• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think Obama will be reelected in 2012

Do you think Obama will be reelected

  • Yes, in a landslide

    Votes: 33 61.1%

  • No, he's going to lose in a landslide.

    Votes: 21 38.9%
  • Total voters
    54
Catawba said:
What I meant was that a liberal president would work towards those ends through his leadership.
Click to expand...

Leadership? If Obama and Reid and Pelosi are your idea of leadership we are in big trouble
 
The Barbarian said:
The presidential election will be decided by the economy … nuff said about that that .. and it makes no difference who wins .. what everyone seem to be ignoring it the senate

There are 34 senate seats up for grabs in 2012 .. of them I believe 23 are presently held by democrats … and 11 by republicans .. even not taking into account what happened in 2010 … and just saying there will be a even split in those elections .. that would mean the Republicans end up with control of the house and senate .. . and Obama is a lame duck president... that is powerless .. much the same as Bush was during his last two years .
Click to expand...

This is probably likely.
 
Why a landslide?
It may be a close race, with Obama winning, or losing.

I would say at the moment, Obama would still be reelected.
 
Fiddytree said:
Why a landslide?
It may be a close race, with Obama winning, or losing.

I would say at the moment, Obama would still be reelected.
Click to expand...

This is especially likely if the RNC doesn't come up with a pool of electable candidates, something they're failing miserably at currently.
 
Oberon said:
This is especially likely if the RNC doesn't come up with a pool of electable candidates, something they're failing miserably at currently.
Click to expand...

Some of us are waiting around for a good challenger or a more solidified party message, but I would say it likely has more to do with who owns the messages. The Republicans are not quite there yet, but that can change by next year.
 
yes but definitly NOT in a landside.
 
I think it will all come down to the economy. If the economy about where it is now, I see him beating any of the mediocre at best field of Republicans, though not by a landslide; if the economy improves significantly between now and the election, I do see him winning in a landslide; if the economy gets much worse, I see him being a one-termer.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I think it will all come down to the economy. If the economy about where it is now, I see him beating any of the mediocre at best field of Republicans, though not by a landslide; if the economy improves significantly between now and the election, I do see him winning in a landslide; if the economy gets much worse, I see him being a one-termer.
Click to expand...

Not having a budget during his presidency and talking against a balanced budget now will hurt him
 
ptif219 said:
Not having a budget during his presidency and talking against a balanced budget now will hurt him
Click to expand...

Yes, because it is clearly the President's job to legislate a budget. Wonderful reasoning :doh
 
ptif219 said:
Not having a budget during his presidency and talking against a balanced budget now will hurt him
Click to expand...
Last time that happened was when Clinton was president and the Republican-led Congress got slammed pretty hard for it. Newt Gingrich, then House Speaker, was particularly hurt by it. He would later call his actions the single biggest mistake he made in that office.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Last time that happened was when Clinton was president and the Republican-led Congress got slammed pretty hard for it. Newt Gingrich, then House Speaker, was particularly hurt by it. He would later call his actions the single biggest mistake he made in that office.
Click to expand...

Yet it was a big talking point of the left where they claimed there was a surplus. How come the left saw it as good then but now are not out raged Obama will not even come up with a budget.

A balanced budget would be good but the same democrats that praised the so called surplus of Clinton now are against a balanced budget
 
A debt-reduction plan that includes closing tax-loopholes for the rich, will ENSURE Obama's re-election.

:)
 
Thunder said:
A debt-reduction plan that includes closing tax-loopholes for the rich, will ENSURE Obama's re-election.

:)
Click to expand...


No it won't. Fixing the economy and bringing down the unemployment rate will. But I don't see Obama caring about that
 
ptif219 said:
No it won't. Fixing the economy and bringing down the unemployment rate will. But I don't see Obama caring about that
Click to expand...

the GOP's one goal, is to defeat Obama.

creating jobs, reducing the deficit, protecting our economy, is the LAST thing on their minds.
 
Thunder said:
the GOP's one goal, is to defeat Obama.

creating jobs, reducing the deficit, protecting our economy, is the LAST thing on their minds.
Click to expand...

The same can be said about Obama. He is looking for something he can say he did in his re-election campaign
 
ptif219 said:
The same can be said about Obama. He is looking for something he can say he did in his re-election campaign
Click to expand...

what exciting and new legislation did the GOP submit to Congress since 2009?

none..whatsoever.

all they have done, is say "NO".

that's not much of a record.
 
Thunder said:
what exciting and new legislation did the GOP submit to Congress since 2009?

none..whatsoever.

all they have done, is say "NO".

that's not much of a record.
Click to expand...

If they did it would not be voted on. Remember the democrats until this year had a filibuster proof congress and the GOP could do nothing about it.

That is why the unemployment and continued failed economy is on the backs of Obama and the democrats
 
ptif219 said:
If they did it would not be voted on. Remember the democrats until this year had a filibuster proof congress and the GOP could do nothing about it.
Click to expand...
So Republicans aren't going to pass any noteworthy legislation until they control the Senate and the White House too? Then why do we need them?
 
Thunder said:
if McCain and Palface had won in 2008, the unemployment rate would be 15%
Click to expand...

You have no way of knowing that, other than the fortune cookie you brought home from dinner.
 
Ockham said:
You have no way of knowing that, other than the fortune cookie you brought home from dinner.
Click to expand...

McCain and Paleface would have not bailed out GM and the other automotive companies, sending this nation into a spiral.

that would have led to massive more unemployment than we have today.

they would have also not allowed a big stimulus plan, thereby NOT protecting and creating millions of jobs.
 
Thunder said:
McCain and Paleface would have not bailed out GM and the other automotive companies, sending this nation into a spiral.

that would have led to massive more unemployment than we have today.

they would have also not allowed a big stimulus plan, thereby NOT protecting and creating millions of jobs.
Click to expand...

Wrong. GM and Chrysler would have filed bankruptcy and the court system would have worked and the unions would have lost.

Instead Obama controlled the deal and rewarded and saved the union.


Millions of jobs.
JC-hysterical.gif


You must believe the lies of Obama. How many of those jobs are still there?

Most were temporary jobs
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
McCain and Paleface would have not bailed out GM and the other automotive companies, sending this nation into a spiral.
Click to expand...

You know, I actually disagree with this statement. I think John McCain would have done the right thing, and chosen the good of the country over what he personally believes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom