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.
  • #141
Ivan Seeking said:
I have been labeled here as a liberal when in fact I was voting for Republicans when one particular member was just a twinkle in his mother's eye.
LOL. I doubt anyone here is using the label "liberal" or "left-wing" to refer to how you voted years ago, or how you voted at any time for that matter. But I think there just might be a slight possibility that they are referring instead to your stated opinions and positions here on PF forum. Just a theoretical possibility, though. :biggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
LOL. I doubt anyone here is using the label "liberal" or "left-wing" to refer to how you voted years ago, or how you voted at any time for that matter. But I think there just might be a slight possibility that they are referring instead to your stated opinions and positions here on PF forum. Just a theoretical possibility, though.

Also, its worth noting that what was considered right and left has moved over time. Obama's healthcare plan is quite similar to Newt Gingrich's plan from the Clinton era (which is why Romney, a republican governor of MA, enacted the plan). What was once considered a middle-right plan is now considered middle-left. Not to mention that Nixon's failed healthcare plan is further to the left of both plans. For whatever reason, we are pulling right as a country.

Eisenhower would probably be a democrat today.
 
  • #143
WhoWee said:
IMO - it might prove helpful if you read some of the thousands of political posts by the other PF members posting on this page before attempting to reach a specific conclusion?

I've read more threads - and posts for that matter - than you might think. Just because my account hasn't been here for years doesn't mean I haven't been reading for a long time.

Also, your post basically says to me: "Hi, I'm ignoring your points in order to attack you as a person instead of the points you are making" which is very poor debating strategy. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.

The only conclusion in my post was the people and parties change over the years and that just because you vote dem or repub one year or another does not make you a liberal, conservative, independent, etc.
 
  • #144
Ryumast3r said:
I've read more threads - and posts for that matter - than you might think. Just because my account hasn't been here for years doesn't mean I haven't been reading for a long time.

Also, your post basically says to me: "Hi, I'm ignoring your points in order to attack you as a person instead of the points you are making" which is very poor debating strategy. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.

The only conclusion in my post was the people and parties change over the years and that just because you vote dem or repub one year or another does not make you a liberal, conservative, independent, etc.

My intent was never to attack you on a personal level. If you interpreted it that way - I apologize sincerely.
 
  • #147
"“I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election,” Trump said in a statement. “Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”"

I lol'd... he's not even close.

(source, gallup election polling: http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #148
Ryumast3r said:
"“I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election,” Trump said in a statement. “Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”"

I lol'd... he's not even close.

(source, gallup election polling: http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx )
You didn't expect him to want to be President after the network just offered him another season of Apprentice, did you?

Settling for the obviously easy-win job of U.S. President was just his backup plan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #149
IMO - the 2012 election is now the Republican's to lose.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/obama-says-israeli-palestinian-peace-negotiations-more-urgent-than-ever-.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #150
So Trump basically was 100% sure he could win and he had said repeatedly about how upset he was with the direction the country is heading and how he thought he could help fix it if President. But despite the concern for America and being so sure he could win, when it came time to put the country first or himself first, he chooses himself.
 
  • #151
I wouldn't be so sure... According to Gallup's last poll, Obama stood at a 3% advantage against any generic Republican candidate... the highest-ranking of which (Huckabee, who had a 25-point positive index score, compared to the next highest which is Palin at 16), has left the race.

The main contenders thus far in the race are Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich.

Mitt Romney is having issues with the base due to his passage of RomneyCare in MA, which is essentially the same thing as ObamaCare, with the exception that it's only a state-wide program as opposed to a national one, but a lot of people have a hard time seeing much of a difference and are thus not giving him much support.

Sarah Palin... well... I think that one speaks for itself. She's well-known, definitely, but she's going to have a hard time getting the Independent vote and any of the swing-democrats. I only have to point to all the various Youtube videos and Comedy Central appearances of fake Palin's to get my point across that Palin, while she is a top-contestant, will still have a hard time winning.

Newt Gingrich lost a lot of support after he was Speaker of the House and gave all these glorious speeches on congressmen needing to be moral examples (he was talking about a guy who recently came out with a sex-scandal), how he would never do that, etc, etc, then not too long afterwards he came out and had a sex-scandal of his own.

Among other problems with Newt, he will have a hard time getting the wide-spread support that's required to win a general election.

Those three all have a good shot, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it's Obama's to lose, not at all. I'm just saying it's not a clear-cut victory for the Reps. yet.

The rest of the contenders on the G.O.P. side are simply not recognized or supported enough yet to be considered serious contenders. The only one generating enough excitement to be considered is Herman Cain, but he's only recognized by about 29% of the Republican Base as of the last Gallup poll.Since I know a lot of people don't like gallup, I'll cite a few others that give similar results:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh12gen.htm (includes about 10 different polling companies)

and RCP which has everything from gallup to rasmussen

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

The only one Obama loses to here is "general republican candidate" but not to Bachmann, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Hunstman, Romney, or even Huckabee, winning anywhere from 3 points to 22.
 
  • #152
Ryumast3r said:
The only one Obama loses to here is "general republican candidate" but not to Bachmann, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Hunstman, Romney, or even Huckabee, winning anywhere from 3 points to 22.

The President basically threw away the Jewish vote today (IMO) - words and actions matter. Promising $1Billion (that must be borrowed) to help create jobs in Egypt isn't going to gain him many votes either - is it?
 
  • #153
WhoWee said:
The President basically threw away the Jewish vote today (IMO) - words and actions matter. Promising $1Billion (that must be borrowed) to help create jobs in Egypt isn't going to gain him many votes either - is it?

Like I said: It's not a sure thing for Obama, but it most certainly isn't a sure thing for the G.O.P. either.

Words and actions matter, and the polls reflect what people are saying, and are probably going to do, and they don't exactly reflect your "the republicans are definitely going to win unless they really screw up" idea.
 
  • #154
Right now, the GOP has a "poison pill" that will sink them unless they get their act together. The Tea Party radicals will make it tough for any GOP candidate to get through the primaries unless they are sufficiently right-wing. That means that the eventual candidate will be unelectable in the general election. Nobody wants a Palin, Bachman, etc in the WH. Romney and Pawlentey don't stand a chance with the Tea Party wing, IMO.
 
  • #155
turbo-1 said:
Right now, the GOP has a "poison pill" that will sink them unless they get their act together. The Tea Party radicals will make it tough for any GOP candidate to get through the primaries unless they are sufficiently right-wing. That means that the eventual candidate will be unelectable in the general election. Nobody wants a Palin, Bachman, etc in the WH. Romney and Pawlentey don't stand a chance with the Tea Party wing, IMO.

Why do you label the Tea Party members "radical"? The Tea Party wants to control spending, reduce taxes, and hold politicians accountable - why is that "radical"?
 
  • #156
WhoWee said:
Why do you label the Tea Party members "radical"? The Tea Party wants to control spending, reduce taxes, and hold politicians accountable - why is that "radical"?
You should see what they are doing in Maine. Trying to eliminate the returnable bottle bill that keeps our highways cleaner. Trying to eliminate the ban on billboards along our highways. Attempting to roll back environmental rules and land-use regulations that help reduce over-development in wild lands... There is a lot more, including the governor's sending in a crew over a weekend to remove what he said was a labor-friendly mural from the department of labor, and ordering meeting rooms to be renamed to remove the names of people who he said are anti-business, including the first female cabinet member, Frances Perkins.

Like I said, there is a LOT more. I wish I could get you a subscription to a central Maine newspaper, but this will do. http://www.onlinesentinel.com/ Search on LePage and see what's happening here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #157
turbo-1 said:
Right now, the GOP has a "poison pill" that will sink them unless they get their act together. The Tea Party radicals will make it tough for any GOP candidate to get through the primaries unless they are sufficiently right-wing. That means that the eventual candidate will be unelectable in the general election.
While that's true, it isn't unique: it exists for every candidate in every primary, ever. And a slightly different version of that exists for all political candidates everywhere: you need to be different things to different people in order to get the broadest appeal and most votes.
 
  • #158
Back on Post 31 I said this:

WhoWee said:
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).
-------------
On Post 33, turbo-1 said this:

"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."

----------------------
To my list of potential "front-runners", Huckabee is out and Romney and Daniels have plenty of time to convince voters. To expand, Daniels will probably have the Bush machine behind him.
 
  • #159
turbo-1 said:
WhoWee said:
Why do you label the Tea Party members "radical"? The Tea Party wants to control spending, reduce taxes, and hold politicians accountable - why is that "radical"?
You should see what they are doing in Maine. Trying to eliminate the returnable bottle bill that keeps our highways cleaner. Trying to eliminate the ban on billboards along our highways. Attempting to roll back environmental rules and land-use regulations that help reduce over-development in wild lands...
Yes, individual liberty and private property rights are radical ideas from a historical perspective. At least they were pre-Enlightenment. Seems like most people would be capable of comprehending it by now, though.
 
  • #160
turbo-1 said:
You should see what they are doing in Maine. Trying to eliminate the returnable bottle bill that keeps our highways cleaner.

Joining the 39 other states without bottle bills.

turbo-1 said:
Trying to eliminate the ban on billboards along our highways.

Joining the 46 other states without billboard bans.

These may be bad ideas, but they are not radical. They are mainstream.
 
  • #161
WhoWee said:
The President basically threw away the Jewish vote today (IMO)

I was going to argue that it doesn't matter - a few percent fewer votes in New York, New Jersey and California won't change the electoral count. But there are two states where the margin was smaller than the Jewish population: Florida and North Carolina.

By the way, The President's magic number is 4.77%. If he can keep 4.77% of his vote from voting for his opponent, he's in.
 
  • #162
turbo-1 said:
Right now, the GOP has a "poison pill" that will sink them unless they get their act together. The Tea Party radicals will make it tough for any GOP candidate to get through the primaries unless they are sufficiently right-wing. That means that the eventual candidate will be unelectable in the general election. Nobody wants a Palin, Bachman, etc in the WH. Romney and Pawlentey don't stand a chance with the Tea Party wing, IMO.

It really comes down to how the candidate portrays themself. Barack Obama got the nomination by running about as far left as one could get during the Democratic Primary back in 2008. Then he eased up a bit and portrayed himself as a center-left type of guy for the General.
 
  • #163
Vanadium 50 said:
I was going to argue that it doesn't matter - a few percent fewer votes in New York, New Jersey and California won't change the electoral count. But there are two states where the margin was smaller than the Jewish population: Florida and North Carolina.

By the way, The President's magic number is 4.77%. If he can keep 4.77% of his vote from voting for his opponent, he's in.

What makes it 4.77%?
 
  • #164
Vanadium 50 said:
I was going to argue that it doesn't matter - a few percent fewer votes in New York, New Jersey and California won't change the electoral count. But there are two states where the margin was smaller than the Jewish population: Florida and North Carolina.

By the way, The President's magic number is 4.77%. If he can keep 4.77% of his vote from voting for his opponent, he's in.
I think you're right, and it will be harder for the GOP to swing the independent votes if they put up a Tea Party endorsed candidate. There are a lot of us out here, and we generally vote. The last time I actually registered with either party was in 1988, when I wanted to influence the Democratic caucuses and try to get Gephardt on the ticket instead of Jackson or Dukakis. Didn't work, as we all know. Bush was a shoo-in on the GOP side, but I wanted a pro-labor congressman on the other side.
 
  • #165
I was all set to vote for Newt Gingrich after what he said on Meet the Press. Then he takes it all back... Newt, you're dead to me.
 
  • #166
Char. Limit said:
I was all set to vote for Newt Gingrich after what he said on Meet the Press. Then he takes it all back... Newt, you're dead to me.

Why would you want to vote for him with what he had said?
 
  • #167
CAC1001 said:
Why would you want to vote for him with what he had said?

He was the first candidate in a long time that even attempted to appear centrist. But not anymore. Now he's just another far out wacko.
 
  • #168
CAC1001 said:
What makes it 4.77%?

That's the shift that would be required for President Obama to win the Electoral College. This happens to be higher than the 3.6% suggested by the election of 2008. This assumes a shift that is uniform by state, obviously.
 
  • #169
Obama's strategy?

HOPE.

Hope the enconomy improves. Hope the Republicans crash and burn. Somebody should read the Republican candidates their Miranda rights. "Anything you say can and will be used against you."

Romney - Health Care
Gingrich - Medicare
Trump - F bomb
Santorum - Torture
Bachman - American History
Ron Paul - Civil Rights

The only one who looks presidential and hasn't said anything stupid yet is Herman Cain.
Non-candidates Jindal, Christy and Ryan are looking awfully good.

Skippy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #170
skippy1729 said:
Obama's strategy?

HOPE.

Hope the enconomy improves. Hope the Republicans crash and burn. Somebody should read the Republican candidates their Miranda rights. "Anything you say can and will be used against you."

Romney - Health Care
Gingrich - Medicare
Trump - F bomb
Santorum - Torture
Bachman - American History
Ron Paul - Civil Rights

The only one who looks presidential and hasn't said anything stupid yet is Herman Cain.
Non-candidates Jindal, Christy and Ryan are looking awfully good.

Skippy

You forgot Mitch Daniels:wink:
 
  • #171
Obama's strategy? Please many minorities with huge promises.

e.g.
saying he will set up legal and documented paths for Mexicans to enter and work in the US. (secures vote for anyone who associates himself with Mexico)

Saying Israel must return the the 1967 borders to create peace (securing Muslim votes).

etc.
 
  • #172
tedbradly said:
Obama's strategy? Please many minorities with huge promises.

e.g.
saying he will set up legal and documented paths for Mexicans to enter and work in the US. (secures vote for anyone who associates himself with Mexico)

Saying Israel must return the the 1967 borders to create peace (securing Muslim votes).

etc.

The Jewish vote is 2.2% of the US Population. The Muslim vote is 0.8% of the US population. With these numbers, saying that Israel must return to the 1967 borders is less of a vote-securing item and more of a footbullet.
 
  • #173
Char. Limit said:
The Jewish vote is 2.2% of the US Population. The Muslim vote is 0.8% of the US population. With these numbers, saying that Israel must return to the 1967 borders is less of a vote-securing item and more of a footbullet.

Jewish people are usually Republican, because they support military to defend Israel. He didn't lose the Jewish vote, he never had it. So he came out on top in the end.
 
  • #174
tedbradly said:
Jewish people are usually Republican, because they support military to defend Israel. He didn't lose the Jewish vote, he never had it. So he came out on top in the end.

Source?

EDIT: I find this 2007 article from ABC news that seems to contradict your statement: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2872816&page=1
 
  • #175
WhoWee said:
You forgot Mitch Daniels:wink:

He is experienced, qualified and has good ideas. I strive to not be superficial but the American electorate is. He doesn't come off as being presidential. In my opinion, the Republicans need someone with a commanding presence.

Skippy

PS "Obama doesn't say anything but he says it better than anyone else." Does anyone remember who first said this?
 

Similar threads

John Podesta's greatest regret - government silence on UFOs
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
69
Views
7K
News The Obama Administration is Violating the Law
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Clinton-Obama '08: Possible Historic Ticket?
    • General Discussion
5
Replies
154
Views
23K
News White House Bribery Scandal
    • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Is George Bush Misusing Taxpayer Money for His Re-Election Campaign?
    • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
News President survives possible assassination attempt
    • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
3K
News Bush made Iraq a very dangerous place
    • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top