Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

  • News
  • Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Strategy
In summary: LA Times.In summary, White House press Secretary Robert Gibbs is stepping down. This signals the start of campaign 2012. Gibbs has been with the President since 2004 and has been an effective advocate.
  • #1
WhoWee
219
0
White House press Secretary Robert Gibbs is stepping down.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/5/obama-lose-spokesman-gibbs-steps-down/

Does this signal the start of campaign 2012? Gibbs has been with the President since 2004.
http://www.examiner.com/google-tren...house-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-steps-down

It sounds as though Gibbs will continue to assist the President.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256399/obama-gibbs-retool-2012-robert-costa

As per the President:
"“For the last six years, Robert has been a close friend, one of my closest advisers and an effective advocate from the podium for what this administration has been doing to move America forward. I think it’s natural for him to want to step back, reflect and retool. That brings up some challenges and opportunities for the White House – but it doesn’t change the important role that Robert will continue to play on our team.”"

The press has speculated the location of the campaign headquarters will be Chicago.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/war...2012-Re-Election-HQ-to-Chicago-112450444.html

"The Tribune lists a number of factors in the likelihood of President Obama centering his headquarters in Chicago, including strategist David Axelrod's planned move back to the city, blunting the perceived anti-Washington climate around the country and staying strategically close to a number of battleground states.

"He will and must select Chicago," American University political scientist James Thurber told the newspaper. "He needs to project an anti-Washington image and keep the campaign staff far away from the echo chamber in D.C."

A skeletal staff may be in place by spring 2011 with a larger team added by the summer or fall, according to some Democrats who talked to the paper."


Apparently, it's difficult for the President to run as a Washington outsider - will this be believable?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I suspect his most successful strategy will be to quit before the Democratic party wastes $40 Million trying to re-elect a president with one of the lowest approval ratings in history.
 
  • #3
mugaliens said:
I suspect his most successful strategy will be to quit before the Democratic party wastes $40 Million trying to re-elect a president with one of the lowest approval ratings in history.

:approve:I like your attitude.

However, I think the Dems need to chart a course for 2012, but more importantly look ahead to 2016. In the context of 2016, Biden is baggage (IMO) and Hillary (or Oprah based on popularity?) would be the logical VP choice.

As for approval ratings, unless a very strong Republican candidate emerges, 12 months is plenty of time to rebuild popularity.
 
  • #4
  • #5
I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. The start of a new year (especially after a mid-term election) is a good time to make staff changes. And I think in particular, you shouldn't keep a spokesperson too long, lest people become too comfortable with them and forget that they are just the messenger.

As for Obama's re-election strategy and prospects, a lot depends on what happens to the economy the next two years, of course. However...

It is easy to say an incumbent can't run on "change", but Obama can simply say he's not finished yet. One of the big aces for Obama in 2008, though, was his lack of experience translated into lack of things to criticize him for in an era of anti-establishment thinking. So it was easy to make a campaign out of colorful but content-less speeches because they had no real-world application to criticize. Now he's had to turn those speeches into policy and as a result, there is a lot to analyze and criticize, with failures, broken promises, unpopular legislation and ridiculously bad predictions. A republican need-not disagree with the current state of 'Gitmo, for example, to still criticize him for saying he'd close it and castigate the voting public for believing him when he said he'd close it. Same goes for unemployment. So his re-election campaign will certainly be a lot more complicated than his election campaign was.

Nevertheless, 'it's still just the economy, stupid'. With the most recognizable current issue being unemployment, if unemployment is still above 9% in 20 months, he won't have a prayer of being re-elected and if it is below 7%, no Republican will have a prayer of beating him. Between those, it'll be about who can work the issue better.
 
  • #6
russ_watters said:
I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. The start of a new year (especially after a mid-term election) is a good time to make staff changes. And I think in particular, you shouldn't keep a spokesperson too long, lest people become too comfortable with them and forget that they are just the messenger.

He's going to work as a consultant, along with Axelrod.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-0105-gibbs-gone-20110106,0,7503226.story

"As a private consultant, Gibbs will remain a top political adviser to Obama as the re-election campaign gears up. David Axelrod, a senior adviser and Jim Messina, a deputy chief of staff, are also leaving the White House to concentrate on the re-election campaign."
 
  • #7
russ_watters said:
Nevertheless, 'it's still just the economy, stupid'. With the most recognizable current issue being unemployment, if unemployment is still above 9% in 20 months, he won't have a prayer of being re-elected and if it is below 7%, no Republican will have a prayer of beating him. Between those, it'll be about who can work the issue better.

I'm not so sure that's completely true. I think at least 50% of the problem was not the economy per se, it was that the Obama administration's attitude was "we will work on that - right after we get our own agenda passed", or put a less-flattering way: "your problems are not as important as our desires". If the Obama administration is perceived as trying to help, they will be in better shape, even if unemployment is still high.

As a historical example, in 1932, unemployment was 13%, and FDR won the election with 46 states and 57% of the popular vote. By 1936 it was up around 20%, and FDR won with 48 states and 60% of the popular vote.
 
  • #8
russ_watters said:
Nevertheless, 'it's still just the economy, stupid'. With the most recognizable current issue being unemployment, if unemployment is still above 9% in 20 months, he won't have a prayer of being re-elected and if it is below 7%, no Republican will have a prayer of beating him. Between those, it'll be about who can work the issue better.

Didn't they tweak the way unemployment is calculated last week? Regardless, I think the Dem's believe they'll be able to champion another unemployment extension - beyond 99 weeks at the end of 2011.

Also, let's not forget that the real unemployment number is higher - when you factor in people who are under-employed, those working multiple part time jobs, and the people who are working for cash. If the economy perks up, these will be first people in line to fill new positions.
 
  • #9
Vanadium 50 said:
I'm not so sure that's completely true. I think at least 50% of the problem was not the economy per se, it was that the Obama administration's attitude was "we will work on that - right after we get our own agenda passed", or put a less-flattering way: "your problems are not as important as our desires". If the Obama administration is perceived as trying to help, they will be in better shape, even if unemployment is still high.

Actually, I think Reid and Obama will try to bargain away spending cuts based upon furthering their agenda. At this point, I'm not convinced they won't sacrifice parts of health care to push immigration, union expansion, environment, and social issues. They are motivated by ideology (IMO) and as the saying goes - "you can't be a little bit pregnant". Once a program starts, they know it's very difficult to completely remove.
 
  • #10
Vanadium 50 said:
I'm not so sure that's completely true. I think at least 50% of the problem was not the economy per se, it was that the Obama administration's attitude was "we will work on that - right after we get our own agenda passed", or put a less-flattering way: "your problems are not as important as our desires". If the Obama administration is perceived as trying to help, they will be in better shape, even if unemployment is still high.

Less than a month after being inaugurated in Feburary 2009, Obama signed the stimulus bill to help improve the economy and save jobs. In March, Geithner implemented programs to help buy depreciated real estate assets to try to improve the housing market. Furthermore, in March, the Obama administration intervened in the US auto industry to prevent the likely collapse of two of the three main auto manufacturers in the US. These are some of the many policies implemented by the Obama administration to spur job creation and boost the economy that occurred well before health care reform was brought up for debate in the summer of 2009 (which I assume is the agenda that you claim Obama was pushing ahead of job creation). Furthermore, right after passage of the obamacare bill, Obama introduced and passed a jobs bill to help provide additional stimulus to the economy.

You can certainly argue that these have been the wrong measures to create jobs and that the Obama administration has been unsuccessful at creating jobs. But, given these facts, it is difficult to claim that the Obama administration put non-economic issues such as health care, DADT repeal, and environmental policy in front of job creation (in fact many have criticized his job creation policies such as the stimulus as having gone too far and being too big).
 
  • #11
Ygggdrasil said:
Less than a month after being inaugurated in Feburary 2009, Obama signed the stimulus bill to help improve the economy and save jobs. In March, Geithner implemented programs to help buy depreciated real estate assets to try to improve the housing market. Furthermore, in March, the Obama administration intervened in the US auto industry to prevent the likely collapse of two of the three main auto manufacturers in the US. These are some of the many policies implemented by the Obama administration to spur job creation and boost the economy that occurred well before health care reform was brought up for debate in the summer of 2009 (which I assume is the agenda that you claim Obama was pushing ahead of job creation). Furthermore, right after passage of the obamacare bill, Obama introduced and passed a jobs bill to help provide additional stimulus to the economy.

You can certainly argue that these have been the wrong measures to create jobs and that the Obama administration has been unsuccessful at creating jobs. But, given these facts, it is difficult to claim that the Obama administration put non-economic issues such as health care, DADT repeal, and environmental policy in front of job creation (in fact many have criticized his job creation policies such as the stimulus as having gone too far and being too big).

Your defense of him is that (other than being a good salesman) he's incompetent as a leader?
 
  • #12
I am refuting the claim that the Obama administration's attitude has been "we will work on job creation right after we get our own agenda passed" and "your problems are not as important as our desires." I am saying that one's opinion on Obama should be (obviously) based on whether one believes that his job creation policies were the correct policies to implement. (And for the record, I do not believe that he has been a good salesman).
 
  • #13
Ygggdrasil said:
I am refuting the claim that the Obama administration's attitude has been "we will work on job creation right after we get our own agenda passed" and "your problems are not as important as our desires." I am saying that one's opinion on Obama should be (obviously) based on whether one believes that his job creation policies were the correct policies to implement. (And for the record, I do not believe that he has been a good salesman).

While selling the stimulus plan, he said that without it unemployment would exceed 8% - we're now hovering close to 10% - with over 8,000,000 people out of work and a $14,000,000,000,000 national debt. His response was to talk about jobs created or saved.

His supporters thought it was terrific.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...-team-stimulus-saved-created-3-6-million-jobs

Then people began to question the results.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853

We haven't heard much about created or saved recently - have we?
 
  • #14
Vanadium 50 said:
I'm not so sure that's completely true. I think at least 50% of the problem was not the economy per se, it was that the Obama administration's attitude was "we will work on that - right after we get our own agenda passed", or put a less-flattering way: "your problems are not as important as our desires". If the Obama administration is perceived as trying to help, they will be in better shape, even if unemployment is still high.
We don't disagree, I just think that if unemployment ends up low enough, he'll be able to argue that he was responsible or conversely, people will care less that he didn't do more to help. He did, after all, get the stimulus passed immediately after taking office and he can argue that tackling the economy was an iterative process. Republicans will, of course, counter with the argument that the stimulus wasn't even well targeted at fixing the economy but rather at pushing pet projects and causes, but if unemployment has recovered enough, it might not have traction. If unemployment is down, people may just think "well, he could have gotten it down faster, but he eventually did get it down" and not have a strong enough negative opinion to vote against him. He's the incumbent, so being unimpressed with him isn't enough not to re-elect him - people have to dislike him [his policies/record].
As a historical example, in 1932, unemployment was 13%, and FDR won the election with 46 states and 57% of the popular vote. By 1936 it was up around 20%, and FDR won with 48 states and 60% of the popular vote.
That's interesting, I had no idea. Still, I'm not sure that unemployment was the most recognizable feature of the Great Depression, was it? Wasn't it the collapse of the financial industry that took people's life savings bigger?
 
  • #15
WhoWee said:
Didn't they tweak the way unemployment is calculated last week? Regardless, I think the Dem's believe they'll be able to champion another unemployment extension - beyond 99 weeks at the end of 2011.

Also, let's not forget that the real unemployment number is higher - when you factor in people who are under-employed, those working multiple part time jobs, and the people who are working for cash. If the economy perks up, these will be first people in line to fill new positions.
Democrats used that argument during the Bush years, so it is ironic that the shoe is on the other foot now. The issues of underemployed, long term unemployment and left-the-workforce are real and are worse the higher unemployment is, but as I said during the Bush years, in order to compare stats, the stats have to be collected the same way. One can't compare our current 10% unemployment to the 10% unemployment of the 1970s unless they were measured the same way.

Anyway, it is my understanding that it wasn't the unemployment rate itself that was being changed, just that they were adding more data on long-term unemployment to the basket of stats collected.
 
  • #16
William Daley, Chief of Staff - a very good choice for the President.

Daley is experienced (working with Republicans too), he has business experience (a first for this Administration), he certainly understands politics, and he could be a potential running mate OR a candidate for 2016. My hat is off to the President.
 
  • #17
WhoWee said:
Your defense of him is that (other than being a good salesman) he's incompetent as a leader?
Is there any logical connect at all between yggg's post and your characterization of it?
 
  • #18
Ygggdrasil said:
You can certainly argue that these have been the wrong measures to create jobs and that the Obama administration has been unsuccessful at creating jobs.

I think those are both true statements, but that was not the point I was making. The point I was making is that the electorate doesn't think this was helpful. (Based on the July Rasmussen poll) And in an election, it's what the electorate thinks that matters.

Like I said, I don't think it was helpful at job creation. What are the big pieces of ARRA? An extension of unemployment benefits, a tax credit for low and moderate income family, and infrastructure funding that went to the states. The first two are unlikely to help job creation ("more food stamps! now we can hire a maid!") and it turns out that the last one was essentially a transfer of debt from the states to the federal government. That may be a good and necessary thing, but it's unlikely to make much of a dent in unemployment.
 
  • #19
Gokul43201 said:
Is there any logical connect at all between yggg's post and your characterization of it?

How would you characterize this post? (my bold)

"Less than a month after being inaugurated in Feburary 2009, Obama signed the stimulus bill to help improve the economy and save jobs. In March, Geithner implemented programs to help buy depreciated real estate assets to try to improve the housing market. Furthermore, in March, the Obama administration intervened in the US auto industry to prevent the likely collapse of two of the three main auto manufacturers in the US. These are some of the many policies implemented by the Obama administration to spur job creation and boost the economy that occurred well before health care reform was brought up for debate in the summer of 2009 (which I assume is the agenda that you claim Obama was pushing ahead of job creation). Furthermore, right after passage of the obamacare bill, Obama introduced and passed a jobs bill to help provide additional stimulus to the economy.


You can certainly argue that these have been the wrong measures to create jobs and that the Obama administration has been unsuccessful at creating jobs. But, given these facts, it is difficult to claim that the Obama administration put non-economic issues such as health care, DADT repeal, and environmental policy in front of job creation (in fact many have criticized his job creation policies such as the stimulus as having gone too far and being too big). "



My logical conclusion was that Obama is a good salesman - he sold his programs and got them funded - but apparently he doesn't know what he's doing - as nothing worked in the context of job creation. Where is my logic faulty?
 
  • #20
WhoWee said:
Where is my logic faulty?
It is faulty in that it has nothing to do with the argument that yggg was making.
 
  • #21
Gokul43201 said:
It is faulty in that it has nothing to do with the argument that yggg was making.

Again, how would you characterize his post?
 
  • #22
He was responding to V50's earlier post, and summarizes his point very clearly in the closing sentence. And V50 addresses exactly that point in his response.
 
  • #23
If you'd like me to address his post line by line - I can. Let's start with my contention that Obama is a good salesman - in this article, he's touting healthcare reform as a jobs creator.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/03/obama-we-cant-have-job-gr_n_308586.html [Broken]

"Obama: We Can't Have Job Growth Without Health Care Reform"
"In his weekly radio and Internet video address Saturday, Obama said his proposed health care overhaul would create jobs by making small business startups more affordable. If aspiring entrepreneurs believe they can stay insured while switching jobs, he said, they will start new businesses and hire workers."

I also stated that Obama's efforts to create jobs have been unsuccessful - obviously healthcare reform isn't creating any jobs in the private sector - and won't for a LONG time. Good sales job - bad management of the problem.

yggg also cited the Obama's work in the housing market and auto industries. The housing crisis is far from being addressed, cash for clunkers was a disaster and the GM deal did nothing (that a Federal judge couldn't have done in a normal Chapter 11) except give favorable treatment to the UAW at the expense of bondholders and auto dealers. More salesmanship and bad management by Obama.

The one point that yggg made that I haven't addressed is "But, given these facts, it is difficult to claim that the Obama administration put non-economic issues such as health care, DADT repeal, and environmental policy in front of job creation ". My previous post shows Obama tried to spin healthcare as a jobs creator and his environmenal policy was supposed to create Green jobs. Given that DADT was passed in the lame duck and he didn't mention Gitmo - I think my argument covers all of the bases and is quite logical.

Obama is a very good salesman - the 111th Congress passed Trillions of Dollars in new spending - and didn't solve the unemployment problem (even with all of those short term Census and construction jobs).

I apologize that this response was so unorganized, I'm tired and proofing a business plan while I type this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
This thread has been idle a while - and it's still very early. However, a common complaint by Conservatives from the 2008 election was that Candidate Obama received mostly favorable press coverage. Without debating that point, I find it very interesting the White House has responded to Donald Trump's birth certificate challenge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/10/donald-trump-for-president_n_847147.html

How can engaging with Trump on this issue possibly help the re-election campaign? If they consider Trump a serious candidate - it MIGHT make sense? Otherwise, it can only re-start the whole issue and serve as a distraction from the (current) message.

Further, the re-election campaign could help create a template whereby the President must defend against each assertion made by would-be contenders. Is it possible that instead of the Republican contenders discrediting each other through debates - as a group - they could each take a bite out of the President's re-election effort
 
Last edited:
  • #25
WhoWee said:
This thread has been idle a while - and it's still very early. However, a common complaint by Conservatives from the 2008 election was that Candidate Obama received mostly favorable press coverage. Without debating that point, I find it very interesting the White House has responded to Donald Trump's birth certificate challenge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/10/donald-trump-for-president_n_847147.html

How can engaging with Trump on this issue possibly help the re-election campaign? If they consider Trump a serious candidate - it MIGHT make sense? Otherwise, it can only re-start the whole issue and serve as a distraction from the (current) message.

Further, the re-election campaign could help create a template whereby the President must defend against each assertion made by would-be contenders. Is it possible that instead of the Republican contenders discrediting each other through debates - as a group - they could each take a bite out of the President's re-election effort

The birther issue is only good for the dems. It paints the right as totally insane loonies - it surely won't win the votes of independents.

Trump has to know this - he's wacko but not a complete idiot. I think he has a plan: raise the birther issue now, then "review the evidence" and become convinced Obama was born in the US. Perhaps it's a ruse to come off as a reasonable man, which could sway some independents. Meanwhile he sweeps up support from the birthers.

Just speculation...who knows.
 
  • #26
lisab said:
The birther issue is only good for the dems. It paints the right as totally insane loonies - it surely won't win the votes of independents.

Trump has to know this - he's wacko but not a complete idiot. I think he has a plan: raise the birther issue now, then "review the evidence" and become convinced Obama was born in the US. Perhaps it's a ruse to come off as a reasonable man, which could sway some independents. Meanwhile he sweeps up support from the birthers.

Just speculation...who knows.

You've hi-lited my point. Trump is neither considered "right wing" nor is he a conventional Republican candidate. He may not even participate in any debates. I can understand why Trump might do this - (but how in the world) - does engaging Trump (without showing the document) help the re-election effort?
 
  • #27
WhoWee said:
You've hi-lited my point. Trump is neither considered "right wing" nor is he a conventional Republican candidate. He may not even participate in any debates. I can understand why Trump might do this - (but how in the world) - does engaging Trump (without showing the document) help the re-election effort?
Obama's birth certificate is on-line for all to see. It looks virtually identical to mine. The county clerk access the birth records (originals are not given out) and types an accurate transcript on a piece of security paper, then signs it and embosses it. That's all. You cannot get your original birth certificate from your county office. They don't release them.

Now Palin has taken up Trump's ridiculous and entirely unsupported claim that Obama has spent 2 million dollars avoiding the release of his birth certificate. That kind of crap may resonate with people that have about 2 firing neurons, but it's not going to gain anybody traction in a general election. I don't know what Trump is trying to pull, but he can't be serious about running. He'd get slaughtered.
 
  • #28
turbo-1 said:
Obama's birth certificate is on-line for all to see. It looks virtually identical to mine. The county clerk access the birth records (originals are not given out) and types an accurate transcript on a piece of security paper, then signs it and embosses it. That's all. You cannot get your original birth certificate from your county office. They don't release them.

Now Palin has taken up Trump's ridiculous and entirely unsupported claim that Obama has spent 2 million dollars avoiding the release of his birth certificate. That kind of crap may resonate with people that have about 2 firing neurons, but it's not going to gain anybody traction in a general election. I don't know what Trump is trying to pull, but he can't be serious about running. He'd get slaughtered.

I'm not trying to engage in the birth certificate discussion turbo. I think YOUR response was MUCH stronger than the one from the White House.
 
  • #29
WhoWee said:
You've hi-lited my point. Trump is neither considered "right wing" nor is he a conventional Republican candidate. He may not even participate in any debates. I can understand why Trump might do this - (but how in the world) - does engaging Trump (without showing the document) help the re-election effort?
I agree with Lisa's point and will expand: Trump doesn't have to be generally right-wing to use a right-wing argument, nor does Trump need to be right-wing for Obama to benefit from highlighting right-wing extremism. I agree that keeping the issue alive can only help Obama.
 
  • #30
Um - couldn't we wait until next year to discuss this? :yuck: :uhh:

I've already heard it will be the first $billion presidential campaign. :yuck:

The annual Federal Budget needs to be reduced by ~$1.6 trillion.

No more Federal Deficits until the Debt is paid off.

Having a trade surplus would be nice too.
 
  • #31
russ_watters said:
I agree with Lisa's point and will expand: Trump doesn't have to be generally right-wing to use a right-wing argument, nor does Trump need to be right-wing for Obama to benefit from highlighting right-wing extremism. I agree that keeping the issue alive can only help Obama.

That was my original thought as well. But (what if) Trump nibbles on this issue, Palin pounds him on his the Left Wing agenda, and Newt focuses on his inexperience?

To this mix, consider the (IMO) VP tier of Santorum, Barber, Herman Cain, Jindahl, Steele, (maybe) Allen West, and a slew of others including Bachman, Paul, and Rubio focusing on their pet peeves/areas of strengths. IMO - as long as they appear less zany than Biden, they will not themselves.

This leaves front runners Romney, Huckabee, and (maybe) Daniels a little breathing room to stay on point and avoid destroying each other in the early debates.

Also IMO - at the end of the day, the President has to run against 2008 Candidate (and Senator) Obama. In 2008, he could basically say anything he wanted. In the 2012 cycle - "he's got some 'splainin to do" (IMO).
 
  • #32
WhoWee said:
Also IMO - at the end of the day, the President has to run against 2008 Candidate (and Senator) Obama. In 2008, he could basically say anything he wanted. In the 2012 cycle - "he's got some 'splainin to do" (IMO).
Agreed. In 2008, he was even able to run against Bush! He won't be able to do that this time.
 
  • #33
russ_watters said:
Agreed. In 2008, he was even able to run against Bush! He won't be able to do that this time.
He has no credible opponent to run against this time. Pawlenty? Palin? Trump? Romney? Bachman? None of them has any chance. Does the GOP have anybody willing and able to run? I don't see a contender.
 
  • #34
turbo-1 said:
He has no credible opponent to run against this time.
Well of course not: It's April of 2011! There's no chance of having a credible opponent for another year! But I agree with the previous that besides the GOP candidate, he's also going to have to run against himself and having to beat two opponents at once may be tough.
 
  • #35
turbo-1 said:
He has no credible opponent to run against this time. Pawlenty? Palin? Trump? Romney? Bachman? None of them has any chance. Does the GOP have anybody willing and able to run? I don't see a contender.

If you recall, that was the problem last Fall with the Tea Party - nobody for the Dems to focus on.:smile:

If the Republicans can manage not to destroy each other (in the primaries) and everyone stays focused on the President (and his words/record) - the re-election campaign will need $1 billion (IMO).
 
<h2>1. Will Obama's past personal issues impact his chances of winning the 2012 election?</h2><p>It is difficult to predict the exact impact of past personal issues on Obama's 2012 campaign. However, it is common for candidates to face scrutiny and criticism for their past actions or decisions. Ultimately, it will depend on how the public perceives and responds to these issues.</p><h2>2. What are some examples of past personal issues that may affect Obama's campaign?</h2><p>Some examples of past personal issues that may affect Obama's campaign include controversies surrounding his birthplace, his association with controversial figures such as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and his use of recreational drugs in his youth.</p><h2>3. How has Obama addressed his past personal issues in his campaign?</h2><p>Obama has addressed his past personal issues in various ways, such as releasing his birth certificate to prove his citizenship, distancing himself from controversial figures, and openly discussing his past drug use as a way to connect with voters and show his human side.</p><h2>4. Do past personal issues affect a candidate's ability to lead?</h2><p>It is debatable whether past personal issues directly affect a candidate's ability to lead. Some argue that a candidate's character and past actions can reflect their values and decision-making abilities, while others believe that personal issues should not be a determining factor in a candidate's leadership capabilities.</p><h2>5. How have past personal issues affected other presidential campaigns in the past?</h2><p>Past personal issues have played a role in many presidential campaigns, with some having a significant impact on the outcome. For example, scandals and controversies surrounding candidates such as Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon have affected public perception and ultimately influenced the election results.</p>

1. Will Obama's past personal issues impact his chances of winning the 2012 election?

It is difficult to predict the exact impact of past personal issues on Obama's 2012 campaign. However, it is common for candidates to face scrutiny and criticism for their past actions or decisions. Ultimately, it will depend on how the public perceives and responds to these issues.

2. What are some examples of past personal issues that may affect Obama's campaign?

Some examples of past personal issues that may affect Obama's campaign include controversies surrounding his birthplace, his association with controversial figures such as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and his use of recreational drugs in his youth.

3. How has Obama addressed his past personal issues in his campaign?

Obama has addressed his past personal issues in various ways, such as releasing his birth certificate to prove his citizenship, distancing himself from controversial figures, and openly discussing his past drug use as a way to connect with voters and show his human side.

4. Do past personal issues affect a candidate's ability to lead?

It is debatable whether past personal issues directly affect a candidate's ability to lead. Some argue that a candidate's character and past actions can reflect their values and decision-making abilities, while others believe that personal issues should not be a determining factor in a candidate's leadership capabilities.

5. How have past personal issues affected other presidential campaigns in the past?

Past personal issues have played a role in many presidential campaigns, with some having a significant impact on the outcome. For example, scandals and controversies surrounding candidates such as Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon have affected public perception and ultimately influenced the election results.

Similar threads

Replies
69
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
5
Replies
154
Views
23K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top