Pretty much. It's like he took every Bush policy and turned it up to 11. Really, it's quite a spectacle.

OT: This isn't surprising. Coke is Obama's drug of choice.

Obama.... breaking a campaign promise?

Not that I don't think pot should be legal....

but the whole keeping Fiza thing was a lot worse.


Thing is though, he HASN'T lost his strongest supporters. Cause he knows at the end of the day... no liberal is going to vote for a republican.

Didn't lose homosexuals with his fighting don't ask don't tell because he didn't want a republican group to get the credit and wanted to pass a law before it happened.

Hasn't lost his Jewish voters despite his recent anti Israel positioning.

Hasn't lost the pacifists when he started a war... for like even less reason then bush's stupid reasons.

He could be George Bush or any right wing guy in actions.  He isn't losing votes.  Who's he going to lose them too?

Moderates. The ones that bought into the whole 'hope and change' message. If the economy keeps sliding into the abyss of stagnation, then there is no way that the majority of the independent vote is going to support him. Obama only beat McCain who had about everything going against him by 6%...Which tells me there doesn't need to be a significant swing to get him out of office.

For an example, look at Carter-Reagan. Carter got trashed, and he still had his various voting blocs. Homosexuals, Jews, and paficists - or any of the blocs that will vote for him no matter what may make up 25-30% of the general voting population....Tops. The same can be said for the GOP even if someone like Mitt Romney was nominated.

To me, the two questions that determine the next election is:

1. Where is unemployment and the general direction of the economy in mid/late 2012?
2. Who is the GOP nominee?

If #1 is really, really bad, then the GOP can elect a ham sammich (Romney) and they'd win. If #2 is good (not-Romney or Palin) then the GOP has an OK chance even if the economy has recovered somewhat. If #1 and #2 happen, then I'd expect something like a 10-15% margin of victory for the Republicans plus a potential supermajority in the house and senate. That would be interesting. Especially if the Republicans have any balls.

He doesn't have to lose them to anyone; he just has to lose them. If the economy still sucks next year (spoiler: it will) then it's gonna be awful hard for Obama to get people to turn out for him. In 2008 Obamamania was still running wild and eight years of Bush had completely destroyed the Republican party, but as mrstickball pointed out, Obama's win was decisive but hardly crushing. At this point, given the general malaise in the country, a 6% swing seems far more likely than not. If college kids just decide Obama isn't cool anymore (polls indicate that they already have) and don't show up for him this time around, he could easily lose to a competent opponent.

He sure doesnt have mine or any other in my family.

See... the campaign promises Obama broke to me seemed like it was done specifically to please the moderates.

This kind of thing is likely to please the moderates for example.

I guess a lot of people might not vote though.

I'm considering NOT voting... and believe it or not I did vote for Obama.   As McCain decided to suddenly not be John McCain.

He and McCain seemed to agree on everything economically... and only disagreed military and civil liberties wise, and while I agreed with McCain about not pulling out the troops on a set date.... (Since we made the mess it was our responsibility to clean it up, or wait for them to tell us to leave.)

Everything else seemed Obama was slightly better at.

I figured Obama or McCain, either one was going to be George Bush 2 more or less and screw over the country... so I might as well vote for the black guy since that would be a historic event and mean a lot to a part of the country.

Plus i could stop hearing "He won't win because he's black" everytime Colin Powell or someone else is considered a presidential nominee.

As it is... Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are the only republicans i'd vote for that i've researched, and I don't think I'd vote Obama again.

Rick Perry seems okay too considering a staggering 45% of all jobs created in the last two years have been in Texas.  They have more jobs now then they did before the recession!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375480710070472.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

Ironically almost half of the jobs Obama boasts being created by the stimulus were, in the officials words created by rejecting Obama's economic ideals.

His social issues though... eh... he disagreed that a sodomy law is wrong... that's a bit farther then I'm usually willing to accept with that kind of stuff.  So i'd be on the fence on him.

Barack Obama was/is the king of political speech in that he always talks in senseless platitudes, always talks about problems and their solutions in the vaguest of ways, and makes unrealistic promises that are not based in reality. Because he rarely says anything meaningful that people disagree with, the media never bothers to dig deeper on anything he says, and many/most of his supporters are seeking a charismatic messiah figure rather than a competent leader his policies and direction for the country have never been explained.

Personally, I don't think he has a plan and he is simply reacting to what is happening around the world based on how he believes his action will impact his polling numbers and re-election chances. His actions are therefore based on what would be popular with an important demographic in a swing state, not with what is the right thing to do.

Actual Socialism ------------------ European "Left" -- European Right ------------------------------------- Obama -- Bush

That's the way I've always seen it. Obama is still preferable (to me) compared to any possible Republican 2012 candidate, but is clearly in the same ideological bracket as the worst of past Republican presidents in terms of economic record and civil liberties.

The current opposition Republicans have shown zero willingness to actually cut spending or raise taxes. They have vague claims but they cannot name anything specific and significant they would cut.

From my (Canadian) perspective ...

Neither Obama nor Bush (and most western leaders) could adequately be called a progressive or a conservative. Bush and Obama are corporatist/unionist-statist leaders with arbitrary stances on social issues. Regardless of the political party they belong to, these leaders expand the size and power of the government to benefit large corporations and/or unions at the expense of small companies and individuals.

American's don't really see it the same way.  For example, most Americans see David Camereon as more or less Ronald Reagan, which most republicans now aren't seen as conservative as Ronald Reagan.

What with security laws and stuff... outside of unniversal healthcare... i'm not sure how much the US is more "conservative" on.

The stuff that really bugs people about the patriot act for example is mostly stuff that's been legal in England forever.

Another example is that while lower... taxes are MORE progressive in the US then the UK.

That's just income tax too... I imagine it gets even more progressive when you consider that Income tax is only 29% of the UK burden and 44% of the US burden...  (US corporate taxes are a much higher percentage too...  UK Coporations pay of 4% of your taxes.  US is 14%).

Coporate tax is 26% (UK) vs 35% (US.)

I think you might get the wrong idea because you spent time in Texas right?  Texas is like America's "Romania" except... successful.