2010 Census: Obama likely to lose Presidency in 2012.- Page 4

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 1:18pm

Updated On: 12/21/10 at 01:18 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 1:18pm

I don't really think I'm being a snide assh*le, but if you think I am, I won't argue the point. What I said still stands. Your condescension about what "we" are like on this OT board is inexplicable, since most people probably don't recall seeing you post before your latest spate of posting explosions.

And YOU are the one who seems to think that there's going to automatically be a primary challenger to Obama, so I'll take your claims of Beltway knowledge with a big ol' dear lick of salt.

[madbrian]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 1:32pm

Getting back to the originial, flawed premise of this thread, the assumption of the original post was that the swing in the electoral college to GOP states is a fatal blow to Obama. That's an overly simplistic, naive assumption. Taken at face value, the 'red' states will probably pick up a net of about 6 or so electoral votes. OK, let's give the generic GOP nom 6 more electoral votes than McCain won, and assume that Obama loses every 'swing' state he carried in 2008: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina. The result of such an election STILL has Obama winning, 280-258. So, that's how daunting the task is for the GOP.

However, that's not even the good news for Obama. Where is the increase in US population coming from? Glad you asked. It's in the Hispanic population, which the GOP is doing everything in its power to anger. So, above mentioned swing states like Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado are getting 'more Hispanic', for lack of a better term. This makes the GOP's taks of swinging this states back to them even more daunting, and it's almost impossible for them to win back the White House without carrying those states.

Having said all that, I'll repeat myself in stating that it'll all be about the state of the economy in 2012.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 1:37pm

Agreed, madbrian, economy is going to trump everything.

However, I can already see a few of the fear-mongering fringe campaign ads along the lines of "Democrats allowed your son to serve in the military right next to a HOMOSEXUAL!"

[madbrian]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 1:43pm

Fear mongering plays very well in the GOP primaries, but it is far less effective in the general election. And the example you gave pales in comparison to some of the fear mongering that took place in 2008 and 2004. That said, the SCOTUS has done everything in their power to tilt the playing field in the favor of the GOP, and one can only imagine the amount of money big business will put behind whoever the GOP nominates.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 2:00pm

I don't think those will be the mainstream ads. What those will be is some small-time blogger who will create something like that, maybe on Youtube. It will be found by one person, posted on Facebook as an "OMG, check out what this crazy person is saying" and the next thing we know is it will be everywhere.

[madbrian]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 2:08pm

The ads will come from 'grassroots' groups who, when you look under the covers, are really a small bunch of right wing billionaires. You know, like all the 'grassroots' groups that sprung up to protest healthcare.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/22/10 at 11:11am

phyllis, for the record, i may not be most people but i do recall many postings by sean. usually at odds with me, shockingly!

let's also not forget that the president got the start treaty as well as dadt repeal. and those tax cuts? why i can't imagine that they'll be an issue in 2012 with which the democrats can budgeon the gop. dadt? gone. start? here to stay. dream act? will come back in an altered form. and the fcc enacted their own limited version of net neutrality which is surely headed for a court battle.

all in all, almost everybody got something out of this compromise...alomost everybody. well, at least the major contributors on both sides, anyway.