QuakerOats;1107842 wrote:High unemployment and high gas prices will devour obama

Aren't these issues left over from "the previous administration"?

wkfan;1107973 wrote:Aren't these issues left over from "the previous administration"?

Lag effects are generally considered to be 18-24 months. 3+ years into this thing it's all on Obama at this point.

We can wait 4 more years for a [hopefully] better choice of Dem and/or Repub to fix this mess while Obama's anti-business, anti-growth, anti-prosperity and pro-deficit policies continue to destroy our country...or we can vote ABO.

I have a friend who had already given Obama an out before he was even elected. He said "well even if he gets elected he won't be able to fix what Bush did in 8 years." I have heard that a lot though in the last few years. My friend did say the other day though that he wouldn't vote for Obama in November. He probably won't vote at all but it's a good thing because he doesn't know much about politics in the first place.

bigdaddy2003;1108008 wrote:I have a friend who had already given Obama an out before he was even elected. He said "well even if he gets elected he won't be able to fix what Bush did in 8 years." I have heard that a lot though in the last few years. My friend did say the other day though that he wouldn't vote for Obama in November. He probably won't vote at all but it's a good thing because he doesn't know much about politics in the first place.

Seems to be the common theme with Obama voters. Why would they vote for someone they "didn't think could fix what Bush did in 8 years"? If that is their thought process, they are essentially voting for an obscure, worthless president that can't get anything done.

believer;1107733 wrote:No question about it.

I know plenty of Dems in my life who have flat out told me that they're disgusted with the Bammer and that they will have no problem voting for Romney.

Like you said, the easiest path to a BHO re-election is if Paul goes third party. I'm hoping that based on Paul's anemic performance yesterday - combined with his age - he decides that a third party campaign will only be beneficial to the Obama campaign. That could very well be the case if Romney offers Rand a veep position.

Paul wont run third party. Doesnt matter to me because I will vote for Gary Johnson. Hopefully the next four years the libertarian movement will continue to grow. I just dont understand what people see in Santorum, gingrich or romney that suggests they actually know how or want to fix the actual problems.

bigdaddy2003;1108008 wrote:I have a friend who had already given Obama an out before he was even elected. He said "well even if he gets elected he won't be able to fix what Bush did in 8 years." I have heard that a lot though in the last few years. My friend did say the other day though that he wouldn't vote for Obama in November. He probably won't vote at all but it's a good thing because he doesn't know much about politics in the first place.

It's all pretty comical, really. Most of the crap that's happened over the last 10+ years actually has its roots in the Clinton era. Some questionable policy, particularly with the Fed response, in the Bush years dealing with the resulting economic crisis sewn in the Clinton era was also, curiously enough, made multiples worse by policies dating, again, to the Clinton era. And Clinton is very popular on the left while the right views him, at worst, with begrudging indifference.

The Obama & fed policy has not been significantly different from the Bush years in many respects. We've tightened up some regulations but may have gone too far. But, at the end of the day, when the referees are completely out of their league vs. the guys playing the game you can pretty much guarantee they will always be behind and caught with their pants down on the next economic crisis. It happened in the 80's with the S&L crisis, it happened in the 90's with the peso default, again later in the 90's with the Russian default....again in the 90's with the internet bubble (all under Clinton's watch, by the way), and then in the 00's with the housing/liquidity bubble (a result of the FNMA/FMAC mandate and attempts to reflate the economy after the bursting of the internet bubble).

But where Obama has departed from the Bush policy is by adding some $1T in annual deficit, combined with an anti-business/anti-growth policy that has CLEARLY severely restrained the recovery. There are a lot of people in business saying this, but the left is deaf & dumb. It is absolutely beyond me how people can harbor actual hatred for Bush and his policies and yet be willing to go pull the lever for Obama in 2012.

I really like most of Paul's economic stances but his foreign policy hurts him with a lot of people. I also don't care for some of the shit he says like saying Michelle Bachmann doesn't like Muslims. That is just dumb. That is shit that you would hear on the Sunday hack shows. Plus didn't he basically come out and say we brought 9/11 on ourselves?

Obama is going to run away with the general election. Romney and Santorum might be worse/less exciting candidates than John Kerry. All the GOP had to do was put out a decent candidate and they would've won easily. Romney and Santorum just have way too many flaws.

pmoney25;1108041 wrote:Paul wont run third party. Doesnt matter to me because I will vote for Gary Johnson. Hopefully the next four years the libertarian movement will continue to grow. I just dont understand what people see in Santorum, gingrich or romney that suggests they actually know how or want to fix the actual problems.

Romney is the only major Presidential candidate in recent memory with a PROVEN track record of actually fixing a budget problem. He's also one of the few who understands and has lived & breathed how businesses interpret and react to fiscal policy, as opposed to the career politicians and silver-spoon public servants with little-to-no grasp of economics and business.

I honestly don't get the hype surrounding Ron Paul when he's PROVEN few, if any, in Washington buy-in to his draconian ideas.

Y-Town Steelhound;1108072 wrote: All the GOP had to do was put out a decent candidate and they would've won easily. Romney and Santorum just have way too many flaws.

LOL, in contrast to Fearless, errr I mean Flawless, Leader.

Paul wont run third party. Doesnt matter to me because I will vote for Gary Johnson. Hopefully the next four years the libertarian movement will continue to grow.

I think Paul is pretty smart and will take his cause all the way to the convention where he intends to use his support and influence to get libertarian planks incorporated into the party platform. That's the way you get the "libertarian movement" to grow, by growing it at the grass roots level, and expanding its influence within the party. Listening to the Paulbots in this election who can't understand why everybody isn't jumping up and down at the thought of Ron and his policies....I am reminded of an old saying...

May I have the courage to change the things I can,
The serenity to accept the things I can't,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Paul supporters are strong on courage, but lacking in the latter two attributes.

bigdaddy2003;1108053 wrote:I really like most of Paul's economic stances but his foreign policy hurts him with a lot of people. I also don't care for some of the **** he says like saying Michelle Bachmann doesn't like Muslims. That is just dumb. That is **** that you would hear on the Sunday hack shows. Plus didn't he basically come out and say we brought 9/11 on ourselves?

Statements such as those should give people pause over just how well-thought out and practical his beliefs on the economy are. How can a guy have such seemingly oversimplified, if not irrational, views in that regard yet be some sort of economic genius?

bigdaddy2003;1108053 wrote:I really like most of Paul's economic stances but his foreign policy hurts him with a lot of people. I also don't care for some of the shit he says like saying Michelle Bachmann doesn't like Muslims. That is just dumb. That is shit that you would hear on the Sunday hack shows. Plus didn't he basically come out and say we brought 9/11 on ourselves?

No. He said there are reasons that people in the region have animosity towards us and it has nothing to do with our religion or them hating our freedoms. And he's right.

I Wear Pants;1108099 wrote:No. He said there are reasons that people in the region have animosity towards us and it has nothing to do with our religion or them hating our freedoms. And he's right.

Yep. They didn't attack us due to jealousy. I can't believe this is so hard for people to grasp.

bigdaddy2003;1108053 wrote:I really like most of Paul's economic stances but his foreign policy hurts him with a lot of people. I also don't care for some of the **** he says like saying Michelle Bachmann doesn't like Muslims. That is just dumb. That is **** that you would hear on the Sunday hack shows. Plus didn't he basically come out and say we brought 9/11 on ourselves?

He basically said what the CIA said, 9/11 was a result of "blowback". As the couple posters above me said, the people in that region don't hate us because of our religion or freedom, it is our meddling foreign policy over the last 40-50 years.

What's wrong with him saying Bachman doesn't like muslims? It's pretty much true. She and Santorum both have all but said it. His foreign policy is what this country needs. Diplomacy and trade with all, alliance with none. And no military action without a declaration of war by Congress. Logic

Y-Town Steelhound;1108072 wrote:Obama is going to run away with the general election. Romney and Santorum might be worse/less exciting candidates than John Kerry. All the GOP had to do was put out a decent candidate and they would've won easily. Romney and Santorum just have way too many flaws.

The numbers say something completely different. obama got 53% last time and now he will lose some votes from Catholics, Jews and independents, among others. Yet, he has nowhere to go to pick up votes to offset the losses, nowhere. No one who voted against him the last time is now going to vote for him - that is preposterous; so, given the votes he will lose and not be able to replace, he will be lucky to get to 45%.

It's over.

bigdaddy2003;1108053 wrote:I really like most of Paul's economic stances but his foreign policy hurts him with a lot of people. I also don't care for some of the shit he says like saying Michelle Bachmann doesn't like Muslims. That is just dumb. That is shit that you would hear on the Sunday hack shows. Plus didn't he basically come out and say we brought 9/11 on ourselves?

No he didn't. And he said Bachmann doesn't like Muslims in a joking fashion on Leno. It is a shame that people can't see past what they are fed by the state media.

QuakerOats;1108350 wrote:The numbers say something completely different. obama got 53% last time and now he will lose some votes from Catholics, Jews and independents, among others. Yet, he has nowhere to go to pick up votes to offset the losses, nowhere. No one who voted against him the last time is now going to vote for him - that is preposterous; so, given the votes he will lose and not be able to replace, he will be lucky to get to 45%.

It's over.

Come back to reality. I don't want Obama in office anymore than you do, but with Romney or Santorum being his opponent, he'll get another 4 years easily.

Cleveland Buck;1108380 wrote:No he didn't. And he said Bachmann doesn't like Muslims in a joking fashion on Leno. It is a shame that people can't see past what they are fed by the state media.

Well I wasn't fed anything by the media. I saw the clip on Youtube. If you believe he was joking then fine. I just don't care for statements like that.

dwccrew;1108384 wrote:Come back to reality. I don't want Obama in office anymore than you do, but with Romney or Santorum being his opponent, he'll get another 4 years easily.

I concur about Santorum but I think Romney can win. I'm sure we will be fed a ton of crap during the final weeks before the election of how Romney isn't in touch with the American people but is Obama any more in touch with the people?

Fox News tonight at 9 -- Hannity:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/07/buzzefeed-selectively-edits-obama-tape


Looking forward to seeing the unedited (by liberals) version.

QuakerOats;1108350 wrote: he will lose some votes from Catholics, Jews and independents, among others.

And ACORN....Don't forget about ACORN

QuakerOats;1108388 wrote:Fox News tonight at 9 -- Hannity:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/07/buzzefeed-selectively-edits-obama-tape


Looking forward to seeing the unedited (by liberals) version.

[video]http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/03/07/its_on_the_breitbart_videos_of_obama_in_college_ar e_on_their_way[/video]

gut;1107730 wrote:Again, he got 53.6% of the popular vote in 2008 despite a huge groundswell of support for "hope and change" and an unprecedented mobilization of the 18-25 or so segment. How can anyone rationally claim, given the results and state of things, that Obama has less than a very large uphill climb?

I provided a paragraph's worth of reasoning as to why, imo, it is too early for either party to claim a majority of the independent vote and your direct quote from me has nothing more to do with anything other than that. But we'll have it your way:

1. In today's politically polarized world, 53.6% of the national popular vote is about as much as you're ever going to see a candidate from either party receive unless said person toes a very, very moderate line that appeals to I's, D's, and R's alike. As you may have noticed, that type of candidate is now extinct.
2. Just because "Irrelevant+Delusional=Notre Dame fan" in my head doesn't mean I can claim someone else deriving a different result as 'irrational' given they have the same evidence to draw said conclusion. (Although any sane person would draw my conclusion, haha)
3. Unseating an incumbent president is obviously not impossible but definitely harder than running against a fellow new nominee. It has happened a grand total of 5 times the last 25 election cycles and 2 of the 5 were directly related to a third party candidate pulling votes away from the opponent, not the incumbent. No election is "gimme'.

gut;1107730 wrote:When the Republican candidate becomes known, most of those in the polls will be throwing their support to Romeny vs. trying to prop-up their candidate.

This is normally what happens when a party nominee is decided. it shouldn't be any different amongst Republicans in this cycle; both parties' members normally get behind the nominee even if adverse to him initially.

gut;1107730 wrote:Then you will see Obama trailing vs. whomever the Repub nominee is (and it's going to be Romney).

Although polling at this juncture of the campaign is suspect at best and atrocious at worst, this statement is absurd if you believe what the polls are reporting right now when Romney vs. Obama is the question posed. Assuming those who support Santorum in the primary throw their support behind Romney when asked about the choice between Obama/Romney it just doesn't seem likely that Romney securing the nomination will change the result on its own merit just because he's officially the nominee.

gut;1107730 wrote:Obama is polling similar to what Bush was in 2004, but Bush didn't have all these headwinds. Nor is Romney as stiff or unlikeable as Kerry - the guy actually has a resume to stand on.

Romney seeming more loose and likable than Kerry is like saying James Madison's wig seemed more fashionable than George Washington's. They both still wore ugly wigs. The last thing ANY voter should want (if only for the benefit of the greater good) is an election that turns into a giant referendum on charisma and likability...especially those voters supporting Mitt Romney.

gut;1107730 wrote:He's looking at a net negative in terms of votes from that same young group, guaranteed, and the only question is if how much he can minimize it. No way it's offsetting the independent/moderates he lost. He will have to hope they don't go to the polls. We're talking 4%. 4% is not a big number (and it would take less to lose the election). There is a noticeable and stark contrast from the surge Obama enjoyed in 2008. My observations are anecdotal, but don't dismiss them as less than insightful - we are talking less than 4%, and those anecdotal observations are the swing voters he easily won in 2008 that he's pretty clearly lost in 2012.

-It is too far ahead of election to put a quantifiable number on anything, but a net loss in overall youth vote is iminent and will affect both sides of the aisle. This is good for Romney but doesn't translate into a net gain for him, yet.
-Swing voters are swing voters for a reason. Neither party has clearly won or lost them yet and won't until a few weeks before the election at the earliest.

gut;1107730 wrote:As we get closer to the election he's going to get brutally hammered on the economy. And righfully so. Obama's ONLY chance is an unexpected and dramatic recovery.

I completely agree and he deserves it. But the narrative has to be 100% on the economy because every step forward the GOP candidates get is automatically two steps back every time they unnecessarily discuss abortion, DADT, etc. Romney MUST address his issues connecting with people and his gaffes head-on before he can steer the narrative the way he should (and could). SOMEONE in his campaign has to be telling him this.

gut;1107730 wrote:I'll go out on a limb and say it won't be surprising if Romney beats him comfortably. Not in the least.

Define 'comfortably'. I don't think either candidate can hope to net any better than the 51-52 range and that's a BEST case scenario for both.

gut;1107730 wrote:It will be a minor miracle for Obama to win this. It's going to take a boatload of money and Repubs remaining disorganized while they sit on their thumbs. Won't happen.

Define 'miracle'. I don't think that someone throwing hoards of cash around to get what they want 'miraculous'. And what, exactly, has given you the impression that what's happening in the party right now is going to improve immediately: Barbara Bush pleading for the madness to stop or Rick Santorum committing himself to taking his campaign to the convention?

gut;1107730 wrote:His best chance is if Paul enters the race as a 3rd party candidate - and don't be surprised to see some Obama money go that route.

Only the most leftist of the left would be surprised if that were to happen. Clinton and GWB both did it with obviously different results. I fully suspect BHO to do it and if Romney were to have a viable 3rd party helper, he'd be stupid not to as well. Welcome to winning at all costs, err, "campaigning for public office".

gut;1107732 wrote:Also, what about Obama's Jewish support? High 60's-70% in 2008. 50%ish now. That's worth 2% right there.

Let's prioritize here: The Jewish vote has the possibility to make a major difference in exactly one state: Florida. This may come as a shock but the vast majority of usually democratic Jewish voters reside in states that are not dependent on the Jewish vote to remain blue (New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, California).

How is it possible that ANYONE is more concerned with where the Jewish vote is going than the Latino vote? One of them is actually going to make a difference where it matters (Florida, New Mexico, North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado)...it is NOT Jews.