To those who fwap to bad economic numbers in hope that they mean Obama will be gone..

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Baruch Menachem, Jul 30, 2011.

  1. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    There is more to an election than raw economic numbers. Life was a great deal harder in 1936 than 1932. The first four years of the new deal mostly saw the economy spinning its wheels and the economy continued to shrink. However, Roosevelt did substantially better in 1936 than in 1932. By 1940 the economy made substantial gains, but in the elections of 1940, so did the Republicans.

    In 1932 the big issue was beer. You read contemporary accounts of the election of 1932, the big issue was beer. The people may have been hungry, but the big debate that year was the issue of thirst.

    Despite the bad numbers, there really is no Republican candidate who inspires the general population much. In terms of inspiring independents, the issue is even more pronounced.

    That said, Republicans generally don't like "man on horseback" candidates. With the exception of Reagan Republicans don't get that excited over their candidates like the Democrats do over the likes of a Kennedy or Obama. Or for that matter such blanks as Stevenson.

    You might argue that Grant and Eisenhower are exceptions to that, but Eisenhower seems to have chosen the Republicans on the basis of a coin toss, and Grant had voted Democrat in the only election he bothered to attend prior to 1868.

    So... Obama's bad numbers don't guarantee he will loose. He still has a huge cadre of true believers. In order to win the election the Republicans will have to find someone who inspires confidence amongst the independents, who couldn't possibly inspire the kind of affection from the faithful who can win the nomination.

    I have high hopes the Republicans can find a candidate to replace the current embarrassment, but just because the economic and polling numbers are not good for Obama, I see don't see that as a guarantee of a loss for him either.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2011
  2. LordBrownTrout
    Offline

    LordBrownTrout Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    15,493
    Thanks Received:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,354
    With the economy deteriorating rapidly and daily, I don't see O being elected in 12. We never really had a recovery either. Along with that, I don't see any promising R's in the field either at this moment.
     
  3. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    There is also the very real polling numbers that suggest that folks blame Republicans for the bubble. That has not gone away. Iraq and Afghanistan hav become tar babies, despite Republican promises otherwise.

    I think that is part of the huge degree of affection for Ron Paul, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman among the party faithful. They feel bait and switched by the mainline Republicans over the mideast issue. The party faithful are more inclined to side with folks outside the political mainstream that got the country stuck with the mess. Folks who scare off independents who mostly agree with their assessment but still are nervous about them.
     

Share This Page