• 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!

Can Bachman or Perry beat Obama

Can Bachman and Perry beat Obama in 2012

  • Bachman Can Beat Obama

    Votes: 1 2.1%

  • Perry can Beat obama

    Votes: 19 40.4%

  • Neither of them can beat Obama

    Votes: 27 57.4%
  • Total voters
    47
Catawba said:
I would agree with you that Perry will win the nomination, but I think he will lose the general election, for the same reason Bachmann would, but I also agree it would be a closer race.
Click to expand...

I like the way Nate Silver described electability:
"Electability exists along a spectrum, rather than in absolutes. Mr. Romney could defeat Barack Obama under a wider variety of circumstances than, for instance, Christine O’Donnell. But if the United States were suffering from Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation in which all liquid wealth in the country was destroyed every 24 hours, I would start to like Ms. O’Donnell’s chances against Mr. Obama, too."

I think this is absolutely right. The economic and geopolitical conditions next year will play a big role in determining who wins the election. The identity of the Republican nominee will only matter at the margins, after those conditions are taken into account.
 
Last edited:
Neither of these nimrods have an ice cube's chance in hell of winning the 2012 Presidential election.
 
As bad as Obama's record is, you could run cow methane against him and it would win.
 
SPC said:
No, it's liberal spin to hide the fact that Obama is a failure. You want to know what Obama inhereted from Bush? A AAA S&P credit rating, that Obama destroyed.
Click to expand...

So you do know that the growth in the unemployment rate was over 400% higher under Bush than under Obama.
 
RiverDad said:
No, I don't realize that. Your argument hangs on a technicality, which is that unemployment numbers are calculated as a ratio of those who are looking for work as the proportion of those who are working. This completely ignores all of those who've dropped out of the labor force due to finding no work.

In January 2001, the month of Bush's inauguration, the labor force participation rate was 67.2% and when he left office, using the last full month of his tenure, Dec. 2008, the workforce participation rate was 65.8%, a drop of 1.4% of the population.

When Obama was inaugurated the workforce participation rate was 65.7% and the most current workforce participation rate is 63.9%, a drop of 1.8%.

View attachment 67115040
Click to expand...

NO. Actually my argument is based on the official statistics from the US Government. The rate of growth in the unemployment rate was over 400% higher under Bush than it has been under Obama.
 
DashingAmerican said:
As bad as Obama's record is, you could run cow methane against him and it would win.
Click to expand...

If you are willing to take the methane I will give you 100 to 1 odds on a minimum four figure wager. ;)
 
Kandahar said:
I like the way Nate Silver described electability:
"Electability exists along a spectrum, rather than in absolutes. Mr. Romney could defeat Barack Obama under a wider variety of circumstances than, for instance, Christine O’Donnell. But if the United States were suffering from Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation in which all liquid wealth in the country was destroyed every 24 hours, I would start to like Ms. O’Donnell’s chances against Mr. Obama, too."

I think this is absolutely right. The economic and geopolitical conditions next year will play a big role in determining who wins the election. The identity of the Republican nominee will only matter at the margins, after those conditions are taken into account.
Click to expand...

I think unless we get to a Zimbabwe economy, the GOP will not win the presidency next year because they are still only offering the same failed trickle down economics of the last 30 year - more tax cuts for the wealthy and less regulations.
 
DashingAmerican said:
As bad as Obama's record is, you could run cow methane against him and it would win.
Click to expand...

A few still say that but the polls show voters would choose Obama. Even Texans say they would choose Obama over Perry.
 
SPC said:
Compared to the over three million that Buch created I would say Bush's record is better. And out of those supposed 2.7 million jobs you claim Obama created he has lost double that amount.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion! :sun
 
haymarket said:
NO. Actually my argument is based on the official statistics from the US Government. The rate of growth in the unemployment rate was over 400% higher under Bush than it has been under Obama.
Click to expand...

You should really try to avoid being a liberal hack. You have the choice of two measures - the unemployment rate and the workforce participation rate. The unemployment rate does not make any accounting of people who've dropped out of the workforce or dropped out of the activity of looking for work while the workforce participation rate accounts for such people.

Which metric more accurately describes the state of the job market - the one which measures only those people who are employed and those who are actively looking for work or the one which measures the ratio between workers and non-workers, where the non-workers include people actively looking for work and people who have given up looking for work?
 
SPC said:
No, it's liberal spin to hide the fact that Obama is a failure. You want to know what Obama inhereted from Bush? A AAA S&P credit rating, that Obama destroyed.
Click to expand...
It was the Tea Party/Republicans who caused the credit rating to go down because they refused to deal with President Obama. But if you read S&P's decision it was a political one and not a economic one. In fact the interest rates on U.S. Treasury Bonds have gone down not up.
 
Catawba said:
I think unless we get to a Zimbabwe economy, the GOP will not win the presidency next year because they are still only offering the same failed trickle down economics of the last 30 year - more tax cuts for the wealthy and less regulations.
Click to expand...

Ehh, I wouldn't be so sure. If the election were held today, Mitt Romney would probably give Obama a run for his money and might have an outside chance of winning a close race. It's not hard for me to envision a set of circumstances (where the economy was only slightly worse than it is now) where Romney, or perhaps Perry, could win decisively.

Michele Bachmann is another story...unless the economy was considerably worse than it is now, and was still moving in the wrong direction, I don't think she'd even be able to make it close.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Ehh, I wouldn't be so sure. If the election were held today, Mitt Romney would probably give Obama a run for his money and might have an outside chance of winning a close race. It's not hard for me to envision a set of circumstances (where the economy was only slightly worse than it is now) where Romney, or perhaps Perry, could win decisively.

Michele Bachmann is another story...unless the economy was considerably worse than it is now, and was still moving in the wrong direction, I don't think she'd even be able to make it close.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned, I think Romney might have a chance to beat Obama, but I'm willing to bet cold hard cash the Tea partied GOP will never let Romney be the nominee. Perry, like Bachmann is too extreme to win the independents and moderates who decide elections.

His mouth, and his actual record in Texas are his own worst enemy. Even the people of his own state in Texas prefer Obama over Perry.
 
Bachman: highly doubt it unless, like others have said, either the economy goes really bad (and it is mostly blamed on the President instead of Republicans in Congress) or Obama does something extremely stupid in the next year

Perry: stands a chance if things start to look like they are getting worse or Obama does something that turns moderates/independents from him or the Democrats do something really bad like this that Obama supports

Now, there are actually some things that I agree with Perry on, such as his changes to certain Texas gun-control policies. However, I don't like him or his stance on many other issues, especially economic, environmental, and gay rights policies. Texas is actually right in the middle for unemployment rate compared to the other states, but even at that point, they are absolute bottom for the number of people in the state who are working at or below minimum wage. What some people don't seem to get is that if people, especially those trying to support a family, are working at minimum wage and it doesn't pay their bills, they will need another job to fully support them or government assistance. Which means that just because you have a higher number of people employed, it doesn't mean that the state needs less job openings, since many of those who are employed at or below minimum wage are likely to require another job/source of income (either from the worker of the family getting a second job or a non-working family member actually getting a job or both) in order to actually be able to pay their bills without assistance.
 
Bachmann would win only if Obama's approval ratings really go down the drain. She's extreme even for my taste, plus has no executive experience and is prone to saying flat-out stupid things.

I actually think that out of the candidates running right now, Rick Perry has one of the best chances against Obama, possibly even better than Mitt Romney. Unlike Romney, he can excite conservatives enough to bring them out to vote in huge numbers. But he can also appeal to independents with his economic record in Texas, especially considering what a big issue the economy is going to be.
 
Dav said:
Bachmann would win only if Obama's approval ratings really go down the drain.
Click to expand...

I actually don't think Bachmann could win under any circumstance. People would go to a third party before they would go to Bachmann. At least 2/3 of the country would simply never vote for somebody like Bachmann no matter what.
 
RiverDad said:
You should really try to avoid being a liberal hack.
Click to expand...

Why are you going on a personal attack?

Why are you attempting to move the goal posts?

Why are you attempting - rather poorly at that - to change the subject?

It is an undeniable statistical fact that the rate of growth in the US unemployment rate was over 400% higher under President Bush than it has been under President Obama. You do understand that statistical fact don't you?
 
Beyond the comparing of Perry's state record with the country there is another point against him, his voice. Close your eyes when he talks and you visualize George Bush.

George Bush was so popular that even the Republicans didn't invite him to their presidental convention.

Once again, having the same accent and tone is not his fault but I think people are still sick of that Texas accent. The same thing goes for any young black democrat following Obama's footsteps.
 
haymarket said:
If you are willing to take the methane I will give you 100 to 1 odds on a minimum four figure wager. ;)
Click to expand...

only if we're talking four figures on the right side of the decimal.
 
haymarket said:
NO. Actually my argument is based on the official statistics from the US Government. The rate of growth in the unemployment rate was over 400% higher under Bush than it has been under Obama.
Click to expand...

funny.


that, of course, being because we spent much of Bush's Presidency in historically low unemployment, climbing rapidly at the end. Obama, of course, won't be held responsible for the climb. he will be held responsible for his utter inability to turn it around.
 
Wait until you see Perry debate. The Donald would actually be a better choice. Name recognition counts. Bush had it, Perry doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom