Obama Will Win in 2012

[Toro]

It'll be interesting to watch. Obama is a major disaster, but his approval numbers are still relatively high which means a large percentage of voting Americans are becoming more stupid.

I agree!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/162528-trump-second-in-republican-race-wsj-poll-rofl.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ly-republican-primary-voters-are-birfers.html

 

[xsited1]

It'll be interesting to watch. Obama is a major disaster, but his approval numbers are still relatively high which means a large percentage of voting Americans are becoming more stupid.

I agree!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/162528-trump-second-in-republican-race-wsj-poll-rofl.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ly-republican-primary-voters-are-birfers.html

The last time I saw something like this happen was in 1992. As I mentioned, Obama is obviously a major disaster, but the Republicans can't seem to get their act together. My hope is that a good 3rd Party will make a strong showing and try to break-up this 2-Party system of idiots.

 

[Qball]

Unless the Republicans nominate a controversial person to run on their ticket, I don't think it's simply true that Obama will win in 2012. For all the hoopla, he barely won in 2008, but the media isn't going to get away with what they got away with in 2008. Due to Republicans sweeping up in 2010, it's going to be harder for him to win most of the key states he won in '08. And then, if he did win, he'd go into his next turn with a severely weakened party in Congress. He probably doesn't want to serve under a Republican-controlled Congress like Clinton.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I can't believe the American public will be stupid enough to re-elect Obama.

Yeah....things haven't (exactly) worked-out the way you White Wingers predicted:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnoPpWdlG3A]YouTube - Rachel Maddow (1) 111th Congress put policy before politics[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBHK7zsz7xU]YouTube - Rachel Maddow (2) 111th Congress put policy before politics[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWpBWP8krs]YouTube - Obama Takes a Victory Lap After Big Wins[/ame]

 

[Oscar Wao]

If Mitch Daniels or Gary Johnson gets nominated, the GOP just might have a chance. They actually have a grasp on REAL economics and the issues. Not the others who only care about defeating Obama without stating any real policy goals of their own.

 

[Oscar Wao]

....And, the White Wingers have their environments.

Are those the Mississipians polled that said they'd re-ban miscegenation if given the chance?

 

[Charles_Main]

If Mitch Daniels or Gary Johnson gets nominated, the GOP just might have a chance. They actually have a grasp on REAL economics and the issues.

I think you guys are very overly optimistic about Obama's Chances. At almost every turn he has shown very Weak leadership. He has lied/gone back on promises, and turned out to be rather incompetent as the leader of the free world. He has managed to piss nearly every group off at one point or another.

I would not be so sure he is a lock for 2012.

 

[Oscar Wao]

had low poll ratings around this time, also.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It'll be interesting to watch. Obama is a major disaster, but his approval numbers are still relatively high which means a large percentage of voting Americans are becoming more stupid.

I agree!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/162528-trump-second-in-republican-race-wsj-poll-rofl.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ly-republican-primary-voters-are-birfers.html

The last time I saw something like this happen was in 1992.

Yeah....and, I'm sure it was just a coincidence we were ending another BUSH economic-debacle!!!!​

"This is the untold story of Bush Cabal Fraud and how the Clinton Regime delayed the collapse of the United States economy."

St. BILL To The Rescue!!!​

 

[Oscar Wao]

Unless you can come up with a credible opponent.

And no, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, and Donald Trump do NOT count. They're clowns.

You guys already have numerous clowns in the WH. Clown 1, obamaturd, clown 2, biden, then there is reid, pelosi, franken, frank and too many to name. Keep thinking that repubs do not have a credible candidate, we will see in 2012.

Unless that candidate's name is Gary Johnson, Mitch Daniels, or Ron Paul, Obama wins again.

 

[Liberty]

USMB, I give you your racist (shaman, obv).

 

[Qball]

If Mitch Daniels or Gary Johnson gets nominated, the GOP just might have a chance. They actually have a grasp on REAL economics and the issues. Not the others who only care about defeating Obama without stating any real policy goals of their own.

I doubt either one of them runs, though.

The thing Republicans need to reconcile with is that whether you like social conservatives or not, you can't win an election as a Republican by avoiding them and the messy social issues. I'm talking about abortion, gay marriage, immigration, guns, and pot. I know a lot of conservatives find it easier to admit they're Republicans when they pretend not to give a shit about those issues, and some politicians have started doing it too, and they find that the press (and the Left who will never vote for them) likes them a little better for it.

We don't need any RINO-y figures in the White House. Those types are always easily rolled.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Unless the Republicans nominate a controversial person to run on their ticket, I don't think it's simply true that Obama will win in 2012. For all the hoopla, he barely won in 2008, but the media isn't going to get away with what they got away with in 2008. Due to Republicans sweeping up in 2010, it's going to be harder for him to win most of the key states he won in '08. And then, if he did win, he'd go into his next turn with a severely weakened party in Congress. He probably doesn't want to serve under a Republican-controlled Congress like Clinton.

"President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt."

Gotta LOVE Those Clinton Tax-Rates!!​

. . . . ​

 

[Oscar Wao]

Yeah, by what? A paltry 3% higher?

 

[xsited1]

Unless the Republicans nominate a controversial person to run on their ticket, I don't think it's simply true that Obama will win in 2012. For all the hoopla, he barely won in 2008, but the media isn't going to get away with what they got away with in 2008. Due to Republicans sweeping up in 2010, it's going to be harder for him to win most of the key states he won in '08. And then, if he did win, he'd go into his next turn with a severely weakened party in Congress. He probably doesn't want to serve under a Republican-controlled Congress like Clinton.

"President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt."

Gotta LOVE Those Clinton Tax-Rates!!​

. . . . ​

You do realize Congress controls spending? Well, of course you don't! You're just trolling for dramatic effect! BTW, do you wear clothes with lots of sequins? I'm guessing you look something like this:

 

[Oddball]

Unless you can come up with a credible opponent.

And no, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, and Donald Trump do NOT count. They're clowns.

Herman Cain would be a lot more viable an opponent than the other two schmucks rolled into one.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yeah, by what? A paltry 3% higher?

EXACTLY!!!!

Along with the discipline to pay-down debt, rather-than tax-cut kick-backs to 1%ers/high-roller$!!​

 

[xsited1]

Yeah, by what? A paltry 3% higher?

EXACTLY!!!!

Along with the discipline to pay-down debt, rather-than tax-cut kick-backs to 1%ers/high-roller$!!​

What's funny is that you are praising the Republican-controlled Congress of the 90s and you don't even know it.

 

[JimH52]

Too early to say.

Intrade is currently pricing the odds of Obama winning re-election at 60%.

I think as long as there is no credible GOP candiate out there, he has a good chance. There are two GOP people that could possibly defeat him, Romney and Huckabee could give him the best race, but Romney is not far enough to the right for the Tea Baggers and Huck will probably not run. He is making millions in his present Gig.

Main Stream GOP is holding their collective breath, hoping that if Romney tapped as the Presidential nominee, the Tea Baggers don't flip out and run their own candidate. With people like Trump, Batcrazy Bachmann, and Palin hanging around, the Tea Party won't be short of wannabes. It is going to be very interesting, and maybe a little painful for someone.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Too early to say.

Intrade is currently pricing the odds of Obama winning re-election at 60%.

I think as long as there is no credible GOP candiate out there, he has a good chance. There are two GOP people that could possibly defeat him, Romney and Huckabee could give him the best race, but Romney is not far enough to the right for the Tea Baggers and Huck will probably not run. He is making millions in his present Gig.

Main Stream GOP is holding their collective breath, hoping that if Romney tapped as the Presidential nominee, the Tea Baggers don't flip out and run their own candidate. With people like Trump, Batcrazy Bachmann, and Palin hanging around, the Tea Party won't be short of wannabes. It is going to be very interesting, and maybe a little painful for someone.

Someone who favors throwing HIV+ people into concentration camps is NEVER going to win a Presidential race.