Thread: Impediments to Obama’s Re-Election

SPIN !

In a poll taken by NewsMax It is asserted the 34% of voters would have preferred Hillary to OBAMA THE (HEADLINE!) in the continuation of their analysis glossed over an shown at the very end of their blurb was that 60% said the resuts today would be the same of worse with hillary at the helm.

It's the economy.

If people are working and making money, it would be an incumbent's best dream.

If things are Hoovereske, like they are now, as history has shown us before, it is heading into a new administration being voted in next year.

The question for next year is who will the GOP nominate?

There are some GOP candidates who I would not vote for, and would opt for an Independent candidate instead, and there are some who I would vote for.

There can be two possible scenarios, the way things are going.
Scenario one could be a huge majority wave going for the GOP nominee.
Scenario two could be somewhat of a closer margin and a lot of the outcome being based on the votes from Independents like me.

Perry, un-decided, Paul, no, Baccman, no, Romney, yes, Huntsman, yes,
Cain, yes, Gingrich, un-decided, Santorum, un-decided

I won't be voting for Obama. As an Independent, I am asking the GOP to please pick a candidate who can reach out to more people.

The biggest stranglehold is the huge division between far right conservative and far left liberal. There doesn't seem to be much anything in-between anymore. If someone says anymore, "moderate", they are like taboo, and it is a shame, because in the past, the moderates helped bridge everybody together and get things done, whether it was Reagan reaching out to moderates to get things passed, or Clinton reaching out to moderates to get things passed. This worked. Now we just have a solid division, and very little gets done.

The far left liberals have a choke hold on everybody with Government in our lives, and when the ultra conservatives are in, they have the far opposite effect of no hands on, kind of like letting a stray kid run loose in the streets, and there is never the happy medium of okay, let the kid run free, but at the same time do keep a little eye on him and only step in if he is out of line and leave him alone the rest of the time. That is what I feel is the right way.
The liberal side wants to hold the poor kid in a strait jacket all the time and prevent him from doing anything and may let him out of it every so often.

What I am saying is that we have failed to hold onto moderation as an understanding of balance. Just like the kid who likes to eat candy. It isn't good for him. Are you going to just deprive him of it all the time and never ever let him have any? Or are you just going to say, hey johnny, it is your choice, go carb out all you want. Or are you going to say, hey johnny, i will give you some candy each day, just so you don't over do it and get sick, and stay healthy.