Post #20 is well-said, and expands on some of the points I tried to make at #3.

Another thing, which I haven't seen anybody mention, is that in our Electoral-College system, the total %s of different demographic groups is of only secondary importance. It's not like the presidency is determined by a nationwide popular vote. (Are people really starting to forget the Bush/Gore drama already?)

(05-17-2011 10:26 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  [Obama is] certainly beatable, the GOP just doesn't have any main stream candidates. How many independent voters are going to vote for them, considering how far they have to go to the right to win the primary?

The presidential election next year will be, first and foremost, a referendum on Barack Obama. People who think he has done a good job as President are going to vote for him regardless of who the Republicans nominate, and if there are enough such people, Obama will be assured of a second term. People who think Obama has not done a good job as President will then look over the GOP's choice. If that nominee strikes the voter as a plausible, legitimate potential president, then that's 1 vote for the Republican. If not -- if the voter, in other words, is confronted with 2 candidates and dislikes them both -- then the decision gets even more personal and hinges on issues that we cannot even begin to project 17-18 months ahead of time.

But for the GOP, the key is to nominate someone who will, as I put it, "strike the voter as a plausible, legitimate potential president". Right now, I see four candidates or probable candidate on the GOP side who will pass that test: Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney. There's still a long ways to go between now and the primaries, but right now I feel about 90% certain that the GOP nomination will go to one of those four.

The question is pretty ridiculous on its face. Obama never should have been elected in the first case and it took incompetence of epic proportions to get him elected. In 2008, the Republicans rose to the occasion. In 2012, it will again take a vacuum of leadership and great deal of incompetence for Obama to be re-elected. I predict that the Republicans will once again rise to the challenge. But, to answer your question, no, he's not unbeatable.

(05-17-2011 10:26 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Your numbers are horribly off.

Blacks still only make up about 13.5% of the population, and 65% of them voted in the 2008 presidential election. So even if every single black person voted for Obama, that's 8.8%. I'd also be hard pressed to believe gays make up 10% of the population and I'm living near Boystown, so if they aren't here, I don't know where they are.

Doesn't this set off some kind of alarms? You really think that with a black president, the influence of black voters is less than their proportions of the population? Overall voter turnout was 55%, and Black voter turnout was 65%, then the proportion of voters who are black is 16%. If your figure of 65% is of the overall population and not eligible voters, then it could be as much as 25% of all voters. It's still not dominant, but it shows they do punch above their weight in terms of overall population. It's hard to figure how many white voters would vote for Mumia al-Jamal solely by virtue of the fact that he is black, but it is not insignificant.

I45, considering 30% of blacks are under 18, I think it's safe to say the statistic meant 65% of eligible black voters, not 65% of blacks over all.

With Huntsman's belief in climate change and Romney implementing his own Obamacare, I don't know how well they are going to go over with the base.

Maybe I'm overestimating the far right's power, or underestimating their willingness to support someone to the left of their views just to get rid of Obama.

(05-17-2011 10:22 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 10:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And Obama achieved the presidency of the United States, yet you give him no credit. Something I might add Cain will never accomplish

The Presidency is a popularity contest. Didn't used to be, but the unintelligent Dem voters have turned it into one. How else do you explain the election of the LEAST qualified person on the Democratic primary ticket?

You are a perfect Cain supporter my friend. Every utterance contains a noun, a verb and a talking point.

(05-17-2011 11:52 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I45, considering 30% of blacks are under 18, I think it's safe to say the statistic meant 65% of eligible black voters, not 65% of blacks over all.

Not surprising ... I recall 80% figuring in to the election somehow, but I think that was the proportion voting for Obama in 2008, not turnout of eligible voters.

(05-17-2011 01:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 10:22 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 10:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And Obama achieved the presidency of the United States, yet you give him no credit. Something I might add Cain will never accomplish

The Presidency is a popularity contest. Didn't used to be, but the unintelligent Dem voters have turned it into one. How else do you explain the election of the LEAST qualified person on the Democratic primary ticket?

You are a perfect Cain supporter my friend. Every utterance contains a noun, a verb and a talking point.

Did I say something that was untrue? Didn't think so.

I'm more concerned with getting all of the old blood out of congress rather than who the President is. Once I feel that I can gauge the composition of the houses, then I'll decide who I want the POTUS to be.

(05-17-2011 01:22 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 01:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 10:22 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 10:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And Obama achieved the presidency of the United States, yet you give him no credit. Something I might add Cain will never accomplish

The Presidency is a popularity contest. Didn't used to be, but the unintelligent Dem voters have turned it into one. How else do you explain the election of the LEAST qualified person on the Democratic primary ticket?

You are a perfect Cain supporter my friend. Every utterance contains a noun, a verb and a talking point.

Did I say something that was untrue? Didn't think so.

Sure.

First, Gore was more popular than Bush as he got more votes.

Second, your dismissal of the vast majority of Obama voters as ignorant is not supported by any measure of fact.

Lastly, Obama was in no way the least qualified to win the nomination on the Democratic side. He had similar qualifications to Edwards and Hillary. Not to mention Bayh, Kucinich and Gravel. Certainly there is not a litmus test to prove your theory beyond any reasonable doubt.

While I understand your disdain for all things Obama, you really to seem to take positions based upon your feelings and theories without any basis in fact way too much. You really sound like a liberal at times!

(05-17-2011 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Lastly, Obama was in no way the least qualified to win the nomination on the Democratic side. He had similar qualifications to Edwards and Hillary. Not to mention Bayh, Kucinich and Gravel. Certainly there is not a litmus test to prove your theory beyond any reasonable doubt.

He was a one-term senator that continually voted present and spent MOST of his time AS a one-term Senator running for President. At least Hillary actually worked as a damn senator and she'd have been bringing slick Willie along with her. Bayh, Edwards, Gravel, and the Kooch also had BEAU COUP more experience than Obama.

Again, THE least qualified and it shows that it was A) nothing but a popularity contest and B) that his voters were idiots. His performance so far is proof positive of that. How's the debt? How's the deficit? How are the unemployment numbers? Going down? Any? None?

Name something that is better today than it was when Obama took office.

OK, we go bin Laden. That's one thing. Name another.

The old, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago," argument is going to be a strong one unless things improve dramatically. And I see what Obama is doing as driving things toward worse rather than better.

(05-17-2011 03:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Name something that is better today than it was when Obama took office.

OK, we go bin Laden. That's one thing. Name another.

The old, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago," argument is going to be a strong one unless things improve dramatically. And I see what Obama is doing as driving things toward worse rather than better.

We're getting people out of Iraq. And we aren't starting any new wars (except in a limited sense in Libya) that we'll be stuck in for 10 years. We don't have coalitions that consist of basically 2 countries.

And we've finally decided that a deficit is a bad thing, and not a good thing. Whether we can do anything about it is another question. But when the next Republican gets elected President, hopefully it will still be a bad thing.

There are very few things presidents can be given credit for, if you have a mind not to.

The stock market, NASDAQ, S&P 500, and gold prices are all up about 50 pct since January, 2009. I don't think that's necessarily better for all, but it's better for some, that's for sure.

But to answer the original question, no he's not unbeatable. At this point, I'd give him about the same odds as Bush had at roughly the same point of his presidency. Considering the Democrats ran a pretty mediocre candidate in 2004, Bush certainly didn't coast to re-election. If the Republicans nominate their version of Kerry, we'll probably see a second term. If they get closer to a Reagan-type candidate, we'll probably see a one-and-done.

The democrats will still have to figure out a way to get the hispanic vote excited. That's the minority bloc that should decide every major election now.

(05-17-2011 03:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 03:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Name something that is better today than it was when Obama took office.
OK, we go bin Laden. That's one thing. Name another.
The old, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago," argument is going to be a strong one unless things improve dramatically. And I see what Obama is doing as driving things toward worse rather than better.

We're getting people out of Iraq. And we aren't starting any new wars (except in a limited sense in Libya) that we'll be stuck in for 10 years. We don't have coalitions that consist of basically 2 countries.
And we've finally decided that a deficit is a bad thing, and not a good thing. Whether we can do anything about it is another question. But when the next Republican gets elected President, hopefully it will still be a bad thing.
There are very few things presidents can be given credit for, if you have a mind not to.

OK, so we haven't started any new wars except for the one we started. The Iraq withdrawal is pretty much on track with was was planned in 2008, so I don't see that as much of an up or down. It still could be, just not yet.

I think the deficit is something we've become aware of because the recent ones have been just hugely perverse. Obama did have something to do with making those deficits hugely perverse, but I don't see that as a positive.

I will agree with FBO about the stock market coming back. But the drivers are that multinationals are doing better overseas, in economies that are doing better than ours, and those successes are amplified by the decline of the dollar.

What's not happening is a revitalization of the domestic economy. That's what we need. And quite frankly, neither party is talking about the things that I believe are necessary to get there.

(05-17-2011 04:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 03:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 03:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Name something that is better today than it was when Obama took office.
OK, we go bin Laden. That's one thing. Name another.
The old, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago," argument is going to be a strong one unless things improve dramatically. And I see what Obama is doing as driving things toward worse rather than better.

We're getting people out of Iraq. And we aren't starting any new wars (except in a limited sense in Libya) that we'll be stuck in for 10 years. We don't have coalitions that consist of basically 2 countries.
And we've finally decided that a deficit is a bad thing, and not a good thing. Whether we can do anything about it is another question. But when the next Republican gets elected President, hopefully it will still be a bad thing.
There are very few things presidents can be given credit for, if you have a mind not to.

OK, so we haven't started any new wars except for the one we started. The Iraq withdrawal is pretty much on track with was was planned in 2008, so I don't see that as much of an up or down. It still could be, just not yet.

I think the deficit is something we've become aware of because the recent ones have been just hugely perverse. Obama did have something to do with making those deficits hugely perverse, but I don't see that as a positive.

I will agree with FBO about the stock market coming back. But the drivers are that multinationals are doing better overseas, in economies that are doing better than ours, and those successes are amplified by the decline of the dollar.

What's not happening is a revitalization of the domestic economy. That's what we need. And quite frankly, neither party is talking about the things that I believe are necessary to get there.

We're better off because we're getting out of Iraq - whether or not it was already planned is a separate question. And we don't even know if it would have really happened either without Obama. The Libya war is mostly NATO's, at least we're not leading the charge and we didn't send 100,000+ troops in there. We didn't get involved in Egypt's uprising but let it happen on it's own, so now we don't look like we're on the wrong side once again. What happens from here on out it's hard to tell. Could be positive.

There we go again. If there are any economic numbers that look good, they are rationalized to be nothing to do with Obama. If it had been a Republican president, it would just be good numbers, without the rationalization.

(05-17-2011 04:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  There we go again. If there are any economic numbers that look good, they are rationalized to be nothing to do with Obama. If it had been a Republican president, it would just be good numbers, without the rationalization.

And you are engaging in precisely the kind of behaviour you describe, only slanted the opposite direction. If this were a Republican president, you and the media would be focusing on unemployment and inflation and the other the bad numbers. Instead the focus is on the one bit of good news. But it's not OUR economy that's driving that, it's everybody else's.

Bottom line, how many people are better off than they were 3 years ago, and how many are worse off? I'm worse off by a wide margin. Still okay, because I take care of business instead of waiting on my government to bail me out. I just hope that ability isn't taken away from me, but I'm not optimistic.

(05-17-2011 04:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 04:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  There we go again. If there are any economic numbers that look good, they are rationalized to be nothing to do with Obama. If it had been a Republican president, it would just be good numbers, without the rationalization.

And you are engaging in precisely the kind of behaviour you describe, only slanted the opposite direction. If this were a Republican president, you and the media would be focusing on unemployment and inflation and the other the bad numbers. Instead the focus is on the one bit of good news. But it's not OUR economy that's driving that, it's everybody else's.

Bottom line, how many people are better off than they were 3 years ago, and how many are worse off? I'm worse off by a wide margin. Still okay, because I take care of business instead of waiting on my government to bail me out. I just hope that ability isn't taken away from me, but I'm not optimistic.

Excuse me, but I am not engaging in the behavior I'm describing. You asked how we were better off - I read that to mean in what ways are we better off. You already listed one, we got UBL. There are plenty of economic numbers I'm sure that are worse. But that isn't what you asked.

Your "bottom line" question is a different question entirely. I'm better off than I was 3 years ago. But I don't have any idea how many are "better off" in the entire country, and if I did, I wouldn't be able to ascribe a certain % of that to what Obama did, and what percent was beyond his control.

(05-17-2011 04:53 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 04:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 04:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  There we go again. If there are any economic numbers that look good, they are rationalized to be nothing to do with Obama. If it had been a Republican president, it would just be good numbers, without the rationalization.

And you are engaging in precisely the kind of behaviour you describe, only slanted the opposite direction. If this were a Republican president, you and the media would be focusing on unemployment and inflation and the other the bad numbers. Instead the focus is on the one bit of good news. But it's not OUR economy that's driving that, it's everybody else's.
Bottom line, how many people are better off than they were 3 years ago, and how many are worse off? I'm worse off by a wide margin. Still okay, because I take care of business instead of waiting on my government to bail me out. I just hope that ability isn't taken away from me, but I'm not optimistic.

Excuse me, but I am not engaging in the behavior I'm describing. You asked how we were better off - I read that to mean in what ways are we better off. You already listed one, we got UBL. There are plenty of economic numbers I'm sure that are worse. But that isn't what you asked.
Your "bottom line" question is a different question entirely. I'm better off than I was 3 years ago. But I don't have any idea how many are "better off" in the entire country, and if I did, I wouldn't be able to ascribe a certain % of that to what Obama did, and what percent was beyond his control.

To be fair, my initial comments about the stock market were responding to a different poster. I don't see much point in getting deflected into a "did not," "did so" argument about the proper characterization of your post or mine. I think we'd be best served just to agree to disagree there.

So you're better off. Congratulations. I think you're in a distinct minority. And I think that minority will grow smaller between now and November 2012, and still smaller after that date. And at this point I'm not sure it makes much difference what happens in November 2012. I'd like to see a different approach, to see if that could get us out of the ditch we're in, but I'm afraid it may be too late. We were a great country at one time. We probably never will be again.