Thread: Who thinks ...

It won't take a miracle, CT. It'll take smart campaigning.

I think it's entirely possible that he has Michelle filling out change-of-address cards towards the end of next year...

Obama will be a two term president, because unlike the last three incumbents to lose, he will not face a bruising primary challenge from within his party. And when it comes to the general election, the field has been narrowed down to clowns and retreads, nothing in the way of a serious challenge.
And despite the 2010 result, or maybe because of it, the electorate has blown off it's steam, the pendulum will swing back, the unions will be energized, the demographics will be more favorable and the GOP will nominate a lackluster idiot.
The GOP insiders are coming to the conclusion that they don't have a chance in 2012, that's why no one is jumping into the race, they are weighing being the sacrificial lamb for 2012, or do they hold out for a real chance in 2016.
Who ever the 2012 candidate is, if they lose to Obama, they will be persona non grata in GOP circles in 2016.
And being the guy who is proposing cutting social security isn't exactly the way to win Florida in 2012.

If Obama wins a second term it is because of a failure of the republicans, and not because of any great successes under Obama's watch. I think that's what the OP is saying, and I essentially agree with it. Other than HCR, Obama hasn't really done anything controversial, he has pretty much stuck in line with what bush was doing (minus bush's controversial invasion). Since bush was not bad enough for republicans to throw out of office, I don't think republicans will force Obama out for someone who isn't outstanding from the republican side. I think dems will be tepid towards Obama, but republicans won't really get behind a single individual opposing Obama, their response will be even more tepid.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

...but republicans won't really get behind a single individual opposing Obama, they're response will be even more tepid.

I disagree with that. Whoever the GOP nominates will enjoy support across the board, because that'll be the only way to oust the O'siah. Anything less will be viewed by the electorate as indecisiveness and divisiveness, and the GOP can't afford that. They know that, and they won't let it happen...

Originally Posted by Steve

I disagree with that. Whoever the GOP nominates will enjoy support across the board, because that'll be the only way to oust the O'siah. Anything less will be viewed by the electorate as indecisiveness and divisiveness, and the GOP can't afford that. They know that, and they won't let it happen...

From my viewpoint, the republican tent has gotten a lot smaller and more segmented, those that are pro-Palin and pro-Bachmann aren't going to vote for a Romney. Those who would vote for Gingrich or Crist or whoever, aren't going to be gung-ho to vote for a Palin or even a Romney. I suspect whoever wins the nomination will be about as popular as McCain was amongst republicans ... not much at all. Romney would probably do the best among the general electorate, but the republican base will not really like him. Anyone the republican base finds more popular is going to turn off the independents and mobilize the dems, thus leading to an Obama victory even if Obama himself isn't doing that great.

I don't understand the "narcissistic" comments. It appears to me that the President will accept a loss and move on just fine if that ends up being the case.

I think if he were narcissistic he would have made an appearance in Wisconsin. If it were actually true I think he'd take the position on Libya, Egypt, Bahrain and elsewhere that it's all about him being out there in the public eye talking tough and making everything about us instead of them. He's been doing the back-channel thing on the Middle East and it has caused his detractors to accuse him of doing nothing. It's they who wish to beat their chests in public, not the President.

I still think the economy will determine his fate, combined with some kind of international crisis, but I'm less inclined to believe the latter since he has demonstrated a rigid and hawkish stance on things like the increased drone attacks on the Afghan/Pakistan border region.

In the general election years, the American public tends to vote for the candidate who can best project confidence and optimism in the future. The President knows how to do that very well. Jimmy Carter was accurate in his diagnosis of the problems the country faced, but his tenor was very poor, whereas Barack Obama knows how to communicate what's wrong, explains what direction we need to go in, and then wraps it all up in the flag with the belief that of course we can achieve these things, since Americans know how to think big and then act on it.

Just a couple short months ago the momentum was clearly with the Republicans, but they were not able to capitalize on it and have now squandered it at the two month-mark of their tenure in the House.

I've been repeating for some time now that this President's first term resembles closely the first term of Ronald Reagan; they both were in tight campaigns until just a few weeks out and events helped the both of them. They both suffered serious losses in the midterms. They each had to deal with a shooting that rallied the nation around them.

Whether Republicans are willing to admit it or not, Barack Obama has the same effect that Ronald Reagan did, in that they knew how to ease the minds of their people and see them through difficult times, only Reagan had the right and the centre, while this President has the left and the center. Each of them lost the center in the midterms, but that's because the center tends to be filled with fickle voters who don't pay attention unless something big is happening, and in general election years don't pay attention until after Labor Day.

In 2000, since the polls were so tight at time all the way through the campaign, I felt that either Ohio, Tennessee, or Florida would decide things. We know what happened that year.

In 2004, I predicted it would be Ohio that would decide it, and it was.

On Labor Day weekend in 2008, looking out at the landscape I thought maybe it might come down to Virginia or Colorado, maybe Ohio, but then it ended up being a blowout as the bottom of the McCain campaign fell out in the last few weeks there.

Next year I believe the Rustbelt is the key to victory, just as the midterms proved for the Republicans, who swept back into Governorships in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere.

Already we are seeing a concerted effort by the right to make it much more difficult in those states for unions to collect dues, which typically goes to the Democratic party. Their idea is that if they deliver a death blow to the last major fundraising arm of liberals, the Republicans can outspend the Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania, turn those blue states into red ones, flip Indiana back to the red, and then we've got ourselves a ball game once again since those states represent about 90 electoral votes, which puts the Republicans back up to just shy of 270.

Their only problem is that they thought they could dismantle the fabric of those states and that no one would notice, but the Rustbelt is alive again and independent voters have weighed in and 70% of the public is for the protesters in this massive nationwide revolt. That must be deeply concerning for potential candidates who are serious about running since independent voters decide US elections, and now it looks as though Democrats are going to put collective bargaining and other such things on the ballot next year.

In the last couple of election cycles, almost 35% of union employees voted Republican. These are moderate, independent-type voters, and right now they've got every reason to switch to the President's party, which would spell not only a loss for Republicans, but a loss as big as their win last November.

Republicans are confident they can take back a couple of those states out west like New Mexico and Colorado, and they feel like they can take back Florida. Any combination of one of those three along with a Rustbelt sweep will win the White House for them. It's not impossible, but they've got their work cut out for them now with the very real difficulties they're seeing in the revolts against them in that area of the country in particular, since independent voters who went with Obama switched back to the Republicans only to be frustrated with the fact that they did not elect them to take people's rights away and cut jobs, but to work on bringing jobs back, which Republicans had said was priority number one.

If it appears that the Tea Party peaked too soon and we couple that with a sharp increase in independent voters running towards the more populist Democratic message, and if the unemployment figure comes down another half percentage point or so, Barack Obama won't win 53-46; he'll win by 10-12 points.

If the economy gets worse, the only thing that will save the President is the Tea Party if a know-nothing angry candidate wins for Republicans. If a know-nothing wins the nomination, Obama will win everywhere he won 3 years ago, and he'll add Missouri and a couple others along the way, too.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

From my viewpoint, the republican tent has gotten a lot smaller and more segmented, those that are pro-Palin and pro-Bachmann aren't going to vote for a Romney. Those who would vote for Gingrich or Crist or whoever, aren't going to be gung-ho to vote for a Palin or even a Romney. I suspect whoever wins the nomination will be about as popular as McCain was amongst republicans ... not much at all. Romney would probably do the best among the general electorate, but the republican base will not really like him. Anyone the republican base finds more popular is going to turn off the independents and mobilize the dems, thus leading to an Obama victory even if Obama himself isn't doing that great.

Again, I disagree.

Even if the nominee isn't "popular" across the board, he'll get the votes because Republican voters will want nothing more than to get Obama out of the White House. If someone is Pro-Bachmann (again, Palin doesn't stand a chance), I think they will vote for a Mitt Romney, only because the alternative is so much less palatable to them.

As a registered Independent, I think you're wrong about how Independents would react...

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

............. Mr. Obama will be a two term King ? errrr ... "president ?"

Explain why.

I think he has a damn good chance of being a two term dictator-King.

I think he does because, as much as I despise him and his demonrat "party," the republicans are so confused and stupid they probably won't be able to get a good enough message together or a good enough candidate to mount a challenge to our current narcissist in chief. They don't seem to have the faintest idea what to do or what to say. They don't seem to be able to offer any decent candidates.

I hope I'm wrong of course but ....

I guess we'll see if they can do any miracles. I think it might take some miracles.

What do you think ?

Long before we even knew who the two main candidates were in 2008, I said that I thought whoever won, regardless of party affiliation, would be a one-termer. My rationale is that the country was in such a dire state on so many levels that it would require drastic measures (ie electorally unpopular) to resolve them.

Even though I support the Democratic Party I still think that will be the case (ie that Obama will be a one-termer) ... but that all depends on who his opponent will be. If 2010 is anything to go by then it seems the GOP are more likely to shoot themselves in the foot and nominate a Goldwater-type candidate who'll lose in a landslide, rather than actually win.

The problem that the GOP is as I see it, is that the large majority of GOP voters are relatively silent, and it is the minority of extreme conservative ideaologues that are being the most vocal and hijacking the party, and its candidates. Think Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, etc. If a like-minded candidate is successful in early 2012 primary voting then the remaining candidates will be forced dramatically to the right to counter this, and that will turn the electorate against them. The problem is that the candidates that are most viable in the general election don't stand a chance in the primary, and vice-versa.

Based on the current expected group of candidates, no one person leaps to the front as someone who can beat Obama, which means that it will need to be a campaign about issues rather than personality. The Dems will have a much easier time of it if the GOP nominate Gingrich, Palin, Bachman, Santorum, etc. They'll have a much tougher time if the GOP nominate Pawlenty, Jindal, Daniels, etc.

Having said all of that, I also believe that Obama is very susceptible to a serious primary challenge. Who will that be? Let's just say that I wouldn't be at all surprised if Indiana played a major role in 2012, and not just with Mitch Daniels....

Originally Posted by noahath

Long before we even knew who the two main candidates were in 2008, I said that I thought whoever won, regardless of party affiliation, would be a one-termer. My rationale is that the country was in such a dire state on so many levels that it would require drastic measures (ie electorally unpopular) to resolve them.

Even though I support the Democratic Party I still think that will be the case (ie that Obama will be a one-termer) ... but that all depends on who his opponent will be. If 2010 is anything to go by then it seems the GOP are more likely to shoot themselves in the foot and nominate a Goldwater-type candidate who'll lose in a landslide, rather than actually win.

The problem that the GOP is as I see it, is that the large majority of GOP voters are relatively silent, and it is the minority of extreme conservative ideaologues that are being the most vocal and hijacking the party, and its candidates. Think Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, etc. If a like-minded candidate is successful in early 2012 primary voting then the remaining candidates will be forced dramatically to the right to counter this, and that will turn the electorate against them. The problem is that the candidates that are most viable in the general election don't stand a chance in the primary, and vice-versa.

Based on the current expected group of candidates, no one person leaps to the front as someone who can beat Obama, which means that it will need to be a campaign about issues rather than personality. The Dems will have a much easier time of it if the GOP nominate Gingrich, Palin, Bachman, Santorum, etc. They'll have a much tougher time if the GOP nominate Pawlenty, Jindal, Daniels, etc.

Having said all of that, I also believe that Obama is very susceptible to a serious primary challenge. Who will that be? Let's just say that I wouldn't be at all surprised if Indiana played a major role in 2012, and not just with Mitch Daniels....

I just don't see who within the Democratic party could challenge him and give him at least the kind of run that Ted Kennedy gave Jimmy Carter.

There are no more liberal lions out there to challenge Obama, and on the Republican side, they're all waiting to see who is going to pitch their name into the hat first.

I think Mitt Romney really wants to run, but where does his money come from other than himself? He doesn't have establishment favorability or teabagger favorability at this point.

Newt Gingrich is the Scampaigner-In-Chief of the US, always flirting with a run in order to benefit his own personal interest, Newt Gingrich.

Mitch Daniels is boring compared to the President, and unfortunately, image and charm count. Daniels looks like a VP.

I'm predicting it's between Huckabee and Romney at this point, but whoever it is on the right, I believe they'll be the sacrificial lamb this time out while the big threats skip a turn, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush being the most notable of that bunch.

I think the reason Obama is moving towards the centre is not because of a perceived GOP threat, but because of the threat of Evan Bayh ... a man who retired from the senate retaining his popularity, and with a campaign account of more than $12 million. It'll be interesting to watch his moves over the next few months to see what he does, although just yesterday he was announced as a new correspondant for Fox news ... one of the few Dems who'll now have access to a conservative audience.

Originally Posted by Steve

Again, I disagree.

Even if the nominee isn't "popular" across the board, he'll get the votes because Republican voters will want nothing more than to get Obama out of the White House. If someone is Pro-Bachmann (again, Palin doesn't stand a chance), I think they will vote for a Mitt Romney, only because the alternative is so much less palatable to them.

That sounds like a bad idea for an election. Anyone is better than "insert candidate name here" is a horrible way to decide who is in charge. However, it is insane to think that whoever is in charge is actually going to change things. They haven't in decades.

I think.... it doesn't matter.

Vote for whoever you like. Big Banking owns both parties.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

I think.... it doesn't matter.

Vote for whoever you like. Big Banking owns both parties.

Agreed.