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

[Psychoblues]

Any thoughts?

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

Hate and fear has been all the repubs have to run on since Richard Nixon. You are correct. Once again we'll see another campaign run on hate and fear from the right.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Change, this time for the better.

 

[Oldstyle]

This election will be about one thing and one thing only...to paraphrase Slick Willie...it's about the economy, stupid.

My prediction at this point is that Mitt Romney will be Obama's opponent and his running mate might very well be Florida's Marco Rubio to court the Hispanic vote and the Tea Party conservatives.

The race itself is going to come down to whether or not Independents believe that Barack Obama has any new ideas to move this country along economically. If he doesn't come up with something other than what he's shown us so far then he's toast. The American people want solutions and they don't much care who gives it to them.

Personally, I don't think he HAS any new ideas going forward. He hasn't shown any indication that he's willing to move to the center as Bill Clinton did following his mid-term "shellacking" during his first term which means the Republicans aren't going to work with him and neither will moderate Democrats. The Misery Index is still off the charts and I don't see it getting any better. If Europe implodes, or fighting breaks out in the Middle East, it could get considerably worse. Our economy is so stagnant right now it wouldn't take much to send it back into a double dip recession.

Obama seems to think that playing the "Class warfare" card is his ticket to another term. I don't think it's going to convince the Independents to vote his way again. I don't think they're going to buy into another four years of gridlock. All Romney has to do is stay centered on his message about the economy and keep pounding away at Obama's record and lack of a plan for the future. It's something that will resonate with the voters.

 

[MikeK]

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.

I once felt the same way and I do regret that it's changed.

Are you acquainted with the Indefinite Detention bill? It's an egregious affront to our Constitutional protections. It will enable the military to arrest and detain you without formal charge, without a hearing, and for an indefinite period. You would in effect be "disappeared" like so many citizens of Chile under Pinochet. All it will take is an accusation of "terrorism" (whatever that means).

Obama promised to veto this bill. Now he says he won't. The following statement is from Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional Law professor.

"The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. But that spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial." Jonathan Turley | Obama Breaks Promise To Veto Bill Allowing Indefinite … | Virginia News

Let's not forget Obama's failure to rid us of the "Patriot" Act and his abandoned promise to close Guantanamo.

He is a Trojan Horse. He methodically takes two baby steps forward for every giant step backward -- and I wish I believed otherwise.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Any thoughts?

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

Hate and fear has been all the repubs have to run on since Richard Nixon. You are correct. Once again we'll see another campaign run on hate and fear from the right.

The right will run on the economy and Obamas record. Obama will run on hate and division. It's all he has left.

 

[Psychoblues]

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.

I once felt the same way and I do regret that it's changed.

Are you acquainted with the Indefinite Detention bill? It's an egregious affront to our Constitutional protections. It will enable the military to arrest and detain you without formal charge, without a hearing, and for an indefinite period. You would in effect be "disappeared" like so many citizens of Chile under Pinochet. All it will take is an accusation of "terrorism" (whatever that means).

Obama promised to veto this bill. Now he says he won't. The following statement is from Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional Law professor.

"The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. But that spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial." Jonathan Turley | Obama Breaks Promise To Veto Bill Allowing Indefinite … | Virginia News

Let's not forget Obama's failure to rid us of the "Patriot" Act and his abandoned promise to close Guantanamo.

He is a Trojan Horse. He methodically takes two baby steps forward for every giant step backward -- and I wish I believed otherwise.

We can argue or discuss forever things that the Prez has done and may do but I simply can't allow single issues or actions to dominate my thoughts and create false fears in my heart. I am a propensity voter. The propensities of the Democratic Party generally line up better with me than anything the repubs or anyone else have offered up in decades.

 

[Article 15]

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

This poster has posted here like 20 times in the last 3 years.

What do you think the high rep score was back before the 2008 election season warmed up?

Highest rep to post ratio?

 

[JoeB131]

Any thoughts?

He's going to have to play the class warfare card and play it hard.

He's going to have to really villify Wall Street. (And again, the GOP nominating Romney will do half his work for him.)

His pitch will look something like this, "Look, we did what we could do, we kept the economy from going into another Great Depression. We spent a lot of money bailing out the Banks and Wall Street and the Auto Industry, and as far as that went, it was fine. But they haven't kept up their end of the bargain. They call themselves the job-producers, but they haven't produced the jobs after we the people saved them."

 

[candycorn]

Any thoughts?

It will be much harder this year but as time goes by, I think his re-election becomes more and more likely.

Specifically, the tactics of the campaign will be determined by how belligerent the Republican nominee is. The more acidic and reckless the GOP standard bearer is, the better Mr. Obama's chances become because a jingoistic opponent fires up your base.

This is why I hope the GOP taps Newt; that and Newt will be a disaster of a President.

The more right leaning the GOP becomes, the easier the path to re-election becomes for Mr. Obama.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I also would love to see Kucinich or Sanders in the WH. But......if they got there, they would also be forced by circumstances and reality to tone down the rhetoric and work with the Congress that is dealth them.

Maybe someone who respects these two guys so much ought to listen to what THEY say when it comes to their endorsement for 2012.

 

[JoeB131]

Any thoughts?

It will be much harder this year but as time goes by, I think his re-election becomes more and more likely.

Specifically, the tactics of the campaign will be determined by how belligerent the Republican nominee is. The more acidic and reckless the GOP standard bearer is, the better Mr. Obama's chances become because a jingoistic opponent fires up your base.

This is why I hope the GOP taps Newt; that and Newt will be a disaster of a President.

The more right leaning the GOP becomes, the easier the path to re-election becomes for Mr. Obama.

History doesn't support that position.

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

When he tries to play nice and be a "moderate" who is loved by the liberals for being so "sensible"- Ford, Dole, McCain- he loses.

When the electorate is inclined to go Republican, they go with a hard-ass.

Newt will be a tougher candidate because he won't get Obama get away with bullshit like McCain did. "Oh, no, we can't talk about Reverand Wright. That would be bad."

 

[earlycuyler]

Any thoughts?

Instead of "Hope and change" the slogan will be "Blood, guts, and gore" The campaign will be nasty and bitter, and widen the political divide further then the Bush/Gore election did. This election will be decided in the courts unless it is a land slide one way or the other, and even then, its going to be ugly.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I once felt the same way and I do regret that it's changed.

Are you acquainted with the Indefinite Detention bill? It's an egregious affront to our Constitutional protections. It will enable the military to arrest and detain you without formal charge, without a hearing, and for an indefinite period. You would in effect be "disappeared" like so many citizens of Chile under Pinochet. All it will take is an accusation of "terrorism" (whatever that means).

Obama promised to veto this bill. Now he says he won't. The following statement is from Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional Law professor.

"The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. But that spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial." Jonathan Turley | Obama Breaks Promise To Veto Bill Allowing Indefinite … | Virginia News

Let's not forget Obama's failure to rid us of the "Patriot" Act and his abandoned promise to close Guantanamo.

He is a Trojan Horse. He methodically takes two baby steps forward for every giant step backward -- and I wish I believed otherwise.

Very nicely put, I am not nor have I been an Obama supporter, the main reason was his campaign was empty speeches and pie in the sky rhetoric.

His signing this new bill and the previous administration's Patriot Act, are an assault on our basic freedoms and rights.

We now have a two party system where both parties agree with the stripping of freedom and liberty from the people that elected them to work for the people.

We need to start voting out the scumbags every election until the message is sent, that WE THE PEOPLE are who you represent and you are a servant to the PEOPLE, not a lord or the PEOPLE.

If we all started to vote for other parties, and they saw a significant percentage move off their numbers, we'd see a change, maybe not overnight but we'd see one.

 

[candycorn]

Any thoughts?

It will be much harder this year but as time goes by, I think his re-election becomes more and more likely.

Specifically, the tactics of the campaign will be determined by how belligerent the Republican nominee is. The more acidic and reckless the GOP standard bearer is, the better Mr. Obama's chances become because a jingoistic opponent fires up your base.

This is why I hope the GOP taps Newt; that and Newt will be a disaster of a President.

The more right leaning the GOP becomes, the easier the path to re-election becomes for Mr. Obama.

History doesn't support that position.

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

When he tries to play nice and be a "moderate" who is loved by the liberals for being so "sensible"- Ford, Dole, McCain- he loses.

When the electorate is inclined to go Republican, they go with a hard-ass.

Newt will be a tougher candidate because he won't get Obama get away with bullshit like McCain did. "Oh, no, we can't talk about Reverand Wright. That would be bad."

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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Marxism: this time it will work, trust us

 

[Dragon]

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.

 

[auditor0007]

Any thoughts?

He will have even more money to spend this time around. It's one of the reasons that he will be re-elected.

 

[Dragon]

Marxism: this time it will work, trust us

CrusaderFrank is a liar.

 

[Psychoblues]

Any thoughts?

He's going to have to play the class warfare card and play it hard.

He's going to have to really villify Wall Street. (And again, the GOP nominating Romney will do half his work for him.)

His pitch will look something like this, "Look, we did what we could do, we kept the economy from going into another Great Depression. We spent a lot of money bailing out the Banks and Wall Street and the Auto Industry, and as far as that went, it was fine. But they haven't kept up their end of the bargain. They call themselves the job-producers, but they haven't produced the jobs after we the people saved them."

Class warfare is a myth and fearmongering from the right so right off you seem to me to simply repeat things you might hear from fauxnooz or their like.

Why would he vilify Wall Street? Even the #ows'ers recognize the potential value of Wall Street but are convinced WS doesn't play fair and they are 100% correct on that issue.

The pitch as you describe is pretty much spot on but I don't think that will be addressed much except from the right and then to their ultimate peril. I do believe, however, that adamant opposition to good sense and good governance from the right will be reflected in election contests and cause lefties to regain the house for the left and retain and/or return more lefties to state and local offices.

 

[ladyliberal]

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.

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.