• 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
SPC said:
They thought Carter was going to be reelected too until the debates. Then the tables turned. Obama is turning out to be worse than Carter.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong. And that possibility was taken into account when I made my prediction.
I have noted that you have made your opinion clear more than once in this thread.

But feel free to post it again and again.
 
I think he will but by a smaller margin unless some real goof gets nominated like Bachmann. Then it would be a cake walk.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
I think he will but by a smaller margin unless some real goof gets nominated like Bachmann. Then it would be a cake walk.
Click to expand...

So with the economy the way it is and high unemployment it would be a cake walk? You either are on good drugs or just dreaming
 
Thunder said:
just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are abusing illegal drugs.
Click to expand...

Who said illegal? You must be on drugs if you think this economy and the unemployment will not be an issue. It will be hard for Obama to win no matter who runs against him
 
ptif219 said:
So with the economy the way it is and high unemployment it would be a cake walk? You either are on good drugs or just dreaming
Click to expand...

ptif219 said:
You must be on drugs if you think this economy and the unemployment will not be an issue..
Click to expand...


just because people disagree with your opinions does not mean they are on drugs.

however, accusing folks who disagree with you of being on drugs, doesn't say much about your debating tactics.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
just because people disagree with your opinions does not mean they are on drugs.
Click to expand...
But...
If you disagree with my opinions, it is possible that you suffer from a some mental defect--but not necessary a drug induced one.

;)
 
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.
 
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?"
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...
And the defects of his opponent.

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.

all
imho
ymmv
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I haven't learned much about Huntsman since they trotted him out of the stable. I do know 'everybody else' the RLC hopes to push off on the GOP rank and file are losers who may turn out the base in all it's deranged, bat**** crazy glory, but won't draw much outside of that small core.

Romney is distinctly unappealing to the Protestant Fundie base, and beyond that he has a lot of dirty laundry that will definitely sink him in a general election, namely his brief but very very lucrative career in the 'Private Equity' biz, the new buzz word for LBO rackets. He was even sued by one the Party's own heroes at one point, Guiliani, over his less than exemplary deals gone bad.

Palin and Bachman are strictly circus acts.

Gingrich never had a chance.

The rest are 'also rans' material, and Huckabee refused to run, a wise, and mostly honest, man who wasn't going to carry water for the sociopaths at the RNC and RLC. He was the only one who could have done well in a general election. As it is now, while a lot of people may turn out to vote against Obama, even more would turn out to vote against the raft of idiots, sociopaths, and cranks the Republicans are reduced to having to pick from.
 
dont like the wording of the poll question

but very similar to what someone else said my answer is: Looking at his potential opponents, yes he wins, not sure about the "landslide" part though

AND ask me again when its election time my answer could change
 
Palin, Bachmann, Paul, and the rest of the clowns have 1.5 years to keep staying silly & stupid things.

Unless the economy starts to really tank, its Obama's for the taking.
 
Thunder said:
Palin, Bachmann, Paul, and the rest of the clowns have 1.5 years to keep staying silly & stupid things.

Unless the economy starts to really tank, its Obama's for the taking.
Click to expand...

It's already tanking.
 
Thunder said:
Palin, Bachmann, Paul, and the rest of the clowns have 1.5 years to keep staying silly & stupid things.

Unless the economy starts to really tank, its Obama's for the taking.
Click to expand...

Thunder I am a registered Democrat. Even I can understand that the economy is in the **** can. I do not 100% blame Obama however like so many of our conservatives would. I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Obama in fact has been to big of a ***** and heeds to the Republicans far to much. Obama has surmounted a debt and a crisis that amicability is easily placed on his tenure. As a Democrat I ask you to urge your representatives to push harder rather than lay down. That is the only way you will achieve the goals you would like to achieve. What Paul, Bachmann, or even Palin promises doesn't matter if your own team can't even spike the ball. Urge our team to spike the ball and go from there.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Thunder I am a registered Democrat. Even I can understand that the economy is in the **** can. I do not 100% blame Obama however like so many of our conservatives would. I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Obama in fact has been to big of a ***** and heeds to the Republicans far to much. Obama has surmounted a debt and a crisis that amicability is easily placed on his tenure. As a Democrat I ask you to urge your representatives to push harder rather than lay down. That is the only way you will achieve the goals you would like to achieve. What Paul, Bachmann, or even Palin promises doesn't matter if your own team can't even spike the ball. Urge our team to spike the ball and go from there.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, that Obama has not worked hard enough or stood by his beliefs strong enough.

However, I decided a few weeks ago that I would NOT vote for Obama again, if he allowed a debt-relief plan that did not include some form of extras revenue from the rich and corporations. It now appears, that he is sticking by that, and the GOP has caved. It appears that when this is said and done, the GOP will allow some tax-loopholes to be filled. This would not happen if Obama acted like he did in his first year.

Yes, Obama has required too much time to learn how to play hardball, and to understand that the GOP respects strength, and not weakness.
 
SPC said:
The question speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Likely I'd say. Though I don't think it would matter one way or another. It's not like the Republicans are any different.
 
In nov-dec I said repeatedly that Obama doesnt have a snowballs chance in hell....now I believe he has a slim chance that can either increase or decrease depending if the teaparty keeps its far right screw teh working class stance...working class gop are giving them up....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom