How to Beat Obama

Atlah Media Network ^ | 1/19/2011 | michael master

[nandrew]

The media is now trying to make the case that Obama can win in 2012 like how Bill Clinton won in 1996 after suffering a dramatic defeat in 1994 and after raising taxes. The facts about 1996 do not bear out what the pundits are trying to sell us.

[nandrew]

This article includes 12 items on how to beat Obama. We need to get them to the Republican party in a hurry.

[BykrBayb]

With the same ugly stick that got his wife?

[Volunteer]

So very, very true!!!

Obama is, if things hold as they are, the WORST 1-term President in the history of the Republic.

[bronkburnett]

#2 is the most important.

“and then select Marco Rubio as the Vice President candidate.”

Rubio can bring Florida and lots of Hispanic votes.

[Cyber Ninja]

Are you saying Barry is a wookie beater?

[9422WMR]

Yea, I just want to see his transcripts from college.
If he is the smartest prez ever, as he claims then prove it.
Without proof he is just another democRAT liar.

[Bringbackthedraft]

Obama can win if we listen to the MSM, and run a Bob Dole again. Lets see, who is out there? Romney? Huckleberry? Maybe someone will run as a third party and make sure Obama wins?

[sport]

I will say one thing for him. He is smarter than me because I did not know that there were 57 states in the USA to campaign in. I thought that there were only 50.

[Cheerio]

Yea, I just want to see his transcripts from college.

If Barry does not prove he is an NBC there will be some states where he will not appear on the ballot. AZ is again going to try for the Presidential Qualification bill that will require the AZ Sect of State to verify his eligibility before he appears on the ballot. It probably would have been passed last session were it not for all the visibility we received when SB 1070 (Enforcement of immigration laws by AZ) passed and we lived through that national firestorm. Last sessions bill is here.

HB 2441 - presidential candidates; proof of qualifications

[bronkburnett]

did you read the 12 points in the article?

did you read about how Clinton did not really fair so well? without Perot in 1992 and 1996, Clinton would not have won.

[Lazlo in PA]

We have just seen how ineffective the MSM is at pushing their narrative once again with this shooting. They failed on shifting opinion on Obamacare and the economy improving. They are shooting blanks. Obummer will not have the advantage he had in '08 with the Media coverage plus their are 23 Senate seats up for the Rats in red states to such money away from his campaign. '12 will be a very poor year for ALL Rats.

[bronkburnett]

from the article:

In 1992, Clinton won with only 43% of the vote because Ross Perot split the Republican vote. Clinton received 44,909,889 votes. The combination of Perot and Bush received 57% or 58,846,812. In 1996, votes for Clinton only increased by 700,000 to 45,628,667. Once again, Perot split the Republican vote. Dole was a boring candidate, but even with Dole, the combination of Perot and Dole still received more votes than Clinton. If the Republican vote had not been split in 1992 and/or 1996 by Perot, Clinton would have lost both elections.

Compare Reagan to Clinton. Votes for Reagan actually increased from 43,267,489 in 1980 by 7 million votes (10 times more than the increase for Clinton in 1996) to 53,428,357 in 1984.

Why did Reagan do so well and Clinton did not? Clinton increased taxes and Reagan decreased taxes. Clinton tried to ram universal healthcare down the throats of America and Reagan decreased government programs. Clinton decreased the military percent of spending and Reagan increased it. Clinton gave America Able Danger and Reagan called the USSR an evil empire.
Look at Carter in 1980 as a more appropriate forecast for Obama rather than Clinton in 1996. Carter lost votes from 40,827,394 in 1976 to 34,964,583 in 1980 while the Republicans increased by almost 6 million votes. If the same 6 million votes switch from Obama to Republicans in 2012, then Obama will lose the election at 52% to 47%.

[bronkburnett]

this is the 3rd point of the 12 in the article:

By pointing out how Obama has not brought transparency to government. Where are his long form birth certificate, his passports, and his college documents?

[lp boonie]

Obama is, if things hold as they are, the WORST 1-term President in the history of the Republic.
_________________
Nah, Jimmy Carter owns that one.

[MondoQueen]

I have just come to the conclusion that the reason the Democrats infuriate me (can I use the word “infuriate”?)
is that they have this superior attitude and think they are smarter than us. The fact is that they aren’t smarter than us. Otherwise they would not have taken us in the Socialist direction.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Clinton had a third party candidate to take votes away from his opponent...

[The Duke]

I have a couple of additional suggestions:

• Rebrand 'Obamacare' to 'Democare', so that it paints all Democrats. The very act of doing this would cause many Democrats in the House and Senate to become very circumspect.

• Originate potent/non-compromised conservative bills in the House. We can safely assume there is going to be continued (and probably increasing) economic pain for the next two years. Let Obama be seen as being the 'No' President and all that pain will be laid at his feet two years hence. (Also, America probably needs another couple of years of pain to completely turn against liberalism).

This is my prescription for the kind of tough, hard-ball politics that the Republicans need to be playing.

[PGalt]

Stop spending. We the people...stop spending. Collapse the economy of these totalitarians. When the conservatives have control of all 3 branches resume normal spending. The useful idiots will always spend so they will always be an ally of a spending/producing/entreprenurial economy.

The totalitarian socialists want to screw us out of our money. Give them a taste of their own poison.

“It’s the economy, stupid.”

[Big Horn]

In 2012 Trump may split the vote.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

He's already beat.