Hello, Magnus
It’s been a long time since we’ve chatted. I’m glad that you found this thread.
Regarding your questions —
I don’t think anyone would dispute the fact that he has a chance.
[B]Short answer:[/B]
Yes. And that’s not my political preference speaking. That’s how I would bet, as a gambling man.
[B]Long answer:[/B]
There is seething discontent in this country over the inept mishandling of the mess that Obama inherited. This country will no longer tolerate Obama’s excuse that this all got started in the Bush years, and none of it is his fault. He has had 3½ years to get a viable recovery started — and his results are dismal. And that’s [I]assuming[/I] that Obama is really trying to restore and rebuild American economic strength. In other words, that’s giving Obama the benefit of some very serious doubts.
But, not everyone gives him the benefit of the doubt. There is a vocal (and growing) minority in this country who believe that Obama’s ideology and agenda are antithetical to what most Americans consider to be social and economic progress.
And I am part of that minority. I do not believe that Obama has tried — and failed — to return this country to prosperity. Rather, I believe that Obama has tried — [I]and, to a frightening degree, succeeded[/I] — in warping the path of this country into something entirely un-American. More on that topic in a future post, if you’re interested.
The majority of Americans, who see Obama as a sort of black Jimmy Carter — inept — in way over his head — but with his heart in the right place — will reject him. They will vote for a man who can lead, a man who can manage, a man who knows how to be chief executive. They will vote for Mitt Romney.
Those of us who see Obama as something much more sinister, would vote for [I]any[/I] alternative to Obama. As I wrote somewhere else in this thread, if the choice were between a cardboard cut-out of Abraham Lincoln, or Obama, we would vote for the cardboard cut-out.
Fortunately, we have a much better alternative than just [I]Not-Obama.[/I] We have a positive choice in Mitt Romney — a man with proven executive ability in both business and government, who can beat Obama, and then begin the task of undoing the damage that Obama has done.
On the topic of un-seating a sitting president, I jotted down some modern stats which you might find interesting.
Starting with Truman, our 33rd president, there have been 12 presidents, up to and including Obama (our 44th president): Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, Bush (43) and Obama.
Of those 12 presidents, 4 have been one-term presidents: Truman, Johnson, Carter and Bush (41). Truman and Johnson are somewhat special cases, because they each finished out the term of a deceased predecesor, but then achieved only a single elected term of their own. Johnson was a special case in another way, as well; he voluntarily chose not to seek a second (elected) term, although he was eligible to do so. The Viet Nam War had made Johnson the most hated president of his time, and he saw the handwriting on the wall.
Not included in this count are two other special cases: Kennedy, whose only term was cut short by assassination; and Ford, who finished out the second term of Richard Nixon (after Nixon resigned), but subsequently failed to win election on his own.
Here’s another way to look at the stats: of the 12 presidents since Truman, only 4 have started [I]and completed[/I] two full terms: Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton and Bush (43).
So, out of 12 presidents, 4 were one-term presidents, 4 were “normal” two-term presidents, and 4 were special cases.
There’s no doubt that a [I]popular[/I] sitting president has some powerful advantages over a [I]popular[/I] challenger, all other things being equal (which they seldom are). But, even in that idealized scenario, hanging on for a second term is, by no means, a slam-dunk for a sitting president.
Obama is facing a formidable challenge, and he is absolutely beat-able.
Romney’s greatest strength, going into the November election, will be the fact that more than half the country wants to be rid of Obama. Romney’s message is getting out (despite massive attempts at distraction by the Obama Regime), and people are flocking to him. People who once saw Romney as the Anybody-But-Obama candidate, are now embracing the guy as a solid choice for getting this country back on track.
And Romney has essentially neutralized Obama’s money-advantage. Many months ago, the conventional wisdom was that Obama would have a political war-chest of a billion dollars, and his challenger was likely to have, maybe, one-quarter of that amount. Now, it appears that Obama will fall way short of that billion, and it appears that Romney will match him, almost dollar-for-dollar.
Romney is wealthy; but the obscene amounts of money that slosh through politics nowadays are far beyond even Romney’s ability to self-finance. However, he has some very-deep-pocket donors who are determined to see to it that Obama is not able to [I]buy[/I] a second term. The shadowy business of campaign finance is a topic for another time. But, for now, it looks like the Romney campaign will not have any money problems.
This has turned into a wall of text. Sorry about that.
You obviously hit [I]several[/I] of my hot-buttons. See what you’ve done?
