Specifically how will Obama's 2012 campaign differ from 2008?

[Amelia]

Any thoughts?

 

[asterism]

It certainly won't be "Hope" and "Change," won't be "Yes We Can," and it won't be "Change You Can Believe In."

It'll probably be "No We Couldn't Because of the Republicans."

 

[Oddball]

No hopey-changey...This time around it'll be total scorched Earth.

 

[cheetah440]

It certainly won't be "Hope" and "Change," won't be "Yes We Can," and it won't be "Change You Can Believe In."

It'll probably be "No We Couldn't Because of the Republicans."

exactly. It will be "the damage Bush and republicans did was far worse, we need 4 more years and likely another 8 yrs after that"

 

[Listening]

We now have a record to view and have seen him in action for 4 years.

When Reagan was re-elected in 1984, a great many people were happy. He got a lot of left leaning votes.

When Clinton was re-elected in 1996, a great many people were happy. He got a lot of right leaning votes.

President Obama can bet on an ugly onslaught and a hard fought battle for a second term.

If the GOP had anyone worth a crap to run against him, he'd be toast.

As it is, his chances are less than 50%.

Especially if he has morons like Chris working for him.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Well, according to big 0 himself, he doesn't deserve to be re-elected since he didn't fix UE or the economy.

but

He's laid the ground work; 'The economy can't be fixed in one term, and maybe not under one President.'....... [the gist of what] Pres Obama

He just figured out that he lacks the ability to fix it, even if given a 2nd chance.

all he's got to go on is;

class warfare
Reps are meanies

He has nothing to use as a banner to say "look what I did!"

 

[ladyliberal]

He might have less money, but he'll still have plenty of money. He'll probably opt out of public financing again.

Obama will have a narrower path to victory. Some states he won in 2008 will probably be functionally ceded early on.

Obama will be running as the incumbent. He will attempt to identify himself with the office.

Obama will be running against a substantially weaker opponent than in 2008.

Obama will run a more negative campaign. When he ran against McCain, he was almost never behind (the exception being a brief period after Palin was chosen) and so never needed to take the risk of strongly criticizing his opponent. Any candidate the Republicans can nominate will also have more vulnerabilities than McCain did.

Obama will have to explain why the economy is as bad as it is despite his economic policies. He will have to argue some combination of:
1) The economy is not as bad as my opponent says
2) My policies (bailing out auto companies, stimulus, payroll tax break, etc.) helped
3) Policies my opponent supported (refusing to restore taxes on millionaires, extraordinary debt ceiling brinksmanship, extreme anti-union policies) hurt
4) Going forward, my policies will be better (or at least sound better) than my opponent's

Obama will be able to describe himself as tested and experienced.

Obama will have to defend the ACA, emphasizing the popular aspects of the bill.

Obama will have to emphasize his foreign policy accomplishments (bin Laden, no major 9/11 style attacks, liberated Libya w/o entanglement or US casualties, wound down Iraq, created cohesive Afghanistan policy)

To clarify, the arguments above are ones I think Obama's campaign should make in order to try to win the campaign, irrespective of how defensible they are on the facts.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Obama will be like bush as he is now the war hawk. This is why we need Ron Paul to be our guy! We can hit his war, war and more war bull shit over his head with him.

Paul is also the only one that is serious about cutting spending.

 

[Listening]

Obama will be running against a substantially weaker opponent than in 2008.

Whoever said this needs to talk to their dealer about the brand of pot they are smoking. It might actually be hash.

There is no way Obama lucks out and gets milquetoast MCain and dumbass Palin this time around.

In fact, with a good VP pick, the GOP is going to do a good job at putting the odds of victory well over 50%.

 

[Amelia]

Obama will be running against a substantially weaker opponent than in 2008.

Whoever said this needs to talk to their dealer about the brand of pot they are smoking. It might actually be hash.

There is no way Obama lucks out and gets milquetoast MCain and dumbass Palin this time around.

In fact, with a good VP pick, the GOP is going to do a good job at putting the odds of victory well over 50%.

While I agree with Listening on the eventual GOP nominee being stronger than McCain, and the VP pick practically necessarily being stronger than Palin, I do appreciate ladyliberal's analysis.

 

[Psychoblues]

President Barack Hussein Obama will have an easy time being re-elected. All he has to do is remain focused and not be thrown off by any bullshit negativity thrown at him via FauxNooz and their likes. In times past the republicans have put up good candidates. Even in 2008 I felt like McCain was a better candidate than he was in 2000 until he selected his running mate. That sealed his ultimate demise right there and time and additional activities have proven the majority was correct.

The Prez has indicated a run on the Teddy Roosevelt progressive populist platform. That is genius, IMHO. But he will win whether he uses that theory or another. The pubs just don't have anything to compete this time around.

Psychoblues

 

[hortysir]

President Barack Hussein Obama will have an easy time being re-elected. All he has to do is remain focused and not be thrown off by any bullshit negativity thrown at him via FauxNooz and their likes. In times past the republicans have put up good candidates. Even in 2008 I felt like McCain was a better candidate than he was in 2000 until he selected his running mate. That sealed his ultimate demise right there and time and additional activities have proven the majority was correct.

The Prez has indicated a run on the Teddy Roosevelt progressive populist platform. That is genius, IMHO. But he will win whether he uses that theory or another. The pubs just don't have anything to compete this time around.

Psychoblues

This explains the validity of the above post:

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Missisippi
Posts: 2,638
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Rep Power: 19

 

[MikeK]

Any thoughts?

This is a very good question and I'm glad you asked.

By the time Bill Clinton left Office I had reached the point that I couldn't stand to look at him and the mere sound of his voice made my blood pressure rise. While I have not reached that point with Obama I am at the stage where I can anticipate it becoming that way.

Obama's campaign rhetoric focused on the concept of "change" in a manner which empathized with Progressive anger at what Bush had done to this Nation. His stern visage, upturned gaze and almost vengeful tone at times promised a clean sweep and a wrathful banishment of Bush and all he stood for. Then there was this

and while I didn't want to pronounce the thought even to myself there was the quiet impression that Mr. "hope" was little more than a talented bullshit artist who had scored the brass ring. Softening the disappointment, Obama was likeable and intelligent whereas Bush was acerbic, arrogant and embarrassingly stupid. But all of the implicit and explicitly promised hope for "change" quickly evaporated.

Bill Clinton turned out to be a degenerate, self-serving fake. But giving him credit where it's due his first official action was to sweep the White House clean of the remnants of Reagan/Bush by firing every lawyer and aide who assisted those two scoundrels to commence the decline of the middle class. But not only did Obama leave the regime of Bush's criminal conspirators intact, he placed two of the Wall Street villains who helped bring the economy down in positions of absolute power over it.

Back in the late 80s, federal judge Robert W. Sweet said Americans will know they have an honest President when he advocates the end of marijuana prohibition. Everything Candidate Obama ever said on the subject of marijuana clearly implied a favorable attitude toward intelligent and rational review of the counterproductive prohibition of this relatively benign natural substance. During one televised interview when asked if he'd ever used marijuana, Obama unhesitatingly admitted that he had and emphasized it with the word, "frequently."

That carefully conveyed impression encouraged the support and secured the votes of millions of pro-legalization advocates. But when newly-elected President Obama held his first Town Hall meeting, during which he promised to answer prominent questions, after admitting that the most prominent of the questions submitted had to do with the marijuana issue he not only refused to address the questions or to even discuss the issue he dismissed it rather contemptuously and went on to other matters.

Since that time Obama has routinely reneged on a number of promises, both implied and explicit. Most recently, while he had promised to veto the Indefinite Detention bill now on the floor, which will effectively establish the precedent of ignoring Due Process and Habeas Corpus, he has withdrawn that promise. And for me this is the final straw.

Today I mailed a letter to the DNC informing them that if they do not put up an alternative candidate I am not the only registered Democrat who either will not vote or will write in a preferred candidate.

My preference would be Congressman Dennis Kucinich or Senator Bernie Sanders.

 

[Psychoblues]

President Barack Hussein Obama will have an easy time being re-elected. All he has to do is remain focused and not be thrown off by any bullshit negativity thrown at him via FauxNooz and their likes. In times past the republicans have put up good candidates. Even in 2008 I felt like McCain was a better candidate than he was in 2000 until he selected his running mate. That sealed his ultimate demise right there and time and additional activities have proven the majority was correct.

The Prez has indicated a run on the Teddy Roosevelt progressive populist platform. That is genius, IMHO. But he will win whether he uses that theory or another. The pubs just don't have anything to compete this time around.

Psychoblues

This explains the validity of the above post:

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Missisippi
Posts: 2,638
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Rep Power: 19

I don't think I know you, but I'll play along. Just what are you trying to say? Are you trying to insult me somehow?

 

[Psychoblues]

Any thoughts?

This is a very good question and I'm glad you asked.

By the time Bill Clinton left Office I had reached the point that I couldn't stand to look at him and the mere sound of his voice made my blood pressure rise. While I have not reached that point with Obama I am at the stage where I can anticipate it becoming that way.

Obama's campaign rhetoric focused on the concept of "change" in a manner which empathized with Progressive anger at what Bush had done to this Nation. His stern visage, upturned gaze and almost vengeful tone at times promised a clean sweep and a wrathful banishment of Bush and all he stood for. Then there was this

and while I didn't want to pronounce the thought even to myself there was the quiet impression that Mr. "hope" was little more than a talented bullshit artist who had scored the brass ring. Softening the disappointment, Obama was likeable and intelligent whereas Bush was acerbic, arrogant and embarrassingly stupid. But all of the implicit and explicitly promised hope for "change" quickly evaporated.

Bill Clinton turned out to be a degenerate, self-serving fake. But giving him credit where it's due his first official action was to sweep the White House clean of the remnants of Reagan/Bush by firing every lawyer and aide who assisted those two scoundrels to commence the decline of the middle class. But not only did Obama leave the regime of Bush's criminal conspirators intact, he placed two of the Wall Street villains who helped bring the economy down in positions of absolute power over it.

Back in the late 80s, federal judge Robert W. Sweet said Americans will know they have an honest President when he advocates the end of marijuana prohibition. Everything Candidate Obama ever said on the subject of marijuana clearly implied a favorable attitude toward intelligent and rational review of the counterproductive prohibition of this relatively benign natural substance. During one televised interview when asked if he'd ever used marijuana, Obama unhesitatingly admitted that he had and emphasized it with the word, "frequently."

That carefully conveyed impression encouraged the support and secured the votes of millions of pro-legalization advocates. But when newly-elected President Obama held his first Town Hall meeting, during which he promised to answer prominent questions, after admitting that the most prominent of the questions submitted had to do with the marijuana issue he not only refused to address the questions or to even discuss the issue he dismissed it rather contemptuously and went on to other matters.

Since that time Obama has routinely reneged on a number of promises, both implied and explicit. Most recently, while he had promised to veto the Indefinite Detention bill now on the floor, which will effectively establish the precedent of ignoring Due Process and Habeas Corpus, he has withdrawn that promise. And for me this is the final straw.

Today I mailed a letter to the DNC informing them that if they do not put up an alternative candidate I am not the only registered Democrat who either will not vote or will write in a preferred candidate.

My preference would be Congressman Dennis Kucinich or Senator Bernie Sanders.

I share your sentiments 100% in this respect.

 

[MikeK]

President Barack Hussein Obama will have an easy time being re-elected. All he has to do is remain focused and not be thrown off by any bullshit negativity thrown at him via FauxNooz and their likes. In times past the republicans have put up good candidates. Even in 2008 I felt like McCain was a better candidate than he was in 2000 until he selected his running mate. That sealed his ultimate demise right there and time and additional activities have proven the majority was correct.

The Prez has indicated a run on the Teddy Roosevelt progressive populist platform. That is genius, IMHO. But he will win whether he uses that theory or another. The pubs just don't have anything to compete this time around.

Psychoblues

Whatever platform Obama runs on he has earned a well-deserved reputation as a bullshit artist whose word means nothing.

I am a registered Democrat who voted for Obama in '08. I will not vote for him again because he is as phony as a Times Square hustler with ten fake Rolex watches up his sleeve.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Any thoughts?

Rather than Hope, this election will be based on Hate.

 

[Lakhota]

He might have less money, but he'll still have plenty of money. He'll probably opt out of public financing again.

Obama will have a narrower path to victory. Some states he won in 2008 will probably be functionally ceded early on.

Obama will be running as the incumbent. He will attempt to identify himself with the office.

Obama will be running against a substantially weaker opponent than in 2008.

Obama will run a more negative campaign. When he ran against McCain, he was almost never behind (the exception being a brief period after Palin was chosen) and so never needed to take the risk of strongly criticizing his opponent. Any candidate the Republicans can nominate will also have more vulnerabilities than McCain did.

Obama will have to explain why the economy is as bad as it is despite his economic policies. He will have to argue some combination of:
1) The economy is not as bad as my opponent says
2) My policies (bailing out auto companies, stimulus, payroll tax break, etc.) helped
3) Policies my opponent supported (refusing to restore taxes on millionaires, extraordinary debt ceiling brinksmanship, extreme anti-union policies) hurt
4) Going forward, my policies will be better (or at least sound better) than my opponent's

Obama will be able to describe himself as tested and experienced.

Obama will have to defend the ACA, emphasizing the popular aspects of the bill.

Obama will have to emphasize his foreign policy accomplishments (bin Laden, no major 9/11 style attacks, liberated Libya w/o entanglement or US casualties, wound down Iraq, created cohesive Afghanistan policy)

To clarify, the arguments above are ones I think Obama's campaign should make in order to try to win the campaign, irrespective of how defensible they are on the facts.

Very well said. I generally agree.

 

[Psychoblues]

President Barack Hussein Obama will have an easy time being re-elected. All he has to do is remain focused and not be thrown off by any bullshit negativity thrown at him via FauxNooz and their likes. In times past the republicans have put up good candidates. Even in 2008 I felt like McCain was a better candidate than he was in 2000 until he selected his running mate. That sealed his ultimate demise right there and time and additional activities have proven the majority was correct.

The Prez has indicated a run on the Teddy Roosevelt progressive populist platform. That is genius, IMHO. But he will win whether he uses that theory or another. The pubs just don't have anything to compete this time around.

Psychoblues

Whatever platform Obama runs on he has earned a well-deserved reputation as a bullshit artist whose word means nothing.

I am a registered Democrat who voted for Obama in '08. I will not vote for him again because he is as phony as a Times Square hustler with ten fake Rolex watches up his sleeve.

Here is where we disagree totally. I am unhappy with the Prez. He has not met or exceeded my expectations. But, he is NOT a Times Square hustler trying to sell phony Rolex's. He remains a good, honest and thoughtful man and President in my honest opinion. I am not one to actually waste a vote either. I WILL vote for President Barack Hussein Obama in 2012 unless a more suitable and electable candidate comes along and I really don't see that happening.

 

[Jackson]

Rather than showing pictures of himself with an aura around himself as if he was the messiah, he will cup his hands in front of himself and say , "Pretty, please?"