Obama: Rekindling the Flames of Passion

The economy continues to be Obama’s Achilles heel—even though Romney’s economic plan doesn’t appear to be convincing voters who are already skeptical of the Republican.

Barack Obama has made history in stadiums. In 2008, he accepted his party’s presidential nomination at Invesco Stadium in Denver, CO, with the promise of change.

Thursday evening, he accepted the nomination for a second term at Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, asking the country to let him continue “Forward.”

On many issues, change hasn’t yet come—but give Obama another four years, he promises, and he’ll take care of the leftover items on his to-do list. And stadiums full of voters is what Obama will need to win re-election; polls predict that the race between him and challenger Mitt Romney will be very close.

The economy continues to be Obama’s Achilles heel—even though Romney’s economic plan doesn’t appear to be convincing voters who are already skeptical of the Republican, as is the case with Latino voters.

Even with one of the highest unemployment rates of any group in the country, Latinos don’t seem receptive to Romney’s economic message—evidence that anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic rhetoric from Republicans has made a deep impression on Latino voters. 

Nonetheless, this week’s Latino Decisions/Impremedia tracking poll shows that after the Republican convention in Tampa, Romney and his party are making baby steps forward with Latino voters on the economic issue.

Thirty percent of Latino voters selected Romney and the Republicans as the party they trust to fix the economy—a record for this cycle in the tracking poll, but not yet the level of support the party needs.

Obama has retained the sympathy and support of Latino voters despite their high unemployment rate (which the present Administration continues to attribute to the policies of Obama’s Republican predecessor, George W. Bush). And Hispanics continue to support Obama despite his inability to pass the immigration reform he promised in 2008; despite breaking deportation records; and despite his expansion of controversial immigration programs involving collaboration between the federal government and state and local police. His granting of deferred action to DREAMers appears to be generating enthusiasm among Latino voters—but no one will know how deep that enthusiasm really goes until Nov. 6.

Obama’s record is mixed. The message of hope and change, which reverberated throughout the country in 2008 and mobilized voters of all kinds—youth, minorities, women, independents—is behind us now.

This time around, his record is likely to motivate some and depress others. It’s not enough to point the blame at the previous Administration, and make new promises left and right. Now, Obama has to explain exactly why voters should send him back to the White House. He has to mobilize not only the base who chose him, and who apparently continues to give him the benefit of the doubt—although mobilizing them poses its own challenge. He also has to consider independents, who need more specific reasons not to vote for Romney or simply to stay at home.

To Latino voters, Obama can point to achievements on many fronts—particularly health care reform, which will benefit them as one of the groups most likely to be uninsured; advancements in education programs; policies to aid and expand small businesses; and tax cuts and credits which put more money in families’ pockets.

But those Latino voters will still want to hear what he’ll do to create the jobs to alleviate their greater-than-10% unemployment rate.

They’ll also want to know if immigration reform will be a realistic prospect in the president’s second term. Obama can continue to argue that it will depend on the Republican support that was so obviously lacking in his first term, but he should know this: if he is reelected with broad Hispanic support, and his second term passes without concrete legislative action on immigration, it could have negative consequences for the Democrats in the long run. If he’s reelected with Hispanic support, without feeling electoral pressure for 2016, will he go for a legislative solution to the immigration issue or continue the administrative model, expanding Deferred Action for other groups of immigrants?

But I’m getting ahead of myself. First, he has to be reelected to begin with.

After Thursday, Obama will have two months to rekindle the passion voters once felt. 

Maribel Hastings is a Senior Advisor at America’s Voice

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Eye B. Tender September 14, 2012 at 03:17 AM
"Romney will do nothing but help his rich friends" Wealthy people do not need any "help", because THEY DON'T NEED TO INVEST!!!! Because, they don't NEED TO make any more money. They're already rich. They can just spend the money they already have. It's the rest of us - the little people - who need those "bad" rich people to successfully invest their money. Because, when they can make a nice profit out of our hard work, then we have jobs. So yes, the Republicans will indeed help their rich friends profit by creating JOBS for the American Public. And folks, we need those jobs a lot more than we need the Dirty Demo's B.S. list of familiar lefty "talking points".
Eye B. Tender September 14, 2012 at 04:01 AM
Cathy P. (a government employee?) quoted Mitch McConnell: "If the administration wants cooperation, it will have to begin to move in our direction." Exactly Cathy P. It's called compromise. The Government Workers Union Party (the Dirty Demos) will never be able to force the American Public to buckle down and meekly serve under their Socialist Utopian Totalitarian State. Not until they finally put the Army into the streets and take our Vote away from us. Because, too many of us know that those greedy jackass Public Employees are supposed to SERVE THE PUBLIC - not the other way around. Time for ALL OF YOU to quit your government jobs and show us how valuable you really are out in the private sector (aka the "real world"). You don't have to worry about letting us down. We'll be just fine. Because, somebody else will be perfectly willing to stab their own mother in the back to take over your EASY and obscenely OVERPAID job.
Tamara C. September 14, 2012 at 05:50 AM
eye b. a cretin who can't write: "over your EASY and obscenely OVERPAID job." It's those empty assumptions that make up your entire political party. What an ignorant comment. Even though I am paying through the nose for my education, it's comments like this that make me appreciate that I at least have one. I bet you think about the uselessness of those jobs while you're driving on public roads, your kids enjoy public education and someone you care about is receiving public healthcare. I guess that means that all teachers, public medical professionals, legal counsel, civil engineers and millions of other "servants" should allow the elitist right to keep funneling money into empty wars and corporate kick-backs while they endure hits to their pensions and salaries. READ A HISTORY BOOK. What happens when it's more profitable to go to work in the private sector? We regress back to the feudal systems of the dark ages. Perhaps you'd like to bring back The Plague as well? *****Why didn't evolution take care of this one?*****thinks to herself.
Tamara C. September 14, 2012 at 05:52 AM
Mitt happens....hahaha.
Eye B. Tender September 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Tamara C. wrote: “... I at least have [an education]... READ A HISTORY BOOK. What happens when it's more profitable to go to work in the private sector? We regress back to the feudal systems of the dark ages. “ Please cite your sources. When and where has individual profitability in the private sector ever directly caused "[a regression] back to the feudal systems of the dark ages“? More scholarly research would reveal that individual profitability in the private sector was one of the major factors leading to the creation of the United States of America. Our new-fashioned liberal government then sounded the death knell of feudal systems all over the world. Of course, those people were the "small 'l' liberals": open to new ideas, supporting freedom and favoring a less intrusive government. Not at all like the modern day "Big 'L' Liberal", hide-bound reactionary, big intrusive government backing, radical left-wing socialist American Political Party of the Government Workers.
Cathy P. September 14, 2012 at 03:00 PM
"Our new-fashioned liberal government then sounded the death knell of feudal systems all over the world." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please cite YOUR sources.
Frank Geefay September 14, 2012 at 04:47 PM
I feel that out principle for any political party in Congress as a block to consistently oppose a single person such as the President is an inappropriate use of power, I don't care which party is doing it. Congress should be about issues and laws, not about people and personalities. This is not only inappropriate it should be unethical. For congressional members of a single party to sign up to vote together as a block sounds much more like a dictatorship (only one voice) than a Democracy. This is the way it is in other countries with one party and one voice having power struggles. Think about what is happening. Individual voices in Congress are having less meaning and impact. It is all about power, not about democracy and people. Legislatures no longer represent the interest of their state or district. They represent their party's political policies. Doesn’t this sound like something from another undemocratic country? It doesn't work in other countries so why are we adopting such undemocratic practices in America, the land of democracy and freedom from corruption. In a sense this is corruption on a grand scale. Congress members must vote along party lines or be ostracized from support by their party. Sounds like corruption to me. The results undemocratic inactions are an inept Congress. If the Republican should win this election and the Democrats do the same as the Republicans in Congress I would be as strongly opposed to those actions or inactions.
Susan September 14, 2012 at 05:36 PM
President Obama is crushing Rmoney in California, period. Therefore, the goal of the Obama Derangement Syndrome trolls is to distract us from what can only be described as the complete perversion of our democracy. Specifically, voter suppression tactics and the obscene amount of money flowing into the battleground states by a shadow group of multi-millionaires and billionaires; most notably Tea Party co-founders Charles and David Koch, and the casino mogul under multiple federal investigations, Sheldon Adelson (Chinese bribery scandal, money laundering probe, prostitution). Democracy Now!, beginning @ timecode 25:39: "Top GOP Strategist Karl Rove Loses Cool Under Questioning from 'Boss Rove' Author Craig Unger" http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/31/top_gop_strategist_karl_rove_loses Uber creepy in the above segment is how the Republican Convention TV broadcast pool feed that went out to the masses was manipulated to conceal plutocrat David Koch shaking hands with the hired help (Rmoney) during the coronation.
Eye B. Tender September 14, 2012 at 06:40 PM
Cathy P. (a government employee?) burped: "Please cite YOUR sources." Well, Party Position Polly, there is no need to cite sources when such information is common knowledge. But, when one encounters a scholarly hairball on the rug the size of: "I have an education [where I learned that] individual profitability in the private sector will cause [a regression] back to the feudal systemhs of the dark ages“......... .... it is fair to make such a request. Furthermore, it is also common knowledge that the rise of "Big Government" and the merging of State and Party, aka: the rise of "The Government Workers' Party" did indeed cause the 20th century's two worst examples of feudalism and the dark ages: Communism and Fascism. Traditional American liberal government is exactly the opposite in that it allows the individual citizen to flourish. But, the Big Government Worker's Party goal of merging state and party leads to murdering their own citizens by the hundreds of millions.
Tamara C. September 14, 2012 at 07:10 PM
Sources and other goodies for EyE B. TOO LAZY TO RESEARCH: Medieval feudal systems found in Europe were essentially rich land owners who enslaved "serfs" to tend their property and land. This was a privatization of power evolving from the late Roman patron/client relationship into a lord/man relationship. It eventually failed because of the black plague wiping out most of the work force and the peasant revolts that would follow—across the world. Of course, we would never found our country on such a system where people that tended the land had such little rights. No…our serfs were stolen from Africa and weren't given any rights at all. They were called slaves and almost all the forefathers of our great nation had them. This is how we became an industrial giant and a country of wealth: free labor. We got smarter later and disguised our agenda under farm worker programs that continued to barter human labor like it was nothing. Key point: Now cut to the present and we have the same social orders at work. Corporations [rich land owners] running their businesses and asserting their power without any regard for the worker—but, getting special favors from the governing bodies. Capitalism under the guise of a religious imperative. [a corrupt church] A cross section of people who work, but are denied basic liberties like shelter, food and medical care. [serfs] Key source: Any damn history book you can get your hands on. Really, just read something.
Eye B. Tender September 14, 2012 at 07:19 PM
Susan said: "President Obama is crushing Rmoney in California, period. Therefore, the goal of the Obama Derangement Syndrome trolls... [and blah blah blah].... Well Susan...., with so called "education" injecting radical political dogma into California's youth such as: "individual profitability in the private sector will cause [a regression] back to the feudal systems of the dark age"........ ...then smooth talkers like Broke Oh Bummer can blibity blab their way past any need to explain what has gone wrong with California's economy. Of course, what has gone wrong in California is the rise of big government under The Government Workers' Party - aka, the "Dirty Demos".
Tamara C. September 14, 2012 at 07:21 PM
Eye B A Total Waste of Space on this board: I'll put together a key for you so people can decode your posts: COMMON KNOWLEDGE=I don't know where I heard this, but I hope you buy it. SCHOLARLY HAIRBALL=An accusation, because I'm too intellectually lazy to encroach the question with real facts or a salient argument. !!!!!!!!!! Someone needs to research what Communism and Facism is and see the failings of "centralist" governments in the 20th century....not what people labeled as Communism or Socialism. This is how our great America became so great. By force. We've won everything by force. The only consistent death knell we've rung has been to profit against the weak and to assume control where we can. The religious right in our country have selective memories: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-True-History-of-Religious-Tolerance.html ...and EYE B...consider this a gift from me to you: http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/978-0-271-03781-3.html
Eye B. Tender September 14, 2012 at 07:23 PM
"If the Republican should win this election and the Democrats do the same as the Republicans in Congress I would be as strongly opposed to those actions or inactions." Well Frank, with any luck for the American Public in this Election, you're going to have your opportunity to prove that.
Tamara C. September 14, 2012 at 07:29 PM
California's failed economy didn't just start suddenly under Obama's term. Where have you been? http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/californias-debt-levels-soar-under-schwarzenegger-5408
Eye B. Tender September 14, 2012 at 10:03 PM
"California's failed economy didn't just start suddenly under Obama's term." Indeed it did not. But, the comment was related to Oh Bummer's unfortunately excellent chances for carrying California. So, indeed, poisoned fruit from California Big Government Party's re-education propaganda machine - which has played such a major role in causing this long slide down for our State's economy - remains quite pleasing to a certain layer of lower intellect.
Cathy P. September 14, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Right on Tamera C.!
Eye B. Tender September 14, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Tamara C wrote: “SCHOLARLY HAIRBALL…. real facts or a salient argument?” Well, you yourself kaked out that particular scholarly hairball: “Profitability in the [American] private sector [will bring back the Dark Ages and the Black Plague]”. Then, my bare toes discovered: “Someone needs to research what Communm and Facism is and see the failings of "centralist" governments in the 20th century....not what people labeled as Communism or Socialism.” I invite Tamara C to summarize (or winterize) her own research into this next scholarly hairball and then share it with us. My eyes are tender; yet, a quick glance at the scoreboard seems to indicate about a hundred million each for Red China and the USSR, and about Eighty Million or so for Germany, Italy and Japan. Indeed, merging big government with big party has served a lot of happy customers over the last century or so. So, is it really finally time for the USA to keep dreaming about "hope and change" while neatly goose-stepping behind those old world banners?
Allen King September 14, 2012 at 11:21 PM
Keep blaming the other side for all blow ups. The fact is that Schwarzenegger tried to rein on union influence but failed. The debt is due to run away public employee compensation and pension. Since then it is a democratic control. What happened? For the first two years Dems controlled both houses and the presidency, what happened? Rep blaming Dems, Dems blaming Reps. You both despise me. Get life losers. You are the reason why this country is going down. You fail to use your independent judgment and fails to look for our own best interest.
Lucas September 15, 2012 at 12:44 AM
We know that a lot of women will vote for Obama because of that "white guilt" thing but it should be interesting to see what the Mexicans will do. After all, his administration has deported more illegal Mexicans than anyone else over the last 60 years.
Susan September 15, 2012 at 02:05 AM
One reason why Latinos are breaking strongly for the President is because Mr. Romney stood out during the Republican primary as someone completely devoid of compassion and empathy. His idea to make undocumented immigrants so uncomfortable that they would “self-deport" is positively cringe worthy, as is his promise to veto the DREAM Act that would give young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children a path to citizenship. Mr. Romney is polling well with white men and birthers, but that's about it. The majority of women of all colors strongly favor Mr. Obama, whilst blacks favor the President 94% to zero.
Watzon McWats September 15, 2012 at 03:04 AM
Still struggling to understand the link between illegal Mexican immigrants and Mexican-American citizens. Am I missing something?
Mark Burns September 15, 2012 at 03:09 AM
Show your work. Proof and citation for the 94% to zero please. And define 'strongly favor' - is that around 50% or is it more like 80%? Can you think of anyone else who is, ' . . . completely devoid of compassion and empathy' so I can see what type of person that really is? Are you Latino, Susan, or just their spokesperson? I'm pretty sure Susan gets paid to post. Why else? Oh and about that deportation statistic . . . a large portion of that is actually 'voluntary deportation.' Look it up and find out why the 60 years comment is incorrect. It should really be called, 'Catch and Release.'
Tamara C. September 15, 2012 at 05:02 AM
Wow...First we accuse Obama of deporting too many illegal immigrants on this board, than we have republicans saying the opposite when it fits their agenda: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/23/deportation-statistics-said-to-be-inflated/ Actually, CNN reports that significantly larger increases in the total number of deportations occurred during George W. Bush's administration: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-19/politics/politics_deportation-record_1_ice-director-john-morton-undocumented-immigrants-criminal-alien-program?_s=PM:POLITICS Yet, another gift from me to all of you : http://www.amazon.com/Harvest-Empire-History-Latinos-America/dp/0143119281 *This message was approved by a 100% Latina voter that is educated on the issues. CANDIDATE PREFERENCE ACCORDING TO GALLUP POLLS: http://www.gallup.com/poll/156848/obama-remains-women-presidential-pick-romney-men.aspx
Tamara C. September 15, 2012 at 05:04 AM
Candidate preference in California: CALIFORNIA: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-california-president-romney-vs-obama?gem
Lucas September 15, 2012 at 05:13 PM
Eye B. Tender September 15, 2012 at 06:53 PM
As usual the Dirty Demos want to brag about the various subset groups that they “own” through various forms of groupist bigotry – then leave links to their politically correct propaganda organs which are apparently supposed to explain it all for the Voters. Yet, once we pierce that smokescreen we can clearly see that the only minority group they really care about is the unionized public employees. Here’s the real issue: the economy is never going to improve so long as the most effective method of joining the middle class is by going to work for the government. This is because the government does not create and sell any product. So, once the Taxpayers’ money is invested in government workers, it’s gone. The only other jobs created are those providing menial service for the smug self-satisfied government employees. I can respect government workers choosing to support the Socialists. They’re voting their pocketbooks. But, for those not working for Big Government - unless you really like flipping burgers and mowing lawns for their Taxpayer funded leisure class aristocracy – you’re just being had if you Vote Dirty Demo.
Bob Peterson September 21, 2012 at 06:55 PM
Dems re-took the house and the senate in 2006. if you want to point fingers at anyone for the housing debacle, point them at Chris Dodd, Barny frank, Jamie Gorelick, and Franklin Raines. They pretty much ran Freddie and Fannie. Thats where the housing market crashed and a lot of people lost their homes. Bush asked for an audit in 2003. Maxine Waters said there was nothing wrong there. McCAin asked for one again in 2005. Same answer. the repubs .were booted in 2006 because they were not cutting spending and reducing the size of gov. Dems didn't do anything different when the took over in 2007. This is why we need term limits for the US congress. The Dems. never put forth a budgetfor almost 4 years. Now the dem controlled senate stops everything the repubs. send them.
Tim Condon October 02, 2012 at 11:32 AM
Here's another history lesson for you, Mason. From today's Wall Street Journal editorial page: "One of the tragedies of the Obama Administration is the historic political accident that it had 60 Senate Democratic votes in 2009. The ability to break a filibuster without Republican votes empowered the left to think it could pass anything, and so it steamrolled ahead with ObamaCare, which needed every one of those 60 votes to pass." How much can one party change in 14 weeks? Answer: Apparently enough to take over 1/6 of the American economy, and inject the federal government into every citizen's medical decision-making. You may like the idea of government controlling our lives in this area. Most people do not, whether it's "free" or not (in the end, when government gets involved, nothing is ever "free").
Susan October 02, 2012 at 03:46 PM
Consider the source, Tim: The Wall Street Journal has published op-eds from 10 writers without disclosing their links to Romney's campaign – including party boss and George Bush's brain, Karl Rove. The op-eds either attack President Obama or praise Romney on a wide range of topics. At least 23 articles have been penned without disclosure of the author's ties to the Romney campaign. This once prestigious American institution was taken over in 2007 by Rupert Murdoch, and his unethical scandal-ridden right-wing media empire, News Corporation. Fox "News", also owned by News Corp., has the exact same disclosure problem. Source: Ten Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Writers Who Weren't Disclosed As Romney Advisers http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09/19/nine-wall-street-journal-op-ed-writers-who-were/189979
Mason Mccarty October 02, 2012 at 05:13 PM
@ Tim Condon: Flashback- In 1994 the GOP came up with the idea of the individual mandate as a counter argument to Hilary's plan because it promoted "personal responsibility". The conservative research group the Heritage Foundation (which the GOP cites all the time with taxes and healthcare) backed the idea. In 2006 Mitt Romney put that in place in Massachusetts. As far as government involvement in every American's medical decisions here's a few questions: Are we a single payer system now? Do I write my monthly insurance check out to Uncle Sam or to my insurance company? Does the government now tell me when I can and cannot go to a doctor? Does the government tell the doctor what prescriptions to give a patient? Can I change my insurance company if I want a better rate or does the government forbid this now? Are there death panels? If you don't like government being involved in the medical field does that mean you're in favor of getting rid of Medicare? If not then how come Medicare is fine for old people but not for those under 65?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something