It’s a dilemma for the GOP, as I think both positions are true. If they nominate a Tea Party candidate, the moderates will not support them, and if they nominate a main stream Republican, the Tea Party will go rogue. They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. I predict Obama will win by 3% or more.
Looks like a jobs plan is coming in a few weeks…wonder what he’s waiting for??
Gotta get the vacation squared away first
Cite?
In other words, this is bullshit. Middle of the road and independent voters like Obama fine, it’s the left wingers who are pissing and moaning.
Maybe you would feel better if he cut some sagebrush on Martha’s Vineyard?
It is going to be hard to overcome the fact that Obama doesn’t have to spend a lot of money and energy getting nominated. That means he should have lot money and energy left after the nomination. His biggest problem is that he probably won’t be energizing the the base like 2008 and it will probably be a closer election if neither candidate makes a big mistake.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes to down to Florida again.
I think there’s a good chance that the Republicans will energize the base for him in much the same way they did in 2008. If Bachmann or Perry get the nod (Pres or VP), then Obama is going to get a lot of the same voters who weren’t willing to take a chance on Palin getting into office in 2008. A Perry or a Bachmann will only appeal to the people who already think Obama is the antiChrist, so it’s not going to get them over the 50% barrier.
Best thing the Republicans could do would be to nominate someone relativelynormal like Romney, minimize the religious and social aspects of the party affiliation, and say reasonable, non-nutty things about the economy. In fact, a Republican candidate could take the exact same position as Obama (we need to raise revenues a bit and cut spending a lot) and turn it into a horse race. Note that saying that we can get the deficit in order just by spending cuts doesn’t count as “non-nutty”.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, they may have already scuttled this approach with their behavior this summer. Their affiliation with the Tea Party make look more and more toxic if the Tea Partiers in Congress keep bogging down sensible legislation.
Then again, I’m a guy who thought Scott Brown wouldn’t get elected in Massachusetts, so what do I know?
Although there will endless talk and debate, I think we’re going to come back to yet another repeat of 2000 and 2004. A very close election coming down to one or two states. Obama won comfortably in 2008 due to the financial mess which hit full force in September of 2008. I doubt Obama is picking up Indiana or North Carolina in 2012.
The incumbent (or inherent incumbent) usually has the advantage. Gore would have won in 2000 with a Democratic governor in Florida. Bush won in 2000 due to the power of incumbency, although a same sex marriage ban on the Ohio ballot didn’t hurt.
I won’t repost it here, but I posted a link to a poll in another thread that concluded that NC will likely stay blue. They cited the changed demographics (a lot of transplants in recent years) and an economy that seems to be doing better than many other parts of the country. On the other hand, we just elected our first majority Republican State Senate in over 100 years, so I’ll just keep my fingers crossed.
Nate Silver mentioned a while ago that Obama probably has a far better chance of holding North Carolina than he does Ohio.
No idea. Any dem is better than any GOPer if you are a progressive, but I don’t see a lot of enthusiasm in 2012. When the dems and Obama extended the Bush tax cuts in 2009 with 59 senators, 260 house members and Obama the mentality I felt was ‘what is the point’. What is the point if you can’t get anything done without a supermajority. Plus they didn’t do the debt deal then because supposedly Obama thought the GOP would negotiate in good faith on the debt ceiling when the time came. I guess the GOPers were hoping to have that effect, and they have. But Obama comes across as naive, weak and a terrible negotiator and it is hard to get enthused about that unless you are scared the other guy would be even worse for the country. I know I’ll still vote for him in 2012 because he is far better than what the GOP are putting up.
I think the dems will regain the house and lose the senate. So even if a GOP president wins, it won’t be a clean sweep. And the dems will still have the filibuster in the senate.
Whoa. Wait. What? He won’t have to spend a lot of money and energy? That just doesn’t make any sense.
My take on this is that the labor unions and other pro-labor groups will be a larger factor. There’s a lot of anger over Wisconsin there. They may not be in love with Obama unless his jobs plan pans out, but they hate the Tea Party with a passion and are mobilizing against it.
I also think that if Bachmann, Perry or Paul get some significant early primary victories, it’ll give the Democratic Party something real to campaign on.
So I think that significant segments of the base will be more anti-Tea Party than for Obama, but that’s still good for Obama.
He’s the incumbent and there is no other Democrat in place to mount a serious primary challenge, so he’s pretty much a lock as far as the nomination goes. He still has to campaign, but he can save a lot of his resources for the general election. I think that’s what JoelUpchurch was saying.
That’s the only thing I can think of as well, but he’s still going to have to expend some time and effort fundraising. He’s one helluva fundraiser.
He means, campaigning for the PRIMARY. Not the general. The Democratic primary will be a formality, allowing Obama to save his resources for the general. That doesn’t mean there won’t be campaigning before the Democratic convention, just that Obama’s campaign will be focused on the Republicans, not his non-existant Democratic rivals.
Or Ohio.
Here’s one sample form many hits on a basic google search
“Independents” don’t mean squat. The only reason anyone thinks they mean anything is that they get independents and moderates mixed up. But nowadays, someone who describes themselves as “independent” is likely to be a TPer who thinks the Republicans are too far left to identify with them, and of course Obama isn’t polling too well with them.
My my, how sour those grapes must be.
Besides, if “independents” are really the extreme conservatives you allege, why would they ever have supported Obama?
Regards,
Shodan