Forum Dems in denial about 2012

[Middle-aged Europe]

^^

Bush/Giuliani vs. Dean/Kucinich?

[Reaganfan]

It will be a matter of mobilizing voters.

Take my current county I live in, Medina County, OH.

John McCain: 48,189
Barack Obama: 40,924

McCain won my county by about 8,000 or so votes.

George Bush: 48,196
John Kerry: 36,272

In 2004, President Bush won my county by about 11,000 more votes.

You can see between 2004 and 2008, Obama gained 4,652 votes more than John Kerry. John McCain won 7 votes...yes...7 votes...less than Bush did.

Thus for my county in 2008 with respect to 2004, it was:

DEM: +4,652
GOP: -7

We need to make gains to the 2004 numbers, and hope that African American and Youth turnout is lower for a weakened incumbent President Obama than it was in the toxic atmosphere of 2008 for the GOP with a rock-star Senator Obama.

So it could be a net gain of say...+2000 for the GOP as compared to 2008 and -2000 for the Dems.

[izixs]

We need to make gains to the 2004 numbers, and hope that African American and Youth turnout is lower for a weakened incumbent President Obama than it was in the toxic atmosphere of 2008 for the GOP with a rock-star Senator Obama.

I hear ye got some governors working on this turnout 'problem'.

Win or loose for whom ever I'm supporting, higher turnout in any election is a demonstration of a strong democracy. So I always support more people voting, even if they disagree with me, not less.

[Paul Kemp]

Someone said Bush didn't know history. He knew history very well, because he was a witness to history. He has atteneded every republican national convention since 1968 and has seen history by following his father's political career. And, understanding the politics have the 60s through present. He also reads a lot. Saying two presidents he often reads about are George Washington and Harry Truman.

On how history would treat him, he said it himself: "if people are still writing about the first president, then the forty-first and forty-third have nothing to worry about."

Thanks Garrison.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

^^

Bush/Giuliani vs. Dean/Kucinich?

More like Sharpton/McKinney.

[pbrower2a]

Obama will face a terrible Republican challenger. It will be similar to Bush's re-election. Things weren't going great for Bush in '04, but the Democrats picked a terrible candidate that let Bush actually improve on his pop vote

Republicans have no good candidate, and presidential elections are very personal

Precisely.

The Republicans fail to understand that the 2010 election was a Pyrrhic victory. Some real turkeys won, and the ones remaining have gotten to show what they would do if they got real power.  It isn't pretty.

President Obama is a far stronger politician than George W. Bush. He has made far fewer,  and less serious, mistakes. He is a stickler for legal and diplomatic niceties and he knows American history well, much unlike his predecessor -- probably the explanations for the fewer blunders. If he is not doing as well in the polls now in contrast to Dubya at this point it is because he isn't getting away with a war predicated upon folly and dishonesty and a boom that was sure to go bust.

Americans are rightly fussier about government than they were a short time ago. When times get bad they realize how important government is -- sometimes as the only  entity that can save their (choose part of the human anatomy).  Dubya got away with much that nobody else will get away with, and the current President has the responsibility to rebuild trust. This President at the least is cautious, conscientious, and honest.

If you think the President's approval ratings dismal, then just look at the approval ratings for Congress as a whole and for many State governors. Americans don't seem to trust Big Business, either.

I'm just surprised that for all the excuses for Obama, the fact of the matter is how do you feel when you get up, walk out your front door and talk to your neighbors and walk around your neighborhood and city.  Are people working, do they have any money? 

Now think about this, Obama had the huge support of recent college graduates, but guess what, most college graduates can't find jobs and more people have been laid off the past 4 years than ever.  Are these 20 and 30 year olds who are unemployed going to have time to enthusiastically support Obama for re-election?  Is the grassroots youth movement going to deliver for Obama?  For Obama, relying on 20 and 30 year old voters is just not a stable strategy. 

He may win in a theoretical fantasy land, but the truth is the support he has from 20 and 30 year olds and independent voters is dissipating.  If they don't vote GOP, they might stay home rather than vote for Obama, they are disenchanted.  Obama won't have the numbers to win.

Theoretical fantasy land? 2008 was real, and a bunch of things going on that just did not happen went on. America could never elect a black man as President.Indiana and Virginia never go Democratic except in landslides for the Democrats. Young adults just don't go out to vote in elections. The Religious Right is still strong enough to deliver a bunch of states that will never vote for a nominee whose Christianity is suspect because of his father.

It was the "common knowledge" that proved faulty in 2008.

You tell me what the Republicans offer except more hardships offered with the words "Trust me!". You tell me that people that people like the Republicans who won in 2010 in places that Republicans don't usually win. You tell me that the recent low approval ratings for Republican governors in Iowa, Wisconsin,  Michigan, Ohio, Maine. and Florida are phantoms.

So what do the Republicans really have to offer?

...One of the most reliable divides between the Left and the Right. one that has held over time and across national barriers, is that debtors are usually on the Left and creditors are usually on the Right. As an illustration: while I was searching through satellite radio I noticed that America Left had ads for debt relief and Patriot Radio (Right) had ads hawking gold as a hedge against inflation.

People with student loans to pay who are renting and have no savings or investments have little stake in conservative politics today. Such may explain why recent college graduates voted heavily for Democrats in 2006 and 2008. It could also be that recent college graduates are mostly secularists who have no use for the right-wing Culture Wars. They are more likely to support gay rights not so much as an entitlement but instead as a decency. Having invested time in schooling they have no use for the anti-intellectual huckstering that supports such nonsense as 'creation science'. They are more likely to see virtue not so much in a denomination as in behavior.

College graduates used to be decidedly Right because they had a stake in the protection of assets even at the cost of opportunities. Now they have debts and need opportunities. The GOP solution -- work longer and harder under harsher conditions for less -- is a disaster.

Another disaster for the GOP is the disappearance of small businesses whose owners are usually conservative-leaning. But the giant industries are squeezing out small business, so a once-reliable pool of conservative voters is disappearing.

The GOP stands to enhance the rewards for being a creditor while doing everything possible to ensure that more people become debt-laden, if not destitute. So while the Right is going even further Right because it can profiteer more off scarcity and economic insecurity, it is also giving people less cause to be conservatives.

[Kevin]

Can we get back on topic instead of devolving into personal attacks?

[King]

Can we get back on topic instead of devolving into personal attacks?

The non-personal attack topic of "posters on this forum are in denial?"

[Kevin]

Can we get back on topic instead of devolving into personal attacks?

The non-personal attack topic of "posters on this forum are in denial?"

Forget what I said!

[Kevin]

Obama will face a terrible Republican challenger. It will be similar to Bush's re-election. Things weren't going great for Bush in '04, but the Democrats picked a terrible candidate that let Bush actually improve on his pop vote

Republicans have no good candidate, and presidential elections are very personal

Precisely.

The Republicans fail to understand that the 2010 election was a Pyrrhic victory. Some real turkeys won, and the ones remaining have gotten to show what they would do if they got real power.  It isn't pretty.

President Obama is a far stronger politician than George W. Bush. He has made far fewer,  and less serious, mistakes. He is a stickler for legal and diplomatic niceties and he knows American history well, much unlike his predecessor -- probably the explanations for the fewer blunders. If he is not doing as well in the polls now in contrast to Dubya at this point it is because he isn't getting away with a war predicated upon folly and dishonesty and a boom that was sure to go bust.

Americans are rightly fussier about government than they were a short time ago. When times get bad they realize how important government is -- sometimes as the only  entity that can save their (choose part of the human anatomy).  Dubya got away with much that nobody else will get away with, and the current President has the responsibility to rebuild trust. This President at the least is cautious, conscientious, and honest.

If you think the President's approval ratings dismal, then just look at the approval ratings for Congress as a whole and for many State governors. Americans don't seem to trust Big Business, either.

I'm just surprised that for all the excuses for Obama, the fact of the matter is how do you feel when you get up, walk out your front door and talk to your neighbors and walk around your neighborhood and city.  Are people working, do they have any money?  

Now think about this, Obama had the huge support of recent college graduates, but guess what, most college graduates can't find jobs and more people have been laid off the past 4 years than ever.  Are these 20 and 30 year olds who are unemployed going to have time to enthusiastically support Obama for re-election?  Is the grassroots youth movement going to deliver for Obama?  For Obama, relying on 20 and 30 year old voters is just not a stable strategy.  

He may win in a theoretical fantasy land, but the truth is the support he has from 20 and 30 year olds and independent voters is dissipating.  If they don't vote GOP, they might stay home rather than vote for Obama, they are disenchanted.  Obama won't have the numbers to win.

Theoretical fantasy land? 2008 was real, and a bunch of things going on that just did not happen went on. America could never elect a black man as President.Indiana and Virginia never go Democratic except in landslides for the Democrats. Young adults just don't go out to vote in elections. The Religious Right is still strong enough to deliver a bunch of states that will never vote for a nominee whose Christianity is suspect because of his father.

It was the "common knowledge" that proved faulty in 2008.

You tell me what the Republicans offer except more hardships offered with the words "Trust me!". You tell me that people that people like the Republicans who won in 2010 in places that Republicans don't usually win. You tell me that the recent low approval ratings for Republican governors in Iowa, Wisconsin,  Michigan, Ohio, Maine. and Florida are phantoms.

So what do the Republicans really have to offer?

...One of the most reliable divides between the Left and the Right. one that has held over time and across national barriers, is that debtors are usually on the Left and creditors are usually on the Right. As an illustration: while I was searching through satellite radio I noticed that America Left had ads for debt relief and Patriot Radio (Right) had ads hawking gold as a hedge against inflation.

People with student loans to pay who are renting and have no savings or investments have little stake in conservative politics today. Such may explain why recent college graduates voted heavily for Democrats in 2006 and 2008. It could also be that recent college graduates are mostly secularists who have no use for the right-wing Culture Wars. They are more likely to support gay rights not so much as an entitlement but instead as a decency. Having invested time in schooling they have no use for the anti-intellectual huckstering that supports such nonsense as 'creation science'. They are more likely to see virtue not so much in a denomination as in behavior.

College graduates used to be decidedly Right because they had a stake in the protection of assets even at the cost of opportunities. Now they have debts and need opportunities. The GOP solution -- work longer and harder under harsher conditions for less -- is a disaster.

Another disaster for the GOP is the disappearance of small businesses whose owners are usually conservative-leaning. But the giant industries are squeezing out small business, so a once-reliable pool of conservative voters is disappearing.

The GOP stands to enhance the rewards for being a creditor while doing everything possible to ensure that more people become debt-laden, if not destitute. So while the Right is going even further Right because it can profiteer more off scarcity and economic insecurity, it is also giving people less cause to be conservatives.

I mean given what your saying I could just as easily make the claim that the Democrats are out to turn this country into another Zimbabwe. And that the Democratic Party owes alot of it's success over the past 10 years to scare tactics.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I feel Dems are in denial that only Romney stands a shot of beating Obama.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

what makes Romney a weak candidate?  he's a white male, smart, has money, all the essentials.  what are the tick marks?  that he's a Mormon, that he'd be vulnerable to certain negative attacks?  true enough, but nobody is perfect and it's hard to imagine those issues overshadowing 9% unemployment and the general misery of American life for any decisive length of time.

He's not a "man of the people" in any sense and his backstory wouldn't inspire confidence in working class voters because he's Mormon, he's plastic, he comes from an elite political family and he has no real political conviction. He's essentially everything that the working class hate. While Romney is a great candidate for upper middle class/inner-suburban voters, I don't see him connecting with the disaffected, traditionally Democratic voters that Romney needs to win over.

Romney definitely deserves credit, he's managed to transform himself from the candidate of  market ideologues and movement conservatives into the reasonable moderate with business experience.

[milhouse24]

Obama will face a terrible Republican challenger. It will be similar to Bush's re-election. Things weren't going great for Bush in '04, but the Democrats picked a terrible candidate that let Bush actually improve on his pop vote

Republicans have no good candidate, and presidential elections are very personal

Precisely.

The Republicans fail to understand that the 2010 election was a Pyrrhic victory. Some real turkeys won, and the ones remaining have gotten to show what they would do if they got real power.  It isn't pretty.

President Obama is a far stronger politician than George W. Bush. He has made far fewer,  and less serious, mistakes. He is a stickler for legal and diplomatic niceties and he knows American history well, much unlike his predecessor -- probably the explanations for the fewer blunders. If he is not doing as well in the polls now in contrast to Dubya at this point it is because he isn't getting away with a war predicated upon folly and dishonesty and a boom that was sure to go bust.

Americans are rightly fussier about government than they were a short time ago. When times get bad they realize how important government is -- sometimes as the only  entity that can save their (choose part of the human anatomy).  Dubya got away with much that nobody else will get away with, and the current President has the responsibility to rebuild trust. This President at the least is cautious, conscientious, and honest.

If you think the President's approval ratings dismal, then just look at the approval ratings for Congress as a whole and for many State governors. Americans don't seem to trust Big Business, either.

I'm just surprised that for all the excuses for Obama, the fact of the matter is how do you feel when you get up, walk out your front door and talk to your neighbors and walk around your neighborhood and city.  Are people working, do they have any money? 

Now think about this, Obama had the huge support of recent college graduates, but guess what, most college graduates can't find jobs and more people have been laid off the past 4 years than ever.  Are these 20 and 30 year olds who are unemployed going to have time to enthusiastically support Obama for re-election?  Is the grassroots youth movement going to deliver for Obama?  For Obama, relying on 20 and 30 year old voters is just not a stable strategy. 

He may win in a theoretical fantasy land, but the truth is the support he has from 20 and 30 year olds and independent voters is dissipating.  If they don't vote GOP, they might stay home rather than vote for Obama, they are disenchanted.  Obama won't have the numbers to win.

Theoretical fantasy land? 2008 was real, and a bunch of things going on that just did not happen went on. America could never elect a black man as President.Indiana and Virginia never go Democratic except in landslides for the Democrats. Young adults just don't go out to vote in elections. The Religious Right is still strong enough to deliver a bunch of states that will never vote for a nominee whose Christianity is suspect because of his father.

It was the "common knowledge" that proved faulty in 2008.

You tell me what the Republicans offer except more hardships offered with the words "Trust me!". You tell me that people that people like the Republicans who won in 2010 in places that Republicans don't usually win. You tell me that the recent low approval ratings for Republican governors in Iowa, Wisconsin,  Michigan, Ohio, Maine. and Florida are phantoms.

So what do the Republicans really have to offer?

...One of the most reliable divides between the Left and the Right. one that has held over time and across national barriers, is that debtors are usually on the Left and creditors are usually on the Right. As an illustration: while I was searching through satellite radio I noticed that America Left had ads for debt relief and Patriot Radio (Right) had ads hawking gold as a hedge against inflation.

People with student loans to pay who are renting and have no savings or investments have little stake in conservative politics today. Such may explain why recent college graduates voted heavily for Democrats in 2006 and 2008. It could also be that recent college graduates are mostly secularists who have no use for the right-wing Culture Wars. They are more likely to support gay rights not so much as an entitlement but instead as a decency. Having invested time in schooling they have no use for the anti-intellectual huckstering that supports such nonsense as 'creation science'. They are more likely to see virtue not so much in a denomination as in behavior.

College graduates used to be decidedly Right because they had a stake in the protection of assets even at the cost of opportunities. Now they have debts and need opportunities. The GOP solution -- work longer and harder under harsher conditions for less -- is a disaster.

Another disaster for the GOP is the disappearance of small businesses whose owners are usually conservative-leaning. But the giant industries are squeezing out small business, so a once-reliable pool of conservative voters is disappearing.

The GOP stands to enhance the rewards for being a creditor while doing everything possible to ensure that more people become debt-laden, if not destitute. So while the Right is going even further Right because it can profiteer more off scarcity and economic insecurity, it is also giving people less cause to be conservatives.

The 2008 election was not an economic election, it was primarily about the Iraq War and foreign policy.  But in 2012, the issue will be the economy, and the 20 and 30 year olds will not turn out for Obama, they will be unemployed and wishing for someone who knew what they were doing to be President.  You may think that Democrats have leaned left with the Unions, but as I recall Obama extended the tax cuts for the wealthy.  Voter won't want fake Democrats triangulating and pandering their way with republican voters.  Voters will be looking for the new "Reagan" to offer some adult supervision and get this country back on its feet.  You may hate Big Business, but without Big Business, this country will be nothing, but that might be the sort of socialist paradise you want!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Generic Democratic poster: Lol, Mondale was leading over Reagan at this point before 1984

Generic Republican poster: Lol, Carter was leading over Reagan at this point before 1980

[HST1948]

Obama will face a terrible Republican challenger. It will be similar to Bush's re-election. Things weren't going great for Bush in '04, but the Democrats picked a terrible candidate that let Bush actually improve on his pop vote

Republicans have no good candidate, and presidential elections are very personal

Precisely.

The Republicans fail to understand that the 2010 election was a Pyrrhic victory. Some real turkeys won, and the ones remaining have gotten to show what they would do if they got real power.  It isn't pretty.

President Obama is a far stronger politician than George W. Bush. He has made far fewer,  and less serious, mistakes. He is a stickler for legal and diplomatic niceties and he knows American history well, much unlike his predecessor -- probably the explanations for the fewer blunders. If he is not doing as well in the polls now in contrast to Dubya at this point it is because he isn't getting away with a war predicated upon folly and dishonesty and a boom that was sure to go bust.

Americans are rightly fussier about government than they were a short time ago. When times get bad they realize how important government is -- sometimes as the only  entity that can save their (choose part of the human anatomy).  Dubya got away with much that nobody else will get away with, and the current President has the responsibility to rebuild trust. This President at the least is cautious, conscientious, and honest.

If you think the President's approval ratings dismal, then just look at the approval ratings for Congress as a whole and for many State governors. Americans don't seem to trust Big Business, either.

I'm just surprised that for all the excuses for Obama, the fact of the matter is how do you feel when you get up, walk out your front door and talk to your neighbors and walk around your neighborhood and city.  Are people working, do they have any money? 

Now think about this, Obama had the huge support of recent college graduates, but guess what, most college graduates can't find jobs and more people have been laid off the past 4 years than ever.  Are these 20 and 30 year olds who are unemployed going to have time to enthusiastically support Obama for re-election?  Is the grassroots youth movement going to deliver for Obama?  For Obama, relying on 20 and 30 year old voters is just not a stable strategy. 

He may win in a theoretical fantasy land, but the truth is the support he has from 20 and 30 year olds and independent voters is dissipating.  If they don't vote GOP, they might stay home rather than vote for Obama, they are disenchanted.  Obama won't have the numbers to win.

Theoretical fantasy land? 2008 was real, and a bunch of things going on that just did not happen went on. America could never elect a black man as President.Indiana and Virginia never go Democratic except in landslides for the Democrats. Young adults just don't go out to vote in elections. The Religious Right is still strong enough to deliver a bunch of states that will never vote for a nominee whose Christianity is suspect because of his father.

It was the "common knowledge" that proved faulty in 2008.

You tell me what the Republicans offer except more hardships offered with the words "Trust me!". You tell me that people that people like the Republicans who won in 2010 in places that Republicans don't usually win. You tell me that the recent low approval ratings for Republican governors in Iowa, Wisconsin,  Michigan, Ohio, Maine. and Florida are phantoms.

So what do the Republicans really have to offer?

...One of the most reliable divides between the Left and the Right. one that has held over time and across national barriers, is that debtors are usually on the Left and creditors are usually on the Right. As an illustration: while I was searching through satellite radio I noticed that America Left had ads for debt relief and Patriot Radio (Right) had ads hawking gold as a hedge against inflation.

People with student loans to pay who are renting and have no savings or investments have little stake in conservative politics today. Such may explain why recent college graduates voted heavily for Democrats in 2006 and 2008. It could also be that recent college graduates are mostly secularists who have no use for the right-wing Culture Wars. They are more likely to support gay rights not so much as an entitlement but instead as a decency. Having invested time in schooling they have no use for the anti-intellectual huckstering that supports such nonsense as 'creation science'. They are more likely to see virtue not so much in a denomination as in behavior.

College graduates used to be decidedly Right because they had a stake in the protection of assets even at the cost of opportunities. Now they have debts and need opportunities. The GOP solution -- work longer and harder under harsher conditions for less -- is a disaster.

Another disaster for the GOP is the disappearance of small businesses whose owners are usually conservative-leaning. But the giant industries are squeezing out small business, so a once-reliable pool of conservative voters is disappearing.

The GOP stands to enhance the rewards for being a creditor while doing everything possible to ensure that more people become debt-laden, if not destitute. So while the Right is going even further Right because it can profiteer more off scarcity and economic insecurity, it is also giving people less cause to be conservatives.

The 2008 election was not an economic election, it was primarily about the Iraq War and foreign policy.  But in 2012, the issue will be the economy, and the 20 and 30 year olds will not turn out for Obama, they will be unemployed and wishing for someone who knew what they were doing to be President.  You may think that Democrats have leaned left with the Unions, but as I recall Obama extended the tax cuts for the wealthy.  Voter won't want fake Democrats triangulating and pandering their way with republican voters.  Voters will be looking for the new "Reagan" to offer some adult supervision and get this country back on its feet.  You may hate Big Business, but without Big Business, this country will be nothing, but that might be the sort of socialist paradise you want!

LOL. Did you miss September, October, and the first few days of November of 2008?

[© tweed]

what makes Romney a weak candidate?  he's a white male, smart, has money, all the essentials.  what are the tick marks?  that he's a Mormon, that he'd be vulnerable to certain negative attacks?  true enough, but nobody is perfect and it's hard to imagine those issues overshadowing 9% unemployment and the general misery of American life for any decisive length of time.

He's not a "man of the people" in any sense and his backstory wouldn't inspire confidence in working class voters because he's Mormon, he's plastic, he comes from an elite political family and he has no real political conviction. He's essentially everything that the working class hate. While Romney is a great candidate for upper middle class/inner-suburban voters, I don't see him connecting with the disaffected, traditionally Democratic voters that Romney needs to win over.

Romney definitely deserves credit, he's managed to transform himself from the candidate of  market ideologues and movement conservatives into the reasonable moderate with business experience.

pretty solid stuff though it should be noted that the Bushes are an elite political family as well - while W's rough edges allowed this to get sublimated not so for 41.  Romney's class issues are a problem, but all that's required is that the underclasses simply stay home, not that they vote for him.  if we have a return to 1996-level turnout the dent gets taken out of people who have no means.

[pbrower2a]

The 2008 election was not an economic election, it was primarily about the Iraq War and foreign policy.  But in 2012, the issue will be the economy, and the 20 and 30 year olds will not turn out for Obama, they will be unemployed and wishing for someone who knew what they were doing to be President.  You may think that Democrats have leaned left with the Unions, but as I recall Obama extended the tax cuts for the wealthy.  Voter won't want fake Democrats triangulating and pandering their way with republican voters.  Voters will be looking for the new "Reagan" to offer some adult supervision and get this country back on its feet.  You may hate Big Business, but without Big Business, this country will be nothing, but that might be the sort of socialist paradise you want!

Very simply, the 2012 Presidential election will be about whether people like what the Republicans have to offer at the terms offered is better than what the Democrats offer at the terms offered. Is that as neutral language as possible?

Socialist? Me? America needs to become more capitalist (in that there are more capitalists) and more competitive, relying less upon giant corporations for employment and income. In many respects America was a better place to live when Main Street was full of independent merchants, when manufacturing was often done on a small scale, and when even banking was a cottage industry. High marginal taxes on very high incomes allowed small businesses to exist because those small businesses and their owners were taxed at much lower rates than were big shareholders.

America became a great economic power by world standards even before the first giant corporation (DuPont) was founded in 1802. You saw that right -- 1802. But even that company was something of an oddity -- a defense contractor supplying explosives to the War Department.  Somewhat later came the railroads, and those were a mixed blessing.

Even more importantly, America didn't have the rapacious executives paid extremely well to squeeze suppliers,  create and exploit scarcity, and treat workers badly.

So do you really want to defend cartels and trusts? Do you want to defend "Too Big to Fail"? That is what we have now; we are now dependent upon a few economic royalists who now treat us like peons. That in many respects is a revival of feudal relationships that can only create poverty and insecurity for all but the elites.

The only good that a liberal can see in the behemoth corporations that seem to grab everything is that on the surface they could be taxed heavily to support a welfare state. Well, wouldn't it be better if we had an economic order that didn't need a welfare state to prevent  mass destitution?

By the way -- your ideas seem to come from Ayn Rand, a pretentious novelist and quack philosopher best described as the mirror image of Karl Marx -- someone who recognizes capitalism as a hierarchic, inegalitarian, top-down order, but differing from Marx largely in seeing everything that Karl Marx finds a vile reality a wondrous thing no matter how much the system degrades and exploits people.

[milhouse24]

Obama will face a terrible Republican challenger. It will be similar to Bush's re-election. Things weren't going great for Bush in '04, but the Democrats picked a terrible candidate that let Bush actually improve on his pop vote

Republicans have no good candidate, and presidential elections are very personal

Precisely.

The Republicans fail to understand that the 2010 election was a Pyrrhic victory. Some real turkeys won, and the ones remaining have gotten to show what they would do if they got real power.  It isn't pretty.

President Obama is a far stronger politician than George W. Bush. He has made far fewer,  and less serious, mistakes. He is a stickler for legal and diplomatic niceties and he knows American history well, much unlike his predecessor -- probably the explanations for the fewer blunders. If he is not doing as well in the polls now in contrast to Dubya at this point it is because he isn't getting away with a war predicated upon folly and dishonesty and a boom that was sure to go bust.

Americans are rightly fussier about government than they were a short time ago. When times get bad they realize how important government is -- sometimes as the only  entity that can save their (choose part of the human anatomy).  Dubya got away with much that nobody else will get away with, and the current President has the responsibility to rebuild trust. This President at the least is cautious, conscientious, and honest.

If you think the President's approval ratings dismal, then just look at the approval ratings for Congress as a whole and for many State governors. Americans don't seem to trust Big Business, either.

I'm just surprised that for all the excuses for Obama, the fact of the matter is how do you feel when you get up, walk out your front door and talk to your neighbors and walk around your neighborhood and city.  Are people working, do they have any money? 

Now think about this, Obama had the huge support of recent college graduates, but guess what, most college graduates can't find jobs and more people have been laid off the past 4 years than ever.  Are these 20 and 30 year olds who are unemployed going to have time to enthusiastically support Obama for re-election?  Is the grassroots youth movement going to deliver for Obama?  For Obama, relying on 20 and 30 year old voters is just not a stable strategy. 

He may win in a theoretical fantasy land, but the truth is the support he has from 20 and 30 year olds and independent voters is dissipating.  If they don't vote GOP, they might stay home rather than vote for Obama, they are disenchanted.  Obama won't have the numbers to win.

Theoretical fantasy land? 2008 was real, and a bunch of things going on that just did not happen went on. America could never elect a black man as President.Indiana and Virginia never go Democratic except in landslides for the Democrats. Young adults just don't go out to vote in elections. The Religious Right is still strong enough to deliver a bunch of states that will never vote for a nominee whose Christianity is suspect because of his father.

It was the "common knowledge" that proved faulty in 2008.

You tell me what the Republicans offer except more hardships offered with the words "Trust me!". You tell me that people that people like the Republicans who won in 2010 in places that Republicans don't usually win. You tell me that the recent low approval ratings for Republican governors in Iowa, Wisconsin,  Michigan, Ohio, Maine. and Florida are phantoms.

So what do the Republicans really have to offer?

...One of the most reliable divides between the Left and the Right. one that has held over time and across national barriers, is that debtors are usually on the Left and creditors are usually on the Right. As an illustration: while I was searching through satellite radio I noticed that America Left had ads for debt relief and Patriot Radio (Right) had ads hawking gold as a hedge against inflation.

People with student loans to pay who are renting and have no savings or investments have little stake in conservative politics today. Such may explain why recent college graduates voted heavily for Democrats in 2006 and 2008. It could also be that recent college graduates are mostly secularists who have no use for the right-wing Culture Wars. They are more likely to support gay rights not so much as an entitlement but instead as a decency. Having invested time in schooling they have no use for the anti-intellectual huckstering that supports such nonsense as 'creation science'. They are more likely to see virtue not so much in a denomination as in behavior.

College graduates used to be decidedly Right because they had a stake in the protection of assets even at the cost of opportunities. Now they have debts and need opportunities. The GOP solution -- work longer and harder under harsher conditions for less -- is a disaster.

Another disaster for the GOP is the disappearance of small businesses whose owners are usually conservative-leaning. But the giant industries are squeezing out small business, so a once-reliable pool of conservative voters is disappearing.

The GOP stands to enhance the rewards for being a creditor while doing everything possible to ensure that more people become debt-laden, if not destitute. So while the Right is going even further Right because it can profiteer more off scarcity and economic insecurity, it is also giving people less cause to be conservatives.

The 2008 election was not an economic election, it was primarily about the Iraq War and foreign policy.  But in 2012, the issue will be the economy, and the 20 and 30 year olds will not turn out for Obama, they will be unemployed and wishing for someone who knew what they were doing to be President.  You may think that Democrats have leaned left with the Unions, but as I recall Obama extended the tax cuts for the wealthy.  Voter won't want fake Democrats triangulating and pandering their way with republican voters.  Voters will be looking for the new "Reagan" to offer some adult supervision and get this country back on its feet.  You may hate Big Business, but without Big Business, this country will be nothing, but that might be the sort of socialist paradise you want!

LOL. Did you miss September, October, and the first few days of November of 2008?

Because Obama was obviously talking about Wall Street when he said "Hope and Change" and not about the Iraq War.  the Economic collapse certainly helped him and may have put him over the top, but Obama's focus for the entire primary season was on the Iraq War, and Hillary's downfall was her vote for the Iraq War.  In fact, Hillary performed better among white blue collar workers, so to say Obama was the preferred candidate on economic issues is wrong. 

Besides, if you really waited until Sept and October 2008 to make up your mind between Obama or McCain, then you really don't deserve to study politics.  I'm sure any one with a passing interest would be able to determine the differences between them before the national conventions. 

As for Sept 2012, if someone really believes Obama's economic policies are working and he has the country on the right track and better than 4 years ago, then vote for Obama. 

But with all the economic indicators and polling right now, I see a very vulnerable Obama.  If the GOP can catch some breaks with some luck, they will win the election.

[Beet]

IIRC prior to Lehman's collapse, McCain was up 5 points and he had the momentum, so the entire election was decided based on the economy. Had it not been for the economy, McCain would have won. I remember speaking to a friend on Sunday night, Sept. 14 about the election and going home absolutely convinced Obama was going to lose.

It's true that Obama talked more about Iraq in the early stages of the primary, but that was the primary. And even the primary only started out as being about Iraq. It ended up being more about political style. The Clinton people saw her as a champion of the working class, a fighter, and a feminist; the Obama people saw him as bringing a new generation into politics, running a campaign based on grassroots activists and not special interests, and being the first black President. Iraq was basically McCain's issue by the summer of 2008, because he could say (and did) that he was right about the surge.

I think Obama will lose next year, yes, because of the poor economy, if the Republicans nominate someone who doesn't scare away too many. Yes, I do think the GOP can still blow it.

[Mr.Phips]

IIRC prior to Lehman's collapse, McCain was up 5 points and he had the momentum, so the entire election was decided based on the economy. Had it not been for the economy, McCain would have won. I remember speaking to a friend on Sunday night, Sept. 14 about the election and going home absolutely convinced Obama was going to lose.

It's true that Obama talked more about Iraq in the early stages of the primary, but that was the primary. And even the primary only started out as being about Iraq. It ended up being more about political style. The Clinton people saw her as a champion of the working class, a fighter, and a feminist; the Obama people saw him as bringing a new generation into politics, running a campaign based on grassroots activists and not special interests, and being the first black President. Iraq was basically McCain's issue by the summer of 2008, because he could say (and did) that he was right about the surge.

I think Obama will lose next year, yes, because of the poor economy, if the Republicans nominate someone who doesn't scare away too many. Yes, I do think the GOP can still blow it.

McCain wasnt up five points.  In the Real Clear Politics average, he peaked at a 2.9% lead on September 8th and by September 15th, his lead was already down to 1.6%.  Give the campaign another week and Obama may have been ahead again. 

I know this is the wrong thread for this topic, but why in the hell did Paulson let Lehman fail?  The company had debt worth nearly 10% of GDP and its defaulting on that debt would have clearly incalculably disastrous results. 

[pbrower2a]

IIRC prior to Lehman's collapse, McCain was up 5 points and he had the momentum, so the entire election was decided based on the economy. Had it not been for the economy, McCain would have won. I remember speaking to a friend on Sunday night, Sept. 14 about the election and going home absolutely convinced Obama was going to lose.

It's true that Obama talked more about Iraq in the early stages of the primary, but that was the primary. And even the primary only started out as being about Iraq. It ended up being more about political style. The Clinton people saw her as a champion of the working class, a fighter, and a feminist; the Obama people saw him as bringing a new generation into politics, running a campaign based on grassroots activists and not special interests, and being the first black President. Iraq was basically McCain's issue by the summer of 2008, because he could say (and did) that he was right about the surge.

I think Obama will lose next year, yes, because of the poor economy, if the Republicans nominate someone who doesn't scare away too many. Yes, I do think the GOP can still blow it.

McCain wasnt up five points.  In the Real Clear Politics average, he peaked at a 2.9% lead on September 8th and by September 15th, his lead was already down to 1.6%.  Give the campaign another week and Obama may have been ahead again. 

I know this is the wrong thread for this topic, but why in the hell did Paulson let Lehman fail?  The company had debt worth nearly 10% of GDP and its defaulting on that debt would have clearly incalculably disastrous results. 

Paulson apparently came to the conclusion that Lehman Brothers was so incurably corrupt that it had to fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_of_Lehman_Brothers

Hint: accounting fraud was a big factor.

[Mr.Phips]

IIRC prior to Lehman's collapse, McCain was up 5 points and he had the momentum, so the entire election was decided based on the economy. Had it not been for the economy, McCain would have won. I remember speaking to a friend on Sunday night, Sept. 14 about the election and going home absolutely convinced Obama was going to lose.

It's true that Obama talked more about Iraq in the early stages of the primary, but that was the primary. And even the primary only started out as being about Iraq. It ended up being more about political style. The Clinton people saw her as a champion of the working class, a fighter, and a feminist; the Obama people saw him as bringing a new generation into politics, running a campaign based on grassroots activists and not special interests, and being the first black President. Iraq was basically McCain's issue by the summer of 2008, because he could say (and did) that he was right about the surge.

I think Obama will lose next year, yes, because of the poor economy, if the Republicans nominate someone who doesn't scare away too many. Yes, I do think the GOP can still blow it.

McCain wasnt up five points.  In the Real Clear Politics average, he peaked at a 2.9% lead on September 8th and by September 15th, his lead was already down to 1.6%.  Give the campaign another week and Obama may have been ahead again. 

I know this is the wrong thread for this topic, but why in the hell did Paulson let Lehman fail?  The company had debt worth nearly 10% of GDP and its defaulting on that debt would have clearly incalculably disastrous results. 

Paulson apparently came to the conclusion that Lehman Brothers was so incurably corrupt that it had to fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_of_Lehman_Brothers

Hint: accounting fraud was a big factor.

It could have very easily been absorbed into another company like Barclays or Bank of America with a small backstop of about $30 billion. 

[JohnnyLongtorso]

McCain was in the middle of the post-convention bounce; he stole Obama's thunder by announcing his pick of Palin (I almost typed Bachmann there... yeesh) right after Obama's speech. It gave him a huge boost in most of the Bush '04 states; remember that he shot up to a double-digit lead in North Carolina right around that time, and everyone was suddenly convinced that it was out of reach for Obama. It was never a baseline of support for McCain, so comparing pre- and post-Lehman Brothers numbers isn't an accurate measure.

[pbrower2a]

McCain was in the middle of the post-convention bounce; he stole Obama's thunder by announcing his pick of Palin (I almost typed Bachmann there... yeesh) right after Obama's speech. It gave him a huge boost in most of the Bush '04 states; remember that he shot up to a double-digit lead in North Carolina right around that time, and everyone was suddenly convinced that it was out of reach for Obama. It was never a baseline of support for McCain, so comparing pre- and post-Lehman Brothers numbers isn't an accurate measure.

Indeed. Sarah Palin, a complete unknown, gave one great speech, after which she proved a liability. 

[Kevin]

McCain was in the middle of the post-convention bounce; he stole Obama's thunder by announcing his pick of Palin (I almost typed Bachmann there... yeesh) right after Obama's speech. It gave him a huge boost in most of the Bush '04 states; remember that he shot up to a double-digit lead in North Carolina right around that time, and everyone was suddenly convinced that it was out of reach for Obama. It was never a baseline of support for McCain, so comparing pre- and post-Lehman Brothers numbers isn't an accurate measure.

I mean if McCain's campaign had better prepped Palin, defended her against liberal attacks etc. And if McCain had reacted better the economic turmoil as well as had he ran a better campaign in general he would have stood a decent chance of winning.

However, would he we don't know?

Also Biden for Obama at the time was thought as one of the weaker running mates he could have chosen, due to Biden's abrasive personality, attitude, and notorious verbal diarrhea.