If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Street)   Ten reasons Obama will not be re-elected. Suck it, libs   (thestreet.com) divider line 256
    More: Obvious, President Obama, Soviet war in Afghanistan, collective investment scheme, Jim Cramer  
•       •       •

9378 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Mar 2012 at 7:36 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



256 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-11 12:45:59 AM  

9beers: Uncle Tractor: 1. The economy is struggling.
Yeah, thanks to the GOP.


Keep farking that chicken.


Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!
 
2012-03-11 12:46:56 AM  

tarkus1980: Unless something really bonkers happens in the next few months (and, granted, there's a long way to go), Obama is going to win in November.


Okay.

So, does the U.S. political landscape offer anything worthy of consideration this election year?

Well ....

State executives: Some monumental ultra-right scumbag tools gained governorships in 2010, and have been gleefully flamethrowing citizens' rights like meth-addled yahoos.

State legislatures: Republicans gained heavily in the last election, which afforded them control over census-dictated redistricting, and they've been anything but shameless about abusing their advantage to try solidifying their partisan power.

U.S. House: every seat is up for grabs. The Koch-type megawealthy are busily ensuring their various representatives stay bought, and there's not a soul to stop them. The Democrats, in their infinite wisdom, turned tail on their Blue Dogs who at least mostly voted with them, turning the chamber over to the f*cking full-fanatical nazi freaks.

U.S. Senate: there is every likelihood that not only will the Democrats not attain the supermajority they need to advance anything worthwhile on behalf of you and I and the rest of our countrymen, but that America will hand over the Senate legislative schedule and committee chairs to our most trusted steward Mitch McTurtle.

U.S. President: Let's, for the purpose of argument, dispense with the unthinkable impossibility of one of the current Republican candidates taking the White House. Instead, consider how little your interests will be advanced against the obdurate insanity of a Republican-controlled House of Representatives under John Boehner and a Republican-controlled Senate under Mitch McConnell.
 
2012-03-11 12:49:14 AM  

tarkus1980: I feel like I'm going to have to start posting something like this every time a thread like this pops up.

It is VERY DIFFICULT for an incumbent president to lose a re-election campaign, especially in the last 100 years. Consider:

1912: Incumbent - Taft. Lost because Roosevelt ran third party and split the GOP vote.
1916: Incumbent - Wilson. Won.
1920: No incumbent
1924: Incumbent - Coolidge. Won.
1928: No incumbent
1932: Incumbent - Hoover. Lost. 12 years of GOP presidency had culminated in Great Depression.
1936: Incumbent - FDR. Won despite terrible economic conditions.
1940: Incumbent - FDR. Won despite terrible economic conditions, impending world war and running for a 3rd term.
1944: Incumbent - FDR. Won despite world war and running for a 4th term.
1948: Incumbent - Truman. Won despite everybody assuming he'd lose.
1952: No incumbent
1956: Incumbent - Eisenhower. Won.
1960: No incumbent
1964: Incumbent - Johnson. Won.
1968: Incumbent - Johnson. Threatened with being primaried, did not run.
1972: Incumbent - Nixon. Won.
1976: Incumbent - Ford. Lost. Was primaried and had specter of Watergate over him.
1980: Incumbent - Carter. Lost. Was primaried, ran an incredibly inept campaign and had the Iran hostage crisis hanging over him.

1984: Incumbent - Reagan. Won.
1988: No incumbent.
1992: Incumbent - Bush 1. Lost. Was primaried and had a significant 3rd party challenger who siphoned more votes from him than from the main opponent.
1996: Incumbent - Clinton. Won.
2000: No incumbent.
2004: Incumbent - Bush 2. Won despite being Bush 2.
2008: No incumbent.


You need to bold that shiat to make sure your point gets across.
 
2012-03-11 01:24:11 AM  

FloydA: I just think that they are giving you exactly the opposite of what they promised, and hoping that you won't notice.


I assure you, I've noticed. There's a whole lot of holding my nose when I vote. On the one hand, I'ld kinda like to see the Republicans get there asses trounced in the next elections to teach them a lesson, but the thought of a Democratic house and Congress bothers me even more.

Ideally I'ld like to see a strong third party emerge, so maybe one day I can vote FOR someone instead of always having to vote against someone.
 
2012-03-11 01:48:42 AM  

EatenTheSun: the thought of a Democratic house and Congress bothers me even more.


Why?

When you look at what Bush did, and when you look at what Obama has done, and you look at what today's Republicans WANT to do, how can you justify voting Republican? I don't think you'll find a greater example of voting against your own best interests and the best interests of those around you if you vote Republican today. Unless you are ridiculously wealthy, you will hurt yourself voting a Republican into office. It's really just that simple.

You're smart enough to see through the lies and intellectually honest enough not to buy into the cries of socialism, communism, fascism, Kenyan-Nazi-Muslim-terrorist bullshiat to know this.
 
2012-03-11 03:28:03 AM  
Let's face it. Obama could be caught on stage schtupping a Boy Scout, with a burning flag in one hand and a Koran in the other, and still win with what the GOP has offered thus far in this election.

/ and I am an Independant/.....
 
2012-03-11 03:29:22 AM  
But in the style of truman holding the paper "Dewey defeats Truman", I want to see a smiling Rick holding a paper that says "Obama licks Santorum" next to the Florida tag while Dems fume that the butterfly ballot and Gays confusion over the term "Santorum" led them to accidentally vote republican.

Gay man on a Palm Beach street interview: "I thought I was voting for santorum, not Rick Santorum. Check my chads."
 
2012-03-11 03:29:48 AM  

Delay: I haven't been too enthused with Obama's policies. They are too conservative for me. I was pretty unconvinced for 2012. And Obama for America made me sick. So, I thought I would skip it entirely. But, recent Republican shiat like this article guarantees I will get myself to the polls in November. Guarantees it. And I will bring everyone else that I can drive. Republicans are bat shiat insane and should never, ever be allowed anywhere near a position of power.


Recent? You were actually thinking of sitting it out? Even after you saw what happened in 2010?

/farking retarded hard left.
 
2012-03-11 03:41:42 AM  

EatenTheSun: FloydA: I just think that they are giving you exactly the opposite of what they promised, and hoping that you won't notice.

I assure you, I've noticed. There's a whole lot of holding my nose when I vote. On the one hand, I'ld kinda like to see the Republicans get there asses trounced in the next elections to teach them a lesson, but the thought of a Democratic house and Congress bothers me even more.

Ideally I'ld like to see a strong third party emerge, so maybe one day I can vote FOR someone instead of always having to vote against someone.


I'm in complete agreement with your idea of a "third" party emerging- in fact I would like to see the US have five, six, 10, or a dozen or more viable parties, TBH.

I'm not too happy with the Democrats right now, but we're kind of faced with two options- the Dems will lube up before they fark us, and the GOP will rub in sand and salt before they fark us.

I'd like to see a coalition of the anti-Wall street sentiment of the OWS people with the anti-interference sentiment of the Tea Party people. Both "sides" recognize that something needs to change- the system as it stands is not working in our best interests. There is an opening for a truly populist movement here. I'd like to see that movement coalesce around what's "good for Americans in the long term," as contrasted with "what's good for me right now."

(Granted, the system is working pretty well for me right now, so my "what's best for us all" sentiment will probably result in slightly less benefits for me, personally. But I would like there to be an America in 100 years, even though I won't live to see it, because I think that the American ideal is pretty inspirational. If I have to choose between immediate profit for myself and the long term sustainability of the USA, I'm going to choose the later. I've probably got another 20 or 30 years until I'm dead; I'd like to see the US outlive me.)

YMMV, of course.
 
2012-03-11 03:47:20 AM  

Ricardo Klement: 2) The president has nothing to do with this. Speculation has nothing to do with this. Tensions in the Middle East matter, but not nearly so much as demand.


WAT? Speculation is a factor. Saber rattling is a factor. If you didn't know, oil is fungible so demand is not as much of a factor as most things.
 
2012-03-11 03:48:42 AM  

EatenTheSun: but the thought of a Democratic house and Congress bothers me even more.


That is farking retarded.
 
2012-03-11 03:51:36 AM  

FloydA: I'd like to see a coalition of the anti-Wall street sentiment of the OWS people with the anti-interference sentiment of the Tea Party people. Both "sides" recognize that something needs to change- the system as it stands is not working in our best interests. There is an opening for a truly populist movement here. I'd like to see that movement coalesce around what's "good for Americans in the long term," as contrasted with "what's good for me right now."


an OWS + libertarian minded mixture would be outstanding. Both sides recognize that our current system is fatally flawed and stacked to favor the big guy. Unfortunately, OWS is too encompassing and involves way too much bad that washes out the good and the populist libertarians think Ron Paul is the dog's balls.
 
2012-03-11 04:48:07 AM  
11. Obama is still black, and to date he has made little or no effort to change this fact!

/That's some good list making there, Lou.
 
2012-03-11 04:50:02 AM  
After reading that hillarious list I can safely say:
www.thefriendlyblogger.com
 
2012-03-11 05:00:41 AM  
6. He's lost the elite. In 2008, Obama carried 52% of the 1%-ers, whom he later demonized."

hhmmm,,,
1/2 of 1% = I dunno, but probably not enough to swing a national election.

/math is hard
 
2012-03-11 05:15:05 AM  
What are you talking about subby? Everything's just perfect. The Hope n Change worked!!! You must be a racist, subby.
 
2012-03-11 05:36:29 AM  

xaveth: What are you talking about subby? Everything's just perfect. The Hope n Change worked!!! You must be a racist, subby.


I hope you had your helmet on when you typed that.
 
2012-03-11 05:42:08 AM  
Wow. I can smell the authors desperation from here in Africa.
 
2012-03-11 06:14:40 AM  

9beers: Keep farking that chicken.


The US economy was doing great under Clinton. Then you retards gave dubya not just one but *two* terms in office, so he could flush it all down the drain (tax cuts, bungling a war by starting a totally unnecessary one), and followed up by voting for a GOP congress who's only goal is to make Obama fail by tanking your economy.

Yeah, I'm still going to blame you teabaggers and your financial voodoo delusions.

/glad I don't live in the US
 
2012-03-11 06:17:57 AM  

Smoking GNU: Wow. I can smell the authors desperation from here in Africa.


Smells like...Santorum.
 
2012-03-11 07:31:18 AM  

xaveth: What are you talking about subby? Everything's just perfect. The Hope n Change worked!!! You must be a racist, subby.


As somebody who DIDN'T vote for Obama in 2008, I have to say that it actually worked a lot better than I thought it would.
 
2012-03-11 07:41:48 AM  

EnviroDude: Unemployment is over 7%. No potus has been reelected with it that high since FDR in the 1930's.


Obama aint FDR and this aint the1930's.


Glad to see you corrected your talking point from the previous thread.
 
2012-03-11 08:11:32 AM  

erik-k: I'd vote for FDR in an instant. A president openly calling out war profiteers and comparing bankers to mobsters? And saying he knows they hate him and that he welcomes their hatred? If only.


I was born near the end of FDR's time in office. I often feel it's been all downhill ever since.
 
2012-03-11 09:08:43 AM  

Javacrucian: Three reasons why none of these matter: 1. Romney 2. Santorum 3. Gingrich


Sadly, this. It really does suck that the best reason for voting for Obama is that at least he isn't one of those three. I'd give him two years before he becomes a lame duck; hopefully in that time he can grow a pair.
 
2012-03-11 09:19:45 AM  

Swagulus: I'll just leave this here...

Link (new window)

/Not a republican


The GOP's (overt) platform. And why they fail.
 
2012-03-11 09:29:53 AM  
Reason one should always be.
Obama was born a loser, and he has carried that all through his life. and he will always be a loser.
Ask the fools who voted for Carter what that feels like. Although in you weak little minds you already know that.
 
2012-03-11 09:43:31 AM  
well i see the talking points have been issued "why are we talking about birth control when we need to talk about jobs creation"
 
2012-03-11 09:51:52 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Might I just be another person that goes:

9. The U.S. lost its AAA rating. Under Obama, America has had its first credit downgrade. A huge contributory factor was his inability to lead Congress.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GOOD FRIGGIN' LUCK PINNING THAT ONE ON HIM TO ANYBODY OUTSIDE YOUR ECHO CHAMBER!

Thank you. That is all.


The president runs the executive branch not the legislative branch.
 
2012-03-11 09:53:14 AM  
The biggest challenge Obama has is that the Baby Boomers are growing older they also growing more conservative. I call it "Baby Boomer Derangement Syndrome". They have this incredible knack for avoiding the idea of shared sacrifice and will vote for whomever makes them feel the most comfortable. Now the economic crash made them feel really uncomfortable and the current guy in charge already makes them feel very uncomfortable. Look at some of the comments in this thread. Their progressive parents are a vanishing demographic.

/Also generation X is incredibly apathetic and Y got shafted by economy. Obama throw some big incentives to the young or he may well be fux0r'd.
 
2012-03-11 10:14:09 AM  

tarkus1980: I feel like I'm going to have to start posting something like this every time a thread like this pops up.

It is VERY DIFFICULT for an incumbent president to lose a re-election campaign, especially in the last 100 years. Consider:

1912: Incumbent - Taft. Lost because Roosevelt ran third party and split the GOP vote.
1916: Incumbent - Wilson. Won.
1920: No incumbent
1924: Incumbent - Coolidge. Won.
1928: No incumbent
1932: Incumbent - Hoover. Lost. 12 years of GOP presidency had culminated in Great Depression.
1936: Incumbent - FDR. Won despite terrible economic conditions.
1940: Incumbent - FDR. Won despite terrible economic conditions, impending world war and running for a 3rd term.
1944: Incumbent - FDR. Won despite world war and running for a 4th term.
1948: Incumbent - Truman. Won despite everybody assuming he'd lose.
1952: No incumbent
1956: Incumbent - Eisenhower. Won.
1960: No incumbent
1964: Incumbent - Johnson. Won.
1968: Incumbent - Johnson. Threatened with being primaried, did not run.
1972: Incumbent - Nixon. Won.
1976: Incumbent - Ford. Lost. Was primaried and had specter of Watergate over him.
1980: Incumbent - Carter. Lost. Was primaried, ran an incredibly inept campaign and had the Iran hostage crisis hanging over him.
1984: Incumbent - Reagan. Won.
1988: No incumbent.
1992: Incumbent - Bush 1. Lost. Was primaried and had a significant 3rd party challenger who siphoned more votes from him than from the main opponent.
1996: Incumbent - Clinton. Won.
2000: No incumbent.
2004: Incumbent - Bush 2. Won despite being Bush 2.
2008: No incumbent.

For a sitting president to not win re-election, at least one of the following is necessary.

1. A significant primary challenge.
2. A significant third party challenger who siphons more votes from him than from the main opponent.
3. A very serious crisis hanging overhead.


Obama has not been primaried, despite the desires of many liberals to see this happen.
If there is a 3rd party challenger it will be a break- ...


===================

Don't start confusing things with facts
 
2012-03-11 10:34:12 AM  

Sabyen91: Ricardo Klement: 2) The president has nothing to do with this. Speculation has nothing to do with this. Tensions in the Middle East matter, but not nearly so much as demand.

WAT? Speculation is a factor. Saber rattling is a factor. If you didn't know, oil is fungible so demand is not as much of a factor as most things.


I said tensions matter. And demand and fungibility are not linked when we're talking about world demand.

And think about what speculation means: it means people are trying to buy oil now because they think it's cheaper than it will be in the future, and speculators add excess demand, driving today's price up (again, fungibility isn't saving us here).

Remember your basic economics here: speculation is not something that will be guaranteed to pay off. Speculation might cause a price rise today, but at the cost of a price drop in the future, because they then have to sell the excess oil they bought and therefore depress the price in the future.

Given that speculators have been accused of adding to the problem for the last decade, the long-run price difference is zero.
 
2012-03-11 11:19:28 AM  
blogs.theage.com.au

11. He's black?
 
2012-03-11 11:28:57 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: While the article is a raging pile of monkey shiat I do have to applaud the noise machine for their absolute rock-solid repetition of the "Gas was $1.85 a gallon before Obama" lie. That's some consistency in spin that the Democrats could learn from.


one of their fundamental tenets is "truth can be created from repetition" or some shiat, so this is right out of the playbook.

Unfortunately for them, and apparently they haven't learned this yet, their bullshiat has gotten so sub-par that even the dummies they use to be able to pull one over on are now able to see through it.

The absolute collapse in November is going to be something to behold.
 
2012-03-11 12:06:25 PM  

Uncle Tractor: 4. The kids are not fired up.
Who else are they going to vote for? The clowns you guys have assembled? hahaguy.jpg


WTF ?

There might be a slight flaw in your plan. Voters that are not fired up don't vote for the candidate they are not fired up about just cause the opposition is a putz.

A good chunk don't vote for anybody which is what happened in 2010 when the Dems got massacred.
 
2012-03-11 12:11:42 PM  
You need to bold that shiat to make sure your point gets across.


Noted. It was spewed out in a half-awake stupor. I'll tidy it up for future use.
 
2012-03-11 12:38:11 PM  
As much as I would like Obama to win the election (I have no actual say in this since I'm a filthy foreigner) never underestimate the combined power of money and disinformation, which the GOP's new ammunition.
 
HBK
2012-03-11 01:47:47 PM  
One reason Obama will be re-elected: Romney has less charisma than John Kerry.

/honest and disappointed conservative
 
2012-03-11 02:09:16 PM  

tarkus1980: It is VERY DIFFICULT for an incumbent president to lose a re-election campaign


Weird. It's almost like incumbent presidents have a bully pulpit or something.
 
2012-03-11 02:33:45 PM  

AirForceVet: FTA: 9. The U.S. lost its AAA rating. Under Obama, America has had its first credit downgrade. A huge contributory factor was his inability to lead Congress.

Bullshiat! The Republicans in Congress refusing to raise the debt ceiling last summer lead directly to our AAA rating getting downgraded AND drove the stock markets downward.

/Article's author is an asshat Republican twisting recent history and truth again.


It is an interesting government system - the idea seems to be if the president and the senate are not run by the same party, it is the senates job to try and destroy the economy as much as possible and then blame the president for it. I am not sure this is likely to be stable for very long.
 
2012-03-11 02:35:13 PM  

odinsposse: o5iiawah: Gas is expensive, unemployment, which we were promised the stimulus would take to 6% is still around 8.5% and our soldiers are still dying in a bullshiat war, protecting a country that has sworn war against us. Keep sending those ants over the hill, libs - one of them will get to the top eventually.

You're right. What we need now is new war in Iran, austerity measures, and a tax hike on the middle class. Go Republicans!


You left out the tax cuts for the rich!
 
2012-03-11 03:21:18 PM  
Oh wow, fun read. While I don't want Obama to be re-elected (I also don't want Buttfoam or Puddy Face to be elected), I will concede today that it would take some specific, monumental failure in the upcoming months for him not to be.

While I do think his policies and ambitions are fundamentally bad for the economy and the country, that list would look identical had McCain been elected. Most of it is not indicative of presidential performance.
 
2012-03-11 04:50:19 PM  

Truncks1: Reagan won, in a landslide if I recall, with unemployment high but declining.... just like Obama.


No. Reagan took office with unemployment at 7.5% and by the end of his 2nd year it was 10.8%.

In Jan 84 the unemployment rate was 8%.
 
2012-03-11 05:04:49 PM  

JBangworthy:

While I do think his policies and ambitions are fundamentally bad for the economy and the country,


Which ones in particular, and how are they bad?
 
2012-03-11 05:23:22 PM  

FloydA: JBangworthy:

While I do think his policies and ambitions are fundamentally bad for the economy and the country,

Which ones in particular, and how are they bad?


Rather than write a point-by-point treatise that must first acknowledge the parts of the Stimulus that were valid, let me state that some of the Stimulus spending that required, of course, borrowing money, may end up costing more in the future than it was worth.
 
2012-03-11 05:25:01 PM  

weave: On Obama's watch gas has risen from an average of $1.85 a gallon to near $4 today.

I took this picture June 22, 2008. Who was President then?

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 640x480]


Off-topic, but that is a beautiful picture. Even the sign features in to make the overall composition wonderful, and the tree\concrete\plastic contrast is elegant.
 
2012-03-11 06:02:39 PM  

highbrow45: No mention of statisticals?


The phrase "Silent Majority" would have been a more cogent argument than most presented in TFA's sad little list.
 
2012-03-11 06:03:22 PM  

Ricardo Klement:

Rather than write a point-by-point treatise that must first acknowledge the parts of the Stimulus that were valid, let me state that some of the Stimulus spending that required, of course, borrowing money, may end up costing more in the future than it was worth.



That's actually the first reasonable critique of one of Obama's policies that I have ever heard on Fark. Thank you.

I guess we'll see, in the long run, if the stimulus gets the recession to end. So far, it looks like it's starting to work, but you're right, it could end up being a poor investment. I certainly hope not, but we'll see.
 
2012-03-11 06:13:01 PM  
OK, time to put your money where your bias is! (new window)
 
2012-03-11 07:16:32 PM  

PsiChick: Off-topic, but that is a beautiful picture.


Thank you, but if you look at the rest of my thousands of pictures you'll see that I get the occasional winner through volume and dumb luck :-(

But I appreciate the feedback. I try to learn from good feedback.
 
2012-03-11 07:37:37 PM  
Where did this $1.85 a gallon line come from? I've seen it all over the place, but I'm certain that I haven't paid that little for gas since long before Obama was president. Hell, I don't think it was that cheap since the first G.W. Bush term.

Can someone help me out here? Genuine question.
 
Displayed 50 of 256 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report