Half and Half. Obama can't lose.

[aristotle]

Sad news: there is just no way the GOP pulls 50% of the presidential vote in 2012. Demographics indicate the Democrats have a stranglehold on at least half the voting public. No matter how badly the economy struggles, no matter the full push toward socialism, no matter Obama's associations with unsavory individuals, no matter Obama's ability to darken a sunny day... half the nation will stand with Barack Obama.

Whether it is called group politics or identity politics, huge voting blocs form around immutable characteristics such as race, ethnicity and gender. Nuance this all day long, still Obama holds an alliance of minorities, women and professional grievance mongers which constitutes the critical mass needed for electoral ecstasy.

One would prefer to think substance matters. Substance doesn't vote in sufficient numbers. The single mom votes. The old-age pensioner votes. The union member votes. The immigrant votes. The college kid with a nose ring votes. Those who hate traditional values vote. The tree-hugging, car-hating, dirt-worshipping environmentalist votes. This collective has made the Democrat Party their home. This collective grows bigger every day. Their numbers are too many to be defeated. The White House is theirs to keep.

 

[greg334]

...

half the nation will stand with Barack Obama.

...

And who's fault is that?

I would guess it is the republicans who have had a few democrats come out and say the time for a leader to emerge is now, not next year and still they don't get it.

Steele, Palin, Rove and others were warned in 2008 just after the election to get it together and again they were warned right after the 2010 election that if they didn't have one or two strong leaders to come out to face the people Obama will have a second term and I think he will at this point because the republicans have absolutely not one person they can put up against him within their machine.

 

[aristotle]

Karl Rove is symbolic of GOP woes. Rove is probably rooting for Huckabee or Romney. Typical establishment Republicans. Neither excites the conservative base. If one wants to see a competitive race in 2012, the GOP had better find a truly assertive, brash, charismatic plain-speaker. Someone edgy enough to give Obama lots of heat. Please, not another mealy-mouthed nice guy. A gifted, rightwing demagogue would do nicely. Still, it's a long shot.

 

[greg334]

Karl Rove is symbolic of GOP woes. Rove is probably rooting for Huckabee or Romney. Typical establishment Republicans. Neither excites the conservative base. If one wants to see a competitive race in 2012, the GOP had better find a truly assertive, brash, charismatic plain-speaker. Someone edgy enough to give Obama lots of heat. Please, not another mealy-mouthed nice guy. A gifted, rightwing demagogue would do nicely. Still, it's a long shot.

I would agree if they want a competitive race, it needs to be all that but also not conservative. It seems the independents are going to decide the race and conservatives are less defined than people who don't put titles behind their ideology, like many of the tea party winners. The one thing that stood out in 2010 was the lack of conservative thinkers among the crowd, they may have used the title with some but they spoke of actual small government and actual fiscal responsibility which may have attracted a lot of those independents.

I for one would be hard pressed to vote for a status quo or psuedo Reagan conservative in 2012. I don't beleive the country needs to have any leader that will stretch themselves to cover specific topics like fighting abortion or other religious right/left wing issue but speak of economics with a plan that he/she is not afraid to fight for or change for the audience he/she speaks to.

 

[xiggi]

Who can turn out the vote is what is going to matter. They might be likely voters now but the economy can frustrate anyone and they might sit this one out.

 

[Pilgrim]

OK all you gloom and doomers - snap out of it! Looks like you've already forgotten the mid-term election results. The first GOP debate is next week - May 5th. Things will start to come into focus once these start. In the meantime, consider the following:

A new Washington Post poll claims that 57 percent of the public disapproves of Obama’s handling of the economy. Those kinds of numbers can create electoral landslides—for the opponent.
Since 1940 no incumbent president has been reelected with an unemployment rate above 7.5 percent (i.e., Reagan’s rate in 1984). It’s currently 8.8 percent. Of course, many states have significantly higher unemployment rates; California, Nevada, Michigan, Oregon and Florida, among others, remain above 10 percent. Those states are essential for Obama’s reelection. While California and Oregon will remain blue, economically struggling Michigan, Nevada and Florida could express their discontent by voting Republican...

Why Obama Cannot Win in 2012 - Merrill Matthews - Right Directions - Forbes

 

[greg334]

Debate?
WTF who's going to debate?

Its a lost cause if they are planning on debating. The party needs to pick someone, get them ramped up fast and fight like hell - surely not worry about the contenders in the field who may win a stinkn' primary.

Obama can win, it is a real good chance that he can win even a close race. Get someone like Trump (God help us) running against him and I would even vote for Obama but so would a lot of others who can't see Trump being more than a pushy New Yorker who made millions by the old fashion way.

 

[Pilgrim]

OK, everybody knows these aren't really debates in the true sense - they're beauty contests, and they're part of the process that includes the state primaries that lead up to the convention. Ramping up fast is not an option, unless they have an incumbent in office. The primaries start in Feb 2012, go through the spring and lead up to the convention the last week in Aug. Hopefully, they won't spend all their money and air time beating up each other. We need the top 2 or 3 candidates to rise to the top quickly and agree on a platform that reverses or repeals Obama's socialism, returns the country to a sound economic policy and puts people back to work. There are 2-4 sound candidates that have the right experience and qualifications, so maybe they'll separate themselves from the pack during the first couple of debates/beauty contests so the media will concentrate on them instead of the noisemakers like Trump.

 

[greg334]

I think you explained the entire problem, the republicans are going to follow the process which will cause them to lose. The democrats are laughing at the way the republicans are handling their candidates which of there really is not one of them who can run against Obama. Not only that, the dems have the balls to come out and tell the world what the problem is and why the GOP will lose in 2012 - they are slow to respond to Obama. Obama, as disgusting as this is, is already campaigning for 2012 and this means by the time the republicans even pick someone they can put up against him, he will already have had his message out for a year and a few months - a sure way to lose against him.

IF the republicans are serious about fighting in 2012, they need to forsake the primaries and pick someone before September and then start ramping up the campaign, not wait until next year.

In all honesty, there is not one of the noise makers in the GOP who seems to attract the attention of the voters. Being qualified and so on won't cut it this time around.

 

[layoutshooter]

The ONLY way ANY candidate can get more than 50% is if 100% of the registered voters vote! MOST people elected are elected with 30% OR LESS of all possible votes. That is a SAD picture of our political system and that is EXACTLY why the extremists and freaks have taken over BOTH political parties.

Some call it voter apathy, I don't. I call it voter DISGUST!! People are just plain fed up with all the BS that is shoveled and the low life candidates we field.

I have seen many rotting deer corpses lying along side the road that are more capable then ALL of the candidates that I have seen run.

 

[greg334]

The ONLY way ANY candidate can get more than 50% is if 100% of the registered voters vote!

What??

You have two candidates running for cat catcher. You have 10 people who can vote, five people decide to vote and out of that five, three vote one candidate and the other two vote for the other candidate, then the one with three votes got more than 50% of the vote.

MOST people elected are elected with 30% OR LESS of all possible votes. That is a SAD picture of our political system and that is EXACTLY why the extremists and freaks have taken over BOTH political parties.

True to a point but the amount of registered voters in an election also has no bearing on the amount of votes unless they vote.

I don't think the extremist have taken over the parties but rather the elitest who think they are better than anyone else. There are outsiders and insiders in each party, and there are issues that the insiders use to attract outsiders to keep them voting with their party, Abortion is one such issue. The republicans who use that issue to garner votes knows d*mn well that the only way the issue would be dealt with is through another court decision and then it will be a ruckus about the decision. BUT the people are not smart enough to understand how that is a court decision and how it affects privacy rights. Right or wrong they stick with the party that speaks for their issue.

Some call it voter apathy, I don't. I call it voter DISGUST!! People are just plain fed up with all the BS that is shoveled and the low life candidates we field.

Well I call it stupidity. If people are fed up, why do they keep voting for the same person - Dingle is a perfect example.

I have seen many rotting deer corpses lying along side the road that are more capable then ALL of the candidates that I have seen run.

I sort of agree.

 

[layoutshooter]

Stupidity is a LARGE part of the problem. The Dingell thing is a GOOD example of stupidity in action. Elitism is the main building block of extremism.

I have made it quite clear to my NEW Michigan Rep that when it comes time to redistrict that our area be taken out of Dingells district and be put into one where we just MIGHT have a chance of getting a federal rep that even sort off agrees with the way we think.

 

[Pilgrim]

There are a number of vices and shortcomings in play when it comes to the lack of participation of the American voters. Laziness - they take too much for granted; stupidity - they don't understand how important one vote is; gullibility - they believe what the read in the newspapers and see on daytime TV; cynicism - they believe all politicians are the same (corrupt).
Somebody has to convince them that they can make a difference and that the mega-corporations and unions don't control everything. Suppose every Republican found a candidate they could tolerate (which is the best we can hope for in these times) and convinced only TWO other likely voters to do likewise. The victory is accomplished right there.

Dingell is a great example - John Duncan in TN is another. John Sr held the congressional seat in his district forever and his son takes over after that - 23 years and counting. The 3d Duncan has been placed already for the succession and he's barely out of college - this is absurd. Duncan II has been ineffective at best, and his spawn is being positioned as another career politician right out of college.

This is how a fool like Barack Hussein Obama got elected - sheer laziness and complacency on the part of the American people. Couple that with the fact that they had two bad candidates from which to choose - especially on the GOP side, so a significant portion of the GOP voters stayed home. They better get out and vote the next time, even if they don't have the perfect candidate.

 

[blackpup]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/us/politics/01republicans.html?_r=1&hp

Republicans waking up to the danger of Obama gaining an early edge in elections ?

jimmy