New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Obama is in trouble in New Hampshire

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
Yeah JD, though I suspect that it comes out of the DNC's general operating funds.
Which basically means taxpayer money stolen from Americans, and laundered through Obama's Unions and butt-buddies, which eventually find their way into Obama's campaign coffers.
 

Jen

Senator
Well, Obama is good at one other thing than campaigning for office. He seems to be good at agitation. Or at least he has access and the sheep-like following of people who are excellent agitators. That will be worth something in this campaign.
 

Pogue Mahone

Legalize it.
Translation: She doesn't fall down in mind-dead worship of Obama and so she must be attacked and those attacks must by based on . . . her hair?

So in regards to the facts she presented, you've got nothing. Yeah, and that's pretty much the primary descriptive for Obama's re-election bit itself. He's got nothing.
Ahhh but he doesn't have nothing, he has the same thing Obama is going to use to win in November, demonization and mockery of the opposition.
 

Cicero

Mayor
McCain was ahead in national polling until the final collapse of the economy. Our leftwingers should study history rather than spend all their time trying to revise it.
 

Cicero

Mayor
Useful idiots, by definition, are incapable of understand how Obama is manipulating them in order to gain their votes. The question is, though, how does Obama win re-election when so many former fools have finally wised up?
 

Pogue Mahone

Legalize it.
"Useful idiots, by definition, are incapable of understand how Obama is manipulating them in order to gain their votes. The question is, though, how does Obama win re-election when so many former fools have finally wised up?"

A combination of the race card and a slow steady demonization of Mormonism after Mitt wins the nomination. With the full help of the media, of course.....
 

Sodak

Council Member
But, of course they're his base. He first has to get back all those disenchanted libbies who voted for him and may now be inclined not to vote at all.

Indies don't matter if he can't even get his own base back to the polls. I suppose my point was that this great "hope'n changer" can only resort to political game playing trying to convince the brain dead within his base that he's still their best hope.

There's no sparkle in his eyes, no zing in his words any more. He looks and sounds dead flat these days.
 

Jen

Senator
We can expect the demonization of the Mormons to expand. Obama might not be much of a President, but his agitation skills and his minions who can carry out his wishes are still there.

"Useful idiots, by definition, are incapable of understand how Obama is manipulating them in order to gain their votes. The question is, though, how does Obama win re-election when so many former fools have finally wised up?"

A combination of the race card and a slow steady demonization of Mormonism after Mitt wins the nomination. With the full help of the media, of course.....
 

Cicero

Mayor
Sodak, that was one of the more interesting things about Obama once he won the presidency. As long as he was in the campaign mode he was buoyant and upbeat and there was a sparkle in his eyes and so on. But once he actually won, his grand speeches gradually went flat. We all recall his first SOTU address and how it sounded as if he'd just suffered a personality lobotomy.

The thing is that Obama is only good as long as he is blowing smoke up the skirt of this nation. Whenever he is forced to address real issues in a way not conducive to meaningless rhetoric, the moment that he had to descend into the muck of specifics, then he is lost -- teleprompter or no.

We did not have that problem with either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. Either man was as perfectly comfortable before the cameras whether he was in campaign mode or was nattering on about the specifics of a program for collecting lint from the belly button of elves for strategic purposes. Obama, on the other hand, is ONLY good at campaigning, and now the entire nation knows it.

The question is that now that the over the top campaign rhetoric of 2008 has been revealed as the baloney it was, can he retool and put that sparkle back in his eyes WHILE also blaming everything on the Right? So far the answer has been "No!"
 

Saladin2

Senator
Supporting Member
The President is ready with millions to smash and obliterate any Republican [Unwelcome language removed] that will run against him...Sit back and watch
 

Cicero

Mayor
No. Obama is already pouring millions upon millions of dollars into New Hampshire with -- so far -- very little to show for it. Think of it as the political campaign equivalent of his handling of the national economy to date. He does nothing but pour money down rat holes in the blind faith-based hope that doing so will somehow provide a meaningful payoff . . . but it just never seems to happen.
 

888888

Council Member
The important thing is Obama hasn't been running, and the goofs from the right and their outside war machines have been pounding Obama with Lies and half truths for months now. What do you think will happen when the left starts to show the real Romney, the real Newt and the real Santorum and what their records were.

Right now nothing has been scrutinized by the press about what they are saying about their programs going forward because they aren't the candidate yet. Their tax plans all (every last one) help the rich and put more of the cost of govt onto the backs of the middle income people, and removing benefits that the poor need.

And almost every republican is saying that we should prepare for war, and if the other countries of the world do not heed our desires of what they need to do, we will destroy you with our military.

Their job programs are all about giving the rich even more money and depending on tinkle down on the heads of those who don't have jobs will somehow turn into them being hired into Jobs all of a sudden.

No the right has had every airway to themselves, and nothing different than what they have been pushing for 40 years or more is coming out, just different ways to get the same old outcome. The wealthy get more wealthy and the rest of us need to learn to be a Dependant society, one that is Dependant on the rich allowing us to participate as they see fit.

How can you expect that failed practices when exposed by Obama and the left will somehow give you a different outcome.
 

Sodak

Council Member
And it all goes back to one relevant fact. Obama had no real work experience that would qualify him even remotely to be president. Perhaps it was his grand plan all along to be the "first black president."

A good article supporting that contention would be
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/06/nation/na-obamalegal6

A limited law career and an apparently successful but also brief involvement in "community organizing", which obviously was part of his grand plan in his race to the top.

But both of these positions were notoriously lacking any requirement for leadership qualities. Community organizers do not lead the group. They simply teach the group how to proceed to accomplish their goal. The community organizer, for lack of direct involvement, never has to take the blame for the success or failure of the group. And I'm quite sure you can see how this definition fits so neatly into his relationship with Congress - with both parties. I told you what I wanted now don't bother me. Do your job!

Reid publicly implored Obama on several occasions during a congressional crisis to please, please get involved and help us out.

Obama does not know how. Obama does not know how to lead because he has had no experience in leading. I haven't even mentioned his brief political career because voting present so many times is not indicative of leadership.

Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, JFK, and many other successful presidents were the ultimate in political conmanship. They instinctively knew how to win the hearts and minds of the people even when it meant kissing the collective asses of the opposition.

I can't tell you where the O stands in his education of "what it takes to be president." Perhaps he's getting wise but perhaps it may also be too late. Perhaps the time to get politically smart was in 2010 when that steamroller made him a target.

I'll be equally if not more interested in the Senate races since I really don't think it will matter that much if Obama wins if he has to face a solid Pub Congress. At this point in the game, I'd say it's very very likely the Senate will go Pub.

You are right [and so am I :)

I doubt the sparkle will return. I doubt the applause will ever be circus crazy again. I doubt we'll see the same enthusiasm in the Dem campaign this time around.
 

Lapcat

Governor
Yep...ergo the leftist desperate measures of collapsing the economy. I still want to know who was drawing out billions in e-withdrawals on September 18....the day we almost disappeared as a nation. Funny how nobody's talking about that any more.

McCain was ahead in national polling until the final collapse of the economy. Our leftwingers should study history rather than spend all their time trying to revise it.
 

Lapcat

Governor
We're going to see a lot MORE grasping at straws by lefties.....and they'll be desperately trying to take everything personally, in true leftie form, Jack...from now on.

Sure miss CG at times like this. Nobody had a bigger chip on her shoulder than Cargirl.

That, plus...you know how lefties are incapable of comprehending anything they read.....lol.
 

Wulk

Mayor
Cicero, I've read all the posts in this thread. It seems mostly to consist of various Republicans congratulating themselves on winning in 2012, like spending the lottery money you haven't won yet.

I don't get your TP about Obama spending millions in NH; he's not up for nomination to oppose himself, is he? Or, are American politics even more daft than I though?

Obama doesn't have to campaign against whoever gets the Rep nomination, they are, collectively, doing, his campaigning against each other, themselves. They are giving Obama all the ammunition he needs, or wants, to destroy whoever is finally selected.

Ron Paul is the exception. He could challenge Obama, he could challenge him on why he tried to keep the occupation of Iraq going. He could challenge him on not closing Gitmo Bay. He could challenge him on why he didn't produce the healthcare bill he promised. He could challenge him on going back on his promise of more open government....etc. The other Rep candidates can't do this, they haven't the credibility. They are, collectively, for more wars, more surveillance, more tax relief for the rich, no universal health care at all...etc.

Some of Ron Pauls' ideas are good, others are crazy, yet, even the crazy ones might appeal to some people. No medicare, no welfare, if you're in the shit, dig yourself out. I don't know how Ron Paul would argue his point if those aspects of his intentions were debated.

I still, as I stated away back in one of Jens' posts, that Obama will win by default - unless, someone of stature throws their hat in the ring at the last moment.

As an outsider, I have to say, your political machinery sucks. Someone is elected President, they spend the first two years finding their feet, paying off their political contributors - they have to, they need their money for the next two years electioneering to get a second term. Only if they get re-elected, for a second term, can they actually do some governing of the country. Every four years you have this circus, which, while it is great entertainment for the rest of the world, is such a waste of resources, and money.

How much money, collectively, do you think that this election will cost? Do you think that it is money well spent? Then there is the money spent on electioneering for judges, chief of police (??), Congress, and Senate, critters, sheriffs, Governors, State officials, the village dog catcher, and the Gods only know who else. I can see the argument that, if these people are up for election every so often, then, if they are no good, they can be voted out. But, in my mind, such a system lays itself open to corruption, the one dollar = one vote syndrome.

It's late here, I'm tired, and probably waffling - but, I guess that you can see what I mean.
 
Top