Obamanation Re-election MegaThread

[StrangeSox 652]

A thread to discuss all things Obama-campaign related! (

[StrangeSox 652]

Obama is attempting to sell homeowners down the river to protect banks from any real litigation over their many dishonest practices in the last several years. The latest move to get AG Schneiderman behind the mortgage settlement deal by placing him on a joke of an investigation committee is winning over his liberal apologists.

 

Yet More Mortgage Settlement Lies: Release Looks Broad, Not Narrow; Other States Screwed to Bribe California to Join

 

A number of writers, such as Mike Lux, Bob Kuttner, Matt Taibbi, and Justin Krebs, have been willing to convey the Administration message that the current version of the mortgagesettlement is a “much tougher deal” and even a pretty good deal, thanks to Schneiderman’s intervention.

 

It is important to note that any recent improvement in terms has come at the cost of Schneiderman moving from being decidedly against the settlement to being in the “maybe/maybe not” camp as an apparent part of his decision to join an Administration investigation on mortgage abuses. But as we have stressed, the fact that the Obama team is pushing to wrap up the settlement agreement before the probe underway is a very bad sign. How can you settle when you don’t know the full extent of the bad conduct?

 

In addition, the change in Schneiderman’s posture has undermined the solidarity of the dissenting attorneys general, which is no doubt what Obama hoped to achieve.

Edited February 1, 2012 by StrangeSox

[SOXOBAMA 0]

Obama will win a landslide victory... I'm sure that's why the main GOP candidates decided to stay out of the race this year. Instead they put together 8 jokes into the GOP race.

[StrangeSox 652]

Obama will win a landslide victory... I'm sure that's why the main GOP candidates decided to stay out of the race this year. Instead they put together 8 jokes into the GOP race.

 

Against Gingrich or Santorum? Sure. I don't see a lot supporting that against Romney, but it's Feb. 1st so polls are pretty much meaningless right now.

 

I don't know if there's a candidate that could have easily bridged the tea party/conservative wing and the "Establishment GOP" wing, but someone who did that and had even mildly favorable overall views would seriously challenge Obama.

[LittleHurt05 324]

Are candidates allowed to run against an incumbent president in a primary? I'm surprised there's no Democratic candidates opposing the Prez. I think the same thing happened to Sir Bush in 2004.

[SOXOBAMA 0]

Against Gingrich or Santorum? Sure. I don't see a lot supporting that against Romney, but it's Feb. 1st so polls are pretty much meaningless right now.

 

I don't know if there's a candidate that could have easily bridged the tea party/conservative wing and the "Establishment GOP" wing, but someone who did that and had even mildly favorable overall views would seriously challenge Obama.

 

If the GOP truly thought they could win this year Rubio, Christie, Bush, Daniels and maybe even Palin would have jumped into the race.

[Balta1701 3,046]

Are candidates allowed to run against an incumbent president in a primary? I'm surprised there's no Democratic candidates opposing the Prez. I think the same thing happened to Sir Bush in 2004.

Yes, but it's very difficult and somewhat rare. The last real major one I can recall was Ted Kennedy running against Jimmy Carter in 1980.

 

And to be somewhat coarse...no Democrat anywhere is going to risk alienating the key, um, racial demographic that voted so overwhelmingly for Obama by being the guy who tried to beat Obama.

[StrangeSox 652]

Are candidates allowed to run against an incumbent president in a primary? I'm surprised there's no Democratic candidates opposing the Prez. I think the same thing happened to Sir Bush in 2004.

 

Someone could try to run a contested primary, but they wouldn't get any national DNC support and all of the establishment that goes with it. Incumbent candidates for Senate and House seats and governorships are frequently contested in primaries.

[SOXOBAMA 0]

Are candidates allowed to run against an incumbent president in a primary? I'm surprised there's no Democratic candidates opposing the Prez. I think the same thing happened to Sir Bush in 2004.

 

I think the only person who can beat Obama is Hillary and that goes for people in both parties.

[StrangeSox 652]

If the GOP truly thought they could win this year Rubio, Christie, Bush, Daniels and maybe even Palin would have jumped into the race.

 

I don't know that any of them wouldn't have flopped just as hard as Perry did. Daniels isn't exactly bursting with charisma, Rubio and Christie are relatively new national names, Bush's name is pretty tainted and lol@Palin.

[Balta1701 3,046]

I think the only person who can beat Obama is Hillary and that goes for people in both parties.

Except for the fact that she already had her shot?

[StrangeSox 652]

I think the only person who can beat Obama is Hillary and that goes for people in both parties.

 

If the economy continues along at a really sluggish pace or gets worse thanks to Europe tanking, Obama's going to be in a very weak position.

[LittleHurt05 324]

Yes, but it's very difficult and somewhat rare. The last real major one I can recall was Ted Kennedy running against Jimmy Carter in 1980.

 

And to be somewhat coarse...no Democrat anywhere is going to risk alienating the key, um, racial demographic that voted so overwhelmingly for Obama by being the guy who tried to beat Obama.

 

 

Someone could try to run a contested primary, but they wouldn't get any national DNC support and all of the establishment that goes with it. Incumbent candidates for Senate and House seats and governorships are frequently contested in primaries.

 

Thanks. I figured it was a bit taboo to go against the sitting President from your party, but it does happen to congressman and governors all the time like you said, so I wasn't sure about the rules. I guess the fact that the law prevents Obama from running in 2016 makes a difference too, any candidate knows they can run 4 years from now.

[BigSqwert 28]

Gavin Newsom in '16

[BigSqwert 28]

LOL at the subtitle of this thread.

[StrangeSox 652]

This could really go in either thread:

 

Now We Know Who’s Giving to Super PACs

 

Romney, sans super PAC money, raised just $57 million, compared with Obama's $140 million from his network of bundlers and grassroots donations last year. But those numbers don't even come close to painting the whole picture, as the super PAC disclosures reveal. Republican groups outraised their Democratic counterparts by four to one, a fairly incredible ratio. This could very well be a year in which, stunningly, an incumbent gets outspent by the challenger.

[Balta1701 3,046]

This could really go in either thread:

 

Now We Know Who’s Giving to Super PACs

At this point in the game though, the Republican SuperPAC's are pouring in and racing through money. It's hard to say what the left-leaning-SuperPAC's will wind up doing come August and September...there's virtually no benefit to giving to those now, because some portion of those contributions could be disclosed before the election if the money were raised now. The Republicans currently have a SuperPAC advantage, but at least this time, Obama seems to have backed off the call to shut down outside organizations that he ran under in 2008 (almost certainly because of the new Citizens United fully open field).

[lostfan 207]

Thanks. I figured it was a bit taboo to go against the sitting President from your party, but it does happen to congressman and governors all the time like you said, so I wasn't sure about the rules. I guess the fact that the law prevents Obama from running in 2016 makes a difference too, any candidate knows they can run 4 years from now.

It's too late in the game to do that too

[Reddy 33]

Against Gingrich or Santorum? Sure. I don't see a lot supporting that against Romney, but it's Feb. 1st so polls are pretty much meaningless right now.

 

I don't know if there's a candidate that could have easily bridged the tea party/conservative wing and the "Establishment GOP" wing, but someone who did that and had even mildly favorable overall views would seriously challenge Obama.

by the time Gingrich is done destroying Romney, Obama's work will have been done for him, and yes, he will win in a landslide.

 

That said, complacency is dangerous. We still gotta get out and vote.

[StrangeSox 652]

I'm not voting for Obama.

[BigSqwert 28]

I'm not voting for Obama.

Ditto

[Brian 113]

Won't matter if Obama is re-elected if Congress has Republican majority. It's my opinion that the voters panicked two years ago and some states are paying for it (Wisconsin).

[Balta1701 3,046]

by the time Gingrich is done destroying Romney, Obama's work will have been done for him, and yes, he will win in a landslide.

Really, did the Hillary/Obama race stretching until May, and that awful 6 weeks of "Obama can't bowl he's unamariecan!" during the pre-Pennsylvania gap really cost the Democrats last time?

 

Everything starts anew around convention time.

[StrangeSox 652]

Really, did the Hillary/Obama race stretching until May, and that awful 6 weeks of "Obama can't bowl he's unamariecan!" during the pre-Pennsylvania gap really cost the Democrats last time?

 

Everything starts anew around convention time.

 

Were Obama's favorables among independents heavily impacted like Romney's have been?

[Balta1701 3,046]

Were Obama's favorables among independents heavily impacted like Romney's have been?

Yes, they were impacted, but he was also starting from a better place.