With the way Obama "enthralls" people, I just can't see him losing

[sg0508]

He just has that charisma about him that forever reason, just seems to mesmorize his audience.  My grandad once said the same thing about Ronald Reagan and that going into 1984, the economy could have still been in the crapper, yet Reagan would have found a way to win anyhow.

You just look at Obama with the posturing and the public speaking skills and knowing very well how to work the media and the American public and I just think, this guy could sell anybody, even when things are bad.  No matter who his opponent is next year, I just know this guy is going to run a very solid campaign, 

Bush Sr. was not a solid speaker and Carter wasn't a good seller, but this guy...there is just something about him that makes me think the whole country could collapse and we will still find a way to re-elect him.

The only way I think he doesn't win re-election (outside of John Thune joining the race--> I can tell you why in another topic), is if he pulls an LBJ and declines to win, which like a CEO running a Company into the ground, does so when he knows there is no hope.

[milhouse24]

But there is no substance with Obama and now people are seeing he is not as effective as he promised.  At least Reagan was a weathered and wise old man by the time he became president.  Obama is a newbie that had a thin record of accomplishment, and now is not the time for training wheels.  I predict that if the GOP offer someone with a record of success, voters will vote GOP.

[NHI]

If he weren't the incumbent I'd say otherwise, but his record is one of failure and that in my view will defeat him.

[Keystone Phil]

We certainly basked in his wonder in 2010, now didn't we?

[Paul Kemp]

We certainly basked in his wonder in 2010, now didn't we?

Oh what office did he run for in that year?

[Middle-aged Europe]

We certainly basked in his wonder in 2010, now didn't we?

Oh what office did he run for in that year?

Well, he received 16 write-in votes in the Illinois Senate race running under the alias of Shon-Tiyon "Santiago" Horton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois,_2010#Results_3

[Keystone Phil]

We certainly basked in his wonder in 2010, now didn't we?

Oh what office did he run for in that year?

I think it is fair to say that his agenda was soundly rejected. Him not being on the ballot is a fair point but not exactly the best defense. A number of Democrats (Sestak comes to mind) ran far better than he would have. I'm not sure of many that would have done worse than the President.

[sg0508]

Again.  I just cannot see him losing for whatever reason and what's worse is that I don't see any super star challenger on the GOP side. 

I do think that Thune would be a very good candidate despite being from SD.  I think he has charisma, charm and he's conservative although he would somewhat appeal to moderates as he's stated that he respects views other than his own.

That being said, good salesmen always find ways to close a sale and/or win, even when the chips are stacked against them.

[sg0508]

We certainly basked in his wonder in 2010, now didn't we?

You also proved that your party wasn't that smart in 2010 as they threw three gimme Senate seats away (DE, CO and NV) by running ridiculous candidates.  Like the Democrats couldn't seem to get out of their own way from 1980 until 1992, that's the Republicans' problem now.  I still cannot believe they lost those seats and Obama is smart.  He knows the GOP has to run someone who is going to make the anti-gay, anti-abortion rhetoric a big part of the campaign.  He's not stupid.

[Keystone Phil]

We certainly basked in his wonder in 2010, now didn't we?

You also proved that your party wasn't that smart in 2010 as they threw three gimme Senate seats away (DE, CO and NV) by running ridiculous candidates.  Like the Democrats couldn't seem to get out of their own way from 1980 until 1992, that's the Republicans' problem now.  I still cannot believe they lost those seats and Obama is smart.  He knows the GOP has to run someone who is going to make the anti-gay, anti-abortion rhetoric a big part of the campaign.  He's not stupid.

Sure but that really isn't relevant since we won't be nominating people like Angle, Buck or O'Donnell for President.

Being against abortion or against gay marriage won't be a big part of anyone's campaign. Abortion wasn't even a big part of Bush's 2004 campaign. Social issues are brought up during the primary as they are in both primaries but the GOP candidates are clearly focused on economic and, to a less extent, foreign policy issues.

[sg0508]

We certainly basked in his wonder in 2010, now didn't we?

You also proved that your party wasn't that smart in 2010 as they threw three gimme Senate seats away (DE, CO and NV) by running ridiculous candidates.  Like the Democrats couldn't seem to get out of their own way from 1980 until 1992, that's the Republicans' problem now.  I still cannot believe they lost those seats and Obama is smart.  He knows the GOP has to run someone who is going to make the anti-gay, anti-abortion rhetoric a big part of the campaign.  He's not stupid.

Sure but that really isn't relevant since we won't be nominating people like Angle, Buck or O'Donnell for President.

Being against abortion or against gay marriage won't be a big part of anyone's campaign. Abortion wasn't even a big part of Bush's 2004 campaign. Social issues are brought up during the primary as they are in both primaries but the GOP candidates are clearly focused on economic and, to a less extent, foreign policy issues.

You are underestimating what is important to the GOP base and that's why the party is perceived to be out of touch with mainstream America.  There is not one person that I know (and you probably know too coming from a bluish state) that wants to hear the word abortion or talk about gay marriage once this time around. 

The problem is, if you don't talk about it, the freakin conservatives (and we've had some nutcases on this board) aren't voting and that's a problem.  Obama is a very, very smart man.  He's going to let the GOP self-destruct, even if things aren't better economically.  Once the marriage/abortion bulls..t starts, Obama is on his way back to PA Ave.

[pbrower2a]

We certainly basked in his wonder in 2010, now didn't we?

Oh what office did he run for in that year?

I think it is fair to say that his agenda was soundly rejected. Him not being on the ballot is a fair point but not exactly the best defense. A number of Democrats (Sestak comes to mind) ran far better than he would have. I'm not sure of many that would have done worse than the President.

Lots of Democrats in the Senate up for re-election, well-organized GOP front groups, voter apathy on the Left and fanaticism on the Right... The Republicans will have to play defense in 2012 as people begin to recognize GOP front groups for what they are, tire of Tea Party rhetoric, and are reminded of the Ryan proposal to privatize Medicare as a money-grab likely to hurt them.

If the electorate votes as in 2006, then the President will be barely re-elected, the Democrats will barely hold onto the Senate, and the Democrats will barely win the House. If the electorate votes as in 2008, then the President will win decisively (although Republicans might think themselves to have a chance until September, that chance will vanish abruptly), the Democrats might gain a Senate seat or two on the net (losing those in ND and NE but picking up seats in MA, ME, and NV, maybe AZ or TX) and get a gain in the House reminiscent of 1948.

If it is like 2010, then the Republicans win the trifecta of the Presidency and the Senate while losing a little in the House (there usually are some weak freshman Representatives). So what will the electorate look like?

...If the Democrats win the House it will be because two things are happening:

1. Democrats are winning back seats that were R+2 to D+5 with defeated politicians from 2010 or with people considered more moderate than the current Republicans, and  

2. Conservative Democrats are able to address economic concerns that rubber-stamp corporate Republicans can't address, especially in the South.

Our political system has evolved so that one-size-fits-all politics almost never works... for long, at least in the House.  

[sg0508]

We certainly basked in his wonder in 2010, now didn't we?

You also proved that your party wasn't that smart in 2010 as they threw three gimme Senate seats away (DE, CO and NV) by running ridiculous candidates.  Like the Democrats couldn't seem to get out of their own way from 1980 until 1992, that's the Republicans' problem now.  I still cannot believe they lost those seats and Obama is smart.  He knows the GOP has to run someone who is going to make the anti-gay, anti-abortion rhetoric a big part of the campaign.  He's not stupid.

Sure but that really isn't relevant since we won't be nominating people like Angle, Buck or O'Donnell for President.

Being against abortion or against gay marriage won't be a big part of anyone's campaign. Abortion wasn't even a big part of Bush's 2004 campaign. Social issues are brought up during the primary as they are in both primaries but the GOP candidates are clearly focused on economic and, to a less extent, foreign policy issues.

And you keep forgetting, the GOP nominated those nutcases in those three Senate seats knowing full well that they were basically unelectable candidates.  Guess what? They nominated them anyhow despite how much America and the news media laughed.  The democrats' slickness by running O'Donnell ads in PA almost cost Pat Toomey that race too if you remember.  You're dealing with a very stupid party.

[Keystone Phil]

We certainly basked in his wonder in 2010, now didn't we?

You also proved that your party wasn't that smart in 2010 as they threw three gimme Senate seats away (DE, CO and NV) by running ridiculous candidates.  Like the Democrats couldn't seem to get out of their own way from 1980 until 1992, that's the Republicans' problem now.  I still cannot believe they lost those seats and Obama is smart.  He knows the GOP has to run someone who is going to make the anti-gay, anti-abortion rhetoric a big part of the campaign.  He's not stupid.

Sure but that really isn't relevant since we won't be nominating people like Angle, Buck or O'Donnell for President.

Being against abortion or against gay marriage won't be a big part of anyone's campaign. Abortion wasn't even a big part of Bush's 2004 campaign. Social issues are brought up during the primary as they are in both primaries but the GOP candidates are clearly focused on economic and, to a less extent, foreign policy issues.

And you keep forgetting, the GOP nominated those nutcases in those three Senate seats knowing full well that they were basically unelectable candidates.  Guess what? They nominated them anyhow despite how much America and the news media laughed.  The democrats' slickness by running O'Donnell ads in PA almost cost Pat Toomey that race too if you remember.  You're dealing with a very stupid party.

Again, Angle, Buck and O'Donnell types won't be nominated. Nevada, Colorado and Delaware Republicans aren't the only ones picking our nominee.

And, no, the Anti O'Donnell ads had nothing to do with the reason why Toomey had a close race. That's another nonsense theory (just like how Rick Scott will be the one to cost us Florida against Obama).

The primary electorate in both parties talk about social issues that aren't as much of a focus in the General. It will be the same this time around. The base isn't even harping on social issues that much this time; it's about the economy and spending.

[Vosem]

Who exactly, other than pbrower, does Obama enthrall?

[sg0508]

We certainly basked in his wonder in 2010, now didn't we?

You also proved that your party wasn't that smart in 2010 as they threw three gimme Senate seats away (DE, CO and NV) by running ridiculous candidates.  Like the Democrats couldn't seem to get out of their own way from 1980 until 1992, that's the Republicans' problem now.  I still cannot believe they lost those seats and Obama is smart.  He knows the GOP has to run someone who is going to make the anti-gay, anti-abortion rhetoric a big part of the campaign.  He's not stupid.

Sure but that really isn't relevant since we won't be nominating people like Angle, Buck or O'Donnell for President.

Being against abortion or against gay marriage won't be a big part of anyone's campaign. Abortion wasn't even a big part of Bush's 2004 campaign. Social issues are brought up during the primary as they are in both primaries but the GOP candidates are clearly focused on economic and, to a less extent, foreign policy issues.

And you keep forgetting, the GOP nominated those nutcases in those three Senate seats knowing full well that they were basically unelectable candidates.  Guess what? They nominated them anyhow despite how much America and the news media laughed.  The democrats' slickness by running O'Donnell ads in PA almost cost Pat Toomey that race too if you remember.  You're dealing with a very stupid party.

Again, Angle, Buck and O'Donnell types won't be nominated. Nevada, Colorado and Delaware Republicans aren't the only ones picking our nominee.

And, no, the Anti O'Donnell ads had nothing to do with the reason why Toomey had a close race. That's another nonsense theory (just like how Rick Scott will be the one to cost us Florida against Obama).

The primary electorate in both parties talk about social issues that aren't as much of a focus in the General. It will be the same this time around. The base isn't even harping on social issues that much this time; it's about the economy and spending.

If you think the Republicans are going to go through an entire "general" election without the social bulls..t we've listed to since 1994, think again.   All Obama has to do is paint the party as out of touch by saying,

"The economy is in hell, yet these guys are focused on these issues" and it's over.

[Kevin]

We certainly basked in his wonder in 2010, now didn't we?

You also proved that your party wasn't that smart in 2010 as they threw three gimme Senate seats away (DE, CO and NV) by running ridiculous candidates.  Like the Democrats couldn't seem to get out of their own way from 1980 until 1992, that's the Republicans' problem now.  I still cannot believe they lost those seats and Obama is smart.  He knows the GOP has to run someone who is going to make the anti-gay, anti-abortion rhetoric a big part of the campaign.  He's not stupid.

Sure but that really isn't relevant since we won't be nominating people like Angle, Buck or O'Donnell for President.

Being against abortion or against gay marriage won't be a big part of anyone's campaign. Abortion wasn't even a big part of Bush's 2004 campaign. Social issues are brought up during the primary as they are in both primaries but the GOP candidates are clearly focused on economic and, to a less extent, foreign policy issues.

And you keep forgetting, the GOP nominated those nutcases in those three Senate seats knowing full well that they were basically unelectable candidates.  Guess what? They nominated them anyhow despite how much America and the news media laughed.  The democrats' slickness by running O'Donnell ads in PA almost cost Pat Toomey that race too if you remember.  You're dealing with a very stupid party.

Again, Angle, Buck and O'Donnell types won't be nominated. Nevada, Colorado and Delaware Republicans aren't the only ones picking our nominee.

And, no, the Anti O'Donnell ads had nothing to do with the reason why Toomey had a close race. That's another nonsense theory (just like how Rick Scott will be the one to cost us Florida against Obama).

The primary electorate in both parties talk about social issues that aren't as much of a focus in the General. It will be the same this time around. The base isn't even harping on social issues that much this time; it's about the economy and spending.

If you think the Republicans are going to go through an entire "general" election without the social bulls..t we've listed to since 1994, think again.   All Obama has to do is paint the party as out of touch by saying,

"The economy is in hell, yet these guys are focused on these issues" and it's over.

Social issues will be mentioned, but it will be economic and foreign policy issues that be the main overwhelming focus.

That is unless the Republican party nominates someone like Bachmann and blows it.

[sg0508]

We certainly basked in his wonder in 2010, now didn't we?

You also proved that your party wasn't that smart in 2010 as they threw three gimme Senate seats away (DE, CO and NV) by running ridiculous candidates.  Like the Democrats couldn't seem to get out of their own way from 1980 until 1992, that's the Republicans' problem now.  I still cannot believe they lost those seats and Obama is smart.  He knows the GOP has to run someone who is going to make the anti-gay, anti-abortion rhetoric a big part of the campaign.  He's not stupid.

Sure but that really isn't relevant since we won't be nominating people like Angle, Buck or O'Donnell for President.

Being against abortion or against gay marriage won't be a big part of anyone's campaign. Abortion wasn't even a big part of Bush's 2004 campaign. Social issues are brought up during the primary as they are in both primaries but the GOP candidates are clearly focused on economic and, to a less extent, foreign policy issues.

And you keep forgetting, the GOP nominated those nutcases in those three Senate seats knowing full well that they were basically unelectable candidates.  Guess what? They nominated them anyhow despite how much America and the news media laughed.  The democrats' slickness by running O'Donnell ads in PA almost cost Pat Toomey that race too if you remember.  You're dealing with a very stupid party.

Again, Angle, Buck and O'Donnell types won't be nominated. Nevada, Colorado and Delaware Republicans aren't the only ones picking our nominee.

And, no, the Anti O'Donnell ads had nothing to do with the reason why Toomey had a close race. That's another nonsense theory (just like how Rick Scott will be the one to cost us Florida against Obama).

The primary electorate in both parties talk about social issues that aren't as much of a focus in the General. It will be the same this time around. The base isn't even harping on social issues that much this time; it's about the economy and spending.

If you think the Republicans are going to go through an entire "general" election without the social bulls..t we've listed to since 1994, think again.   All Obama has to do is paint the party as out of touch by saying,

"The economy is in hell, yet these guys are focused on these issues" and it's over.

Social issues will be mentioned, but it will be economic and foreign policy issues that be the main overwhelming focus.

That is unless the Republican party nominates someone like Bachmann and blows it.

I meant to say "listened" and not "listed".  That's what the party does..they blow it with their own stupidity and it's amazing how many times that the stupidity was covered up due to the substantial house gains in 2010.

[Sbane]

Who exactly, other than pbrower, does Obama enthrall?

Most of the world?

This is not to say Americans are still fascinated by him, but you just cannot discount his appeal. He leaves people enthralled wherever he goes and speaks.

[krazen1211]

"The economy is in hell, yet these guys are focused on these issues" and it's over.

You mean homosexual marriage in New York? Wrong party.....

[Paul Kemp]

"The economy is in hell, yet these guys are focused on these issues" and it's over.

You mean homosexual marriage in New York? Wrong party.....

Oh the federal government did that? I must have missed it.

[krazen1211]

Who exactly, other than pbrower, does Obama enthrall?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8

[krazen1211]

"The economy is in hell, yet these guys are focused on these issues" and it's over.

You mean homosexual marriage in New York? Wrong party.....

Oh the federal government did that? I must have missed it.

They were mucking around with homosexuals in the military.

[Paul Kemp]

"The economy is in hell, yet these guys are focused on these issues" and it's over.

You mean homosexual marriage in New York? Wrong party.....

Oh the federal government did that? I must have missed it.

They were mucking around with homosexuals in the military.

Yea that was certainly a huge distraction from the economy .  .  .

[krazen1211]

Yea that was certainly a huge distraction from the economy .  .  .

Ah, so you're using the 'It's different if you're a Democrat' argument. You could have just said that from the start.