The far "looney left" is often the cause of more troubles for Democrats than anything Republicans ever do.
Many on the left argue that Al Gore should have won the 2000 election, and that Republican shenanigans were responsible for his losing Florida, and thus the White House.
I disagree. The blame rests solely on Ralph Nader and the crazy people who thought he would make a good President. No matter how you slice the numbers, if the Nader voters had voted for Gore, there would be no need for a recount. Many on the left - including those who voted for Nader - conveniently forget this small fact, when arguing that Bush "stole the election". Bush didn't steal it - Nader handed it to him on a silver platter.
Fringe candidates often allow the "other side" to win, and in 1992, Ross Perot siphoned off enough GOP votes to let Bill Clinton win. Same thing, different side. And the Ross Perot people are the first to decry Clinton as a crook and a womanizer. But if they had voted for Bush, he would have been re-elected and Bill Clinton would likely be a indicted former governor of Arkansas. That's the sum and substance of it.
Fringe political opinions are often immature political opinions. The folks on the far left and the far right are not willing to compromise on anything. So it is "my way or the highway" and they will gladly allow the opponent to win, rather than support a compromise candidate who is better aligned with their views.
We saw this in 1968, when the far "loony left" stormed the Democratic Convention in Chicago and caused chaos - and allowed Richard Nixon to win on a "law and order" platform. The Democratic party was in disarray, and the far left, instead of supporting a compromise candidate, chose to support no one at all. And their antics and violence scared most Americans into supporting the first candidate who promised to put an end to it - and that was Nixon.
Similarly, today, we have these OWS idiots, who are occupying various locations until their demands are met. But when pressed, they say they have no demands, and demands are bourgeois. Their only real demand, it seems, it to be allowed to camp out in public parts, shit on the sidewalk, and smoke pot and form drum circles.
There is some vague posturing about the 1% and student loans, but no clear suggestions about what to do. It is just a movement for the sake of a movement. A bowel movement, really.
But, this is exactly the sort of thing that could spin out of control for Obama. If these idiots keep up the rioting, raping, looting and other crap (literally) it will reflect badly on the Democrats, who are most closely aligned with this nonsense. And of course, Romney will play to the "law and order" crowd and gain a lot of votes this way.
But of course, to the deep thinkers in the OWS movement, this is just fine with them, as in their way of thinking, Obama is too conservative and the best solution is to elect someone on the far right (Santorum, preferred) so that Americans will lurch to the far left.
It is the same tactic that Communists or Taliban used to gain power - no one votes for extremes, if everything seems to be going well. So it profits the OWS crowd for Obama to lose. So expect them to disrupt the Democratic convention - ironically - rather than the GOP one.
Sorry, but OWS people are idiots. When you protest, there has to be a point to your protest, other than vague generalities and "hey, let's have a good party!". Camping out in public spaces isn't funny - its unsanitary and takes away these public spaces from the rest of us.
And most importantly of all, such "protesting" achieves no goals, changes no hearts and minds, or accomplishes anything of importance at all - for the protesters or the general public. In fact, it does just the opposite - turning people away from such concepts and discrediting such ideas.
The Vietnam War protests, with its vague ideas of "Peace Now!" never amounted to anything. It took a decade and a Republican President to end the war in Vietnam (the so-called "Peace with Honor" which sounded better than "Run Away!") and his reasons for ending it had more to do with economics and the futility of the war, than with the "public opinion" swayed by protesters. Remember that Nixon was elected and re-elected, in a landslide during this time period. Far from being pervasive opinions, the view of the stinking hippies remained a small minority.
In other words, they accomplished nothing. They didn't end the war, they didn't legalize drugs, they didn't create "free love" or peace, or anything of substance. In fact, much of what we have gotten out of that generation (Disco, cocaine, Yuppies, and venereal diseases) really are things we would rather have done without.
The OWS crowd promises us more of the same. Spoiled college kids with too much money and time on their hands, unwilling to go out and find a job, convinced they are part of some greater movement, when really it is a minority movement getting a lot of press - and bad press for the Democrats.
if anything derails the Obama campaign, it will be OWS. And if Mitt Romney is reading this, well Mitt, there is the chink in the Obama campaign armor. Drive a wedge in there and you just might pull it off. Not that I want you do. I don't look good in funny Mormon underwear.