Posted on 07/03/2011 10:31:02 PM PDT by no dems
One thing I read, to me puts his re-election prospects in perspective. Try to imagine or describe that voter who thinks, “I didn’t vote for Obama in 2008, but now that I’ve seen him in action, he’s sure got my vote this time, around”. It’s hard to picture anyone saying this. If it’s true his population of new voters is small, then he will need all of his first time voters to vote for him again. Doesn’t seem likely.
I believe that Obama will still get 95% of the black voters who turn out, but getting them to turn out in the numbers they did last time might be tough.
What’s the problem?
They’re all unemployed with nothing better to do.
I stop in at Yahoo Answers once a week or so to attack and demoralize the liberals. In fact, conservatives have taken over some categories there. I’m surprised, though, that the leftists at Yahoo are allowing the attacks against the liberal sheep to continue.
The liberal blue funk at Yahoo is thick as syrup.
Marco Rubio...
Agreed!
But, some folks on here say that Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal as well, are not eligible to be Prez or VP b/c their parents were not citizens when the two of them were born in Miami and Baton Rouge respectively.
This campaign can be won by completely ignoring Obama himself and just talking about spending too much with no results, intruding too much with no authority and by not leading enough on the national and world stage.
Eric, I admire the fact that you'd like to see the next election conducted in such a gentlemanly and sportsmanlike manner, but I'm sorry, such an election has never been seen in this country. Our candidate will most certainly take everything wrong with this country, and make the incumbent own it - lock, stock, and barrel. That's presidential politics 101.
Secondly, the first shot probably won't even be fired by our nominee. Obama's people will begin lobbing grenades at our candidate well in advance of his own offensive, which you know will come ("you can put lipstick on a pig..."). That fire will need to be returned.
I'm afraid that you can't make issues the enemy in an election. The people can't vote against an issue, but they can vote against those who are most responsible for that issue being a threat to their life, liberty, or happiness.
If you don't put the onus for the nation's troubles squarely on the incumbent president, then what reason are you giving the people to fire him? And if you're unwilling to label him as destructive cause, how are you going to label yourself as constructive cause? Why should they hire you?
Like it or not, elections most certainly are about individuals, and groups of individuals, and how they are related the issues of our day. In the present case, the incumbent president and his party are directly responsible for a whole host of issues that are destructive of the people's life, liberty, and happiness. This must be made clear by our side, and by our candidate, when the time comes.
Here’s the politics category:
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylt=A0S00_gK6hFO2x8AMznj1KIX;_ylv=3?sid=396545444
It’s further divided into sub-categories. You do need to register, though, in order to comment.
That is the point. He is Americas dumbest President. . It is Obummer saying this line. Yes, I know it is Obama. Don’t bang me on spelling too.
“Aabout the strongest argument Obama can make to base voters: it could, and will, be a lot worse if you don’t vote for me. That’s true”
Yeah, that’s the objectivity I expect from Newsweek. I appreciate that they admit he has a weak argument. But to go on to say it’s true that any Republican would be a lot worse just flushes any appearance of fairness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.