Obama’s Aura of Defeat
- Thread starter MojoMan
- Start date
LINK
Obama's biggest problem the last few weeks is that he doesn't act presidential, on the main stage he acted like an *** clown. You lose credibility when your best counter argument is "uh everything he just said is not true" and then the fact checkers admit that it was true the next day.
Now in full scale desperation mode, all Obama can do is attack Romney's character which is a difficult task. During an interview earlier this month Obama was given his typical softball question of what message would you give a 6 year old supporter. . in his response he referred to Romney as a "Bullshitter." Classy prez, very classy.
Obama's biggest problem the last few weeks is that he doesn't act presidential, on the main stage he acted like an *** clown. You lose credibility when your best counter argument is "uh everything he just said is not true" and then the fact checkers admit that it was true the next day.
Now in full scale desperation mode, all Obama can do is attack Romney's character which is a difficult task. During an interview earlier this month Obama was given his typical softball question of what message would you give a 6 year old supporter. . in his response he referred to Romney as a "Bullshitter." Classy prez, very classy.
BurntOrangeOnly
500+ Posts
I have no idea how this election will turn out but to me, this has the feel of GHW Bush v. Clinton. Bush was campaigning desperately to keep his job, but it seemed like he didn't really want it. Toward the end he looked old, used up, bitter and tired.
Obama seems that way to me.
Obama seems that way to me.
Larry T. Spider
1,000+ Posts
I cant figure out if this is Bush 1 vs Clinton or Bush 2 vs Kerry.
Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
El Torito, that was an excellent post.
Having lived in Chicago prior to his candidacy and known the circles our President ran in, I always found his global image an unbelievable head-scratcher.
He was palling around with scumbag felons like Toney Rezko, living in the most fiery cauldron of racial animosity (Chicago's South Side) not too far from Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, and had already used plenty of Chicago pol tricks to advance his career. When he did talk (which was not very often), he spouted hard left lines on most everything.
How people managed to overlook these things and go into hope and change mode is probably going to be a subject of psychological research for many years to come.
He was palling around with scumbag felons like Toney Rezko, living in the most fiery cauldron of racial animosity (Chicago's South Side) not too far from Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, and had already used plenty of Chicago pol tricks to advance his career. When he did talk (which was not very often), he spouted hard left lines on most everything.
How people managed to overlook these things and go into hope and change mode is probably going to be a subject of psychological research for many years to come.
El Torrito,
I see and agree with a lot of the comparisons you make with the '88 election, and your post is very well done. However, what's different is the country. Politics wasn't anywhere near as polarized. Northeastern states still had strong Republican parties, and southern states still had strong Democratic parties. Furthermore, though most conservatives were Republicans and most liberals were Democrats, there were many conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. The result is that almost all states were potential swing states.
Bush carried California in 1988, and Reagan carried New York just 4 years earlier. Unthinkable today. Dukakis put Bentsen on the ticket hoping to regain some of the south and at least make Texas competitive. No Democrat would adopt that strategy today.
What we have now is a Democratic Party that dominates the West Coast and the northern portion of the East Coast and a Republican Party that dominates the South and most of the Midwestern States. Basically 40 states are politically irrelevant at the presidential level. The other 10 include Florida, Nevada, the Rust Belt, and New Hampshire. That is really a phenomenon of the last 16 - 20 years and certainly didn't exist in 1988, and that makes the political dynamics very different today.
I see and agree with a lot of the comparisons you make with the '88 election, and your post is very well done. However, what's different is the country. Politics wasn't anywhere near as polarized. Northeastern states still had strong Republican parties, and southern states still had strong Democratic parties. Furthermore, though most conservatives were Republicans and most liberals were Democrats, there were many conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. The result is that almost all states were potential swing states.
Bush carried California in 1988, and Reagan carried New York just 4 years earlier. Unthinkable today. Dukakis put Bentsen on the ticket hoping to regain some of the south and at least make Texas competitive. No Democrat would adopt that strategy today.
What we have now is a Democratic Party that dominates the West Coast and the northern portion of the East Coast and a Republican Party that dominates the South and most of the Midwestern States. Basically 40 states are politically irrelevant at the presidential level. The other 10 include Florida, Nevada, the Rust Belt, and New Hampshire. That is really a phenomenon of the last 16 - 20 years and certainly didn't exist in 1988, and that makes the political dynamics very different today.
In reply to:
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Happy Thanksgiving to all
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 5
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
