Obama reelection 2012

[Judge Jude]

That is a remarkably optimistic view, I must say.
"whatever reason, nothing happened."

[DMT]

That is a remarkably optimistic view, I must say.
"whatever reason, nothing happened."

Yep, Obama's only excuse could be that it was on his to-do list all along but that he had other more pressing issues to resolve, and that may in fact be true or it may not, none of us can know for certain at this point. But if he doesn't follow through this time, there is no excuse and everyone should hold him accountable regardless of affiliation. And, let's be honest, how vigorously would a Romney administration pursue and prosecute corporate malfeasance? Those who think it would be any greater than Obama are delusional.

[Don Quixote]

Those who think it would be any greater than Obama are delusional.

That's not the point at all. President Obama was swept into office on the whole "hope and change" thing, and so far, all we've seen is that we hope for change, because we've seen little if any.

[OaklandA's]

That is a remarkably optimistic view, I must say.
"whatever reason, nothing happened."

I think the first priority was to try to save the housing industry and individual mortgages. Whether that was even possible is obviously debatable. Going after Wall Street was next; that may help satisfy our desire for fairness or vengeance or deterrence or whatever, but it won't help keep people in their homes or help the economy recover.

[DMT]

That's not the point at all. President Obama was swept into office on the whole "hope and change" thing, and so far, all we've seen is that we hope for change, because we've seen little if any.

And did I not in the immediate sentence prior to the one you quoted say "But if he doesn't follow through this time, there is no excuse and everyone should hold him accountable regardless of affiliation."? Besides, this thread is about Obama getting re-elected and we're discussing an issue where he hasn't delivered to this point, how is it not worth considering what his opponent would deliver on the issue?

[onejayhawk]

And did I not in the immediate sentence prior to the one you quoted say "But if he doesn't follow through this time, there is no excuse and everyone should hold him accountable regardless of affiliation."? Besides, this thread is about Obama getting re-elected and we're discussing an issue where he hasn't delivered to this point, how is it not worth considering what his opponent would deliver on the issue?

Not correct. This thread is about the prospects of Obama getting re-elected.

Delivering, or not, on 2008 promises is germane. Discussing what his opponent would do is not, since his opponent did not make the same promises.

J

[Erik]

Because, gosh, we've never, ever had ANY digression in political threads before. The horror.

[OaklandA's]

Not correct. This thread is about the prospects of Obama getting re-elected.

Delivering, or not, on 2008 promises is germane. Discussing what his opponent would do is not, since his opponent did not make the same promises.

This is ridiculous. Of course discussing what his opponents would do is relevant to the prospects of Obama getting re-elected. Re-election is not just a matter of how many promises Obama kept. Every voter will cast their vote based on what they think Obama will do over the next 4 years, in comparison to what his opponents will do over the next 4 years.

[Bob Kohm]

But...but...but.. if we allow that then the discussion might go somewhere that OneJay never wanted it to go to-- a place called "reality" where Obama is the growing favorite to be re-elected... Oh noes!

[GwynnInTheHall]

Not correct. This thread is about the prospects of Obama getting re-elected.

Delivering, or not, on 2008 promises is germane. Discussing what his opponent would do is not, since his opponent did not make the same promises.

J

Uh, Rob Deer.....you missed again. Obama hasn't delivered, but what his opponent would do is very relevant to those with a vote....and a brain.

He has disappointed, but he's going to win re-election.

And I'm going to remind you every time you speak about it--for 4 long years.

[chancellor]

This is ridiculous. Of course discussing what his opponents would do is relevant to the prospects of Obama getting re-elected. Re-election is not just a matter of how many promises Obama kept. Every voter will cast their vote based on what they think Obama will do over the next 4 years, in comparison to what his opponents will do over the next 4 years.

Hmmm...I don't think so. Most studies indicate voters do vote on past and present performance, with the vastly dominant voting indicator being financial performance, barring an immediate perceived "clear and present danger" threat. But future performance weighs very little in the minds of most (not all, but most) voters.

[DMT]

Hmmm...I don't think so. Most studies indicate voters do vote on past and present performance, with the vastly dominant voting indicator being financial performance, barring an immediate perceived "clear and present danger" threat. But future performance weighs very little in the minds of most (not all, but most) voters.

You mean clear and present danger as in Osama Bin Laden? Oh wait.

[OaklandA's]

Hmmm...I don't think so. Most studies indicate voters do vote on past and present performance, with the vastly dominant voting indicator being financial performance, barring an immediate perceived "clear and present danger" threat. But future performance weighs very little in the minds of most (not all, but most) voters.

Whatever. Voters use past and present performance to predict what will happen in the future. But if you all want to claim that Romney's and Gingrich's positions have no bearing on Obama's chances of re-election, go ahead. It's not worth arguing over.

[onejayhawk]

You mean clear and present danger as in Osama Bin Laden?

Yep. See the 2002 mid term elections.

J

[onejayhawk]

Whatever. Voters use past and present performance to predict what will happen in the future. But if you all want to claim that Romney's and Gingrich's positions have no bearing on Obama's chances of re-election, go ahead. It's not worth arguing over.

That is not what was said, though you have a point in that it matters little.

What was said is that Romney's position on Obama's issues has little bearing. You have to take each candidate on his own terms.

J