Exactly. A war means massive cuts in government spending which is what got us back on track. We need to pretend we are in a World War and adjust our government spending to that level
Exactly. A war means massive cuts in government spending which is what got us back on track. We need to pretend we are in a World War and adjust our government spending to that level
Exactly. I'd even agree that Obama's performance, on the whole, probably doesn't merit relection. He hasn't been an effective leader and salesman of the polices he ran on. However, he isn't running against "generic GOP candidate A", he is running against Mitt Romney (a flawed candidate) and a bunch of crazy and stupid people.If it was an up-or-down vote for or against Obama, he'd lose. But, it isn't, so who knows?
Yeah, but you don't need 50% to win an election. Bill Clinton never won 50% of the vote. The magic presidential approval rating isn't 51%, its closer to the 48% range, since other candidates steal 1-3% of the total electorate vote. When your presidential approval rating sinks into the mid to low 40s, thats when you need to worry.Uh... first off, that's totally a guess. His approval is about 40% now, you need 51% to win the popular vote...
Mitt Romney looks the most competent from outside the USA but, how much difference will him being a draft dodger and a Mormon make in the primary when it starts to get dirty ?
Will enough Republicans from outside the Mormon church believe that Salt Lake City will be pulling the strings to ruin Romney's chances ?
Downtown said:The people who are pissed at Mormons now aren't people who would vote for Mitt anyway. They're Liberals. Most Republicans got over their Mormon hate in 2008.
Agreed, his best hope is that the opponent is worse than him... that's what got him elected to begin with, right? It's always the "lesser of two"...Exactly. I'd even agree that Obama's performance, on the whole, probably doesn't merit relection. He hasn't been an effective leader and salesman of the polices he ran on. However, he isn't running against "generic GOP candidate A", he is running against Mitt Romney (a flawed candidate) and a bunch of crazy and stupid people.
There is no Ross Perot to skew the election this time like there was both times Clinton won with under 50%...Yeah, but you don't need 50% to win an election. Bill Clinton never won 50% of the vote. The magic presidential approval rating isn't 51%, its closer to the 48% range, since other candidates steal 1-3% of the total electorate vote. When your presidential approval rating sinks into the mid to low 40s, thats when you need to worry.
Yes, he does well compared to other incumbents, however, that isn't enough to win. Being in is counting against you right now... so the outsider is at the advantage in the end.It's worth noting that however dismal his ratings are though, they're still better than virtually any other politician who is actually making choices at the moment. Voters hate EVERYBODY right now.
"Liberals" and blacks are the only two groups that remain strong in their support for him, according to polls.At any rate, I think a significant reason that his raw approval rating is dropping is because liberals are pretty pissed at him too. There is no way Obama can win an election without VERY strong activity from his base supporters.
Ummm... he's in 3 major conflicts... Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.Obama diverges in that many of his military expeditions are inherited, and are generally successful during his term. In some ways Obama is like Nixon also (not the misuse of power)----they promised to end the war and normalize international relations.
No American believes Romney is a draft dodger, and very few people are worried about "Salt Lake" pulling the strings in the government. You keep acting like Romney is the first Mormon we've ever elected to anything...the leader of the US Senate is a Mormon, along with close to a dozen members of Congress, and dozens of statehouse members across the country. We've had Mormon cabinet officials, Mormon governors, Mormon ambassadors, hell, prob a third of the FBI is Mormon. etc...voters aren't worried that Thomas Monson is going to be secretly pulling the strings of govt. If he wanted to, he already would!
The people who are pissed at Mormons now aren't people who would vote for Mitt anyway. They're Liberals. Most Republicans got over their Mormon hate in 2008.
Nah, 2008 Obama was a particularly gifted politician that a lot of people voted FOR instead of against McCain. He beat Clinton too, who certainly wasn't a slouch of a candidate. The McCain camp only really imploded after selecting Palin.Agreed, his best hope is that the opponent is worse than him... that's what got him elected to begin with, right? It's always the "lesser of two"...
Depending on the state shakeout, you don't really need one.There is no Ross Perot to skew the election this time like there was both times Clinton won with under 50%...
And this is a major problem, especially since blacks (as a group), can't really be counted on to vote in strength. Obama won virtually every single demographic last year (even rich people!), and needs a strong showing (in votes and activity) from people under 30, latinos, the educated, women, labor, and "liberals". If even one of those groups is lukewarm, he isn't going to be able to make up the difference in white suburbanites."Liberals" and blacks are the only two groups that remain strong in their support for him, according to polls
Ummm... he's in 3 major conflicts... Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Iraq was "won" based on the "Surge", that is widely acknowledged. It is safer to be in Iraq than Detroit, practically speaking.
Afghanistan is a FAR CRY from a success!
Libya... not fairing too well there either.
If you say so...Afghan is a success in the damage done to the Al Qaeda/Taliban network. Definitely not a failure overall.
There is no Ross Perot to skew the election this time like there was both times Clinton won with under 50%...
Perot got 18% of the vote in '92.True, but DT is still right, usually 1-3% of people vote independent. Didn't something like 10% or more vote for Perot?
I don't agree that you "Don't need to worry" if you have 48% though. I'd say if you have 48% of the vote, your chance to win is iffy. I think you need 51% to be totally secure. But winning with 48% is possible.
Dan Quayle should have kicked him off the ballot.Perot got 18% of the vote in '92.
And this is a major problem, especially since blacks (as a group), can't really be counted on to vote in strength. Obama won virtually every single demographic last year (even rich people!), and needs a strong showing (in votes and activity) from people under 30, latinos, the educated, women, labor, and "liberals". If even one of those groups is lukewarm, he isn't going to be able to make up the difference in white suburbanites.
Why do "The Educated" vote Liberal more???
JollyRoger said:Dan Quayle should have kicked him off the ballot.
Because they are more likely to approach politics from an intelligent angle.
I was hoping for a more in-depth answer...