Shouldn't the GOP be genuinely worried about 2012?

[editec]

Shouldn't the GOP be genuinely worried about 2012?

It ain't over until the fat lady pulls the lever in the polling booth.

Right now we're witnessing the GOP contenders tearing themselves to pieces.

When that internacine battle for the GOP nod is done, the GOP contenders will pretend to kiss and make up, then you'll see the same kind of character assassinating propaganda machinery directed squarely at Obama's weak underbelly..

And with the economy in tatters for most of us, and Obama's disappointing proformance according to many for whom he was once the GREAT WHITE HOPE?

I'd say predicting the outcome of this race is a tad premature.

For either party, I note.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But regardless of who the nominee is, Obama's worst enemy will still be Obama. Either a majority will approve of the job he's doing in which case he'll win, or they won't, in which case he'll lose.

Remember that Americans vote for a given candidate for president for two reasons and two reasons only: because they like him and because they think he will win.

Now, we’re talking about average Americans, not the likes of us discussing this just under a year from the election.

Americans don’t conduct an objective analysis of the candidates’ records and then vote for that candidate although they don’t like him or think he’ll win – it’s never worked that way.

Of the four incumbent presidents to fail to win reelection in the last 100 years, three lost to challengers perceived to be more charismatic and ‘winners,’ FDR, Reagan, and Clinton. Obviously that’s the missing important element for 2012: the GOP has no candidate perceived to be a charismatic ‘winner.’

 

[JoeB131]

Of the four incumbent presidents to fail to win reelection in the last 100 years, three lost to challengers perceived to be more charismatic and ‘winners,’ FDR, Reagan, and Clinton. Obviously that’s the missing important element for 2012: the GOP has no candidate perceived to be a charismatic ‘winner.’

All four of those guys lost for one reason.

The economy was in the shitter.

Right now, the economy is in the shitter more than it was for Ford, Carter or Bush-41. Maybe it was deeper in the shitter for Hoover, but it's the shitter pretty deep.

Charisma helps. And frankly, I wish we had a GOP nominee who was charismatic and better than that, could articulate Conservative values as effectively as a Reagan.

But at the end of the day, it will be a referendum on how the current guy is doing. Either people approve of Obama or they don't.

Right now, a majority don't.

 

[Unkotare]

Romney is unelectable. .

That's 5 mao more in the bank account, you bigoted fuck?

 

[Stephanie]

No matter who runs for the Republicans, Obama will run the nastiest, most negative campaign in the history of politics

yep, that is going to be a fact from what we've ALREADY seen. He and his comrades in arms.... HAVE NOTHING else.

 

[JoeB131]

Romney is unelectable. .

That's 5 mao more in the bank account, you bigoted fuck?

Just stating the obvious...

Elections lost By romney-

MA Senate- 1994

MA Governor- 2006 (didn't run because he was trailing by double digits)

Primaries lost by Romney - 2008 - Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, California, Illinois, New YOrk, Missouri, Arkansas, West Viriginia, Delaware, Conneticutt, New Jersey, Arizona, Washington, Georgia, Alabama, Tennesee.

He mercificully dropped out of the race after Super Tuesday, backed McCain, and spent the rest of the summer shilling for a VP pick.

Races won-

MA Governor 2002- running against a non-entity.

Primaries won- MIchigan (where no one else ran because they were holding an illegal primary) Mass (where he used to be governor, and he almost lost) Utah (full of his fellow LDS cultists).

So, guy, for every race he's won, he's lost 5.

If he were a race horse, he'd be on his way to the glue factory right now.

 

[editec]

Of the four incumbent presidents to fail to win reelection in the last 100 years, three lost to challengers perceived to be more charismatic and ‘winners,’ FDR, Reagan, and Clinton. Obviously that’s the missing important element for 2012: the GOP has no candidate perceived to be a charismatic ‘winner.’

All four of those guys lost for one reason.

The economy was in the shitter.

Right now, the economy is in the shitter more than it was for Ford, Carter or Bush-41. Maybe it was deeper in the shitter for Hoover, but it's the shitter pretty deep.

Charisma helps. And frankly, I wish we had a GOP nominee who was charismatic and better than that, could articulate Conservative values as effectively as a Reagan.

But at the end of the day, it will be a referendum on how the current guy is doing. Either people approve of Obama or they don't.

Right now, a majority don't.

Certainly nothing is going to matter MORE than the economy in this election.

That doesn't look good for O's prospects.

However it's a long way to Nov 2012, and there's plenty of time for something none of us can possibly predict to change the political dynamic.

What I am fairly confident of is this

If the economy does not improve?

All other things being equal, the GOP willl control the White House.

 

[kaz]

In truth, the only viable candidate is Romney

He's the most viable candidate for Obama to hold the Presidency.

I always like this canard: The only way for the Republicans to win is to have a candidate who isn't distinguishable from the Democrat. The Democrats won't dislike him as much but they'll vote for the Democrat anyway because they are Democrats. Conservatives will sit on their hands because he's not a Conservative. And bam, he wins!

Reality Check: Romney could win because Obama blows so much, like W beat Gore and Kerry even though he sucked because they sucked more. Or he could lose like Dole and HW to Clinton and McCain to Obama. But Romney is not viable for anything but to make what shouldn't be a race into a race.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All four of those guys lost for one reason.

The economy was in the shitter.

Which would not matter had the opposing party failed to field a viable candidate.

This was particularly true with regard to Carter and GHWB.

If republicans think a majority of voters will vote for any republican candidate just to ‘get rid’ of Obama, then they’re sadly mistaken.

 

[Stephanie]

All four of those guys lost for one reason.

The economy was in the shitter.

Which would not matter had the opposing party failed to field a viable candidate.

This was particularly true with regard to Carter and GHWB.

If republicans think a majority of voters will vote for any republican candidate just to ‘get rid’ of Obama, then they’re sadly mistaken.

oh I wouldn't bet on that one.
The people can't stand Obama. except the die hard Obamabots.

 

[JoeB131]

In truth, the only viable candidate is Romney

He's the most viable candidate for Obama to hold the Presidency.

I always like this canard: The only way for the Republicans to win is to have a candidate who isn't distinguishable from the Democrat. The Democrats won't dislike him as much but they'll vote for the Democrat anyway because they are Democrats. Conservatives will sit on their hands because he's not a Conservative. And bam, he wins!

Reality Check: Romney could win because Obama blows so much, like W beat Gore and Kerry even though he sucked because they sucked more. Or he could lose like Dole and HW to Clinton and McCain to Obama. But Romney is not viable for anything but to make what shouldn't be a race into a race.

Very well said.

This election will be a referendum on Obama, not whether Romney is more conservative than Cain or Gingrich.

There's really no reason for Conservatives to settle for less.

 

[rdean]

Shouldn't the GOP be genuinely worried about 2012?

Not really. Republicans rarely think beyond a week one way or the other.

It's why their policies always fail. They only think what might happen 7 days in advance, if that.

And it's why they make the same mistakes over and over again. They don't remember what happened more than a week ago. And even that's not clear.

EXAMPLES:

Iraq. What happened wasn't even close to what they "imagined" would happen. Any college educated historian could have told them why.

Georgia. The overbearing laws that cost farmers upwards a billion dollars.

Extending the Bush tax cuts. They want to blame that on Obama when we all know he was blackmailed because Republicans held millions of Americans hostage. Even the Christian Science Monitor has written multiple stories about this.

The Republican leaders know they can do anything. Their base will forget about it in a week. That's been proven over and over again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Shouldn't the GOP be genuinely worried about 2012?

Not really. Republicans rarely think beyond a week one way or the other.

It's why their policies always fail. They only think what might happen 7 days in advance, if that.

And it's why they make the same mistakes over and over again. They don't remember what happened more than a week ago. And even that's not clear.

EXAMPLES:

Iraq. What happened wasn't even close to what they "imagined" would happen. Any college educated historian could have told them why.

Georgia. The overbearing laws that cost farmers upwards a billion dollars.

Extending the Bush tax cuts. They want to blame that on Obama when we all know he was blackmailed because Republicans held millions of Americans hostage. Even the Christian Science Monitor has written multiple stories about this.

The Republican leaders know they can do anything. Their base will forget about it in a week. That's been proven over and over again.

OH the flux accusations when obama continuing what you bitched about 3 years ago makes me just say to you. shut the fuck up you blathering raging bullshit eating bitch. That is all carrying on with you fluxy flux.

 

[rdean]

Shouldn't the GOP be genuinely worried about 2012?

Not really. Republicans rarely think beyond a week one way or the other.

It's why their policies always fail. They only think what might happen 7 days in advance, if that.

And it's why they make the same mistakes over and over again. They don't remember what happened more than a week ago. And even that's not clear.

EXAMPLES:

Iraq. What happened wasn't even close to what they "imagined" would happen. Any college educated historian could have told them why.

Georgia. The overbearing laws that cost farmers upwards a billion dollars.

Extending the Bush tax cuts. They want to blame that on Obama when we all know he was blackmailed because Republicans held millions of Americans hostage. Even the Christian Science Monitor has written multiple stories about this.

The Republican leaders know they can do anything. Their base will forget about it in a week. That's been proven over and over again.

OH the flux accusations when obama continuing what you bitched about 3 years ago makes me just say to you. shut the fuck up you blathering raging bullshit eating bitch. That is all carrying on with you fluxy flux.

I'm sorry. I couldn't understand what you were saying. Seems you "blathered".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is the biggest flaw in republican strategy, they are certain that they will win by just doubling down with the scare tactics, and that the republican nominee is a certain winner. Hubris embodied.

Republicans don't need scare tactics, they just have to point to the economy.

Obama's vague Hopey Changey campaign from 2008 can't be repeated.

He has to run on his (horrible) record. Buh-bye.

Unfortunately where you may be wrong is that there are too many people out there that listen to the bullshit that it is ALL Bush's fault and, worse yet, they believe it. They will vote for Obama no matter what.

Immie

It's true, idiots make up a large part of Obama's base.

The people with above room temperature IQs who can listen to reason and who won't be fooled by the empty, "Hope & Change" and "It's all Bush's fault" rhetoric will be the ones who look at Obama's terrible performance and vote for the Republican this time.

 

[kaz]

Shouldn't the GOP be genuinely worried about 2012?

Not really. Republicans rarely think beyond a week one way or the other

It always cracks me up when a liberal says this. Social Security, Medicare, ridiculous government pensions, out of control spending and deficits, taking money from the people and companies who create jobs, blocking every viable energy policy, and on and on crushing our future in the name of political expediency today. Then it's the "Republicans" who don't think more then a week ahead. Your bowl is filled today, you don't even think a week.

 

[The T]

Republicans don't need scare tactics, they just have to point to the economy.

Obama's vague Hopey Changey campaign from 2008 can't be repeated.

He has to run on his (horrible) record. Buh-bye.

Unfortunately where you may be wrong is that there are too many people out there that listen to the bullshit that it is ALL Bush's fault and, worse yet, they believe it. They will vote for Obama no matter what.

Immie

It's true, idiots make up a large part of Obama's base.

The people with above room temperature IQs who can listen to reason and who won't be fooled by the empty, "Hope & Change" and "It's all Bush's fault" rhetoric will be the ones who look at Obama's terrible performance and vote for the Republican this time.

Some are scared to death of real change and having to make choices for themselves and living with it...It could be said that some are scared of thier own liberty and want no part of it.

 

[Meister]

All four of those guys lost for one reason.

The economy was in the shitter.

Which would not matter had the opposing party failed to field a viable candidate.

This was particularly true with regard to Carter and GHWB.

If republicans think a majority of voters will vote for any republican candidate just to ‘get rid’ of Obama, then they’re sadly mistaken.

oh I wouldn't bet on that one.
The people can't stand Obama. except the die hard Obamabots.

It's the die hard obamabots that speak for all Americans, didn't you know that?

 

[JoeB131]

Iraq. What happened wasn't even close to what they "imagined" would happen. Any college educated historian could have told them why.

.

If that was the case, why did John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards and a bunch of other Democrats all vote to go along with it? I mean, if ANYONE knew what was going to happen (although absolutely no one predicted it at the time), why did they all go along with it.

The reality is they signed a check and didn't realize it had to be cashed. Before the war started, people predicted we would take 10,000 dead just taking Baghdad alone, and no one said boo.

Put it in perspective, we lost more men taking single islands in the Pacific in WWII than we did in the whole of Iraq. The problem was our unwillingness to sacrifice.

 

[BluePhantom]

Iraq. What happened wasn't even close to what they "imagined" would happen. Any college educated historian could have told them why.

.

If that was the case, why did John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards and a bunch of other Democrats all vote to go along with it? I mean, if ANYONE knew what was going to happen (although absolutely no one predicted it at the time), why did they all go along with it.

The reality is they signed a check and didn't realize it had to be cashed. Before the war started, people predicted we would take 10,000 dead just taking Baghdad alone, and no one said boo.

Put it in perspective, we lost more men taking single islands in the Pacific in WWII than we did in the whole of Iraq. The problem was our unwillingness to sacrifice.

Shhhhhhhh, Joe. You are not supposed to remember that part. Democrats voting in favor of Iraq and Afghanistan has been conveniently written out of history. How silly of you to overlook that.