1. Remember early 2008? Less than a month before the Iowa Caucus, people were fully expecting the November election to be Hillary Clinton Vs Rudy Guilliani because both of them had double digit leads in the polls. But, Hillary eventually lost, and Rudy didn’t even come close.
2. If those double digit leads dwindled in less than a month, how is it that one year and nine months before the November election , Obama’s margin of error performance in theoretical match ups are unchangeable? We don’t know who he’ll be running against, no one has even announced their candidacy yet. No matter how much you think you know everything, you do not know what tomorrow’s headlines will read.
3. He’s been counted out by you guys before. Look at Obama’s poll numbers for his 2004 senate run. His victory was an upset. And remember how polls showed him trailing Hillary by double digits?
Every time Obama has been the underdog, he has won. And that is not my opinion, that is fact. You are boasting about poll numbers that pale in comparison to what he has habitually overcome.
True, but you don’t have to make that case. The latest polls show Obama up comfortably on all his potential GOP opponents. The closest is Romney who is down by 7. Palin is furthest away trailing by 21 points.
There’s a lot of time left and these numbers will likely move. I’m not saying whether I think Obama does or doesn’t deserve re-election – but there is no doubt that these numbers must be disheartening for conservatives.
You cannot compare apples to oranges. A primary is far different than an election. The reason Obama defeated Hillary had a lot to do with the odd and convoluted way the Democrat Party decides on the apportionment of delegates. For instance, many States are not ":winner take all": but rather, a ratio is used that awards delegates based on their showing in areas where there is a greater concentration of population. For instance, Hillary won Pennsylvania but Obama was awarded more delegates because he had a greater showing in Philadelphia and other urban areas where the population is denser (no pun intended).
After about the mid-point of the Primary process, Hillary was winning State after State but Obama was gaining more delegates. If you followed the process, you may recall all the concern about ":super delegates": and a ":floor vote": at the convention. This is another unique thing about the Democrat Party’s Primary Process. They have ":super delegates": that are counted as multiple votes. There was much trepidation about whether Hillary would concede or require a floor vote. Most people agree that had she insisted on such a floor vote, she probably would have prevailed. However, it would have caused such a rift in the Party that she would have lost the election.
So don’t believe for one minute that Obama isn’t just as vulnerable if not more so than Jimmy Carter was in 1980. Below, the results of that election.
2 factors between a a threat dozen. Obama will damage Obama. This usa has became adequate after witnessing what he and the Democrats have finished. And even with all Obama’s posturing and pseudo administration gestures, he will proceed to lose what base help he has left. 2. although denounced as a ":witch hunt":, the States have already surpassed or will bypass legislations contained in the arriving months, to require a vetting procedure, for ALL applicants asking to be positioned on the poll. And opposite to what Libs imagine, it isn’t because of the BC project. there have been severe and stunning irregularities, inconsistencies and discrepancies contained in the technique as finished starting up with the legitimate letter from the Hawaiian DNC, through the vote in Congress. the criteria requirement, will between different products, be an same person-friendly ":vetting": McCain replaced into subjected to, yet no longer Obama.
His own party have failed to provide an effective muzzle
He cannot and will not look the country in the eye and tell the truth – an unforgivable faux pas in the eyes of those that took a chance on the":change": for the worse….
For that reason alone he will be doing a wilderness soul-search , come election time
In 2012 people will consider whether they are better off than before Obama’s term. The answer to that question at this point has been ":NO": for most Americans. Unemployment, home foreclosures and a weak America is Obama’s legacy so far. Obama probably can’t turn that around, but he might be able to BS his way out of it.
It’s not just the Republicans. It’s the Tea Party, and more importantly it’s the Independents. None of us imagined that the guy was going to spend 5 trillion dollars for nothing. Tax breaks for the wealthy? They got them. Guantanamo closed? Not even. Change the way Washington worked? You gotta be kidding.
i was not in favor of obama from the start. he is too glib, too liberal and too much a jerk. take for example in 2008 when he listed his personal wealth at 1.6 million dollars and in 2009 he listed it at 12.5 million dollars. excuse me that is a lot of income, from where?
the next election will be much more interesting because the public is going to be asking for answers to a lot of questions. we will not be waiting for the opponents to ask them. the voters will be informed and asking on their own. and this will not just be one side asking but from all fronts it will be coming at him. including his own party.
if you want to do a poll, i can make it read any way you want it to. just by how i word the question and who i ask. yep i have done polls. and yep i know how to get the answers that the one paying me wants. but if you are shopping for grocery’s and listen to the people there i can promise you he is not popular. if you are shopping for shoes for your kids i can promise they are not happy.
the economist are telling us the economy is up, well it sure is but not because we are buying more but because the little we can buy is costing us so much more. and no one is paying attention to us.
you think the tea party was active in the mid term well honey you ain’t seen nothing yet. the show isn’t over till the fat lady sings.
Obama won for one reason, Bush. Obama became a symbol of change at a time when people were unhappy with the economy and the government. Because of Bush, no Republican could have beaten him.
In 2012, Obama won’t have the mistakes of Bush to propel him into office. Now Obama will have to face is own miserable record of skyrocketing deficits and the change that never materialized.
Extreme arrogance. It’s too early to tell either way at this point. You’ve got the facts down, but you’re just throwing darts. Unless you have a time machine.
He is a one term BLUNDER and the independents that got him elected KNOW this now after all his LIES