Okay, so I've had several friends ask me what I think Obama's chances are in 2012. Personally, I don't like making predictions this far out. There are so many unknowns:
Who will the challenger be?
What will the economy be like?
What will be happening on the world stage?

So this thread is not to be my prediction of an election that's a little less than 15 months away. However, it is about the electoral fundamentalsthat will shape the game field come next summer. I've been reading alot so forgive me if I'm light on links at first (besides...they eat-up lots of text!), I may provide links as I go.

I know I get wordy and some don't like reading all of my posts so I'll start with my conclusion:
As of today, President Obama looks like he's going to loose re-election...and quite probably really badly. Like 1980 Reagan Bloodbath bad.

Here's why I think so:

MAJOR political blunder right out of the gate...
Whoever told Obama to go ahead and announce now should be fired for sheer incompetence. One of the major advantages any incumbent, and the president in particular, has is the ability to look official or presidential. He can stand above the partisan bickering and project the image of working for the good of the country.

Once you announce...this advantage quickly erodes. That's why you wait until the last possible moment because chances are no one is going to run against you. Obama has squandered this by not only doing it early...but helluva-I'm-an-amatuer-at-presidential-p olitics early. Now when he gets involved in (or even stays out of) policy battles...pundents, reporters and assholes like me question what angle he's coming at this politically.

It's especially bad when you immediately leave Washington following a major battle to campaign fundraise.

Most presidents only deal with this during the final couple of months or weeks. Obama will have to deal with it for over a year.

Debt Ceiling Debate
Obama lost this one...badly.
Yes the narrative that the Tea Party held the country hostage has created a PR problem for the Republicans. But major debates cause PR problems for both sides.

But Obama lost this one very, very badly. So bad that I've read in the Liberal side of the blogosphere that some in his base want a primary challenger. This is never a good sign. Thus the narratives that have gained the most traction:
1) Obama and Reid made a huge mistake during the lame duck session not to vote this in. From the Left's perspective they had one last shot to push through major parts of their agenda that would not be possible after the Republicans took over the House in 2011.
1a) To further expand on point 1; they played electoral politics with the debt ceiling and the country's credit rating...and lost. Now their motivations look self-absorbed and they'll put partisan politics first.
2) Obama tried to play the part of uncompromising leader. At one point he held a good hand in the negotiations...but then decided to opt out and instead gamble everything his base wanted. He then folded and is unable to provide his base with any policy points to show for it.

In the end, the confidence that Obama's base has in him is very critically shaken. If he isn't capable of pulling something absolutely amazing out of his hat this will translate in an unenthusiastic base and low turn-out for him.

Independants
I have read a few commentaries from his base pointing out that his campaign staff is obsessed with independant voters. Furthermore, they claim that this is a stupid strategy because most "independants" are Independants In Name Only (IINOs). Political Scientists have known for awhile that most "independants" lean so heavily towards one or another party that they tend to vote as if they identify with that political party.

In the end, only about 7% of independants are truly independant.

So some liberals are saying that Obama should focus on his base and turning out Democrats whether they claim to be Dems or not.

This is stupid.

Political Scientists have also been noticing a trend that the number of people who claim to lean toward Republican/Conservative candidates and issues now equal if not slightly edge out those who lean or claim to be Democrats/Liberals. Thus, while turning out your side is very important...if you don't get a majority of that 7% of the electorate you lose.

Independants Part Deaux
I've been watching his approval ratings. His Gallup weekly approval average dipped to 40% a week or two ago. He needs 48% to guarantee a win. Right now the Real Clear Politics (RCP) average of all major polls has him at 43.5% for to 51.2% against. This means that he is down to his base. Furthermore, it means his base has eroded and we could see Democrat leaning IINOs vote Republican.

It could also be (because several polls control for people who are not registered to vote or unlikely to), his base is not planning on supporting him or the other guy...they'll just stay home. Meanwhile, the Right's base is energized and they could win the base turn-out battle.

Blue State Blues: Reapportionment
Love it, hate it or just plain don't care...
Presidential politics is about winning the Electoral College...not just the popular vote. Therefore what states you carry is very important.

With the census of 2010 has come a reapportionment of EC delegates. There has been a net shift of 12 votes to states that Obama did not carry in '08...the one's he's very likely not to carry in '12. So out of the gate he's already down.

Swing State Blues
The Republican Challenger only has to flip three good sized states to win. So I predict that the following states will be major battlegrounds:
Pennsylvannia
Florida
Ohio
Wisconsin
Missouri (we went for McCain last time...but it was very close; thus the Challenger will have to ensure he keeps us red)

In several of these states recent polling has shown weak to abysmial support for Obama with his "deserve to re-elect" scores tanking with independants. If Obama can't reverse this trend between now and then...he's toast.

It's the Economy, stupid.
With the exception of Reagan '84, no president since FDR has won re-election with unemployment over 7.8%. The only reason Reagan won was because unemployment had started to improve significantly over the last year before November.

Therefore, I predict that if unemployment does not drop below 8.8% between now and then Obama will lose. His only shot is to get it to the 7.8-8.2% range.
*as a note state unemployment rates could effect him even though they may be better than the average. For example Ohio has a 8.8% rate, Wisconsin has a 7.8%, Pennsylvannia has a 7.6% (US: 9.1%). BUT they have Republican governors and therefore voters in these states may see the Republicans as better stewards of the economy.

Inflation will also be a big thing. The cost of energy and food is quickly growing. Now Obama has his hands on two major levers that effect this phenomenon: the Treasury and the Fed. So while a significant part of inflation is private sector activity...the president does play a major role in this.

Cost of oil...again the president has a big hand in this.
1) Monetary policy set by the Treas & the Fed can make the cost of oil from OPEC countries go up or down.
2) He controls the permits that allow for drilling inside the US and it's waters. So far he has shown to be very tight-fisted with these permits...even go so far as to shut-down domestic drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
Appraisal: if gas is above $3.33/gal he is in serious trouble. If gas is $4.00 or over...he is toast.

(Cont....)

Youth Vote
'12 College seniors were '08 Freshmen. If they are talking to their friends/frat brothers/sorority sisters who were '08 Seniors now struggling with jobs...they could lose their faith/enthusiasm in Obama. If the youth of '08 are the unemployed of '12 they could very well blame Obama. The issue here is that younger people in the West have grown up with a sense of 'now'. The internet and a booming economy that lasted from the 1990s to mid-2000s left Generation Y and the Millenials with a sense that great change can happen fairly rapidly.

Government cannot provide change rapidly...therefore they could find themselves greatly disappointed. So Obama could find himself in trouble with this demographic.

I have more fundamentals to talk about...but need to eat. So I'll leave for the moment. (Do have a few comments I cut from the first post...I'll paste them back in.)

There are a few other things this thread is not either:
1) It is about the twin questions of should Obama be re-elected or does he deserve re-election.
2) While I will discuss the electoral ramifications of specific policies (ie: healthcare, unions or debt ceiling debate), in the context of this thread I don't care about the merits of these policies.
Now, these may sound like very important questions...but not for the purpose of analyzing whether or not the president will be re-elected.

I don't think Obama's chances are *going to be* as bad as some candid individuals on the right think it will be. Ultimately it depends upon who his opponent is.

It also depends on what stance the country takes towards the issue of "I'm going to bring change" and "I have experience"

If people feel Obama is 'running the economy' incompetently, then, in theory, they'll shift to the candidate that can better convince them that they have "Experience" doing this stuff.

But there's a Tradeoff, the more one posters oneself as having "experience" the more runs the risk of being thought of as a "Washington insider", which may or may not be a good thing.

It will also depend upon another dichotomy, the "I'm a forceful leader" and "I can get the congress to work together".

Give this whole debt situation a few months and also wait until a Republican front runner is named.

I am predicting that once the right has its chips in a row the left will come to its sense and galvanize around Obama, the way they should be.

As for the independent, well... We will just have to see which story about the debt crisis wins out, the Obama did it, or the more accuarte hoistage crisis of the Tea Party.

I also don't see the youth losing faith in Obama as you do. Sure things don't look so good, but Generation Y is more apt to blame it on their parents' generation (quite deservengly so) than the government. Again, once a Republican challenger is picked and the social issues come out, the strong left lean of Gen Y will play heavily in Obama's favor.

I think Obama has a good chance of winning, it's certainly not certain but there's no one from the republican party who could run and really give him a run for his money as I see it.That said I hope he doesn't win I would rather have a republican in office who is honest about his politics then a democrat that is secretly a republican.

More than likely hes not going to be reelected. People from both sides dont care for him. The reasons being is that hes not trying to take control. When we killed Osama and the helicopter was wrecked he told them to give it back. Get Reagan in the same situation and he would have sent over bombers to blow it up or he would have sent in armies to take it back. Obama also has a godlike ability to change the market. Whenever he talks the market goes down but whenever he doesnt it goes up. All in all, hes not trying too hard to get one group of voters to go vote for him, I guess its because hes too busy going out on trips and playing golf.

At 8/10/11 08:32 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: At 8/10/11 09:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote: At 8/10/11 09:29 PM, fatape wrote:

"This is going to come down to who the Republican challenger is..."

(NOTE: I thought I'd respond to all your very similar responses in the same post...sorry for the paraphrasing!)

I've been thinking about this a lot too. A while back the narrative was: "the Republican field is very weak...where's the star power to take on Obama?"

So I did some research and looked at previous elections where the presidency was either open (2008, 2000, 1988 especially) or the challenger won (1992, 1980, 1976).

2008: Obama was known...but it was unofficially Hillary's nomination. So Obama was a darkhorse that won the presidency.
2000: Bush was known...but it was unofficially McCan's nomination...so he was another darkhorse. Although, Gore was favored to win because of the Clinton economy and peace.
1992: Who is this womanizing, draft-dodging, pot smoking, unknown governor from the great hick state of Arkansas? How's Bill Clinton going to beat a president with a 92% approval rating?
1988: Establishment candidate won.
1980: Ronald Reagan...the actor? Isn't he incredibly right-wing bonzo crazy? Carter's going to beat him easily...why did the Republicans nominate him instead of the more moderate/mainstream Bush?
1976: Who's this peanut farmer from Georgia? Didn't he report seeing a UFO once?

In short, I don't think the Republican field is a weak as the narrative suggests. Most of the candidates are governors and senators...the backgrounds most of our presidents come from. (No one has ever come straight from the House.)

If Romney can last to the nomination I think the base will galvinize around him. Furthermore, as a 'moderate' Republican his nomination may add to the Left's base mailaise since he won't be as polarizing as Bachman, Pawlenty or Perry.

On the other hand, if Perry would get it I think it will be bad for Obama. It will turn into a Texas vs Illinois narrative. In Il gas stations will not accept the state's credit cards so their Highway Patrol can fill-up because the state can't pay it's bills. On the other hand, the jobs are flocking to Texas. So Perry will be able to say he knows what he's doing when it comes to executive governance and after four years Obama is still struggling to lead his own party.

However, if the economy remains weak or gets significantly weaker Obama becomes more vulnerable. Too much worse and Palin will have a very good shot!

At 8/10/11 09:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote: As for the independent, well... We will just have to see which story about the debt crisis wins out, the Obama did it, or the more accuarte hoistage crisis of the Tea Party.

Actually, the "hostage crisis of the Tea Party" is not really accurate.
1) Of the 240 Republicans in the House only 60 are part of the Tea Party.
2) Only about half of the Tea Party voted for the final bill.
3) 95 Democrats voted for the bill.

Sorry, but the reality is many Tea Partiers feel like they got about as much as those on the Left got. Furthermore, if Obama wouldn't have pulled out of the agreement he, Boehner and Reid came to in late June/early July he would've seriously split the Republican party and been able to get some Liberal job creation ideas turned into law. Boehner could've pushed it through without the Tea Party.

Instead Obama decided to press for more...and lost. I'm not saying it...his own base is.

As for the youth...
It's kinda like all those people who thought Bush Senior was untouchable for Desert Storm or Obama for killing UBL...the economy trumps all other issues.

I think if the Tea Party stays more Libertarian in regards to social issues Gen Y and the Millienials will abandon Obama. Remember, the youth who voted for Obama has been dealing with >8% unemployment (more when you factor in those who have given up looking for work) for four years now. One of the most impacted demographics are the young. So if they are forced to move back in with Mommy & Daddy instead of leading the independant lives they dreamt of...they could blame Obama.

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.

Even before you said so in the first post I've been wondering: what are the chances of Obama being primaried from the left? And do the Democrats have anyone credible? Obama made a brilliant move in terms of "keep your friends close and enemies closer" since her being Secretary of State wipes out Hillary Clinton's chances of running.

At 8/10/11 10:02 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: When you actually do a head to head matchup, Obama comes up on top of every single one of them right now:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/
2012/president/president_obama_vs_republ ican_candidates.html

So, right now, Obama is in better position.

I've also considered that. But looking at past presidential elections where the challenger won, you saw the same thing. During contested primaries I think the head-to-head match-ups with the incumbent are woefully inaccurate and subject to heavy respondant bias. In other words: I want Candidate X to win so I'm going to tell the pollster I'd vote for president against candidates Y, Z, A, B & C.

As the field narrows we'll the frontrunner's numbers start to go up. (We saw this with McCain's numbers in 2008 and Bush's in 2000.)

In the end I think the head-to-head match-up is just eye-candy: sound & fury signifying nothing.

I prefer the Generic Ballot polls. It cancels out issues of respondant bias. The Republicans have held on to a lead since late June, it's trending down at the moment but that could be fallout from the debt ceiling deal (it hurt both sides...just Obama is bleeding more).

A lot of liberals are upset with him. We've been talking about wanting a better president for a long time. But, ultimatley, Bush convinced a lot of us, we'd still rather vote for the horrible right of center democrat than a crazy nut like Perry or Palin.

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.

Oops...wrong link.

Generic Obama vs Republicans:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/
2012/president/us/general_election_presi dent_obama_vs_republican_candidate-1745.
html

And the faceless Republican has only been leading since mid-July...

At 8/10/11 10:28 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 8/10/11 09:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

"This is going to come down to who the Republican challenger is..."

When I say, 'wait until it's one on one" I don't care about the Republican field. What I am saying is that when the liberals look at the two options and they have to pick between an ever right swinging group of Republicans and an Obama that they falsely beleive failed them, Obama will look more attractive.

At 8/10/11 09:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote: As for the independent, well... We will just have to see which story about the debt crisis wins out, the Obama did it, or the more accuarte hoistage crisis of the Tea Party.

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.

Furthermore, if Obama wouldn't have pulled out of the agreement he, Boehner and Reid came to in late June/early July he would've seriously split the Republican party and been able to get some Liberal job creation ideas turned into law.

He had a choice of a bad compromise or gambling for better. When Obama proposed the 3/4 spending cut and 1/4 tax hike deal (that was MONEY for the right) he got shot down by Boehner. THAT deal was the deal we needed. It would have addressed our spending issues as well as our absolutely ass-backward revenue collection issues.

I think if the Tea Party stays more Libertarian in regards to social issues Gen Y and the Millienials will abandon Obama. Remember, the youth who voted for Obama has been dealing with >8% unemployment (more when you factor in those who have given up looking for work) for four years now.

I think you very much overstate the appeal of the Tea Party to the young. The young are smart enough to see that not only has the Tea Party done nothing while in office, they have alligned themselves with the extreme right social issues. Generation Y has been steadfast in its support for social issues in the face of all other problems.

One of the most impacted demographics are the young. So if they are forced to move back in with Mommy & Daddy instead of leading the independant lives they dreamt of...they could blame Obama.

All of the Y'ers I know blame it on the employers and the Boomers, not on the government. It is not the government who is forcing the elders (who were 100% responsible for the mess WE are mired in) to keep their jobs at the expense of our futures. 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.

At 8/10/11 10:38 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Even before you said so in the first post I've been wondering: what are the chances of Obama being primaried from the left? And do the Democrats have anyone credible? Obama made a brilliant move in terms of "keep your friends close and enemies closer" since her being Secretary of State wipes out Hillary Clinton's chances of running.

A few thoughts on this Rydia...
1) Part of the Democratic party is they are an umbrella party for most identity politics groups. Therefore, they are in a bind if someone challenges the first black president who happens to be Democrat. They could alienate the African-American vote. So this could hold any credible primary challenger's hand. Obama would probably have to say he's decided not to run for re-election and get out of the party's way before someone else runs.

2) I think they do have someone credible: Hillary Clinton. Yeah...she's Secretary of State...but that doesn't mean as much as one would think. It's about time for her to resign, many only serve 2, 4 or 6 years. It's not uncommon for cabinet level officials to have a high rate of turnover. I think that if she thought she could get the nomination she would challenge him.

3) I think that's one reason he announced early. Start fundraising and intimidate any would-be challengers.

At 8/10/11 10:02 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Romney, who currently has the most support of a Republican (but has only won over 20% of republicans) loses by 3-4 percentage points. And Perry (who's nuts) but comes in at 15% of the support (ie next popular) loses 37% percent to 49.2%.

You're point is correct regardless, but I just want to make one technical correction. Namely that the RCP list of candidates was not highest to lowest order. So Perry was not in 2nd place. [I'm guessing you assumed it was and so thought Perry was 2nd closest]

RCP Average 7/7 - 8/7 -- 43.4 42.8 Republican +0.6 - "Republican Candidate" in the abstract
RCP Average 7/5 - 8/4 -- 46.3 42.7 Obama +3.6 - Mitt Romney <- Closest
RCP Average 7/5 - 8/4 -- 49.2 37.2 Obama +12.0 - Rick Perry
RCP Average 7/5 - 8/4 -- 50.0 38.0 Obama +12.0 - Michelle Bachman
RCP Average 7/5 - 8/4 -- 54.0 35.3 Obama +18.7 - Sarah Palin
RCP Average 6/3 - 7/17 -- 49.0 38.3 Obama +10.7 - Ron Paul
RCP Average 6/3 - 7/19 -- 49.7 35.0 Obama +14.7 - Herman Cain
RCP Average 7/15 - 8/4 -- 48.0 37.3 Obama +10.7 - Tim Pawlenty
RCP Average 6/2 - 6/12 -- 52.5 37.8 Obama +14.7 - Newt gingrich
RCP Average 5/31 - 6/6 -- 50.0 36.0 Obama +14.0 - John Huntsman

Like i said it doesn't invalidate your argument. Just wanted to point out that as of the polling dates themselves, Paul and Pawlenty, respectively.

Obama is virtually invincible in his own party, because I don't really see any major threat to his campaign on the Democratic side. Now the Republicans are going the extra mile to try to get someone to challenge Obama, but the problem is that the Republican base is so fractured right now, we have no idea who presents the best chance for winning the ticket. {My guess would be either Huntsman or Romney at this point.}

Obviously, the black and youth vote is going to lean heavily towards Obama, like it did last year and will continue to do in 2012, although I would imagine that it won't be as big of a margin because of the economy. So I would imagine that the Republicans would try to target that demographic as much as they can while keeping their key demo happy.

Now here's where it gets really messy for the Republicans, the Tea Party. The Tea Party was supposed to make massive changes to the spending and the taxes, and they failed to do that. Most candidates would try to avoid coming in contact with the Tea Party, or at least try to appease to the moderates, so that they can get more votes and support to the independents out there. {And you know my view on the Tea Party, one-issue ponies, more or less supported by politically ignorant rednecks, that was led by Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, now is largely fractured.}

If someone like a Romney, Huntsman, or even a Hermann Cann wins the Republican ticket, then they can beat Obama and make him a 1 term president, otherwise, this would be Obama's election to lose, even with a crappy economy in tow.

Obviously it's too soon to tell. Hell it might be too soon to tell right up until a couple weeks, or even days before the election. Remember that Obama can thank the financial crisis for handing him that big win in 08 as before that he and McCain were so close it could have gone either way.

I also have to wonder how Congress comes into this. Right now the approval rating of Congress is the lowest in history, if that doesn't come back up before the next round of Congressional races, or even the Presidential race, I have to wonder if the country will have a "get rid of the incumbents" sort of mentality heading into this election. But certainly I think it comes down to two major factors, even with determining that mood:

1) Who is he running against

2) What is the average american going through at the time of the election

People are selfish, they vote their wallet, their bellies, and not much else. The mood right now among the base for Obama seems to me to be "I wish I could vote for somebody else...but since I can't, he's a better bet then the nutjobs on the other side". Certainly Republicans have done a pretty crap job from where I sit of turning Obama fumbles into major political gains, but that could just be me reading the situation wrong.

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.

The only ignorant one here is you, and your poetry is lacking originality. "Moonless night" has been used so many times.

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!

People are rioting in the streets because they are idiots. They are rioting for the sake of rioting. And keep this discussion within the limits of America.

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

The one we had before was total shit. The one Obama wanted to set up would of helped many more, but again the republicans would not have it. They want a system where the rich stay healthy and less fortune die.

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.

Obama has all he needs. But he is only able to get a fraction of what he wants done set out because the republicans prevent him from fixing anything. Again, the republicans rather see the country burn than see a black man fix the nation.

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.

I hope he doesn't get reelected either, only because the republicans would make sure the country ends up in ruins. Unless the republicans can grow up and see the bigger picture, the country is doomed.

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 am sorry you are too ignorant to see the truth. But the truth is Obama could fix the nation, but the republicans are making sure he doesn't. They are working against him at every single turn at every single plan and causing all his ideas to fail. They will destroy this nation just so that they never have to say thank you to a black man.

The republicans are child molesting back stabbing spawns of satan.

At 8/11/11 05:31 AM, redzone wrote: People are rioting in the streets because they are idiots. They are rioting for the sake of rioting. And keep this discussion within the limits of America.

Those people do have reasons to riot and those reasons are based in government policy which was his point, the policies Obama wants to pass are already being implemented in nations that are in worse shape than America and they aren't doing anything to help. Studying the policies of other countries can help to find out what will and won't work.

The one we had before was total shit. The one Obama wanted to set up would of helped many more, but again the republicans would not have it. They want a system where the rich stay healthy and less fortune die.

The system we had before covered 90% of Americans, the system Obama wanted to set up would have further damaged our economy. Universal health care systems don't work, once again looking at other nations that have implemented these systems can show us what does and doesn't work.

Obama has all he needs. But he is only able to get a fraction of what he wants done set out because the republicans prevent him from fixing anything. Again, the republicans rather see the country burn than see a black man fix the nation.

Obama lacks the experience he needs to convince the republicans to support him and the things he can change without them he didn't. Obama is either incompetent or a liar but either way he promised change and only delivered another 4 years of the same policies that we got with Bush in office.

I hope he doesn't get reelected either, only because the republicans would make sure the country ends up in ruins. Unless the republicans can grow up and see the bigger picture, the country is doomed.

Yes it's all the republicans fault because the democrats never act immaturely or lie or screw up and enact bad policies.

I am sorry you are too ignorant to see the truth. But the truth is Obama could fix the nation, but the republicans are making sure he doesn't. They are working against him at every single turn at every single plan and causing all his ideas to fail. They will destroy this nation just so that they never have to say thank you to a black man.

Clearly you are the ignorant one otherwise you would know that the democrats have pulled the same crap in the past just to be argumentative with the opposite party and you would know that Obama has had success in office but everything he has done has been the opposite of what he said he would do. Remember how Obama promised that government policy would be open and that the public would be able to monitor what the government was doing? Well instead of that he has had the most secretive term as president since Nixon. The republicans have no power over how much of what Obama does can be seen by the public and yet he has done the exactly what he promised not to do.

You know, I'm not one for politics, buuuut...

He probably won't get re-elected. He made a lot of unpopular decisions this term, and I think most of America is tired of him.

I could be wrong, though.

At 8/11/11 09:57 AM, Morph94 wrote: You know, I'm not one for politics, buuuut...

He probably won't get re-elected. He made a lot of unpopular decisions this term, and I think most of America is tired of him.

I could be wrong, though.

Usually presidents make a lot of unpopular decisions, but it's still rare for an incumbent to be defeated, mainly because the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

I'd say Obama might be defeated, but only if the Republicans have a star candidate. Obama won the last election by being charismatic and getting people excited about politics, and the Republicans will have to do the same thing to beat him.

At 8/11/11 07:46 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 8/10/11 11:01 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Like i said it doesn't invalidate your argument. Just wanted to point out that as of the polling dates themselves, Paul and Pawlenty, respectively.

Actually, I forgot the link I was comparing against. My mistake afterall:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/
2012/president/us/republican_presidentia l_nomination-1452.html

My points should at least make more sense now.

Yeah now it does. However i don't consider the above list

_____________________

@Youth Vote:

Will be less decisive than in 2008. Any College student willing to go through the trouble to vote for Obama in 2008 is now back at home with their parents, and is probably unemployed, and is probably in debt. These things does not a loyal fan base make.

The only candidate besides Obama that is appealing to young people as of now is Paul, who I don't suspect will be the Nominee, [ although he has a better shot at it than right wingers give him credit for] those Youths that do vote will do so mostly in Obama's favor. However, they will vote in far fewer numbers with far less interest and far less reverence.

Young people seem to make fewer clothespin votes than older people.The appeal of Obama in 2008 amongst young people was not motivated primarily by a fear and hatred of McCain, and so while the line about Republican X being more evil than him might win him the election, it won't win him back the unemployed and over indebted, and otherwise politically apathetic college student.

Too soon to call, I hope someone worthwhile could somehow get the Democratic nomination and win.

At 8/10/11 10:28 PM, TheMason wrote:
However, if the economy remains weak or gets significantly weaker Obama becomes more vulnerable. Too much worse and Palin will have a very good shot!

I really hope americans aren't pitiful and gullible enough to give and significant amount of votes to Palin if she runs.

At 8/10/11 10:48 PM, TheMason wrote: Oops...wrong link.

Generic Obama vs Republicans:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/
2012/president/us/general_election_presi dent_obama_vs_republican_candidate-1745.
html

And the faceless Republican has only been leading since mid-July...

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, either idealizing a republican candidate or at least choosing his own personal preference out of the known field. 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. Those who would go for a pawlenty, for instance might not go for a Bachmann or Romney, and might just stay home instead of vote for a bad republican or a worse democrat in their view. I think the various head-to-head matchups are the more important number to consider (though obviously still with a huge year-and-a-half-sized grain of salt). I don't believe that currently the republican base is unified enough to vote for "anyone but Obama". A lot of the disgust about congressional gridlock lies deservedly with republicans, and so far, most of the anger seems to be raised by the left, against the republicans. I fear this may result in an uninspired base and low republican turnout with a medium-to-high democratic turnout.

While all of your issues regarding Obama are fair, (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 (obv only relates to current and former governors in the race, which to be honest are the only ones, in my opinion, with a chance at the nom)? Perhaps, but I don't know that this issue is a winner or loser for either side.), I think each of the republican potential has some serious issues to overcome.

Bachmann: Certifiable. Charismatic but way too fringe for the average american. Similar to Huckabee last election. Will probably do well in the primary but won't get the nom. If she does, I think that it's a lock for Obama.

Perry: Too religious. His use of prayer in office has rankled a lot of the moderate electorate who may see that as infringing on the idea of separation of church and state. This is an easy weakness to exploit without ever seeming to negatively attack the candidate, and could lead to a landslide. However, he does have some heavy economic punch to his message, so he could be a serious contender if he can get out of the shadow of Bachmann and Romney.

Romney: Message is all over the damn place. He rails against "Obamacare" which was heavily based on his own plan. His defense of big business and tax breaks for them may backfire due to those very big businesses being the (arguable) engine of the financial collapse. He has already promised to never raise taxes, a-la Bush the foist. His bonus is that losing by 4 points to an incumbent president in polls a year and a half before the election means that they're basically neck and neck and if the economy doesn't improve, Romney would have an amazing shot at winning.

Pawlenty: Slow out of the gate, hard-pressed to keep up with the larger names money-wise, and has a small charisma problem. He would have to get an Obama-level boost or falter from one of the 3 biggies ahead of him in order to secure the nom.

Paul: I don't know that he has enough base support to overcome the rest of the field. He'll have to come hard and bold with a seriously awesome plan to rock Washington in order to gain favor with those who may not hold with his libertarian social stances. Certainly the most certifiable dark horse in the race since Gingritch imploded, but still going to take a perfect storm to win.

Cain: Buck fuggin nutty. Awesome addition to the republican field, and by god I hope he lasts until the end, but I just don't see it.

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.

I think it all depends on who he's running against. For 2012 for the most part it's going to be a lesser of two evils decision. If someone like Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum (Tea partiers) runs in the general election, Obama will win because although he is unpopular, he's not a joke candidate. On the other hand, if someone like Pawlenty or Romney gets to the general election, I think they would have very good shots at winning. Romeny and Pawlenty are both Republican, but in Democratic states. Pawlenty balanced the budget in Minnesota and Romney worked efficiently in a state that's 99% Democratic.

Who's going to vote, too? 2008 was heavily biased towards the Democrats because of eight years of Bush. 2010 was biased towards the Republicans because of an anemic recovery. Now both parties have had their time to shine--and fail. I think bipartisanship is going to be a key part of this election. 2008 and 2010 were partisan elections. Now, the centrists will have their voices heard.

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.

Im voting for him!

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.

*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!

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.