If Obama Loses
- Thread starter PlumpRump
- Start date
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
Like everyone else has said, if Obama loses it is because he didn't do enough to fix the economy, and that is kind of his fault. He promised a lot in 2008 and people both bought into it and then continued to elevate their expecations of him to the point where he could never realistically attain them. A lot of people thought America would be farther down the road to recovery than it is now, and while some might argue that America is recovering under Obama, many will say it just isn't as good as he promised it would be.
I think the Republican's goal by focusing on those issues is to remind those voters that vote Republican but aren't sold on Mitt that it's still the same party as it has always been. You might not like Mitt for a variety of reasons and you might not understand talk about the economy and how America is gaining jobs but the unemployment rate is still at eight per cent, but look at the rest of these traditional Republican issues. If you don't vote for us this election you could see drastic changes to American values which the Republican Party has protected for decades. There's so much uncertainty about both candidates by the undecided, so it's just the Republicans trying to win the same way they did in 2004: getting more of their base out voting for them than the Democrats can. I don't think any of those issues are not important, but compared to the economy I don't think gay rights is a huge deal to most people.
I think the Republican's goal by focusing on those issues is to remind those voters that vote Republican but aren't sold on Mitt that it's still the same party as it has always been. You might not like Mitt for a variety of reasons and you might not understand talk about the economy and how America is gaining jobs but the unemployment rate is still at eight per cent, but look at the rest of these traditional Republican issues. If you don't vote for us this election you could see drastic changes to American values which the Republican Party has protected for decades. There's so much uncertainty about both candidates by the undecided, so it's just the Republicans trying to win the same way they did in 2004: getting more of their base out voting for them than the Democrats can. I don't think any of those issues are not important, but compared to the economy I don't think gay rights is a huge deal to most people.
Presidents and governors don’t “create jobs.” They don’t have the ability to “grow the economy.” There’s no magic lever. Instead, an administration makes a thousand small decisions, each of which subtly adds to or detracts from a positive growth environment.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
America lost vietnam.
If Barrack Hussein Obama loses, it won't be because of anything he did wrong, either in the last 4 years or in his campaign. It will be solely because there are too many stupid right wing voters in this country who just don't see the light.
That's their normal claim when they lose an election.
That's their normal claim when they lose an election.
After last night, I've been thinking the only way Obama looses is if he just doesn't want to be President. I think George H. W. Bush threw the towel in on his re-election. Obama seemed to show that same kind of performance. Could have been an off night.
I don't think it is the end of the world if either wins. The worse case scenario IMO is if either has a super majority. I'd rather see gridlock than someone have a full run of the government.
I don't think it is the end of the world if either wins. The worse case scenario IMO is if either has a super majority. I'd rather see gridlock than someone have a full run of the government.
And another dose...
"Romney on a roll? Remember John Kerry beat George W. Bush"
"President George W. Bush became an object of scorn and near-pity eight years ago for some voters watching his first debate with Democratic challenger John F. Kerry.
Sitting amid a group of 100 swing voters who assembled to watch the debate at a college auditorium in Pennsylvania, I heard some laugh. Others shook their heads in dismay, as the president smirked or stammered and groped for words—particularly as he tried to defend the troublesome war in Iraq.
The crowd had been given portable dial-rating devices to instantly register their feelings about the two presidential contenders. On almost every question, the crowd dialed the more articulate and decisive Kerry as “very good” or close to it. They rated Bush around average, sometimes lower.
That president seemed not completely unlike the one who debated Republican Mitt Romney on Wednesday night. Though far more articulate than President Bush of 2004, President Obama of 2012 seemed a bit irked by the debate proceedings and not particularly enjoying defending himself against someone who he probably believes has no clue about the real trials and tribulations of the Oval Office.
That late September night spent with a focus group at Muhlenberg College, a small liberal arts school in Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley, delivered two important lessons:
1) Presidential challengers can be elevated substantially by debates. Kerry would jump up in the polls in the days after that and in subsequent debate showdowns with Bush, in which he also performed strongly.
2) Debates shape a race but seldom decide it. Kerry never overtook Bush. The U.S. senator from Massachusetts lost Ohio by about 90,000 votes and lost the presidency.
Several commentators mentioned the 2004 debates prominently Wednesday night after challenger Romney — another politician from Massachusetts — seemed to score a decisive victory over Obama in the first of three debates between the two men.
Democrats, ironically, turned to the example of that 2004 Democratic loss to find solace. Obama seemed somewhat passive and off his game. In one striking exchange — when former Gov. Romney was piling on about the alleged failures of Obama’s healthcare plan — the president had a chance to jump in and defend himself. Instead he smiled and quipped (to the man who covets his job): “Please go on.”
Both pundits and the public tend to like decisive stories. Back then: Kerry soared. Bush stumbled. And now: Romney dominated. Obama crumpled. That narrative will prevail for a few days and even pick up steam. The punditocracy, after all, enjoys nothing more than change. And the Obama-Romney race had remained static for far too long.
Republicans will now turn to a historical example of their own — the 1980 presidential contest between President Carter and challenger Ronald Reagan. Reagan had already begun to move ahead in private polls, his handlers would later reveal. But some analysts like to paint that election quite broadly: Reagan won the lone debate and therefore won the White House. Now they see it happening again, with Romney reprising the Gipper’s starring role.
On that night in 2004, President Bush seemed so overwhelmed and out of sorts that it was easy to extrapolate again. How could someone so unsteady —so unready to the fight for his job — win another four years in the White House?
The answer was that despite misgivings about his first term, and particularly public exhaustion with the long and costly war in Iraq, many Americans still personally liked Bush. They never entirely warmed to Kerry, and they wanted to give the president another chance.
Bush lost the 90-minute, prime-time skirmish and won the war for reelection."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-presidential-debate-bush-kerry-20121003,0,1484348.story
"Romney on a roll? Remember John Kerry beat George W. Bush"
"President George W. Bush became an object of scorn and near-pity eight years ago for some voters watching his first debate with Democratic challenger John F. Kerry.
Sitting amid a group of 100 swing voters who assembled to watch the debate at a college auditorium in Pennsylvania, I heard some laugh. Others shook their heads in dismay, as the president smirked or stammered and groped for words—particularly as he tried to defend the troublesome war in Iraq.
The crowd had been given portable dial-rating devices to instantly register their feelings about the two presidential contenders. On almost every question, the crowd dialed the more articulate and decisive Kerry as “very good” or close to it. They rated Bush around average, sometimes lower.
That president seemed not completely unlike the one who debated Republican Mitt Romney on Wednesday night. Though far more articulate than President Bush of 2004, President Obama of 2012 seemed a bit irked by the debate proceedings and not particularly enjoying defending himself against someone who he probably believes has no clue about the real trials and tribulations of the Oval Office.
That late September night spent with a focus group at Muhlenberg College, a small liberal arts school in Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley, delivered two important lessons:
1) Presidential challengers can be elevated substantially by debates. Kerry would jump up in the polls in the days after that and in subsequent debate showdowns with Bush, in which he also performed strongly.
2) Debates shape a race but seldom decide it. Kerry never overtook Bush. The U.S. senator from Massachusetts lost Ohio by about 90,000 votes and lost the presidency.
Several commentators mentioned the 2004 debates prominently Wednesday night after challenger Romney — another politician from Massachusetts — seemed to score a decisive victory over Obama in the first of three debates between the two men.
Democrats, ironically, turned to the example of that 2004 Democratic loss to find solace. Obama seemed somewhat passive and off his game. In one striking exchange — when former Gov. Romney was piling on about the alleged failures of Obama’s healthcare plan — the president had a chance to jump in and defend himself. Instead he smiled and quipped (to the man who covets his job): “Please go on.”
Both pundits and the public tend to like decisive stories. Back then: Kerry soared. Bush stumbled. And now: Romney dominated. Obama crumpled. That narrative will prevail for a few days and even pick up steam. The punditocracy, after all, enjoys nothing more than change. And the Obama-Romney race had remained static for far too long.
Republicans will now turn to a historical example of their own — the 1980 presidential contest between President Carter and challenger Ronald Reagan. Reagan had already begun to move ahead in private polls, his handlers would later reveal. But some analysts like to paint that election quite broadly: Reagan won the lone debate and therefore won the White House. Now they see it happening again, with Romney reprising the Gipper’s starring role.
On that night in 2004, President Bush seemed so overwhelmed and out of sorts that it was easy to extrapolate again. How could someone so unsteady —so unready to the fight for his job — win another four years in the White House?
The answer was that despite misgivings about his first term, and particularly public exhaustion with the long and costly war in Iraq, many Americans still personally liked Bush. They never entirely warmed to Kerry, and they wanted to give the president another chance.
Bush lost the 90-minute, prime-time skirmish and won the war for reelection."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-presidential-debate-bush-kerry-20121003,0,1484348.story
It was a debate. That is all it was. Not sure if it is changing minds. I think Mitt did a good job and handled himself well. He comes out of the debate as a the clear winner.
That is just a fact.
I don't think it changes other facts like Barack has a significant polling lead in the popular and electorial vote.
Good post by Friday.
That is just a fact.
I don't think it changes other facts like Barack has a significant polling lead in the popular and electorial vote.
Good post by Friday.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Xfire, are you turning into Xfisher with your links and statistics? Don't do this man, we like you here. Keep your head together for a sane discussion on the board.
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
That's a pretty fucked up thing to say, bob. If you really think I'm even remotely close to the same ballpark as that fucking clown I'm going to have cut you.
robot_r0ck
I plead the 5th...
If Obama, or whatever his name is, loses then we will have a different politician in the role of leader...
i hope he does loses
Let me be clear. This only applies when a Republican is in the WH
#StraightShooter
