• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama must be licking his chops right now

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I'm frankly shocked at the pathetic display of candidates the GOP has trotted since '08. I'm not really sure they are capable of winning a general election anymore with the population dynamics favoring minorities more and more in key swing states (e.g. Hispanics).

The religious right, whom the GOP has in its pocket, has also served to alienate a lot of voters. The Southern Strategy does not appear to be viable anymore. I suspect a major GOP party realignment if they end up losing 2012 and 2016 when Hillary likely runs and wins.
 
Depends how economy pans out this year. IF unemployment continues to go down and is comfortably into the 7's, it's going to be very hard for Obama to lose.

This is so silly, too. If the republicans were full of total imbeciles/assholes then it wouldn't be Obama's fight to lose, but alas that is all the republicans are as well, so instead of having a half decent guy to go against a disappointing president they have nobody.
 
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Romney if he is the Rep candidate. It all depends on how he handles himself and what the GOP tries to saddle him with. The truth is that the Reps will pick the Reps and the Dems the Dems. That leaves the independents to decide the race as has been the case for some time. There's not a whole lot of love for either candidate so while Obama probably has an advantage it's not a huge one.
 
OneOfTheseDays said:
I'm frankly shocked at the pathetic display of candidates the GOP has trotted since '08. I'm not really sure they are capable of winning a general election anymore with the population dynamics favoring minorities more and more in key swing states (e.g. Hispanics).

The religious right, whom the GOP has in its pocket, has also served to alienate a lot of voters. The Southern Strategy does not appear to be viable anymore. I suspect a major GOP party realignment if they end up losing 2012 and 2016 when Hillary likely runs and wins.
Click to expand...

Pipe dreams.
 
OneOfTheseDays said:
I'm frankly shocked at the pathetic display of candidates the GOP has trotted since '08. I'm not really sure they are capable of winning a general election anymore with the population dynamics favoring minorities more and more in key swing states (e.g. Hispanics).

The religious right, whom the GOP has in its pocket, has also served to alienate a lot of voters. The Southern Strategy does not appear to be viable anymore. I suspect a major GOP party realignment if they end up losing 2012 and 2016 when Hillary likely runs and wins.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see the results of the 2012 elections. It could turn out the the Republican party as currently represented by their base will become an anachronism.
 
cybrsage said:
Obama will have to somehow overcome his huge broken promises from his first time around. GitMo is still here...Obama still refuses to have a transparent administration...the sun does not have much time to even move (let alone set a few times) between when bills are passed and Obama signs them...he still has lobbyists in his administration...on and on.

I think they balance each other out.
Click to expand...

Those aren't really important issues for Righties, who won't vote for Obama anyway, or swing voters, who went along with GWB on all those issues. Those things matter to progressives, Obama's base, and they'll vote for him anyway. It's not like any of the Repubs have offered to change any of that, and if they did, nobody would believe them based on past performance.

What you offer is just another episode of concern trolling...
 
kage69 said:
If someone like George W Bush can get in the White House, then anyone has a shot really.
Click to expand...

W. is affable and personable, and the climate at the time was super easygoing. It was pre-9/11 and the economy was great. I think W. would have made a fine President in the Clinton years. He was just unfortunate to be hit by Katrina, 9/11, and the culmination of a many-year -long buildup of junk in the banking industry. He handed Katrina poorly and had no end-game for Iraq. I don't fault him for the economy, and the congressional plan that both he and later Obama backed likely prevented a major economic crash.

But he was no major strategist. Thank God for Obama. It's nice having someone with a brain in the White House.
 
monovillage said:
OMG, Obama's awesomeness in unbeatable! He will steamroll the Republican House and the newly elected Republican Senate and be even more powerful then when he had both under Democrat control!
Click to expand...

Need 60 to control. Never had it, since Lieberman doesn't count and kennedy was dead shortly after anyhow.
 
Romney is pretty good at spinning. In fact, Romney could probably watch Obama and say exactly what Obama is saying at the exact same time, making it look like he knows exactly what Obama is thinking, all while formulating his response.

I would suspect them arguing would be like watching Abbot and Costello argue "who's on first" or "I can prove that I am not here"
 
shadow9d9 said:
Need 60 to control. Never had it, since Lieberman doesn't count and kennedy was dead shortly after anyhow.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't Lieberman or Sanders (you missed him) count? It's not as if they were going to filibuster the Democrats, for all practical purposes Obama had 60. Which he wasted.
 
DominionSeraph said:
W. is affable and personable, and the climate at the time was super easygoing. It was pre-9/11 and the economy was great. I think W. would have made a fine President in the Clinton years. He was just unfortunate to be hit by Katrina, 9/11, and the culmination of a many-year -long buildup of junk in the banking industry. He handed Katrina poorly and had no end-game for Iraq. I don't fault him for the economy, and the congressional plan that both he and later Obama backed likely prevented a major economic crash.

But he was no major strategist. Thank God for Obama. It's nice having someone with a brain in the White House.
Click to expand...

hes also now a war criminal in about 7 nations or so (switzerland and malaysia among them), also obama has no brain he robosigns stuff alot
 
TalonStrike said:
Romney has no tea party support and the economy is improving. Obama wins.
Click to expand...
the gold market says no..
until i see gold down to triple digits your economy will still be in jeopardy. you economy has tanked and then leveled out udner obama, youve just become used to the plateau your currently in. and when obama gets his 4 yrs more (if he gets it) you will see what i mean as your fed. reserve chairman and the owners of the big US banks cant keep this going much longer.. at most 3 months before you start sliding down again at even greater velocity than before.

im serious here the US will experience something that will dwarf the great depression the same way Kobe Bryant does a midget. and if they try to delay it longer it will only get worse. the US economy is being held together by little more than chewing gum, pop-sickle sticks, and a prayer to the almighty.
time to get whats coming to you USA.
. rol
 
DominionSeraph said:
W. is affable and personable, and the climate at the time was super easygoing. It was pre-9/11 and the economy was great. I think W. would have made a fine President in the Clinton years. He was just unfortunate to be hit by Katrina, 9/11, and the culmination of a many-year -long buildup of junk in the banking industry. He handed Katrina poorly and had no end-game for Iraq. I don't fault him for the economy, and the congressional plan that both he and later Obama backed likely prevented a major economic crash.

But he was no major strategist. Thank God for Obama. It's nice having someone with a brain in the White House.
Click to expand...

Surely you jest. 9/11 was the greatest political windfall since Pearl Harbor, Which the Bushistas quickly fashioned into a club for use against all enemies, foreign & domestic. It also served as cover for crony politicization of all aspects of the govt, including FEMA & every financial regulatory agency. Competence ceased to be a factor- ideological loyalty was the only criteria in play. Deregulation & tax cuts set the stage for an asset bubble in housing & the market, cheered on from the Bully Pulpit as the "Ownership Society".

Bush regulators & the Greenspan FRB had the power to prevent this, but they didn't, because they were ideologically opposed to intervention in the sacred "Free Market"-

http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2010/12/29/stuck/

Ideological incompetence on one hand and unfathomable greed on the other came together once again, just as they had in the 1920's, with the bonus of wars of adventure to create our current malaise, which won't be getting better any time RSN, particularly not if Repubs can prevent it. They're ideologically opposed to intervention in the so called "Free Market", after all...
 
The unemployment rate and the economy are the only real issues the GOP has in the upcoming election. The other issues are faux outrages and hyperbole which most of the US voters will ignore. People vote their pockets.

Anyone else wonder how the tax plans the GOP candidates have propose all come down to the poor and middle and working classes paying more and the wealthiest paying less taxes is going to sound in a general election?
 
Last edited:
this election is shaping up to be a referendum on Obama, not the merits or flaws of whoever the GOP nominates.

Obama's got a billion dollars to throw at this election, so maybe the narrative will change, but I imagine the core Republican line for the next 10 months is going to be "are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?" and most voters probably don't have the attention span to remember that we're facing issues that have been years in the making (that spread across multiple administrations from both parties).

all that aside, why is flip-flopping such a damning charge? we all give Obama a pass when he says he's against gay marriage because he's obviously just doing it to win votes.

given the choice between a true believer like GWB, who's going to stick to his convictions no matter where they lead, versus someone who's going to do whatever 50.1% of the country wants him to, I'll take the pragmatist.
 
loki8481 said:
this election is shaping up to be a referendum on Obama, not the merits or flaws of whoever the GOP nominates.

Obama's got a billion dollars to throw at this election, so maybe the narrative will change, but I imagine the core Republican line for the next 10 months is going to be "are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?" and most voters probably don't have the attention span to remember that we're facing issues that have been years in the making (that spread across multiple administrations from both parties).

all that aside, why is flip-flopping such a damning charge? we all give Obama a pass when he says he's against gay marriage because he's obviously just doing it to win votes.

given the choice between a true believer like GWB, who's going to stick to his convictions no matter where they lead, versus someone who's going to do whatever 50.1% of the country wants him to, I'll take the pragmatist.
Click to expand...

You have a point or two - that a 'no convictions but gaining the office' Romney can be less bad than a true believer (I'd pick Santorum for that, I think Bush was largely a phony).

But Romney - who seems to me one of the two biggest position changers of modern times (with McCain) - seems to take that to an extreme to where it's a big problem.

Having him talking about 'absolutely having a conviction' for something for moral reasons that 'he never said' soon after when the political benefit changes is a problem.

That's not the limited form of 'playing politics' you mention for politicians who 'merely' support broad gay rights - historically ending the military discrimination - while not endorsing gay marriage as they should, and for which Obama is very much criticized in the progressive community.

Fact is, Obama is viewed by 'his base' as far too 'compromising' - just nowhere near the Romney level, and more 'compromising' than reversing positions. But he is guilty of too much of that as well, from Guantanamo to trials for detainees to other civil rights - but mostly it's 'compromising', getting SOME healthcare by caving to the insurance industry, failing to address all kinds of progressive issues from the Medicare Part D corruption to Wall Street prosecutions to ending the embargo on Cuba.

The think with Romney's flip flopping is that it seems his lack of standing for something decent makes him a whore for the special interests against the public interest.

That's quite dangerous, as we saw with Bush who was basically the same type of whore, handing the government over to those interests to write their own laws.
 
Siddhartha said:
The unemployment rate and the economy are the only real issues the GOP has is in the upcoming election. The other issues are faux outrages and hyperbole which most of the US voters will ignore. People vote their pockets.

Anyone else wonder how the tax plans the GOP candidates have propose all come down to the poor and middle and working classes paying more and the wealthiest paying less taxes is going to sound in a general election?
Click to expand...

I think Obama has a strong argument on this.

First, the Republicans' fault in the previous economic issues, from letting Wall Street call the shots leading to the crash to skyrocketing the deficit after Clinton seems clear.

So, Obama can point out how he prevented further destruction, and say 'the recovery is too slow - largely because of Republican obstructionism - do you want Obama to continue that recovery or to repeat the same Republican policies that cause the big crash in the first place?'

As far as wondering how those are the Republican tax plans - no, that's their core policy. The only issue is their hiding it in the campaign versus exposing it.

It seems that they are bold enough about it to think they can 'sell' the bad policies to voters - Santorum's Iowa postelection speech was a great example of that attempt.

He tried to sell the voters on screwing them with the proper buzzwords, like how they have to make lower wages to 'be competitive'. That's what 'job creator' propaganda is about.

Of course, the facts show - as if it were needed to debunk this garbage - that the lower tax rates have just led to skyrocketing profits and hoarding cash, not employment.

So the Republican lie machine has some difficulty continuing to try to fool people with that nonsense. Unfurtunately there are plenty of bad voters who fall for it anyway.
 
OneOfTheseDays said:
He's going to destroy, no obliterate, Romney from the face of the earth in this upcoming election. The sheer amount of flip-flopping that Romney has done over the years on so many core issues is just astounding. Was for abortion before he was against it, liked the FED before he disliked it, etc. There is simply no way in hell he stands a chance at being elected after Obama and his political team skewer him alive. The whole Kerry situation will pale in comparison.

To top it all off, Romney is a MORMON. His own Conservative base will have next to no enthusiasm for him and it wouldn't surprise me if many Evangelicals sit this one out. Especially if polls show a clear Obama lead.
Click to expand...

The only thing Romney would have going for him (with Republican and conservative voters) is that he wouldn't be Obama. He would have their hatred for Obama going for him, and that would pretty much be his only appeal to that group.

The Democrats must be enjoying lots of schaeudenfraude watching the Republican primary. In general, the Republican field has looked very clownish. Romney hasn't clowned around that much, but what the rest of the field has done will probably rub off on him a little negatively. They've had clowns like Herman (can't keep it in his pants) Cain, religious wackos like Bachman, capitalist ideologues like Ron Paul who once published a newsletter that made questionable if not racist comments, and a homophobe whose last name was turned into a noun (Santorum).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top