Obama's secret advantage- people's inability to admit a mistake

[JoeB131]

I'd rather win and put in someone who is competent and can get the economy moving again.

People like Romney are the ones who fucked up the economy to start with. Loot old companies so a few douchebags can buy polo ponies.

Conservative evangelicals will come out for anyone who isn't Obama.

One election vs. their immortal souls? Seriously? I think you take their faith too lightly.

Hispanics are a problem, but guess what, its a problem for the party as a whole. Gingrich and Perry are better for Hispanics.

Yes, they are. Because they've stood up to the nativists.

You are assuming class warfare and division will work. I don't think it will. People want solutions. They want jobs. Romney will be able to point to his success and all the jobs his companies created. The Democrats will hammer him on the jobs that were cut by his companies. But if the Republicans are skillful, they should be able to parlay those attacks by saying something along the lines of "I know how to create jobs. I am being elected to create jobs. I am not being elected to shed jobs. And because I know what businesses need to create jobs, and because I know much more than Obama - who has no experience creating jobs and the economy has not created enough jobs under his watch - I am the candidate you should vote for." And I think that is likely to work because Obama won't be able to point to his own record.

All that santimonious "Club for Greed" crap is nullified by one crying AmPad worker who lost his house and job. And if unemployment keeps going down, Obama can point to his record.

Romney has been married for 40 years and has a big family. You'll have to point to Romney's attitudes towards women, not Mormon's, because if you do, you'll get crushed in the media.

Guy, as I've said, the Media is going to be the ones DOING the Mormon-bashing after he gets the nomination. They've got their "sexism in the Mormon Church" stories already filed and ready to go.

 

[JoeB131]

Democrats always said they wished more Republicans were like McCain. Until he got the nomination, and he became the anti-Christ.

It's really hard for me to believe he could have done a worse job than Obama.

McCain lost a lot of democrats when he embraced the Iraq war and attempted to get back in the good graces of social conservatives and religious fundamentalists in preparation for the rightist crucible that is the GOP primaries.

The pragmatic, independent moderate of 2000 became just another republican politician pandering to the radical right in 2008.

Democrats want more republicans to be like McCain 2000 and stay that way, not fold when the radical right starts making ‘RINO’ threats.

What do you mean "when he embraced" the Iraq War. He was for the war from the beginning, as were Hillary, Kerry, Biden and all the other big wig democrats. The only thing he didn't do was he didn't run for the tall grass when things went sour.

They used to call that "integrity" in my day, but I'm an old guy.

 

[Trajan]

Democrats always said they wished more Republicans were like McCain. Until he got the nomination, and he became the anti-Christ.

It's really hard for me to believe he could have done a worse job than Obama.

McCain lost a lot of democrats when he embraced the Iraq war and attempted to get back in the good graces of social conservatives and religious fundamentalists in preparation for the rightist crucible that is the GOP primaries.

The pragmatic, independent moderate of 2000 became just another republican politician pandering to the radical right in 2008.

Democrats want more republicans to be like McCain 2000 and stay that way, not fold when the radical right starts making ‘RINO’ threats.

bullshit, this maverick label was a concoction of the media. oh he walked his own line at times, but, he always was lauded when he stuck it in the eye of the gop, since he was a goper, ala collins, and snowe, but they were real rinos, he was never really classified as a rino, why? because he mainly wasn't.....see now?

 

[Trajan]

Democrats always said they wished more Republicans were like McCain. Until he got the nomination, and he became the anti-Christ.

It's really hard for me to believe he could have done a worse job than Obama.

McCain lost a lot of democrats when he embraced the Iraq war and attempted to get back in the good graces of social conservatives and religious fundamentalists in preparation for the rightist crucible that is the GOP primaries.

The pragmatic, independent moderate of 2000 became just another republican politician pandering to the radical right in 2008.

Democrats want more republicans to be like McCain 2000 and stay that way, not fold when the radical right starts making ‘RINO’ threats.

What do you mean "when he embraced" the Iraq War. He was for the war from the beginning, as were Hillary, Kerry, Biden and all the other big wig democrats. The only thing he didn't do was he didn't run for the tall grass when things went sour.

They used to call that "integrity" in my day, but I'm an old guy.

well he did flip when he ran this time, example- I could not vote for him after he reversed himself on torture, which I happen to agree with, but him flipping to "my" side only told me he'd flip on anything. I would have had more respect and in all likely hood voted for him if he had stood his ground on his prinipals.

he he had been so adamantly against it, making speeches speaking to his own torture etc etc ..when he did that I knew deep down, he could not be trusted, he'd roll just to show the dems he was 'fair' and when they get to doing that, they usually roll at the worst possible times, and on the worst bills etc.....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Anyone who voted for Obama clearly didn’t make a ‘mistake,’ just as McCain could have done no worse, so too he could have done no better.

But it wasn’t just about McCain – it was about judicial appointments, particularly to the Supreme Court, it was about the return of the usual suspects from previous republican administrations, and it was about the various public policies important to the American people, policy positions where republicans are simply wrong.

 

[whitehall]

Barry Hussein's advantage is that the media is on his side. It's as simple as that. He doesn't have to admit to mistakes because the liberal media will never call him on it. Imagine any other administration where the Attorney General, the head of the justice dept, could get away with such a tragic mistake or crime like "Op-Fast/Furious"? Any republican administration would be (rightfully) in serious trouble but Barry gets away with it. Could a republican get away with keeping his Birth Certificate in a vault when the Constitution says he must produce proof of birth? Everything is a secret in the Obama administration including his school records but the liberal media seems content in puting their investigative reporting aside during radical democrat administrations.

 

[Cuyo]

Yet another poll inadvertently reveals the board's party demographics. Funny how every time it's polled directly, it seems to come up 50/50.

 

[Cuyo]

But the caveot is who do the people blame for the wrong track.

take a look at congressional approval

The approval ratings are dismal for both parties of both houses.

Do you plan on replacing your senator or congress-critter?
Or are you like the majority of Americans that think congress sucks, except for their guy?

Put up or shut up.

lol, you'll be happy to know I will be voting against Representative Joe Pitts.

Joseph R. Pitts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oldstyle]

Yet another poll inadvertently reveals the board's party demographics. Funny how every time it's polled directly, it seems to come up 50/50.

I'm guessing that some of your "brighter" members...like Deanie, Sallow and TM...probably voted for the wrong choice by mistake, Cuyo.

 

[JoeB131]

Anyone who voted for Obama clearly didn’t make a ‘mistake,’ just as McCain could have done no worse, so too he could have done no better.

But it wasn’t just about McCain – it was about judicial appointments, particularly to the Supreme Court, it was about the return of the usual suspects from previous republican administrations, and it was about the various public policies important to the American people, policy positions where republicans are simply wrong.

Well, to start with, the thing was, if McCain were president, he'd have probably asked Arlen Specter who to appoint to the SCOTUS, so we'd get more liberals, if we could get the liberals to retire. Probalby one of the reasons why Republicans weren't too keen on him.

But could he have done better. Yeah, I still think so. For one thing, unlike Obama, he's been in Washington long enough to know how it works. Obama's primary failure was that he really didn't get things done even when his own party controlled congress. He'd come up with these grandiose schemes, and then scamper off like a whipped dog when his own party said no to him (Public Option, Size of the Stimulus, etc.) McCain would have been a lot better at gauging what he could get through Congress.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Also enjoy the poll...

One huge advantage incumbants enjoy. If you voted for them to start with, you usually won't admit you made a mistake, even to yourself in the privacy of a voting booth. So not surprisingly, of the seven incumbants who have stood for re-election since WWII, five actually increased their vote totals.

Eisenhower- 33 million in 1952, 35 million in 1956.
Nixon- 31 million in 1968, 46 million in 1972
Reagan 44 million in 1980, 54 million in 1984
Clinton - 45 million in 1992, 47 million in 1996
Bush-43- 50 million in 2000, 62 million in 2004

For purposes of this discussion, Truman, Johnson and Ford don't count as "incumbants", because they were filling out someone else's term.

"But, Joe," you ask, "what about the two guys who got LESS votes?" Ah, those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Carter got 40 million in 1976, when he barely edged out Jerry Ford's 39 million. In 1980 he got 35 million. Reagan got 5 million more than Ford, but Anderson got 6 million votes. More than likely, most of those 6 million Anderson voters came out of the folks who voted for Carter four years earlier.

Bush the Elder got 48 million in 1988, but a mere 39 million in 1992. Clinton did improve his vote total over Dukakis by 3 million votes, but the real bleeding loss was the 19 million who voted for H. Ross Perot.

In short, the presense of third party candidates enabled those people to admit they had made a mistake without forcing them to vote for the opposition party.

Incidently, didn't vote for Obama, probably won't vote for him next time. (Although if the GOP nominates Romney, I won't vote GOP, either.) But I do find this interesting.

To read more...

President Elect

I think I get your drift:

 

[Sallow]

it wasn't a mistake given the alternative.

and you guys haven't provided anyone who is a good alternative.

so there ya go.

Personally I think Obama's been a pretty damn good President. He's smart as a whip, has a good sense of humor, has to ability to make corrections in policy and is well liked by foreign leaders. I didn't make a mistake in voting for him. Just as I didn't make a mistake when I voted for Clinton.

 

[LoneLaugher]

it wasn't a mistake given the alternative.

and you guys haven't provided anyone who is a good alternative.

so there ya go.

You know what, not really.

McCain was a solid guy, with decades of experience, and Democrats had praised him for years for being compassionate, fair minded and bipartisan. I always thought he was a bit too moderate, but his integrity was never in question.

Democrats always said they wished more Republicans were like McCain. Until he got the nomination, and he became the anti-Christ.

. It's really hard for me to believe he could have done a worse job than Obama.

Hi integrity was never in question? You have no idea what you are talking about. He is entirely insincere.

 

[jillian]

it wasn't a mistake given the alternative.

and you guys haven't provided anyone who is a good alternative.

so there ya go.

Personally I think Obama's been a pretty damn good President. He's smart as a whip, has a good sense of humor, has to ability to make corrections in policy and is well liked by foreign leaders. I didn't make a mistake in voting for him. Just as I didn't make a mistake when I voted for Clinton.

he's certainly not as flawed as the obama-deranged loons would have you believe. and he's way better than the person who preceded him.

he didn't hit the loons hard enough at the beginning though.

 

[JoeB131]

it wasn't a mistake given the alternative.

and you guys haven't provided anyone who is a good alternative.

so there ya go.

Personally I think Obama's been a pretty damn good President. He's smart as a whip, has a good sense of humor, has to ability to make corrections in policy and is well liked by foreign leaders. I didn't make a mistake in voting for him. Just as I didn't make a mistake when I voted for Clinton.

Again, thanks for proving my point.

Come on, most of you Democrats look at this guy, and secretly wish HIllary had won in 2008.

Obama's been a disaster for you guys and honestly, a second term is only going to be worse. (You thought 2010 was bad, wait until we get into 2014 with those nine Democrat Senators now coming up for reconsideration!)

You see, this is why I can vote against Romney and not feel too bad about it. Obama will be less effective in a second term, because they are ALL less effective in their second term. He'll be hemmed in by a GOP congress, the GOP will have four more years to develop real leaders, maybe address some of their decificiencies, and in 2016, Obama won't be on a ballot and people can admit they made a mistake without admitting it.

 

[JoeB131]

Hi integrity was never in question? You have no idea what you are talking about. He is entirely insincere.

He's a politician, they are all insincere. But McCain was better than most. He skipped Iowa because he stood on a principle that ethanol was a bad idea. He didn't pander. He took on his own president when he disagreed with him.

Now, I think McCain had a lot of horrible ideas you guys on the left loved- McCain-Feingold being the top one. But he was standing on principles there.

 

[JoeB131]

it wasn't a mistake given the alternative.

and you guys haven't provided anyone who is a good alternative.

so there ya go.

Personally I think Obama's been a pretty damn good President. He's smart as a whip, has a good sense of humor, has to ability to make corrections in policy and is well liked by foreign leaders. I didn't make a mistake in voting for him. Just as I didn't make a mistake when I voted for Clinton.

he's certainly not as flawed as the obama-deranged loons would have you believe. and he's way better than the person who preceded him.

he didn't hit the loons hard enough at the beginning though.

Once again, I would love to have my life from 2006 back. My worst year under Bush was still far better than my best year under Obama.

The problem isn't how hard he "hit the loons", it was his inability to get his own loons to work with him.

He had an 80 seat majority in Congress and a 20 seat majority in the Senate when he came in. Sweet evil Jesus, if Bush had that, we'd be the fuckin' Republic of Gilead right now. (Margerat Atwood Reference). But yet he got stared down- by his own party- on his major iniatives.

The real problem with Obama isn't idealogy, it's leadership. Reagan proved that RW idealogy can work, and Clinton proved LW idealogy can work. But you have to provide leadership, which Obama has failed to do. Repeatedly. He's shown he can be rolled. By the Democrats, the Republicans, the Israelis, NATO or anyone else who comes along.

My problem is, I don't think Romney would be any better. Could possibly be worse in that regard, just looking at his one-term leadership in Massachusetts.

 

[JBG]

Also enjoy the poll...

One huge advantage incumbants enjoy. If you voted for them to start with, you usually won't admit you made a mistake, even to yourself in the privacy of a voting booth. So not surprisingly, of the seven incumbants who have stood for re-election since WWII, five actually increased their vote totals.

Eisenhower- 33 million in 1952, 35 million in 1956.
Nixon- 31 million in 1968, 46 million in 1972
Reagan 44 million in 1980, 54 million in 1984
Clinton - 45 million in 1992, 47 million in 1996
Bush-43- 50 million in 2000, 62 million in 2004

For purposes of this discussion, Truman, Johnson and Ford don't count as "incumbants", because they were filling out someone else's term.

"But, Joe," you ask, "what about the two guys who got LESS votes?" Ah, those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Carter got 40 million in 1976, when he barely edged out Jerry Ford's 39 million. In 1980 he got 35 million. Reagan got 5 million more than Ford, but Anderson got 6 million votes. More than likely, most of those 6 million Anderson voters came out of the folks who voted for Carter four years earlier.

Bush the Elder got 48 million in 1988, but a mere 39 million in 1992. Clinton did improve his vote total over Dukakis by 3 million votes, but the real bleeding loss was the 19 million who voted for H. Ross Perot.

In short, the presense of third party candidates enabled those people to admit they had made a mistake without forcing them to vote for the opposition party.

I think it's more that in many cases the incumbent earned re-election. That would be the case, certainly, with Reagan and Clinton. In the case of Eisenhower, he was running against the same non-nondescript opponent both times, an intellectual who couldn't connect with the average voter. Also, WW II and its aftermath still dominated the "dialogue" and Ike's reputation was larger than life. Essentially, no one was going to beat Ike. It took putting up an ogre, Nixon, to lose, since a decent human would have beaten Kennedy (think Bush I, as Reagan's third term).

Nixon won re-election largely by decimating, through dirty tricks, worthier opponents. Also, he used "banana republic" economics, i.e. the wage and price controls combined with devaluation and heavy Fed stimulus to ensure a temporarily palmy economic environment.

Incidently, didn't vote for Obama, probably won't vote for him next time. (Although if the GOP nominates Romney, I won't vote GOP, either.) But I do find this interesting.

As for Obama, I think at this point he must be defeated. He was untested as a leader of anything. Unlike Truman he didn't rise to the occasion.

 

[editec]

Incumbants, all incombants regardless of party, do tend to get a return him to office slight advantage.

If the vote is very close, and Obama wins, that propensity of the voting public will probably have made the difference.

 

[JoeB131]

I think it's more that in many cases the incumbent earned re-election. That would be the case, certainly, with Reagan and Clinton. In the case of Eisenhower, he was running against the same non-nondescript opponent both times, an intellectual who couldn't connect with the average voter. Also, WW II and its aftermath still dominated the "dialogue" and Ike's reputation was larger than life. Essentially, no one was going to beat Ike. It took putting up an ogre, Nixon, to lose, since a decent human would have beaten Kennedy (think Bush I, as Reagan's third term).

I think people are too hard on Nixon, who was more of a leader than Obama and the six idiots put together. An argument can be made that Nixon only lost in 1960 due to Democratic vote fraud.

Nixon won re-election largely by decimating, through dirty tricks, worthier opponents. Also, he used "banana republic" economics, i.e. the wage and price controls combined with devaluation and heavy Fed stimulus to ensure a temporarily palmy economic environment.

I think there was a lot more to it than that. First, McGovern was simply a horrible opponent. the Hippies hijacked the party and slammed it into the wall. And give Nixon his due, he kept the economy stable while ending a war, and changed the dynamic of the Cold War by playing the two major adversaries off against each other.

Incidently, didn't vote for Obama, probably won't vote for him next time. (Although if the GOP nominates Romney, I won't vote GOP, either.) But I do find this interesting.

As for Obama, I think at this point he must be defeated. He was untested as a leader of anything. Unlike Truman he didn't rise to the occasion.[/QUOTE]

You see, here's the thing. I don't see beating Obama as a priority. It'd be nice, as long as it doesn't put Romney in the White House. Romney would be worse for a whole lot of reasons, not the least of which is that he turns the GOP into Democratic Party Mark II. The GOP might actually benefit from a second Obama term. It will have more time to develop and articulate oppossing philosophies.

Here's where I see the real problem with the GOP today. Most of its assumptions have been debunked. It has to rework what its assumptions are, and reconnect with the middle class.

In any case, I don't see 5 million Obama Supporters changing their minds.