Discussion in 'Politics' started by Amelia, Dec 16, 2011.
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."
No hopey-changey...This time around it'll be total scorched Earth.
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"
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.
Well, according to big 0 himself, he doesn't deserve to be re-elected since he didn't fix UE or the economy.
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;
Reps are meanies
He has nothing to use as a banner to say "look what I did!"
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.
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.