Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Two difficult weeks for President Obama have shaken the overwhelming confidence of his campaign in Chicago and of Democratic leaders in Washington, and prompted a depressing realization: This is, at best, 2004, not 1996. At worst it's 1992.
Democrats had taken comfort for months in the Republican Party’s seeming inability to get behind Mitt Romney, Obama’s healthy lead in the polls, and equally healthy job growth. And for a few, fleeting, moments, Democrats thought the election might just be easy. But Republican division appears to have been merely an artifact of primary politics, and Mitt Romney has proved a consistent, if unglamorous campaigner.
And this week, amid poor economic indicators and continuing voter frustration, Democrats returned to the harsh reality that this election is going to be anything but a walk in the park.
As opposed to the arrogant Repubs who believe that anyone including a dog can beat Obama, thus giving us Etch-a-Sketch Willard.
Do you deny this will be an election year where it will be either for, or against Obama, and the opponent doesnt really matter much? Obama ran against McCain with the same idea, painting him as Bush 3..
The seven Democrats with brains understand that Barry is a tough sell with the record of failure he's put together over his first term.
May consumer confidence just released is the highest since October of 2007 - that's before the Republican policies resulted in a world-wide recession. Obama is bringing down gas prices, too (you blamed him for the increase so you have to credit him for the drop). If this keeps up, and it will, Obama is going to win by a landslide (again).
May consumer confidence just released is the highest since October of 2007 - that's before the Republican policies resulted in a world-wide recession. Obama is bringing down gas prices, too (you blamed him for the increase so you have to credit him for the drop). If this keeps up, and it will, Obama is going to win by a landslide (again).
Thanks for so quickly proving my point in the previous post.
Thanks for so quickly proving my point in the previous post.
If your point is that you are ignorant of the reality of Obama's reversal of the disastrous effects of Republican economic policy under the Bush administration, then you are welcome. I was happy to do it and I will do it again for you in the future when you make similar mistakes. Anytime I can help bring a rightie to the light of the facts, I am there!
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.
I think Obama is going to win re-election. Not because his policies are any good, but because the GOP is acting like the John Kerry Democrat Party of 2004. The Democrats didn't win with a flat, boring candidate that inspired no one in 2004, nor the Republicans won with another John Kerry type in 2008. Romney is John Kerry 3.0
Quote:
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.
Romney DOES have an enthusiasm gap. Look at most of the posts from Republicans on here. Most have the "at least he's not Obama" attitude. That kind of attitude does not win you elections. Keep in mind, this is the GOP base talking, the politically casual crowd is not going to turn out for Romney if the base is not embracing him
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
