• 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 to win...by a landslide???

Obama will win regardless if it is Newt or Romney at this point.. 1 year from the election.

Both GOP candidates have so many problems in their closet that they are unelectable even with the economy in the dumps.

Romney is a huge flip-flopper and most likely has committed election fraud. On top of that he cant really run on his business credentials in a general election since his business was removing jobs from America and I would wager that the Obama camp already has those commercials ready. He can run on the Salt Lake City thing.. but is it politically wise considering the scandal involved there... As for his very limited political carrier... /wave Romneycare... and one of the worst job growths at the time.. a time of boom..

Newt... is Newt.. an adulterous bastard and a hypocrite. The 524s or whatever they are called will run "Can Newt be trusted when he left his cancer stricken wife for another woman?" over and over again.. Add to that some of the "golden" comments he has done over the years.. there is plenty to go around.. including "The Palestinian people are a made up people" moronic comment he made. And then there is his political record.. resigning in disgrace... and not getting much done.

It is the old saying... better the devil you know than the devil you dont know.

Will it be a landslide? Doubtful because I suspect the turnout will be low.. from both sides. Dems are disappointed by Obama, and the Republicans cant stand their candidate..Only thing that might turn it for the GOP, is if they can build up a frenzy among the core to come out for what ever candidate they have (and holding their nose) and vote.. but question is.. will that work for the independents... doubtfully.
Not sure what you mean there, since you seems to know all about Romney and Gingrich. Frankly I think the Dems hate Obama, and the Reps will find a candidate they like. The Dems have no choice who to vote for, and that's what pisses them off.
 
Not sure what you mean there, since you seems to know all about Romney and Gingrich. Frankly I think the Dems hate Obama, and the Reps will find a candidate they like. The Dems have no choice who to vote for, and that's what pisses them off.

Seems to me that it's the other way around. The latest NBC/WSJ poll asked who people who they would vote for "with enthusiasm". The results were: Gingrich - 14%, Romney - 12%, Obama - 25%.

And in general the Republican's enthusiasm numbers are headed in the wrong direction: The GOP's sudden enthusiasm problem - War Room - Salon.com
 
Hope you have lots of tissues for when you start crying cause Obama was re-elected.

The fact is the GOP has put up a bunch of clowns. Even I don't want to see Obama a second term, but with what the GOP put up it is almost a guranteed victory for Obama. Blame the GOP for an Obama second term.

It won't be a landslide IMO, but I think Obama will win a second term.

I agree, the GOP has put up a bunch of clowns. I just think Obama is a bigger clown than most of those guys. With the exception of Rick "the dumbass"Perry. He makes Texans look realy bad for electing him as Gov for three terms.
 
Last edited:
That will only be the case, if the independent candidate is a moderate. The ones who have said they are thinking about running are libertarians and Republicans. They are going to take a lot more voters from the Republican nominee.

Also, 80% of Democrats approve of Barack Obama, which means they are going to vote for Obama.

So he lost 20% already...good!
 
Seems to me that it's the other way around. The latest NBC/WSJ poll asked who people who they would vote for "with enthusiasm". The results were: Gingrich - 14%, Romney - 12%, Obama - 25%.

And in general the Republican's enthusiasm numbers are headed in the wrong direction: The GOP's sudden enthusiasm problem - War Room - Salon.com

There is no enthusiasm in elections, so that's a pretty weird poll. Who stands in line panting with enthusiasm to vote? No one I've ever seen.
 
If Romney wins the nomination it's going to be a very tight race. If Gingrich gets the nomination then Obama will win big.

that is a rather accurate evaluation of where things now stand. And the way things are going on the GOP side, Newt gets stronger every week and looks like he will peak just in time to secure the nomination before he selfs destructs long before November.

Can anybody say Barry Goldwater 1964?
 
Can anybody say Barry Goldwater 1964?

They shouldn't be able to since there's next to no chance that it would happen.

A win like that would be siesmic shift from every Presidential election in almost 30 years. It would require Obama to improve upon 2008, when he was a FAR more popular figure and engendered FAR more excitement, by getting another 35% of the states and more than doubling the amount of popular vote seperation he had then. Not to mention there isn't anything CLOSE to the Kennedy Association pushing public sentiment to Obama as there was for LBJ.

Between FDR and Bush 41 landslides weren't that uncommon. You had one in 52, 56, 64 as you suggested, 72, 80, 84. 60% of the elections over that stretch we saw a case of a landslide; someone with roughly 80% or more of the states and over 10% of the popular vote. Since then we've gone six elections without a landslide with only one truly large victory which was Bush in 88. Every other election didn't see someone garner either 80%+ of the states or 10%+ of the Popular vote.

Also, Nixon in '72 was the largest Landslide post FDR, not the LBJ vs Goldwater one. Nixon had a greater % of the states (He had 49 as opposed to 44) and a greater lead in the popular vote (Lead by 23.2% rather than 22.6%).

Obama would need to do better than he did in 08 by multiple magnitudes and would need to change a trend that has persisted for 6 election cycles now. Its highly, highly unlikely.
 
if their only GOP choice is a "RHINO", or a flip-flopper, they may indeed stay home.

yeah......... no.


Since the heady days of 2008, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Swing States Poll finds the number of voters who identify themselves as Democratic or Democratic-leaning in these key states has eroded, down by 4 percentage points, while the ranks of Republicans have climbed by 5 points.

Republican voters also are more attentive to the campaign, more enthusiastic about the election and more convinced that the outcome matters...

Consider the math: In 2008, when Obama carried the swing states by 8 percentage points, Democrats there swamped Republicans in party identification by 11 points. Now, that partisan edge has tightened to a statistically insignificant 2 points.

And the "enthusiasm gap" that helped fuel a Democratic victory last time has turned into a Republican asset. Sixty-one percent of Republicans say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for president next year, compared with 47% of Democrats.

Among the most enthusiastic are some of the GOP's core voters: conservatives, middle-aged men and those 50 to 64 years old. Those who are least enthused include core Democratic groups that were critical to Obama's election in 2008, including minorities and younger voters....

In swing states, Obama trails former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among registered voters by 5 points, 43% vs. 48%, and former House speaker Newt Gingrich by 3, 45% vs. 48%...

This time, Republicans are more likely to be paying a lot of attention than Democrats — 69% to 48% — and they are more likely to say the election's outcome will make a major difference to the course of the economy.

That doesn't necessarily mean they avidly support one of the GOP contenders. For many, it means they avidly oppose Obama....

But the nation's ideological makeup creates more stress for Democrats than Republicans. In the 12 swing states identified by USA TODAY, 44% of those surveyed are conservatives, more than double the 21% who call themselves liberal.

To win a majority, the GOP needs to attract the lion's share of conservatives plus only a fraction of the 35% who call themselves moderates. In contrast, the Democratic candidate has to claim the solid support not only of liberals but also most of the moderates...

the 12 swing states identified are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.


The bad news for Obama? He won every one of those states in 2008. If Republicans flip all of these states, the Republicans will win the Electoral College, 326-212. If Obama hangs onto a couple of traditional Democratic states — say, Pennsylvania and Michigan — it’s a lot closer at 288-250. However, Obama also carried the normally Republican state of Indiana in 2008, which the USA Today/Gallup survey treats as a non-swing state. Putting Indiana back in the Republican column changes that calculation to 299-239, and the first calculation to 337-201.....​
 
Last edited:
But Hey! you guys just keep whistlin' in the dark.


oh hey! wasn't the healthcare law supposed to be, like, really popular by now?!? maybe ya'll could run on that? :lamo
 
Thankyou, his numbers are in the tank. He is going down like a flaming twink in a room full of hard dicks.

And it is the liberals who are guilty of wishful thinking????? By any assessment it will be a close election by current landmarks. If the economy continues to improve the President is a shoe in for re-election. If the economy stays at current levels it is a toss-up. If the economy sours then his re-election will most likely be dependent on a strong third party candidacy.
 
Thankyou, his numbers are in the tank. He is going down like a flaming twink in a room full of hard dicks.

I can't wait to see the jaws of Conservatives drop on Election Day, when Obama wins again.

that will be one interesting moment. :)
 
I don't think Romney will be a tight race either.

1. There might be an independent. Trump has talked about it for a long time. Gary Johnson is running as a libertarian. They are going to to lose a lot of votes to these guys.
2. There is a tendency for the opposition to poll better in front of an election. McCain polled equally with Obama back in December 2007. Kerry polled higher than Bush in 2003. Romney polls worse.

Mitt is saying anything to get the GOP nomination. Should he win the nomination, he will start sliding hard to the left, at least by comments if not in actuality, to win the general. The right will follow him regardless because the two party system will have them ****ting their pants with the fear of the lesser of two evils pablum. Sliding left after the GOP nomination will make him prettier to independents and the right of center will follow as I stated and if Obama keeps ****ing up and abandoning the left as he seems to always do (getting behind the pipeline, NDAA, SOPA), the left will stay home. This is the best chance the GOP has IMO right now.
 
The ending of the Iraq war and bringing the troops home is all for political reasons. Obama had 3 years to accomplish this, why all of a sudden now? Because Axelrod knows that Obama will probably be going up against the vehement anti-war Ron Paul. If Obama ends this war, they take away that angle from Paul attacking Obama. Paul really can't attack Obama on Afghanistan, as he himself voted for use of force to find UBL.

I definitely don't think Obama will win by a "landslide," but he will be a formidable opponent, and the Republicans are severely under-estimating him; just because he has a terrible record, does not mean he will be easy to defeat. That might have been the case in the 70s with Carter, but things done changed. The demographics highly favor Obama, despite his record.
 
The ending of the Iraq war and bringing the troops home is all for political reasons. Obama had 3 years to accomplish this, why all of a sudden now?....

you're serious?

Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi PM to bring the troops home by 12/31/2011. Obama has been slowly but surely complying with this agreement.
 
you're serious?

Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi PM to bring the troops home by 12/31/2011. Obama has been slowly but surely complying with this agreement.

Then why on Oct 27,2007, did Obama say the first thing he would do is end the war? Was he lying?
 
I stick with the safe assumption that you can't rule out a potentially weak field in being unable to remove a President. Despite the amped up rhetoric and confidence in the GOP over the past two years, it's not over. Democrats started feeling way too safe in early 2004 and it gave Bush a somewhat comfortable victory (well, in comparison). A landslide? I doubt that too, for either party. It will be a tough campaign.
 
Last edited:
u think we should just have brought all the troops home, in one day?

all 200,000 troops home by 2/1/2009?

Doesn't matter what I think. Obama said in no uncertain terms that if he's elected, the very first thing he will do is end this war (iraq) and bring the troops home. He failed miserably. Do you want me to fish up the youtube clip of him promising that, or are you going to admit that he lied?
 
The ending of the Iraq war and bringing the troops home is all for political reasons. Obama had 3 years to accomplish this, why all of a sudden now? Because Axelrod knows that Obama will probably be going up against the vehement anti-war Ron Paul. If Obama ends this war, they take away that angle from Paul attacking Obama. Paul really can't attack Obama on Afghanistan, as he himself voted for use of force to find UBL.

I definitely don't think Obama will win by a "landslide," but he will be a formidable opponent, and the Republicans are severely under-estimating him; just because he has a terrible record, does not mean he will be easy to defeat. That might have been the case in the 70s with Carter, but things done changed. The demographics highly favor Obama, despite his record.

Yawn....rehashed talking points. We have been succefully and slowly disengaging from Iraq since Obama took office. Would have preferred and immediate withdrawal on January 21st? This is one of many tired, rediculously premised, right wing talking points. It has no basis in reality.
 
Doesn't matter what I think. Obama said in no uncertain terms that if he's elected, the very first thing he will do is end this war (iraq) and bring the troops home. He failed miserably. Do you want me to fish up the youtube clip of him promising that, or are you going to admit that he lied?

He didn't pull all troops out on January 21st....He's big fat, pant's on fire, liar...Again and we wonder why the Republican Party nomination is a clown show? I think it makes perfect sense.
 
Yawn....rehashed talking points. We have been succefully and slowly disengaging from Iraq since Obama took office. Would have preferred and immediate withdrawal on January 21st? This is one of many tired, rediculously premised, right wing talking points. It has no basis in reality.

Actually it does. When Obama was in full campaign mode on Oct 27, 2007 he promised that the first thing he would do once elected is bring the troops home. He is brining them home 3 years after he was sworn in. In you little fantasy world I guess that means he's honoring his promise. I don't know about you, but many people voted for Obama based on what he said he was going to do once in office, and he let alot of people down. He's just another wall street funded greedy, facetious politician.
 
Back
Top Bottom