Obama 2012- More of A Sure Thing?

Of course Hoover exacerbated the problem. But it was by doing too much, not too little. FDR had great PR, but he made the Depression last and linger.

You two and your damn inconvenient facts!

This.

If it weren't for Hitler's wacky hi-jinx in 1939 I imagine the depression would have gone on longer still.

Interesting, how those are opposites.

This could however flip against him if al-quaeda in revenge manages to carry out a serious attack here in the US.

I don't see it helping him over a year and a half from now.

I see John is readily buying the convenient myth that Hoover was some sort of noninterventionist. It's not his fault, he's probably never been taught otherwise.

This is what's gonna kill 'em.

If the Repubs have their own answer to say, JFK, hidden away somewhere...what are they waiting for?

Certainly ain't shown himself in the herd they've got now.

As far as what I would consider "good," you are (unfortunately) certainly right, even though I'm sure you and I would not agree at all on what would be a "good" candidate, regardless of the party. About the only Republican candidate I'm seeing right now who I would consider "good" is this Gary Johnson guy, and I would rate his chances of getting the nod about the same as those of the proverbial snowball in hell.

Nevertheless, I was using the term with regard to the electorate as a whole, and it may be that some candidate will be considered "good enough" (as in: "significantly less bad than Obama"). That's all it would take to mobilize the Republican donors and votors, and swing the independants.

Not that that would in any way imply such a person would actually be a good president, or even a president who would be less bad than Obama, but perception is everything in an election. That's how we got stuck with a useless guy like Obama.

He is? I thought at about this time, Bush had some of the highest approval ratings of a President since they started tracking that sort of thing.

Sorry, but exactly which potential Repub candidate is going to take down Obama?

Palin? She'd be ripped to shreds in a general election. You see, to run for President, you can't just communicate via Twitter and go on Sean Hannity & Glenn Beck. She'd have to face the rest of the "liberal elite" press that she's spent the past 4 years bashing. That means more Katie Couric "gotcha" questions like "what publications do you read that help to shape your worldview?"

Trump? A carnival freak-show whose novelty factor has already worn off. What's he gonna do, drop a bunch of f-bombs on national TV during the debates? He no longer has the birther garbage as an issue, the only thing he can do is continue to take cheap shots by questioning how Obama got into the Ivy League (while we're at it, why don't we revisit how Bush got into Yale? He certainly wasn't MENSA quality )

Gingrich? An serial divorcee moron who wouldn't be able to get past character issues like abandoning his dying wife for a mistress all the while trumpeting "family values."

Ron Paul? Sure, he's who most Wordforgers masturbate to every 4 years, but he's also a quack whose fringe ideology would be exposed in a general election. Also, he wouldn't be able to hide all the anti-semitic baggage in his past. Paul is an oddity, a coffee-table conversation piece, nothing more.

Romney? He's been totally invisible during all of this. I've seen nothing from him. Way too bland, which is ultimately why he'll be the Repub nominee. Also, he isn't liked by the Jerry Falwell fundies. Romney may call himself a Christian, but the evangelical Baptist bible-thumpers believe that Mormons are cultists who are going to Hell.

They don't have one, and even if they did that candidate would never see the light of day in today's version of the Republican party, which has been overrun by their fringe element, the religious zealots, and reality-TV game show hosts.

As it stands now, I think Obama probably will win in 2012, but if he does, I don't think it will have boo to do with him getting Bin Ladin.

When it comes to bin Laden, credit goes to both Presidents. I thought it was great when Bush called Obama and congratulated him. I have no doubt Bush wanted the asshole as much as Obama, it just happened to be Obama who updated the security team, pushed for greater efforts, and gave the final order. Quite frankly, I'm just glad the fucker's gone, where he can't kill any more innocents. I hate that some people are downplaying this, because it was directly due to bin Laden that 3,000 innocent lives were lost on that horrific day, and that doesn't even count the disgusting and brutal murders of his own people. That bastard had to go, one way or the other, it was important then, it's still important now.

I think Pawlenty could do it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...obama-approval-numbers-after-bin-laden-kill/#

The only place that needs a Lyndon Johnson is Hell. And they've already got one.

Re: point #4.

George H.W. Bush had a credible opponent in Bill Clinton. At present, Obama is facing a very weak field of opponents and I think this will be the deciding factor in 2012. Obama will win because none of the current potential candidates is credible.

Secondly, Bush had built Saddam Hussein up as the world's worst villain but in the end failed to eliminate him, which may have been the right thing to do but which was perceived very negatively by the American people.

George W. Bush's popularity was never higher than it was immediately after 9/11.

Logically, then, any retaliation by Al-Qaeda could only similarly unite the nation behind Obama, particularly since Obama now has a proven record of removing terrorists.

At present, as you say, Obama is facing a very weak field of opponents. But you seem to forget that, a year and a half before the 1992 election, Bush was also facing a very weak field of opponents. Who, outside of Arkansas, had heard of Bill Clinton at that point, or would have taken him seriously?

Then how do you explain the jump in Bush's ratings after 9/11 and the lack of said jump in Obama's ratings?

Well, their mystery guy doesn't have very long to take saxophone lessons, and get Arsenio back on TV...

Clinton also had a rich and powerful ally helping him bring down GHW Bush. Ross Perot took a lot of conservative voters and, IIRC, Clinton still couldn't manage a majority.

I wish I could've voted Perot, but dammit, I was too young by one stupid fucking year that election cycle.

A historic one like that...dammit...

Correct. Clinton got about 43% of the popular vote. Not even close to a majority.

Four years later, he got about 49% of the popular vote. Still not a majority (he never did manage that trick), but closer.

The problem is no matter what you think of Bill, he's one of the most charismatic American politicians of this Century. Who do the Reps have to offer this time around? Another Ronald Reagan?

Oh admit it you would've voted for Governor Clinton, he played the sax on the Arsenio Hall show and everything.

Nobody thought so in 1991. Heck, Clinton didn't even announce until October 1991, and everyone thought the Democratic field was just plain pathetic.

But even with a Perot in the mix (loon that he was), Bush still couldn't win. For Bush to have allowed Perot to get his 19% was inexcusable. I think that was largely due to Bush running a lackluster campaign and being out-hustled by Clinton. Bush should have had it in the bag. But even with Clinton's 'bimbo eruptions" and Perot's charts, Larry King appearances and on-again-off-again campaign, Bush still lost. His "bump" from Gulf War I wasn't enough to help.

Obama is in much worse shape than Bush was. The economy is much worse than it was in 92 (even with a mild recession). Bush was seen as very competent with foreign policy and Obama is not.

However, the economy sucked in 2008 as well, while Bush had to deal with an economy that had tanked between 1988 and 1992. It wasn't really his fault -- and, indeed, the causes went back to the crash of October 1987 -- but Bush had to contend with the fact that a lot of people's personal situations had gotten a lot worse during his term.

the point is, no one knew that in 1991. In fact, what Clinton was known for was a dreadfully long boring convention speech.

The problem the Republicans have is that all the guys who might be that sort of charismatic figure insist they are not running.