(05-22-2011 06:54 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 06:19 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 05:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 05:04 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 04:40 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Why would anyone of them want to run against Obama in 2012? THey know they can't win. Many are waiting until 2016 so they don't have to go through the pressure cooker and ruin their chances in 2016 when they have a better shot.

Please provide one shred of evidence to back this up as well.

All one hads to do is look at who is running and who isn't to know that the more qualified candidates arn't running/ It should be pretty obvious to anyone but morons.

NAILED IT

I'll nail it.

If Romney, Paul, Pawlenty, Newt, Cain weren't running and Bush, Sarah, Michele, Trump and Huck were, you would say the exact same thing.

BOOM, nailed it, suckers!!!

Romney and Pawlenty are the only two serious candidates you mentioned. The others are a joke.

(05-22-2011 06:54 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 06:19 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 05:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 05:04 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 04:40 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Why would anyone of them want to run against Obama in 2012? THey know they can't win. Many are waiting until 2016 so they don't have to go through the pressure cooker and ruin their chances in 2016 when they have a better shot.

Please provide one shred of evidence to back this up as well.

All one hads to do is look at who is running and who isn't to know that the more qualified candidates arn't running/ It should be pretty obvious to anyone but morons.

NAILED IT

I'll nail it.

If Romney, Paul, Pawlenty, Newt, Cain weren't running and Bush, Sarah, Michele, Trump and Huck were, you would say the exact same thing.

BOOM, nailed it, suckers!!!

...and I would be correct. Cain can't handle himself on Fox News Sunday, Newt has stumbled badly out of the gate, Sarah and Michelle aren't even serious candidates, Ron Paul is a loon,Trump was never even considering a bid, Huckabee would run strong where the GOP is already strong. Romney and Huntsman could have broad appeal and Jeb Bush could be a game changer. I would consider either of those last three.

(05-22-2011 05:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 05:04 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 04:40 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Why would anyone of them want to run against Obama in 2012? THey know they can't win. Many are waiting until 2016 so they don't have to go through the pressure cooker and ruin their chances in 2016 when they have a better shot.

Please provide one shred of evidence to back this up as well.

All one hads to do is look at who is running and who isn't to know that the more qualified candidates arn't running/ It should be pretty obvious to anyone but morons.

Your opinion is not evidence fool. A fact you've never been able to grasp.
If the economy looks the way it does now, or worse, come election day the Republican candidate can/will easily beat Obama.

What happened with Bush 41 is the specific evidence one need look at to know how moronic it is to say no one can beat Obama.

Fool.

Actually, with Bush 41, even with the economy in the tank, he needed Perot stealing votes from him to give the win to Billy Boy.

Beating Obama won't be a cakewalk, even if the economy's still in the tank. If the Republicans run a stiff (say, Romney) out there, he'll lose. I can't shake the feeling that the Republicans are going to sacrifice someone, (see: Dole, Bob; Kerry, John;, Mondale, Fritz) and concentrate on shoring up the House and making a run at taking the Senate.

(05-23-2011 07:08 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Actually, with Bush 41, even with the economy in the tank, he needed Perot stealing votes from him to give the win to Billy Boy.
Beating Obama won't be a cakewalk, even if the economy's still in the tank. If the Republicans run a stiff (say, Romney) out there, he'll lose. I can't shake the feeling that the Republicans are going to sacrifice someone, (see: Dole, Bob; Kerry, John;, Mondale, Fritz) and concentrate on shoring up the House and making a run at taking the Senate.

That would be my strategy if I were in their place. And I think that might be best for the country. I've had enough one-party rule by either party.

Mondale is a bad comparison - he was going up against a much more popular incumbent.

I can see that scenario playing out although I also think we might get a third-party candidate before this is all said and done.

It would be interesting to see Obama against a majority Republican House and Senate. To me his biggest fault is his ego (I realize most of you would say otherwise). You'd think huge losses in both the senate and house would humble him a bit, but I doubt it.

(05-23-2011 07:08 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Actually, with Bush 41, even with the economy in the tank, he needed Perot stealing votes from him to give the win to Billy Boy.

Beating Obama won't be a cakewalk, even if the economy's still in the tank. If the Republicans run a stiff (say, Romney) out there, he'll lose. I can't shake the feeling that the Republicans are going to sacrifice someone, (see: Dole, Bob; Kerry, John;, Mondale, Fritz) and concentrate on shoring up the House and making a run at taking the Senate.

I think Mondale fits because he was a sacrificial lamb precisely BECAUSE Reagan was a popular incumbent.

Who knows? A Republican congress may end up saving Obama from himself, a la Billy Boy.

If he goes down in history as a centrist president because the Republican congress dragged him kicking and screaming toward the center, is a that a bad thing?

(05-23-2011 07:31 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I can see that scenario playing out although I also think we might get a third-party candidate before this is all said and done.

If so, it'll most likely be of the Tea Party variety, no? And if it is, it will not only guarantee Obama's reelection, but probably a landslide.

(05-23-2011 07:31 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Mondale is a bad comparison - he was going up against a much more popular incumbent.
I can see that scenario playing out although I also think we might get a third-party candidate before this is all said and done.
It would be interesting to see Obama against a majority Republican House and Senate. To me his biggest fault is his ego (I realize most of you would say otherwise). You'd think huge losses in both the senate and house would humble him a bit, but I doubt it.

I too think there is a strong likelihood we will see a third-party candidate. If republicans nominate a strong social conservative, I could see a fiscal conservative/social moderate jumping onto the libertarian ticket and having a lot of appeal, certainly far more than Bob Barr did, and if the republican nominee is a fiscal conservative/social moderate, I could see a social conservative third party candidate.

I would not expect the third party to field many strong down-ballot candidates, so both republican and third-party voters would probably vote for republican house and senate candidates. I would think the presence of the third party candidate would increase voter turnout and that would help the republicans down-ballot.

In that scenario, I could see something like Obama with 45% of the vote, the republican with 40%, the third party with 15%, and big republican wins in house and senate. It would be interesting to see how Obama's egomania would cope.

I think he's egomaniacal, but I don't think that's his worst quality. I think his worst quality is that he does not understand how an economy really works. For that reason, my most likely expectation is that the economy to be somewhat worse next year. It could be marginally better, or the bottom could fall out between now and then. At some point, we simply have to run out of other people's money, and trying to double dip with 1) continuing massive deficits while 2) pushing massive additional income redistribution simply has to mean that one or both groups of other people (creditors or the "rich") simply walks away. When that happens we are dead.

Absolutely dead, perhaps never to recover. I really think the stakes are that high.

(05-23-2011 07:08 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Actually, with Bush 41, even with the economy in the tank, he needed Perot stealing votes from him to give the win to Billy Boy.

What Perot's 1992 voters would have done, if he had not been on the ballot, is a question that will probably never have a solid, consensus answer. Various people have written articles -- some of them quite long and "academic" -- arguing that his absence would have helped Bush-41, or would have helped Clinton, or would have had a negligible net-partisan effect. My own sense of it is that Clinton would have still won the election, but by a closer margin (say, 2% of the popular vote, instead of the 5.5% that he got in real life).

*************

There seems to be this great myth that Clinton was a "popular" candidate and president. This myth is largely based on polling data taken near the end of his presidency, or even since Clinton left office. But when it was his name that was actually on the ballot, as a presidential nominee, he got 43% the first time, 49% the second time, and his hand-picked VP got 48% running as Clinton's proxy in 2000. Those are not (to say the least), FDR/Reagan-type percentages. Under his leadership, the Democrats suffered an historic landslide defeat in the 1994 midterms, including the loss of their 40-year-majority in the House of Representatives. Despite picking up a few of those districts in '96 and '98, the Democrats never did regain that House majority until long after Clinton had left the presidency.

I think Clinton was actually a very weak nominee in '92, who would have never even made past the initial round of primaries if the Democrats' heavyweights (Cuomo, Gephardt, etc.) had not all decided to take a pass on the campaign.

Right now, Obama has the advantage. He's the incumbent, which means he doesn't have to fight through the primaries. He's got a ton of money in his war chest from the last election, and has proven he can raise an incredible amount of money. Just from a campaign standpoint, he'll be tough to beat.

According to a Fox News poll taken this week:

Considering how President Obama has performed so far, do you think he deserves to be reelected, or would the country probably be better off with someone else as president?
50% Deserves to be reelected
43% Better off with someone else

Just your best guess: As of today, do you think Barack Obama will be reelected president in 2012, or not?
57% Will
36% Will Not



But they're part of the liberal media, right?

(05-23-2011 09:17 PM)TOGC Wrote:  Right now, Obama has the advantage. He's the incumbent, which means he doesn't have to fight through the primaries. He's got a ton of money in his war chest from the last election, and has proven he can raise an incredible amount of money. Just from a campaign standpoint, he'll be tough to beat.

According to a Fox News poll taken this week:

Considering how President Obama has performed so far, do you think he deserves to be reelected, or would the country probably be better off with someone else as president?
50% Deserves to be reelected
43% Better off with someone else

Just your best guess: As of today, do you think Barack Obama will be reelected president in 2012, or not?
57% Will
36% Will Not



But they're part of the liberal media, right?

Wait, so Faux is a legitimate source when it upholds your argument, but otherwise is a right wing rag that can't be trusted?

(05-23-2011 09:30 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 09:17 PM)TOGC Wrote:  Right now, Obama has the advantage. He's the incumbent, which means he doesn't have to fight through the primaries. He's got a ton of money in his war chest from the last election, and has proven he can raise an incredible amount of money. Just from a campaign standpoint, he'll be tough to beat.

According to a Fox News poll taken this week:

Considering how President Obama has performed so far, do you think he deserves to be reelected, or would the country probably be better off with someone else as president?
50% Deserves to be reelected
43% Better off with someone else

Just your best guess: As of today, do you think Barack Obama will be reelected president in 2012, or not?
57% Will
36% Will Not



But they're part of the liberal media, right?

Wait, so Faux is a legitimate source when it upholds your argument, but otherwise is a right wing rag that can't be trusted?

Nope, it's proof that Obama has such a big head start that even a right-wing outfit like Fox can't see him losing. If I had posted other mainstream sources, they would've immediately been attacked as "liberal media."

Try that with Fox. I could use a good laugh.

He ought to have a head start. He's been campaigning for 2012 since before he was inducted for the current term in '09.

Also, you should post a link when you cite a poll.

(05-23-2011 10:03 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  He ought to have a head start. He's been campaigning for 2012 since before he was inducted for the current term in '09.

Also, you should post a link when you cite a poll.

Sentence #1 is your opinion and it is not backed by fact.

As for sentence #2, is your Google broken?

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FoxNewsPoll.pdf

(05-22-2011 06:45 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  With Daniels & Huckabee out will this force a serious look from Christie or Rubio? Who else is on the GOP bench? Right now Cain is the best candidate but Romney has the best apparatus.

Rubio cant run, he is not a natural born citizen not that seems to stop anybody these days...

(05-23-2011 10:41 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 06:45 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  With Daniels & Huckabee out will this force a serious look from Christie or Rubio? Who else is on the GOP bench? Right now Cain is the best candidate but Romney has the best apparatus.

Rubio cant run, he is not a natural born citizen not that seems to stop anybody these days...

Just stop it. McCain had two American parents and was born on a base in Panama. Technically, he's natural born.

(05-23-2011 10:41 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 06:45 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  With Daniels & Huckabee out will this force a serious look from Christie or Rubio? Who else is on the GOP bench? Right now Cain is the best candidate but Romney has the best apparatus.

Rubio cant run, he is not a natural born citizen not that seems to stop anybody these days...

Rubio was born in Miami in 1971. That makes him a natural-born citizen.

(05-23-2011 10:43 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:41 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 06:45 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  With Daniels & Huckabee out will this force a serious look from Christie or Rubio? Who else is on the GOP bench? Right now Cain is the best candidate but Romney has the best apparatus.

Rubio cant run, he is not a natural born citizen not that seems to stop anybody these days...

Just stop it. McCain had two American parents and was born on a base in Panama. Technically, he's natural born.

I was talking about Obama... McCain was never in Question...

(05-23-2011 10:50 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:43 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:41 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 06:45 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  With Daniels & Huckabee out will this force a serious look from Christie or Rubio? Who else is on the GOP bench? Right now Cain is the best candidate but Romney has the best apparatus.

Rubio cant run, he is not a natural born citizen not that seems to stop anybody these days...

Just stop it. McCain had two American parents and was born on a base in Panama. Technically, he's natural born.

I was talking about Obama... McCain was never in Question...

Only dumbasses questioned Obama, who was born in the state of Hawaii to a natural born American mother.

At least Obama was born in one of the 50 states. McCain got in on a technicality.