2016 GOP Candidate?

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:
Perception is not always reality, but if things are as good as you say, why has the public renounced B.O.'s policies as seen by the results from last night? Clearly there is a disconnect and dissatisfaction in the voting base.

Well,
1. liberals not vote as much as conservatives in midterms. Midterm voter populations are whiter, richer and older.
2. Midterms normally go against the president. Last night had as much to say about Obama as 1994 did about Clinton. Obama would win another national election if he ran in 2016.

Like I said and and shu09 mentioned... We were on the brink of disaster in 2008. It was the worst economic crisis since the great depression. I am not sure why Obama doesn't get that credit for where we are today but I can't really argue with shu09's analysis.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Merge:

1. liberals not vote as much as conservatives in midterms. Midterm voter populations are whiter, richer and older.

Sure, blame the old, white, rich guys again....playing the race card...lol

2. Midterms normally go against the president. Last night had as much to say about Obama as 1994 did about Clinton. Obama would win another national election if he ran in 2016.

We'll never know if B.O. would win, so you're prediction that he would is about as credible as mine that he wouldn't. Thankfully for the country there are term limits to avoid any chance of that happening.

 

[shu09]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by shu09:

Well, average Americans aren't the smartest folks

This post was edited on 11/5 3:34 PM by shu09

...which explains why Obama was elected for two terms......

Boy, you love to take shots at him. For a guy who talks a big game about being independent and treating both parties equally, you sure don't back that up.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by shu09:

Well, average Americans aren't the smartest folks

...which explains why Obama was elected for two terms......

Boy, you love to take shots at him. For a guy who talks a big game about being independent and treating both parties equally, you sure don't back that up.

You have selective reading skills. In another thread I stated that the GOP was likely incapable of taking advantage of this opportunity because of the special interest factions and lack of a unified leader. Did you miss that one???

Sorry it kills you that I think BO is a failure. The country seems to think so based on how much ground the Dems have lost in the last three elections. I've seen first hand what a joke the ACA is, and he has absolutely no leadership skills. Call it as I see it.

 

[shu09]

How do you define "leadership?" What could Obama have done differently in this regard?
This post was edited on 11/5 8:22 PM by shu09

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by shu09:

How do you define "leadership?" What could Obama have done differently in this regard?
This post was edited on 11/5 8:22 PM by shu09

For starters he should have engaged GOP leadership when he was first elected. He chose to ignore them. Second, he should be spending his time governing and working with both parties instead of the constant myriad of PR spots in a classroom or stump speeches. Stop blaming Bush, Congress, gridlock for your inability to get things done. Should I go on?

 

[shu09]

He was first elected as part of a sweeping Democratic victory in 2008. The people gave him a mandate to try to clean up Washington (obviously he couldn't, the task is too big for one man alone) and do things differently (the change mantra). He had absolutely no obligation to work with the Republicans. I think after the 2010 midterms and definitely after he was re-elected two years ago, yes, he should have engaged them.

Every president has done PR spots since the advent of television over 50 years ago. This is nothing new.

For the most part, he has stopped blaming Bush for some time now. And to be fair to him, Bush left him with a nearly impossible situation economically. You could also argue the same on foreign policy, but the 2008 economic crisis absolutely killed most of Obama's first-term agenda. Any non-partisan person would agree with that.

Has he been a great president? No. I think he's been very average. But to call him a failure seems like a very partisan viewpoint to me.

 

[HALL85]

You asked me a question and I gave you reasons so you claim my assessment to be partisan.

He had no obligation to work with Republicans but the right thing to do as a LEADER would be to work with them, just I have stated that it's the right thing for Republicans to do that now to demonstrate LEADERSHIP. How is that partisan?? Even leaders in his own party criticize him for the lack of time he spends working with Congress. Who's the partisan one in this discussion?

If he was a CEO, his board would have removed him. OB is living proof that experience counts when you pick a President. I hope America learned that after seeing this mess.

This post was edited on 11/5 9:55 PM by HALL85

This post was edited on 11/5 9:57 PM by HALL85

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Sure, blame the old, white, rich guys again....playing the race card...lol


We'll never know if B.O. would win, so you're prediction that he would is about as credible as mine that he wouldn't. Thankfully for the country there are term limits to avoid any chance of that happening.

Well the old rich white guys did their job... I'm blaming everyone else. haha.

I still think Obama would win because if you only give Obama the states he won by more than 5% (since that represents a fairly large swing) he would still win. Could lose the popular vote but he would still find a way to 270 fairly easily.

 

[shu09]

I don't think Obama would win again. Obviously something that can't happen, but too many voters, media and other politicians have turned against him. Enormous negative numbers and not nearly the same passion from the group that got him elected. Can't see how he would win in 2016, if he was eligible.

 

[HALL85]

His own party treated him like he was radioactive and kept him away from the candidates. If he's the guy that turned the economy around and accomplished all these wonderful things wouldn't you have wanted him out there? I do hope he gets his act together I his home stretch. I just don't see it happening.

 

[SnakeTom]

I agree with 09 that he has been a very average President. He inherited an economy that was on the verge of collapse & a bad situation in the Mid East because of our ill advised invasion of Iraq. The economic situation has improved & one would have to be blind not to see that but 8 years ago is beyond most peoples time frame memory in a political sense. People expect (unrealisticallly) instant recovery just like we want our sports teams to WIN NOW. While Obama in my view has been very average at best the problem is that this is a time in our history where better than that was required. We've had two consecutive President that did not live up to expectations and No I do not think Obama would be elected for a 3rd term. It is time for new blood in the White House.

Oh and by the way there was an earlier post by one of our posters implying four consecutive below average Presidents. I strongly disagree with that as I view George H W Bush and Bill Clinton as both being very good Presidents.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

Tom, I think the real question here is exactly what did HE do that contributed to the recovery or was it more a result of the ebb and flow of the markets. How much if anything did the stimulus package effect it? You would think if there was a cause and effect for any decisions HE made, he and the Dems would be promoting the crap out of it. Is it bad marketing on their part or is there really nothing to point to relating to his actions?

 

[SnakeTom]

Whether it was due to their efforts or just the normal ebb and flow of the economic cycles you would think the Dem strategists would use this data strongly in this campaign. Pols always take credit for things they had nothing to do with. It's part of the game so my guess is that those who ran this campaigtn were just asleep at the wheel. I also think the Admin was blind sided by the sudden realization of the power of ISIS and this is something they should have been on top of from day 1. No one wants to keep our troops there forever & most wanted them out now. I certainly did but national security hits home to the voters and it seems like the President was just hoping that it would go away. Apparently he was warned of the seriousness of this threat by Gates, Panetta & Hillary Clinton. I think the sudden panic on Ebola didn't help either but there was little that President could do about that in any regard.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
I think the sudden panic on Ebola didn't help either but there was little that President could do about that in any regard.

Tom K

Tom, FWIW, I think the way he mishandled the Ebola concerns just shows how clueless or misguided he is. This could have been managed by his office in about five minutes but he deferred responsibility to the states which added to the confusion, hysteria and negative coverage.

The minute it became possible for someone to carry the disease into the country he should have turned to the CDC, FDA and NTSB and had them collaborate on a National protocol for managing and treating the disease. They do this all the time. We could have had a short term quarantine process for anyone fitting the criteria much like the military has done. You inconvenience a small number of healthcare workers and people to protect the population and quell concerns until you have enough data to support dropping the protocol. This would have been a non issue and the protocol would have been drawn back in six months. Instead he punted it to the states, which coincidentally, NJ, ME and TX all have GOP GOVERNORS...just sayin.

There was a story on local news this week about a West African outdoor food market in NY that is empty. The uncertainty due to his lack of leadership ends up hurting the community even more because people don't trust that it's being managed correctly. So when you say there wasn't much he could have done I have to disagree. BTW, where is the Ebola Czar and exactly what has he done???

 

[donnie_baseball]

Agree with shu09's last post.

I'm kind of tired of the rich, old, white guy routine. Most of the Democrats in NJ live in the Mendhams, Montclairs, Glen Ridges, Upper Saddle Rivers, and are rich and white. They pay a lot of property tax and call for equality for all. Just keep the Newark, Paterson, and Camden Democrats out of their enclaves.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:
BTW, where is the Ebola Czar and exactly what has he done???

Well the Ebola cases appear to have died down in the US so I guess he is out there curing Ebola.

Agree on Obama though. He handled the situation poorly.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by HALL85:
BTW, where is the Ebola Czar and exactly what has he done???

Well the Ebola cases appear to have died down in the US so I guess he is out there curing Ebola.

Agree on Obama though. He handled the situation poorly.

LOL Merge...since he's not a physcian how is he curing people?? I know you're joking.

My final point on this topic. There were two things that need to be addressed when you have a situation like this. One is minimizing the health risk to the population; Two is controlling the hysteria and putting people at ease. B.O. acted on neither.

 

[shu09]

That's not true. He did try to control the hysteria by saying so many times that it's safe to travel and putting the facts out there that you cannot get the disease through the air, through casual contact, etc. He even invited survivors to the White House and actually hugged them. That's very symbolic because if the POTUS can be around people who've had it, anyone can.

I'm still laughing at this whole Ebola thing in the US. Unbelievable how the media twists things and hypes them up to sell papers, get website hits and TV ratings. As I've said before on this topic, it was never an epidemic, never a crisis in this country. Only a very small handful of people contracted it, and nobody from the general population who hasn't been to Africa or in contact with a patient has either. It was a big waste of time over a disease that is incredibly hard to contract.

Is it a problem in West Africa? Absolutely. Still is. Is it a problem here? Absolutely not.

 

[HALL85]

The last time I checked BO doesn't have a medical degree or is an infectious disease expert. That's my point about him. It's all about HIM and photo ops. The whole issue could have been minimized if he handled it correctly to begin with. Hugging someone after you F up is damage control.

 

[shu09]

He handled it just fine. It was never a major problem. Certainly not a "crisis" or an "outbreak," as the media would have you believe.

 

[HALL85]

Every Medical Director I've spoken with thinks differently. They see him as having politicized a medical issue that didn't need to be.

 

[SnakeTom]

I fail to see how the issue was politicized.

TK

 

[shu09]

I'm with Tom on this one. The only people who politicized it were a handful of Republicans (Jeb Bush among them) looking to score cheap political points by baselessly attacking a president with very poor approval ratings. Red meat for the masses.
This post was edited on 11/6 11:54 PM by shu09

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
I fail to see how the issue was politicized.

TK

Throwing it to the states to deal with it as I mentioned before.

The bigger issue they saw was not taking responsibility at the Federal level. I'm with the medical community on this one....


This post was edited on 11/7 5:42 AM by HALL85

This post was edited on 11/7 11:50 AM by HALL85