Why Obama is a lock to win the election

[DonHutson]

Re: Why Obama is a lock to win the election

3) Obama is going to project as a much more appealing figure than an aging John McCain. A certain percentage of the population is going to vote completely on personality.

DING, DING, DING... there's your winner.

It's sad but true, but this is ALL that matters in the fall election. Remove everything else from the equation and the winner in November in the presidential election is always the candidate with the more appealing personality.

Bush v. Kerry - say what you will about Bush, but I'd rather catch a ballgame with him than that cadaverous pompoid Kerry.

Bush v. Gore - Mr. Roboto came as close as anyone to breaking the trend, but Bush's regular doofus down the street appeal carried the day.

Clinton v. Dole - c'mon, who's more fun than Bill? Certainly not grumpy ol' Grandpa Depends

Clinton v. Bush - no contest on the personality front.

Bush v. Dukakis - Bush Sr. is as bland and whitebread as they come, but he's Frank Sinatra compared to Michael Dukakis

Reagan v. Mondale - are you kidding?

Reagan v. Carter - Lovable Gipper beats drawling Mr. Peanut anyday.

Carter v. Ford - Carter doesn't win too many of these personality battles, but he beats Ford. This election almost shouldn't count because there's no way a Republican wins the first election after Watergate.

That's far enough to make my point I think. Why is this the case? Lots of people vote for president in November who don't vote for anything else. They put a few minutes worth of thought into it and pick the person they think they'll be willing to see on TV for the next four years.

This trend doesn't hold true in the primaries. Fewer voters means a higher percentage of voters who vote based on something important. The added voters in November are less in tune, and are more likely to vote superficially.

So Harlan is right. Obama is a lock.

[bobblehead]

nope, its usually a referendum on the republican party going back to nixon. Mccain would have no chance in hell based on that alone, but the dems managed to somehow make him competitive and piss off their own base.

Carter...first pres after watergate.

reagan...a strong conservative vs. a big time liberal.

reagan mondale....reagan was wildly popular and fixed a damaged economy.

bush1...living on reagans coattails.

clinton bush...bush1 promised no new taxes and raised them

clinton dole...gingrich fought hard for consevative values, shutting down the gov't during the fight, dole did an end around snake in the grass move and worked out a deal with cliinton to re-open it....snake republican got smoked.

Bush Gore...tight race as bush1 left GW fighting uphill, but in the end taxcuts and conservative values beat mr. ozone.

bush kerry...again, bush stayed true to conservative values on most issues, and despite overspending and Med D managed to beat a massachusettes liberal.

Based on all this it should be the democrat in a landslide, but they put up the most liberal senator less than 3 years removed from the illinois state legislature. He makes mccain look conservative, and the nation will go with mccain for 4 years til he raises taxes and gets smoke by nearly any democrat in '12.

[texaspackerbacker]

Bobblehead's version makes a lot more sense. Give the American people credit for deciding things on the issues--most of the time--despite the propaganda put out by the leftist mainstream nedia.

If McCain is still healthy and motivated in 2012, he should be a shoo-in, though, despite being horrendously off on global warming and a little bit on the wrong/liberal side of a few other issues.

This year should be the Dems' high water mark. The charismatic crap of Obama will be seen through in time by the electorate. In 2012, all the Dems will have is stale BO and poorly aged Hillary. Furthermore, by that time, hopefully the forces of good will have found a way to better counter the sick anti-American demagoguery of the media that has made this SEEM to be a Dem/lib year.

[bobblehead]

Under my theory tex, he has no shot in hell at re-election. He only has a shot now because the left handicapped themselves in a huge way. If it were hillary mccain, hillary would hand him his ass.

In 4 years even you will be pissed at mccain, I gaurantee it, he will embrace global warming cap and trade, open the borders and raise taxes, this is consistent with who he is. I'm not even positive he wins this time, I just think Obama is such a weak candidate that we may overcome the referendum on republicans for exactly ONE election. We also might not.

[texaspackerbacker]

That--the 2012 thing--is the only part of your earlier post I disagreed with.

First of all, the war and security against terrorism at home, not necessarily in that order, are the top issues. Assuming he is elected, he should continue the highly successful policies on those issues. Next in line is "no new taxes" and continuing the Bush tax cuts. He will have a tough time with this, given a really rotten Congress, but I think he will prevail.

I think or at least hope that McCain will turn out to be our side's version of Bill Clinton--who got elected by giving the false impression he was moderately conservative. McCain is doing what is necessary to get elected--SOUNDING disgustingly liberal on some issues. I just bet he stabs 'em in the back, though. Even on the horrendous global warming thing, I think he finds some excuse not to let it happen or to water it down extremely, then snaps back a la Clinton to give the libs and moderates hope on that and other things again in the '12 campaign, only to double cross them again.

Besides, it takes something really drastic to beat an incumbent out of a second term.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Bobblehead's version makes a lot more sense. Give the American people credit for deciding things on the issues

This is a fantasy. The congress gets elected on issues, the presidential race is more a personal choice. The issues that people most care about are in the Dems favor this year. The economy, healthcare, "change".

[texaspackerbacker]

Bobblehead's version makes a lot more sense. Give the American people credit for deciding things on the issues

This is a fantasy. The congress gets elected on issues, the presidential race is more a personal choice. The issues that people most care about are in the Dems favor this year. The economy, healthcare, "change".

No, Harlan. Congress gets elected on incumbency, local issues, pork, gerrymandering, name recognition, in approximately that order, and national issues maybe 6th on the list.

Presidential debates and ads provide the COMPARISON necessary for people to overcome the horrendous left-media bias--thus giving us a series of Republicans interrupted only by the Slickster, who managed to give the FALSE IMPRESSION of being moderately conservative.

The media has managed to sell people on thinking the economy is much worse than it is. That, of course, favors the Dems. Health care is one of those issues that when the truth is known, as it will be through ads and debates, that Dem/lib advantage evaporates.

[Zool]

And they win again by divide and conquer. If they keep the masses arguing amongst themselves you can skate by and do whatever they want.

Lets hear it for the 2%!

[bobblehead]

Next in line is "no new taxes" and continuing the Bush tax cuts. He will have a tough time with this, given a really rotten Congress, but I think he will prevail.

He'll have a really tough time with that in that he is pretty much a liberal who labeled said cuts "tax cuts for the wealthiest americans"

He'll have a really tough time with that in that he pretty much has a liberal record on voting against tax cuts and for tax hikes.

[hoosier]

Next in line is "no new taxes" and continuing the Bush tax cuts. He will have a tough time with this, given a really rotten Congress, but I think he will prevail.

He'll have a really tough time with that in that he is pretty much a liberal who labeled said cuts "tax cuts for the wealthiest americans"

He'll have a really tough time with that in that he pretty much has a liberal record on voting against tax cuts and for tax hikes.

That was before. Now he's singing a different tune. You think his change is just rhetoric to appease the "have mores"? Or was the earlier line the truly rhetorical line, calculated to bolster his "maverick" image in preparation for the run for presidency?

[swede]

Bobblehead's version makes a lot more sense. Give the American people credit for deciding things on the issues

This is a fantasy. The congress gets elected on issues, the presidential race is more a personal choice. The issues that people most care about are in the Dems favor this year. The economy, healthcare, "change".

No, Harlan. Congress gets elected on incumbency, local issues, pork, gerrymandering, name recognition, in approximately that order, and national issues maybe 6th on the list.

Presidential debates and ads provide the COMPARISON necessary for people to overcome the horrendous left-media bias--thus giving us a series of Republicans interrupted only by the Slickster, who managed to give the FALSE IMPRESSION of being moderately conservative.

The media has managed to sell people on thinking the economy is much worse than it is. That, of course, favors the Dems. Health care is one of those issues that when the truth is known, as it will be through ads and debates, that Dem/lib advantage evaporates.

Every 1% of the independent vote McCain picks up compared to a typical repub is washed out by the loss of conservative voters staying at home sulking over CNN/Starbucks polls that will have consistently predicted an Obama landslide for months.

Every Republican that died of old age since 2004 has been replaced by an 18-22 year old shit-for-brains voter.

Relax, Tex. Breathe in and out with me. Bush is a good man that consistently presents as a boob in public and I have grown weary of defending him. It will be our turn to have fun loathing the next President.

[bobblehead]

Next in line is "no new taxes" and continuing the Bush tax cuts. He will have a tough time with this, given a really rotten Congress, but I think he will prevail.

He'll have a really tough time with that in that he is pretty much a liberal who labeled said cuts "tax cuts for the wealthiest americans"

He'll have a really tough time with that in that he pretty much has a liberal record on voting against tax cuts and for tax hikes.

That was before. Now he's singing a different tune. You think his change is just rhetoric to appease the "have mores"? Or was the earlier line the truly rhetorical line, calculated to bolster his "maverick" image in preparation for the run for presidency?

My opinion based on his voting record is the appeasement. I won't get into the "have mores" because this thread isn't about that. He is somewhat of a social conservative with a somewhat liberal fiscal stance in recent history (90-present). He wants to address waste in the 25% of the budget that is open, but not at all in the 75% that is locked in.

Oh hell, I gotta address it. He is trying to appease those of us who understand that raising taxes has a deflationary effect on the economy and when that happens the "have mores" are gonna take it out on all of us. I don't even think he understands it, but he does understand that the republican base by and large wants tax cuts.

Ya know, I hate those "have mores". Those fuckers do nothing but create/innovate to make our lives easier and more comfortable and then those bastards wanna be paid. Fuck them, I say we run them out of society and we all live in abject poverty....that'll show them pricks.

Great Heinlen quote if I remember it correctly:

"Throughout history mankind has lived in abject poverty except for those occasions when a few exceptional people brought them out into eras of prosperity at which time those individuals were labeled greedy and evil and driven from society and then man reverted back to his normal state of abject poverty."

[texaspackerbacker]

Next in line is "no new taxes" and continuing the Bush tax cuts. He will have a tough time with this, given a really rotten Congress, but I think he will prevail.

He'll have a really tough time with that in that he is pretty much a liberal who labeled said cuts "tax cuts for the wealthiest americans"

He'll have a really tough time with that in that he pretty much has a liberal record on voting against tax cuts and for tax hikes.

That was before. Now he's singing a different tune. You think his change is just rhetoric to appease the "have mores"? Or was the earlier line the truly rhetorical line, calculated to bolster his "maverick" image in preparation for the run for presidency?

That's pretty much what I was gonna say, Hoosier, but you said it first.

McCain is walking a tight rope--trying his damnedest to NOT do exactly what Swede said: lose conservative votes by placating moderate liberals--or is it lose moderate liberal votes by placating conservatives?

Somebody once said, you can't have it both ways. Well, McCain sure as hell is trying--and he has the precedent of Bill Clinton to follow.

Ultimately, somebody is gonna feel the sting on this--or maybe a series of stings to each side on an issue by issue basis. My opinion--based on the fact that I'm generally an optimist, is that McCain is closer to genuinely conservative--conning the libs--just like Clinton got away with conning a lot of moderate conservatives--twice.

When the alternative is the horribly dangerous and deleterious policies of Obama, we about have to take our chances on McCain.

[hoosier]

Next in line is "no new taxes" and continuing the Bush tax cuts. He will have a tough time with this, given a really rotten Congress, but I think he will prevail.

He'll have a really tough time with that in that he is pretty much a liberal who labeled said cuts "tax cuts for the wealthiest americans"

He'll have a really tough time with that in that he pretty much has a liberal record on voting against tax cuts and for tax hikes.

That was before. Now he's singing a different tune. You think his change is just rhetoric to appease the "have mores"? Or was the earlier line the truly rhetorical line, calculated to bolster his "maverick" image in preparation for the run for presidency?

That's pretty much what I was gonna say, Hoosier, but you said it first.

McCain is walking a tight rope--trying his damnedest to NOT do exactly what Swede said: lose conservative votes by placating moderate liberals--or is it lose moderate liberal votes by placating conservatives?

Somebody once said, you can't have it both ways. Well, McCain sure as hell is trying--and he has the precedent of Bill Clinton to follow. .

It's funny, the Right is maintaining that Clinton was a liberal in conservative's clothing, and the Left continues to feel that Clinton was a Republican masquerading as a Democrat (on issues such as free trade, welfare, capital punishment). My theory was always that what really pissed the Right off about Clinton was that he stole all of their thunder and made it impossible for them to deploy their tradition wedge issues and rhetoric.

Ultimately, somebody is gonna feel the sting on this--or maybe a series of stings to each side on an issue by issue basis. My opinion--based on the fact that I'm generally an optimist, is that McCain is closer to genuinely conservative--conning the libs--just like Clinton got away with conning a lot of moderate conservatives--twice..

I agree with Tex here, McCain's "maverick" image is--and maybe has always been--a charade. If that makes you an optimist, I suppose it makes me a pessimist.
:P

[bobblehead]

I think Clinton was the ultimate politician chameleon who mirrored what people wanted.

As a candidate he ran to the right, promising middle class tax cuts.

As a president with a democratic congress he raised taxes on everyone, increased spending and claimed "now that I am president and see all the information the deficit is far worse than I thought and as such I have to raise taxes".

As a president with a republican congress he dramatically scaled back the spending increases in the budget and signed the same wefare reform he vetoed earlier. This is why I wanted Hillary, I think she actually understands economics and as president she would want to secure re-election and her legacy and enact common sense solutions...because she is a power hungry maniac far before she is a democrat. (er..I meant politician first)