The bolded part is what makes Obama especially vulnerable. And not only Hillary Clinton supporters–I’ve read some columnists predict that if there is anything approaching a serious primary challenge to Obama, it will turn black voters off as well.
That may have been true in '08, until the moment McCain announced Palin as his VP pick. A friend of mine is a Hillaryite, and she told me that at a local party meeting the following Monday the word “insulting” was used more than she’d ever heard in her life.
I think the R’s problem is they have few, if any, potential candidates that can both win the nomination and beat Obama in '12. I think the D’s problem is that they don’t have likely candidates for '16, and no backup candidates for '12.
Obama said in and early post-election interview (or was it post-inauguration?) that if the economy wasn’t better he doesn’t deserve re-election. If the economy doesn’t pick up this year there is a small chance he might step aside and let someone else run for the D nomination in '12. We’re talking a chance so small that only the finest mathematicians can see it above zero, but it’s there.
Smart money never underestimates the ability of the Ds to lose a winnable election.
I don’t see it. The economy’s already picking up steam, and will only be stronger the closer we get to the election, and Obama will be credited with it, whether he deserves it or not.
Anything can happen, of course, but I will be very surprised to see Obama lose at this point, as dissatisfied with him as I am.
The economy is going to hurt him the most. Though the recession ended in 2009, I don’t see it and he was put in because of the economy. People tend to support the party opposing the party in power when the ecnomy is awful.
Though economists say the economy is much better, not many people, especially the unemployed are seeing much changes.
He’s got less than a year to put the economy straight, lower the unemployment and to get consumer/house price confidence back. If he doesn’t he’ll have a tough time winning
Quite frankly, even though I oppose the so-called “ObamaCare,” the majority of the population are against it (cite). And that’s pretty much his legacy.
If a Republican with Libertarian ideals can come along, the Democrats (and Mr. Obama) are dead in the water. How did they used to say?: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
The Republicans’ biggest problem will be if they continue to cater too much to the social right. And that’s a valid concern, because they lose too many votes pandering to idiots.
Wrong again, Typo! The Washington Post had an article three Sundays ago (03/05/11) on Page 2 that said Obama had officially started his campaign organization for his re-election. He’s running. Meanwhile none of the likely Republican candidates had officially kicked off their presidential campaign organizations. I don’t think any have announced officially in the intervening time. That puts all of the Rs at least a month, and more like 2 or 3 behind the incumbent in organization. If these candidates don’t get rolling soon it won’t matter how much American voters dislike Obama, there will not be a viable alternative.
I still believe this. The economy is definitely improving - I’m getting junk mail again. Even so, and even with a huge lead in organization and potential fund raising, and no intra-party rivals, Obama could lose this election. IMO that would be very bad, but it could happen.
I wish the Republicans had someone to actually challenge Obama. Maybe then he’d put some real meat behind the platitudes he fed to the left. Or maybe he’ll stop being Republican-lite. :dubious: …Nah. What the heck am I thinking?
I think the problem the Republicans have is primary voters, which is the party’s motivated base, will discount anyone who doesn’t ratchet up the crazy, so Romney, who I think could actually challenge Obama, may not get the nomination unless he gives lip service to the birthers and Tea Party, thereby shooting himself in the foot for the general.
I’m unsure between Jones and Harris. Smith doesn’t stand a chance since it’s very rare for a party not to pick the incumbent if available. Allen has a better chance, but personality is a really big thing to most voters, and part of the campaign against Obama will again need to focus on him being elitist, which won’t work without a strong contrast.
They’ve been running those types of things forever. It helps with recruitment if Mormonism is just seen as another branch of mainstream Christianity, rather than more of an offshoot (or cult if you believe the fundies).
Unless you are talking about some other types of ads I haven’t seen: I don’t watch TV that much anymore, and, when I do, I mostly skip commercials.
See posts 14 & 16.
Well, I voted for Smith, but I don’t think he exists.
Hillary Clinton won’t run, and if she did I don’t think she’d get the nomination. Since she’s a visible part of the Obama Administration, her position on the left-right scale has to be pretty close to Obama’s, anyway.
Dennis Kucinich might run, but his support is very limited: he has no chance of getting the nomination, and his running doesn’t do much damage to Obama – certainly no more than Obama’s done to himself by moving too far to the centre.
Who else in the Democratic Party might run against an incumbent? I don’t think there’s anyone.
Nah, the Democrats, with possibly the exception of Kucinich, will sit this one out. There’s no profit in it for them or the party; they wouldn’t beat Obama, so what’s the point?
Harris. If the Republicans have proven anything, it’s that they know how to run a downright brutal attack campaign.
The problem here is fratricide on multiple levels. Smith will do the most damage to Obama, but Jones and Allen will get destroyed by Harris. Will Harris then beat Obama? Doubtful.
I think no matter who the Repubs nominate, Onomatapoeia’s analysis is correct: they will have to move so far right in the primaries that they will have to say things that will alienate the center in the general election. The Republicans have made their bed, now they must lie in it. It’s gonna hurt. Of course, this presupposes the the Democrats will be smart enough to capitalize on the Republican right wing frothing at the mouth stuff that comes out of their primaries. As has already been pointed out, it’s stupid to assume that the Dems will have the very minimal level of smarts needed to do that. That said, it will be Obama’s election to lose.
Jones or Harris. Nobody’s going to seriously challenge Obama from the Democratic side so that leaves out Smith. Allen will turn out to be a milquetoast with no stomach for the fight. Jones has a chance because he might even get my vote if it’s practically a done deal that the Dems keep at least one house of Congress. Harris stands a chance because he’ll energize the Republican base. However, I don’t see Jones getting the nomination, so that would leave Harris.
Now, if the Republicans give the nomination to Harris and Jones chooses to run as an independant, that might draw votes away from Obama. The Republicans/Harris people would smell blood in the water and double their efforts to defeat Obama.
Overall I think Harris has the best chance.
I didn’t mean this should be regarded as a head-to-head contest between my hypothetical candidates. I was just asking where you feel Obama is the most vulnerable.
Should the Republicans go for the center and try to win over swing voters? Should they go for the right and energize conservative support? Should they go negative? And, as a bonus question, do you think Obama’s biggest vulnerability is that liberals feel iffy about him? It’s a question of what you think voters are looking for and what will motivate them.
Obama should be most vulnerable with liberals; he flew to the center within months of taking office, and pretty much left liberals slack-jawed in disbelief.
They should, but they won’t.
They shouldn’t, but they will.
Of course. It’s what they’re good at.
I think liberals feel more than iffy about Obama; they’re disappointed, and some, me included, feel more abandoned the more to the right he goes. What’s sad is we’re going to vote for him regardless because the alternative is almost unthinkably worse.
It is impossible.
A Democrat cannot successfully run against obama, because obama will NEVER!!! lose the black vote. No matter what other Democrat runs, obama will get all of the black votes in all of the primaries. If another candidate managed to still get the Democrat nomination without the black vote, the black voters will never forgive the other Democrat for taking the nomination away from obama and thus the other Democrat will not get any black votes in the general election.
…and no Democrat can win a general election without the black vote. It is impossible. Even Hillary Clinton cannot win without the black vote.
,
Well, what if it was another black candidate?
The problem is not about Obama’s vulnerability. The problem is that the Republican field is full of egocentric flaming yutzes, combined with no-personality nobodies. A normal year, you’d have just Ron Paul or something. This year, you got Herman Cain, Donald Trump, and Sarah Palin all running around showing their ass to the world. And Haley Barbour. No chance for these guys. No chance in hell. But they’ll fratricide and feed red meat to people for a bit. And the other guys… T-Paw’s got no guts, Romney’s got no spine, and… well, the point is, the few that actually have some credibilty will probably outpoll the firebreathers, but the firebreathers will take out the most credible guy anyhow.
This year is just a three ring circus. It’s a throw-away election, the Republicans can’t beat Obama. Not because he’s any great shakes, but because they’re busy shooting each other in both feet.