Obama Campaign Coming to Grips with Losing the 2012 Election

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by MiamiRob

JRR? I can understand you not being happy with Obama but seriously do you think a multi millionaire who was born into wealth understands the middle class or the working poor in our society?
One of the attributes I like about President Obama is that he came from nothing and against all odds including his race realized the America dream.
Meanwhile we have Mitt & Trump who were born with silver spoons in their mouthes.
All they talk about is "tax cuts" for the wealthy and that will stimulate the "Economy"! Well we have had tax cuts for almost a decade now and had one of the worst recessions ever under Dubya.
The rich aren't hurting and they really don't invest back into the economy but pocket it.
I don't begrudge the rich since I'm pretty sure most of us would like to be wealthy but America is not a "corporation"!

What gives you the impression that those who started poor but ends up rich, would be better to choose to lead? Wouldnt one be able to argue that they became rich by screwing everyone else and trampling on them?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by dude1984

+1....

I pretty much agree with the bold part. The economy is driven by consumer spending, especially since we have a relatively weak manufacturing base. Tax cuts for the wealthy won't benefit society as a whole.

Neither would raising them because the higher the rate, the more the wealth move their strategies from creating profit, to creating wealth. And wealth creation doesnt get taxed because its never spent.

Thats why the wealthiest individuals who ever lived in america, because wealthy with high tax rates.. Its no coincidence.

[Guamanians]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

It is really hard to tell with these things. Looking at history you have George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter.

All the Democrats thought that Bush didn't stand a chance. They selected a career politician/east coast elitist (Bush went to Andover and Yale, but nevermind) and they lost.

All the Republicans thought Clinton was a dead man walking and they select a rather dry establishment candidate and they lost.

People like to point to Jimmy Carter as being analogous to Obama, but that diminishes his opponent, namely Reagan. Who knows what the results would have been if Bush (George HW) had been the nominee instead of Reagan.

This will be an interesting election. I think the big hurdle is for Obama to turn out the youth vote again. I am not sure if he will be able to do it again due to the fact that his campaign isn't as novel as it was the first time. That being said Romney was the least dynamic of the Republican nominees so he might have an enthusiasm gap.

The difference this time though is that ordinary Americans are feeling the pain. People were all up in arms over the iraq war, but how many citizens are in the military? (it is approx 1%) So, while it was popular to protest against the war, it only directly effected a small segment of Americans. (and, ironically most military members traditionally vote republican)
Now you have an economy that is struggling big-time. Real estate, unemployment, etc. This affects at many Americans.
Bottom line... you mess with people's financial well-being then you are in trouble.

[Casper in Dallas]

Originally Posted by pghquest

What gives you the impression that those who started poor but ends up rich, would be better to choose to lead? Wouldnt one be able to argue that they became rich by screwing everyone else and trampling on them?

Like Mittens did