Expert politicos think in cycles. Christie in 2016. I am sure you already read my analysis of that.
Debates!!!
- Thread starter Epic
- Start date
Expert politicos think in cycles. Christie in 2016. I am sure you already read my analysis of that.
Actually, no. I live in NJ, figured it out all by myself. Actually, when I saw his performance during Hurricane Irene, I knew we had ourselves a winner.
Interesting guy. I don't agree with most of what he says, but he is extremely competent. He's going to blow the crap out of whoever tries running against him in four years.
Interesting guy. I don't agree with most of what he says, but he is extremely competent. He's going to blow the crap out of whoever tries running against him in four years.
I agree that while Romney is very smart and competent, he isn't great at thinking on his feet, and I think his Mormonism hurts him in one particular way. He is too nice and not willing to really debate in a heartless manner. Yes, Newt could debate better. But there are only three general debates, and they usually aren't as important in the general.
Obviously, from my statements I'm leaning toward Romney right now, but I don't think that an Obama re-election is the disaster that others claim. I'm not a Republican, and I vote for the person who will work on the issues that I think are a big deal. I think that Obama has learned some things that make him more appealing to me, but I do think that he is in over his head. He was incredibly inexperienced in terms of how to govern, and it shows. He was naive in his expectations of what he could do, and he wasted two years. By the time he figured out the game he was facing a huge obstruction in congress.
No, he wanted health care, and he went after that with total determination, and got it. Truman, who was supposedly as tough as they get, couldn't do it. Clinton failed miserably. Obama got it.
That's number one. Number two, they sorely wanted him to fail as miserably as Hoover did post 1929. He didn't. Even if Romney gets sworn in next Jan, it won't be his first job, as it was for FDR, to tackle an economy that had come to a dead halt.
The Republicans roundly hate him for this. That hate doesn't spring from his incompetence at getting what he wanted. Quite the opposite.
Interesting. Rush himself has said as much. With the typical twist of course. But he did say Obama has never been beaten, he has always gotten what he wanted.
He is not limiting his options. To say no to a Veep this early would be a snub to Mittens. Later on, he will say he has a state to run, and respectfully decline that way. Everybody saves face.
Christie is readying himself for the whitehouse in 2016. It will be a cakewalk for him.
First, I'm not talking about republicans. They were never going to vote for him anyway. I'm talking about more centrist voters. He doesn't appear to be the guy who accomplishes his agenda, he appears incompetent.
Secondly, the main focus of the 2008 election was the economy until the war came into the forefront. HillaryCare was such a massive failure that the Dems were having a tough time bringing it up again. Obama was very strong on ending the wars and closing Guantanamo, and saving the economy. Health care was way down the list for most voters. So he broke the promises that voters cared about, in order to pursue what he wanted. That wasn't smart.
I'll give it to him now though. He's been trying to keep the promises now, like pulling out of Iraq. It might be a bit late though. He's lost a lot of his base as they got impatient with him.
Thought about that right after I clicked, send.
You are right, it might not be a bad idea after thinking about it a bit more.