Obama's reelection strategy=Blame the Europeans for the bad economy?

[Kevin]

Even though President Obama's reelection prospects are looking rather dim at the moment, the other night I was thinking about strategies and talking points he could use to navigate the situation to a 2nd term. One of those that I think could hold some promise  is that if Obama blamed the worsened economic and financial during his term not on big wall street bankers, Tea Party Republican obstructionism, Bush Jr., or a combination of all of the above(like the Dems failed election strategy in 2010). But putting the blame on Europe instead.

I mean many if not most of the reason's the economic/financial situation in this country as well as a worldwide has gotten worse over the past couple of years has been due to the meltdown within the Eurozone starting first with Greece then spreading to other European countries like Ireland, Spain, Italy etc. Which with the globalized nature of economic and financial activity today has fueled further problems here at home in the United States such as the recent credit downgrade, and the continued poor shape of the real estate markets and job growth. And now talk of a slowdown in China and a renewed rescission.

So would a strategy like this work if Obama put the blame for worsened economy during his term of not on the Busy legacy and the Republicans, but on corrupt/incompetent politicians in Brussels, Athens, and Rome instead?

I think it could work if it were hashed out enough by his people.

Could a "European" strategy be a workable one for Obama's reelection? Through saying that the renewed crisis with it's origin's in the Eurozone is to blame for hampering the effectiveness of his economic and financial policies?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm not so sure about that.  Few people understand (or accept) that the economic activities of one country can drastically affect another.  So while it is true that other countries take some responsibility (such as large declines in the Dow Jones), I don't think voters would necessarily buy it.

Republican opponent's response: But you're not running for President of those countries!

[Politico]

If we enter another recession, or we are already in recession, no strategy will prevent Obama from losing badly next year. Remember the "one-term proposition" comment Obama made in February 2009? All the GOP needs to do is run that line in an ad over and over and over again. Result would be a 1980-something-style landslide for Romney (i.e., somewhere along the lines of 1980, 1984 or 1988).

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If we enter another recession, or we are already in recession, no strategy will prevent Obama from losing badly next year. Remember the "one-term proposition" comment Obama made in February 2009? All the GOP needs to do is run that line in an ad over and over and over again. Result would be a 1980-something-style landslide for Romney (i.e., somewhere along the lines of 1980, 1984 or 1988).

That simply isn't true.  The Republicans need to nominate a viable candidate.  Romney would be that candidate according to polls, but they can't just nominate a bag of dirt and expect to win.

[Peeperkorn]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This. If Obama blames the europeans he just would look like a liar.

[Politico]

If we enter another recession, or we are already in recession, no strategy will prevent Obama from losing badly next year. Remember the "one-term proposition" comment Obama made in February 2009? All the GOP needs to do is run that line in an ad over and over and over again. Result would be a 1980-something-style landslide for Romney (i.e., somewhere along the lines of 1980, 1984 or 1988).

That simply isn't true.  The Republicans need to nominate a viable candidate.  Romney would be that candidate according to polls, but they can't just nominate a bag of dirt and expect to win.

The GOP is going to nominate Romney. But hypothetically, if they did not, if they did nominate dirt, Obama would still be toast. Why? A viable third party candidate would win.

There is no way Obama can win re-election if we experience another recession before November 2012.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If we enter another recession, or we are already in recession, no strategy will prevent Obama from losing badly next year. Remember the "one-term proposition" comment Obama made in February 2009? All the GOP needs to do is run that line in an ad over and over and over again. Result would be a 1980-something-style landslide for Romney (i.e., somewhere along the lines of 1980, 1984 or 1988).

That simply isn't true.  The Republicans need to nominate a viable candidate.  Romney would be that candidate according to polls, but they can't just nominate a bag of dirt and expect to win.

The GOP is going to nominate Romney. But hypothetically, if they did not, if they did nominate dirt, Obama would still be toast. Why? A viable third party candidate would win.

There is no way Obama can win re-election if we experience another recession before November 2012.

If that actually happens and the next one to get inaugurated in 2013 is a member of a third party, I will go back to this thread and apologize.  But still, I don't see that happening.  And there's no guarantee that Romney will be nominated.  Herman Cain could win, for all we know.  But if someone like Sarah Palin jumps in and manages to pull off a win, then it's pretty safe to say Obama will win four more years, regardless.

[Bull Moose Base]

If we enter another recession, or we are already in recession, no strategy will prevent Obama from losing badly next year. Remember the "one-term proposition" comment Obama made in February 2009? All the GOP needs to do is run that line in an ad over and over and over again. Result would be a 1980-something-style landslide for Romney (i.e., somewhere along the lines of 1980, 1984 or 1988).

Obama did sloppily leave himself open to get easily dinged with that quote.  I read a (speculative) analysis- can't recall where; The Atlantic?- that Obama, after shocking Hillary and shattering historic precedent with his election, must have been so confident that fortune favored him, that he figured the economy would rebound in time for 2012.  We can't know if that was his thinking but it's not an unreasonable extrapolation looking at that kind of statement.  Romney's been using the quote to attack Obama for some time and no doubt it'll be a good weapon for him, Christie, Perry or whoever ends up Republican nominee.  But also easy to guess how Obama will respond to the charge: when he made the statement, he expected neither the loss of the House nor the Gross Obstruction Pattern from the GOP- hey, not too shabby.  The strategy will not be to blame Europe because there's nothing the average frustrated voter can do if they decide Europe is responsible for their problems.  The same can't be said if they're persuaded the Republican Party is responsible.  Whether Obama will be able to do so in the end, may still be an open question as late as a year from now.  But I don't think it's impossible for his presidency to survive a recession.  Gallup has already noticed that his approval exceeds what precedent would suggest for a president in a bad economy.

[krazen1211]

If we enter another recession, or we are already in recession, no strategy will prevent Obama from losing badly next year. Remember the "one-term proposition" comment Obama made in February 2009? All the GOP needs to do is run that line in an ad over and over and over again. Result would be a 1980-something-style landslide for Romney (i.e., somewhere along the lines of 1980, 1984 or 1988).

Wow. 2.5 years in and quite a difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCN5-ovvFL0

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/01/politics/main20114386.shtml

[Peeperkorn]

ITT: People who naively thinks that a POTUS can change the world's economy with domestic policies.