PDA

View Full Version : Schwarzenegger: Obama will win in 2012




emazur
10-05-2010, 09:48 PM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43170.html

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger predicted that President Barack Obama will win re-election in two years, especially if the Republican Party re-takes control of the House of Representatives in the November midterm elections.

"I assume that Obama will get a second term in office," Schwarzenegger said in an interview with DER SPIEGEL, the German news magazine. He said he doesn’t believe the GOP will succeed in finding a viable candidate who can beat Obama in 2012.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43170.html#ixzz11Xz09zF7

article also says he supported the stimulus and Obamacare. What a douche

james1906
10-05-2010, 09:58 PM
I voted for McClintock in the recall election and have not let any remorseful Arnold voters forget it.

Endgame
10-05-2010, 09:59 PM
I think he will too. I'm not convinced that GOP will put up anyone worth voting for.

Depressed Liberator
10-05-2010, 10:00 PM
I also believe no one in the GOP will win the general election besides Ron Paul. Too bad most GOP voters are too dumb to vote for Paul.

Kotin
10-05-2010, 10:12 PM
If it's not Ron Paul it's pointless

Promontorium
10-05-2010, 10:12 PM
It's still the same game. We knew the Repubs couldn't win without Paul in '08, either. Obama is smart to not let anyone forget Bush. Everytime he says the word "past" or "previous" it's like another tug on a slot machine that spits out Peace Prizes.

Not sure if populace ready for a Paul, even if fully GOP backed, but I am sure America is done with the neocons.

MelissaWV
10-06-2010, 07:23 AM
I don't really see "I assume that Obama will get a second term in office" as a terrible thing to say. It's pretty much something that's held true fairly often of late. The incumbent often wins even if they are 100% failures. I have a hunch that it won't work this time, but if the GOP doesn't field someone astounding and interesting, it just will not happen and Obama will be right back where he is.

Fredom101
10-06-2010, 07:28 AM
I think he will too. I'm not convinced that GOP will put up anyone worth voting for.

40 something million people thought McCain was "worth voting for", so it depends on what you're talking about.

Fredom101
10-06-2010, 07:30 AM
Either Obama will be "given a mandate" like Bush in 04, and he will continue to destroy the economy, or some jackass like Romney will lead a "Republican Revolution" and will take over where Obama left off.

1/2 dozen of 1, 6 of the other. Not sure why Ahnold's comments are important at all. Idiocy as usual.

Pennsylvania
10-06-2010, 07:36 AM
If it's not a liberty candidate, I'm voting for Obama.

dean.engelhardt
10-06-2010, 07:48 AM
If it's not a liberty candidate, I'm voting for Obama.

Let the fireworks begin!:)

MelissaWV
10-06-2010, 08:30 AM
If it's not a liberty candidate, I'm voting for Obama.

I wish people wouldn't do this. While there's always a crowd of folks who will screech that "if you didn't vote, don't complain!" ... voting for Obama makes it look like more people APPROVE of his policies than actually do. Yeah, it hastens the demise, but the demise would happen without you (Obama would still win) and the additional cheering from your corner of the world. Voting third party* or even just staying home is better than helping someone who I seriously do not want in office get in.


*The odds of a third party candidate winning any huge percent of the vote are so slim that, even if I disagree wholeheartedly with a third party candidate, I might consider voting for them.

Imaginos
10-06-2010, 08:35 AM
If it's not Ron Paul it's pointless
This.

Madly_Sane
10-06-2010, 08:42 AM
How is Schwarzenegger still governor? -.-

Pennsylvania
10-06-2010, 08:43 AM
@MelissaWV

I understand where you're coming from. I do take for granted though, that establishment candidates of both the Republican and Democratic parties will hasten our demise equally fast. When I say I'm going to vote for a Democrat, it's not because I'm trying to choose car-crash over cancer, it's because I'm still inclined to agree with Ron Paul about taking over the GOP in particular (easier than Dem, due to small-gov rhetoric). With this in mind, I view voting for RINOs as the most counter-productive thing anyone can do, assuming they agree with Ron Paul's plan of action. This is why I will certainly not vote Pat Toomey into the Senate. In my opinion, voting for a Democrat, increasing the tally for the "perceived" enemy of the establishment GOP, sends a message to the GOP that they will either provide liberty candidates, or they will fail.

specsaregood
10-06-2010, 08:43 AM
Swarzeneggar represents the McCain/Graham, leftist republican wing of the party. It is no surprise that he doesn't like the sudden shift back towards the right.

HOLLYWOOD
10-06-2010, 08:47 AM
How is Schwarzenegger still governor? -.-

He's a Liberal Progressive with an "R" next to his name. The Governator comes from Socialist Europe and is married into one of the connected Communist families in America.

Except for calling some Dem "Girly Man" and smokin joints... Schwarzenegger is a complete loser.

JohnEngland
10-06-2010, 08:48 AM
I think Gary Johnson would win, if he was the GOP candidate.

But getting past the GOP establishment will probably be too hard to handle.

ChaosControl
10-06-2010, 09:02 AM
Obama most likely will win in 2012, and yes if the GOP wins the house/senate then that only increases B.O.'s chances.

Slutter McGee
10-06-2010, 09:10 AM
40 something million people thought McCain was "worth voting for", so it depends on what you're talking about.

or 40 something million people thought Obama was "worth voting against"

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

MelissaWV
10-06-2010, 09:49 AM
@MelissaWV

I understand where you're coming from. I do take for granted though, that establishment candidates of both the Republican and Democratic parties will hasten our demise equally fast. When I say I'm going to vote for a Democrat, it's not because I'm trying to choose car-crash over cancer, it's because I'm still inclined to agree with Ron Paul about taking over the GOP in particular (easier than Dem, due to small-gov rhetoric). With this in mind, I view voting for RINOs as the most counter-productive thing anyone can do, assuming they agree with Ron Paul's plan of action. This is why I will certainly not vote Pat Toomey into the Senate. In my opinion, voting for a Democrat, increasing the tally for the "perceived" enemy of the establishment GOP, sends a message to the GOP that they will either provide liberty candidates, or they will fail.

Locally, that sort of thing provides very good results. However, I thought the context was voting for Obama. I don't think voting him in will have an impact on what the GOP decides to do, because they will just hunker down and try to claw out majorities in the House/Senate again. They will just take the defensive and know that Obama will be gone at the end of his two terms no matter what, so they might as well get House/Senate people in there who will bolster their Presidential case in 2016.

Anyways, people are going to do what they're going to do for whatever reason they do it, but the headlines will still boil down to "X Voters Re-Elect Obama," since the media has no real interest in pointing out how presidents are really elected :(

furface
10-06-2010, 09:59 AM
Obama vs. Palin -> Obama wins
Obama vs. Romney -> Obama wins
Obama vs. Paul -> Paul wins

It just means that Ron Paul needs to run and people need to support him. Republicans aren't known for selecting electable candidates. For instance Carly Fiorna in California against Boxer.

silentshout
10-06-2010, 10:23 AM
I think he will too. I'm not convinced that GOP will put up anyone worth voting for.

^^^

pcosmar
10-06-2010, 10:51 AM
If it's not Ron Paul it's pointless

This.

Though it seems that some would prefer a Idiot with an (R) by their name.

I am not holding my breath( and not really expecting an election) for any meaningful change.
:(

Jordan
10-06-2010, 10:51 AM
Too early to tell.

If the GOP gets the house, any topic they want to keep relevant they can make relevant.

The GOP can put up a huge, but impractical tax cut, pass it then let Obama veto it. Then they can run around talking about how they offered tax cuts and Obama vetoed them.

They can put up an anti-healthcare reform bill, pass it, then let Obama/Dem Senate veto it and blame Democrats/Obama.

The US House is all the GOP needs.

osan
10-06-2010, 11:44 AM
How is Schwarzenegger still governor? -.-

Because most Kalifornians are dumber than sand?

Fer sher, d00d.

osan
10-06-2010, 11:50 AM
Obama vs. Palin -> Obama wins
Obama vs. Romney -> Obama wins
Obama vs. Paul -> Paul wins


In your wettest dreams. If Paul were the GOP candidate, which he will not be, the media would go on a rampage the likes of which the world has never seen.

johngr
10-06-2010, 12:13 PM
Except for calling some Dem "Girly Man" and smokin joints... Schwarzenegger is a complete loser.

You've got to admit, this is pretty cool,

http://static.businessinsider.com/~~/f?id=4ae8252d000000000056b78d&maxX=557&maxY=327

libertybrewcity
10-06-2010, 12:38 PM
How is Schwarzenegger still governor? -.-

They didn't feel is was necessary to go through the recall process.

oyarde
10-06-2010, 12:39 PM
I think he will too. I'm not convinced that GOP will put up anyone worth voting for.

Not too sure about that . He got 52 % of the vote last time . I do not see him getting 50 % to win right now against anyone .

oyarde
10-06-2010, 12:42 PM
or 40 something million people thought Obama was "worth voting against"

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

That is closer . That number will increase now .

oyarde
10-06-2010, 12:44 PM
Obama vs. Palin -> Obama wins
Obama vs. Romney -> Obama wins
Obama vs. Paul -> Paul wins

It just means that Ron Paul needs to run and people need to support him. Republicans aren't known for selecting electable candidates. For instance Carly Fiorna in California against Boxer.

He may be able to edge out Palin barely , Paul or Romney or my dog could beat him now .

oyarde
10-06-2010, 12:45 PM
Too early to tell.

If the GOP gets the house, any topic they want to keep relevant they can make relevant.

The GOP can put up a huge, but impractical tax cut, pass it then let Obama veto it. Then they can run around talking about how they offered tax cuts and Obama vetoed them.

They can put up an anti-healthcare reform bill, pass it, then let Obama/Dem Senate veto it and blame Democrats/Obama.

The US House is all the GOP needs.

Yes , the house .

Romulus
10-06-2010, 02:31 PM
If it's not a liberty candidate, I'm voting for Obama.

So if its not liberty, you'll vote for tyranny? That makes 0 sense. Unless you think speeding up a collapse will give 'hope' for that resulting in 'change'.

Pennsylvania
10-06-2010, 02:33 PM
So if its not liberty, you'll vote for tyranny? That makes 0 sense. Unless you hope to speed up the collapse and 'hope' for that resulting 'change'.

I've already explained myself. Now, if you can present a convincing counter-argument I'm willing to hear it. Also, it is highly rude to negative rep someone, especially after they've just positive rep'd you.

Promontorium
10-06-2010, 06:02 PM
Yeah I voted for Paul last time, and no one in America backed me up. I'm voting for Obama too if a real challenger isn't put forward.

Fake challengers who have no intention of winning:
-Romney
-Huckabee
-Newt
-Trump
-Naked Singing Cowboy
-Nader
- Anyone in the Libertarian Party
.
.
.
-Paul? (we'll see)

LadyBastiat
10-06-2010, 06:38 PM
I think the "Governator" needs to stop playing with those Skynet time machines!! He could really screw up the space time continuum by revealing events from the future!!! Just look at the mess Hiro made!! :p

I think it is still way to early to call an Obama win. I'm holding out a very small thread of hope that once people see the size of their "refunds" from the IRS (or their newly gained status as one of millions who end up owing), that might actually wake a few more people up. ESPECIALLY since the economy is likely going to be in about the same condition as it is now.

I really believe more voters may actually bother to vote than previously as well. I'm thinking a good many of out of work people have probably had some time to start paying attention to things they didn't pay attention to when they were busy working.

Then again, it's probably more wishful thinking than anything else.

ItsTime
10-06-2010, 06:40 PM
In your wettest dreams. If Paul were the GOP candidate, which he will not be, the media would go on a rampage the likes of which the world has never seen.

And it will back fire just like it did with Rand. :D

klamath
10-06-2010, 07:09 PM
Have to agree with arnold, At this point there are no republicans out there that can beat Obama including RP. If the wars are still going badly and the economy is still in shambles then all bets are off. Obama could be a one termer.

Romulus
10-06-2010, 07:09 PM
I've already explained myself. Now, if you can present a convincing counter-argument I'm willing to hear it. Also, it is highly rude to negative rep someone, especially after they've just positive rep'd you.

Sorry..didn't know you + rep'd me. I guess I reacted when I read that you would vote for Obama. Nothing that man has done justifies our votes IMO.

Toureg89
10-06-2010, 07:12 PM
Arnold is quite the opportunist.

from what i can tell from state politics, he's a fiscal conservative, and wrestles day in and out with the Dems to reign in the state budget.

but when it comes to federal politics, he seems to be a welfare statist, running to the federal government to send federal money his way, to try to keep his state afloat.

Number19
10-06-2010, 07:19 PM
If it's not a liberty candidate, I'm voting for Obama.What the heck are you saying, you'll vote for a Republican liberty candidate; but you'll vote for a liberal, socialist Democrat before you'd vote for a Libertarian liberty candidate?

Number19
10-06-2010, 07:45 PM
Obama won in 2008 because of two factors: 1) a huge increase in the black vote which voted almost 100% Obama, and 2) the Independent vote swung to Obama.

No one in this thread is taking into account the economy.

If the economy continues to tank, the black vote will still be for Obama but will be less of a turnout than '08 and the Independents will swing Republican, regardless of who the candidate is.

If Obama comes back to the center, as Clinton did, he could salvage a 2nd term. But if the new Republican Congress advances a strong economic agenda which is blocked by Obama, he can't win.

Pennsylvania
10-06-2010, 09:29 PM
What the heck are you saying, you'll vote for a Republican liberty candidate; but you'll vote for a liberal, socialist Democrat before you'd vote for a Libertarian liberty candidate?

Oh no, not at all. The party affiliation doesn't matter to me at all. If there's a Libertarian or Independent liberty candidate in the running I'd vote for them over Obama.

cindy25
10-06-2010, 09:58 PM
this could be like 1946 and 1948; Republicans took congress in 1946; and then Truman ran against the do-nothing Republican congress; and it will be a do nothing congress because Obama will veto anything. Obama won't come center-he believes in the socialist garbage.

but with a Republican congress he is harmless