Forums
This is an index of all forums posting across the site.
BO wants to be Ronald Reagan
”It could have been a coincidence when Barack Obama gave a major policy speech last week at a building named after former President Ronald Reagan. But it comes from the same campaign that until yesterday had pushed to hold a major foreign policy address at the Brandenburg Gate, where Ronald Reagan in 1987 famously demanded of his Soviet counterpart, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
During his bid for the presidency, Obama has repeatedly praised the political gifts of Reagan, the modern president most revered by Republicans, and whose policies are still held in contempt by many leading liberals.
A year ago Obama compared Reagan favorably to President Bush in a primary debate while defending his pledge to meet directly with the leaders of hostile nations without preconditions. “Ronald Reagan called [Russia] an evil empire,” said Obama, but he also “spoke to the Soviet Union.”
In January, Obama came under fire from within his party after casting himself as an emotive heir to Reagan. “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America,” Obama told a Nevada newspaper in January, noting that Reagan “tapped into what people were already feeling, which is: We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
Logical Fallacy 16: Misrepresenting your opponents arguent.
I did not say short of 60% is really a loss. I said that it is a testament to the strength of the GOP, to the loyalty of the GOP base etc that even in a hostile environment, where ANY generic Democrat is favoured to beat a generic Republican, Obama will still not win a landslide election - as Reagan and Nixon did.
Well he isnt, is he. He should be slapping McCain around like Reagan slapped Mondale around. You remember Mondale, he won only the District of Columbia (which has never been won by a Republican candidate) and his home state of Minnesota, and even there he came with in less than 3,800 votes. Poor guy only got 13 electoral votes to Reagan's 525. Hahahahah...
And WHY should he be beating McCain like Reagan did in 1984? Reagan was a white incumbent president, for starters.
Again, moving the goalposts.
You folks can screech and holler that Obama got only 51 percent of the vote, or 53, or 55 or whatever. But he's going to get 100 percent of the White House and expanding majorities in both houses.
And funny how I didn't hear any of this silliness in 2004, when Bush, a white incumbent WARTIME president, came within an inch of losing -- if about 2 percent of the Ohio electorate had switched columns, Kerry would be running for releection now.
Ill tell you why:
Unpopular Republican President with an approval rating in the low 30s.
Economic recession - bank losses of some $400 billion, a crumbling housing market, oil prices at $130 a barrel, rising commodity prices.
TWO unpopular wars on different fronts, with no definitive timetable for withdrawal.
The Dems have never had it so good...and yet BO still wont break 400 EVs.
Gee, we had a recession in 1992, and Clinton only got 43 percent -- but got some 360 EV's. It was proclaimed a landslide. Whuh happen?
There is no data for a president with numbers that low, but Bush's numbers are irrelevant because HE is irrelevant.
And the Iraq/Afghanistan issues are not anywhere near as divisive as Vietnam was. That war led us to a 1968 race which was...a tie.
See, you got a bunch of bits of stuff that have little or no statistically validity.
What IS statistically valid is that Obama is now on track to win the White House by 100 electoral votes, which no Republican has done in 20 years.
