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

[Amelia]

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.

Perhaps I could have been more precise in my post. I wasn't saying that the GOP candidate would have lower odds of winning the election in 2012 than McCain did in 2008, I meant that he or she would lack some of McCain's appealing personal qualities and/or possess negative traits that McCain lacked. That's a subjective measure and it's perfectly possible that I'm wrong, of course. I freely admit that I have little comprehension of the reasons that Gingrich in particular appeals to people as much as he does.

It's interesting that you remember McCain having appealing personal qualities. My memory is that he was not well-liked by the people who nominated him. There was a whole lot of sleeping with the enemy which got him nominated - like evangelicals moving to him even though they considered him a RINO, just to stop Romney. His pick of Sarah Palin revitalized his campaign - brought some personality and conservative bona fides to it. It's too bad that he didn't really seem to know anything about her when he picked her, and it's too bad that she turned out to be so readily caricaturable. His move to the right on many GOP issues was even less convincing than Romney's has been, and he was perceived as using kid gloves on Obama.

Gingrich's appeal lies in large part in how willing and able he seems to be to make sharp punches at Obama, and to do it with an easy charm.

Gingrich is coming across has having humor and spirit, which contrasts to McCain's awkwardness. At least in 2008 McCain seemed awkward. I wasn't following him in earlier years but I gather he came across very differently to his supporters in 2000 than he did to so many of us in 2008.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Perhaps I could have been more precise in my post. I wasn't saying that the GOP candidate would have lower odds of winning the election in 2012 than McCain did in 2008, I meant that he or she would lack some of McCain's appealing personal qualities and/or possess negative traits that McCain lacked. That's a subjective measure and it's perfectly possible that I'm wrong, of course. I freely admit that I have little comprehension of the reasons that Gingrich in particular appeals to people as much as he does.

It's interesting that you remember McCain having appealing personal qualities. My memory is that he was not well-liked by the people who nominated him. There was a whole lot of sleeping with the enemy which got him nominated - like evangelicals moving to him even though they considered him a RINO, just to stop Romney. His pick of Sarah Palin revitalized his campaign - brought some personality and conservative bona fides to it. It's too bad that he didn't really seem to know anything about her when he picked her, and it's too bad that she turned out to be so readily caricaturable. His move to the right on many GOP issues was even less convincing than Romney's has been, and he was perceived as using kid gloves on Obama.

Gingrich's appeal lies in large part in how willing and able he seems to be to make sharp punches at Obama, and to do it with an easy charm.

Gingrich is coming across has having humor and spirit, which contrasts to McCain's awkwardness. At least in 2008 McCain seemed awkward. I wasn't following him in the early years but I gather he came across very differently to his supporters in 2004 than he did to so many of us in 2008.

Let me clear it up for you.

McCain is ( and was ) unlikeable. He has a very nasty streak.....and is a panderer to a degree that even nutters can grasp. His smile is fake and he picked a VP who couldn't pass a 10th grade History class.

Gingrich is a nasty fucker.....with a funny streak. He appeals to nutters because nuitters live for bumper sticker snark. He is also a panderer.....and that has him feeling heat from Ron Paul. Standard issue conservatives do not find him appealing.

 

[cheetah440]

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.

Perhaps I could have been more precise in my post. I wasn't saying that the GOP candidate would have lower odds of winning the election in 2012 than McCain did in 2008, I meant that he or she would lack some of McCain's appealing personal qualities and/or possess negative traits that McCain lacked. That's a subjective measure and it's perfectly possible that I'm wrong, of course. I freely admit that I have little comprehension of the reasons that Gingrich in particular appeals to people as much as he does.

I think the main reason so many are drawn to Gingrich is his ability to articulate the differences between the positions of Obama's move towards Eurpean Democratic socialism and the expanded entitlement/welfare state and that of a more conservative position. Gingrich is quick on his feet and many believe he would absolutely trounce Obama, who really isn't a strong debater. McCain was horrible, just awful mostly because he's not a conservative (not that Gingrich is either), and when you are confronted with answering questions and have no grounded position to come from, your answers aren't going to be compelling. And with McCain they weren't. Newt, while not the most conservative, can carry a conservative tune better than anyone else (except Santorum and Bachmann) and unlike Sant/Bach can actually debate.

I still think Romney has the best chance to beat Obama. He can win on the economic issues and can easily overcome the healthcare issue.

The primary GOP voters want blood and victory, not just victory, that's the problem.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Perhaps I could have been more precise in my post. I wasn't saying that the GOP candidate would have lower odds of winning the election in 2012 than McCain did in 2008, I meant that he or she would lack some of McCain's appealing personal qualities and/or possess negative traits that McCain lacked. That's a subjective measure and it's perfectly possible that I'm wrong, of course. I freely admit that I have little comprehension of the reasons that Gingrich in particular appeals to people as much as he does.

I think the main reason so many are drawn to Gingrich is his ability to articulate the differences between the positions of Obama's move towards Eurpean Democratic socialism and the expanded entitlement/welfare state and that of a more conservative position. Gingrich is quick on his feet and many believe he would absolutely trounce Obama, who really isn't a strong debater. McCain was horrible, just awful mostly because he's not a conservative (not that Gingrich is either), and when you are confronted with answering questions and have no grounded position to come from, your answers aren't going to be compelling. And with McCain they weren't. Newt, while not the most conservative, can carry a conservative tune better than anyone else (except Santorum and Bachmann) and unlike Sant/Bach can actually debate.

I still think Romney has the best chance to beat Obama. He can win on the economic issues and can easily overcome the healthcare issue.

The primary GOP voters want blood and victory, not just victory, that's the problem.

Interesting.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When the GOP Candidate has leaned to the right- Nixon, Reagan, Bush-43, he wins.

None of those candidates "leaned to the right." Richard Nixon was (his criminality aside) the most liberal president we've had since Franklin Roosevelt. I say that even comparing him to his predecessor. LBJ was progressive on social issues, but he also got us into Vietnam, while Nixon (eventually) got us out of it. Nixon recognized China, got a big arms-control treaty and improved relations with the USSR, and signed the Environmental Protection Act. He pushed civil rights legislation and regulations strongly (back then the GOP was still the main civil rights party and had only just begun to court the white South).

Reagan had a reputation as a right-wing wacko going into the election, but his campaign did a lot to tone that down and present him as a reasonable moderate who just wanted to repair the economy and stand more firmly against the Soviet Union. It helped a lot that he was such a good public speaker and had a soothing, mellow, grandfatherly tone to his rhetoric, sounding like a laid-back Californian rather than a rug-chewer.

Bush? Bush tacked so far to the middle (as did his opponents both times) that there was hardly anything to choose from in those elections, which is why they were so close. Seriously, to hear them talk in 2000 the only difference between him and Gore was that Gore would provide a smaller tax cut and a more generous prescription-drug program. What was there to get excited about? Tweedledum and tweedledee, and in the end the vote was too close to call.

If you want to look at what happens when the Republicans nominate a real fire-eating right-winger (perceived as such) for president, look at 1964.

Right. That must be why Obama campaigned not as a Marxist wealth redistributor, but as a politically moderate, fiscal Conservative who was going to "go through the budget with a fine-toothed comb"

 

[Oldstyle]

When the GOP Candidate has leaned to the right- Nixon, Reagan, Bush-43, he wins.

None of those candidates "leaned to the right." Richard Nixon was (his criminality aside) the most liberal president we've had since Franklin Roosevelt. I say that even comparing him to his predecessor. LBJ was progressive on social issues, but he also got us into Vietnam, while Nixon (eventually) got us out of it. Nixon recognized China, got a big arms-control treaty and improved relations with the USSR, and signed the Environmental Protection Act. He pushed civil rights legislation and regulations strongly (back then the GOP was still the main civil rights party and had only just begun to court the white South).

Reagan had a reputation as a right-wing wacko going into the election, but his campaign did a lot to tone that down and present him as a reasonable moderate who just wanted to repair the economy and stand more firmly against the Soviet Union. It helped a lot that he was such a good public speaker and had a soothing, mellow, grandfatherly tone to his rhetoric, sounding like a laid-back Californian rather than a rug-chewer.

Bush? Bush tacked so far to the middle (as did his opponents both times) that there was hardly anything to choose from in those elections, which is why they were so close. Seriously, to hear them talk in 2000 the only difference between him and Gore was that Gore would provide a smaller tax cut and a more generous prescription-drug program. What was there to get excited about? Tweedledum and tweedledee, and in the end the vote was too close to call.

If you want to look at what happens when the Republicans nominate a real fire-eating right-winger (perceived as such) for president, look at 1964.

Right. That must be why Obama campaigned not as a Marxist wealth redistributor, but as a politically moderate, fiscal Conservative who was going to "go through the budget with a fine-toothed comb"

Wouldn't he have to HAVE a budget to go through? Just sayin'...

 

[Dragon]

Right. That must be why Obama campaigned not as a Marxist wealth redistributor, but as a politically moderate, fiscal Conservative who was going to "go through the budget with a fine-toothed comb"

Obama did campaign as a wealth redistributor. He specifically said that it was time to "spread the wealth around," in that conversation with Joe the Plumber that was used by Republicans as a talking point. He most certainly did NOT campaign as a political moderate, and as for fiscal conservatism, that is no longer a part of political conservatism; one can be a flaming liberal and be fiscally conservative, while it's practically a disqualifier for being considered right-wing these days.

And finally, in your use of the word "Marxist," you're lying again.

 

[Amelia]

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.

Perhaps I could have been more precise in my post. I wasn't saying that the GOP candidate would have lower odds of winning the election in 2012 than McCain did in 2008, I meant that he or she would lack some of McCain's appealing personal qualities and/or possess negative traits that McCain lacked. That's a subjective measure and it's perfectly possible that I'm wrong, of course. I freely admit that I have little comprehension of the reasons that Gingrich in particular appeals to people as much as he does.

I think the main reason so many are drawn to Gingrich is his ability to articulate the differences between the positions of Obama's move towards Eurpean Democratic socialism and the expanded entitlement/welfare state and that of a more conservative position. Gingrich is quick on his feet and many believe he would absolutely trounce Obama, who really isn't a strong debater. McCain was horrible, just awful mostly because he's not a conservative (not that Gingrich is either), and when you are confronted with answering questions and have no grounded position to come from, your answers aren't going to be compelling. And with McCain they weren't. Newt, while not the most conservative, can carry a conservative tune better than anyone else (except Santorum and Bachmann) and unlike Sant/Bach can actually debate.

I still think Romney has the best chance to beat Obama. He can win on the economic issues and can easily overcome the healthcare issue.

The primary GOP voters want blood and victory, not just victory, that's the problem.

Well said.

 

[cheetah440]

Perhaps I could have been more precise in my post. I wasn't saying that the GOP candidate would have lower odds of winning the election in 2012 than McCain did in 2008, I meant that he or she would lack some of McCain's appealing personal qualities and/or possess negative traits that McCain lacked. That's a subjective measure and it's perfectly possible that I'm wrong, of course. I freely admit that I have little comprehension of the reasons that Gingrich in particular appeals to people as much as he does.

I think the main reason so many are drawn to Gingrich is his ability to articulate the differences between the positions of Obama's move towards Eurpean Democratic socialism and the expanded entitlement/welfare state and that of a more conservative position. Gingrich is quick on his feet and many believe he would absolutely trounce Obama, who really isn't a strong debater. McCain was horrible, just awful mostly because he's not a conservative (not that Gingrich is either), and when you are confronted with answering questions and have no grounded position to come from, your answers aren't going to be compelling. And with McCain they weren't. Newt, while not the most conservative, can carry a conservative tune better than anyone else (except Santorum and Bachmann) and unlike Sant/Bach can actually debate.

I still think Romney has the best chance to beat Obama. He can win on the economic issues and can easily overcome the healthcare issue.

The primary GOP voters want blood and victory, not just victory, that's the problem.

Interesting.

It's called personality and salesmanship. He can talk a great game. After all, that is the name of the game. Remember "Hope and Change"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right. That must be why Obama campaigned not as a Marxist wealth redistributor, but as a politically moderate, fiscal Conservative who was going to "go through the budget with a fine-toothed comb"

Obama did campaign as a wealth redistributor. He specifically said that it was time to "spread the wealth around," in that conversation with Joe the Plumber that was used by Republicans as a talking point. He most certainly did NOT campaign as a political moderate, and as for fiscal conservatism, that is no longer a part of political conservatism; one can be a flaming liberal and be fiscally conservative, while it's practically a disqualifier for being considered right-wing these days.

And finally, in your use of the word "Marxist," you're lying again.

He ran from his "spread the wealth" faster than he ran when Michelle caught him wearing her panties.

He should have embraced and admitted to his inner Marxist

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right. That must be why Obama campaigned not as a Marxist wealth redistributor, but as a politically moderate, fiscal Conservative who was going to "go through the budget with a fine-toothed comb"

Obama did campaign as a wealth redistributor. He specifically said that it was time to "spread the wealth around," in that conversation with Joe the Plumber that was used by Republicans as a talking point. He most certainly did NOT campaign as a political moderate, and as for fiscal conservatism, that is no longer a part of political conservatism; one can be a flaming liberal and be fiscally conservative, while it's practically a disqualifier for being considered right-wing these days.

And finally, in your use of the word "Marxist," you're lying again.

I don't care how much it hurts, the fact is that the American Left is economically to the left of genuine Communists. I can't help that you feel betrayed by your elder brothers in economic faith, sure it sucks, but you should learn by now government redistribution is a 100% guaranteed fail

 

[cheetah440]

Right. That must be why Obama campaigned not as a Marxist wealth redistributor, but as a politically moderate, fiscal Conservative who was going to "go through the budget with a fine-toothed comb"

Obama did campaign as a wealth redistributor. He specifically said that it was time to "spread the wealth around," in that conversation with Joe the Plumber that was used by Republicans as a talking point. He most certainly did NOT campaign as a political moderate, and as for fiscal conservatism, that is no longer a part of political conservatism; one can be a flaming liberal and be fiscally conservative, while it's practically a disqualifier for being considered right-wing these days.

And finally, in your use of the word "Marxist," you're lying again.

He ran from his "spread the wealth" faster than he ran when Michelle caught him wearing her panties.

He should have embraces and admitted to his inner Marxist

Obama has delivered what I call Liberal 2.0. He's a spend and tax liberal. Back in the day liberals were destroyed with that line, "tax and spend liberal". Obama knew he couldn't come out and push for tax increases, he would get slaughtered. So he focused on healthcare and for those who know anything about it, there are lots of good tax increases in there. But he knew he couldn't pass the truly fundamental tax changes that he is so longing for. That can only come if re-elected. so the next best thing is to cut taxes for those who already pay the least. Well since most of them pay no federal, that means payroll taxes. Think those will EVER go back up? LOL. So effectively this Liberal 2.0 is doing the same thing Conservatives have longed for, starving the government of revenue. The difference is they won't cut anything and will run up the deficit to the breaking point, requiring action. And when over 50% of the people don't pay virtually anything, a small percentage of the rest moonbat bleeding hearts, he will pass sweeping tax reform and increases he is so longing for. Fundamental change. Liberal 2.0 Spend and Tax.

 

[Dragon]

He ran from his "spread the wealth" faster than he ran when Michelle caught him wearing her panties.

He should have embraced and admitted to his inner Marxist

You're still lying.

 

[JoeB131]

Time may tell.

Your examples are shit.

Nixon....there was this little thing called Vietnam going on which as you may recall was incredibly unpopular for the Democrats.

Reagan....Carter...need I say more?

Bush 43? Gore/Kerry ran perplexingly anemic campaigns.

As for Ford? Nobody voted for him in the first place.

Dole? Why change?

McCain? He had the misfortune of agreeing with Bush 43 on nearly everything which had become poison by 2008.

Please nominate Newt and we'll see just how much electoral appeal he has. We'll need microscopes (very powerful microscopes) to see that appeal but it will be revealed.

But here's the thing. Neither party really came right out and said, "I'm going to unequivobaly end the Vietnam War". Nixon said he had a plan to win it. So it wasn't like there were a bunch of dirty hippies out there who were voting for Nixon or anything. Nixon won because he ran against the hippies on behalf of the "Silent Majority" that didn't like seeing their traditional values trashed.

Reagan won because Carter was so horrible, but also because he articulated conservative values in a way that held the WH for 12 years. Even Bush-41, who was at heart a squishy moderate,

By all rights, Al Gore should have won in 2000. Good economy, peace, (the problems were still lurking below the surface of the things Clinton kicked the can down the road on.) But Bush won by articulating a strong conservative message. And despite their being REAL challenges in 2004, he won again.

Now, the key point here. Before Obama, Democrats never won an election all the way back to LBJ by nominating a far left liberal, and in Obama's case, the media did a pretty good job hiding how left wing nutty this guy was.

Carter and Clinton won because they were moderates who took paid lip service to conservative values.

So again- when we run real conservatives, we win. And sometimes so do you.

Now, looking at the losers, Ford was clearly a product of the Rockafeller Republicans who think our biggest problem is that we aren't enough like Democrats. Just like Romney. Someone did vote him in. A Democratic Congress voted him in after Spiro Agnew resigned. He was a Republican they could live with. Oddly enough, Carter got the endorsements of the very conservative religious types you disdain today.

Dole- Do you know the moment I realized Dole was finished? It was when he resigned from his Senate Seat, and then gave a valedictory on the floor of the Senate about all the laws he sponsored and all the ways he worked with Democrats over the years to make government bigger. I thought to myself- "Does this guy even know what party he is running on behalf of?" Here's the ironic thing. Clinton only got 49% of the vote. A majority was against his corrupt ass having a second term, they were just divided between Perot and Dole.

Now for McCain. And it pains me to say this because I like McCain personally. (As opposed to Romney, whom I despise as a human being and won't vote for.) But the fact is, conservatives never wanted him. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, Gang of 14, all the times he did things to annoy Bush, the fact he seriously toyed with the notion of being Kerrys' running mate. He really did a lot of things to piss us off over the years. He won, however, because the economic conservatives/Wall Street/ Republicans who cheer for Mr. Potter were dead set against Huckabee and the Religious/Social Conservatives were dead set against Romney. So McCain won as a comprimise candidate in an election we were probalby going to lose, anyway.

Final point. Newt might well lose. But I would rather lose running a conservative than win running a weasel who says what a focus group has told him will work.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A lot of pleading and begging for a second chance

 

[JoeB131]

When the GOP Candidate has leaned to the right- Nixon, Reagan, Bush-43, he wins.

None of those candidates "leaned to the right." Richard Nixon was (his criminality aside) the most liberal president we've had since Franklin Roosevelt. I say that even comparing him to his predecessor. LBJ was progressive on social issues, but he also got us into Vietnam, while Nixon (eventually) got us out of it. Nixon recognized China, got a big arms-control treaty and improved relations with the USSR, and signed the Environmental Protection Act. He pushed civil rights legislation and regulations strongly (back then the GOP was still the main civil rights party and had only just begun to court the white South).

I wasn't speaking of how they governed, but how they campaigned. There was a lot of conservative stuff under Nixon that conservatives were happy about, and he ran against the Hippies for all intents and purposes. Especially in 1972, when the Democrats ran on Abortion, Acid and Amnesty. Nixon won 42 states.

Reagan had a reputation as a right-wing wacko going into the election, but his campaign did a lot to tone that down and present him as a reasonable moderate who just wanted to repair the economy and stand more firmly against the Soviet Union. It helped a lot that he was such a good public speaker and had a soothing, mellow, grandfatherly tone to his rhetoric, sounding like a laid-back Californian rather than a rug-chewer.

Were you actually there for the 1980 campaign. because I was, and it was a lot different from that bullshit. Reagan ran as an unapologetic conservative. So much so, that the GOP insisted on saddling him with Bush-41.

Bush? Bush tacked so far to the middle (as did his opponents both times) that there was hardly anything to choose from in those elections, which is why they were so close. Seriously, to hear them talk in 2000 the only difference between him and Gore was that Gore would provide a smaller tax cut and a more generous prescription-drug program. What was there to get excited about? Tweedledum and tweedledee, and in the end the vote was too close to call.

Sorry, when did he do that? My biggest complaint with Bush was that he ran on the "Compassionate Conservative" label, which was kind of silly. But he clearly stood for stronger national defense, tax cuts, less regulation and traditional values. That last part being important when you had a guy who had just admitted to having sex with interns in his office.

If you want to look at what happens when the Republicans nominate a real fire-eating right-winger (perceived as such) for president, look at 1964.

The very fact you have to go back to 1964 says a lot.

Liberal Republicans always whine about 1964, like Rockerfeller could have really done any better with his "Me, Too!" version. In 1964, we were at peace, the economy was booming, unemployment was non-existant, and LBJ had the fortune of running under the mantle of a martyred president.

But whenever the Beltway Establishment wants to push losers on us, and not stand up for principles, they first thing they scream is "Goldwater". Ignore our four moderate LOSERS since, we are going to keep going back 50 years to find when a "conservative" lost.

 

[rdean]

Any thoughts?

In 2008, it was how Republicans led us into an unnecessary war and ruined the economy.

In 2012, it will be about how Republicans want to start more wars and are keeping the economy from getting better.

Hope that helps.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In 2008, it was how Republicans led us into an unnecessary war and ruined the economy.

In 2012, it will be about how Republicans want to start more wars and are keeping the economy from getting better.

Hope that helps.

Tell us again how Canada is just like Iran, I Hate Republican Man

 

[JoeB131]

In 2008, it was how Republicans led us into an unnecessary war and ruined the economy.

In 2012, it will be about how Republicans want to start more wars and are keeping the economy from getting better.

Hope that helps.

Tell us again how Canada is just like Iran, I Hate Republican Man

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxPRHXgYVlk&feature=related]Blame Canada-Southpark - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sherry]

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!"

I think that comment was a big mistake on his part. He's not saying to give him a little longer to fix the problems, he's preparing us to expect them to continue. Really, that's not a good strategy to run on.