If Democrats have proven ANYTHING the last 5 years, it's that they can't lead anyone out of a paper sack..

Ask ANY American if they are better off now than they were 5 years ago...

Guess what they will answer?

I agree absolutely that Obama is not on the ballot in 2014

Oh, how wrong you are...

Obama will be there in spirit..

As Obama's fortune falls, so falls the Democrats..

Why??

Because, as I said, the Democrats have done NOTHING but tie themselves to Obama the last 5 years..

They did so because Obama was rising so high, so high, even higher..

What they DIDN'T realize is that eternal law of gravity..

What goes up, MUST come down...

And because Dems have cemented themselves to Obama, they are finding it harder and harder to extricate themselves from the bonds..

Why do you think so many Dems are "retiring"??? Because they know they don't stand a snowballs chance in hell..

BECAUSE of Obama...

So, don't kid yourself for ONE moment that Obama is not on the ballot in 2014..

ANY DEM who spoke favorably about Obama is tarnished...

Hoisted by their own Picard :D

It's THAT simple...

Michale

I also think it would cause Obama himself to be as much a hindrance as an asset if he tries to help because he will no longer be viewed favorably by a key block of the Dem party. I realize it's only percentage, but it's an active, vocal percentage. Basically, people who care passionately about Keystone are the people who've done the homework. On the Dem side I don't think you'd find many people who would hold it against Obama if he votes it down. Repubs will try to make hay with it but they hate him anyway.

(21) The dreadful excuse we have for the Fourth Estate -- yep!

It's simple..

The Democratic Party has invested so much political capital and clout into Obama..

As he goes down, so does the rest of the Party.

It's what happens when you infuse god-hood into your leader..

The GOP faced a similar, albeit less intense, form of this with Saint Ronnie, the patron saint of kicking ass and taking names.. :D

I'm getting a little long winded so I'll just leave this as grist for the resident rightist Michale.

For the record, I am as much of a "rightest" as you are... :D

Michale

Assuming scandal won't happen to any politician is always going out on a limb! But then, that's why I said so in the article...

:-)

[7] -

The environmental portion of the Left has definitely not resigned itself to KXL's OK. They are going to howl loudly when it happens. Obama has been toying with them, dangling the prospect that he might turn KXL down, but he's mostly just been stalling (assuming KXL does get approved). But though they've been sort of quiet, the environmentalists are still going to be mighty upset when (if) it happens.

TheStig [9] -

KXL is going to be a blip in the record, if that, you're right. Obama will lose support from a certain portion of Dems, who may or may not ever return to the fold. In other words, the support lost may or may not eventually come back.

But you're right, bigger things are at play, and thank you for addressing the big picture of the next three years. I know I'm being premature looking that far out, but I couldn't resist when I was making up the presidential comparison charts this month.

You're also right that the biggest factor in these approval polls is the economy. What the economy looks like in 2015 and 2016 is really going to be the determining factor, that's what I believe too.

[10] -

That is a fascinating take on things. Some peripheral thoughts:

Johnson and Nixon had TV news that was far more bold in some respects than today, and far more timid in others. The boldness came from the images -- Vietnam was on screen, in full bloody painful view, in a way no war has ever since been portrayed. The people back home didn't just get heavily-edited newsreel footage of smiling soldiers, they got raw truth and maimed bodies. That simply would not be allowed on screen today.

But they were more timid, too, in exposing the human nature side of politicians. JFK's legendary hounddoggery would never have been hidden in today's atmosphere.

I've long thought about media and politics, so your comments were interesting indeed. Just wanted to say that.

-CW

I completely agree with you re: failure to address vital issues and I think fracking needs to be addressed too.

The thing about Keystone -- the reason it is so especially important for Obama, is because it is in his hands. This is one time when the President can stop something bad from happening by himself. Does it stop everything else that is bad from happening? No. But it stops one big bad thing. He has the power to do it. Therefore he will be held responsible for the decision.

I don't disagree with you, but I note that elections frequently fail to address vital issues. Especially long term issues. Nothing new about governments failing to cope with environmental risks. The list of extinct civilizations brought down by overtaxing their environment is a long one.

If you think Keystone poses serious environmental risks to the US, fracking may well prove to be worse. There are energy alternatives, but no alternatives to drinking/irrigation water.

With the utmost and sincere respect to you...

Don't hold yer breath.. :D

Michale

Keystone is bigger than elections. The fact that his yea or nay decision could have electoral consequences can be noted, but needs to be placed below the significance of the issue itself.

This is one of those times where we are literally dependent on our leader to make a consequential decision that will have powerful repercussions to the health of the planet and to the trajectory of the future.

It's an ultimate question of leadership; I hope Obama rises to it.

On the other hand, if he appeases those active supporters who are the most vocal, he runs the risk of alienating the less vocal yet more powerful people who express their dissatisfaction, not with loud and boisterous protests (See CW's STAR TREK TOS example) but rather at the ballot box.

And THOSE people outnumber the loud and boisterous by a considerable margin..

Michale

I think, as Chris notes, Obama's been procrastinating as long as possible. But the bottom line is that all these rationalizations attempt to obscure the fact that Keystone is a bow to fossil fuel dependance; it is a bow to 1% interests; it comes with significant environmental risks and we have no reason to assume the worst won't happen.

Michale: will he pay a price on the left? He most certainly will with environmentalists and progressives and people focused on Climate Change. The flip is that he would really energize these same folks if he makes the right call. And these are people who are marching and protesting all over the country. They are activated. On a political/strategic level it's just appallingly stupid to deliberately alienate your most potentially active supporters.

Comparative tea leaf reading is greatly complicated by the fact that the five post FDR two-term presidencies occur during (at least) five major media revolutions.

Eisenhower is basically in the newspaper,radio,newsreel era. Television is gaining ground (held back a decade by WWII), but it was still operating with the techniques and style, and even the talent pool of print media, radio and newsreels. National TV news is 15 minutes each evening. The news is pretty easy for a president to manage.

Johnson and Nixon are creatures of broadcast TV, centralized and highly professionalized, with a distinct TV style. The news is still pretty easy to manage, but news cycles are much shorter, images much more important.

Clinton is in the cable news network/talk radio era, not quite in the internet age. Broadcast news is fragmenting into niches, the talent pool is being diluted. The news is harder to manage. Infotainment is beginning to break out in a big way.

Bush II is firmly in the internet era. Anybody can be a reporter, who needs an editor? The news cycle gets even shorter, and presidential news management is much harder.

Obama is in the social media era. News is completely tribal, and the tribes are always restless for breaking news. Opinion is constantly conflated with fact, news is constantly conflated with entertainment. It's a kind of mythology - "ideology in a narrative form" (Bruce Lincoln).

Presidential approval numbers are a crude measure of public sense of well being, filtered through a political lens. If the US economy improves, and the US military withdraws from Afghanistan, then Obama's run out numbers will tend to the Reagan-esque. If the economy remains weak, and we stay in the military mire, than his numbers will look like Dubya's. There is lots of room between these extremes.

I really think it's (mostly) that simple....but that means it's highly unpredictable.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/04/oreilly-v-obama-round-2-keystone-poverty-and-veterans/

Michale

I have always thought that the OKing the Keystone was, for all intents and purposes, a done deal and the Left has resigned themselves to that..

Are you saying that, in your opinion, Obama actually WILL pay a real and tangible price from the Left for OKing Keystone??

Michale

Michale

-CW

Whoops! Fixed one data number in the text, but also: my categorization of Truman as a full 2-termer was incorrect, as he took over at the start of FDR's 4th term.

My mistake... sorry...

-CW

I've heard it'll happen in early summer (June?). It's a long process.

I've also just heard that Keystone may be the hostage the GOP decides to take on the debt ceiling fight. So that'll probably delay things for at least 2-3 months, if it happens.

I've always thought Obama is going to OK it, but that he wants to delay the decision for as long as possible. I still think this.

Maybe it'll give Dems a chance to "run away" from Obama in the midterms, though. Just because it may hurt Obama, it doesn't mean that will spill over to others, in other words.

We'll see... but I don't think anything's going to happen for months, at least.

YoYo -

This is close to how I see it. Either the oil goes to the Gulf for refining, or maybe Canada builds a pipeline to the West Coast, and they ship it to China to refine. Either way, the oil still comes out of the ground. So it's not as clear-cut as some would like to paint the decision.

But I still think Obama's going to delay for as long as he can get away with. Hey, he pushed it successfully beyond the 2012 election, when it really could have hurt him.

-CW

Keystone isn't an issue for really because I see that the president is caught in a Catch-22 there. That oil is already being pumped out the ground, as we speak even, the only option he has is how is it going to be transported to the refineries. We (he) have two options, one the oil gets transported by rail, and as we've seen in the past few months, train accidents are a distinct possibility. The other option is to approve the pipeline, and that carries the risk of leaks up and down the line. Either way, the oil is coming out the ground, the environmental damage is going to happen, all we get is two bad options that will probably fail at some point causing even more damage. Hooray!

Rejecting Keystone, I think, will create a lot of energy towards midterms on the part of environmentalist/progressives. Accepting it won't necessarily derail that, but, I know I will react very strongly and feel pretty negative about the President if he makes that choice. It will totally destroy any desire from me to "hear" from the President about why I need to go out and vote for other Dems and all that. Every email I would get from OFA or other lists I'm on with his name on it, or "Help the President do A.B.C." messages will be rendered entirely ineffective for me.

I think the wrong decision on Keystone will damage his numbers and they won't ever recapture the progressive block. The right choice will cause a surge of enthusiasm for him by a lot of us and will make no difference to the pubs who would still hate him even if he approves it. I really hope he doesn't blow this one.