So, which candidate do you think that Obama could handily defeat...Romney, Gingrich, or Paul...

But, I am curious... against which candidate would he win a mandate and uplift the down ticket.

This is my same old copy and paste response to all these rather insane posts. It is over a year old now and could be updated but I don't see why I should bother, seeing how you only need one reason.


you seem to be ignoring:


Two great choices for Supreme Court.

The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

The Matthew Shepard Hates Crimes Prevention Act (which they said could not be done)

Children's Health Insurance

Tobacco Regulation

Credit Card Reform

Student Loan Reform

The Stimulus (including the largest tax cut ever, the largest investment in clean energy ever, the single largest investment in education in our country ever)

Health Reform

Wall Street Reform

The New G.I. Bill

The Food Safety Modernization Act (the most expansive food reform bill since the 1930s)

The Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal

The New Start Treaty (even when the (R)s said he would never be able to get it passed)

Locking up over half the loose nuclear material in the world in less than half of his first term, something most (R)s thought impossible.




Most of that list is from The Rachel Maddow Show and is included in this clip
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#4077 ...

In that clip she also estimates that ~85% of what President Obama said he wanted to accomplish in his first term had been accomplished in the first half of his first term.

Who would've claimed back in 2010 that Republicans would sweep the majority of state houses and legislatures, the U.S. House and gain seats in the U.S. Senate after the catastrophe twelve years of failed Republican policies and so-called hatred for Bush left behind? And yet . . .

So I really wouldn't know. But this is not a mid-term election with traditionally a lower turnout. My then nineteen year old daughter told me she was shocked to discover that the majority of her friends didn't even know there was an election! Now, with the presidential election, and voter turnout on presidential elections are generally nearly three times the size of mid-terms, I don't think the GOP will gain seats in the House. Everyone is saying - that includes Republicans - that the Democrats will win the House but might lose the Senate. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

to end Social Security and Medicare. Paul is dead in the water.

And he's going to convince people - he's going to have a 1x1 race with Romney soon and when given time to explain himself he does quite well. Doesn't flip flop, doesn't need a teleprompter, extremely well informed. Paul is dangerous and could very well be the new Reagan (who was also dismissed) to Obama's Carter.

He's not proposing dumping them immediately:



Dismissing Paul is a mistake. He appeals to a lot of people that Republicans normally don't appeal to.

the crazy dumb who's promising to gut THEIR upcomming checks?

Unless he also promises to give each of them a million bucks, maybe...

My guess: they'll sit it out. Home.

Listen to the video I posted

He's promising to protect those checks while at the same time letting young people who want out of a system that screws them out.

Drive by attacks are not going to cut it when he's on TV every day explaining his ideas.

Then he says he talks to a relatively limited group of young - inexperienced - people telling them they will be able to opt out and take care of themselves and the elderly... like it's going to happen overnight... I mean, for each and every elder out there...

Opting out of what, and WITH what? Where will they be able to save enough money for their own old days if his worst-case hyper-inflation scare eats them all up?

That guy is nuts (except for his cutting the stupid military welfare). He doesn't make any sense.

He's screaming 'wolf' to everybody he can fool with.

IOW, he uses the SCARE tactics to prop himself up.

That doesn't mean he can deliver. Promising young people that they can opt out of of SS is just fucking nutty. That's the same bullshit that W promised and couldn't even begin to explain, much less follow through.

--from having to commit suicide at age 60, or whatever age they lose their last real job. The way things are going now, the younger generation will have no other source of support in old age but Social Security. How are they supposed to save for retirement with their outrageous level of student loan debt? 48% of the population now has ZERO discretionary income, being either low income or poor. They won't be able to save either. Paul is just a sociopath whose preference would be to declare all of them useless eaters and gas them.

Jewish vote - not a chance
Black vote - Nuh uh
Hispanic vote - nope

That leaves him with some portion of the youth vote, although I think that support will fall off dramatically during a general campaign. He would receive the evangelical vote (somewhat grudgingly,) the teabagging WASP vote.

On the surface he might be appealing to people that Republicans normally don't appeal to. I think that veneer will fall away quickly if he were ever to become the frontrunner or even the eventual nominee, which I think is highly unlikely. Not to give superficial qualities too much weight, he doesn't have the elusive 'it' factor. He simply doesn't measure up in the likeability arena. I think you give him too much credit.

Paul claim he wasn't "informed" on the content of his own newsletters, bearing his own name, signed with his own signature which were distributed, promoted, and quoted by none other than Ron Paul.

He continuously gets his history wrong, even in his own district. He's a foreign policy imbecile, even though he's on the House Foreign Affairs committee. He's proved time and time again he only has a tertiary understanding of things like the Federal Reserve, the EPA, FEMA, and the Department of Education, the Dept. of Commerce, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and ignorantly claims all of those things are unconstitutional. He continuously parrots out the most bizarre conspiracy theory bullshit from the creme-de-la-dumb of conspiracy theory nutbags like Alex Jones. He claims AGW is not a major problem. On and on it goes...

The legalization of pot must be one damn strong issue in your book if you're willing to start thinking of Paul as "extremely well informed" and anything more than a complete joke as far as presidential candidates go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10176289

I don't see Obama surviving 5 months of ads like this, especially not with the base demoralized. He's given us almost nothing while giving big business everything - that's why OWS exists.

Ron Paul espouses what people rose up against a long time ago. His agenda is what he learned on his grandpappy's knee.

OWS barely acknowledges he exists.

That ad is, overall, a big pile of doo-doo.

China, or any other country will never be able to do that, unless they are backed by some (bad) extraterrestrial 'entity' ...

Come on...

Sounds like 'despair' and nothing else (serious).

It sells very well with the conspiracy crowd, imo.

must definitely not know anything about the secret codes (and the 'well-maintained' arsenal of doo-doo's that could destroy the planet, not just China, six times over).

nothing to you is something to others.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=274621&sub=trans

Sid

He's been posting pro-Paul stuff all over DU.

Assuming his uncoordinated superpac is supported.

Obvious that posts supporting Colbert (R-SC) in the general election would be against DU rules.

Had not thought seriously about related quandaries. Consider the case of a district that is very, very Republican. The less evil Repub would be the stronger candidate in the general. There is almost no possibility that the Dem gets 35% against either Repub. Would a post preferring the less evil Repub in the GOP primary (perhaps one open to independents) bu ok or not?

of course the repugs will never allow him the nomination.

once you get a closer look at his political career and what he stands for.

He's as conservative as the rest of the bunch, and nowhere near "moderate" as some people are led to believe. The fact that he fully embraced the Paul "Eddie Munster" Ryan VoucherCare tells you all you need to know regarding his carefully crafted "moderate" image. Oh, and he's pro-Life, pro-gun,pro-slashing taxes...no different than his co-Repubs.

And President Obama and Axelrod will make sure we learn all about Huntsman before the summer.

He isn't crazy like the others are.

Noot would really help out the Democrats listed on the lower end of the ballots.
I think that President Obama would have the longest coattails running against a pathological liar like Noot, who is a racist, much easier than say, someone like Huntsman.

Paul would be the easist one for President Obama to beat because Paul can't get the support of Wall Street or find a billionaire from Las Vegas to help him financially. Plus, he is really old. As well as all of his rhetoric. It's like he blew the dust off an old copy of the Federalist Papers to make his campaign speeches.

Romney would be a cinch for President Obama to beat, but I don't think Romney would help our other Democratic candidates to get elected as much as a fireballing bs artist as Gingrich.

In any case, we have to deal with the Koch Brothers who are going to spend upwards of $100 million dollars of their own money on Congressional races supporting Republican candidates.

I think if Romney is in he can push Obama in a populist direction (contrary to popular belief, 2008 Obama was not a populist). That can have repercussions downstream.

Newt or Paul would be the worst candidates though because it would mean Obama wouldn't have to have a policy shift to distinguish himself. Romney might force him to shift to the left because he can and will claim to hold many of Obama's positions. Except he believes in doubling Bush's tax cuts.

Paul's position on war is great from a liberal point of view (if interpreted incorrectly), but isn't a selling point for voters (low on the list of priorities). They wouldn't take his deficit hawking very seriously, either.

Newt is just not personal, people won't be able to identify with him as the sniveling little rat that he is. He'd blow up easily in debates against a calm, collected, now experienced Obama.

He would destroy Newtie, Paul would be as little tougher. Romney scares me, and will give Obama trouble.

This election is Obama's to lose.

Romney is Dubya redux.

Gingrich is...well...Gingrich.

Paul doesn't know who he is without consulting/channeling Ayn Rand.

Obama will be re-elected, the Caravan of Cringe will eventually be narrowed to one and no one will be in the least excited. I think turnout will be really low this time which is probably a bad thing for us in the House.

They also are fed up with an electoral system that guarantees that the status-quo will remain intact.

It's not "apathy" but disgust.

Its mostly only here that Obama has a problem with Dems as a whole, IMO

He'd beat Santurum too, and Perry would be close, or a slight Obama win. Paul I have no idea, and Romney Obama would lose to by 6.

More extreme -> easier to beat.

Even Santorum would pull 47%.