Obama wrong yet again

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

You guys are hilarious. Obama, for better or worse, is like teflon. I thought this would be a one term presidency but in order to beat a sitting president you have to have a decent candidate with which to beat him regardless of the performance of said president. See George W. Bush 2004.

The republican party needs to take a long look in the mirror and regroup for a run in 2016. Perhaps by then they can come up with a viable candidate. The idea that there are still people in the party that have hopes of trotting out a marginalized Sarah Palin in 2012 shows the sad state of affairs.

i don't agree with this , Obama in 2005 would have been 1000/1 to win the presidencey , therefore someone can still win from the republican party in 2012 - theremaybe someone out there how comes in from the back of the pack like MTB did in the derby an leaves everybody stunned ...... who bet on Obama to win in '05 ,06, +07 - it was all Hillary Clinton , she was even money to win the nomination for a long time

[Antitrust32]

To be honest there is absolutely no way you can say Obama is made of teflon of not. If taxes go up, if the cap and trade is implemented, if 3 1/2 years from now the wars are worse or more countries are involved (north korea).. if the economy still sucks, and if the Stimulus doesnt work and inflation begins to happen.. there is no way Obama is re-elected.

Its pretty simple... If Obama policies work & the country is doing well, he gets re-elected, if his policies dont work and the country is doing worse, he is not re-elected... It doesnt really matter who runs against him. (unless Palin runs cause nobody likes her - but the chances of her winning the primary's are slim to non unless the Repubs really want to shoot themselves in the head).

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

To be honest there is absolutely no way you can say Obama is made of teflon of not. If taxes go up, if the cap and trade is implemented, if 3 1/2 years from now the wars are worse or more countries are involved (north korea).. if the economy still sucks, and if the Stimulus doesnt work and inflation begins to happen.. there is no way Obama is re-elected.

Its pretty simple... If Obama policies work & the country is doing well, he gets re-elected, if his policies dont work and the country is doing worse, he is not re-elected... It doesnt really matter who runs against him. (unless Palin runs cause nobody likes her - but the chances of her winning the primary's are slim to non unless the Repubs really want to shoot themselves in the head).

History has shown you to be incorrect. There have been a lot of lousy two term presidents. It is all about the opposition. The last two bushes (no pun intended you freak! ) show the dichotomy.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

History has shown you to be incorrect. There have been a lot of lousy two term presidents. It is all about the opposition. The last two bushes (no pun intended you freak! ) show the dichotomy.

to be fair bush I lost because of ross perot more than bill clinotn's persona

ross's constant attacks on the defecit really hammered home a lot of points against bush i who thought he was a lock after the gulf war , but, that election was won because of bread and butter , the economy turned sour about 9 months before the election and clintion was aided by ross perot's constant attacks on the defecit and spending in washington

[gales0678]

and like i said hillary proably would have beaten GWB in '04 in my opinon , that stiff kerry was the best they could do and he almost won

the clinton's blew there chance in '04

[gales0678]

it does matter who runs , there is no question about that , but , a star could come from the clouds in 3 yrs - we just witnessed it last year , who ever thoguht hillary was not going to get the nomination

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by gales0678

to be fair bush I lost because of ross perot more than bill clinotn's persona

ross's constant attacks on the defecit really hammered home a lot of points against bush i who thought he was a lock after the gulf war , but, that election was won because of bread and butter , the economy turned sour about 9 months before the election and clintion was aided by ross perot's constant attacks on the defecit and spending in washington

The economy was actually stabilized by the time the election came about. Clinton owned bush in the debates and ran a campaign that was light years beyond what the Conservatives had seen and they were left flat footed. Attributing clinton's success in that election to Perot is not giving necessary credit where it is due.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

The economy was actually stabilized by the time the election came about. Clinton owned bush in the debates and ran a campaign that was light years beyond what the Conservatives had seen and they were left flat footed. Attributing clinton's success in that election to Perot is not giving necessary credit where it is due.

20mm votes to a third party was pretty significant , i'm not saying clinton didn't run a good campaign , he did , and to say the economy was stablized at the time is debeatable - carvelle and step. to this day say "it's the economy stupid" as they key campaign slogan that pushed the mover the top

we will never know if bill would have beat gw I - mano a mano - those 20mm votes were very important

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by gales0678

20mm votes to a third party was pretty significant , i'm not saying clinton didn't run a good campaign , he did , and to say the economy was stablized at the time is debeatable - carvelle and step. to this day say "it's the economy stupid" as they key campaign slogan that pushed the mover the top

we will never know if bill would have beat gw I - mano a mano - those 20mm votes were very important

and Gore lost because of Nader...and..the Supreme Court, but that's another thread

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

History has shown you to be incorrect. There have been a lot of lousy two term presidents. It is all about the opposition. The last two bushes (no pun intended you freak! ) show the dichotomy.

Okay so I'll give you that Palin would probably equal Kerry as far as horrible opposition. Obama could sell us to China in the next four years and may still beat Palin.

But if the Repubs are smart, a Tim Pawlenty/Mitt Romney could seriously challange Obama, and if Obama's policies fail, then we would most likely win.

And you meant W's two term presidency right, cause Bush Sr. was a one term guy.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Okay so I'll give you that Palin would probably equal Kerry as far as horrible opposition. Obama could sell us to China in the next four years and may still beat Palin.

But if the Repubs are smart, a Tim Pawlenty/Mitt Romney could seriously challange Obama, and if Obama's policies fail, then we would most likely win.

And you meant W's two term presidency right, cause Bush Sr. was a one term guy.

Romney? I always thought that would be an interesting sell to the **** stompers in the midwest. A mormon president. Hmmmmm. Tough sell to the bible belt.

Pawlenty is another typical white guy. There is nothing "sexy" about him. You arent going to beat Obama and oprah winfrey with tim pawlenty and it doesnt matter if Obama tries to make Arabic studies a requirement for elementary school.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Romney? I always thought that would be an interesting sell to the **** stompers in the midwest. A mormon president. Hmmmmm. Tough sell to the bible belt.

Pawlenty is another typical white guy. There is nothing "sexy" about him. You arent going to beat Obama and oprah winfrey with tim pawlenty and it doesnt matter if Obama tries to make Arabic studies a requirement for elementary school.

I meant them both on one ticket...

It's really up to Obama & his policies. If they work out (which I hope they do because our future rides on it)... he's a lock. Jesus and buddah could run against him and lose.

If his policies fail (and his honeymoon period will wear off soon).. than I could really see a Pawlenty/Romney ticket winning. It would be nice if Repubs could look past the Morman thing.. it makes no difference whether he's a Catholic, Bhuddist or agnostic, the man really know's his economics.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I meant them both on one ticket...

It's really up to Obama & his policies. If they work out (which I hope they do because our future rides on it)... he's a lock. Jesus and buddah could run against him and lose.

If his policies fail (and his honeymoon period will wear off soon).. than I could really see a Pawlenty/Romney ticket winning. It would be nice if Repubs could look past the Morman thing.. it makes no difference whether he's a Catholic, Bhuddist or agnostic, the man really know's his economics.

But he doesnt have an ounce of charisma...and he's mormon. You put him and pawlenty on a ticket and it wouldnt matter if they caught obama downtown with a crackpipe in his mouth in the middle of the greatest depression...those guys would lose.

Republicans sold out to the Bible thumpers a long time ago. It won them a couple of elections but at the end of the day it is part of the reason they are in such disarray. They have to take a long look in the mirror. They desperately need a "rebrand". Trotting out two uppity white guys with no charisma is exactly what the country is going away from.