Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Strategy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential impact of past personal issues and current political dynamics on President Obama's 2012 re-election campaign. Participants explore various strategies, approval ratings, and the significance of economic conditions leading up to the election.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that Robert Gibbs stepping down as press secretary may signal the beginning of the 2012 campaign, with speculation about the campaign headquarters being located in Chicago to project an anti-Washington image.
  • Others argue that the Democratic party should consider the implications of spending significant funds on a campaign for a president with low approval ratings, suggesting that it may be wiser to focus on future elections.
  • One participant points out that despite low approval ratings, Obama's lowest rating is still higher than those of the last eight presidents, questioning the basis of comparisons made by others.
  • Several participants emphasize that the state of the economy, particularly unemployment rates, will play a crucial role in Obama's re-election prospects, with some asserting that if unemployment remains high, his chances diminish significantly.
  • There are differing views on whether the Obama administration's perceived priorities have contributed to its challenges, with some suggesting that a focus on helping the public could improve perceptions, even in the face of high unemployment.
  • Concerns are raised about the administration's approach to economic issues, with suggestions that a lack of urgency in addressing public concerns may hinder re-election efforts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the effectiveness of Obama's strategies and the implications of his approval ratings. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the best path forward for the campaign.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of economic conditions and public perception, but there are unresolved assumptions about the impact of past decisions and the effectiveness of potential strategies.

  • #631
WhoWee said:
Does candidate Romney have a point?
He would have a point had the Republicans not explicitly asked Obama to keep his nose out of the process. Now that the super committee has failed, Obama should stick his nose in the process. Romney will have a point if that doesn't happen.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #632
D H said:
He would have a point had the Republicans not explicitly asked Obama to keep his nose out of the process. Now that the super committee has failed, Obama should stick his nose in the process. Romney will have a point if that doesn't happen.

I think you're giving the Republicans too much credit.:rolleyes:
 
  • #633
WhoWee said:
I think you're giving the Republicans too much credit.:rolleyes:
'Way too much credit, IMO. They are a party desperately in search of a candidate. The major problem is that they have been hijacked by the Tea Party, and if we can gauge by the major media, they have nobody that is electable in the primaries, apart from the loons, and none of those nuts are electable in the general election. Elections are transitory, and the GOP is ceding this one, IMO. I don't know why, but the GOP has folded.
 
Last edited:
  • #634
turbo said:
Way too much credit, IMO. They are a party desperately in search of a candidate. The major problem is that they have been hijacked by the Tea Party, and if we can gauge by the major media, they have nobody that is electable in the primaries, apart from the loons, and none of those nuts are electable in the general election. Elections are transitory, and the GOP is ceding this one, IMO. I don't know why, but the GOP has folded.

It is pretty remarkable, the weakness of the field. But I think Romney has a chance of winning the general -- assuming he can win the primary.
 
  • #635
lisab said:
It is pretty remarkable, the weakness of the field. But I think Romney has a chance of winning the general -- assuming he can win the primary.
Romney might have a chance in the general, but are the GOP primary-voters going to get behind a Universal Health-Care, tax-raising, NE liberal? I predict that Newt's supporters are going to scream "liberal" all the way to the caucuses, to the point at which Mitt is too tainted to get the nomination. Romney has been cautious and has kept his head down in the Republican debates, but he'll have to break that pattern to have any chance of getting the nomination.
 
  • #636
Romney has (both)-Bush-like Neo-con qualities. He is the 'comprimised' version of what conservatives will accept, mostly because I think the GOP is smart enough to know that classic republican austerity-platformed candidates will never win the general. Voters are just too greedy and follow along with the bread-crumb trail that washington has provided the past few century. Compassionate conservativism and the neo-con mentality resonates with those seeking austerity with some egalitarian measures. I think most voters recognize the practical 'non choice' in picking a moderate candidate against the current manchurian President.

I think Newt Gingrich is too ugly and too muddied to be a successful candidate. His past scandals and 'entrenched' Washington mentality are going to be his downfall. He's playing the game well, but that's about it. Herman Cain is the opposite in nearly every regard - he's not playing the game well enough and is getting buried by the career politicians.
 
  • #637
mege said:
...
I think Newt Gingrich is too ugly and too muddied to be a successful candidate. His past scandals and 'entrenched' Washington mentality are going to be his downfall. He's playing the game well, but that's about it.
Obama had a 14 point lead over a theoretical Gingrich candidacy. Now the lead is 7 points.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_gingrich_vs_obama-1453.html
 
  • #638
lisab said:
It is pretty remarkable, the weakness of the field.

I remember similar sentiments about the 1992 Democratic ticket. Time Magazine referred to the candidates as the Seven Dwarfs. One of them went on to 8 years in the White House.
 
  • #640
It probably goes back to whenever the movie was released. But 1992 is maybe the most relevant example.
 
  • #641
Josh Kraushaar has a very interesting piece in the National Journal, titled "Team Obama's Pathway to 270".

It means that, despite the spin they're focused at winning every state, they feel that their best chance of securing 270 electoral votes is through the upscale, white-collar coalition that propelled Obama to victory in 2008 - one I outlined in my column earlier this month. It explains the administration's decision to punt on the Keystone XL pipeline, for fear of alienating environmentalists that make up an important constituency in many of these states.

Essentially, Kraushaar is arguing that the President needs to win VA, NC, NV, and CO at the expense of OH, PA, IA and IN: essentially, appealing to the White College-Educated slice and giving up on the White Working Class slice, which makes up about 25% of the voters. (Which he lost by 18 points in 2008.) This demographic, composed of bitter people who "cling to their guns and religion" has never really warmed to the President, and indeed the Democrats lost this demographic by 30 points in 2010.

This is Joe Biden's bread and butter. Unfortunately, the Vice-President can't open his mouth without sticking his foot in it, so I don't expect him to be any more (or less) help than he was in 2008 or 2010.

This group has not warmed to Mitt Romney either. On the other hand, Romney polls well in VA, NC, etc. and may be able to slice off some of the White College-Educated voters. If one accepts Romney as inevitable, a VP with appeal to the WWC would be a smart move. Someone like Walter B. Jones (R-NC3). The President won NC by only 14,000 votes in 2008.
 
  • #642
It's hard to see Romney or Huntsman capturing the nomination, since the Tea Party has driven the GOP so far right. I think all Obama has to do is sit tight, and campaign against the do-nothing Congress. Newt may be the flavor of the month, but he is unelectable against Obama, IMO. If he wins the nomination, I think women will defect the GOP in droves. He divorced his first wife while she was being treated for cancer, and he divorced his second wife after she was diagnosed with MS, all the while having affairs.

Michelle Obama is a pretty inspiring First Lady. Callista Gingrich? Not so much. I think these issues actually matter to women. We men don't always tune into this stuff all that well, but about 10 months from now we'll see how Newt deals with his baggage. I think it will sink him.
 
  • #643
Vanadium 50 said:
...
Essentially, Kraushaar is arguing that the President needs to win VA, ...
The President carried the Virginia in 2008. Now the state is as near to a 2012 GOP lock is it can be, for whatever my feel on the ground is worth. In 2008 an extraordinarily highly motivated Democratic leaning, college educated, and densely populated northern Va carried the remainder of the state. That Democratic fire has dimmed now, turned to melancholy. Actions like postponing the Keystone pipeline won't relight the fire. For actual evidence of trend, we have McDonnell (R) winning the governors race by 18 points in 2009, the highest margin since '61, switching the office from the Democrats in the prior term.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 154 ·
6
Replies
154
Views
25K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
20K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K