Obama out?

C

clivex

Banned member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
12,720
As many of us thought, his lawyerly caution and lack of administrative experience has left him looking rather flat to most americans. Bill Clinton he isn't.

But he's a decent guy and did inherit a pretty awful situation for a first term. Hilary should have won the nomination and should perhaps be the choice this time (wont be) but with such an awful band of republican candidates, he is still in a good place.

As for the GOP, surely they must pick Romney? He's is surely their only chance of victory?

Newt is a bit chaotic and despite his intelligence (or because of it maybe) is bound to put foot in mouth. Perry is terrible and possibly a bit thick. Ron Paul is an autistic extremist with some sinister baggage and Sanitorium or whatever his name is doesnt convince at all
 
Romney will get the nomination, because he's a candidate the GOP are happy to sacrifice, in an election they have no chance of winning.

The fact that Romney is the only logical choice, demonstrates the paucity of credible Republican candidates this year, and I think the party gave up any pretence to winning the vote a long time ago.

Romney is a transition puppet, and Obama should be about trading about 1.01.
 
Last edited:
I think it's Santorum, but you know it'll get stick - an evangelical Christian, bound to go down a storm in the boonies, but a zero on the main coasts, I'd have thought. Watched a clip on CNN a night ago of his acceptance address, which was woeful empty puffery about America being great again. Who writes this garbage?
 
clivex said:
The polls suggest otherwise though Grass. I havent examined this link in detail but for some time now the gap between the two is narrow

Europeans were a bit over obsessed with Obama for the obvious tiresome reasons but at the end of the day, its their choice not ours. His approval ratings are awful and its not just the economy. I sense that he simply doesn't inspire (does any lawyer?)


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that polls taken at the present time are particularly significant, clivex. Schedule-wise, we're in the middle of the minimum-interest period, and I don't think polls will reflect opinion in a meaningful way, until much closer to the election; or at least not until after the Republican nominee is established definitively. And even then, I don't think polls will necessarily accurately reflect how people will actually vote on the day - again, at least not until much closer to the election.

I think they have limited value at this juncture, and I think they almost always under-estimate the incumbent.

I've just checked Betfair, and Obama is 4/5. This price won't be beaten for value all year.
 
I thought the record of US polls was unerringly accurate in the past?

His ratings are as low as they have been for any president in recent times. Really seriously bad. You cant ignore that and I sense that if Romney gets the nomination and the freedom to be himself, hes a major threat

One key aspect is that even though Romney wasnt involved in the most charming of businesses, he was a success and duplicated that with his undoubted results with the olympics in Salt Lake city as well as his governership. I can believe that americans could be strongly taken with that in the current climate
 
clivex said:
I thought the record of US polls was unerringly accurate in the past?

His ratings are as low as they have been for any president in recent times. Really seriously bad. You cant ignore that and I sense that if Romney gets the nomination and the freedom to be himself, hes a major threat
Click to expand...

If we take Obama's job approval average at between 47-48%, history would suggest his re-election prospects are in the balance; 50-52% and he's home, 44-46% and he's relying on a seriously weak Republican challenger (anything less and he is sunk) and probably in serious trouble.

With regards to Romney, he managed expectations well in Iowa but, at the same time, he failed to increase his vote compared to four years ago. If anything, he did less poorly in particularly conservative areas than he did four years ago, suggesting he is even more ideologically unpalatable now than he was then to most of the Republican electorate.

He will win the nomination without doubt - it's just a question of how bruising a battle it will be. Gingrich has no real campaign or organisation to speak of, is incredibly angry at Romney over what happened in Iowa and could conceivably go on a sort of kamikaze mission before New Hampshire. I don't think Santorum will gain any traction in New Hampshire, but South Carolina will be a test for Romney: if he can manage a clear victory in such a socially conservative state (unlikely), he could lock it up quickly. If not, Santorum and Gingrich might fight on and it could become a slog, however inevitable.
 
Given Romney is a tap-in for GOP candidate, tracks, Obama is going to get his "seriously weak" challenger - even if his approval ratings remain static.

As I said, I think it's largely bunkum until the early summer, when the propaganda machines start to kick-in. When the Democrats start to remind everyone that Bin Laden was rubbed-out on Obama's watch, that will probably secure 70% of undecided voters all by itself.

The odds of Romney making at least one monumental, campaign-ending fuck-up during the race, are a lot shorter than the 4/6 about Obama retaining office. The Prez should be a threes-on chance in this. He will hack-up.
 
Romney is far too controlled and experienced to obviously drop a clanger. If anything the criticism has been that he is too cautious.
 
clivex said:
Romney is far too controlled and experienced to obviously drop a clanger. If anything the criticism has been that he is too cautious.
Click to expand...

Let's talk after the first TV debate. It will be like Ali versus Arthur Mullard.
 
Obama wasn't faring too well in polls against a 'generic GOP candidate'. Unfortunately for the GOP, they don't have anyone capable of meeting that lofty standard. It's been great fun watching them build-up one whackjob after the other over the last couple of months. Just a shame that there's someone relatively sane like Romney to spoil the fun. He's such a charisma and integrity-free bore, though.

That's all by-the-by, though. James Carville's maxim stands and short of some huge scandal it'll all be decided by the jobs reports over the next 10 months (there's one out tomorrow expected to confirm the slow but positive trend).
 
Gareth Flynn said:
That's all by-the-by, though. James Carville's maxim stands and short of some huge scandal it'll all be decided by the jobs reports over the next 10 months (there's one out tomorrow expected to confirm the slow but positive trend).
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Grassy is overly-bullish in my view (1.01 my left nut :lol:) given that we really don't know the trajectory of the American economy over the next nine months, which will go a long way towards determining the outcome.

To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of Romney as a candidate in a general. If the economy turns sour, he has a relatively solid business platform to build on, yet the GOP base (which is absolutely crucial of course) has shown few signs of warming to him.

Important to remember Obama has, in the form of Plouffe, Axelrod and co., a campaign team to rival Carville/Stephanopoulos and Rove/Dowd in recent history. Put simply, I don't think Romney has that sort of firepower at his disposal.
 
I agree that his business experience will be seen as a plus if the economy is still stagnating. Obama has certainly not inspired the commercial sector (some would say the polar opposite) and the view may well be that an elite educated lawyer is about as useful for turning the economy around as an accountant would be inspiring a country at war

Lack of charisma (supposedly) did not stop the woeful stumbling Gore from going so close.

I dont think the GOP base is "crucial" if he gets the nomination. They really hate Obama and will vote regardless
 
Can someone explain to me what the problem with Ron Paul is?

Pretty much every one of his policies that I have seen is a breath of fresh air (small government, pro-choice, promoting self-responsibility, less interventionist, net neutrality, lower taxes etc.)

I presume there is a side to his character that I'm unaware of?

Or is it just that America still likes to have the best religious fundamentalist to take on the others on the world stage?
 
Short version: Google "ron paul newsletters".

I sort of admire the internal consistency in his policies, even though I disagree with most of them, but there's tons of stuff out there that he's said or written or published over the years which makes him sound like the crazy guy on the corner shouting at thin air.
 
Thanks Gareth - nasty skeletons those.

He has a son in politics doesn't he? They should keep him clean to run in the future from a similar grounding. On face value, I like what I see.
 
To giove an example of ron Paul's mental illness...

He stated that the (belated) national aid to the victims of Katrina was "unconstitutional" and should not have been allowed to go ahead. He was strongly opposed and (unsurprisingly) was strongly against the aid to Haiti

He is sick

it is rather as if you were a doctor standing right next to0 someone having a heart attack and refusing to do anything to help becuase "im not his GP"

I have no admiration at all for rigidly "consistent" views because (and theres a good quote from keynes about this) events change. Its more typical of lazy thinking or simple fanaticism. When i think of rigid views, i think of Pol Pot and Hitler
 
Last edited:
Gareth Flynn said:
I sort of admire the internal consistency in his policies, even though I disagree with most of them, but there's tons of stuff out there that he's said or written or published over the years which makes him sound like the crazy guy on the corner shouting at thin air.
Click to expand...

We're talking about clivex now, right?
 
I pay very little attention to the American political scene but I would be surprised if it didn't go something like this Republicans select their man -Obama let's rip-it's no contest from an early stage and Paddy
Power pay out before the voting starts.
What are the statistics on presidents getting re-elected.
 
Re-elction rates of incumbents are very high. Clinton, Bush, eisenhower, reagan

Fuck off grass and grey. Knobs. Only consistency in your views is the complete cluelessness

:)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top