Obama 2012- More of A Sure Thing?

With Obama taking out bin Laden, do y'all think this helps his re-election chances in 2012?

I'd have to say "no" for the following reasons:
1. We are still a year and a half away from the election that that can be an eternity in political-time.
2. Voters have very short memories.
3. Obama can't really crow too long or too loud about this, lest he *appear* to be making political hay out of 9/11 and bin Laden's death.
4. When Gulf War I ended in 1991. President Bush had a 90% approval rating- and then lost to Bill Clinton the next year. True, there was the recession and "It's the economy, stupid", but even Bush wasn't dealing with $4 a gallon gas, 10% unemployment and the debt crises.

So I don't really see this helping Obama in the long run.

It will help a little, but won't be decisive. If the economy hasn't substantially recovered than Obama will be vulnerable. Whether the republicans can put up a viable contender will be a different matter.

No. Bush I had a 95% approval rating after Gulf War but lost. Obama's shit economy and gas clusterfuck will doom him.

It's all according to where the economy stands at election time, and unless things change, it will be a struggle for black jesus.

I don't think Obama's any kind of sure thing in 2012; there's still a lot working against him.

That said, there doesn't appear to be any really bankable Republican contender emerging to challenge him.

I think that people have seen through Obama's facade. They know he is full of shit and is an empty suit. But, he will win re-election if the Republicans put up the same shit candidates they have been doing in recent election cycles.

In all fairness that cocksucker Perot is the one who screwed that up.

I don't think bin Laden being killed changes Obama's chances one way or another.

The amount of credit he can claim is relatively small. Yes, he had a part in it, but ultimately the credit goes to a lot of people further down the military and intelligence food chains. And I don't think any efforts to give him substantial credit will get much traction.

The 2012 election will come down to the economy and whether the Republicans manage to nominate somebody who isn't completely barking insane.

Two factors alone will determine Obama's re-election, and the death of Bin Laden is not one of them. They are:

1) The economy.
2) Whether the Republican candidate is any good.

Nothing else will matter, unless some "surprise" element happens right before the election. If this had happened in mid-October, 2012, yeah, it would be the kind of "surprise" element that could swing a close election. But barring something like that, the election depends only on the economy and the quality of the Republican candidate.

If Obama wants to get re-elected, he should make it a priority to get us completely out of Iraq and pretty much out of Afghanistan well before the election, and make serious concessions on the budget without serious tax increases. All of that would help the economy very much.

That sounds familiar.

I don't see this as helping Obama at all, especially when a lot of your electorate stop their misplaced celebrations and realise that the Al-Qaeda threat is still very much out there.

Whilst I pray that there won't be I can't help thinking that there will be an Al-Qaeda attack sooner or later somewhere in the world (indeed, the Marrakech bombing is allegeded to have been them) and that will be a reminder that Bin Laden's death is symbolically great, but realistically not as much of a step towards the removal of the threat of Islamic extremism that some are making out.

Regardless of capturing and killing bin Laden, Obama would still have been re-elected in 2012. Whether you like him or not, the GOP hasn't produced anyone with a hope of going up against him. Now, when we add in the bin Laden capture/kill, there's just no chance of him losing. George W. Bush won in large part due to the events that took place right after 9/11. Obama will win because of this latest action.

Now, you bring up economy. Well, both sides have made mistakes, but right now people are looking at an economy slowly building back up, while Republican elected officials in Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan and Ohio fuck it up for everyone there. This will come back to bite them in the ass in a big way. The Tea Party is still being linked directly to the GOP, and the Tea Party will drag the GOP down like an anchor. Moderates, in general, seem to find the Tea Party to be full of shit, and an extended arm of the GOP. Whether true or not, perception wins the day.

You can't be serious. Do you really think that Obama's re-election is locked in?

Yes.

Are American voters really so fickle that they will switch sides just because of their Bin Laden incident?

Mind you, I have noticed that the "Obama Hussein is a Kenyan Muslim terrorist who appeases the Islamic world" crowd how been curiously quiet over the past 24hrs.

Are you kidding? All the GOP did during the 2004 elections was to talk about 9/11, and how George W. Bush single handedly fought the War on Terror. It was cowboy diplomacy at it's finest. Plus, his opponent was John Kerry, so you add in a weak rival, strong popular opinion regarding the War on Terror, and that cinched his re-election.

Clueless and naive as usual.....

Mark my words. Write them down. Post them somewhere for all to see.
As it currently stands, it is very likely that Obama will win the 2012 election. I believe he will win re-election.

He may well win but it won't be because Osama Bin Laden was taken while he was President.

Don't kid yourself.....

Everyone is happy fuckface is dead but Obama isn't going to be able to ride this all the way to 2012.

Oh and I see you're alreday moving the goal posts:

"Now, when we add in the bin Laden capture/kill, there's just no chance of him losing. "

becomes.....

"As it currently stands, it is very likely that Obama will win the 2012 election."

Bush was president during the attacks so in the eyes of the emotional I suppose that made him a good wartime president (although when you look back on it the way he squandered the almost universal internation support in the 12 months following 9/11 was truly tragic).

Obama will win re-election in 2012.
I say "as it currently stands" because I always take into account the chance of something happening to prevent re-election, such as extreme illness or death.

You did note that right after the quote you posted in parentheses, that I had also said "I believe he will win re-election."

I did that so it was understood that I'm firm on my statement. Come on. Context clues. I will say it again and bold it for emphasis:

Obama will win the 2012 Presidential election.

You can have Lanz put it somewhere visible for all to see. I always stand by my word.

That's rather naive. There is a lot that can happen in the political world between right now and the next presidential election.

It's John.

Naive is his middle name.

Pretty much the reason why I think the '12 election can go either way. People are waking up to the fact that Obama is not the messiah, but the GOP has yet to produce anyone that could pose any sort of threat. Few on either side takes Palin seriously, and most people don't like Ron Paul's message of "the government is not your savior" where finances are concerned.

That, and the fact that even for all his fuck-ups, Obama is still more liked that Bushed was during this time in his Presidency.

It's not naivety. It will happen, and he will be re-elected in 2012.
This is based on observation of sociological and political indicators, not on wishful thinking. Call it naive, but you'll call it fact the day after the election in 2012.

Other than extreme ideologues, no one has thought Obama is or has ever been the messiah. That is a strawman. Hell, the GOP and hardcore Republicans have done more to deify Obama than his own party.

Ron Paul's message is incomplete. He's a nice guy, but he's not going to get anywhere because he's too isolationist and too hands off. He's another Herbert Hoover in a time where an FDR is needed.

Obama's "fuck ups" are a matter of personal opinion, rooted in partisanship. I mean, when a flag lapel pin, birth certificate, and Muslimy sounding name are the ammo of his adversaries, "fuck up" becomes "anything I don't agree with ideologically". Obama's done a lot of good, and yes he has screwed up several times, but by damn, we didn't elect Jesus, we elected a human being. Every President has fucked up at some point. Every. single. one.

To Anna and not Mr. Naivety

Well let us be honest here......

If Obama had even half the media going after him like they went after Bush he would be as popular as Bush was at this point in his presidency.

I've noticed that no one puts up names of American troops killed anymore. Hell it's almost like an afterthought on the news now....

The certainly treat Obama continuing Bush's policies with kid gloves.

Oh and imagine if Bush was President when the BATF knowingly let gun runners take guns across the border into Mexico in order to pad the results of "guns from America" and two of those guns ended up killing to American border patrol agents.

Do you think we would have heard more hollering and screaming in the media over it?

Yes, of course, it's the liberal media. They'll make Obama look golden, just like they have these past few months, what with them scouring the Paul Ryan plan.. oh, wait. Well, I mean, like when they immediately shot down Donald Trump's birther shouts... oh, wait.

Yeah, "the liberal media" is a good old standby when things don't go how you like them against someone you strongly dislike. It's always the liberal media who just doesn't get that Obama's an evil, malevolent leader who wants to tear America down from the inside, or better yet, that they're purposely hiding it, because that's the reasonable point of view!

I really dislike that comparison, and I highly suspect Ron Paul would as well - Herbert Hoover was nothing if not hands-on - he only threatened businesses to keep prices up rather than actually regulating them. And it worked. And the depression, consequently, got worse.

Rather, he's a Grover Cleveland or Calvin Coolidge when the country wants (not needs) a William McKinley or Lyndon Johnson.

Hoover's a broad example. Ask someone who helped continue the depression? Hoover. The general reason being that he didn't do much to help elevate the people out of poverty, instead exacerbating said problem. There are other reasons as to why the Depression was so bad under Hoover, but most people look to the results of the tent cities (known as Hoovervilles) as a prime example of failure on that level.

That the answer of someone fairly partisan to the Democrats, like yourself. Ask someone who actually knows economics and what went on and the answer is: Hoover and FDR both.