Why Obama will win/lose in 2012?

[Rdskns2000]

Conventional Wisdom points to Obama losing in 2012 if things remain the same or get worse.

This article, suggests Obama will win.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=why_obama_will_win_in_2012


Plenty of articles on why he will lose.


So, why do you think he will WIN or he will LOSE in 2012?

[The Evil Genius]

He will win because the GOP refuses to nominate anyone other than from their minority lunatic fringe.

Yes, McCain wasn't part of it - until he changed in order to be a part of it. Plus they saddled him with the princess.


Plus plus, incumbents don't lose unless they are facing someone who appeals to BOTH parties.

[Predicto]

Economy gets better and/or the GOP stays excessively radical - he wins.

Economy gets worse and the GOP moderates itself - he loses.


Pretty simple, really.

[deejaydana]

It all turns on the economy, same as it ever was. At the moment even Republicans with only moderate name recognition are polling very well against him (per Rasmussen). It's a long way to go in some respects until Nov 2012 but there aren't many encouraging signs that the economy turns around by then (and no Zoony, I'm not actually rooting for a flat lined economy). :pfft:

[Jumbo]

Barring the always-possible major unexpected event, I'd say P summed it up.

[aREDSKIN]

I agree with P&J

[The Evil Genius]

Here's the thing though - O's closet has already been laid bare. The skeletons are out.

Those who are polling favorably against him? Wait til the media rips them apart and puts them back together again. We'll see how they poll then...

[deejaydana]

Those who are polling favorably against him? Wait til the media rips them apart and puts them back together again. We'll see how they poll then...

So this is your acknowledgement of left leaning media bias, right? ;)

[The Evil Genius]

So this is your acknowledgement of left leaning media bias, right? ;)

No. It's my acknowledgment that, no matter who is running against the president, is subject to the intense scrutiny of the media. Especially unknown politicians.

We got it with Obama 4 years ago.

Remember - the media is for profit and scandal, muck, news, etc. sells.

[Burgold]

What's interesting is that at the moment, the Republicans are playing the Democratic game... meaning they are shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly. During the Bush years, Dems could never undertand it why Democratic candidates and politicians constantly did things to short circuit themselves. Currently, the Republicans have managed to make themselves appear more at fault for the economy despite Obama being in the White House and the Dems owning Congress for four years. In addition, their candidates are mostly horrifying or uninspiring.

A lot can change, but right now, the Repubs are really getting themselves well which is more remarkable considering how well they've won almost all the PR wars for the last twenty years.

---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 01:11 PM ----------

Candidatewise, I'd say

Romney = Kerry
Pawlenty = Gore
Bachman = Kucinich maybe
Huntsman = Liebermann (not sure about that one)

[Chachie]

He will lose the popular vote but win the electoral collegiate vote and thus the election.

(Yes, Florida will be the issue.)

[Jumbo]

Posted by Burgold---What's interesting is that at the moment, the Republicans are playing the Democratic game... meaning they are shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly. During the Bush years, Dems could never undertand it why Democratic candidates and politicians constantly did things to short circuit themselves.



Ever since I first posted in political threads, I have noted two areas that democrats seemed to have a vise-like grip on are political incompetence and lack of spine. :)

Now another way to look at that is that the "conservative" base in recent decades has become (ideology differences mainly aside) more sociopathological and just generally bizarre in their cognition and thus far more accepting of deeper levels of insanity and any crazy or malicious behaviors in their own tent. :)

The elected officials of both, of course, are usually as crooked, hypocritical, and self-serving as hell. :)

[deejaydana]

Perry FTW (The GOP should go with a strong candidate imho).

[twa]

Perry FTW (The GOP should go with a strong candidate imho).

I've come around to the benefits of him running,as Evil Genius said the media will savage him(or any other Rep contender)

Let the long knives come out and the best man/woman win......He will certainly add some spice :saber:

as far as the winner?....I agree with P&J,but I want strawberry jam :)

[oisn1]

He will win if/when the public anoints him as the "lesser evil." He is no longer anti-establishment, progressive candidate. He is just the guy who isn't as crazy as some of his opponents. And so liberals and independents will vote because they are scared of getting something worse than him.

Woohoo, politics as usual.

[Larry]

1) The economy.
2) What, are you deaf?

[PleaseBlitz]

Economy gets better and/or the GOP stays excessively radical - he wins.

Economy gets worse and the GOP moderates itself - he loses.


Pretty simple, really.

This. This election is 100% a referendum on Obama's handling of the economy. Unless Palin somehow wins the Repub nomination.

[Buford]

I guess it depends on the Romney factor. Didn't Tea Party leaders already say they wouldn't support him? maybe even run somebody on their own ticket? If that's what they do, then I don't see Obama losing. Right now I still don't even if the Tea Party backs a guy like Romney....also, I don't see Rick Perry coming in and doing anything more than making the primaries more interesting. Nobody wants another Bush, only with Clinton's wit and sliminess.

I'm still waiting for the GOP primary season it really kick off. The debates SHOULD make for good TV unless they've already laid down for Romney.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Hopefully Palin get's the Rep. nomination and Obama get's the easiest run to second term in history.

Hail.

[thebluefood]

Economy gets better and/or the GOP stays excessively radical - he wins.

Economy gets worse and the GOP moderates itself - he loses.


Pretty simple, really.

Yup, that's pretty much what it boils down to.

[greenspandan]

he'll win because he's a great campaigner, and the GOP can't find a decent candidate. the economy will make it close, but he'll pull it out.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Barring a complete economic collapse, he wins in Bush 2004 like style. In football terms a 3 point win with the other kicker missing a game tying FG from the 50 as time expires.

Now, if unemployment ticks back up AND Romney gets the nomination (the TP will come out for him they HATE Obama) I think Romney has a very good shot to win this thing

[NoCalMike]

Before I can answer, I have to see who the Republican candidate is, and if the tea party puts their support behind said candidate or decides to run a third party candidate. If 20% of the republican voter base is "tea party" folks, then the Republicans won't win without their support.

[Wrong Direction]

I don't see Rick Perry coming in and doing anything more than making the primaries more interesting. Nobody wants another Bush, only with Clinton's wit and sliminess.


One of the first things Rick Perry would do after being nominated is make it clear that he is very different than Bush...so much so that Bush supported his challenger in the last Tx election.

If Perry runs and doesn't screw up, he'll be the nominee, IMO.

Also, the economy is clearly the primary issue. The next issue is and will remain debt. Both parties will try to use that to their advantage, of course.

[deejaydana]

...also, I don't see Rick Perry coming in and doing anything more than making the primaries more interesting. Nobody wants another Bush, only with Clinton's wit and sliminess.



What parralels, other than being from Texas, do Perry and Bush II have? Just wondering....

[NoCalMike]

Also, lets be serious, as low as Obama's poll numbers are right now, the Republican controlled House is polling even WORSE. And most polls indicate that a much larger section of the population agrees with Obama's approach to this debt-ceiling fiasco than the Republican's approach.

With that said, which of the nominees is going to appear any different than the Republicans that control the house? All the candidates running for the (R) nominee are merely saying the same things the (R)'s in the house are, besides Michelle Bachmann, who by all accounts is a loon.

[Koolblue13]

The GOP are trotting out 3 lunatics with Romney, Perry and Bachman, so I think he'll be fine.

[Buford]

What parralels, other than being from Texas, do Perry and Bush II have? Just wondering....

That's my point. It doesn't take much fair or unfair to pin him as that. Which is why I said with Clinton's wit and sliminess. Because Bush never appeared to be slick or thoughtful. Its not fair to Perry, but Bush hurt the GOP TX-Brand pretty badly.

Don't forget, just a week ago, American's polled showed their short-term memory still wasn't that short.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/07/14/voters_still_blame_bush_for_the_economy.html


July 14, 2011

Voters Still Blame Bush for the Economy
A new Quinnipiac poll finds American voters disapprove of the way President Obama is handling the economy, 56% to 38%, but they trust the president more than congressional Republicans by 45% to 38%.

Most interesting: 71% say the country is in a recession, but by 54% to 27% they blame former President George W. Bush more than President Obama.

The president also has a 47% to 46% job approval rating -- significantly better than the 64% to 28% disapproval for congressional Democrats and 65% to 26% disapproval for congressional Republicans.

That's slightly outside the margin of error there.

[HailGreen28]

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/25/128668752218066503.jpg


As an aside, few people thought Bill Clinton was a viable candidate when he started running, either.

[Special K]

Economy gets better and/or the GOP stays excessively radical - he wins.

Economy gets worse and the GOP moderates itself - he loses.


Pretty simple, really.
This is the answer.

I don't know exactly what I'm labeled, politically, but I definitely know I sure as hell am not voting for ANY jackasses the GOP has put out there as our options thus far. Total ****.

---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 02:33 PM ----------
Great, I'm quoting myself now.

Anywho, what I meant to add, is that if things continue status quo, Dafffy Duck will be getting my vote next year.

[Thiebear]

President Obama spends 300million dollars on negative campaign against the republicans, moveon.org another 100.
He wins barely based on Bin Laden and the media support campaign.

[Jumbo]

Yeah, katie, Obama has disappointed me (though not as much as he has some others since I was more realistic from the start and also see what he's had to deal with even aside from his significant incompetencies. But I am still waiting for a GOP candidate that I would vote for instead. I hope they find one.

[thebluefood]

This is the answer.

I don't know exactly what I'm labeled, politically, but I definitely know I sure as hell am not voting for ANY jackasses the GOP has put out there as our options thus far. Total ****.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: the GOP better wise up and move to the center with the rest of us.

I read an article on the Post that said the Bohener-Obama talks broke down...AGAIN.

I swear if we default I will make it my mission to do everything in my power to make sure these clowns don't get their offices again.

Obama hasn't impressed me one bit, but save a miracle that sends a 3rd party candidate to the White House, if the GOP doesn't bring anyone better to the table, Obama's getting his second term. End of story.

[Larry]

Yeah, katie, Obama has disappointed me (though not as much as he has some others since I was more realistic from the start and also see what he's had to deal with even aside from his significant incompetencies. But I am still waiting for a GOP candidate that I would vote for instead. I hope they find one.

I'm really disappointed in Obama, myself. But it's not because he hasn't fixed the economy, or because Obamacare doesn't have single payer, or anything like that.

I'm disappointed because what I thought I was voting for was a leader.

If, right now, Obama were leading this country, but everything else were the same as it is now, then he'd have my vote locked up.

[lavar1156]

House Republicans = Epic Fail

Obama will win easily.

[Larry]

I swear if we default I will make it my mission to do everything in my power to make sure these clowns don't get their offices again.

And you will fail.

Like it or not, the one thing that the R's and the D's are absolutely in lockstep agreement on, something they like even more than soft money, it's making absolutely certain that nobody in America can possibly stand a chance without an R or a D after his name.

[Predicto]

I'm really disappointed in Obama, myself. But it's not because he hasn't fixed the economy, or because Obamacare doesn't have single payer, or anything like that.

I'm disappointed because what I thought I was voting for was a leader.

If, right now, Obama were leading this country, but everything else were the same as it is now, then he'd have my vote locked up.



Yep. Obama is portrayed by the GOP as this evil socialist overregulating business destroying America-hating mastermind, but right now, he just seems like a wimp who won't get out in front on ANY issue.

[Larry]

Yep. Obama is portrayed by the GOP as this evil socialist overregulating business destroying America-hating mastermind, but right now, he just seems like a wimp who won't get out in front on ANY issue.

The way I look at it is: I voted for JFK. But it looks like I got Jimmy Carter.

[twa]

Yep. Obama is portrayed by the GOP as this evil socialist overregulating business destroying America-hating mastermind, but right now, he just seems like a wimp who won't get out in front on ANY issue.

Would you feel better if I described him as a intellectual socialist that allows his minions to over regulate and run the country off a cliff while he muses?

minions had a nice ring to it :ols:

[Predicto]

The way I look at it is: I voted for JFK. But it looks like I got Jimmy Carter.

Bad analogy. Jimmy Carter was a self-righteous meddling micromanager.

I think you got Mike Dukakis - a bloodless risk-adverse technocrat.

[Destino]

Yep. Obama is portrayed by the GOP as this evil socialist overregulating business destroying America-hating mastermind, but right now, he just seems like a wimp who won't get out in front on ANY issue.

Which as bad as that may be doesn't have half the contrast as criticizing the type of Christian church he regularly attended while calling him a Muslim. lol

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Did you guys just see the president's news conference?


I've never seen him like that before. He was very angry....at least angry for him.

---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 11:08 PM ----------


Bad analogy. Jimmy Carter was a self-righteous meddling micromanager.

I think you got Mike Dukakis - a bloodless risk-adverse technocrat.
Yeah, thats a better comparison. Unfortunately.....

[Burgold]

If you look back at my posts in 2008 I predicted whoever won was likely to be a one-term President because the situation was just that bleak. It's not fair, but those thoughts may come to fruition.

And yes, Obama's reluctance to utilize the whip to galvanize his party or bludgeon the Republicans into a compromise on any issue is frustrating as heck. He's a manager when we need a general or as I usually say, a nice guy when we need a bastard. Maybe he can have that Marty McFly moment where he finally has enough and just hauls off and knocks Biff out.

[Predicto]

Which as bad as that may be doesn't have half the contrast as criticizing the type of Christian church he regularly attended while calling him a Muslim. lol

Well, that is GOP proxies like talk radio and commentators.

The actual GOP leaders stick to calling him a commie business hating anti-American - at least to his face. :)

[brandymac27]

I wonder if some of what seems to be Obama's weaknesses/incompetence comes from the fact that in some points in his presidency he has tried to reach across the aisle, setting the stage for some form of comprise? I know that I fully supported him while he was running, but I feel let down and honestly I can't figure out if the reason why is b/c he really is weak or if the weakness that I see is just an allusion to him trying to reach out.

Personally, the issues w/ healthcare and the debt ceiling have only furthered my belief that he is. But again, my feelings are partially based on the fact that (especially w/ healthcare) I feel he caved in way too much. He went overboard w/ the compromising IMHO.

The funny thing is that when I try to take a step back and look at things objectively, I've come to the conclusion that we (Americans) are so used to politicians who are unwilling to compromise that we automatically assume that anyone who does is weak and somewhat incompetent- which is strange b/c all we ever talk about is why "so and so" can't comprise or how sick we are of partisan politics.

I wouldn't want to be POTUS right now if my life depended on it. I honestly think that they're damned if they do and damned if they don't, and for Obama, it's a no win situation regardless. He inherited a cluster****, and I'm really starting to believe that he just doesn't have the experience to tackle all of these problems.

[Buford]

After the news of tonight, how can anybody not be sick with most of our elected officials?

Now I'm watching Boehner whine about moving goalposts and dealing with jello. For a true Washington insider like himself, he should have at least some better jabs that those weakass pathetic ones.

As for Obama, he's had his chances to lead and it seems that he chooses to avoid standing up for what he "believed in" when elected. **** or get off the pot, Jerk. If you know the other guys are going to Murdoch you. Then get out in front of it and slam them into the ground. You have the mic whenever you want it, and can sound more realistic and in-tune and the Boehner/Cantor/McConnell group. But you refuse to do it. Wuss.

[Burgold]

Now I'm watching Boehner whine about moving goalposts and dealing with jello. For a true Washington insider like himself, he should have at least some better jabs that those weakass pathetic ones.

I think in his heart he knows how wrong his party is and as pure a politician as he is his conscience is getting in his way.

[Buford]

I think in his heart he knows how wrong his party is and as pure a politician as he is his conscience is getting in his way.

Keep telling yourself that. He's been in Washington for 20 years now. He knows exactly what he's doing and saying. Its just pathetic that he's been around that long and now that he's Speaker, his rhetoric is this weak.

[Burgold]

we're actually agreeing. I am just being critical in a different way.

[Jumbo]

I am having to fight very hard (as may be obvious to those who know me as a poster here) to feel anything other than serious contempt for leaders of dems or repubs and their loyalists. As of recent years and up to now (even more so), I find the GOP the more loathsome, but the margin of difference is hardly impressive.

[Kosher Ham]

I am having to fight very hard (as may be obvious to those who know me as a poster here) to feel anything other than serious contempt for leaders of dems or repubs and their loyalists. As of recent years and up to now (even more so), I find the GOP the more loathsome, but the margin of difference is hardly impressive.

Spot on. I have felt this way for years. This whole political party thing is overblown to the point of blind voting.

[NoCalMike]

At this point I think Obama wins in 2012 merely based on who he is running against. Lets call it the Bush 2004 redux. In 2004 I still say the country was ready to dump Bush.....and then John Kerry won the nomination and no one really felt that great getting behind him. He was the "not Bush" candidate.

In 2012, I believe the Republicans will end up with something similar with a "not Obama" candidate, and it just won't be enough to motive the people on the fence to swing their way.

I think it has the potential to be close, but Obama wins a 2nd term.

[thebluefood]

You know, at this point, the ball is really in our court.

It's obvious they're not going to do anything worth while. As a nation, we need to wake up and realize that, through the brilliance of our constitution, we're the one in power. As a nation, we need a new, political awakening. We need to become an empowered electorate. To be empowered, we must be intelligent and civil, but we must also be passionate and assertive. We need to let these people, and their respective parties, that in the United States, we have options in everything. We can't continue being swept away in empty populism with snappy slogans. We need to demand something greater. If that comes in the form of a Republican or a Democrat, great. If not, then why not look to an independent candidate or a third party candidate?

I feel like we, as a nation, are stuck in a box we made ourselves and that's easily broken. Why do we continue trapping ourselves? Why do we keep taking whatever we're fed. Maybe this is my wide eyed, naive, youthful idealism but it seems pretty clear to me that Washington is in desperate need of having a fire lit under their ass.

They can only do this because they believe they have us by the balls. They know that we don't believe we don't have options. Something has to give. We cannot continue doing what we're doing. This nation, and her constitution, is too beautiful to be ruined by these petty politicians.

We the people need to stop looking to elected officials for change and begin doing it ourselves.

[Special K]

Yeah, katie, Obama has disappointed me (though not as much as he has some others since I was more realistic from the start and also see what he's had to deal with even aside from his significant incompetencies. But I am still waiting for a GOP candidate that I would vote for instead. I hope they find one.
I'm not happy with Obama (I don't despise him, but I am not happy with him on the whole), but there is no one the GOP has presented so far that I would vote for. I'm so disgusted, I'd rather just sit at home on election day, drink wine, watch Sex and the City and pretend I'm not SURROUNDED BY *******S!



I've said it once and I'll say it again: the GOP better wise up and move to the center with the rest of us.
if the GOP doesn't bring anyone better to the table, Obama's getting his second term. End of story.
This isn't exactly prophetic though...I think this is pretty much common sense to anyone who possesses an ounce of logic.


Did you guys just see the president's news conference?
Yeah, he was pissed. Not quite as pissed off as those of us having to witness, on a daily basis, this absurd dysfunction from afar


I am having to fight very hard (as may be obvious to those who know me as a poster here) to feel anything other than serious contempt for leaders of dems or repubs and their loyalists. As of recent years and up to now (even more so), I find the GOP the more loathsome, but the margin of difference is hardly impressive.
People are seriously brainwashed, it's scary. Heck, my own father is ridiculously partisan when it comes politics...and I consider him an extremely intelligent, well-balanced, wise, compassionate individual. When I talk to him on the phone, or when I'm at home, though, I'm constantly thinking to myself: "where the hell did you get that from, dad? you can't be serious" It's scary how so many people have been sucked into the partisanship. Then there's me who finds herself more and more on the outside looking in in disgust saying "holy ****, all you people are ****ing greedy, incompetent *******s!"

[NoCalMike]

The change we all seek will most likely only be possibly when money is taken out of politics. Until then the "voice of the people" is going to pale in comparison to what the billion dollar oligarchy can bring to the table. And the bad news is the way the SCOTUS has been ruling lately, it is becoming increasingly easier to funnel money by the truckload in order to influence elected officials.

[Rdskns2000]

If you look back at my posts in 2008 I predicted whoever won was likely to be a one-term President because the situation was just that bleak. It's not fair, but those thoughts may come to fruition.

And yes, Obama's reluctance to utilize the whip to galvanize his party or bludgeon the Republicans into a compromise on any issue is frustrating as heck. He's a manager when we need a general or as I usually say, a nice guy when we need a bastard. Maybe he can have that Marty McFly moment where he finally has enough and just hauls off and knocks Biff out.

Don't you half to call him CHICKEN.

---------- Post added July-23rd-2011 at 01:03 AM ----------


The GOP are trotting out 3 lunatics with Romney, Perry and Bachman, so I think he'll be fine.

What looney thing has Romney done?

---------- Post added July-23rd-2011 at 01:08 AM ----------


Barring a complete economic collapse, he wins in Bush 2004 like style. In football terms a 3 point win with the other kicker missing a game tying FG from the 50 as time expires.

Now, if unemployment ticks back up AND Romney gets the nomination (the TP will come out for him they HATE Obama) I think Romney has a very good shot to win this thing

Tea Party will not support Romney. They may hate Obama but to the point where they will vote for another Mccain type candidate. Tea party will focus their attention on the congressional races, making sure they keep the house and gain the Senate. All they need control of, is one chamber of congress to stop Obama.

---------- Post added July-23rd-2011 at 01:27 AM ----------

I agree with everyone that if the economy gets better, Obama will have 4 more years.

I'm not sure though he loses if the economy or gets worse because of his opponent and/or opponents. I think the country will have to completely collapse for a Michelle Bachmann/Sarah Palin candidate to win the presidency.


I think the Tea Party will end up costing the Republicans any shot of really winning. The Tea Party only wants people to cow tow to their strict ideology and anyone who doesn't met that will not get their support and will be challenged.

I see the Republican primary going one of 2 ways: The Tea Party Candidate gets the nomination and thus turns off moderate republicans and democrats inclined not to vote for Obama and turns off independents. They will turn off those voters with their extreme ideology that those voters will either vote for Obama or just stay at home. The swing vote will not for the Tea Party Republican if it's Michelle Bachmann or Henry Cain or whatever the **** his name is.

The other it can go is that Romney gets the nomination or a Romney like candidate gets it. The tea party will not support him. Depend how pissed they are at Republicans they will either concentrate their efforts at the congressional level or maybe even go third party. The tea partiers will not support another establishment candidate again. If the Republican party nominee doesn't believe in the tea party mantra, they will not support it. There are others ways to prevent Obama's agenda from going through than voting for Romney and I don't see them doing it.

I think Obama wins, even with the bad economy, because I don't see a united opposition against him that would be capable of also getting all the swing voters.

[twa]

From where I sit outside, the Tea party has been more flexible than the establishment Reps,and as has been mentioned there is no uniform Tea party.

they will play a part,but the candidate and situation will be the deciding factor

NOCAL...blaming the money is like blaming free speech
both confuse the issues and clarify them
the so called restrictions only change methods to concealing sources.

we could ban all campaign funding and allot public funds to qualifying candidates,but even that would not change the dynamic.

I think O is toast because I see more pain coming

[SnyderShrugged]

He wins in the GOP nominates another neo-con, heck, he probably wins anyway.

Mainly because there isnt any difference between Obama and any other war mongering, big government, big spender that the Neo-con establishment will put up.