Obama reelection 2012

[B-Fly]

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

Obama delivered Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Who would Romney or Gingrich deliver?

[onejayhawk]

Obama delivered Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Who would Romney or Gingrich deliver?

Relevance?

Obama promised to deliver liberal Justices. Romney and Gingrich would promise to deliver stricter Justices. Again, address each candidate on his own terms.

J

[B-Fly]

Relevance?

Obama promised to deliver liberal Justices. Romney and Gingrich would promise to deliver stricter Justices. Again, address each candidate on his own terms.

J

I absolutely am evaluating him on his own merits, Officer Threadman. I want a president who I trust to pick Justice Ginsburg's successor, should that become necessary. Obama, on his own terms, delivered two great Justices to succeed Souter and Stevens. Based on those unqualified successes, I absolutely want him in office should a need arise to deliver more.

[chancellor]

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

Absolutely. And Bush the first with Iraq invading Kuwait. Tis' a striking similarity, actually - both had foreign major successes, but the perception is they have not (or did not) addressed economic issues. Ergo, I'm fairly confident Obama will have the same fate Bush the first did.

[chancellor]

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.

No bearing? Of course not, and that's not what I said. But if you're arguing that financial performance during an administration has no bearing on election results, go ahead. It's not worth arguing over.

[chancellor]

Totally sucked when Iraq masterminded an attack on our soil.

Missing the point. Bush the first had - I believe - the highest approval rating for any president around that time. And while the economy wasn't good, it was nowhere near as bad as today. OTOH, he faced a far better politician in Clinton than Obama will face from the GOP (regardless of who wins the primary).

[B-Fly]

Missing the point. Bush the first had - I believe - the highest approval rating for any president around that time. And while the economy wasn't good, it was nowhere near as bad as today. OTOH, he faced a far better politician in Clinton than Obama will face from the GOP (regardless of who wins the primary).

Bush I also had that whiff of a man from lifelong wealth/privilege/connections who had no clue what life was life for average Americans suffering economic hardship. That hurt him against Clinton, who connected much better. While I don't think Obama has remotely Clinton's "Ah feel yuhr pain" skillset, Obama is at least far better than Romney on that score.

[DMT]

Bush I also had that whiff of a man from lifelong wealth/privilege/connections who had no clue what life was life for average Americans suffering economic hardship. That hurt him against Clinton, who connected much better. While I don't think Obama has remotely Clinton's "Ah feel yuhr pain" skillset, Obama is at least far better than Romney on that score.

You mean the guy who paid about 15% on his $42 million in income over the past two years? The same guy who tried to get Perry to bet him $10K during one of the debates? That clip should feature prominently in Obama's ads.

[chancellor]

Bush I also had that whiff of a man from lifelong wealth/privilege/connections who had no clue what life was life for average Americans suffering economic hardship. That hurt him against Clinton, who connected much better. While I don't think Obama has remotely Clinton's "Ah feel yuhr pain" skillset, Obama is at least far better than Romney on that score.

Agreed - OTOH, the economy is much worse this time around for Obama than Bush I.

[OaklandA's]

No bearing? Of course not, and that's not what I said.

That's the whole point of this stupid argument. OJH said that we should not discuss Romney/Gingrich's positions in this thread, since they have no bearing on Obama's re-election.

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

[onejayhawk]

That's the whole point of this stupid argument. OJH said that we should not discuss Romney/Gingrich's positions in this thread, since they have no bearing on Obama's re-election.

I agree. It is a stupid argument. However you persist in misrepresenting what I stated. Romney/Gingrich positions are relevant. But discuss them on their own positions, not on Obama's positions.

J

[chancellor]

That's the whole point of this stupid argument. OJH said that we should not discuss Romney/Gingrich's positions in this thread, since they have no bearing on Obama's re-election.

Fair enough. My disagreement is on how you portrayed how voters will look forward - you're grossly overrating voters.

[Erik]

Yeah, I don't think most voters do the "envision who will be better over the next 4 years" thing. Many of them are strongly partisan and have already picked a side and nothing will change that. Many others cast their vote as a means of approval/disapproval over something that's important to them now, often jobs/economy but sometimes something else.

[bryanbutler]

Yeah, I don't think most voters do the "envision who will be better over the next 4 years" thing. Many of them are strongly partisan and have already picked a side and nothing will change that. Many others cast their vote as a means of approval/disapproval over something that's important to them now, often jobs/economy but sometimes something else.

i disagree. i think people *do* look ahead. sure, they worry about the here and now, but only the most shortsighted don't look ahead at all. now, their view of what would happen if one candidate or the other wins is often skewed, but they do look ahead. education is a good example. yes, folks are upset about the current state of affairs, but they're also looking down the road, at least a good chunk of them that care about education anyway.

[JudeBaldo]

That's the whole point of this stupid argument. OJH said that we should not discuss Romney/Gingrich's positions in this thread, since they have no bearing on Obama's re-election.

There's evidence that voters do look ahead. http://www.sunypress.edu/p-4625-do-v...he-future.aspx

The very act of punishing or rewarding an incumbent IS LOOKING AHEAD to what they can't or can do after the election. Anyone who doesn't think so grossly underestimates voters.

So you're right again bud.