Are the Middle East violence and uprisings going to hurt Obama's election chances?

[Honeycombe8]

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:32 AM - Edit history (1)

The recent good polls for Obama don't include any fallout for the recent Middle East uprisings.

I'm thinking this might hurt Obama's election chances. But then I think, are they going to go for the man who showed the country he clearly can't handle foreign events, and is willing to put his personal interests above the country's interests? But then I think of the OBL videotapes before the 2004 election, and how that played into the fear thing, and helped Bush win the election.

Any thoughts?

[cali]

1. it's far too early to speculate.

[greytdemocrat]

9. I would tend to agree.

But POTUS better not show anything that could be construed as weakness. That is a fatal mistake in the Mid-East.

[polichick]

2. Obama supporters will stick with him, Rmoney supporters will...

...stick with him (probably hoping the good ol' USA will go to war again) - it's the few swing voters who'll make the difference and imo they'll see the President as the more capable and calm leader.

[madokie]

3. It worries me too

what really worries me is if this is a ploy that the pukes are pulling to win this election and if it is the numbers of innocents who just might loose their lives over it. I know from past shit that Karl Rove is capable of this kind of shenanigans

[C_U_L8R]

4. Obama is acting like an adult

and Romney is behaving like a spoiled brat.

I think the majority of people are smart
enough to make the right choice here

(sadly there are some really dumb republicans but they are dead-enders
there's no future in watching Faux News and being stupid all your life)

[2pooped2pop]

5. I have to wonder if that is not why this movie was made.

or at least translated and sent there.

[polichick]

7. Does seem a bit Rovian.

[justiceischeap]

6. It really will depend on how not just Obama but the entire administration handles this

I think most American's are tired of war--the kind where we send large amounts of soldiers off to die on a daily basis. If he can handle the situation quietly but successfully, I think it's better for him in the long run. He's already handled the situation better than RMoney did. If he continues to do so, drawing a sharp contrast between a diplomatic approach and the neocon approach, it still plays in his favor.

[smorkingapple]

8. If it stays overseas it's nothing...

This isn't 2004, people are not as scared anymore and we haven't fanned those flames like Bush did. Something jumps off here though and it's a brand new ballgame.

[Number_9]

11. ABC reports protests and violence in Sydney

So it isn't just limited to the ME.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-15/anti-us-protests-hit-sydney/4263372

[nanabugg]

10. Please! Tell me who really wants Romney to lead during a crisis? nt

[annabanana]

12. Only among the purblind ignorant..

Sadly, because of bad education and fox misinformation, there are far too many of them.

[randome]

13. 2004, in election terms, was a long time ago.

We are in uncharted territory today, with the GOP self-destructing after the twin disasters of Palin and Romney.

Obama can handle the situation.

[davidpdx]

14. I have been a little worried about the fallout from this as well

I agree with other that most likely Obama is going to be seen as the person who is calm and rational.

[redgreenandblue]

15. I don't think so.

Not as long as Rmoney keeps making it clear, as he has been doing, that he'd do a much worse job in dealing with it.

[jsr]

16. Doubt it

especially if there are no additional American casualties.