By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Romney or Obama and why

Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
TadpoleJackson said:
Out of these two, I will have to go with Obama. The reason is simple. I don't see much of a difference between the two, and neither is very appealing, so I'd rather have four more years of Obama, than a potential eight years from Romney. Come 2016, I'd like to see the Republicans run some real candidates, not the bottom of the barrel like we had this year


This is based on the assumption that the Republicans will have somebody better than Romney in 2016.

My bets on 2016 candidates:

Dems: Hillary Clinton

GOP (if Romney is not Pres): Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin.... maybe Jim DeMint.

If you're thinking tactically like you are, you've got to consider this. Some of those candidates are definitely better than Romney, but could they beat Clinton?

----

As for the OP. If those were the only two on the ticket, I wouldn't bother voting (if I could vote, anyway).

Clinton is even withdrawing as Secretary of State if Obama wins re-election. She's aged more visibly than Obama has in the current term, and its fair to say she's fairly burnt out.

That said, i don't really know who else the Democrats even have. I don't know whether it's the fact that media attention on "good presidential candidates" has focused solely on Republicans in the last four years, but i'm not aware of who the real up-and-comers are on the side that i favor. On the Republican side, Christie is a possibility, the party was flirting with Jindal in the first year of the Obama Administration but they seem to have ignored him since. Palin is moving beyond "has-been" status at this point. DeMint is also possible.

I'd say Christie, Pawlenty, Jeb Bush (for some reason, despite the fact that no Republican candidate even likes to mention his brother), Scott Walker (if he survives his recall election), Rick Santorum again, and Rand Paul.

I think Jindal will be on there, since he's been hankering for the VP position with Romney, he definitely has higher political aspirations (the guy has no chance of winning, though).

I don't think we'll see Rand until 2020, I think he might try and distance himself from his father a little bit, and leave at least one election between the two of them (otherwise, it seems too much like he's trying to hijack his father's support).

Jeb Bush could work, and he could be successful... despite everything, I think many Republicans actually look back at George and think "hey, he wasn't so bad", after the way that the conservative media has portrayed Obama.

I agree that Palin is moving into the has-been world... but does she see that? I doubt it.

If DeMint runs, he'll be the best option in 2016. Big if, he's always kept out of Presidential politics, and focused on his job in the Senate... but he's not running for re-election after his term. If Christie runs, all else being equal, he will probably win the nomination (by which I mean, current circumstances with Republican politics).



Around the Network

I could see huckabee(since he ended second in the 08 election), jindal, Ryan, bush, and christie running. Jindal would be cool, but I can just hear the liberal media now, " his father is a foreigner, jindal can't be a natural born citizen!". Really wish some of the repubs didn't press that with Obama. :/



shotlock said:
Obama, because not only did he try to do everything in his power to honor his promises, he actually completed some. For example, the economy is getting better (although one could argue not by much) he ended a war, and he killed osama bin laden, just to name a few of his accomplishments.
Also, Romney.
Seriously....?

I can list about two dozen promises off the top of my head that Obama not only didn't fufill... but went out of his way to do the EXACT opposite of what he said he'd do. 



I'd go Obama. Because he's African American....

and that's seriously my reason. I think they're both awful and would fuck up the country the same way with their few pros being things that aren't going to change anyway.

("Obamacare" would only go down via supreme court, Obama doesn't actually have any interest in progressing gay rights, he's said as much.)

So having two terms of a Black President would probably be worth more historically then him losing reelection and people forgetting how awful a president he was and blaming it on racism. (There have already been some attempts to paint his bad poll numbers as racism.)

Same reason i voted for him over McCain.  Seemed like they were both going to screw up, and may as well have a black guy screw up for once just for racial progress.



badgenome said:
SamuelRSmith said:

 

My bets on 2016 candidates:

Dems: Hillary Clinton

GOP (if Romney is not Pres): Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin.... maybe Jim DeMint.

If you're thinking tactically like you are, you've got to consider this. Some of those candidates are definitely better than Romney, but could they beat Clinton?

After four more years of Obama? Yeah, I think so.

I'm torn between whether it's better for Obama to go ahead and destroy progressivism once and for all (and potentially the US with it) and hope the Republican party finally takes a more libertarian turn for 2016, or for Romney to win on the basis that he's the less economically suicidal of the two and doesn't blind the chattering classes with faux-cool so that he would actually be held accountable for the things he does. I can't really see myself voting for anyone but Johnson at this point, though, so I guess I'm not that invested.

I'll put it this way.

Bush couldn't destry Neoconservatism... so I doubt Obama can destroy progessivism.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
badgenome said:
SamuelRSmith said:

 

My bets on 2016 candidates:

Dems: Hillary Clinton

GOP (if Romney is not Pres): Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin.... maybe Jim DeMint.

If you're thinking tactically like you are, you've got to consider this. Some of those candidates are definitely better than Romney, but could they beat Clinton?

After four more years of Obama? Yeah, I think so.

I'm torn between whether it's better for Obama to go ahead and destroy progressivism once and for all (and potentially the US with it) and hope the Republican party finally takes a more libertarian turn for 2016, or for Romney to win on the basis that he's the less economically suicidal of the two and doesn't blind the chattering classes with faux-cool so that he would actually be held accountable for the things he does. I can't really see myself voting for anyone but Johnson at this point, though, so I guess I'm not that invested.

I'll put it this way.

Bush couldn't destry Neoconservatism... so I doubt Obama can destroy progessivism.

You're right about that. In fact, if anything, neocons flourished under Bush. Though, this is also due to 9/11 and the emergence of things like Fox News.

Edit: Also, I don't to be "that guy" but I do think certain videogames have helped the neocon movement amongst younger voters.



Kasz216 said:

I'll put it this way.

Bush couldn't destry Neoconservatism... so I doubt Obama can destroy progessivism.

I think he will, if only because we won't be able to afford it anymore.

I think it's also a bit different, because wars don't actually affect many people. When people become war weary nowadays it's because it's a bummer to hear about wars, but very few people are actually off fighting or have an immediate family member who is deployed overseas. The rest of the population just wants to distract itself with iPhones or American Idol or whatever. But people have a great deal less patience with economic failure for obvious reasons.



Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
TadpoleJackson said:
Out of these two, I will have to go with Obama. The reason is simple. I don't see much of a difference between the two, and neither is very appealing, so I'd rather have four more years of Obama, than a potential eight years from Romney. Come 2016, I'd like to see the Republicans run some real candidates, not the bottom of the barrel like we had this year


This is based on the assumption that the Republicans will have somebody better than Romney in 2016.

My bets on 2016 candidates:

Dems: Hillary Clinton

GOP (if Romney is not Pres): Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin.... maybe Jim DeMint.

If you're thinking tactically like you are, you've got to consider this. Some of those candidates are definitely better than Romney, but could they beat Clinton?

----

As for the OP. If those were the only two on the ticket, I wouldn't bother voting (if I could vote, anyway).

 

That said, i don't really know who else the Democrats even have. I don't know whether it's the fact that media attention on "good presidential candidates" has focused solely on Republicans in the last four years, but i'm not aware of who the real up-and-comers are on the side that i favor.

Always Biden... though for gods sake i hope not.  If the media paid attention to even half the bullshit lies he comes up with off the top of his head.  Guy is an prone embellsher who talks of the top of his head.  His only saving grace has been nobody has paid that much attention to him.

Mark Warner would be a good choice since by the people will likely be looking for a fairly strong economic candidate and he's sided with republicans on some key economic actions.  He was a govonor where he solved a budget crisis via cuts and tax reforms... and is trying to work on the current budget crissis.

You'd have problems energizing the far left, but the guy would essentially be a callback to Clinton.



Neither Fluttershy 2012!

 



Former something....

Obviously Romney because we need a mid aged white guy as president again. Also because Romney is more American than Obama.



don't waste time

3DS FC 4914-3563-4510

NNID : turtuls