Yes, in a landslide
No, he's going to lose in a landslide.
Last edited by Thunder; 07-11-11 at 12:21 PM.
If the economy doesn't shape up A LOT, his chances of reelection will be solely based on how big a slick-talker he is. There is some chance that this could be enough.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
You know what would be great? If the first question that was asked was not "how will this affect the next election?" every time something big happens politically. Instead, how about we focus on "how will this affect the lives of Americans?"
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
When I was a young man, there was a burglary at a pharmacy not too far from my house. Or maybe it was a robbery, I don't recall--but the cops were there is the point. The guy who ran the pharmacy, Wimberly, was a former mayor and a member of the state legislature. So, the police chief himself, Doc Hale, shows up at the scene. The Hales were and prob'ly are still a prominent family--one of them from that same generation was/is a judge. The chief is filmed by the security cameras taking money from the till. The drugstore presses charges. The Chief commits suicide. "I miss Doc" bumper stickers are printed. The drug store is blamed.
Come the next election, Wimberly was going to be on the ballot unopposed. Some resourceful, long-haired, hippy guy who didn't even wear shoes noticed and had his own name put on the ballot too. Mind you this guy, did not have the backing of any party. He was not a known political figure locally. He was going up against someone with all the political connections there were to be had in the city, someone with a proven track record of performance in public office.
On election day, people from our district went to the ballot box, saw Wimberly's name, and chose "the other guy." And thus began the political career of Jim Lendall. Elected because he was not "the guy who killed Doc Hale."
There're a number of political morals to be drawn from that anecdote. But for now, my point is that people sometimes vote against candidates. The negatives of the opponent can be enough sometimes to make the piblic "hold their nose," or "take a chance."
If the GOP wins, it'll be a candidate who is not currently interrupting with Obama while Obama is making mistakes. This one of the reasons why I don't think Palin and Bachmann are serious contenders. They open their mouths to garner attention thinking that even bad pr is good pr. But at this point all they need to do is keep from looking bad--which they're failing.
A successful GOP candidate would
distancedistinguish themselves from the current troglodyte stereotype that plagues many people associated with the GOP centric PR machine, not embrace it. While there're many people to whom that kind of an image appeals to, it's not something that middle America wants to gamble the farm on atm.
A successful GOP candidate would also present a positive, realistic platform of action. Positive in the sense of being for certain policies and initiatives instead of merely against what has already been. Realistic in the sense of formed in the light that compromise is the reality of all representative governments rather than planks based on ideology and their bumper-sticker appeal.
I may be wrong.
Maybe if Bachmann says "Obama will be a one term president" about a million more times people will come under the effect of some Tea Party mind trick.
Other than that possibility, I don't see Obama losing in 2012.
"It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this." Bertrand Russell
He could definitely lose if the job numbers stay the way they are.
That said, none of the GOP contenders are particularly impressive. If I were forced to vote Republican in the primaries, I'd probably vote Huntsman. I don't particularly like Romney, but I wouldn't have much of a problem if he became President.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
In the minds of voters, what Obama has or hasn't done won't matter if he can't at least show some kind of progress with unemployment, even if it is his fault or not. That said, I think Americans understand as well that the entire situation is screwed up and this is not just a problem Americans are having it is worldwide. The Fed has predicted now they believe unemployment won't be at pre-2009 levels until 2016 and even so, they have no data on when unemployment could be at 5% which is typically the normal low. It is a sketchy road. If you go by what the Fed says either way, if Obama stays president or not, someone will have to deal for bad numbers for another entire term.
"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan