Saturday, August 20, 2011
Late to the party on this one, but the ongoing popularity contest is not looking good for our president. Not good at all. His only hope, which is sadly realistic, is that the Republicans nominate somebody even less qualified than he is.
That's dumb! Who could be "less qualified" that Obama is. The key question is "who will the dems run in 2012?"
You think the unions, the black racists, coastal leftists, elected thieves who route bribes through relatives, trail attorneys and other selected dem vermin want to see everything flushed away? No, if they are to salvage anything THEY have to replace Obama.
There's no one in the Democratic Party who can take on Obama in the primaries and win. Hillary is too old. She and Bill would rather continue to "go Global". If the Democrats vote Obama out they'll alienate Black voters.
There's always the possibility of scandal, but MSM would have to turn on Obama. I don't see that happening.
Today, I'd put Obama's odds of getting re-elected at no better than 25%. I'm that low because I expect the economy will be no better and probably worse. But I wouldn't count Obama out yet. Romney is very beatable in a general election. Perry may not export out of Texas. Etc Etc
Nah. His hope is that the Republicans nominate someone who the mainstream media can slime sufficiently that average Americans will hold their noses and vote for Obama, however much they might wish they had a better choice.
"His only hope, which is sadly realistic, is that the Republicans nominate somebody even less qualified than he is."
Whatever his political hopes may be, our country's best hope is for economic rejuvenation through a huge increase in oil and natural gas drilling. When the Energy Department comes to it's senses, it'll realize we need the expansion in national wealth, the liquidity that comes with much lower prices, the large number of high paying jobs and the influx of taxes these wells will create.
"His only hope, which is sadly realistic, is that the Republicans nominate somebody even less qualified than he is"
Sadly realistic? It isn't possible to nominate someone less qualified than Obama, and I'd be interested in more specifics on why you think it is. My dog could do a better job.
Time is not on Hopenchange's side. All the numbers are awful, and there are just too damn many suffering. It's telling that the president needs yet another vacation at 38K rent in order to lay out his exciting new job creation plan, and we all await it breathlessly given the success of his prior plans.
My only hope here is that the GOP puts up someone who is tough enough to take on this bum in a debate, without pulling punches, and without turning a cheek if he throws out horse manure and rhetoric.
With so much of the world's economies collapsing, the idea that our best days lie in emulating Europe, or socialist countries, is worthy of contempt. Our candidate needs to latch onto the independents and moderates, and drill him on all the broken promises he could've easily fullfilled with his supermajority. Rather than get our military back home, he's escalated and gotten us into a few more theatres. He played while the gulf filled with crude, and so much more. For Gays ... where's his toughtful response after so much time? and where the f are the jobs and improved economy after all the money pissed way in stimulis, bailouts, incentives, etc.?
He has dithered for 3 years, and we don't have a second term for that. Time to acknowledge the filed policies of the Barack Hussein Obama administration, and vote in change we can believe in.
While there are lots of Republicans no less qualified than Obama was in 2008, there many with less experience than he has *now.* The GOP nominee will be running against an incumbent, which is a HUGE difference from 2008 and if Republican voters do not realize that they will be missing a critical point.
However, my point about qualification does not go to resume. Some of our most "qualified" presidential candidates have turned out to be pretty poor in the office because they lacked a *quality* that turned out to be critical. For example, there has probably been no presidential candidate since, maybe, US Grant or TR with a better resume than Herbert Hoover, and Hoover was a mess because of his emotional response to crisis.
I think the biggest weaknesses of a number of the GOP candidates have nothing to do with experience in the resume sense, or their positions on substantive issues, but temperament. Barack Obama has endless shortcomings, but only unreconstructed Obama-haters think he is intemperate. There are several Republicans who *seem* like they are intemperate or have been framed that way (Bachmann, Paul, Santorum, possibly Perry, possibly Palin, Gingrich) and that makes the American center (which will elect the next president) nervous.
TH ... experience doing what? He's failed to deliver on most everything but healthcare.
Where he had no record to run on before, he now has one. It is of failure, lack of leadership, and bad judgment. While he's vacationed, golfed, played, and hosted fund raisers, our country has suffered.
There are millions unemployed, several graduating classes of young voters who can't find any work at all, millions who have been wiped out in real estate, many more war dead, Gitmo isn't closed, gas is almost 4 bucks, and we're not feeling any more love from abroad than before.
In this college town, lefty has peeled off those Obama stickers ... to me, that says a lot.
Don't get me wrong -- I think the GOP will win if they don't blow it BIG time. I am worried, though, that the race-to-the-right in the primary season (already started) will persuade a the center that the GOP field is a bit loony, especially on social issues. I am especially worried that all the discussion of social and religious issues will cause a lot of people in the center to stay away from the polls or hold their nose and vote for Barry. And, remember, the media is the enemy and will be pulling out all the stops to make that come true.
A sober, thoughtful, Republican who never breathes a word on social issues could win 40 states or more. The Donks will do everything they can to bring up gay marriage, abortion, evolution, etc., because those issues are very challenging for a lot of people who would love to vote for the GOP on taxes, spending, and even defense.
Why the focus on popularity soon far from the election? George Bush the elder managed to lose an election to Clinton after blowing a HUGE popularity boost at the end of the Iraq war. It is too early for chicken counting
I think you have been in Princeton too long.BO came to office totally unqualified and proceeded to wreak havoc with his socialist agenda on America and hurt our standing in the world with his we all must get along and refusal to confront Islamic terrorism. He is intemperate, has learned little on the job and is not that smart or he would make changes NOW.Wake up!
Things are grim for Obama's reelection no matter who the Republicans nominate. No matter who it is, that person will win. The reason is that no matter how ill-"qualified" (and I use that term reservedly), the Republican won't have the Obama record of three years fucking absolutely everything up. Our man Obama has the reverse Midas touch.
Anon Attorney here. I will go out on a limb and predict the following:
1. Republicans nominate Mittens Romney, who will be on his knees begging Bachmann to be VP. She declines. Romney picks an obscure governor from a core red state. Jindal?
2. The social conservative and tea party wing of the Republican party revolt against the Establishment Corporatist base of the Republican party for nominating yet another RINO for the presidency.
3. Romney's campaign raises plenty of money from said Establishment Corporatist faction of the party, but fails to gather momentum on the ground. Corporatists are too busy working to volunteer for phone banks.
4. In the "fight for the middle" Romney struggles to differentiate himself from Obama, but fails. Their records are virtually indistinguishable.
5. Poor turnout from Tea Party and Social Conservative wing results in Obama winning with a comfortable margin.
Ann Coulter called this last year. In 2012 the Republican party either gets serious about being conservative and nominates someone like Chris Christy or loses the election.
The object isn't just to win the White House. It's to also win a 60-seat Senate majority on a platform to effect "National Resurgence". I use this term with an ironic anti-Fascist meaning: cut the federal government down in size radically, including by eliminating lots of regulatory overlay. Either that, or we'll turn into a total Borg State. Developing ...
That's why Mitt "Carried Interest" Romney would be such a bad choice for the Republicans -- unless you like Corporatist Statism. Both parties have gotten narrower and less representative. There's a big middle up for grabs ready to be seized by a new kind of populism.
Some possible 2012 election scenarios:
1) What AnonAttorney just described -- Mitt Romney is the nominee, but loses. While Romney is beatable, I don't ever see "Obama winning with a comfortable margin". Obama can eek out a win but has to win PA/OH and probably FL -- won't be easy for O, no matter who the Republican nominee is.
2) Romney is the nominee, but wins. Can you say "poisoned chalice"? Romney can't lead on the things that will need to be done. WIth the mess Obama will have left him, he'll at best be a Gerry Ford caretaker. Andy Cuomo will clean his clock in 2016.
3) Perry or Palin is the nominee. Either can lose to Obama, but in a different way than Romney would. The USA wasn't ready for Reagan in 1976, and still wasn't ready in September 1980. But I'd bet that as we get into 2012, either of these candidates can sell "National Resurgence" against a backdrop of economic stagnation and decline. We'll see this develop in the early primaries. I'd bet that Palin will run, and that she uses Romney as an Obama proxy at every opportunity. She may not get the nomination, but she'll drive the agenda.
4) Chris Christie is the nominee. Keep dreaming. Ain't gonna happen in 2012. Paul Ryan is very low odds at this point. Either of these guys could be great national candidates, but (1) they're not ready, and (2) too many elements in the Republican party don't want them. Further to #2, define "conservative". I don't know what it means anymore. Except for Palin, I don't see anyone else getting into the race.
5) Michelle Bachmann doesn't get pushed off the stage, and drags down the entire Republican ticket. If Palin runs, I expect Michelle to fade. Bachmann is a Holy Roller who pretends to be a Tea Partier. Palin is a Tea Partier who happens to be a Holy Roller. Perry needs to define himself the same way. That's how you win a 60-seat Senate majority. If Bachmann wins Iowa she'll hang around hoping to get a VP nod -- which means the race will pay too much attention to Holy Roller issues which will drag the Republicans down in swing state races in November 2012
Anon Attorney again.
Ignoramus, I think you're a dude, but if you were a chick I would sooooo have the hots for you. I guess I'll have to settle for a man-crush on you, kind of like George had for Tony on Seinfeld.
Agree with your right down the line. Conservative populism is set to rise in 2010, but the Republicans will miss the boat. Idiots.
I would make a run for Office myself, but my background is far too littered with sex, drugs, booze, women, and small, furry farm animals to get through the vetting process. Unless, of course, I run as a Democrat, whereupon my various and sundry deviant transgressions will be studiously ignored by the media, and excused in the unlikely event they are discovered.
"While there are lots of Republicans no less qualified than Obama was in 2008, there many with less experience than he has *now.* The GOP nominee will be running against an incumbent, which is a HUGE difference from 2008 and if Republican voters do not realize that they will be missing a critical point."
I disagree. Or rather, I agree in a different way. Those four years of 'resume enhancing experience' have been disastrous in almost every way. The much touted stimulus totally failed. So did the second one. Obamacare is wildly unpopular and has not only managed to breathe more life into states rights and lead to the 2010 coup in Congress, but is almost certainly doomed to destruction by the Supreme Court if it isn't repealed first. Mind boggling debt. The credit downgrade. And so on.
So yeah, he's an incumbent. An unpopular, failed incumbent. LET him point to that 'experience' as a selling point. I dare him.
Secondly, in 2008 'community organizer' trumped 'veteran Navy Commander and long-time Senator.' After the media jerk-fest over how awesome Obama was, claims now from Democrats about Republican candidates being 'unqualified' are transparent opportunism and hypocrisy.
Besides, didn't they already establish that the act of running for president qualifies you to be president?
"Barack Obama has endless shortcomings, but only unreconstructed Obama-haters think he is intemperate."
Nonsense, with shades of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Don't forget the 'flipping the bird' incident v. Hillary. Or "I won" (so shut up and do what I say). How about his epic White House meltdown (screaming profanities at his staff) after Netanyahu humiliated him on live TV? His administration's decision to let West Texas burn rather than release disaster aid, even though it was approved for other, smaller scale incidents both in the same area in the past and in other parts of the country the same month? Not to mention his absolute addiction to demonizing his opposition as bitter, xenophobic, zealous, ignorant gun clingers who put 'party before country' by daring to disagree with him.
'Obama's temperance' is another part of the myth, just like his moderation and world-class intellect. And this was, thanks to his Hillary incident and a few other mostly unheeded actions during the primaries, clear to clear-sighted people years ago.
Though they might actually all be unreconstructed Obama-haters now. But really, can you blame them?
@ AnonAttorney. Thanks for the compliment. Yes, I am a dude but I "hear" you too.
@ DF82. I don't disagree with what you say. But Obama can still win. Here's how:
1) Core elements of the Democratic base will rally in the end. Survival instincts are a wonderful motivator.
2) Obama has a lock on most of the big states. He starts with an Electoral College lead among "sure things".
3) Obama will have a lot of money.
4) Obama will enjoy higher personal popularity than he deserves.
5) MSM will continue to back him. I thought this would have turned somewhat by now. He's losing some reporters, but not the editors.
6) Folks facing economic challenges can be scared into avoiding short-term pain for long-term gain. Selling "tough medicine" isn't easy. Harder still if you're a leveraged buyout plutocrat.
7) Folks who get government checks are outnumbered by those who pay for them, but they're a big block and will vote as a block.
8) It's a canard that Americans vote Center-Right. They may talk that way, but they're inclined to vote Center-Left to get freebies.
9) Republicans may find a way to piss off Hispanics more than they have to. Same for gays.
Obama is likely to lose, but it's not certain. Today, I give him a 25% chance even with a bad economy and a tough electoral map.
@Piercello: "if the Democrats retain the WH ... but get clobbered in the Senate" Then Obama will set a record for vetos. Normally I'm a fan of divided government, but we need to undo a lot of things that got legislated when Democrats had total control.
All these predictions and attempts to read and foretell the mood of the country strike me as absurdly premature. Reality check: in August 2007, Gallup/USA Today had Clinton ahead of Obama by 48 to 26 percent.
It depends what you mean by qualified. I think Obama is smarter, in some sense, than many of the Republican likelies. I say that as one who needs only to be notified in early Nov 2012 who the GOP has nominated to vote for that person. But smarter isn't important. I don't think it takes any special genius in that sense to be President. An above-average intelligence is fine. For the Senate and House, less than that. What's hard about it intellectually?
Michael Corleone went to (implied) Dartmouth, right?. Doesn't mean anyone should vote for him. Obama is a thug - his "qualifications" are irrelevant.
@ Darovas: You're no fun.
In 2008 we had a wide open contest with at least five Republican candidates with a real shot, and a few long shots. While Hillary was the presumptive favorite, there were at least a couple of Democrats with a chance to catch fire as the anti-Hillary. So you had at least a five by three matrix to handicap.
In 2012 we're already down to a three by one matrix to handicap (most likely) months before the first primary.
Obama, Romney and Perry are in this for the long haul. Expect Palin to jump in. That's it. One of these folks will win in 2012.
Yes, a lot can still happen, but it's hard to see anyone else crashing this party because of fundraising. Romney's moving early has had the effect of cutting the Republican field down early. That was intended.