Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Same logic applied to the 2004 and Dubya, a much worse President than Obama by most measures, was reelected. The advantages or incumbency cannot be overstated in Presidential elections. Were this not true, the people that most Republicans prefer (Christie, Mitch Daniels, etc.) would have chosen to run. They are, however, keeping their powder dry for 2016 when they won't have to face an incumbent.
|
There is an incumbent advantage, but the candidate the Democrats put forth in 2004, John Kerry, was not ideal. The left has their illusions about Bush having been some kind of bad or unpopular president when the facts are that Obama's support from congress (across both aisles) and his approval ratings with the public have indeed been well below those of G.W. He's been nothing really but a lot of talk. Empty promises mixed with outright lies. The public isn't as stupid as the Obama people are hoping and of all the Republican candidates who could have succeeded, Romney was the most moderate and is the best positioned to win the presidency. He might not have been my first choice or that of a lot of conservatives, but he will be the choice of a lot of independents and he'll capture the middle which is all he's gonna need. Obama is a lefty radical compared to Romney's position along the political the spectrum. Romney successfully led one most liberal states in the union as governor for four years. Obama's policies and lack of integrity have left the country in need of a change. Incumbent advantage noted, Obama is poised to circumvent that and we could be looking at a sound win for Romney. Look at the polls since the race got down to two. Obama's trending down.