Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-05-2013, 09:57 AM
 
Location: New Mexico
8,396 posts, read 9,426,996 times
Reputation: 4070

Advertisements

Obama is an impressive campaigner.

No doubt professional Republicans are studying his victories in order to copy some of the techniques he and his staff empolyed so effectively.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-05-2013, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,321,941 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by skoro View Post
Obama is an impressive campaigner.

No doubt professional Republicans are studying his victories in order to copy some of the techniques he and his staff empolyed so effectively.

I agree. Romney ran a pretty good campaign, the economy was in the dumper, and yet he still won by 3.8 pts. Not a landslide, but a decent margin in this 50-50 era.

Plus he had the range to go from "Hope and Change" in 2008 to all-negative-all-the-time in 2012. That proved to be maybe Team Obama's smartest move because the negative ads suppressed the indy vote, and the indy vote was leaning Romney. He won by almost 4 pts in spite of getting fewer votes than even McCain did in 2008.

I don't think anyone can dispute that he is an impressive campaigner. Sure he had the media on his side, but then so did Kerry and Gore. Obama is like the distance runner who may not always have the greatest raw speed, but wins on sheer tactical superiority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2013, 11:19 AM
 
630 posts, read 1,262,518 times
Reputation: 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
I'm not so sure how impressive of a stat this is.

Some of it is just due to the fact that Obama didn't have to deal with a strong 3rd party candidate either time. Reagan got 50.7% in 1980, 58% in 1984. In 1980 he might have done a little better without ex-Republican John Anderson, who ran as an indy and drew 6.6% of the vote. Clinton also might have done it without the presence of Perot, who got 18.9% in 1992, and 8% in 1996. W Bush is really the only 2 term guy on that list who didn't get 51% and didn't have to deal with a 3rd party opponent.

The one thing I would admit is that Pres. Obama proved himself to be an impressive campaigner to get to 51%, considering the poor economy, and job approval numbers that were under 50% during most of 2010-2012.
I think that's a good point. Clinton, Reagan and even Bush II all had to deal with third party candidates that siphoned away some of the two party vote (In 2000 we had Nader). But you have to look at the reason these spoiler candidates were so popular to begin with.

My hunch is that many voters were upset with the two main options. In 1980, Anderson got votes from liberal Republicans and some Dems who thought Carter and Reagan were not liberal enough. In 92 and 96, Perot really fired up many centrists who were upset with party politics, and in 2000, Nader got the vote from many liberals and environmentalists who weren't pleased with Gore. You'd think that in 2012, with so much unrest and angst, a third party candidate would have emerged.

Either that speaks to the strength of the 2 party system or Obama's impressive ability to hold his Democratic base together. I think that's why his two 51%+ wins are significant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2013, 11:33 AM
 
1,635 posts, read 1,590,889 times
Reputation: 707
He is also the first president to be reelected with less votes and % since Wilson? So what? Reagan and even Nixon won landslide reelections,49 states and 60% of the vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2013, 11:37 AM
 
630 posts, read 1,262,518 times
Reputation: 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
I think even most CD lefty posters would agree with me that there is a disconnect there. Reagan and Obama would be almost diametrically opposed on a whole range of issues. For example, Reagan, from the beginning, was almost obsessed with cutting tax rates, especially on the rich. Obama, just the reverse.

There's a disconnect, a screw loose, a donut short of a dozen. Oh, but I forgot, this is all off topic. I'm only allowed to talk about '51%.' It's not off topic for you though, am I right? sheesh.....

Yeah, except Reagan would have respected Obama as a president and as a human being, which is the different between Reagan and Republicans today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2013, 12:06 AM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,982 posts, read 13,732,686 times
Reputation: 5689
Vis a vis Eisenhower, Obama is a kindred soul. Moderate, level-headed technocrats are a good choice for president. I would say GHW Bush was similar, but lacked the common touch. Anyhow, give me a smart, low drama president any day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2013, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Florida
33,510 posts, read 18,076,105 times
Reputation: 15498
The dumbing down of Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2013, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,772 posts, read 104,433,328 times
Reputation: 49248
Quote:
Originally Posted by workaholics View Post
I think that's a good point. Clinton, Reagan and even Bush II all had to deal with third party candidates that siphoned away some of the two party vote (In 2000 we had Nader). But you have to look at the reason these spoiler candidates were so popular to begin with.

My hunch is that many voters were upset with the two main options. In 1980, Anderson got votes from liberal Republicans and some Dems who thought Carter and Reagan were not liberal enough. In 92 and 96, Perot really fired up many centrists who were upset with party politics, and in 2000, Nader got the vote from many liberals and environmentalists who weren't pleased with Gore. You'd think that in 2012, with so much unrest and angst, a third party candidate would have emerged.

Either that speaks to the strength of the 2 party system or Obama's impressive ability to hold his Democratic base together. I think that's why his two 51%+ wins are significant.
For certain, Anderson took votes away from Reagan, but I am not sure he got too many from the other side. I am just judging from what I remember and from a few friends I had that did support him over Reagan. Certainly Perot did a lot of damage. My own parents, die in the wool Republicans voted for him. Of course they regretted it later...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2013, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,772 posts, read 104,433,328 times
Reputation: 49248
Quote:
Originally Posted by workaholics View Post
Yeah, except Reagan would have respected Obama as a president and as a human being, which is the different between Reagan and Republicans today.
I don't think he would have respected him but he would have respected the office of President...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2013, 07:09 PM
 
630 posts, read 1,262,518 times
Reputation: 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
I don't think he would have respected him but he would have respected the office of President...
Even if you're right, it's still more respect than Obama gets from many congressional Republicans today. But I really do think Reagan would have respected, and maybe even liked Obama. Reagan was actually good friends with Tip O'Neil, the Democratic speaker of the house during his presidency. They would regularly meet for drinks and were on good terms, despite being on different sides.

Also, I don't think Reagan ever had the same kind of contempt for liberals that many Republicans do today. Many of today's conservatives live in the Fox News bubble and genuinely see progressives as dangerous and foreign. Reagan spent years in Hollywood, around many liberal people, so he had respect for liberals, even if he never agreed with them. So yes, Obama and Reagan might have been friends.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:43 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top