• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama Back to Even With "Generic" Republican Candidate

coolwalker said:
They're sick of him because he can't get they agenda passed at every point.He is liberal and he bows...bows to foreign leaders. He is a disgrace to our country. He's gone next election and it can't come soon enough.
Click to expand...

Because he bows...in to pressure from his right. His actions, at least, have been hardly "socialistic."
 
StillBallin75 said:
Because he bows...in to pressure from his right. His actions, at least, have been hardly "socialistic."
Click to expand...

I think Cool is largely on the right track. I didn't see him mention socialism in that specific post (he may have earlier), but there is a large degree of what one can practically do in office and what one would like to do. That being said it is also likely he has reservations with the base.

Edit: I guess he did say it. Heh, foolish.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
I think Cool is largely on the right track. I didn't see him mention socialism in that specific post (he may have earlier), but there is a large degree of what one can practically do in office and what one would like to do. That being said it is also likely he has reservations with the base.

Edit: I guess he did say it. Heh, foolish.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll admit there's probably a difference between Obama's personal views and his actions as President, but the former are kind of irrelevant if he doesn't really to act on principle. Keep in mind this is a President, for all his populist rhetoric, still takes more money from Wall Street than perhaps any of his rivals. His Presidency thus far has been characterized by moderation and conciliation to his right flank more than anything else. Even his two landmark pieces of legislation, Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, were watered-down pieces of crap compared to what liberals and progressives actually wanted. (And this is WITH Democratic majorities in both chambers). Which is why I said that when you take everything into consideration, thus far Obama's been more of the same than anything else.
 
Last edited:
Here is the problem I have with this poll. It has Obama running against "generic" Republican, and not against actual candidates, which shows a much different picture. This kind of polling is typical for the House of Ras, and explains why, out of all polling organizations, Rasmussen finished near the bottom, not even close in it's predictions in 2008 or 2010. The House of Ras also tends to do normal polls in deep red states, where actual Republican candidates are ahead, but "generic Republican" polls in states that might be close. This shows me that Rasmussen can be considered as the FOX News of polling, since this method demonstrates it's bias, which might also help to explain it's abysmal record of inaccurate polling.

NOTE: If the Republican party had a real candidate, instead of the collection of nutters and retreads that it presently has, then a poll featuring a "generic Republican" would be more accurate. On that note, I honestly believe that the only candidate who has a chance against Obama is Mitt Romney, and there is plenty of irony in that. Although Romney says he wants to eliminate Obamacare, it was his own plan in Massachusetts that Obamacare was modeled after. This makes the 2012 election cycle one that will be regarded in the future as one of those WTF moments of American political history.
 
StillBallin75 said:
His policies have been more moderate than anything else.
Click to expand...

His starting position on policies and what he's attempting to get, or what he's ended up watering down to after months of time to get it past the blue dog democrats and republicans in congress?

His initial policy positions on Cap & Trade, Health Care, the Bush Tax Cuts, TARP, etc were all far from "moderate". However, even with full control of BOTH houses of Congress his policies couldn't even garner enough support so they were repeatedly "modreated" to get the votes necessary. If you want to go only based off what the final products have been, then I'd say his policies have definitely been moderately liberal but not extreme liberal. If you want to go based off what he was primarily pushing for in all of those policy situations, then no I'd say he's been solidly liberal.

His starting positions were so solidly liberal on those issues I stated above that he could not even gain the support of the moderates in his own party to be able to pass them when he had complete controll of the Congress. That doesn't exactly scream "moderate" to me. I think it'd be more accurate to term Obama as a solidly left wing liberal whose policies have became more moderately liberal in nature by the time they finally pass. And I only give him moderately liberal instead of slightly liberal because of some of his foreign policy decisions such as maintaining the Bush plan in Iraq, keeping GITMO open, continuing to defend the PATRIOT Act, etc.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
His starting position on policies and what he's attempting to get, or what he's ended up watering down to after months of time to get it past the blue dog democrats and republicans in congress?

His initial policy positions on Cap & Trade, Health Care, the Bush Tax Cuts, TARP, etc were all far from "moderate". However, even with full control of BOTH houses of Congress his policies couldn't even garner enough support so they were repeatedly "modreated" to get the votes necessary. If you want to go only based off what the final products have been, then I'd say his policies have definitely been moderately liberal but not extreme liberal. If you want to go based off what he was primarily pushing for in all of those policy situations, then no I'd say he's been solidly liberal.

His starting positions were so solidly liberal on those issues I stated above that he could not even gain the support of the moderates in his own party to be able to pass them when he had complete controll of the Congress. That doesn't exactly scream "moderate" to me. I think it'd be more accurate to term Obama as a solidly left wing liberal whose policies have became more moderately liberal in nature by the time they finally pass. And I only give him moderately liberal instead of slightly liberal because of some of his foreign policy decisions such as maintaining the Bush plan in Iraq, keeping GITMO open, continuing to defend the PATRIOT Act, etc.
Click to expand...

I disagree strongly with your take. Obama's biggest problem has been his middle-of-the-road starting positions. He essentially starts out with a pre-compromised position, i.e., he's bartering with himself and presenting a proposal that he thinks should be acceptable to the Republicans. Of course that's a problem because, one, it's bad bargaining strategy, and two, Republicans aren't agree to *any* major proposal that he offers.

For example, I would bet that Obama believes a single payer system is the best choice (he said so in the past), but instead of offering one, he started with a rejiggered current system plus a rather weak public option. The program he ended up with is essentially the same as the one Romney enacted in Massacusetts and originally conceived by Republican Senators and the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly what you describe as "mildly liberal" folks. Likewise, the stimulus was the right idea, but he proposed one that was too small in order to fend off criticism. The list goes on and on.

Of cours when I say liberal and conservative I'm using the terms in a wider context. What passed for conservative 20 years ago is considered SOCIALISM by today's right wing.
 
coolwalker said:
They're sick of him because he can't get they agenda passed at every point. He is liberal and he bows...bows to foreign leaders. He is a disgrace to our country. He's gone next election and it can't come soon enough.
Click to expand...

Who is going to beat him? Seriously, Newt? Romney (who we all know wont be voted for because he is a mormon...I read where hard core right people already said no way they would vote for him no matter what.)

Who you got?
 
coolwalker said:
With a blank face against Obama he can't do better that even-steven. Bet a dime to a dollar he's smoking a cigarette behind the Rose Garden right now (lol).

Obama Back to Even With "Generic" Republican Candidate
Click to expand...

If only the Republicans could figure out how to actually run a"blank face" or generic candidate, they might actually have a shot. Unfortunately all they have is Cain, Bachman, Perry and Mitt.
 
soccerboy22 said:
Yes and no. Just because it says generic doesn't mean, that now, people aren't think of certain candidates.
Click to expand...

Generic pretty much means "anyone but Obama"...many people I know who voted for him and thought he was The Second Coming aren't going to vote for him...the real danger lay in people who simply won't vote for anyone, then he would probably b re-elected and then we all will be in a bread line feeding from the government trough, which has always been his heats desire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom