Considering the collection of sociopaths the Republicans are considering for their presidential candidate it should be a cakewalk for Obama.
Obama headed for a landslide? The Republicans are tearing apart the party- Civil War
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
This thing was over when people began to realize Santorum could come out on top.
He is a fundamentalist Catholic. Fundamentalist Christian, Muslim or anything else
they are one in the same. Fundamentalists have no regard for democracy except
their interpretation of it.
Fiscal conservatives have valid points at times social conservatives are filled with
dogma and negativity. Their version of God and his beliefs are at the center of life
and you have to fit into their vision they do not have to fit into yours.
Obama will win a substantial victory and this thing is over barring the second coming
of course.
He is a fundamentalist Catholic. Fundamentalist Christian, Muslim or anything else
they are one in the same. Fundamentalists have no regard for democracy except
their interpretation of it.
Fiscal conservatives have valid points at times social conservatives are filled with
dogma and negativity. Their version of God and his beliefs are at the center of life
and you have to fit into their vision they do not have to fit into yours.
Obama will win a substantial victory and this thing is over barring the second coming
of course.
I don’t know. I’m thinking that this election really is Obama’s to lose. We don’t really have a “superstar” candidate at the same level as him – none of the current slate have that kind of quality – Sarah Palin had it, Donald Trump had it, maybe Marco Rubio had it, but they are all out of the race. My sense is that Obama, unless he really screws up, is back in again as the “safe” choice.
Newt wouldn’t be the end of the world. At least he can debate circles around Mr. Teleprompter, and he was there when Reagan worked some magic. Maybe he can leverage that, with the right VP pick (Paul or Rubio), into a powerful combo. If he can fire up the regular Republicans, the Tea Party, and disaffected Democrats, he may have a chance. In the end, whoever the candidate ends up being, the conservatives will likely line up, even if its Romney. However, this election, like the last one, will likely drop in the independents lap.
If Ron Paul runs third party, he’s likely to assure another Obama win, as Perot assured a Clinton win in ’92. At least Clinton was a pragmatist who realized that a hardcore leftist agenda wouldn’t fly at that time, unlike our White House’s current resident.
Newt wouldn’t be the end of the world. At least he can debate circles around Mr. Teleprompter, and he was there when Reagan worked some magic. Maybe he can leverage that, with the right VP pick (Paul or Rubio), into a powerful combo. If he can fire up the regular Republicans, the Tea Party, and disaffected Democrats, he may have a chance. In the end, whoever the candidate ends up being, the conservatives will likely line up, even if its Romney. However, this election, like the last one, will likely drop in the independents lap.
If Ron Paul runs third party, he’s likely to assure another Obama win, as Perot assured a Clinton win in ’92. At least Clinton was a pragmatist who realized that a hardcore leftist agenda wouldn’t fly at that time, unlike our White House’s current resident.
U.S. jobless claims hover near 4-year lows - The Globe and Mail
Economists expect another strong month of hiring for February, similar to the average net gain of about 200,000 jobs in each of the previous three months.
Hiring has picked up in recent months. The economy added 243,000 net jobs in January, the most in nine months. The unemployment rate dropped for the fifth straight month, to 8.3 per cent — the lowest in nearly three years.
Healthier economic growth is spurring greater job growth. The economy expanded at an annual rate of 3 per cent in the final three months of last year.
Most economists expect growth will slow in the current quarter, because companies won't need to rebuild their stockpiles of goods as much as they did last winter. That means less production of goods.
But there are signs that the economy is still expanding at a healthy pace.
The Federal Reserve said Wednesday that overall economic activity increased at a “modest to moderate pace,” citing busier factories, higher retail sales, more jobs and growth in home sales.
Economists expect another strong month of hiring for February, similar to the average net gain of about 200,000 jobs in each of the previous three months.
Hiring has picked up in recent months. The economy added 243,000 net jobs in January, the most in nine months. The unemployment rate dropped for the fifth straight month, to 8.3 per cent — the lowest in nearly three years.
Healthier economic growth is spurring greater job growth. The economy expanded at an annual rate of 3 per cent in the final three months of last year.
Most economists expect growth will slow in the current quarter, because companies won't need to rebuild their stockpiles of goods as much as they did last winter. That means less production of goods.
But there are signs that the economy is still expanding at a healthy pace.
The Federal Reserve said Wednesday that overall economic activity increased at a “modest to moderate pace,” citing busier factories, higher retail sales, more jobs and growth in home sales.
Unless the GOP has a truly qualified candidate who is a good orator this is all but over. Obama has the charm, sense of when to throw out the free money when it sounds best and making promises he can't keep. BUT... what differentiates him from his predecessors? Gunfire in the streets? I doubt it. If those talking this way can't get a candidate who is truly qualified how could they organize and operate an effective opposition military machine? This talk for the most part is just bellowing as poor losers.
It won't be a landslide.. but i can't see Obama being beaten by Romney or Santorum. He's set himself up as the 'default' candidate.. the 'devil you know'. Both are part of the Free Market paradigm that is eviscerating the American economy. At least Santorum is consistent and doesn't tailor his social and economic programs to appeal to whichever state is having a primary.
My guess is this election might have the lowest voter turnout in history.. America is reeling in an economic and moral crisis.. Obama has lied and waffled on just about all of his promises in the last election, and is in Wall Street's back pocket.
He squandered an opportunity to re-regulate the banking and investment industries after the economic fiasco of 2008 and roll back Free Trade which is at he core of the industrial melt down. In fact he rolled over almost all of Bush's appointments, or designated clones, in the Regulatory, Trade and Treasury offices. He's useless.. a big WIMP.. but he seems destined to win.
I think it will take a complete collapse before someone really competent AND independent of vested interests will become President.
My guess is this election might have the lowest voter turnout in history.. America is reeling in an economic and moral crisis.. Obama has lied and waffled on just about all of his promises in the last election, and is in Wall Street's back pocket.
He squandered an opportunity to re-regulate the banking and investment industries after the economic fiasco of 2008 and roll back Free Trade which is at he core of the industrial melt down. In fact he rolled over almost all of Bush's appointments, or designated clones, in the Regulatory, Trade and Treasury offices. He's useless.. a big WIMP.. but he seems destined to win.
I think it will take a complete collapse before someone really competent AND independent of vested interests will become President.
Last edited:
Super Tuesday: Who is likely to win where | News | National Post
Breakdown for Super Tuesday where the main course served for eating is the other candidates.
Guess the have a taste for BS. Obama is just loving this as would any sitting President. The opposition feasting on themselves. Much like a contagion as in the flesh eating disease.
Breakdown for Super Tuesday where the main course served for eating is the other candidates.
Guess the have a taste for BS. Obama is just loving this as would any sitting President. The opposition feasting on themselves. Much like a contagion as in the flesh eating disease.
It may well be a landslide, but only by US standards. The way the polls are shaping up Obama could win by five to ten percent and end up taking the electoral votes in forty or so states. In terms of the Electoral College it would be a crushing victory.
With the current situation of no unity in the GOP (Grand Old Pretenders) this isi a shoe in for the President. What can the GOP offer? Lots of claims and absolutely no plan to accomplish any of it. I don't care which party is in the White House. Why not look to getting a bigger number of Seats in the Congress? The GOP isn't even on first base yet. They look like a bunch of kids in a schoolyard brawl!
Super Tuesday scenarios for the GOP: Panic, muddle, or momentum? - The Globe and Mail
The longer it goes on, the more corrosive it will be for the Republican party brand and the eventual presidential nominee trying to ensure Mr. Obama will be a one-term president.
But in the meantime, here are the three possible scenarios that will emerge out of the Super Tuesday contests, beginning with the worst-case scenario:
Panic button scenario
There was hand-wringing over the weak GOP field and talk of enlisting a ‘white knight’ candidate – former Florida governor Jeb Bush, current New Jersey governor Chris Christie, or current Indiana governor Mitch Daniels – following Mitt Romney losses in South Carolina in January and a string of Midwest losses in February.
Ultimately, this has been a contest about fund-raising, building strong ground operations, and winning delegates. In other words, getting to the magic number of 1,144 delegates needed to clinch the nomination.
Here is the current delegate total, according to the news and analysis website RealClearPolitics:
Mr. Romney: 173 delegates, Mr. Santorum: 74 delegates, Mr. Paul: 37 delegates, Mr. Gingrich: 33 delegates.
The total number of delegates at stake in the Super Tuesday contests: 437.
In other words, in one day more delegates are at stake than in the entire contest since it got underway on January 3rd with the Iowa caucuses.
I think it will be a lot closer, once the GOP settles in and rips away at Obama. You don't hear much support for Obama outside of the traditional Dem supporters. Not sure independents are ready to re-elect. Politics down there is different from up here.
Well the GOP has given Obama plenty of ammo. Which he will use day in and day out.
They (GOP)want to cut programs for the middle class / poor and not tax high income - Obama owns that ground now - The GOP gave that to him.
The middle class is to be exterminated in the west by the bankers. It dosn't matter what asset sucking party pretends to have been elected.
Civil war on the other hand has been the inescapable future of the USofA since at least 1913. It will keep them busy while the hard parts of the country are looted lock stock and barrel. Seriously the armed forces will have to step in and save Uncle Scam from the bankers or live in slavery for the rest of time, if they are fortunate enough to live at all. Guess what innocent cuddly country with lots of northerly exposure is next?
Civil war on the other hand has been the inescapable future of the USofA since at least 1913. It will keep them busy while the hard parts of the country are looted lock stock and barrel. Seriously the armed forces will have to step in and save Uncle Scam from the bankers or live in slavery for the rest of time, if they are fortunate enough to live at all. Guess what innocent cuddly country with lots of northerly exposure is next?
Clear that Obama gutted the Republican candidiates on the top US foreign policy issue facing the US.
At White House Press Conference, Obama Flexes the Political Muscles of Incumbency | Swampland | TIME.com
What’s said on the campaign trail — those people don’t have a lot of responsibilities; they are not the commander in chief. When I see the casualness in which those folks talk about war, I am reminded of the costs of war,” he said after defending his record on sanctions. “And when I see these folks that have a lot of bluster, and a lot of big talk but when you actually ask them specifically what they would do, it turns out they repeat the things we’ve been doing over the last three years.”
“It indicates to me that that’s more about politics than trying to solve a problem,” Obama continued. “Now one thing we have not done is we haven’t launched a war. If some of these folks think it’s time to launch a war then they should say so and explain to the American people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be. Everything else is just talk.”
Justin Frank on How Obama Put Bibi in a Corner | TIME Ideas | TIME.com
Barack Obama’s masterful speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) revealed more than his growing comfort with his own power and with the gravitas of leading the most powerful nation on earth. Moving him forcefully into the center stage of world diplomacy without relinquishing his familiar message of bipartisanship, responsibility, and a never-ending quest to improve the lot of nations, Obama’s speech was the latest in a series of behaviors that revealed a kind of psychological maturity not seen on a presidential level in recent memory.
In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg published in the Atlantic two days before the speech, Obama revealed an attitude that only someone feeling powerful and confident could hold, dismissing war as a distraction: “At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally [Syria] is on the ropes,” he said, “do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim?” Obama’s ability to put “war talk” in its place was not only a harbinger of his AIPAC speech but also showed his clear appreciation of the literal power of language. At AIPAC, he used words as genuine weapons to confront Israel (and some American Republicans) about the danger of loose talk – almost scolding them. He asserted Presidential power in new ways, not just by urging people to search for common ground, but by setting limits
At White House Press Conference, Obama Flexes the Political Muscles of Incumbency | Swampland | TIME.com
What’s said on the campaign trail — those people don’t have a lot of responsibilities; they are not the commander in chief. When I see the casualness in which those folks talk about war, I am reminded of the costs of war,” he said after defending his record on sanctions. “And when I see these folks that have a lot of bluster, and a lot of big talk but when you actually ask them specifically what they would do, it turns out they repeat the things we’ve been doing over the last three years.”
“It indicates to me that that’s more about politics than trying to solve a problem,” Obama continued. “Now one thing we have not done is we haven’t launched a war. If some of these folks think it’s time to launch a war then they should say so and explain to the American people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be. Everything else is just talk.”
Justin Frank on How Obama Put Bibi in a Corner | TIME Ideas | TIME.com
Barack Obama’s masterful speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) revealed more than his growing comfort with his own power and with the gravitas of leading the most powerful nation on earth. Moving him forcefully into the center stage of world diplomacy without relinquishing his familiar message of bipartisanship, responsibility, and a never-ending quest to improve the lot of nations, Obama’s speech was the latest in a series of behaviors that revealed a kind of psychological maturity not seen on a presidential level in recent memory.
In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg published in the Atlantic two days before the speech, Obama revealed an attitude that only someone feeling powerful and confident could hold, dismissing war as a distraction: “At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally [Syria] is on the ropes,” he said, “do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim?” Obama’s ability to put “war talk” in its place was not only a harbinger of his AIPAC speech but also showed his clear appreciation of the literal power of language. At AIPAC, he used words as genuine weapons to confront Israel (and some American Republicans) about the danger of loose talk – almost scolding them. He asserted Presidential power in new ways, not just by urging people to search for common ground, but by setting limits
Yes I listened to that press conference and that was a pretty good reply. A war with Iran would just be stupid and more waste of life and treasure... that of which we have so little of these days.
However he did say that the world was united against Iran and that is not entirely true.