• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama will lose in a Landslide

SCDeac said:
2012 will be the return of "It's the economy stupid!"
Click to expand...

Rightfully so. For going on 2 years now we've been hearing about the inevitable economic turnaround and how Obama will ride it to easy reelection.

It hasn't happened yet, and I'm beginning to wonder if it will in time.

The unemployment number is the biggest dagger right now. If that number stays in the 9's for another year, and the Republicans can focus on that issue and not stupid ass social boogeymen, then Obama will be in huge trouble.
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
I am a completely independent voter.

I havent seen anything that approaches a viable GOP candidate yet.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Mitt Romney makes my skin crawl.

I'll be interested in getting more info on Huntsman when he announces next week. I figure a solid month of the media vetting him will ferret out all the important stuff about him.
 
SCDeac said:
Since we're talking anti this and that...

Dems are anti-Christian/religion, anti-gun rights, anti-business, anti-deficit reduction, anti-Israel, anti-military, anti-pro life...

Let's see...conservatives hate blacks, old people, hispanics, gay people, immigrants, the middle class...Holy Shit! Those are such original ideas. How did the left never trot out those before.

2012 will be the return of "It's the economy stupid!"
Click to expand...

I thought the GOP cared about responsibility. Are they responsible for their votes or not?

The GOP wouldn't even take money from gay millionaires.
 
RJKarl said:
I thought the GOP cared about responsibility. Are they responsible for their votes or not?

The GOP wouldn't even take money from gay millionaires.
Click to expand...

It's just killing you that the GOP won't be nominating some social issues flake cut from the Robertson/Falwell mold. Thank God the tea party steered the consrvative movement squarely toward fiscal issues and away from those fringe issues that most mainstream people don't give a shit about.

9%+ unemployment and the price of gas....the 2 most important numbers that will decide this election.
 
There's something strangely likeable about Mitt Romney and his awkwardness:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...romney/2011/06/14/AGApq6UH_story.html?hpid=z3

Mitt Romney, the leading contender to become President Obama’s Republican opponent next year, had just finished working the room at Blake’s Creamery here when he paused for a photo with the restaurant’s owner, Ann Mirageas, and decided to tell her a joke.


“I saw the young man over there with eggs Benedict, with hollandaise sauce,” he said. “And I was going to suggest to you that you serve your eggs with hollandaise sauce in hubcaps. Because there’s no plates like chrome for the hollandaise.”

The proprietor laughed weakly. “Good luck to you,” Mirageas said.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
This election will boil down to whether or not Obama can get the same people who would not have otherwise voted at all but who came out and voted for him previously to come out and vote for him again. They went out to vote because of the hope and change all that garbage, and really nothing else. Now, after seeing minimal hope and detrimental change, will they turn out in droves again to support him, or will they return to their usual apathy and not vote at all? If they turn out again, he wins. If they stay home as per usual, he loses.
Click to expand...

They also voted for him because of the shambles the other party had made of the country to that point. It wasn't just "hope and change," it was a drastic national sentiment to clean house. You seem to be arguing as if Bush and Co. were doing a passable job.
 
TheShot said:
Does not influence the end result of who wins. People vote for top of ticket.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point.

Has anyone on here ever voted or not voted for someone based on who the VP nominee was?
 
Liquid Karma said:
Rightfully so. For going on 2 years now we've been hearing about the inevitable economic turnaround and how Obama will ride it to easy reelection.

It hasn't happened yet, and I'm beginning to wonder if it will in time.

The unemployment number is the biggest dagger right now. If that number stays in the 9's for another year, and the Republicans can focus on that issue and not stupid ass social boogeymen, then Obama will be in huge trouble.
Click to expand...

There was been no historical correlation between unemployment stats and incumbent reelection, according to Nate Silver. The stat was pretty crazy-


fivethirtyeight Nate Silver
Historically, the correlation between the unemployment rate and a president's re-election margin is zero. Rate of change matters more.
2 Jun Favorite Retweet Reply

fivethirtyeight Nate Silver
Over the past 100 years, no incumbent president with an unemployment rate of between 7.6% and 23.5% has failed to win re-election.
 
SCDeac said:
It's just killing you that the GOP won't be nominating some social issues flake cut from the Robertson/Falwell mold. Thank God the tea party steered the consrvative movement squarely toward fiscal issues and away from those fringe issues that most mainstream people don't give a shit about.

9%+ unemployment and the price of gas....the 2 most important numbers that will decide this election.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party steered the GOP out of at least two Senate seats last election. Don't count on them to steer the GOP nominee toward the middle, which is where presidential elections are decided.

Regarding unemployment, see my last post. It generally seems not to matter, so long as the number doesn't spike drastically in 2012. Regarding gas prices, that's like setting up the Dems for a pet issue- blame the oil companies. It won't hurt him too badly when he points the finger at oil company profits over the last three years.
 
Last edited:
SCDeac said:
It's just killing you that the GOP won't be nominating some social issues flake cut from the Robertson/Falwell mold. Thank God the tea party steered the consrvative movement squarely toward fiscal issues and away from those fringe issues that most mainstream people don't give a shit about.

9%+ unemployment and the price of gas....the 2 most important numbers that will decide this election.
Click to expand...

I get the unemployment, although Congress shares a lot of blame in that as well, but I will be interested to see how the President is solely going to be blamed for gas prices.
 
Skydog Deac said:
I get the unemployment, although Congress shares a lot of blame in that as well, but I will be interested to see how the President is solely going to be blamed for gas prices.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how. It matters how stupid the voters are that determines if they buy the bullshit that he caused high gas prices.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
The Tea Party steered the GOP out of at least two Senate seats last election. Don't count on them to steer the GOP nominee toward the middle, which is where presidential elections are decided.

Regarding unemployment, see my last post. It generally seems not to matter, so long as the number doesn't spike drastically in 2012. Regarding gas prices, that's like setting up the Dems for a pet issue- blame the oil companies. It won't hurt him too badly when he points the finger at oil company profits over the last three years.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they would steer them to the middle, I said that they have almost no focus on social issues. IMHO without the tea party the GOP would not have won the house or would only hold a slim majority.

If you don't think unemployment of 9+% and high gas prices won't drive votes away from Obama you're crazy. Just see his polling number on his handling of the economy.
 
Skydog Deac said:
I get the unemployment, although Congress shares a lot of blame in that as well, but I will be interested to see how the President is solely going to be blamed for gas prices.
Click to expand...

Bush 2008?
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
They also voted for him because of the shambles the other party had made of the country to that point. It wasn't just "hope and change," it was a drastic national sentiment to clean house. You seem to be arguing as if Bush and Co. were doing a passable job.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, I just equate "hope and change" with "clean house" in the voters eyes. In any event, he can't win on the "clean house" platform this time around, which goes to my point that he won't win unless the people who voted for him just for the sake of change in 2008 will be persuaded to get off the couch and vote again, and not for change, but this time rather in support of the status quo. And given that many view the current status quo as worse than the 2008 shambles (or simply a different kind of shambles), it will be interesting to see.
 
Skydog Deac said:
Your right, it cost Bush dearly, John Kerry was a great President.
Click to expand...

Kerry was one hell of a candidate in '08.

The spike in oil prices in Bush's 2nd term was definitely placed squarely on his shoulders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top