i suggest u re-read your tirade re "banks"

and, to get specific on the foreign policy part . . . what exactly did he "fail" to deliver?

His relief programs for home owners is largely non existent, Hurricane sandy relief is also another disaster in the north east.

Ok tell me why do you think the dems got wiped out in the last election?

You think there was massive love for Obama in this last election? why did so many democrats distance themselves from Obama during the election?

Could Obama and the Democrats have avoided the voters’ wrath? I think there was an opportunity to do so in the fall of 2013 when many Americans blamed the Republicans for the shutdown of the government. In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll from October 7-9, 2013, Obama’s approval rate was 47 percent and his disapproval rate 48 percent, and registered voters said by 47 to 39 percent that they would prefer that Democrats control the next Congress. By the next poll on December 13, Obama’s approval was at 43 percent and his disapproval at 54 percent and voters now preferred a Republican congress by 44 to 42 percent. A Washington Post age:2010-2019:WashingtonPost:2014:10:28:National-Politicsolling:question_15011.xml">poll registered the same trends. The bottom fell out of Obama’s approval and of Democrat prospects for November 2014 sometime in mid-October 2013. What happened during October was the administration’s failed rollout of the Affordable Care Act. That was Obama’s Katrina, and it turned out to be the Democrats’ as well. Of course, the administration subsequently repaired the program, but the political damage was lasting. It occurred at just that time when the issues of the coming election were being defined. Obama’s and the Democrats’ popularity never recovered.

I don't see how the Affordable Care Act is bad for America. People who didn't pay for healthcare are now required to do so giving much reliefs to those who are carrying the whole burden by paying for it. Now the insurance company can only retain 15% for administrative expenses instead of the 45% that they were withholding prior to the passing of the act. That leaves 30% more available funds for actual healthcare provision or refunds to policy holders if it is not all utilized. Sure there is less of the pie for the insurance companies and while there may be some employment attrition there, that is the better option than the way the insurance companied have screwed the policy holders over the decades. The Democrats inability to explain this in simple English is they conundrum. This went into full effect 2012 and for both 2012 and 2013, we received refunds. That was never the case before. Are there procedural problems? Sure but with time and improvements they should go away. 

i have no problems with you making the case that Obama has come up short of expectations . . .

fact is though, historically low turnout by the Democrat party base in midterms and hyper motivated 'conservatives' eager to retake 'their' America accounted for much of these results

u know, i am always amused when pundits point to initial computer glitches plaguing rollout of the inarguably successful Affordable Care Act as a major reason for voters turning on Obama/Democrats

the nativist movement to deligitimize Obama's presidency (derailed somewhat by the Romney implosion) is back on track

It isn't bad for america Ksazma this is a major accomplishment for Obama and for America period but the execution and the perception is that it is a complete screw up because of the issues occurred during the launch.

Again it is a culmination of failures like the launch of obama care, the iraq disaster and the ukraine chaos that led to people losing faith in obammy.....

It also doesn't help that many black leaders in America aside from Al sharpton (hahahhahaha) view obama as a failure for black americans.

scotch taping [anyone u want to deligitimize] to Al Sharpton . . . ole reliable from the NY Post/FOX/Bob Grant/Rush Limbaugh, et al playbook

smfh

Indeed. Democrats always do a poor job representing their agenda. Aslo, although many of their projects are commendable, they have a history of poor execution which makes people lose confidence in them. With all the years and money spent on that website, there was no excuse for it to fail as miserably as it did. Yes, the initial response was more than will normally be expected but they should have anticipated that and at the very least, they should have dedicated more bandwidths as they contemplate scaling it back at a later time. Still is a good program for America. Presidents for the past 100 years have wanted to do it.

Do you know that Obama isn't running in 2016. In fact the black turn out was LOWER this year than it was in 2010, and this despite desperate attempts to terrify them into voting by screaming that the KKK will rise again if they stay home.  Well they stayed home, knowing that a bunch of white candidates, who took the black vote for granted panicked when they suspected that blacks didn't plan to vote.

Udall and several other candidates lost because rather than getting the expected 70% of the Hispanic vote, they got 55%, enough to ensure their loss in states like Colorado.  Hispanics note that Obama has done way more disruption to their families by lying when he said that he would only deport criminals, and then looking to deport as many as possible.  So he is now called the Deporter in Chief.  While they do not blame him for the lack of immigration reform, the do blame him for deporting more people than Bush and Clinton did COMBINED in the TWO FULL terms.

So no the Democrats cannot take their base for granted.  Gore and Kerry lost, and the next white candidate can lose to as the GOP now has a lock on the white male vote, forcing the Democrats to depend on the very people who have been most hurt in the past 8 years, the blacks, Hispanics, young whites and white single women.

People vote based upon what THEY experience. The Obama coalition did NOT benefit and so they stayed home in even larger numbers than they did in 2010.

Why do you and others think that blacks will vote even when those who assume they will get their vote (the Democrats in the USA and the AFC and APNU in Guyana) aren't doing ONE THING to help them?

Obama was an urban president, the first since JFK. What has he done to improve conditions in cities, an indirect way to help the Obama base, given their heavy concentration in these areas?

A study recently released offered evidence of what we all knew. The black upper middle class has shrunk since 2000, and their condition is even WORSE than it was in 2007.  And yet the Democrats are bold afced enough to base victories on black voter turn out!

Kari the BEST president for blacks was Bill Clinton, so you better hope that Hillary decides to run, and then runs a better campaign than she did in 2008!  Black socio economic status peaked in 2000, and has gone down hill since then, despite our first HALF WHITE president!

Caribny - an empty vessel makes the most noise. You just wasted digital resources to express a bunch of inanities.

People have run data in states like NC using data based on 2010 turn out. The Democrats would have kept some of the seats which they lost if the turn out this year resembled that of 2010.

In any case the Dems know that their base stays home in the mid terms, so why didn't they anticipate it and prepare for it.

Sorry last minute bombing of people's phones with hysterical screams that if they don't vote the KKK will ride again isn't cute.  It is INSULTING!  So it is no surprise that the black voter turn out in FL, GA, NC, and VA was LOWER than in 2010, but that some GOP candidates won because they captured over 40% of the Hispanic vote.

If the GOP candidate gains 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2016 the Dems will be completely thrown out of gov't, because there will go states like CO, NV and several others which Obama won in 2008 and in 2012.  George Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004

There you go again.  Do you know that if you want to show what you know you raise points to REFUTE those who you disagree with?  When one resorts to personal attacks they have conceded that they have LOST the argument.

BTW the comments that I made were made by David Plouffe when he warned the Democrats not to take the black vote for granted as Obama will NOT be on the ballots.  This after the active, but belated, involvement by Obama in trying to drum up black turn out in IL, NC, VA, and GA failed, and FEWER of them showed up than in 2010.

So go argue with Plouffe.  Unlike you he doesn't view blacks as robots which the Dems can deploy whenever they can't get enough white votes to win.

Indeed since Tuesday the Dems haven't been speaking about any guarantees of victory based on ethnic votes. The increase in Hispanic support for the GOP evident last Tuesday has terrified them.

You do know that almost all of the Hispanic governors and senators are GOP!

http://www.elpasotimes.com/new...-minority-recruiting

Kari according to an article written in the 11/08/14 NY Times median income in the USA has fallen 3% since 2009.

This is why the Obama base stayed home, because their median incomes likely fell even further, given that minorities and the youth have suffered the most.

caribny, just off the top of my head:

the 2014 Democrat share of the Hispanic vote nationwide was was higher than 2010

the Democrat share of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 nat'l election was near 70% - about 10% greater than 2010 . . . see a pattern yet?

in Colorado, Gardner tacked to the center on immigration and was not adequately exposed there by Udall's campaign which focusing its efforts on delivering a death blow to the Republican by running heavily on women's issues . . . Udall ran a poor campaign and lost by 2 points, hardly a tsunami