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.
Obama is not a complete zero. The economy just sucks. The best thing we have going for us is the lousy competition. It's not the best position to be in, but it worked for Bush, and it looks like it is going to work for us too.
I doubt it. As has been pointed out in the past, no president since FDR has won a second term with the unemployment rate topping 7.2%..it's expected to still be in the neighborhood of 9% come election day 2012..
The economy doesn't come around, and there's no reason to assume it will, I think he's toast...particularly if Romney is the GOP nominee..
I agree that the Republicans have to look at a candidate that can make the whole nation feel good about him/her. The fact that the Tea party went on national TV and refused to compromise on the budget shows that they are merely interested in their own wants and not the wants and needs of the nation as a whole. In the same respect the left progressives did the identical.
Originally I enjoyed the Tea party but as time went on it became overwhelmed with more of a social conscience then fiscal responsibility. I don't mind religion but when it is used to try and control people there is a problem and that idea within the Tea Party is to wide spread
However I think that President Obama is looking to retain his office on the you got no one else platform. That is equally unacceptable. He has continued to fail the country as President. I saw a nice long list of his accomplishments however most that I read are policy and not economical or related to foreign policy. We heard nothing from him during the Egyptian coup and in fact he handed the affair over to Hillary Clinton who in the press came across more like a President then the President ever has. There is a problem with letting the Secretary of State be Presidential. Additionally when he dose step to the microphone as the President and offer a fiscal answer it fails to add up to economist around the globe and past ideas have proven to be failures. His square peg dose not fit in the round hole.
What we need to do is look for a president that can show leadership, has a knowledge of finance, can walk between party lines, doesn't mind pissing Democrat or Republican extremists off and can stand up to or with foreign nations as circumstance requires. We need to get away from the right and left extreme ideals. Realizing that one philosophy dose not help all the different parts of the nation, adequately answer all the questions or heal all the wounds could take this country further faster. We need to stop using the lower class as pawns that end up receiving nothing except more promises, pipe dreams and shoving into a hole. For god sakes the welfare department wants to keep and add people onto welfare simply to keep up the numbers and justify their budgets.
The Democrats of course will renominate President Obama. It would be an admission of failure. Pride before country. I think the two parties need to be told that they are not leading this country. We are and we will chose our candidates. Not a Committee.
Let's take the day off from picking over the ruins of our own miserable riots and try to cheer ourselves up over Barack Obama's good fortune. What good fortune? I hear you ask. Surely he has just been humiliated over the US budget debacle and the decision of a cowboy credit rating agency to tweak America's triple-A credit status. His standing in the polls is sagging, now below 40%.
Well, yes, that's all true. And he has not been a particularly brave or effective president either. Democrat or Republican, I'd be pretty disappointed, too. But election campaigns are about choice of both candidate and their policies. So Obama's luck lies in the near-unbelievable fact that the Republicans look determined either to pick a loser or refuse to vote for someone who could win.
the sweeping Republican gains in Congress in the midterm elections of 2010 were on the usual 40% turnout; Obama was elected in 2008 on a 61% turnout. Yet it is the Republicans who think they have a mandate from the American people. Enthusiasm rather than money – Obama had plenty of that too – decides these things, a willingness to vote.
On the evidence, Obama is well placed to win again once voters have had a chance to savour what the uncompromising 2010 Congress has done for them: not much. Give 'em Hell, Harry! Truman pulled it off in similar circumstances in 1948 by attacking the record of a pro-business, low-tax Congress; this Congress, says Warren Buffett, no less, is the friend of billionaires.
Winning shouldn't be too difficult – even for Obama, even in a double-dip recession, which we hope won't blight the US – or Tottenham.
Now this is hotair 1,2,3,&4. Any one of the candidates with the possible exception of Bachman can and will beat this little pseudointellectual hot air balloon.
I doubt it. As has been pointed out in the past, no president since FDR has won a second term with the unemployment rate topping 7.2%..it's expected to still be in the neighborhood of 9% come election day 2012..
The economy doesn't come around, and there's no reason to assume it will, I think he's toast...particularly if Romney is the GOP nominee..
If the economy tanked when Obama was in office, then it would be more of a drag on him. Most voters still realize Obama didn't cause this though. I agree Romney would be stiffer competition than anyone else the Republics have, but I think Obama can beat him.
Obama, more than anyone else has demonstrated he is totally unqualified . That any of you cannot see this speaks volumes about your understanding of the mess he has wrought. This administration is of, by, and for academics. Even the weak minded understand this now. Welll...most of the weak minded. He is also of, by and for a Chicago thuggery host of neo mafia union pricks. If your mayor doesn't tell you that you are hopeless.
If the economy tanked when Obama was in office, then it would be more of a drag on him. Most voters still realize Obama didn't cause this though. I agree Romney would be stiffer competition than anyone else the Republics have, but I think Obama can beat him.
I don't know how much of an argument that is. According to a Gallup poll released a couple days ago, a majority (53%) now blame Obama for the economy...and while 69% still blame Bush too, he isn't running..
And then there's this:
Quote:
Other Gallup polling confirms that the economy is going to be a treacherous issue for Obama to navigate in the coming year. At 26%, his most recent approval rating on the economy, from August, is his lowest to date, and Americans' economic confidence remains weakened compared with earlier this year, after the bruising debt ceiling debate over the summer. The public may not see Obama as culpable for the economy to the same degree as Bush, but that won't be sufficient protection from voters' wrath if the majority -- including 60% of independents -- nevertheless considers him highly responsible.
Obama, a man who has been president for almost three years, he had zero accomplishments before taking office, has zero accomplishments to this day, and has racked up an impressive array of historical milestones and failures. follow the bread crumbs of failures and they lead you to this president, and he will prob be on the golf course.
I think the American people are ready for anyone else, please. I think the American people are particularly ready for either Romney or Perry, both men who do have accomplishments in their past, to point to.
Hell will freeze before I vote any of the repukkklicans you guys have running. I have a whole bunch of friends who are with on that one.................in Oklahoma, to boot.
It's what he's got. It's not a great position to be in, but he's still on top in the head-to-head match ups, and he's doing well in the swing states. We'll see -- it's going to be an interesting year.
hotair:"So Obama's luck lies in the near-unbelievable fact that the Republicans look determined either to pick a loser or refuse to vote for someone who could win."
I couldn't agree more. Years ago, when the Yankees had Steve Sax at second base, the formula to win had to include more routine ground balls to Sax, who could not find first on a throw more than 3 of 4 times.
GOP TP = Steve Sax at second base. They have demonstrated that despite overwhelming natural advantages, they can find a path to defeat. They are ignornant baboons who do not understand local House races are the Rookie MLB league, but Nov 2012 is the MLB starting nine..many, many, many levels more difficult, where of every 20 in the rookie league, 19 never make the dance.
So this is what it has come down to for Obama supporters? You admit that Obama is a huge disappointment and that he really shouldn't win, but you celebrate the fact that he might win.
Haha! Wow! This is good stuff right here.
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.
