Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Romney is already beating Obama in the latest Gallup poll.
Perry can claim the abilty to create jobs wothout massive government spending.
How can he lose?
The problem for Obama is his stubborn high negatives.
About 48% of the voting public disapproves of his job performance.
That's too high to win.
Lots of libs are gonna sit this one out too.
Romney doesn't stand a chance and neither does Bachmann. The republicans are too split between the "sane" conservatives who back Romney vs. the far right wing nutcases for Bachmann, which in tern will throw the election for both. Not to mention Obama's approval numbers have remained relatively steady and high, vs. the congress since the republicans took over have plunged to around 12-13% approval.
The only person that could beat Obama is Paul. If Paul keeps hammering home his points like bringing the troops home now, legalizing marijuana, defunding the bloated military, stopping the massive handout to big oil and the other corporations, he could take liberal voters from Obama and win the election.
Romney is already beating Obama in the latest Gallup poll.
Perry can claim the abilty to create jobs wothout massive government spending.
How can he lose?
The problem for Obama is his stubborn high negatives.
About 48% of the voting public disapproves of his job performance.
That's too high to win.
Lots of libs are gonna sit this one out too.
Perry Created No Jobs in Texas.
Just look at the unemployment numbers:
Perry took office in December in 2000 when unemployment was 4.2%, unemployment is currently at 8% in Texas. Unemployment in the U.S. - Google Public Data Explorer
Romney is so similar to Obama, all Obama has to do in the debates is say-- "so you passed a national health care plan just like me."
Romney doesn't stand a chance and neither does Bachmann. The republicans are too split between the "sane" conservatives who back Romney vs. the far right wing nutcases for Bachmann, which in tern will throw the election for both. Not to mention Obama's approval numbers have remained relatively steady and high, vs. the congress since the republicans took over have plunged to around 12-13% approval.
The only person that could beat Obama is Paul. If Paul keeps hammering home his points like bringing the troops home now, legalizing marijuana, defunding the bloated military, stopping the massive handout to big oil and the other corporations, he could take liberal voters from Obama and winning the election.
Obama isn't running against the Congress and the name calling will only get you so far when we have unemployment this high, gas over $3.00/gal, skyrocketing food prices, stagnant wages and an economy stuck in neutral. It isn't that anyone wants Romney or even knows where he stands on most issues. Romney is beating Obama because Obama has failed, he has no one to blame for his failures, Gingrich has high negatives and half the country doesn't know the other names. As the election cycle progresses and other Republican names become better known to the public and the field sorts itself out, other Republicans will begin to edge out Obama.
It might be different had Democrats not controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years of his presidency, but they did and he got everything he wanted. Democrats even defied the will of the voters to enact legislation they wanted but most voters did not. So what will Obama say when the campaign begins and he cannot explain why his trillion dollar stimulus did nothing to create jobs or why the job market is just as bad today as ever? How will Obama defend four trillion dollar in annual spending with forty cents of every dollar spent being borrowed? Liberals (some) will refuse to vote for a man who failed to deliver on Iraq, GITMO, rendition, the Patriot Act, invasive airport screening and domestic wire taps and then gave us a new war and extension of Bush era tax cuts. Of course the loyal LSM will be there to support Obama no matter what, but with 70% of Americans of the opinion that we are on the wrong track, viewers may tune-out the left's happy narrative.
That a lie repeated becomes the truth is only true until people begin to question their own ability to sustain themselves and their families. When the fear of not being able to provide for your loved ones becomes a real and daily experience, people begin to demand proof with promises. In 2008, we had been comfortable for some time. No one was expecting a long drawn-out economic down-turn, so hope and change and a new face was all a war-weary America required. The same thing happened in 1976 when America, exhausted from the political upheaval of Viet Nam and Watergate, wanted simpler times again. A peace-loving church-going DC outsider came along to promising just that. Inflation was the economic issue of the day and when Governor Carter asked, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" America agreed we were on the wrong track.
Obama, like Carter, came into office facing serious issues that needed to be addressed. Carter was good and decent public servant who told us the truth, but aside from that he was a complete disaster. Unlike Carter, Obama does lie to us and is anything but good and decent. He won't even have that to fall back on. He's just a disaster.
The problem with your analogy is that there is no Reagan waiting in the wings. Romney is just a different puppet who will be hooked up to the same strings. His advisors will recomend he stay the course on the War on Terror (Gitmo, Patriot Act, TSA screenings, etc.), continue a long slow pull out of Afghanistan, extend the Bush tax cuts of course, and probably go ahead and keep Obamacare, since it will be a political knife fight that Romney doesn't have the stomach to engage in.
If you really want to go with the 1980 election analogy, you need to have someone running against Romney who is actually DIFFERENT than Obama. Somehow who has a different vision, an articulated plan of how to get there and principles and guts to stick to it. Otherwise, it would be like going from Carter to George H.W. Bush, who would have gotten the nominee in 1980 if Reagan hadn't beaten him. Um, so what? H.W. would have pretty much stayed the course set by Carter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Obama isn't running against the Congress and the name calling will only get you so far when we have unemployment this high, gas over $3.00/gal, skyrocketing food prices, stagnant wages and an economy stuck in neutral. It isn't that anyone wants Romney or even knows where he stands on most issues. Romney is beating Obama because Obama has failed, he has no one to blame for his failures, Gingrich has high negatives and half the country doesn't know the other names. As the election cycle progresses and other Republican names become better known to the public and the field sorts itself out, other Republicans will begin to edge out Obama.
It might be different had Democrats not controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years of his presidency, but they did and he got everything he wanted. Democrats even defied the will of the voters to enact legislation they wanted but most voters did not. So what will Obama say when the campaign begins and he cannot explain why his trillion dollar stimulus did nothing to create jobs or why the job market is just as bad today as ever? How will Obama defend four trillion dollar in annual spending with forty cents of every dollar spent being borrowed? Liberals (some) will refuse to vote for a man who failed to deliver on Iraq, GITMO, rendition, the Patriot Act, invasive airport screening and domestic wire taps and then gave us a new war and extension of Bush era tax cuts. Of course the loyal LSM will be there to support Obama no matter what, but with 70% of Americans of the opinion that we are on the wrong track, viewers may tune-out the left's happy narrative.
That a lie repeated becomes the truth is only true until people begin to question their own ability to sustain themselves and their families. When the fear of not being able to provide for your loved ones becomes a real and daily experience, people begin to demand proof with promises. In 2008, we had been comfortable for some time. No one was expecting a long drawn-out economic down-turn, so hope and change and a new face was all a war-weary America required. The same thing happened in 1976 when America, exhausted from the political upheaval of Viet Nam and Watergate, wanted simpler times again. A peace-loving church-going DC outsider came along to promising just that. Inflation was the economic issue of the day and when Governor Carter asked, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" America agreed we were on the wrong track.
Obama, like Carter, came into office facing serious issues that needed to be addressed. Carter was good and decent public servant who told us the truth, but aside from that he was a complete disaster. Unlike Carter, Obama does lie to us and is anything but good and decent. He won't even have that to fall back on. He's just a disaster.
It's appauling that people like the OP have a right to vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
