Halfway through his first term, Obama starts campaigning

Status
Not open for further replies.
Obama is starting his re-election campaign with an online push that includes email and video.

He's only got 23 months left in his 48 month first term as US president, though, so it's high time he turns his attention to this vital matter, especially given his poor ratings.
 

Dave

Staff member
When should he start? The Republicans are already starting. I'm trying to see when W started his but I can't seem to find it. It would be interesting to contrast the two.
 

Espy

Staff member
When should he start? The Republicans are already starting. I'm trying to see when W started his but I can't seem to find it. It would be interesting to contrast the two.
WARNING! Personal opinion to follow! May be influenced by excessive coffee.

None of them should be starting yet, least of all him. If anyone *has* to start now at least the republicans have a reason to start, since they have to fight amongst themselves to get to him. I see no reason he should start spending cash and focusing less on his actual office until the republicans get closer to choosing a candidate and he actually has someone to campaign against.

Really it's all just stupid though. Get ready for tons of attack ads, lies and assholes who are going to spend more money (with strings attached!) than you and I can imagine that could be going to take care of those in our own country that are starving and can't take care of themselves and their kids. Just remember, these jokers spent 5.7 BILLION dollars in 2008 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15283.html) to get your vote. 5.7 BILLION dollars. I know they have to spend it to compete but damn if that doesn't just disgust me.
 
Can we please have a 6 week campaign season like in the UK? I don't see it ever happening but it is a happy thought.
 
Nate Silver is doing an interesting series at fivethirtyeight (now at the NYTimes) about the historical accuracy of early primary polling and the effect of name recognition.

The take-away is that these early starts to campaigns currently appear to benefit those who manage their brand the best for longest. If the trend continues, we may get to the point where, literally, campaigning never stops. :(
 
C

Chibibar

Nate Silver is doing an interesting series at fivethirtyeight (now at the NYTimes) about the historical accuracy of early primary polling and the effect of name recognition.

The take-away is that these early starts to campaigns currently appear to benefit those who manage their brand the best for longest. If the trend continues, we may get to the point where, literally, campaigning never stops. :(
I don't think it ever stops IMO :(
 
This is the normal time that a sitting president begins the re-election campaign. Nothing new here. It does make me wonder, steinman, if you would have made this thread had it been a Republican in office starting his re-election campaign.
 
The last 2 1st term presidents that thought campaigning was beneath a sitting president were 1 term wonders, Carter and Bush the Elder.
 
This is the normal time that a sitting president begins the re-election campaign. Nothing new here. It does make me wonder, steinman, if you would have made this thread had it been a Republican in office starting his re-election campaign.
Quick, go check and see what stienman was saying on the forums about GWB back in May 2003!
....
....
....
KUUUUUUUUUURTZZZZ!!!!
 
This is the normal time that a sitting president begins the re-election campaign. Nothing new here.
Just because "The other guys did it this way" doesn't make it the best choice. He's got a campaign manager, sure, but he's got limited time. Do you honestly think that the 5-10 hours this month of his time is better spent on campaigning than it is on, oh, the other million things on his plate?

It does make me wonder, steinman, if you would have made this thread had it been a Republican in office starting his re-election campaign.
I see you are using rule #7537890: When you can't adequately defend yourself, attack the person who is asking questions.


So much for "change" - it sounds like we should just scratch out the BUSH above and scrawl in OBAMA.

Early campaigning sucks. Every single decision he makes from now on will be pushed through a "will this hurt my chances at re-election" filter. To some degree that also affected his first two years, but not as strongly because the public has a short memory.

But two solid years of campaigning, while wars loom, disasters need attention, and the economy is still in the tank?
 
But two solid years of campaigning, while wars loom, disasters need attention, and the economy is still in the tank?
Worked for GWB. :awesome:
Added at: 16:46
Not saying that's a good thing, but it may be closer to the truth than we're all comfortable with.
 
*a bunch of crap*
I'm not going to bother with most of the drivel you posted, so I'll just leave you with this:

1) I was just saying that this is common. You seemed to frame it as somehow new to campaign this early.

2) You constantly gripe about Obama. Constantly. Thus, it's perfectly valid to question whether you are truly bothered that he is campaigning this early, or if this is your latest excuse to gripe about something Obama has done.

3) He can't make anything better if he isn't in office, so it is in his best interests to run for re-election whenever it is necessary. Of course it's not that altruistic, but it's not the waste of time you make it out to be either.
 
There shouldn't be any television or radio political ads. All that money wasted on such frivolity when people are starving. Simply deplorable.
 
So much for "change" - it sounds like we should just scratch out the BUSH above and scrawl in OBAMA.
That's about the only reasonable thing you're saying. Otherwise it comes off as "It was okay for Bush to do that stuff because he didn't say he'd be any better than anyone else."
 

Espy

Staff member
There shouldn't be any television or radio political ads. All that money wasted on such frivolity when people are starving. Simply deplorable.
Damn straight son. Thats exactly what I said. EXACTLY.
 
I don't recall ever hearing anyone who criticizes Obama being labeled a traitor or accused of being in league with the terrorists...
I used to think this would be the case, but now I'm convinced it's only a matter of time before someone or another goes in this direction (not on this board, just in general).
 

Espy

Staff member
Ah, sorry about my sarcasm then. I thought you were being sarcastic.
 
It's cool man. I'll just take it as retribution for all the times I'm being a sarcastic ass. ;)
 

Espy

Staff member
Lol, can you imagine a world with no political ads on tv or radio? Sigh... It sounds so wonderful. Seriously I wish we had a debate system in place that could just knock out a lot of the need for advertising.
 
Lol, can you imagine a world with no political ads on tv or radio? Sigh... It sounds so wonderful. Seriously I wish we had a debate system in place that could just knock out a lot of the need for advertising.
Election by debate elimination tournaments? I like it. :D
 
Election by debate elimination tournaments? I like it. :D
Also, require all debates to take place on PBS. None of this Fox/NBC/ABC bullshit. Advertising dollars shouldn't dictate a presidential debate.
 
Lol, can you imagine a world with no political ads on tv or radio? Sigh... It sounds so wonderful. Seriously I wish we had a debate system in place that could just knock out a lot of the need for advertising.

Then I invite you my friend, to the magical land that Bumble called "the place that dreams are made of" where you don't have to worry about political parties duking it out, campaign slogans in your face or campaign rallies making a commotion in your neighborhood.

And if you want the 'lite' version, you can move to Singapore where they go through the motions but since you already know who the winner will be, there's no pressure.
 
I just don't watch TV or use the radio, or go on Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, etc. Cuts the shit down by 90%.
 
2) You constantly gripe about Obama. Constantly. Thus, it's perfectly valid to question whether you are truly bothered that he is campaigning this early, or if this is your latest excuse to gripe about something Obama has done.
If it's any consolation, I had much the same thought.
I hadn't realized that I was being viewed this way, nevermind my reputation prevents you, and very likely others, from taking my criticism seriously.

Thanks for letting me know.
 
Now the military trial thing after he complained about those 3 years ago, that is definitely a valid criticism, and holds a lot of weight.
 
I think the sad part of ALL of this is that he's still the best present candidate. They don't have a strong front-runner in the Republican party and even if they did, after all this union busting they'd be hard pressed to get the independent vote.

Isn't it sad that what I really want is a Democrat that is ACTUALLY a Democrat or a Republican that isn't actually a Republican? Instead, my choices are going to be someone who says he stands for a lot of the things I do, but doesn't do anything about them, or a guy that will actively try to take them away.
 
Obama is a shitty centrist President, and that's the best we're gonna get until a lot more terrible old people die.
 
Obama is a shitty centrist President, and that's the best we're gonna get until a lot more terrible old people die.
Exactly. I really wish both parties would spend the next 5 years forging some new leaders. 2016 is going to be an absolute blood bath as it is, but we could at least use some competent people.
 
I'm holding out hope for a primary challenger. If none is forthcoming, I'll write in Ken Hechler in the WV primary. So what if he's 96.

I'll still vote for Obama in November. Today's GOP are nothing but the performing dogs described in other threads. I don't see that changing.

And that's all I've got to say about that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top