Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Obama 2012 Campaign Strategy
YelliChink    8/22/2011 11:49:27 AM
It's about time to think about it, since President Obama already started his 2012 campaign for quite a few months.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
YelliChink       8/22/2011 12:04:48 PM
The first question is, which platform can Obama run?
 
Economy? Very unlikely. Given how his policy is screwing the already terrible situation, there is zero chance that the economy can rebound by the end of 2012. The only thing that is possible during this period is stagnation worse than late 70s. Nope, can't run on economy.
 
National Security? By killing OBL, he certainly gains some point here. However, his refusal to secure the border and near-draconian airport security are widely unpopular among legal voters. So it's half and half, not a clear cut win for Obama.
 
Education? How failed is the US education system? It's not Obama's fault, but he certainly didn't do anything to improve it.
 
Social Issues? The problem with social issues is that the progressive/liberal agenda are very unpopular among non-whites. He can get points among the white liberals, but, in the meantime, antagonize conservatives and possibly alienates some minority groups. So it's most likely that he won't push social issue at all.
 
Medical system reform? We already know how Obamacare goes. Unconstitutional, bad for business, and waivers given out to Democrat donors and friends.
 
Energy? Just go to the gas station and check the price.
 
Employment? Only getting worse.
 
Welfare? A lot of people on welfare are not even legal voters.
 
Immigration? The Obama policy on immigration is very unpopular among black voters and most legal voters, but are popular among illegal voters. We'll see.
 
And, finally......
 
Race........ Mmmmmmmm..........
 
It will be very nasty indeed..........
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       8/26/2011 9:46:22 PM
It's clear that the Dem strategy is to marginalize the more politically unreliable ethnic groups (From the perspective of Obama) by pulling together a people-of-color majority coalition.
 
He reportedly did refer to Republicans (strong association with Caucasians) as enemies when speaking to Hispanic voters in 2010 so he is not too averse to play a race card to help insure their reliability.
 
The Dems' "comprehensive immigration reform" is nothing more than a fast track to voter registrastion for an ethnic group which tradionally votes Democrat. And I have heard it said that Obama once voiced the reason for his opposition to the GOP's border security initiatives saying that if the Republicans got their borders security measures passed first, "comprehensive immigration reform" would languish.
 
Obama wants "comprehensive immigration reform" so the Dems can form that secure people-of-color coalition majority. So he holds secure borders hostage to his getting his own path to a Dem electoral majority.
 
I know that the path to citizenship and Dem voter registration is long term but the politics is more immediate in its effect on Hispanic voters.
 
A clincher could be a 2012 third party candidacy.
 
In May there was the New York 26th Congressional District special election that supposely showed that Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan was unpopular. But this was a three way race between a Republican, a Democrat and a self advertised tea party candidate. Surpise of surprises, the Democrat won!
 
Quote    Reply

Ashley-the-man    It's the economy - stupid!   8/28/2011 1:10:46 AM

Radio - before television - was referred to as the theater of the mind.  The audience used imagination to fill in the thin plot lines.  Fear, love, hate, humor were all unique to the listener who interpreted each show from personal emotions.  "The War of The Worlds" was especially terrifying because each listener had a separate boogy man that was more fearful than what was portrayed on the radio.

The Obama campaign and administration can be likened to a presidency of the mind.  Ask a liberal to describe why they like Obama and his policies and you will hear wide ranging and mutually exclusive dissertations that spring forth more from individual wishes and hopes than from actual policies and laws that he has enacted.  President Obama is an "ideas" person who leaves the specifics to others.  President Regan could move people - both pro and con - with his oratory while leaving the cooks alone in the kitchen.  He had an opposite agenda to Obama, reduce and simplify government.  That reduced the need to push complicated laws and agendas.  He took power when the country was in a similar economic malaise, but had beneficial demographic trends in his favor.  Obama favors complicated government mandates that require significant input on his part, but he does not have the personality to get dirty in the details.  He suffers because he can't have it both ways.   

The economy, recession, slow growth and high unemployment will be the campaign issue faced by Obama.   

 His prospects of stimulating the economy and gaining reelection appear bleak.  Quantitative easing, cash for klunkers, homebuyer incentives all gave temporary boosts to GDP, but have not been long lasting.  Why?  Increasing government deficits and debt to GDP are as scary as the imaginary monsters of "The War of the Worlds" but unfortunately are real.  The public and investors refuse to spend when they fear an economy that is fragile and may get worse.  In September the president will unveil his jobs program, but it is likely to be too little too late, and likely counterproductive. 

Is there anything the president can do?  Even his opponents have to hope he is successful because another recession lowers the lake for all boaters.  That said - no.  Regan enjoyed a demographic nation that was the opposite of Obama.  Baby boomers were entering the job market by the mid 80's in record numbers and earning more each year.  Their huge numbers gained momentum so that by 2000 the country had greater prosperity than at any other time in our history.  As a rich nation, the government portion of GDP was 20%.  The military budget was almost half what it is now, interest on the debt was lower, prescription drug and other medical costs were lower and many other government agencies were smaller.  Today we are a nation facing recession, but spending like we were as rich as 2000.   We have to go on a serious spending diet, but a recession and liberal president argues against a policy to cut spending. 

The baby boom topped out between 1960-1964 which meant that after 2006-2010 these high earners were starting to wind down their income and spending.  The decade of the 2010's will see huge numbers of boomers reaching retirement age and scaling down their stimulus to the economy.  In fact they will do the opposite - take social security and create more medical expense.  Faced with this demographic fact, President Regan and his reduced government credo would have struggled to enable a robust economy.  The U.S. is Japan of 1990.  The Japanese reached their demographic peak twenty years before us and have been increasing debt since.  They offer a scary vision of what our debt and economy will be over the next ten years. 

Regardless of the effort President Obama puts forth, he is swimming upstream at the rate of a mile per hour in a river flowing at five miles per hour.  Yet, if he loses, his republican successor will find an economy that will stubbornly refuse to perform much better with spending and debt reductions.  As we increase our efforts to pay off any remaining mortgages, pay down credit cards, and reign in other discretionary spending, we are doing the things that will prolong a slow growth economy. 

 

 
Quote    Reply

CJH       8/28/2011 3:49:30 PM
Last year before the election, I was tuning around on the radio and came across an apparent Black radio station Democratic Party ad in which it was explaned something on the order of - "Because we just can't let them have it back".
 
If the Obama Democratic Party is going to race baiting tactics it will be interesting to see how it turns out. I must say though that that would indicate a certain amount of desperation on their part and I believe that most of the people targeted by kind of thing won't be dumb enough to buy it.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       8/28/2011 4:04:50 PM
I think that up until Rick Perry got in, the Dem's were hanging their hopes on being about to paint the eventual GOP nominee as less electable than even Obama.
 
If Perry shows a capacity for crossover appeal then the Dems will be filled with be looking either to smear him or we will see a third party candidacy that will divide the conservative vote, most likely.
 
Also, there is always the national emergency, wag-the-dog ploy if they get really desperate. As I see it, that is what LBJ did in the Tonkin Gulf in order to clinch the 1964 presidential election. The relevant wisdom explain to me in my then government class was that you don't change horses in the middle of a stream and you don't change presidents in the middle of a war. But that was 47 years ago.
 
But if it's Obama - Perry then look for the Dems to try to target specific sectors of the electorate to peal them away from Perry.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       8/28/2011 4:28:27 PM
It will be said that Obama showed ability as a commander in chief by assassinating Bin Laden.
 
To me though the only guts shown was in Obama risking killing his chances for re-election twice - the failed economy and a failed mission - instead of just once - a failed economy. In other words he couldn't hurt himself any worse but he could help himself if but a little if Bin Laden was "gotten".
 
Knowing Obama and the Dems, this decision was politically motivated.
 
I believe that killing Bin Laden instead of putting him on trial was a display of utmost timidity (Trying to use polite language) by the highest levels of our national leadership. I believe it revealed a critical moral weakness, one that should probably encourage what remains of Al Qaeda and the rest of our nation's enemies.
 
If I were Al Qaeda, the conviction that Obama assassinated Bin Laden out of a fear of him would give me the strength to stick it out in the lean times knowing that eventually, my enenies will progressively weaken and fall under the blows of organizations such as mine.
 
So, I believe that anyone who has the best interests of America at heart has to be aghast at what it did in killing Bin Laden. We threw away an opportunity to be a model for justice and the rule of law for the peoples of the Muslim world and instead, we resembled governments they are only too familiar with.
 
I believe this incident shows we have passed a critical point for the worse in our national evolution.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    What was Bev Perdue thinking?    10/2/2011 11:48:54 AM
 

“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. You want people who don't worry about the next election.”

 
Aside from sending people to this Website to demonize all conservative opposition, the White House may be considering another end run around the constitution. Either that of Perdue needs help.
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       10/2/2011 11:19:01 PM


 

If Perry shows a capacity for crossover appeal then the Dems will be filled with be looking either to smear him or we will see a third party candidacy that will divide the conservative vote, most likely.

 

Also, there is always the national emergency, wag-the-dog ploy if they get really desperate. As I see it, that is what LBJ did in the Tonkin Gulf in order to clinch the 1964 presidential election. The relevant wisdom explain to me in my then government class was that you don't change horses in the middle of a stream and you don't change presidents in the middle of a war. But that was 47 years ago.

 

But if it's Obama - Perry then look for the Dems to try to target specific sectors of the electorate to peal them away from Perry.

 

 

The thing that is interesting about Perry is that he's probably got more cross-party appeal than you would think - he made some pragmatic choices as Texas Governor that will probably divide the right more than the left - and whatever else anyone right now who can bridge the widening ideological chasm will be better than someone with "perfect policies" who is as divisive as Obama. 
 
The post on the economy a few replies back was on the button - a lot of what happens next is to do with whether anyone right now can break the partisan divide while actually reducing the deficit. Obama has no chance in the next election unless the economy starts to grow again, that is possible, perhaps not probable. 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    Obama's ace in the hole? - Donald Trump Bolts Republican Party, Eyeing Other 2012 Options   12/23/2011 8:57:56 PM
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       1/14/2012 7:28:08 PM
Has anyone considered the possibility that the super pac ads are being supported by Democrat money?
 
I believe that it may not be certain that the GOP base would enthusiastically support a Mitt general election bid.
 
And I can't help noticing how, as Rush says, the MSM doesn't seem to be giving Mitt the same treatment given, say, Newt.
 
I also wonder whether Ron Paul would feel pressured to run as an independent should Mitt get the nomination.
 
I am assuming Trump would not run should Romney be the nominee.
 
This all may be wrong but it could be that the stars are aligning for an Obama 2012 victory over an out maneuvered GOP.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics