Obama Will Lose In 2012

Obama won in 2008 due to a disharmonic convergence of the Financial Crisis, Bush Fatigue, War Fatigue, and McCain's uninspiring campaign...and the fact that his virtual lack of a record enabled him to spin a fantasy regarding how he would heal the planet.

This time around, he'll be running on a record, and it's quite ugly to many of the moderates who supported him in 2008.

No more ugly than Bush's record for 2004.


Bush was controversial, but his policies were not causing a dramatic increase in the "misery index". Unemployment was 5.4%; there was 3%ish inflation, but with high employment levels - the impact was somewhat mitigated.

You can ridicule the misery index as much as you'd like, but it is a very good indicator. And Obama's is quite dismal.
 
Obama won in 2008 due to a disharmonic convergence of the Financial Crisis, Bush Fatigue, War Fatigue, and McCain's uninspiring campaign...and the fact that his virtual lack of a record enabled him to spin a fantasy regarding how he would heal the planet.

This time around, he'll be running on a record, and it's quite ugly to many of the moderates who supported him in 2008.

No more ugly than Bush's record for 2004.


Bush was controversial, but his policies were not causing a dramatic increase in the "misery index". Unemployment was 5.4%; there was 3%ish inflation, but with high employment levels - the impact was somewhat mitigated.

You can ridicule the misery index as much as you'd like, but it is a very good indicator. And Obama's is quite dismal.

Um...then why isn't he less popular?
 
looking at the posts over the last 2-3 pages, my view is, here the thing, McCain, a zombie with a shitty campaign and the personality of a door to door salesman toting a drear tired product decades beyond his prime ( UNLIKE the 2000 McCain btw) ,was neck and neck and in fact led obama before the crash, he had a 10 point lead ( an outlier inho) at one point according to a USA Today/Gallup poll, go look, that alone ought to make you think.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Obama will never ever get that freshness and enthusiasm back, in fact VERY few ever do, he does have the msm though, they already have and will make it appear inevitable, they submarine reports relegating the 'inconvenient' to 10 second bytes or page 16, that would if it were for others be front and center....though, thats getting tired thank god and that effect actually I think has begun to tail back on istelf, it still carry's a lot of weight, there are people, believe it or not, who scan the cover of the Times or woof dinner half watching listening to the tube and there it is, thats all they get and ....:eusa_whistle:
 
Obama will never ever get that freshness and enthusiasm back,

He doesn't need it back.

Being an incumbant USA President means you really gotta fuck up to lose reelection.

Carter and Bush Sr. are the only ones to accomplish this since Hoover.

Obama is the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century. I have faith he'll fuck up. Like he's already done.

Obama won because a) People were tired of 2 wars and Pres Bush; b) the economy got crappy. It was apparent from the beginning that whomever the Dems chose would probably be the next president, just because of a). But even so McCain ran a surprisingly good campaign through the primaries and general. It wa not until the economy started crashing after the primaries that his weakness on economics became apparent and his poll numbers tanked.
Next year we don't have those same factors. Obama has continued both wars and started yet another. His promises on the economy have been shown false. His programs are deeply unpopular among all sections of the public. He is not the outsider/challenger anymore. He is the incumbent with a bad record.
 
Last edited:
Obama will never ever get that freshness and enthusiasm back,

He doesn't need it back.

Being an incumbant USA President means you really gotta fuck up to lose reelection.

Carter and Bush Sr. are the only ones to accomplish this since Hoover.

Obama is the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century. I have faith he'll fuck up. Like he's already done.

Well, it could happen: Carter, Obama, Reagan, Bush Jr., and Clinton all had about the same popularity after their 800th day in office (see the interactive chart).

However, based on the odds above (1:5) you're prediction isn't very likely.

If we add Bush Sr into the mix, the odds get even worse: He was VERY popular after 800 days, yet still managed to lose to Clinton.
 
He doesn't need it back.

Being an incumbant USA President means you really gotta fuck up to lose reelection.

Carter and Bush Sr. are the only ones to accomplish this since Hoover.

Obama is the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century. I have faith he'll fuck up. Like he's already done.

Well, it could happen: Carter, Obama, Reagan, Bush Jr., and Clinton all had about the same popularity after their 800th day in office (see the interactive chart).

However, based on the odds above (1:5) you're prediction isn't very likely.

If we add Bush Sr into the mix, the odds get even worse: He was VERY popular after 800 days, yet still managed to lose to Clinton.

I put absolutely NO stock is predictions like this. It is all on a case by case basis. You have to give actual reasons rather than "this is what's happened before."
In the case of Clinton etc, people are reluctant to change unless things are pretty bad. Here, things are pretty bad. Obama has basically lost every election since his own. Governors of VA and NJ, Scot Brown, 2010. He has a losing track record.
 
Obama is the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century. I have faith he'll fuck up. Like he's already done.

Well, it could happen: Carter, Obama, Reagan, Bush Jr., and Clinton all had about the same popularity after their 800th day in office (see the interactive chart).

However, based on the odds above (1:5) you're prediction isn't very likely.

If we add Bush Sr into the mix, the odds get even worse: He was VERY popular after 800 days, yet still managed to lose to Clinton.

I put absolutely NO stock is predictions like this. It is all on a case by case basis. You have to give actual reasons rather than "this is what's happened before."
In the case of Clinton etc, people are reluctant to change unless things are pretty bad. Here, things are pretty bad. Obama has basically lost every election since his own. Governors of VA and NJ, Scot Brown, 2010. He has a losing track record.

Um...you realise Obama didn't run for Gov. of NJ or VA, right?
:razz:

If "everything is pretty bad" then it hasn't effected his popularity...Yet.

I'm not saying it won't, but I'm certain that those opposing Bush (Jr), Reagan, and Clinton all thought, "Things were pretty bad" into their 800th day of office, yet they were all re-elected.

You really cannot do any more than look at these 1:5 odds of losing this far out from November, 2012.

Here are the Vegas Odds, and factors effecting them, favoring Obama's re-election as of YESTERDAY:
http://www.1800-sports.com/presidential-betting-odds.shtml
 
Last edited:
Well, it could happen: Carter, Obama, Reagan, Bush Jr., and Clinton all had about the same popularity after their 800th day in office (see the interactive chart).

However, based on the odds above (1:5) you're prediction isn't very likely.

If we add Bush Sr into the mix, the odds get even worse: He was VERY popular after 800 days, yet still managed to lose to Clinton.

I put absolutely NO stock is predictions like this. It is all on a case by case basis. You have to give actual reasons rather than "this is what's happened before."
In the case of Clinton etc, people are reluctant to change unless things are pretty bad. Here, things are pretty bad. Obama has basically lost every election since his own. Governors of VA and NJ, Scot Brown, 2010. He has a losing track record.

Um...you realise Obama didn't run for Gov. of NJ or VA, right?
:razz:

If "everything is pretty bad" then it hasn't effected his popularity...Yet.

I'm not saying it won't, but I'm certain that those opposing Bush (Jr), Reagan, and Clinton all thought, "Things were pretty bad" into their 800th day of office, yet they were all re-elected.

You really cannot do any more than look at these 1:5 odds of losing this far out from November, 2012.

Here are the Vegas Odds, and factors effecting them, favoring Obama's re-election as of YESTERDAY:
2012 Presidential Betting Odds - Odds on US Presidency

You realize that every candidate he worked for lost, right? (OK, maybe not every one but certainly majorraces).
It has affected his popularity. His popularity is in free fall. This is especially so among those who elected him, independents and liberals.
They are not 1:5 odds. This is not a dice game. And present predictions are worthless, especially without a GOP candidate.
 
No more ugly than Bush's record for 2004.


Bush was controversial, but his policies were not causing a dramatic increase in the "misery index". Unemployment was 5.4%; there was 3%ish inflation, but with high employment levels - the impact was somewhat mitigated.

You can ridicule the misery index as much as you'd like, but it is a very good indicator. And Obama's is quite dismal.

Um...then why isn't he less popular?


How did the MSM treat Bush vs. the way they currently treat Obama?
 
{Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.

“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”}

ROFL, what a fucking moron...

Arrogant and stupid - this is what happens when Obama tries to speak without a teleprompter.

Yep - the stupid fuck is definitely going to be traded in come 2012.
 
Independents will have the final say in 2012. If they lean Conservative,Hopey Changey is done. I guess we'll see.
 
In 2004 many people were very dissatisfied with Bush as President. Many people believed that the economic appearance of the time was what it turned out to be, which was a temporarily inflated facade on an unstable machine. People recognized that the deficits of the time were in reality larger than the numbers being presented, because the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions were not being reflected.

Utter revisionist bullshit.

In 2004, your party focused exclusively on the Iraq war and attacked Bush on being a "war monger." You put forth a burnt out 60's radical, John Kerry and figured that the Manson/Fonda coalition still had clout.

It was a stupid tactic by stupid people. Your attempt to rewrite history is nothing more than a fable.
 
America, four years ago when we took office our economy was spiraling out of control and losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. Today, we are gaining jobs every month. Thanks to bipartisan efforts in Congress our budget deficit left by the previous administration has been reduced each of the last two years. We are finally on the right track after our nation suffered it's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression just four short years ago.


........

So you figure you can blatantly lie?

Well, going Goebbels certainly fits with the fascist in the white house...
 

Forum List

Back
Top