2012 will be 2012

[Cicero]

A political journalist posits that instead of the presidential election of 2012 mirroring the events of 1980 it will resemble 1968. Here’s the LINK if you are interested. But I don’t buy it. 2012 will be just as unique as was 2008; a presidential campaign season that made history.

What professional journalists and pundits tend to forget when hawking the latest theory regarding these presidential contests is that so much of what happened in the critical years of 1968 and 1980 could just as easily have flipped as flopped if key players had reacted only slightly differently to unfolding events.

Yes, 2012 already possesses some similarities to the events that occurred in either comparison year, but all the precedent in the world doesn’t tell one how a critical presidential election year is going to turn out until all has been said and done. If you will, that’s what makes these so exciting.

2012 is its own unique event. Still some of the article is interesting.

2012 could very well be more like 1968 than 1980 especially when it comes to how voters view the country and approach both the primary and general elections. There are clear similarities between then and the waters President Obama and the Republicans will be navigating this year.

In 1968 the Democratic Party was in crisis. As now, many Democrats didn’t like their own President. The hope and optimism of the Kennedy years had faded. Lyndon Johnson, who was never supposed to be President, rode the wave of nostalgia, raw emotion and loyalty for a fallen John F. Kennedy into office.

After the ‘64 landslide and Johnson’s further escalation of the Vietnam War, reality set in for many Americans who felt betrayed by a President who wasn’t the product they originally bought. They felt betrayed by the Democratic Party. It was an era of sit-ins and protests. It was a time of angst and uncertainty as American values seemed to be slipping through our fingers.

Today, as Obama’s support gets softer among key demographic groups, there is a feeling in Democratic circles that they’re just stuck with him. Rank and file Democrats are expressing their buyer’s remorse almost as freely as independents.

Democratic voter registration efforts in key swing states which were widely successful in 2008 have taken a beating, with more than 1 million voters in states Obama won leaving the party.

In 2012, it is likely the GOP will pick up the US Senate, and keep its House majority as it wages a pitch battle against a President with historically low approval ratings.

The upshot is that the political journalist thinks that Mitt Romney [the GOP Leadership’s choice] will sub for Richard Nixon – for a variety of reasons – and that Obama is LBJ after the man that should have remained president, JFK, was replaced; just as Obama replaced the woman that should have been president, Hillary Clinton.

He goes on to compare the OWS movement and their probably reappearance when the weather becomes good again to the hippy movement of the era, and so forth and so on. I don’t buy much of it, but it’s worth a read.

 

[Minotaur]

A political journalist posits that instead of the presidential election of 2012 mirroring the events of 1980 it will resemble 1968. Here’s the LINK if you are interested. But I don’t buy it. 2012 will be just as unique as was 2008; a presidential campaign season that made history.

What professional journalists and pundits tend to forget when hawking the latest theory regarding these presidential contests is that so much of what happened in the critical years of 1968 and 1980 could just as easily have flipped as flopped if key players had reacted only slightly differently to unfolding events.

Yes, 2012 already possesses some similarities to the events that occurred in either comparison year, but all the precedent in the world doesn’t tell one how a critical presidential election year is going to turn out until all has been said and done. If you will, that’s what makes these so exciting.

2012 is its own unique event. Still some of the article is interesting.


The upshot is that the political journalist thinks that Mitt Romney [the GOP Leadership’s choice] will sub for Richard Nixon – for a variety of reasons – and that Obama is LBJ after the man that should have remained president, JFK, was replaced; just as Obama replaced the woman that should have been president, Hillary Clinton.

He goes on to compare the OWS movement and their probably reappearance when the weather becomes good again to the hippy movement of the era, and so forth and so on. I don’t buy much of it, but it’s worth a read.

I'm leaning more toward the 1980's as the economic uncertainty is more pressing than social upheaval. I think the journalist may be letting the protest element make the call more than the actual ingredients of the recession. I will go so far as to say that who gets elected this round is as dependent on the economy as it was in the 80's where it was the decider. That is the biggest obsticle Obama faces moving forward. If the public feels insecure he will be voted out. Right now he is gaining somewhat of a safety net but that job and economic good news may or may not hold.

 

[Cicero]

The writer believes that as soon as the whether gets good again then all the Soros backed OWSers will again gather together and go on their raping and cop car crapping, drug using spree and start rioting to boot. They probably will; but will that work for Obama or against him since he already embraced the OWS movement and now owns it?

 

[Lapcat]

Since lefties have no originality of thought ......

much less a sense of humor (OR their thumbs, probably)....no doubt as a result of being experimented on by visiting stand-up comies....er...comics led by Kolac/Danny Thomas and other less-than-jovial aliens (lefties all, obviously) from Twilo....lol....

all they CAN do is make lame and irrelevant comparisons to past events.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/30476/the-dick-van-

-show-it-may-look-like-a-walnut

Oh smiles....the censure blinked out poor D's name....tsk tsk. Doesn't pay to have

as a name. Jane, of course, is perfectly acceptable. Dick and Jane but no Dike with a y.

 

[Minotaur]

The writer believes that as soon as the whether gets good again then all the Soros backed OWSers will again gather together and go on their raping and cop car crapping, drug using spree and start rioting to boot. They probably will; but will that work for Obama or against him since he already embraced the OWS movement and now owns it?

Protests take time to set in as a rule so because this is a somewhat ambiguous protest the time it will take to solidify and grab is just not there imo. Obviously I could be wrong but even in the sixties time was the important factor. We'll see. I'm thinking 80's until the proof is in otherwise. The writer assumes that OWS can solidify behind a more unified message. I don't see it happening that fast but you never know.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Mary,

If the economy begins to pick up, more people will probably be out looking for jobs. I think that this will work against OWS in the short term. So I tend to agree with you that OWS is not going to be a major factor in the short term. It may have longer term implications if they get a clearer message. Time will tell.

Protests take time to set in as a rule so because this is a somewhat ambiguous protest the time it will take to solidify and grab is just not there imo. Obviously I could be wrong but even in the sixties time was the important factor. We'll see. I'm thinking 80's until the proof is in otherwise. The writer assumes that OWS can solidify behind a more unified message. I don't see it happening that fast but you never know.

 

[Spamature]

A political journalist posits that instead of the presidential election of 2012 mirroring the events of 1980 it will resemble 1968. Here’s the LINK if you are interested. But I don’t buy it. 2012 will be just as unique as was 2008; a presidential campaign season that made history.

What professional journalists and pundits tend to forget when hawking the latest theory regarding these presidential contests is that so much of what happened in the critical years of 1968 and 1980 could just as easily have flipped as flopped if key players had reacted only slightly differently to unfolding events.

Yes, 2012 already possesses some similarities to the events that occurred in either comparison year, but all the precedent in the world doesn’t tell one how a critical presidential election year is going to turn out until all has been said and done. If you will, that’s what makes these so exciting.

2012 is its own unique event. Still some of the article is interesting.


The upshot is that the political journalist thinks that Mitt Romney [the GOP Leadership’s choice] will sub for Richard Nixon – for a variety of reasons – and that Obama is LBJ after the man that should have remained president, JFK, was replaced; just as Obama replaced the woman that should have been president, Hillary Clinton.

He goes on to compare the OWS movement and their probably reappearance when the weather becomes good again to the hippy movement of the era, and so forth and so on. I don’t buy much of it, but it’s worth a read.

Geez ! You people keep going on about Hillary Clinton. She was a WEAK candidate who made serious mistakes in her campaign and was caught red handed lying to the public on several occasions. Hillary was not Bill and she got her ass handed to her by a better candidate, end of story.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Spamature,

I suspect that you are wasting your time with Cicero on this question. He will say that the problem did not lie with Hillary Clinton as a candidate but with the stupidity and ignorance of Obama supporters who followed a Pied Piper. I doubt that he will ever change that tune.

Geez ! You people keep going on about Hillary Clinton. She was a WEAK candidate who made serious mistakes in her campaign and was caught red handed lying to the public on several occasions. Hillary was not Bill and she got her ass handed to her by a better candidate, end of story.

 

[Cicero]

Hardly. She was the acknowledged front runner until the mainstream media actively began campaigning for Obama. The nail in her coffin was when they labelled her and her husband racists merely for attempting to run a traditional campaign against Obama. Barack was the liberal fad of 2008; and that was all that really mattered.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Cicero,

Sorry, I neglected to catch that you would blame her problems on the mainstream media as well as stupid liberals. I should have known you would do that. I'll remember next time. :bored:

Hardly. She was the acknowledged front runner until the mainstream media actively began campaigning for Obama. The nail in her coffin was when they labelled her and her husband racists merely for attempting to run a traditional campaign against Obama. Barack was the liberal fad of 2008; and that was all that really mattered.

 

[Cicero]

Actually her campaign was destroyed by a combination [a perfect storm if you will] of a corrupt DNC that wanted Obama because they figured that they could control him once he became president and an in-the-tank-for-Obama mainstream media and the insane or the clueless branch of the Democratic Party. Now you know.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Another display of the truth according to Cicero after being run through the "doublethink" filter. Everyone understands where you are coming from Cicero. :Cry:

Actually her campaign was destroyed by a combination [a perfect storm if you will] of a corrupt DNC that wanted Obama because they figured that they could control him once he became president and an in-the-tank-for-Obama mainstream media and the insane or the clueless branch of the Democratic Party. Now you know.

 

[Cicero]

No; not every one. You, for instance do not understand, and you have repeatedly demonstrated that fact to one and all on this board. In fact, you just did that very same thing again.

You equate bald statements of facts with meanings not in any way either stated or inferred. You project yourself into the issue, in other words; but you do so without the intellectual tools to achieve a practical understanding of the points involved. This does not bother me. I just find it ironic; much as if a toy poodle were seen to lunge at a grown tiger. It's both amusing and sad.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

You are sweating Cicero. Have you been taking debate lessons from Rick Perry? :rofl:

BTW, I have a tougher question for you. Given that Hillary was done in by the evil DNC and their stooge Obama, why did she take the Secretary of State job? I will be REALLY interested to see how you explain that.

No; not every one. You, for instance do not understand, and you have repeatedly demonstrated that fact to one and all on this board. In fact, you just did that very same thing again.

You equate bald statements of facts with meanings not in any way either stated or inferred. You project yourself into the issue, in other words; but you do so without the intellectual tools to achieve a practical understanding of the points involved. This does not bother me. I just find it ironic; much as if a toy poodle were seen to lunge at a grown tiger. It's both amusing and sad.

 

[Cicero]

Because she is a politician. You really do not understand the nature of fundamental reality. Why do you keep insisting that I believe her to be a good or just or honorable human being? A politician does not need to be any of those things in order to be an effective politician or even leader of a nation.

The naive faith that leftwingers had that Obama was a immaculate conception Political Messiah [because he had no meaningful national level experience] merely resulted in them placing into the most important office on Earth a man not ready to be president. The rest is history. In many ways, Hillary Clinton is scum of the Earth, but unlike Obama she really was fully trained [by Bill Clinton] to be an effective president on day one . . . and that was all that really mattered.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Hillary works for Obama because she agrees with his foreign policy and thinks that he is a capable President. End of story. She does not consider him to be the messiah and neither do I nor does any other Democrat that I know. The whole messiah thing is just an empty claim for the Fox News types.

BTW, it was nice to see Huntsman implicitly say the same thing to that prancing clown Romney in the Republican debate this morning.

Finally, have you ever read Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns about Lincoln and his cabinet. Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State, was the favorite to win the Republican nomination. The evidence is that he continued to think that he was more capable than Lincoln was. Nevertheless, over time he grew to appreciate Lincoln's capabilities more than he had. I think that the Obama/Bill and Hillary triangle is more like that. And I still think that Hillary may choose to run in 2016.

You know, you are off your game. You really need to come up with some new material. :tinfoil3:

Because she is a politician. You really do not understand the nature of fundamental reality. Why do you keep insisting that I believe her to be a good or just or honorable human being? A politician does not need to be any of those things in order to be an effective politician or even leader of a nation.

The naive faith that leftwingers had that Obama was a immaculate conception Political Messiah [because he had no meaningful national level experience] merely resulted in them placing into the most important office on Earth a man not ready to be president. The rest is history. In many ways, Hillary Clinton is scum of the Earth, but unlike Obama she really was fully trained [by Bill Clinton] to be an effective president on day one . . . and that was all that really mattered.

 

[Spamature]

Hardly. She was the acknowledged front runner until the mainstream media actively began campaigning for Obama. The nail in her coffin was when they labelled her and her husband racists merely for attempting to run a traditional campaign against Obama. Barack was the liberal fad of 2008; and that was all that really mattered.

That Clinton racism stuff you're talking about happened right after New Hampshire before Super Tuesday. She totally screwed up and didn't even campaign in a lot of flyover states that were to come after Super Tuesday. She instead concentrated on winning and early and waltzing to the convention. She barely won the Super Tuesday primaries and lost in all those states she ignored. A bad campaign decision that sealed her fate.

After that the media spent a solid month on nothing but Rev Wright stories when it came to covering the Obama campaign and then she still barely won Pennsylvania her last real hope of catching him.

After that it just got desperate when she started her "hard working White People" ploy . Which even Karl Rove said was the Clinton campaign giving voter "permission" to consider race when sizing up the two.

 

[Minotaur]

Mary,

If the economy begins to pick up, more people will probably be out looking for jobs. I think that this will work against OWS in the short term. So I tend to agree with you that OWS is not going to be a major factor in the short term. It may have longer term implications if they get a clearer message. Time will tell.

Kind of the yin yang thing without being complementary. One wins, one loses. I think OWS is going to be forced back into the most valuable message they had which is Wall Street out of government (Congress.) They will either evolve or fade so it will get interesting if indeed the positive job signs continue.

 

[Jen]

I can buy some of that as at least being worthy of the write. Obama should never have become President.......Hillary should have. And would that have been any better? Probably not, but she would have at least known what she was doing enough not to piss off our allies and she would have kept any flamboyant lifestyle a secret rather than slapping:fish: us with it every day as we sit home with not enough money or jobs. In that way she would have been much better then Obama. But I digress.

The OWS protests are at least as embarrassing as (or should be) the democratic protests of the late 60's/ earliest 70's. Democrats these days don't know when to be embarrassed, so that comparison falls flat.

It (the article's theory) is, at least, an interesting thought.