Why Obama will be re-elected

Haeder

South Dakota
Mar 30, 2005
5,983
4,107
608
#1
Obama is gonna be re-elected by 3-4 points.

Might not even have more than 50% of the popular vote if a third party candidate has a strong showing.

Why? For the same reason that the Democrats couldn't defeat Bush in 2004: shitty opponent. Couple that with the conservative, Tea Party, moderate and Donald Trump wings of the Republican Party destroying the credibility of every candidate and you've got a solid campaign strategy for a second place finish in the 2012 presidential election.

A billion dollars of fundraising by Obama isn't gonna hurt his cause either.

In 2016, the Republican candidate will destroy any Democrat with Whitehouse aspirations. Until then, we're stuck with what we've got.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#2
Well, now that you've spoken we can just call off the elections! Thanks for saving us so much time and money!
 

Stig

Making America So Great You Won't Believe It.
Jul 26, 2005
80,891
4,523
623
NH
#3
The Republicans have dropped the ball this election cycle in ways the New Jersey Generals have never even dreamed of.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#4
Obama is gonna be re-elected by 3-4 points.

Might not even have more than 50% of the popular vote if a third party candidate has a strong showing.

Why? For the same reason that the Democrats couldn't defeat Bush in 2004: shitty opponent. Couple that with the conservative, Tea Party, moderate and Donald Trump wings of the Republican Party destroying the credibility of every candidate and you've got a solid campaign strategy for a second place finish in the 2012 presidential election.

A billion dollars of fundraising by Obama isn't gonna hurt his cause either.

In 2016, the Republican candidate will destroy any Democrat with Whitehouse aspirations. Until then, we're stuck with what we've got.
I'll bet you $10,000 you're wrong. :icon_cool

 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,794
1,347
693
#9
Didn't someone start an almost identical thread a while back?

Oh, wait....
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,572
22,231
398
Northern California
#10
The Republican candidates are really fucking up... but I still think you're probably wrong for a few reasons.

1) Most of the country isn't paying attention to the Republican candidates this early. They couldn't tell you who Cain even is, let alone why he dropped out. They'll pay attention once we have two absolute front-runners.

2) Obama's base doesn't care this election. He got them going the last time and provided them with absolutely nothing. A lot of his voters were people who had never voted before also, and they're going to see that result and think it's just not worth it. Hell, in my area he should have a lock but he fucked that up by going after medical marijuana growers/clinics.

3) The conservatives are extremely motivated to get Obama out. They think (and probably rightfully so) that we have only seen a fraction of what he'll try to do if he doesn't have to worry about re-election.

4) The media backs Obama. They're going to paint the most optimistic picture possible, because that may both discourage people who would otherwise vote against him or perhaps encourage some to vote for him.
 

afternoonquil

Apology Ostrich
Apr 2, 2011
1,773
864
318
#11
I agree haeder.

I remember when dewey beat Truman.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,662
8,837
693
Loveland, CO
#12
The Republican candidates are really fucking up... but I still think you're probably wrong for a few reasons.

1) Most of the country isn't paying attention to the Republican candidates this early. They couldn't tell you who Cain even is, let alone why he dropped out. They'll pay attention once we have two absolute front-runners.
And when they wake up and realize their choices are Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney, they'll go back to sleep until 2016.

2) Obama's base doesn't care this election. He got them going the last time and provided them with absolutely nothing. A lot of his voters were people who had never voted before also, and they're going to see that result and think it's just not worth it. Hell, in my area he should have a lock but he fucked that up by going after medical marijuana growers/clinics.
This MIGHT happen if the GOP candidate picked a moderate VP. But pair Romney up with Sarah Palin or some other Fundie wacko and see them rush to the polls. And we all know the GOP would never shoot themselves in the foot like that.......

3) The conservatives are extremely motivated to get Obama out. They think (and probably rightfully so) that we have only seen a fraction of what he'll try to do if he doesn't have to worry about re-election.
Obama has a huge war chest and every viable GOP candidate has a closet full of ugly baggage. He doesn't even have to run ads for his own campaign, just remind GOP voters why Gingrich or Romney are not much of an improvement, if not a greater liability, and he could win by default.

4) The media backs Obama. They're going to paint the most optimistic picture possible, because that may both discourage people who would otherwise vote against him or perhaps encourage some to vote for him.
Assuming this talking point were true, isn't this his greatest asset? Could the media motivate people to vote for Obama over Newt/Mitt by running some scary "Your healthcare/welfare/well being is about to be taken away by the greedy Republicans!" story?

I agree with what Patton Oswalt said on the show last week. Republicans are running with some truly horrible candidates, and unfortunately some of you are so deluded to this fact, you won't admit it until they receive the Mondale-esque demolishing in November that we all know is coming.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#14
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Gallup-swing-Obama-Romney/2011/12/13/id/420794

USA Today/Gallup Poll: Romney, Gingrich Beat Obama in 12 Swing States
Tuesday, 13 Dec 2011 10:25 AM
By Dan Weil

Share: More . . . A A | Email Us | Print | Forward Article



inShare
President Barack Obama is in big trouble, with both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich leading him in a dozen key swing states, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll.


Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, chatting during a break in the GOP presidential debate Saturday, have plenty to smile about with the USA Today/Gallup poll showing them beating President Barack Obama in a dozen swing states. (AP Photo) Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney leads Obama among registered voters, 48 percent to 43 percent, in the 12 states the survey covers. And former House Speaker Gingrich leads the president, 48 percent to 45 percent. Nationwide, Obama leads Gingrich, 50 percent to 44 percent, and Romney, 47 percent to 46 percent, according to the poll.

The 12 states are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Obama won all of them in 2008. Each could go either way next year, and Obama needs to win half of their electoral votes to gain a second term, according to USA Today.

The portion of voters in those states who identify themselves as Democratic or Democratic-leaning has dropped 4 percentage points since 2008, while the portion of Republicans has risen 5 points.

In 2008, when Obama won those states by 8 percentage points, Democrats led Republicans in party identification by a whopping 11 points. Now, the Democrats’ edge is a statistically insignificant 2 points.

Meanwhile, a wide enthusiasm gap has emerged between Republicans and Democrats, with 61 percent of Republicans say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for president next year, compared with 47 percent of Democrats.

The most enthusiastic include some of the GOP’s base — conservatives and middle-aged men and women. The least enthusiastic include key Democratic constituencies responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory, such as minorities and younger voters.

"Enthusiasm is a tremendous benefit," Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus told USA Today. "We're going to be able to mobilize a grass-roots army. It helps us recruit volunteers and run absentee-ballot programs. We can fill rooms with people making phone calls and going door-to-door."

The decrease in the number of voters who identify themselves as Democrats, coupled with the increase of those who call themselves independents, will make Obama’s re-election quest more difficult. Excluding those who lean Democratic, the portion of voters who identify themselves as Democrats has slipped to 30 percent from 35 percent in 2008. Meanwhile, the portion of independents has climbed to 42 percent from 35 percent.

In three of the eight swing states that have party registration — Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire — independents now outnumber both Republicans and Democrats.

That’s bad news for Obama, as independents by definition carry no loyalty for a party's nominee. Moreover, the inflammatory rhetoric that may be needed to enliven the core element of the Democratic base — liberals, African Americans, Hispanics etc. — may turn off independent voters.

To be sure, Republicans face the same difficulty. A candidate who pushes hard to the right during the GOP primaries to attract the party’s conservative base may have a difficult time winning over independents in the general election.

But trends in ideological demographics are working for Republicans and against Democrats. In the swing states poll, 44 percent of respondents called themselves conservatives, more than doubling the 21 percent who called themselves liberal.

Assuming strong support among conservatives, the Republican nominee will need only a small portion of the 35 percent of voters who call themselves moderates to win the election. Obama, on the other hand, needs to carry not only his liberal base but a majority of moderates as well.


Read more on Newsmax.com: USA Today/Gallup Poll: Romney, Gingrich Beat Obama in 12 Swing States
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,572
22,231
398
Northern California
#15
And when they wake up and realize their choices are Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney, they'll go back to sleep until 2016.
You may be right, but there are many conservatives who are going to vote the "anything but" ticket in 2012.

This MIGHT happen if the GOP candidate picked a moderate VP. But pair Romney up with Sarah Palin or some other Fundie wacko and see them rush to the polls. And we all know the GOP would never shoot themselves in the foot like that.......
I think they're smart enough to not pull a nomination like that again. Then again, who knows.

Obama has a huge war chest and every viable GOP candidate has a closet full of ugly baggage. He doesn't even have to run ads for his own campaign, just remind GOP voters why Gingrich or Romney are not much of an improvement, if not a greater liability, and he could win by default.
Again you're talking about independents, who I doubt Obama can win over regardless of his competition. He simply has done extremely little for them in this last term... and independents are the type to respond to things like like the economy (stuff that directly affects them) more than to empty rhetoric.

Assuming this talking point were true, isn't this his greatest asset? Could the media motivate people to vote for Obama over Newt/Mitt by running some scary "Your healthcare/welfare/well being is about to be taken away by the greedy Republicans!" story?

I agree with what Patton Oswalt said on the show last week. Republicans are running with some truly horrible candidates, and unfortunately some of you are so deluded to this fact, you won't admit it until they receive the Mondale-esque demolishing in November that we all know is coming.
I think the media backing him worked last time, because people didn't have any experience with Obama to base their decision on. Right now I think it's much worse for him than the media is portraying.

Look at how they're reacting to potential voter fraud right now... not very strongly. No one is talking about it, and those that are keep saying "oh well, what does it change". Bush challenged an election in court and people accused him of stealing it... forging signatures is much worse.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,923
121
753
#16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ron-paul-spoiler/2011/12/08/gIQAVceCjO_story.html

George F. Will

Ron Paul, spoiler?

By George F. Will, Published: December 9

On Oct. 12, 1948, the campaign train of Tom Dewey, the Republican nominee against President Harry Truman, pulled into Beaucoup, Ill., where, from the rear platform, he would speak to about 1,000 people. Before he began, the engineer mistakenly caused the train to lurch a few feet backward, frightening some but injuring none.

Dewey, however, hurt himself by angrily saying into the microphone, “That’s the first lunatic I’ve had for an engineer. He probably ought to be shot at sunrise.” Dewey’s “cold arrogance” (Truman biographer David McCullough’s description) reinforced the public’s impression of an unsympathetic and prickly politician.

Truman ran against a Republican-controlled Congress but won because Dewey was off-putting. And Truman won despite two splinter candidacies from his party — those of former vice president Henry Wallace on the left and South Carolina Gov. Strom Thurmond on the right. Each won 2.4 percent of the popular vote.

Because Thurmond’s support was regionally concentrated, he won 39 southern electoral votes. If Truman had lost two of three states — Ohio, Illinois and California (he won them by just 7,000 votes, 34,000 and 18,000, respectively) — no candidate would have won an electoral vote majority, and the House of Representatives would have picked the president. If Dewey had won all three, he would have been president.

So, small vote totals for independent candidacies can have huge potential consequences. Which brings us to Ron Paul.

When recently asked if he might mount an independent candidacy, he said: “I’m not thinking about it because, look, I’m not doing badly right now. . . . So we concentrate only on one thing: Keep moving up in the polls, and see how things come out in a month or two.”

He is in the top tier in Iowa and would alienate Republican voters if he indicated an interest in bolting the party next autumn. Nationally, his ceiling is low, but his floor is solid: His supporters are inclined to accept no substitutes because no other candidate espouses anything like his high-octane blend of libertarianism and isolationism.

Furthermore, he is now nationally known (he campaigned for the 2008 Republican nomination and was the Libertarian Party’s 1988 presidential candidate) and has a large base of small donors. His intense supporters probably could get his name on most states’ ballots. He is not seeking reelection to his House seat, so what has he got to lose?

Well, his candidacy might guarantee Barack Obama’s reelection, and this might hurt the career of his son Rand, the freshman senator from Kentucky. Other than that, however, Ron Paul may think what his ideology implies — that Obama is only marginally more mistaken than Paul’s Republican rivals, who do not wake up each day angry about the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.

So, assume three things. That Obama is weaker in 2012 than he was when winning just 53 percent of the vote in 2008. That Paul could win between 5 percent and 7 percent of the vote nationally (much less than the 18 percent that a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed were prepared to vote for Paul as an independent). And that at least 80 percent of Paul’s votes would come at the expense of the Republican nominee.




Based on states’ results in 2000, 2004 and 2008, and on states’ previous votes for third-party candidates, and on current polling about the strength of potential Republican nominees in particular states, it is plausible to conclude that a Paul candidacy would have these consequences:

●It would enable Obama to carry two states he lost in 2008: Missouri (11 electoral votes), which he lost by 0.13 points, and Arizona (11), which he lost by 8.52 points to native son John McCain.

●It would enable Obama to again win four states he captured in 2008 and that the Republican nominee probably must win in 2012: Florida (29), Indiana (11), North Carolina (15) and Virginia (13).

●It would secure Obama’s hold on the following states he won in 2008 but that Republicans hope to take back next year: New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), Nevada (6), Michigan (16), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20) and New Hampshire (4).

At a minimum, a Paul candidacy would force the Republican nominee to spend time and money in places he otherwise might be able to economize both. And a Paul candidacy would make 2012 much easier for Obama than 2008 was. Now, reread Paul’s words quoted above, particularly these: “right now” and “in a month or two.”
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#18
I have no doubt that come Jan 20, 2013 there will be a new POTUS, now whether its going to be Gingrich, Romney, Hillary, or even Al Gore, I don't know, but I do know that just the fact that there will be a new POTUS will make the population feel better, they'll have more confidence in the government, etc... More confidence means more consuming, more consuming means more jobs, more jobs means more money, etc...

The problem is that we're just over a year away from that point and even then its probably going to take 9-12 months after the inauguration before it really starts making a significant impact on the economy that people will feel secure enough to start making major purchases like cars, homes, etc... not to mention major increases in simple discretionary spending.

So, we've (as a country) still got a good 2 years of hurting on us - thanks Barry
 

Plunkies

Registered User
Jun 28, 2006
6,050
2,804
543
#19
Incumbent president always wins. Voting is for suckers.
 

fletcher

Darkness always says hello.
Donator
Feb 20, 2006
59,523
19,737
513
jersey
#20
Incumbent president always wins. Voting is for suckers.
Really, genius?

Incumbent President who ran but lost
President John Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson in 1800
President John Quincy Adams lost to Andrew Jackson in 1828
President Martin Van Buren lost to William Henry Harrison in 1840
President Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison in 1888
President Benjamin Harrison lost to Grover Cleveland in 1992.
President William Taft was defeated by Woodrow Wilson in 1916
President Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976
President Jimmy Carter was defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1980
President George H.W Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton in 1992

Incumbent Presidents who did not win a nomination for a second term
John Tyler in 1844
Millard Fillmore in 1852
Franklin Pierce in 1856
James Buchanan in 1860
Andrew Johnson in 1868
Chester Alan Arthur in 1884
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,131
3,032
258
Sunnydale
#21

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,572
22,231
398
Northern California
#22
Does anyone think Hillary could take the nomination from Obama? I know it's an extremely difficult thing to do, but it seems like if it could ever happen now is the time.

If Hillary won the ticket, the Democrats would have a better chance of beating the Republicans in 2012.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#23
Does anyone think Hillary could take the nomination from Obama? I know it's an extremely difficult thing to do, but it seems like if it could ever happen now is the time.

If Hillary won the ticket, the Democrats would have a better chance of beating the Republicans in 2012.


I really can't see how the Democrat party can run with Barry next year, I really think the party bosses are going to have to tell him that Michelle has to get cancer or something and he'll have to pull a Johnson so he can "spend more time with his family" the closer it gets to the convention the tougher it will be for Hillary or Al Gore to win the election, not to mention having a chance at keeping the Republicans from getting 60+ votes in the US Senate

But the Democrat Party has to do something otherwise Barry is going to cost them a shit load more seats in the US Congress and the state legislatures. The Republicans already control most of the state legislatures and the new district lines they have drawn are favorable to Republicans - Barry running for reelection is going to make it even more difficult for Dems in those swing districts at the national & state level

I like 'gridlock' and to have gridlock we need to have two political parties that are pretty equal in power - If the Dems don't ditch Barry the Republicans are going to have absolute power for some time, they've already got control for the US House of Reps until the district lines are redrawn after the next Census in 2020.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#24
I't primary season. Even Obama got smashed up during the primaries in 2008. It's what happens. To panic at this point shows complete ignorance of the process. The "independent" vote (meaning idiots who don't pay attention to politics) that decides every election doesn't start caring until August or September of the election year. Any one of the GOP candidates can beat Obama, and vice versa. It all depends on how the economy is doing in the fall of 2012 and how much the media can fool the uninformed into voting for their boy. Both of those things remain to be seen.

Personally I still think Romney pulls it out somehow and wins, but as boring as they are, any one of the GOP candidates would do just fine at this point.
 

Badfinger

I shot the sheriff
Apr 26, 2006
3,469
710
593
Philly Burbs
#25
Anybody but Obama.
Wait. Anybody but Obama or Hillary.
Hold on. Anybody but Obama, Hillary or Pelosi.

OK, I can live with that.