While the Dems would do anything to have their historic President re-elected, Republicans would equally love to deny this to the Dems. Proving for all time that Obama is a failure by him not getting a 2nd term would be a dream come true for the GOP. They would do anything to achieve this, which I believe is the primary motive in all the voter ID laws that's been enacted lately. Florida's made it so difficult to register new voters that school teachers are getting prosecuted for registering guaduating high school students, and the GOP knows that newly registered voters tend to vote Democratic.
Obama being re-elected legitimizes his record, and that's the last thing the GOP wants. I don't think there are any 1st tier GOP candidates for the Presidency. I know people have talked about Chris Christie and others, but none of them are ready for prime time yet. Not this soon.
-- Modified on 3/18/2012 11:55:01 AM
Obama's approval # is 46.9%, gas averaging $ 3.85
a gallon & unemployment is at 8.3%. Mitt should be leading BHO by 5-10%, but Obama leading by 5%.
Why ? As I've said many times before, Mitt is a terrible candidate whose run a lousy campaign, as below link amply illustrates :
Obama does make a great politician,and his character is alot more Presidential than Romney's will ever be.
I have decided to sit this one out again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVGINIsLnqU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsPfyWFUGbc
were any other Democrat President -- and not the FIRST African-American President in the history of the United States -- the Dems would be way behind in the polls.
Like I said once before, the Democrats -- and I don't blame them because the Republicans would do the same if they were in this situation -- will do WHATEVER it takes, financially, ethically, etc. -- to see to it that their history-making President is re-elected to a second term. A one-term President who loses a bid for a second term, is considered a failure. The Democrats cannot allow their history-maker to be a failure. And, with the help of Independents who out him in office in 2008, President Obama will again be elected.
And, in my opinion, that would happen no matter who the Republicans put up against him.
& obviously the rationale why the "1st string GOP POTUS candidates" are waiting till 2016.
Funny thing---since I'm "poll happy", noticed that BHO's updated approval # @ 47.1%, while disapproval @46.9%, yet he leads Romney by 4.6%. One could reasonably infer that a fair # of people who disapprove of BHO would STILL vote for him over Mitt, which show what a truly weak candidate he is.
-- Modified on 3/18/2012 11:54:09 AM
While the Dems would do anything to have their historic President re-elected, Republicans would equally love to deny this to the Dems. Proving for all time that Obama is a failure by him not getting a 2nd term would be a dream come true for the GOP. They would do anything to achieve this, which I believe is the primary motive in all the voter ID laws that's been enacted lately. Florida's made it so difficult to register new voters that school teachers are getting prosecuted for registering guaduating high school students, and the GOP knows that newly registered voters tend to vote Democratic.
Obama being re-elected legitimizes his record, and that's the last thing the GOP wants. I don't think there are any 1st tier GOP candidates for the Presidency. I know people have talked about Chris Christie and others, but none of them are ready for prime time yet. Not this soon.
-- Modified on 3/18/2012 11:55:01 AM
( & correct me if I'm wrong about this ) one has to produce a birth certificate & take it to the DMV to get a I.D. card.
Getting a birth certificate copy can be tough & adding to that, finding a close DMV can also be difficult for someone without a car.
For the poor, "life can be nasty, brutish & short" ( apologies to Thos. Hobbes ).
but, unfortunately for them, the guys who might beat President Obama do not want to take him on. Guys like Christie, Rubio, Ryan (although each of those three are very young) and the more experienced Mitch Daniels.
Over the course of time, good candidates shy away from running against incumbents, especially incumbents that are as likable as President Obama. Why put a black mark on your career when you can wait for years and run against someone from the Democratic Party who is even less well know than you are. Unless, of course, Hillary Clinton decides to take one more shot at the Oval Office.
Obama does have the advantage of incumbancy. And incumbants are tough to beat. Losing to an incumbant can be dangerous to long term career goals in the field of politics.
I think Christie's and Rubio's biggest problem is that they haven't been in office for very long. Many said that Obama went into the Presidency too early, and he was put on the national map in 2004 when he gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention.
If I'm not mistaken, Christie and Rubio have only been in office since January of 2011.
Ryan has been around longer but as a Congressman has not had much national attention until recent years when he gained chairmanship of key committee in House.
Daniels is the one Republican whose name was brought up seriously this time around that has a fairly lengthy Washington and gubernatorial resume. But, his family was against it and he would also have had to fight the Bush-haters out there that would have joined him at the hip with his former boss.
The Republicans are in dire straits right now looking for a good candidate but, in that regard, they are in much better shape looking ahead to 2016 than the Democrats, barring a Hillary re-incarnation.
Daniels is the one Republican whose name was brought up seriously this time around that has a fairly lengthy Washington and gubernatorial resume. But, his family was against it and he would also have had to fight the Bush-haters out there that would have joined him at the hip with his former boss.
The Republicans are in dire straits right now looking for a good candidate but, in that regard, they are in much better shape looking ahead to 2016 than the Democrats, barring a Hillary re-incarnation.
Daniels is the one Republican whose name was brought up seriously this time around that has a fairly lengthy Washington and gubernatorial resume. But, his family was against it and he would also have had to fight the Bush-haters out there that would have joined him at the hip with his former boss.
The Republicans are in dire straits right now looking for a good candidate but, in that regard, they are in much better shape looking ahead to 2016 than the Democrats, barring a Hillary re-incarnation.
for the Repubs but still is their only reasonable chance of upsetting the President. Weak candidates often surface when facing an incumbent, i.e., McGovern in '72, Mondale in '84, Dole in '96, Kerry in '04. The only exceptions were Reagan in '80 and Clinton in '92. Reagan had narrowly lost the '76 nomination so he was very well known and respected when he ran in '80 against perhaps the weakest incumbent President in modern history. Clinton rode the wave of sever economic troubles hitting the incumbent during the election cycle and not a year or two before like President Obama has had. Obama has had sufficient time to deal with economic woes while Bush 41 really had no chance to combat the issues since they hit during the primaries and the election year.