Why Obama will win 2012

[Rationalist]

If Obama wins in '12, it will be by a very narrow margin, and with much less enthusiasm than in '08. Gone are the days of liberals getting a thrill up their leg...

 

[Onceler]

I don't think anyone who is currently talked about in the GOP field can beat Obama: not Palin, Gingrich, Romney or any of the other contenders.

It's setting up like a '96 or a '04 - vulnerable incumbent, but inept candidate & campaign from opposition party.

But there is always a chance that a more formidable contender will come out of nowhere, a la Obama....

 

[Rationalist]

I don't think anyone who is currently talked about in the GOP field can beat Obama: not Palin, Gingrich, Romney or any of the other contenders.

It's setting up like a '96 or a '04 - vulnerable incumbent, but inept candidate & campaign from opposition party.

But there is always a chance that a more formidable contender will come out of nowhere, a la Obama....

This is true. That said, Kerry came awfully close to defeating Bush, despite being a weak candidate. It is possible that Pawlenty or Romney could defeat Obama. But I agree with you 100% about Gingrich, Palin, etc. Unless something goes extremely wrong with the Obama administration, they'd be lucky to get 40% of the vote.

 

[DamnYankee]

This is true. That said, Kerry came awfully close to defeating Bush, despite being a weak candidate. It is possible that Pawlenty or Romney could defeat Obama. But I agree with you 100% about Gingrich, Palin, etc. Unless something goes extremely wrong with the Obama administration, they'd be lucky to get 40% of the vote.

If Obama wins in '12, it will be by a very narrow margin, and with much less enthusiasm than in '08. Gone are the days of liberals getting a thrill up their leg...

How do you reconcile these two posts?

 

[charver]

Maybe he's giving the Republicans more credit than they ought to receive by suggesting they may, just possibly, although not very likely, nominate an electable candidate?

 

[Schadenfreude]

Do you understand that the US Constitution limits the power of the federal government, and that those powers do not include requiring citizens to purchase health insurance? Do you also understand that the US constitution, Amendment X states that all other powers are reserved to the people or to the states? Do you also understand that your state constitution is not the purview of US presidents?

the constitutionality of the health care act will be decided by scotus not you or the rest of us

just out of curiosity, are you a scholar or lawyer specialized in the us constitution or are you repeating what you have heard on the right wing circuit

to date, four courts have ruled on it and two are in favor and two are against

and yes, i am aware of the difference between a state constitution and the us constitutiion

 

[Schadenfreude]

States have the liberty under the Constitution to experiment with different health care systems. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants the Federal government that authority. Try reading the 10th Amendment sometime.

under our federal system, the government has broad powers (one of the things that the anti-federalists railed about)

as for the 10th amendment, it has been ruled by scotus that even if a certain power is not specified in the constitution the feds can preempt the states

 

[Rune]

Your "point" appears to be that Romney invented state-run health care, but you ignore the fact that what he did may be in full compliance with the Massachusetts constitution. The federal constitution, however, forbids a federally run health care program.

So medicare is unconstitutional?

 

[Rune]

This is all merely your opinion, excuses for why you think Romney is a bad candidate even though his liberal health care policy jives exactly with yours. Why not just man-up and say that you don't like him because he's a Republican?

Please point out one thing which is opinion and not fact?

Why wouldn't his liberal health care policy jive exactly, since they are one and then same?

As to your last statement, where do you get the idea that I don't like him? I complimented him several times, merely said he has no common sense.

 

[DamnYankee]

So medicare is unconstitutional?

Of course, duh.

 

[DamnYankee]

Please point out one thing which is opinion and not fact?

Why wouldn't his liberal health care policy jive exactly, since they are one and then same?

As to your last statement, where do you get the idea that I don't like him? I complimented him several times, merely said he has no common sense.

Stop trolling.

 

[Rune]

Please point out one thing which is opinion and not fact?

Why wouldn't his liberal health care policy jive exactly, since they are one and then same?

As to your last statement, where do you get the idea that I don't like him? I complimented him several times, merely said he has no common sense.

?

 

[Rationalist]

under our federal system, the government has broad powers (one of the things that the anti-federalists railed about)

as for the 10th amendment, it has been ruled by scotus that even if a certain power is not specified in the constitution the feds can preempt the states

Care to tell me where these "broad powers" are delegated? In spite of what SCOTUS ruled in Marbury v. Madison, the 10th amendment is very clear: anything that is not specifically delegated to the Federal government is reserved to the states.

If SCOTUS ruled that the 13th amendment is meaningless, would you favor reinstating slavery?