Be a Supporter!

Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable

  • 11,255 Views
  • 209 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-11 21:58:00 Reply

At 8/11/11 01:21 AM, Korriken wrote:
At 8/10/11 10:30 PM, redzone wrote: Bad idea for him to be re-elected because the republicans will do the same shit again, which is stopping him at every turn and rather see the country burn than see it be saved by a black man.
Ignorance is shining like a nuclear explosion on a moonless night.

Look over in Europe. Greece had to take up an austerity plan in order to get other countries to prop it up with their money. England tried an austerity plan that involved many things, like raising taxes... Many policies that Obama would want put in place are already in place over there and the people are rioting in the streets!

England already has single payer healthcare, among other things we're going to end up with and its causing all sorts of problems.

You are of course blaming their problems on one thing for convienence, failing to see the other reasons behind the actual situation i.e. the poverty of London's poorer districts or the mismanagement of the Greek government as well as the fact that the Germans could've prevented the whole thing from occurring.

Black man saving America? Perhaps, but it won't be Obama because his lack of plans and incredibly incompetent 'leadership' if you can call it that are going to wreck America if we don't get him out of office.

Will Obama be reelected? I hope not, but either way, this election is going to get UGLY before its over. Be ready to see some of the most brutal attack ads, definitely from the left and most likely from the right.

Obama's biggest advantage from '08 isn't going to work for him in '12 because now he has a record he has to answer to.

I hope so because the newest candidates like Bachman look worse than Palin.......I wouldn't be surprised if say Bachman gets elected she tries to implement a theology, ok ok that's a bit over the top, but at worst she'll go into more wars.

I haven't heard much on the others but if Palin or Bachman get elected......I'm moving to China where they have more sane leaders at the very least.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-11 22:00:59 Reply

At 8/10/11 10:45 PM, TheMason wrote: I don't know. The 2010 mid-terms handed Obama his ass and last night's Wisconsin recall election (as well as their last Supreme Court election) handed the Union's theirs. I think this signifies a huge dissatisfaction and disappointmen with Obama.

Not really. Just that the right really came out during a congressional election that most voters generally stay home for. Obama wasn't on the ballot and the democrats didn't get the vote out. Now, I'm not saying that's not a danger. But statistically the kind of people who voted for Obama are more likely to vote during the presidential election than during the 2 term representative elections. Which isn't saying much for voters anywhere.

This was more about the ability of the tea party to get their representatives elected than anyone being really upset with Obama.

Time will tell. I won't claim Obama is an amazing president, but he's better than bush.


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
SouthAsian
SouthAsian
  • Member since: Feb. 16, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 25
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-12 00:32:47 Reply

Im voting for him!

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-12 09:44:33 Reply

At 8/10/11 10:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote: ...liberals look at the two options and they have to pick ... and an Obama that they falsely beleive failed them, Obama will look more attractive.

A few things.
1) I don't think the hard-core liberals will switch and vote for the Republican. If there is any switching sides it will be amongst the more moderate/center Democrats and Democratic IINOs.
2) Obama has shown himself to be a very ineffectual leader, this is how Obama has failed his base. He hasn't been able to push through the types of legislation or in the amount/distance that his base wants. Thus what could result is an election where the base simply sees him becoming increasingly irrelevent and decides to stay home.


At 8/10/11 09:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Actually, the "hostage crisis of the Tea Party" is not really accurate.
I only said Tea Party because it sounds exy. The real culprit I see is John Boehner.

1) In trying to sound "sexy", you were perfectly described the counter-PR narrative the WH is trying to put out.
2) The electorate isn't really looking at this as Boehner v. Obama...instead it's Tea Party v. Obama. So a discussion about Boehner is really irrelevant right now.

... Generation Y has been steadfast in its support for social issues in the face of all other problems.

This will change as Gen Y grows-up. (Just like with Gen X, the '60s Gen and the Roaring '20s Gen.) Government cannot change society as fast or as quickly as those of us who have grown-up in the info age have grown accustomed to.

Like the generations before them, they'll learn that government is all about controlling the ebb and flow of money to various interests and it's in no way a good tool to enact social change.


All of the Y'ers I know blame it on the employers and the Boomers, not on the government. ... We have lived trhough the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations and have seen that the President, no matter how hard they try, just CANNOT effect the economy. We have also seen the problems that happen when Presidents (Bush and Obama) try to 'fix' the economy.

You've got two points here:
1) Blame Game: Yeah the Y'ers may not see the Govt's hand...yet. But as they grow-up and buy homes, start families and businesses and try to employ people these attitudes will change. They'll see how much money the Govt is sucking out of their pockets and away from their small business and their ability to grow and hire more people. Do I think we need to look towards the WWII and Boomer generations and take back some of what they've taken? YES!!!! But we're heading towards the failure of the US Govt's ability to keep faith on their promises in the next 10-20 years (Social Security & Medicare) and the Y'ers will learn some hard lessons about who's to blame.

2) Presidents & the Economy: Sorry Husky but on the point about the president and the economy: YOU ARE WRONG. As I've explained earlier the president has his hands on some very important levers that effect the economy.
1) The Fed
2) Treasury
3) Dept of the Interior
4) FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC
For example, do you realize that it was Clinton who deregulated FANNIE & FREDDIE because of pressure from civil rights activists and the lending banks? FANNIE & FREDDIE couldn't have eased the terms of lending...if not for the president's signature? Guess where that eventually led? That's right...the collapse of the credit markets that has put us in this mess. (Which in turn has made it harder for employers to seek the lines of credit and other revenue streams that allow them to expand, hire new ppl or maintain current worker levels.)
Now look at Obama with what he's doing in the Gulf following the BP disaster...total moratorium on drilling. This means NO ONE can drill...even if they had permits before the moratorium those permits have now expired and he's being very slow to the point of absolute zero movement on re-issuing them. Guess what? That's messing with the supply of oil...which in turn drives up gas costs which in turns helps fuel inflation.

Is the president the sole actor for good or bad on the economy? Hell no. But it is ignorant to sit there and say he CANNOT or DOES NOT have any power/influence over it.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-12 10:01:32 Reply

*sigh* I really thought about not responding because of this. But I woke-up in a troll-smashing mood this morning.

At 8/11/11 10:05 AM, streetbob wrote: I'm not even going to read all the stuff you wrote, because this is what's going to happen.

I wish you'd have used your powers of prognostication to figure out that I was going to make this thread. Since you can see into the future, you could've saved me the trouble!

But in all seriousness, to quote the movie Idiocracy: "Your shit's fucked up and you talk like a fag." (HINT: It's NOT because you're the smartest man in the world.)

Obama's black, so he already has a majority of the african american votes, ...

Here's a little secret we Political Scientists have known since the 1960's: A-A's vote Democratic! The best a Republican can do is a 20% share of the black vote. Often far less. And guess what? Since the '68 they have put a person in the oval office 7 times ('68, '72, '80, '84, '88, '00 & '04) compared to 4 times for the Democrats ('76, '92, '96 & '08).

So your point is so irrelevent.

...then, because of Osama Bin Laden's death during Obama's first term, there's going to be a bunch of warhawk rednecks voting for him.

The "bin-Laden Bounce" is already over with. In the couple of month's following this, his poll numbers have tanked. Why?

1) One or two incidents does not erase how miserable Obama's foreign policies have been. Under Bush the US was a very unpopular leader on the world stage. But at least we were world leaders. Under Obama we're now hated AND ineffectual as leaders.
2) Economic issues trump foreign issues (Bush '92). And right now...the economy sucks!

Then don't forget the Democratic Party, (Who I offically hate.) because they'll step up and vote for him.

I'm not. However, they are irrelevent to this topic. Of course they'll vote for him! However, how much can they really do?
1) The number of Democrats and Republicans roughly equal each other.
2) Obama may not inspire his base to turn-out in that great of numbers since he's eroded so much of his support and if it looks like he'll lose anyway.

The only people who challenge Obama are Tea Party members and birthers.

1) Are you forgetting the entirity of the Republican party?
2) His poll numbers are tanking with independants...the key demographic to win the presidency.

_____________________________
Oops...now I see why you didn't try to help me out. Your predictive powers aren't really that great!


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-12 10:21:22 Reply

At 8/11/11 06:58 PM, Ravariel wrote:
I think there's two facets that make the faceless republican a red herring poll number. The first is that without a name to go with "republican" anyone can mary sue their personal preference, ... The second is that once the name is known, a lot of votes split, and some will inevitably go toward Obama or just not show up at all.

I think you're overstating the effects of these factors. Is the faceless poll 100% accurate? No, but I think they are not near as fundamentally and methodologically flawed as the head-to-head match-ups. Furthermore, neither poll is as good as the president's approval rating or direction of the country polls.

As for your two reasons, think about all the arguments made in this thread thus far about how the Democrats are not going to switch or abandon Obama. Do you really think that a Pawlenty, Bachman, Perry or Huntsman voter is going to stay home or vote for Obama? No. I think the Republican party is united behind the goal of getting Obama out of office and will vote for whoever the nominee is.


... (though I would argue that no one won in the debt ceiling debate, and it is difficult for me to see that Obama lost any worse than Cantor and Boehner and the republican congress. Might the repub nominee be shielded from this problem if he or she was not a part of the congress (...)?

1) I think the Debt Ceiling debate was a bloodbath for Obama...and he lost far, far more than the Republicans. I'm basing this on the vehemence that has come from the Left side of the Blogosphere. I've seen many commentators now voice regret for voting for him over Hillary. Still others go to the extreme of calling for a primary challenger. The vast majority are saying he left all his cards on the table and walked away with nothing for the Left. So when your own side is so vocal about how bad or ineffectual you are...I'd say it was a pretty bad, no good week.

2) I do think that you're right about the Governors and Senators will be shielded from this mess. They can say "I would've done it this way..." and be in a better place than Obama because:
a) Obama now has a record of what he did do.
b) Obama gave up looking presidential when he threw his hat in the ring. Now his every move in the fiasco is suspect...only compounded by then jetting out to birthday fundraisers.

While Obama has shown a significant amount of weakness in his leadership and policy skills, his skills as a campaigner I believe are tried and true, and it's going to take an impressive showing from the republican candidate in order to keep pace.

This may prove to be overstated. In '08 Obama ran against a McCain campaign fielding the B-Varsity campaign managers the Republicans had to offer. And in a year the Dem should've been leading very handidly...Obama trailed until the September collapse of the financial system.

In '12 he'll be facing challenges he's never faced:
1) A well financed challenger who has read Obama's play book.
2) A rookie mistake of announcing way early.
3) A poor, underperforming economy that is not what he promised.
4) A general election with a highly motivated Republican opposition.

I don't know that he's ready for it.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
DiaLady
DiaLady
  • Member since: Jun. 9, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-12 19:01:02 Reply

At 8/12/11 10:21 AM, TheMason wrote:
As for your two reasons, think about all the arguments made in this thread thus far about how the Democrats are not going to switch or abandon Obama. Do you really think that a Pawlenty, Bachman, Perry or Huntsman voter is going to stay home or vote for Obama? No. I think the Republican party is united behind the goal of getting Obama out of office and will vote for whoever the nominee is.

Which really is a scary thought considering the less-than-sterling choices in the GOP so far. The "as long as it's not the other guy" tactic is an uncertain one that didn't work for Kerry in 2004, and it may turn into another JFK/Nixon election. Additionally, a campaign fought solely on negatives is typically a harder sell, so it will definitely be interesting to see where the focus and energy of these campaigns is directed.

In any case, there is still A LOT of time before the GOP nominee is chosen, and even more time before next November. Things with the economy could change significantly, and something else could happen that would shift the focus of public attention. The ultimate question when the time comes is who will be able to maintain the voice of perception.

On an un-related note, I just saw a picture of a shirtless Putin and now I feel like puking.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-12 19:32:34 Reply

At 8/12/11 07:01 PM, DiaLady wrote: Which really is a scary thought considering the less-than-sterling choices in the GOP so far. The "as long as it's not the other guy" tactic is an uncertain one that didn't work for Kerry in 2004, and it may turn into another JFK/Nixon election. Additionally, a campaign fought solely on negatives is typically a harder sell, so it will definitely be interesting to see where the focus and energy of these campaigns is directed.

1) GOP Field
A lot has been written about how horrible the GOP field is. The truth is, it's not as bad as people think. It is mostly made-up of Senators and Governors which is a key sign of how strong the field is. The reason is that most of our presidents come from either of those two offices. Furthermore, I think there is too much focus paid on people like Bachman, Paul, Cain and Palin. These are fringe candidates who may burn brightly for a moment but then fade because they are not ready for the national scene.

On the other hand, I think Perry or Christie could end up being Obama nightmares. Yes Perry has a rep for being an uber-Christian. But until around 1992 he was a Democrat and backer of Al Gore's 1988 presidential run. Then you have the fact that Texas is doing very well in this poor economy which when compared to Illinois (where Obama was a State Rep) where the state cannot pay its bills and is a poster child of how bad govt mismanagement can be...

2) 2004 v. 2012 and Negativity
Perception is reality. Despite an unpopular war, the economy was not doing that terrible and so Kerry's "At least I'm not the other guy..." tactic didn't really hold-up to public scrutiny.

On the other hand, we're dealing with a pretty shitty economy that people are starting to shift the blame from Bush to Obama's policies. So I think the attack the other guy for sucking tactic may just work this time around a la 1980.


In any case, there is still A LOT of time before the GOP nominee is chosen, and even more time before next November. Things with the economy could change significantly, and something else could happen that would shift the focus of public attention. The ultimate question when the time comes is who will be able to maintain the voice of perception.

In all honesty this is why I debated writing this thread. You can't really start to make valid predictions until about 6-8 weaks out. The economy could shift and we could see unemployment rates and unemployment claims plumet which may allow Obama to pull a Reagan '84 out of his hat. He could ease up and allow domestic drilling in the Gulf of Mexico which could bring gas prices and thus inflation down. Or something unforseen could happen that he rises to the occassion for and then starts looking like an effective leader.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
X-Gary-Gigax-X
X-Gary-Gigax-X
  • Member since: Dec. 3, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Art Lover
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-12 19:38:44 Reply

I don't think he is either invincible or a lose cause. I think he will still be as tricky as ever. The Obama reelection platform will not be singing a song of praise for him, few Americans believe he has helped bring up the economy since 2008. It (the campaign) will mostly be negative attacks on whoever the Republican candidate is, since that is all they have left to go on.

"You're unelectable!" " Well, he's worse!"


BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-12 19:53:12 Reply

At 8/11/11 10:00 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Not really. Just that the right really came out during a congressional election that most voters generally stay home for. Obama wasn't on the ballot and the democrats didn't get the vote out. Now, I'm not saying that's not a danger. But statistically the kind of people who voted for Obama are more likely to vote during the presidential election than during the 2 term representative elections. Which isn't saying much for voters anywhere.

I wish I could find it, but there was an interesting article by a political statistician that modeled mid-term elections as a predictor of a president's re-election and his findings showed that it really is a good model. The one outlier was Clinton's 1996 victory, however Clinton did not win a plurality because their was a major third party candidate (Perot) so once controlled for this he found that a massive mid-term loss bodes very poorly for the incumbent president or incumbent party (in years their is no sitting president running).

Also, Wisconsing is a pretty interesting situation. Here you have the Unions, a major part of the Democratic base, pushing for the recalls and pouring a lot of time and money into ousting six suppossedly vulnerable Republicans. In the end:

1) They only took two of the three necessary seats. One was in a heavily Democratic/Union district and the guy barely made it into office before the Wisconsin protests. The other was a guy who left his wife for a 25-yo aid who mysteriously got a state job making 11K more a year than her predecessor and once caught filed for divorce and since has spent most of his time living outside his district. This guy, who should have lost BIG with this scandal only lost by a 2% margin (51%-49%).

2) The four that did win won by big margins. The lowest share of the vote garned by a winning Republican was 54% with the highest vote 60%.

3) This election was nationalizied. So there was much media attention played on it and while this was mostly Unions vs. Scott Walker...there were Republicans vs. Obama undertones.

4) Turn-out was actually pretty high. Estimates were 45% turn-out (presidential turn-out is usually 55% +/- 5%). While I could not find final voter turn-out numbers, I did find a newstory that reported at mid-day many places were already at 31%.

The big story with Wisconsin is that it now puts the state firmly into play as a battleground state for 2012. It used to be safely Democratic, but with the Republican take-over in 2010 and victories in the recall election and re-election of a state supreme court justice...it has now joined the ranks of swing states. Furthermore, there are efforts afoot to recal Walker. If the Unions and Democrats succeed in forcing a recall election and lose...it could mean major trouble in 2012. Especially if Obama comes to stump for the Democratic challenger.


This was more about the ability of the tea party to get their representatives elected than anyone being really upset with Obama.

With all due respect, I don't really think this makes sense. An integral reason why the Republicans did so well was dissatisfaction with Obama. It's the same reason the Republicans lost control of the Congress in '06. Yeah the president's party loses seats in mid-term elections...but when it is a historic rout of the president's party I think that is a pretty good sign the electorate is upset with the president.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
All-American-Badass
All-American-Badass
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-12 22:26:32 Reply

At 8/12/11 07:38 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I don't think he is either invincible or a lose cause. I think he will still be as tricky as ever. The Obama reelection platform will not be singing a song of praise for him, few Americans believe he has helped bring up the economy since 2008. It (the campaign) will mostly be negative attacks on whoever the Republican candidate is, since that is all they have left to go on.

"You're unelectable!" " Well, he's worse!"

I agree with this statement, however just how far on either side of the spectrum he will be on depends on who the republicans nominate. Perry or Romney would be the best bet on making Obama towards the lost cause end due to the fact that those two would appeal to the most independents out of the field but someone like Bachman or Gingrich would have Obama win easily due to the fact that neither is that popular with independents.
And that's based on current conditions stay constant through 2012, but as we saw in 2008 something could happen a month or two before election day that will swing the polls towards one candidates favor.

DrunkenMonkey123
DrunkenMonkey123
  • Member since: Aug. 3, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-13 06:56:31 Reply

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm British, and I quite like Obama. He's better than W.Bush, at any rate.


I had sex with a pie.

X-Gary-Gigax-X
X-Gary-Gigax-X
  • Member since: Dec. 3, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Art Lover
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-13 10:15:38 Reply

At 8/12/11 10:26 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:
Perry or Romney would be the best bet on making Obama towards the lost cause end due to the fact that those two would appeal to the most independents out of the field but someone like Bachman or Gingrich would have Obama win easily due to the fact that neither is that popular with independents.

That's very true, considering people who identify themselves as "independent" make up around 40% of the potential voters population.

And that's based on current conditions stay constant through 2012, but as we saw in 2008 something could happen a month or two before election day that will swing the polls towards one candidates favor.

This is why I said he's still as tricky as ever. Just like the stock market plummet was good for Obama in 2008, something else could explode on the scene months before the election. As Rahm Emanuel once said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." And they've proven efficient at this quote.


BBS Signature
DiaLady
DiaLady
  • Member since: Jun. 9, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-17 22:52:56 Reply

At 8/13/11 10:15 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: This is why I said he's still as tricky as ever. Just like the stock market plummet was good for Obama in 2008, something else could explode on the scene months before the election. As Rahm Emanuel once said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." And they've proven efficient at this quote.

To be facetious, I would like to point out that Bin Laden is dead, and if that happening can't get Obama re-elected, then absolutely NOTHING can.

gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-18 06:44:56 Reply

Obama is either facing Romney, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, or Ron Paul.

If you can't see why Obama would be able to face down almost any of those, then meh. Romney is the one Obama would have the hardest time with. Rick Perry is going to drive Republicans further to the right. Bachman?? Bachman. And Ron Paul, well, he appeals strongly to a minority of voters.

Unelectable isn't the word I use to describe Obama right now. This is looking more and more like Clinton V Dole.


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-18 06:56:24 Reply

Missed this, sorry for the double post:

At 8/12/11 07:53 PM, TheMason wrote: I wish I could find it, but there was an interesting article by a political statistician that modeled mid-term elections as a predictor of a president's re-election and his findings showed that it really is a good model. The one outlier was Clinton's 1996 victory, however Clinton did not win a plurality because their was a major third party candidate (Perot) so once controlled for this he found that a massive mid-term loss bodes very poorly for the incumbent president or incumbent party (in years their is no sitting president running).

Be that as it may, the Republican party is in flux. Its not the party it used to be when these things happened. Statistics are only observed trends. As predictors they can be wrong.

Also, Wisconsing is a pretty interesting situation. Here you have the Unions, a major part of the Democratic base, pushing for the recalls and pouring a lot of time and money into ousting six suppossedly vulnerable Republicans. In the end:

Wisconsin is weird. Recall was about unions, but then none of the candidates mentioned unions. It was all talking points and it was a pretty bad election from all sides.

And again, local elections turn out different people than national. We'll see.

The big story with Wisconsin is that it now puts the state firmly into play as a battleground state for 2012. It used to be safely Democratic, but with the Republican take-over in 2010 and victories in the recall election and re-election of a state supreme court justice...it has now joined the ranks of swing states. Furthermore, there are efforts afoot to recal Walker. If the Unions and Democrats succeed in forcing a recall election and lose...it could mean major trouble in 2012. Especially if Obama comes to stump for the Democratic challenger.

We'll see. I think there's a good chance that Walker has pissed enough people off if recall is even on the table.

With all due respect, I don't really think this makes sense. An integral reason why the Republicans did so well was dissatisfaction with Obama. It's the same reason the Republicans lost control of the Congress in '06. Yeah the president's party loses seats in mid-term elections...but when it is a historic rout of the president's party I think that is a pretty good sign the electorate is upset with the president.

It does make sense. But on a different level. If you look at all of the last elections since 2 years before the end of Bush's term they have all been giant swing elections from one end to another. The people aren't voting for a particular ideology, they are voting people out. The question is, in the end, whether enough people believe Obama needs voted out. I'm not sure. A lot of the people who didn't vote for him are solidified against him because they view him as the source of all their problems. And there have been some turn coats.

But anyone who really takes a good look at what Republicans are doing, who has a someone decent grasp of math, knows their path is a dead end that really will lead to bankruptcy. So, we'll see. I'd like to bet on American intelligence. But, there stands Perry.


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-18 20:04:34 Reply

At 8/18/11 06:56 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: But, there stands Perry.

I'm beginning to see Perry as the largest potential threat to Obama's re-election. His staunch anti-science pandering to the social conservatives lies in stark contrast to his pragmatic approach to real issues. This made me practically spit-take when I read it, swelling with hope for what might actually be a socially non-retarded republican. This, this, and this made me mourn for the people of our country as I expect he'll be the next one with the reigns. He's like Bush, without the retardation, but more chest-puffing and smirk, if that was possible.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-18 20:30:59 Reply

At 8/18/11 06:44 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: If you can't see why Obama would be able to face down almost any of those, then meh. Romney is the one Obama would have the hardest time with. Rick Perry is going to drive Republicans further to the right. Bachman?? Bachman. And Ron Paul, well, he appeals strongly to a minority of voters.

I think you're right on Bachman and Paul.

However, I think that Perry or Romney will give Obama a very good run for the money. Both are experienced politicians who have been at the game longer than Obama. Furthermore, they have more time in executive governance than Obama. Finally, when push comes to shove I think the Republican candidate will be able to pull in enough contributions to match Obama's fundraising machine.


Unelectable isn't the word I use to describe Obama right now. This is looking more and more like Clinton V Dole.

1) It is hard this far out to use words like "invincible" or "unelectable". So I'm trying to look at the electoral fundamentals. If you look at RCP they have a Gallup report (it pulls a pdf document so I'm not sure how to link it) that shows Obama's approval on economic issues at a very anemic 29%. Basically, his popularity is starting to wane even with Democrats. Furthermore, on most issues he's polling in the 30s to low 40s among independants which means a) he's going into the election with a less than enthusiastic base and b) he got an uphill battle to win back independants. In short, he has to do something spectacular to show his leadership aptitude or something external has to happen and he has to rise to the occassion.

2) Not looking like Clinton v. Dole at all.
a) There is yet to be a serious third party candidate who will siphon off voters from the Republicans.
b) The economy was not nearly as bad as it is today, in fact things were starting to improve from the early '90s recession.

So far it resembles 1980 where you have a formerly Democratic, (but very conservative) currently Republican governor from one of the two largest states competing against a traditional New England Republican. Most commentators applying the conventional wisdom that the conservative is unelectable and unpalatable to the independants.

I'm not saying Perry is a second coming of Reagan. However, the electoral dynamics resemble '80 more than '96.

__________________________

On a side note; I read an opinion piece talking about how there is a movement afoot to drop Biden as VP and replace him with Hillary on the 2012 ticket. I think this would be a great move for Obama.
a) It removes a potential primary challenge.
b) It would solidify the Democratic base and help with motivation.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-18 21:08:55 Reply

Oops. The Gallup numbers are easily linked. Here they are.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Polske322
Polske322
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-23 22:04:45 Reply

It's seeming more likely Ron Paul will run for president. Everybody who is a liberal conservative or to the right of that who I've talked to says they'll gladly vote for Paul. Ron would could sway the independents and conservative liberals.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-23 23:50:53 Reply

At 8/23/11 10:04 PM, Polske322 wrote: It's seeming more likely Ron Paul will run for president. Everybody who is a liberal conservative or to the right of that who I've talked to says they'll gladly vote for Paul. Ron would could sway the independents and conservative liberals.

Not really... Sure, he has a cult following, but when it comes to the average Joe, Ron paul is just as crazy as Bachmann. Seems like Ron Paul's supporters fall into the disenfranchised college educated youth (who generally think that he's so 'smart' like they are, not realizing his ideas are as naive as a 13 year old girl)

Conspiracy3
Conspiracy3
  • Member since: Aug. 20, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-24 00:19:54 Reply

Well here is the way I see it.

Debt Ceiling/Budget/Healthcare:

These negotiations went terribly. Both for Obama and against Obama. Almost everyone dislikes congress, but some will blame Obama as well. In general Obama has no talent for negotiating with congress. He has brilliant ideas for domestic policy, he just doesn't know how to get things done.

Foreign Policy

He killed Osama Bin Laden, and he handled the Libyan situation perfectly. He used international diplomacy, the United Nations, NATO and other supragovernmental groups to ensure that it doesn't hinder the nation on the world stage, the airstrikes by the US and other nations has prevented the massacres of hundreds of thousands of people and enabled the rebels to fight for their own freedom. Obama has a fantastic foreign policy record.

Polske322
Polske322
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-24 00:24:18 Reply

At 8/23/11 11:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Not really... Sure, he has a cult following, but when it comes to the average Joe, Ron paul is just as crazy as Bachmann. Seems like Ron Paul's supporters fall into the disenfranchised college educated youth (who generally think that he's so 'smart' like they are, not realizing his ideas are as naive as a 13 year old girl)

Plus there are the left wing haters lol, honestly no his ideas aren't very extreme. The main point he is making is more power for the states. Unlike many other candidates he wants the states to choose their social policies, not have them made at a national level.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-24 00:30:13 Reply

At 8/24/11 12:19 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote:
He killed Osama Bin Laden,

he gave the order to send people in to kill him anyway, using intel that had been gathered for the last several years... then turns around and refuses to stop probing the very people who brought the intel to him.

and he handled the Libyan situation perfectly.

he did do good in Libya... for the most part.

Obama has a fantastic foreign policy record.

As long as you overlook most other Arab Spring nations, then, yeah, not so bad lately. he was off to a terrible start in the first few years. Strangely enough he was silent on Syria for months.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Conspiracy3
Conspiracy3
  • Member since: Aug. 20, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-08-24 01:00:17 Reply

At 8/24/11 12:30 AM, Korriken wrote:
At 8/24/11 12:19 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote:
He killed Osama Bin Laden,
he gave the order to send people in to kill him anyway, using intel that had been gathered for the last several years... then turns around and refuses to stop probing the very people who brought the intel to him.

This is a thread about an election. There is no question Osama's death is politically favorable to Obama. Yes, he did not pull the trigger or personally gather the intelligence, but he definitely played a role in the assassination.


and he handled the Libyan situation perfectly.
he did do good in Libya... for the most part.

Obama has a fantastic foreign policy record.
As long as you overlook most other Arab Spring nations, then, yeah, not so bad lately. he was off to a terrible start in the first few years. Strangely enough he was silent on Syria for months.

Well from what I've heard about Syria the Syrian people do not want to have a civil war like the Libyans did (although it's starting to look inevitable). The Libyan people were generally begging for help while the Syrians generally want to keep the protests as peaceful as possible.

yinyangman
yinyangman
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-09-03 23:25:27 Reply

President Bush has spent our tax money on this epic fail war on terrorism and he gave Republicans a bad name. Now President Obama wants to borrow and borrow and BORROW! He gave democracy a bad name.

Since I'm politically neutral, all I've got to say is... Obama, if you are reelected in 2012, you better repay the national debt in full or repay it in all you have in your bank!

As I said in the beginning, the more we borrow, the more we owe!!! The $15,000,000,000,000 debt is the reason our economy is in terrible shape right now. We spend more than we've got! Please, make the right choice and erase this disgustingly high debt, no matter the risk.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-09-04 02:15:32 Reply

I'm not sure what it is about conservative women and being batshit insane... well, besides the problem they have in trying to overplay their "I'm a normal person" routine, doesn't help the media can play things up or down depending on how they want the public to perceive it.

either way, here's how I see it.

Bachmann, Palin, Romney, and Gingrich would all hand Obama a 2nd term easily. No one like Newt, Palin has been cast as an idiot, same with Bachmann, and Romney isn't far off from being Obama himself, he just has a different letter by his name,

Perry and Paul have a good shot. They are a stark contrast to Obama. of course, if some jackhole decides "I didn't get nominated so I'm running 3rd party!" then Obama is guaranteed a 2nd term anyway.

The left is a far more efficient machine than the right, they defend each other more often than not, unless they are running against each other, then it's about as vicious as anything else, of course, once one gets chosen over the other, the other immediately seems to forget all the negative things they've said and defend the other person like a loyal guard dog.

Worst thing that could happen to the Left would be the labor unions forming their own political party... I don't really see that happening, but its somewhat of a possibility, especially if the democrats keep pissing off the unions through lack of decisive action on job creation.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-09-04 12:08:51 Reply

Here is a fairly good article about Obama's economic policies.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-09-04 12:12:04 Reply

At 9/4/11 02:15 AM, Korriken wrote: Bachmann, Palin, Romney, and Gingrich would all hand Obama a 2nd term easily. No one like Newt, Palin has been cast as an idiot, same with Bachmann, and Romney isn't far off from being Obama himself, he just has a different letter by his name,

I disagree with the idea that Romney would not be able to defeat Obama. He's a centrist and is the safe bet on winning a greater share of independent voters who are leaving the president in droves. Furthermore, I think the Republicans and conservatives will unite behind who ever gets the Republican nomination because I think they are motivated to defeat Obama in 2012.


The left is a far more efficient machine than the right, they defend each other more often than not, unless they are running against each other, then it's about as vicious as anything else, of course, once one gets chosen over the other, the other immediately seems to forget all the negative things they've said and defend the other person like a loyal guard dog.

I don't think they are more efficient than the right. Most Republicans follow Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Speak no ill of a fellow Republican" with the caveat of: ...in a general election.

If anything I think you may see the Democratic party more in disarray in 2012 than they should be. The 2010 election showed many centerists that the party machine doesn't care about them, afterall Nancy Pelosi won election as House Minority Leader after making comments about blue-dogs being expendable.

You may see centrist governors, senators and the few centerist representatives remaining...distance themselves from the president. Especially if they are in for tough re-election campaigns (*cough* Claire McCaskil *cough*).


Worst thing that could happen to the Left would be the labor unions forming their own political party... I don't really see that happening, but its somewhat of a possibility, especially if the democrats keep pissing off the unions through lack of decisive action on job creation.

Over the past week I've read/heard stories about the follow demographics leaving Obama:
* Women
* Blacks
* Unions

* Women
The recession has hit men disproportionately more than men and now many women are finding themselves as the primary bread winners in their home (if not the only bread winner). As a result I think they are now more fiscally minded and Obama's touchy-feely rhetoric is no longer as attractive as it once was.

* Blacks
I doubt we'll see a huge switch. However, I think what we could see is less turn-out. From what I've read and scene in economic data is that young black men are the worst off in this recession and Obama hasn't done near enough to take care of his own. So dissatisfaction is growing, but I think there could be a psychological inhibition relating to voting against the first black president. So what I see as likely is many blacks will stay home on election day...voting by not moving their feet to the polls.

* Unions
In the 1930s Unions had a favorable poll rating of 72% which has now slid down to 48%. Furthermore, they are becomming less and less common and influential in the private sector. Of the 39% of workers who are unionized most of these are public sector workers who have little need of the protections the unions once offered but instead take advantage of collective bargaining to get salaries and benefits that are non-existant in the private sector.

Long story short: I don't see them as that great of a political powerhouse. I don't think they'll be able to turn-out the number of voters Obama needs on election day...especially given their lack of enthusiasm right now.

In short, what these three demographics tell me is Obama's base is erroding. Since the independents are leaving him this means he's toast in November 2012 if things do not miraculously change between now and then.

I said it as a joke earlier, not really believing it myself, but we are approaching a level where even Palin has a chance. If that happens between now and January I think Hillary may decide to challenge him for the nomination.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
RydiaLockheart
RydiaLockheart
  • Member since: Nov. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 31
Gamer
Response to Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectable 2011-09-04 13:09:16 Reply

At 9/4/11 02:15 AM, Korriken wrote: Bachmann, Palin, Romney, and Gingrich would all hand Obama a 2nd term easily. No one like Newt, Palin has been cast as an idiot, same with Bachmann, and Romney isn't far off from being Obama himself, he just has a different letter by his name,

I disagree about Romney. He's a fairly "safe" choice compared to some of the others in the field, and is less likely to scare away centrists than, say, Perry. Romneycare is gonna come back to bite him in the ass if it hasn't already though. His campaign team needs to differentiate it from Obamacare.

Perry and Paul have a good shot. They are a stark contrast to Obama. of course, if some jackhole decides "I didn't get nominated so I'm running 3rd party!" then Obama is guaranteed a 2nd term anyway.

Totally agree, especially if said jackhole has a following.

The left is a far more efficient machine than the right, they defend each other more often than not, unless they are running against each other, then it's about as vicious as anything else, of course, once one gets chosen over the other, the other immediately seems to forget all the negative things they've said and defend the other person like a loyal guard dog.

Will Rogers once said, "I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat." This rings true even today. When Republicans are in control, they are a well-oiled machine. Democrats couldn't get anything done with a supermajority thanks to petty infighting. There is some support of fellow party members, but not so much as the Republicans. Part of the reason I see for this disorganization is in the past, Republicans reigned in their loose cannons. Boehner is unable to do this which is why his credibility and control of the House GOP are hurting. Democrats generally don't do anything about their own loose cannons, which leads to infighting and schisms.