Does the weakness of the GOP field improve Obama's chances for re-election?

The weakness of the Republican field should be a concern to those Conservatives who are counting on Barack Obama being a one term President.

In about a year, we'll go to the polls and vote for the next President of the United States of America. Our current President, Barack Obama, is by many predictions facing no better than a 50/50 shot to serve another four years. Ask some Conservatives and they'll claim "Obama has no chance" to get re-elected. Citing the sluggish economy, unemployment still over 9%, and tepid support for the President's signature piece of legislation, healthcare's Affordable Care Act, it all adds up to an uphill climb for Mr. Obama. That is real, not imagined. Throw in Obama's approval ratings and you can easily make the case that enough Independents plus virtually ALL Conservatives will send a new person to Washington D. C. to serve as the Commander in Chief next November.

The "Change you can hope for" mantra is mostly retired these days. The fantasy that a relative new face on the national political scene could stroll into our Capital on the mojo from a stirring speech in Boston a few years prior, a sizzlingly efficient campaign for President, and a personal story like none other and fundamentally change how politics and/or the Government works has proven to be just that. A fantasy. Obama loses more than he wins. An obstructionist Congress, an inability to construct an attractive message for the US public on his goals and programs, etc. all add up to a less than stellar first four years and abounding doubt and uncertainty from all sides.

Progressives feel dissatisfied that Obama hasn't fought harder for their causes, while Conservatives feel that Obama is at the very least unqualified and ineffective and quite possibly a Socialist leaning nightmare trying to drag the USA into the European Union. Even with a super majority as he entered office back in 2008, Obama did not have the sway within his own party (probably due to his lack of experience and relationships within his party) to take full advantage. At no time more evident than during the health reform battle, the new President was not only battling Republicans every step of the way, but also Congressional Democrats from Louisiana to Nebraska who wanted/needed special deals to be able to support Obama's Health care reform. The whole process was clumsy and sucked most of the political capital he entered office with. Obama is not what you call popular. Polls suggest that most Americans think Obama is a good person, but not quite heading us in the right direction.

Eight Republicans are each making the case that they should represent the Grand Old Party next year to try and unseat President Obama. These are mostly candidates from the world of Politics. From a sitting Governor (Perry) to former Governors (Romney) to current Congressmen/women (Paul/Bachmann) to former Congressmen (Gingrich/Santorum) and a diplomat (Huntsman). The other candidate Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfathers Pizza, who has worked mostly in the private sector but has a long history of involvement with Government and politicians.

Lots of experience in that field. Which should, you'd think, play to the appetite of the electorate. "Sure, we liked Obama, but he just didn't know how to get things done..." This group of eight Conservatives know how Washington works and should provide Independents with an appealing option for those wanting change. Whoever emerges from this group should absolutely crush Obama in the next election, sending him back to Chicago, Hawaii or wherever the hell he comes from.

Easy, eh?

There's just one problem.

Continue reading here....

 

Good story.
But any of them will be able to beat Obuma except Ron Paul or Rick Perry.

 

It's like Goldwater versus Johnson, all over again.

 

The premise of your argument is flawed.

 

If its not too much trouble, would you go a little further with your thoughts as to why you think my premise is flawed?

I'm left to assume you think the GOP is plenty strong?

 

Since the premise of your argument was

"weakness of the GOP field" it is a flawed argument.

It is the Democrats who have the weak candidate and unfortunately for them he has to run on his record this time, not just what he says he can do and how bad he thinks the last guy was.

 

Let me try again...

You say I put forth a flawed argument...

Please present an argument, not just a statement, on why my premise is flawed.

You'll note most of my post was focused on the GOP field and not the weakened sitting President. I think the Republicans should crush Obama come next November. I'm talking landslide. But, this group of eight hasn't...yet...struck a chord with the mainstream, Independent voter. I think mostly because they're so busy trying to prove their Conservative chops to the Conservative base...

 

I have already stated why your argument is flawed, it's based on a false premise.

 

Just because the Republicans beat up on each other in the play off race doesn't mean the #1 seed will.
Obama's defense is so weak the Vikings could score multiple touchdowns.

ARE YOU BETTER OFF TODAY THAN 4 YEARS AGO ?


Obama wont like that answer.

 

Ok, I give up...

Thanks,

 

Such a flawed argument I would too.

 

Do me and the rest of us a favor would you?

Contact Dan40 or one of the other eloquent members around here and ask them to show you how to support your argument or a position. Dan and I don't agree on much, but he makes you work.

Seriously, with as many posts as you have, you surely can make a better case than essentially, "...because I said so."

 

We have a strong field of candidates, like Newt has said any one of them would be a far superior president than the one we have currently.

 

What argument, I am merely pointing out how YOURS is flawed based on the premise you base it on.

 

Which two would be your preferences, which two your least preferred?

Plus a few words as to why? Thanks...

I think Romney has, by far the best chance to defeat Obama...

 

Politicians have been known to lie, you know!

 

The weaknesses of the candidates will be vigorously exploited by the DNC campaign.....once the GOP makes their choice.

Newt is by far the best choice....because Obama would chew all others to bits in a debate. In the campaign....the DNC will hammer him on his failed marriages, the circumstances surrounding his unseating as speaker, and all that money he's been making from those books he's written and all the funds he's raised for conservative causes, that went mainly to himself before he was a candidate in this race.

Obama's weak spots are going to be deflected....his campaign will go with "healthcare reform hasn't really played a significant part in the economic problems we have", nor has Obama's "policies" created the mess we're in....and they'll crow big about Bin Laden, and Q'uedaffi.

 

I like Newt, and would have liked Palin. Second I guess would be Santorum. We haven't had a Catholic since Kennedy. Least favorites would be Ron Paul and Gov. Perry. Out with the Texans. Romney's problem is his healthcare plan and he looses the argument against Obamacare.

 

Since they are all stronger than their prospective candidate they have nothing to exploit, that will simply backfire in their face.

 

The GOP choice is academic, since even their least worst hope, Romney, is unlikely to beat the incumbent.

 

Can you elaborate why you feel this is true?

 

Perhaps.......but that pile of Kenyan excrement is still going down in a landslide.


.
.
.

 

Whu?.......

Newt?.....he's far from squeeky...people just don't remember all those shennanigans from the 90's.

Cain?.....wait.....I just can't remember what they have on him?....ummm...is that Libya? or Liberia?

...and Romney?....he flips and flops more than a Marlin on the deck of a fishing boat.

 

Mostly myth and it doesn't matter, people get married and divorced all the time, if Clinton was OK to serve there is no issue with Gingrich.

57 states

There's not a politician around that hasn't talked out both sides of his mouth like Obama.

 

Your premise is falwed from the start, and just like Newt said, every Republican candidate is stronger than obama and every one of them would beat him in the general.

Perhaps if you the owner of this post would give us detailed and intelligent reasoning behind your view as to why you think the Republican field is flawed...then this might set the stage for further intelligent debate. I do agree with some here that Paul and Perry will not move on, and that Romney and Gingrich are the two strongest candidates. Imagine a Romney/Gingrich or a Romney/Rubio ticket in the general; methinks it would be a landslide, the the likes of which America hasn't seen since Reagan wiped the mat with Fritz Mondale. Oh yeah, Chris Christie is making some waves as of late, and where he has put his support behind another governor (Romney), it wouldn't be a surprise to see those two on the same ticket--with the same landslide results.