Is Obama destined to lose reelection?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 22, 2024, 05:07:04 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Is Obama destined to lose reelection?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Is Obama destined to lose reelection?  (Read 264604 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,859
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: November 29, 2010, 07:54:08 PM »

Continuation:
My old material in green
Your old material in blue

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clinton...Bush...Obama...are you serious?

The last two incumbent Presidents to have serious primary challenges were Jimmy Carter (Kennedy) in 1980 and Gerald Ford (Reagan) in 1976, and both lost. They were obviously seen as vulnerable by mainstream factions within their parties, indicating that they had big problems in those years.  Sure, that is a weak argument for Obama, but those are two of the last three presidents to lose bids for re-election. But that is a very strong argument on behalf of any challenger to an incumbent President. Sure, one of the Senators defeated in 2010 might in theory challenge President Obama, but I more likely see cabinet positions opening for people like Sestak, Feingold, or even Lincoln.

  

Yes, had George W. Bush faced a serious challenge from within his Party, then he too would have lost in 2004.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But he is seen as a different Obama. In 2008, he was a "rock star". People voted for him just on the basis of his race, his speeches, ect. But then, suddenly....he became a President. Aging and rising unpopularity and suddenly being what needs the "change" will hurt him in 2012.[/quote]

I assure you that he won't be running as a "rock star" in 2012. He's much too old for that now, and such was not the cornerstone of his election campaign in 2008. He is about as mature an adult as there is in American politics these days without having a foot in the grave. That said, economics, foreign policy, and military affairs are deadly serious. President Obama has made plenty of promises and kept most of them. People who didn't like those promises in 2008 are going to do as they did in 2008 -- and vote for the Republican nominee.

Question: will he lose few enough people disappointed with they got or win over enough people who had their misgivings or find the opponent unelectable to win enough states? That is the question; indeed that is practically the defining question of 2012. But that's about like predicting that whatever team scores the most points wins the game.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This may be the President's biggest problem. He's not going to be having to battle for his re-election because he couldn't get things done. He's going to have to battle for his re-election because he did get the things done, and America, thus far, has not responded kindly.  

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed, this is a wait and see. Let's hope our party learned it's lessons from 1995.[/quote]

Amen. But I would extend the time period from 1995 to 2006 as well.  Sure, I am talking about a Senator, but when shells are flying from North Korea to South Korea, the least of our problems is that the current President be a one-term President. Many of the Republican leaders in the House will be holdovers from the era of Republican dominance, and it would be best that there are no corruption scandals by Republicans holding power or attempts to smear every liberal personality or agenda as "un-American". This country has far bigger problems other than whether disclosing that someone like Michael Moore is 'inadequately patriotic'.  

It will be up to the Republican majority in the House to foster good government; should that fail, Democrats stand to hold the Presidency (which now looks fairly easy) and the Senate (difficult in view of the large Democratic contingent of seats up for grabs) -- and win "back" the House. Just let Darrell Issa and Michelle Bachmann turn the House chambers into a three-ring circus of inquisitions that prove excessively partisan, and Americans will vote out lots of Republicans in Congress.    

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Not true, in fact...I'd guess that support peaked for Democrats in 2006 and 2008. I think in the coming years, with more diverse Republicans in office, and the plausible situation of a Marco Rubio candidacy, I think the GOP will improve in this area.
[/quote]

Political culture usually changes slowly. But the continuing presence of Michael Bennett, Harry Read,  Barbara Boxer, and perhaps Patty Murray in the Senate shows the significance of the Mexican-American part of the electorate. That is a significant change in the demographics. In view of GOP support for politicians hostile to Mexican-Americans (Angle in Nevada, Brewer in Arizona), such is going to take time to undo.

Sure, there is the Plexiglass effect (reversion to the mean) with respect to extreme levels of support for certain types of candidates among certain groups of people. But the GOP  has hurt itself with Mexican-Americans nationwide.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course such is not my hope.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,859
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: November 29, 2010, 08:06:56 PM »


Hacks don't discuss the mechanics of elections and don't try to use history as a guide to the future. hacks speak of "waves of the future" and use bad methods of statistics.

I have a big peeve with statistical extrapolation -- that is, looking at a short-term trend and using it to forecast the distant future. In effect, don't use December forecasts to predict what will happen in June.

Sure, I have my ideological bias. I am a liberal and a humanist. I worked on behalf of a Democratic Congressman who has lost to some Bible-thumping stooge of Big Oil and Wall Street hedge-fund managers who have almost no constituency in his district, and I despised the results. I have much contempt for dictatorship and oligarchy, for dirty tricks (including Orwellian propaganda), and for ideologies that debase people.  But who here doesn't have an ideological bias?

Liberalism and humanism have elevated humanity. Conservatism at its best protects what is good from radical challenges (including Communism, Nazism, and Fascism) that destroy what is good. Unfortunately, what passes for conservatism these days is a ringing endorsement of superstition, bigotry,  irresponsible hierarchy, and pervasive corruption. America will be a better place when conservatism rediscovers the need to foster something worthy of preservation.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: November 29, 2010, 08:22:15 PM »


Hacks don't discuss the mechanics of elections and don't try to use history as a guide to the future. hacks speak of "waves of the future" and use bad methods of statistics.

I have a big peeve with statistical extrapolation -- that is, looking at a short-term trend and using it to forecast the distant future. In effect, don't use December forecasts to predict what will happen in June.

Sure, I have my ideological bias. I am a liberal and a humanist. I worked on behalf of a Democratic Congressman who has lost to some Bible-thumping stooge of Big Oil and Wall Street hedge-fund managers who have almost no constituency in his district, and I despised the results. I have much contempt for dictatorship and oligarchy, for dirty tricks (including Orwellian propaganda), and for ideologies that debase people.  But who here doesn't have an ideological bias?

Liberalism and humanism have elevated humanity. Conservatism at its best protects what is good from radical challenges (including Communism, Nazism, and Fascism) that destroy what is good. Unfortunately, what passes for conservatism these days is a ringing endorsement of superstition, bigotry,  irresponsible hierarchy, and pervasive corruption. America will be a better place when conservatism rediscovers the need to foster something worthy of preservation.

Ah, humanism, aka "Godless Statism".
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: November 29, 2010, 08:29:28 PM »


Hacks don't discuss the mechanics of elections and don't try to use history as a guide to the future. hacks speak of "waves of the future" and use bad methods of statistics.

I have a big peeve with statistical extrapolation -- that is, looking at a short-term trend and using it to forecast the distant future. In effect, don't use December forecasts to predict what will happen in June.

Sure, I have my ideological bias. I am a liberal and a humanist. I worked on behalf of a Democratic Congressman who has lost to some Bible-thumping stooge of Big Oil and Wall Street hedge-fund managers who have almost no constituency in his district, and I despised the results. I have much contempt for dictatorship and oligarchy, for dirty tricks (including Orwellian propaganda), and for ideologies that debase people.  But who here doesn't have an ideological bias?

Liberalism and humanism have elevated humanity. Conservatism at its best protects what is good from radical challenges (including Communism, Nazism, and Fascism) that destroy what is good. Unfortunately, what passes for conservatism these days is a ringing endorsement of superstition, bigotry,  irresponsible hierarchy, and pervasive corruption. America will be a better place when conservatism rediscovers the need to foster something worthy of preservation.

Ah, humanism, aka "Godless Statism".

Ah... theocratic fascism
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: November 29, 2010, 08:51:14 PM »


Yes, and has fulfilled his destiny already.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: November 29, 2010, 10:04:24 PM »


Who believes in that?
Logged
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,468
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: November 29, 2010, 10:09:34 PM »

Anyone who won in 2008 was destined to lose re-election. Even if Obama was super competent and did all the right things (or at least what he promised, lol) the economy would still be suffering from humpty dumpty syndrome. None of this should surprise anyone.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,302
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: November 29, 2010, 10:13:37 PM »


Yes, and has fulfilled his destiny already.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: November 30, 2010, 08:27:48 AM »

Facepalm at the idea that Obama had "one of the best run campaigns ever".  One of the worst economic downturns in our history happen right before election and the other party's president had approval ratings in the high 20's, yet Obama won only 52.87% of the vote.
Harry Truman and John Kennedy would make this guy look like an absolute noob.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,818
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: November 30, 2010, 10:33:23 AM »

Facepalm at the idea that Obama had "one of the best run campaigns ever".  One of the worst economic downturns in our history happen right before election and the other party's president had approval ratings in the high 20's, yet Obama won only 52.87% of the vote.
Harry Truman and John Kennedy would make this guy look like an absolute noob.

If somebody told you after the 2004 election than in four years a first-term liberal black senator with a Muslim name would take 53% of the vote, carrying Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina, would you believe him?
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: November 30, 2010, 03:20:12 PM »

Facepalm at the idea that Obama had "one of the best run campaigns ever".  One of the worst economic downturns in our history happen right before election and the other party's president had approval ratings in the high 20's, yet Obama won only 52.87% of the vote.
Harry Truman and John Kennedy would make this guy look like an absolute noob.

If somebody told you after the 2004 election than in four years a first-term liberal black senator with a Muslim name would take 53% of the vote, carrying Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina, would you believe him?

After the 2004 election, but after the economic f***fest that took place in October 2008?
If the Democratic candidate was Rainman I wouldn'tve been surprised if he won 55%.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,545


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: November 30, 2010, 05:44:21 PM »

Facepalm at the idea that Obama had "one of the best run campaigns ever".  One of the worst economic downturns in our history happen right before election and the other party's president had approval ratings in the high 20's, yet Obama won only 52.87% of the vote.
Harry Truman and John Kennedy would make this guy look like an absolute noob.

If somebody told you after the 2004 election than in four years a first-term liberal black senator with a Muslim name would take 53% of the vote, carrying Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina, would you believe him?

After the 2004 election, but after the economic f***fest that took place in October 2008?
If the Democratic candidate was Rainman I wouldn'tve been surprised if he won 55%.

The country is highly polarized.  The economic crisis was probably the difference between Obama squeaking out a 50%-49% win and his actual 53%-46% win.  There just are not that many persuadable voters anymore. 
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: November 30, 2010, 10:38:04 PM »
« Edited: November 30, 2010, 10:42:04 PM by Stanley Ipkiss »

Facepalm at the idea that Obama had "one of the best run campaigns ever".  One of the worst economic downturns in our history happen right before election and the other party's president had approval ratings in the high 20's, yet Obama won only 52.87% of the vote.
Harry Truman and John Kennedy would make this guy look like an absolute noob.

If somebody told you after the 2004 election than in four years a first-term liberal black senator with a Muslim name would take 53% of the vote, carrying Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina, would you believe him?

After the 2004 election, but after the economic f***fest that took place in October 2008?
If the Democratic candidate was Rainman I wouldn'tve been surprised if he won 55%.

The country is highly polarized.  The economic crisis was probably the difference between Obama squeaking out a 50%-49% win and his actual 53%-46% win.  There just are not that many persuadable voters anymore.  

With the other party's president (at the time) having approval ratings in the 20's yeah I think there would be quite a bit more than 50%-49% of the electorate would want another party in there, especially when the candidate of the hated president's party pretty much campaigns on being a carbon copy of said hated president.
Again I see little reason, even in this so-called "polarized climate" why Obama didn't manage a near 400 electoral vote landslide.  If anything it doesn't say that much about how well his campaign was run, but rather how well the McCain campaign did despite having the albatross of George W. Bush over them.
His campaign didn't suck, but I wouldn't call it "one of the greatest run campaigns in history".

If you want to make the argument that his success in the Democratic Primaries over Hillary was predicted to win nomination out of the birth canal Clinton as one of the most successful primary campaigns in history, then yeah I might agree on that one.
Logged
davajuan
Rookie
**
Posts: 58


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: December 02, 2010, 03:01:47 PM »

YES.

Everyone, on both sides of the aisle, are pretty much stupefied at how the first two years have gone for Obama.

The next two years will see massive stop-loss intellectual transactions as everyone except true believers come to grips with this mistake and turn on him.

He may not even run. His ego will not allow him to lose in a landslide. If the numbers are looking bad, a magical leadership position at the UN may materialize.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: December 02, 2010, 03:06:51 PM »

YES.

Everyone, on both sides of the aisle, are pretty much stupefied at how the first two years have gone for Obama.

The next two years will see massive stop-loss intellectual transactions as everyone except true believers come to grips with this mistake and turn on him.

He may not even run. His ego will not allow him to lose in a landslide. If the numbers are looking bad, a magical leadership position at the UN may materialize.

Its nothing to do with 'true believers', Davenport, its simply a matter of the economy, which is going to go very well for the next two years, beating all expectations, and racism, which is the wind at his face.  I still say he'll lose, but there's no 'mistake', nor will he lose any further support from his current situation.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,859
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: December 02, 2010, 04:34:28 PM »
« Edited: December 02, 2010, 04:38:03 PM by pbrower2a »

YES.

Everyone, on both sides of the aisle, are pretty much stupefied at how the first two years have gone for Obama.

The next two years will see massive stop-loss intellectual transactions as everyone except true believers come to grips with this mistake and turn on him.

He may not even run. His ego will not allow him to lose in a landslide. If the numbers are looking bad, a magical leadership position at the UN may materialize.

President Obama loses, the Republicans win the Senate, and consolidate their hold on the House if the propaganda machine that the GOP and its front groups can convince the electorate to vote for semi-fascists as they did in 2010.

Of course that depends upon some things yet to be known -- like how the GOP plays its hand in the House of Representatives that it will dominate, how big the voter turnout will be,  and  whether the GOP can perform electoral fraud through elected officials or employer intimidation of workers. The GOP is not a democratic party as it used to be; it is now nearly fascist.

Americans will get a taste of the same ugly rhetoric that they knew from the GOP between 1994 and 2006, only on steroids.  The GOP has not moderated in the least, it seems to offer the same agenda whether in suburban Detroit or the Texas Panhandle, and the only people that it gives a d@mn about are either the super-rich or their stupid hangers-on.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: June 18, 2014, 05:15:38 PM »

Nym90 -please sticky this thread so we can all laugh at it two years from now.  

This thread is so ironic, then and now.

(bumping for comical effect)
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,840
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: June 19, 2014, 09:31:45 PM »

I think Palin can very well beat Obama. If Romney is the nominee Obama will win. If Romney isn't the nominee, it's gonna be another good election for the GOP.

dying
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: June 24, 2014, 03:19:31 PM »

I think Palin can very well beat Obama. If Romney is the nominee Obama will win. If Romney isn't the nominee, it's gonna be another good election for the GOP.

dying

See, that is why Republicans had lost, because they nominated Romney. Had they nominated Palin, there would be a landslide.
Logged
ssuperflash
Rookie
**
Posts: 30


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: April 26, 2015, 06:38:59 PM »

Someone looking at losing 332-206 in electoral votes will take chances that either win the election outright, make things close, or make winning impossible.   
Holy sh**t, he predicted this basically 2 years to the month before the election. Nice job!
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,720


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: April 26, 2015, 06:45:47 PM »

Someone looking at losing 332-206 in electoral votes will take chances that either win the election outright, make things close, or make winning impossible.   
Holy sh**t, he predicted this basically 2 years to the month before the election. Nice job!

Congrats, Reaganfan!
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: April 26, 2015, 06:49:26 PM »

These threads make me hesitant to make any hasty predictions. However, that does not seem to be the case among a vocal few of our forum members.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,283
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: July 19, 2015, 05:51:34 AM »

My intuition tells me Obama will lose re-election.

k
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 12 queries.