Will Barry Join the Carter-GHWB Club?
During a pre-interview for a television appearence, the booker asked me if, in light of all of these grim poll numbers, Obama would be elected in in 2012. Impossible to say, of course, and while there are plenty of important differences that weaken the comparison, remember that Bill Clinton did rather well in 1996 after his party was stomped in the 1994 midterms. But two years is a very long time in politics. Now a Reuters/Ipso poll asked likely voters the same question: Will Barack Obama will win reelection in 2010?
Looking ahead to the 2012 presidential election, 52 percent believe Obama will not win re-election, while 35 percent think he will. The Reuters/Ipsos national survey found that 51 percent disapproved of the way Obama is doing his job, while 45 percent approved.
The Obama administration received the worst ratings for its handling of the economy, taxes and the deficit — all key election issues this year. On the Iraq war and the environment, the administration was seen has having made a positive difference, according to the poll.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Because of the fact that what Obama and his team is doing to "fix" the economy is akin to bailing out the lake so the boat doesn't sink...
two years is a very long time in politics
And political prognostication is perilous.
"[T]here are no signs of a dramatic rebound for the party, and the chance of Republicans winning control of either chamber in the 2010 midterm elections is zero. Not "close to zero." Not "slight" or "small." Zero.
Big changes in the House require a political wave... [T]o win dozens of seats, a party needs a wave. The current political environment actually minimizes the chance of a near-term wave developing. Waves are built on dissatisfaction and frustration, and there is little in national survey data that suggest most voters are upset with President Barack Obama's performance or the performance of his party.
GOP candidates and strategists will have to wait for at least another election cycle before they can hope that a change message will resonate with voters."
Stuart Rothenberg
4/24/09
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....96149.html
Stuart Rothenberg
4/24/09
Funny stuff.
By April of 2009 I was already fairly sure that Obama and Democrats had over reached.
In fact before he took office and with watching the dems control congress from 2006 to 2008 I had already predicted that Obama would be a new Carter.
his election in 2012 depends on a couple of things. The republicans need a candidate. not a good candidate or a great candidate...just one that is not terrible. the second thing is why did the American public still like Clinton. Was it because he took a hard right turn after the republicans took office. Or was it something else. If it was because he turned right then Obama is doomed. Obama cannot turn right. If it is something else then Obama has a chance.
Bill Clinton came across as likable in a dirty, old, redneck uncle kinda way. The sort of man you've wanted to go fishing with when you were eleven, but wouldn't leave your kids with over night unless it was a real emergency. 'Cause you don't actually distrust him, but...
He had that going for him, plus decent economy and a less stridently leftist line than his first couple of years.
But that doesn't mean that the GOP can't lose the next election. Just that it's going to be hard for Obama to in it.
Bill Clinton came across as likable in a dirty, old, redneck uncle kinda way.
Absolutely correct. I always thought he'd make a great next door neighbor: barbecues, trips to the lake maybe, borrowing tools.
Yeah right. Trips to the lake,except Bubba's always got an excuse when it's time to go. The one time you get back early and discover Bubba's bangin the old lady.
Clinton didn't get 50% for re-election. The Republicans ran Old Dole,When the Republicans are gonna take a fall they run some old geezer from the Senate.
Mitch McConnell for 2012!
*facepalm*
All you had to do was listen to Obama's empty platitudes during the campaign to realize he was an empty suit. Yet he still won. He and his handlers and advisers came to believe their own press. Half the nation rejoiced in the new age of Aquarius. He had a long and passionate honeymoon with the press. Nobody expected the Inquisition.
Considering who had been president before him before him and who was running against him, could ANY Democrat have lost that race?
Sure, Obama could have lost if the financial crisis had been delayed two months.
That doesn't answer my question...
In April of 2009, most of the smart people were just waiting out the Obama lovefest.
Anything can happen in two years. I wouldn't worry about it now.
Incumbency is more powerful than it ever was, Bush sr lost in a three way race, and Carter was in many ways an 'accidental' president. Two years is indeed a longtime, but Intrade holds a 60% chance of the Democrat winning which seems about right to me. If anything, I'd buy at that level.
But if Obama could throw half his warchest at Sarah Palin over the next year and a half, I'd also bet he would do that to.
If anything, I'd buy at that level.
You should be selling. Not because Obama is necessarily unlikely to win re-election, but because his numbers are going to migrate closer to the 50% mark between now and November 2012, and you can make a small but effortless profit.
That's not how an Intrade contract works. You buy now at 60 (units), and if he* wins, you get 100. If he loses, your contract is worth bupkis. The price of a contract is the market setting the odds of a particular otucome , not the margin of victory.
(more accurately, the Democratic party nominee, which Intrade has a separate contract at 85 that Obama will be that person)
You're free to buy and sell your contracts at any time. So if you bought "Obama Loses" at 40 today, and it went up to 45, you could sell all your contracts.
That's what you should be doing. Because the presidential race will tighten, even if Obama's re-election chances never dip below 50%
Ok, I see what you saying, but I think it's reversed, that his numbers against 'the field' are actually depressed compared to what they will be because of the imminent Republican victories.
But we'll see.
It's simple. If the economy is the middle of recovery in 2012, Obama wins. It it isn't, he doesn't.
So, the state of the economy in '12 is the real question. If the Great Recession is still upon us by that point, it will have lasted approximately six years from the time the air started to leak out of the housing market. I'm not sure any sane person from either party would want to confront that set of circumstances. Which makes it perfect for Sarah Palin...
It's simple. If the economy is the middle of recovery in 2012, Obama wins.
Nope. Unelomployment is 10%...it is unlikly that the US economy, no matter how rosey it gets, can create enough jobs over a 2 year period to turn that number to 5% and still have enough time for poeple to feel it. Which brings the next point. poeple do not feel they are out of a recession until a few years after it is over....contrary to the article 2 years is to short of time for Obama to get any benefit from a recovery....and that is even if the recovery started today.
Unemployment doesn't need to be down to 5%. Data from past elections shows that as long as the unemployment situation is improving, the incumbent will be reelected (see, e.g., Reagan being re-elected in 1984 despite 7.1% unemployment).
People forget (or never knew) how massive Reagan's economic boom was.
From Nov 1982 to Oct 1984 the economy created 7.3 million additional jobs. It would take 11 million jobs today to match that effect.
Does anyone think that Obamanomics is capable of averaging 450,000 new jobs per month for two full years?
To put those numbers in perspective,
The best 24 month period of Bush's presidency averaged 218,000 per month
The best 24 month period of Clinton's presidency averaged 275,000 per month.
As Reagan used to say, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
It's a good question to ask now, considering that these commie slime currently running our country into the ground got back into power four years ago. It'll also be good to ask two years from now when this most horribly un-vetted affirmative action hire America has ever had is up for his four-year assessment.
I have this grim feeling that the GOP will misread the stomping of Dems for misreading-the-stomping-of-the-GOP-as-a-mandate as a mandate, attempt to force a whole wishlist of stupid policy and end up being in dire need of re-stomping come 2012.
I heard some GOP talking head this afternoon, and the stupid man sounded as though he though this election result was coming because the electorate approves of the GOP.
If they act on that impression, they could actually insure a second term for Mr. Obama.
Which we need like a hole in our heads.
//goes in search of strong booze...
I have that same feeling.
If the GOP retakes Congress and shuts Barry the fuck down, consistently, then I'd actually potentially like to see him get a second term and keep the gridlock going.
Now, the GOP fully shutting Barry down is another matter. I don't really trust them, you see.
My prediction:
1) Republicans take over Congress, obstruct and filibuster everything Hussein and his remaining cadre of commies tries to do. Episiarch & co. join the leftard media in bashing Republicans for "not getting anything done" in chorus with the idiots who punished Republicans for the government shutdown in Clinton's time as well.
Or:
2) Republicans, endlessly harried by the leftard media for obstructing the damage Hussein and his remaining cadre of commies are doing, cave in to pressure and let him continue the destruction of this country unhindered; whereupon Episiarch & co. bitch against Republicans for not holding the line and pretend there is anything that could possibly satisfy the Republican-bashing retards at this site.
Either way, you'll be helping the traitor commie scum in their power-grabbing, just as you did all through this last decade by chiming in with the media in their anti-Bush and anti-Republican hatefest. Funny how everything you nutjobs do achieves the very opposite of your ostensible goals. How's that privacy, peace, and prosperity you claim to want faring, fools?
Of course, this redoubling of your efforts even as you lose sight of your goals makes sense when one realizes most of you are atheists, and that atheism and libertarianism are incompatible. Atheism necessarily precludes being endowed by one's Creator with any rights whatsoever, rendering the foundational premises of libertarianism (your having rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness) utter nonsense.
An atheist libertarian is just a fool who hasn't realized yet that in the absence of anything higher, the state is the highest power and the only one to decide what "rights" (more properly known as privileges) he has, if any. You're a bird on a tether who's been granted the privilege to fly around as if he were free, but if you squawk too loudly, the state will pull you back into your cage. No wonder you dare not squawk too much at the ones holding your tether!
I really pity people who can't imagine morality without a magic sky daddy to dictate it to them. Not to say no one should be religious. I'd rather you be moral for silly reasons than be an amoral atheist.
I have this grim feeling that the GOP will misread the stomping of Dems for misreading-the-stomping-of-the-GOP-as-a-mandate as a mandate, attempt to force a whole wishlist of stupid policy and end up being in dire need of re-stomping come 2012.
Let me get this straight. Two scenarios:
(1) The Tea-Party-infused GOP does a bunch of Tea-Party-pleasing stuff, like trying to cut spending and repeal Obamacare.
(2) The GOP establishment says "thanks for the warm bodies, Tea Party" and spends the next two years being Junior Varsity Democrats.
You're telling me that Scenario #1 is the more likely one?
GOP treats the tea party folk like junior congressfolk (both houses), ignoring them while they try to show why the big R, not the tea party is the way to go. Similar to (2).
They will turn Obamacare into Romneycare. Which I think is one of the few isssues that will actually produce legislation. Mostly it will be gridlock.
I think we need to advise the electoral system. Rather than voting yes for one of two candidates, you should have a third option to vote "fuck off" to one of the two candidates. A "fuck off" vote is counted as a yes vote for the other candidate, but is tallied separately in results. Thus, you'd see something like:
Obama - 25%
Fuck off Obama - 20%
McCain - 25%
Fuck off McCain - 30%
Doesn't look like much of a mandate anymore.
Will Barack Obama will win reelection in 2010?
There's a 0.0% chance of that happening, Michael.
In August 2009, only 19% of Massachusetts resdients positively rated the job done by Deval Patrick, their governor. Today, he is slightly ahead in the governor's race. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Never underestimate the gullibility of the young voter and the moderates.
If you don't fork over your money, those young voters and moderates are going to pry it out of you with a crowbar, slave!
My fondest hope is that he is found ala David Carradine, with several porn videos featuring goats. Otherwise we are going to have to put up with 30-40 years of his self righteous pontificating.
I doubt he will even do the good Carter has done with Habitat for Humanity.
Even with the goat porn, America would give one look at Michelle and understand completely.
Obama cannot handle a hammer.
Trerible plans to cast his swing vote for:
U.S. Senate - Michael L. Pryce (I)
Governor - Ted Strickland (D)
Congress OH-15 - William Kammerer (L)
State Supreme Court:
Paul Pfeifer (R) - enthusiastically
Judith Lanzinger (R)
Eric Brown (D)
Wish that the Republicans could come up with a quarter-decent liberty candidate for once. Since they failed again, it's pretty much Democrat vs. Libertarian down the ballot for me.
Weird, because Ive yet to ever see a quarter-decent liberty candidate from the democrats ever.
The GOP has at least provided me with Rand Paul.
Why Strickland for govenor? There is an L in that race. (I just voted for him)
...remember that Bill Clinton did rather well in 1996 after his party was stomped in the 1994 midterms.
Bob Dole had plenty to do with that. I have every confidence the Repukes in 2012 can find to put on the ballot a turd so repugnant that no amount of shining will make it electable.
The turn around in the economy and Bill Clinton blaming the OKC bombing on Rush Limbaugh had more to do with it. People kicked the Democrats out of Congress and 1994 and found that divided government worked. So they stuck with it. 1996 was nothing but a status quo election. Yes, Bob Dole was a lousy candidate. But with Ross Perot taking 10% of mostly Republican voters, even a good candidate would have lost.
Perot didn't help Clinton, he hurt him. When Perot dropped out of the race, Clinton's numbers skyrocketed and Bush's stayed flat. At best, Perot took equally from both sides.
Perot didn't drop out of the race in 1992. He dropped out of the race in 96. And then got back in.
No he dropped out and then reentered the race in 92. He claimed the Republicans were going to release Photoshopped pictures of his daughter.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f.....gewanted=2
I thought that was in 1996. Good catch.
You're looking at the facts, but you're managing to fail to see the truth.
Clinton wasn't seen by anybody as having a chance against Bush when Perot joined the race. Perot got in, built himself up into #2 in the polls . . . then, during the Democratic convention, dropped out with a speech that virtually endorsed Clinton, giving Clinton the all-time convention bounce. As a result of Perot's actions, Clinton skyrocketed.
Afterward, Perot's rejoining the race was a total non-event. While he was out of the race, polls showed him managing about 15-20% as a protest vote (after all, he was still going to be on the ballots) even though he wasn't running. Guess where he scored in November?
Perot's actions didn't hurt Clinton, they elected him.
""Clinton wasn't seen by anybody as having a chance against Bush ""
Bush did himself in when he broke his "read my lips, no new taxes." pledge.
Also, Bush bailed out the savings and loans.
Not true. Dole was an absolute turd. A good GOP candidate beats Clinton in 1996.
I was hoping for a Gramm/Keyes ticket.
Alan Keyes?
U MAD?
Add to that Clinton's success in pinning the government shutdown on the GOP, making the GOP look extreme. Astonishing considering that they sent him spending bills that he refused to sign, but he knew how to work the press.
The media of the day knew "The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas" was just too good a line to let the facts mess up.
The press would have screwed the GOP regardless of whether Clinton knew how to work them.
Of course two years is a long time, but I think the perception of being a loser in 2012 is important.
America hates losers.
Part of the problem Carter had was that he was perceived as being a loser for at least two years before 1980. That was what he was up against.
That's what Obama is up against too.
Some people will cheer for their team no matter what. Then there's a group of swing-fans. They don't pick a team to cheer for until the third quarter of the Super Bowl. And the team they inevitably choose to cheer for?
Is the team they think is gonna win.
That's the Carter comparison everyone should be paying attention to. Carter was a lame duck for a really, really long time. If the economy doesn't approve or inflation gets out of control? The same fate is waiting for Obama.
America hates losers. Most swing voters won't pull for someone they think is gonna lose. They're awesome like that...
That's what the "Don't waste your vote on a third party" mentality is all about! Why vote for a loser!
P.S. I'm not sayin' that's the way it should be; I'm sayin' that's the way it is.
Good points. Also note that Bill Clinton billed himself as the "Comback Kid" after 1994. And he didn't feel sorry for himself. He shamelessly picked himself up and declared "the era of big government is dead". BO is more like Carter. He is going to start lecturing the country on how unworthy they are of his services. In short, he will come accross as a loser.
He is far worse than Carter in the sanctimonious mental dognuts department. Nothing less than a Wilson.
Obama will be easily reelected in 2012. The reason is simple; "the stupid party" will nominate Sarah Palin.
I can see it now- Palin carries Alaska and a few southern states. It will be a forty-state landslide victory for Obama. As bad as things are, I can't see her getting a majority in the Electoral College.
McCain lost many independent voters by having her on the ticket in 2008 & outside the bubble of GOP true-believers, the perception of Palin as well an ignoramus has only hardened.
McCain lost many independent voters by having her on the ticket in 2008
I guess that is why he was leading in the polls after the convention. McCain didn't tank until he suspended his campaign to run back to Washington and pass TARP.
If you are going to call someone the stupid party, try and get your history right.
You credit the convention bounce to Palin. Only 4 people outside of Alaska had heard of her prior to McCain picking her. She was a complete blank slate. Palin's popularity went down as she became less and less unknown. She currently has a 22% favorable rating. That's 7 points lower than Pelosi's.
That is one poll. And that is after two years of the media going after her. It wasn't 22 percent in 2008. I am not buying one CBS poll that no doubt over sampled Democrats as the end all be all.
And Pelosi is is only at 29 % becasue Democrats still like her. She is less popular than Charles Manson among independents and Republicans.
Palin has pretty much been the public face of the Republican Party the last two years. Is there any Republican bigger than her? Yet, somehow the Democrats are about to get killed. She isn't that unpopular. And she is certianly more popular than Pelosi. And a hell of a lot smarter, although I am not sure anyone other than Joe Biden is as dumb as Pelosi.
She also gave a great speech at the convention. She was a huge hit until the media started eating the furniture and hating Palin became a way for stupid people to feel smart.
She is not going anywhere. And she has a huge following. Despite their best efforts, the media didn't destroy her. She will be in politics long after Obama is working for the UN and out of politics.
"' She will be in politics long after Obama is working for the UN and out of politics.""
She's a part-time pundit with a reality TV show that advertises her PAC on Reason.com ;-).
It really depends on how things go for Obama in the next two years. If the first two are any indication, I'm thinking Ronald McDonald could beat Obama. She would have a pretty good chance. But she will disapoint those who put her in office because much like most presidential candidates, she will overstate her ability to do things her way.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....y_id=73425
Here is a WSJ poll that shows Palin outpolls PElosi by a pretty wide margin. Pick your poll to fit your reality I guess.
""
The new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows Sarah Palin with 30 percent favorable ratings nationally, besting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 22 percent.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....z1498nSwCv""
I doubt Pelosi will run for President, or that Palin will run for Congress in CA.
I think national polls about a state pol are crap. The only people that matter to Pelosi are those in her district.
Keep in mind, Congress was at record low popularity when McCain and Obama won their primaries.
"Obama will be easily reelected in 2012. The reason is simple; "the stupid party" will nominate Sarah Palin."
I don't think Sarah Palin is as unpopular as you seem to think she is.
Actually, if I voted for one of the two major parties?
I'd vote for Sarah Palin over Barack Obama.
I don't think Sarah Palin would have used my future paychecks to bail out the UAW.
I don't think Sarah Palin would have subjected me to ObamaCare.
If Obama is reelected? Given the same circumstances, I think he'd do both of those things all over again...
...and I don't really care about any issue other than that.
Because of ObamaCare and the bailouts? ...and refusing to apologize for either one?
I'd vote for a nutless monkey over Barack Obama.
I mean, seriously, on what issue--exactly--am I supposed to think Obama is better than Sarah Palin?
Am I supposed to think...
That at least he closed Guantanamo?
He didn't close Guantanamo!
Am I supposed to think he's better than Sarah Palin on Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
Obama fought to keep Don't Ask, Don't Tell!
On what issue is Obama superior?
None. Really, I pondered this the other day, if you look at actions vs. rhetoric he has nothing going for him over Palin, even to a liberal like me!
I was a classic Bush-Basher!
Couldn't stand the man or his presidency. Don't have anything nice to say about the Bush Administration--and I have plenty to say about them.
I remember hearing Palin say something once about how adults smoking marijuana in the privacy of their own home wasn't a "big deal".
And it's not like anyone can say she's less experienced than Obama was--actually, being the governor of Alaska, I think she probably has more relevant experience than Obama did.
If Palin runs and wins, like the true libertarian I am? I'll turn on her like an abused rottweiler as soon as she's elected...
Every stupid thing she says or does, I'll call it right down the line like I see it--just like I always do. But she would be an improvement on Obama.
But that's not sayin' much.
I heard Obama is a closet Giant fan.
The rumor mill is cruel, isn't it?
A Muslim, a Kenyan, and a Giants fan too?!
That's just mean.
On what issue is Obama superior?
He's super super smart.
On what issue is Obama superior?
He's super super smart.
I bet he knows how to avoid double-posting, too.
""On what issue is Obama superior?""
Screwing up the country isn't reseved for white men?
If you use "nutless monkey" and "Brack Obama" in the same sentence, you're begging to be called a racist.
That's what I was thinking. But then I realized that I must be a racist because whenever I see a black woman with a newborn, I have this nearly uncontrolable urge to ask the woman: So what kind of monkey is that?
It's wrong to call the R's "the stupid party" or the D's "the evil party". Both allow your mind to imagine for a second that both parties don't contain large helpings of stupid and evil. That is a dangerous delusion.
One the one hand, BHO's still going to get 99.9% of the black vote and they're going to turn out no matter what out of tribal loyalty. It's horrible to say it, but it's 100% true.
He'll also get all of the youth vote, more or less, if they vote at all.
And the condescending Jon Stewart types will also vote for him no matter what, just like last time.
But despite have all of those groups in his pocket last time around, he still needed a huge slug of swing voters and independents, and, as of the midterms, those people are emphatically against him.
I used to be pessimistic and think he'd easily get reelected in 2012, but now I'm beginning to be hopeful that there will be a change... ha ha.
He'll also get all of the youth vote, more or less,
The young college students partying on mom and uncle pell's dime - sure.
The young unemployed college grad with huge debt - not so much.
BHO's still going to get 99.9% of the black vote
I think it's only about 90% tribalist obedience from blacks, but they are the most reliable Democrats by far of any demographic. And that may finally be changing. Even collectivists have to eat.
It's the Republicans to lose, and they are quite capable of doing so, but in your heart you hate Obama for being weak. He is a beta dog on his back, and your instincts tell you to wiz on him in contempt for what his miscalculations reveal about him. You would accept him if he was monstrous like Clinton, scary like Nixon, Satanic like Johnson, prone to violence like Bush. He rises to none of those things. At this point, you wont accept him. Circumstances may change but the pack is what it always has been through out time, and no sexy pr campaign will change that. Iran may change that, but Axelrod wont.
None of this should imply, 'he is too good for us.' Good is irrelevant.
"prone to violence like Bush"
[citation needed]
Does two wars count?
[citation needed]
Seriously?
That was the one you had an objection to? It was the only one I didn't think anyone would.
I'd vote for someone who wears magic underwear over Barack Obama.
We should all write in Oliver Stone for president in 2012 and enjoy the lulz as he tries to figure out what to do. No more men of iron wills nor empty suits; for now on only victims of pranks and circumstance need apply. Damn it. More entertainment, less misery.
I doubt he will be bumped as the nominee, but I would like it if he was. I don't think there is one major thing he has done that I wanted to see done. Obamacare is a nightmare. We are still in Iraq. He still has the feds raiding potshops in CA. Online gambling is still illegal. DADT intact. Gitmo still going, WOT at full disctatorial speed. I wanted him to pass card check and he didn't get behind it in any serious way. He, Pelosi and Reid have led the Democratic Party to slaughter in a year in which most people admit they loathe the GOP but are willing to oust incumbent Dems because they hate the bungling last two years. I don't know if Obama tried to please everyone, but he sure ended up pleasing no one.
And I still have to worry about putting gas in my car and paying my mortgage. The brother is a big disappointment.
What happened, Peggy? Barry didn't give you any money from his secret stash?
How come you didn't get your mortgage modified?
Peggy's still sitting in her car, which won't start because Barry didn't come by and put gas in it, while she stares at the realtor sign in her front yard, wondering why strangers are wanting to buy her house from the bank because Barry didn't make her mortgage payments.
I still would give 50 50 odds he doesnt' run. I bet he gets mad and takes his marbles and goes home.
It's tempting to think that Obama's ego is so enormous that he would not risk a loss. If you really wanted to start reading tea leaves, you could take his statements that he delivered on 70% (or is it 90%?) of his promises as a signal that there's little left for him to do in a second term.
But ultimately I see him running again, because if there's one thing that Obama seems to be sure of, it's that voters will love what he did if he can just explain it to the ungrateful retards. He'll go out there and give his Big Important Speeches, and that will bring the voters back into the fold.
All they had to do was not fuck up too bad. Instead they went nuts and shoved Obamacare and the stimulus down the country's throat. If they had just done tarp, but not the stimulus, which did no good anyway, and not fucked with people's healthcare, they would be looking at small loses tommorow, especially if Obama had taken a que form Clinton and done a bunch of symbolic stuff on the economy to show how much he cared. But they didn't do that. And they squandered the biggest majority in thirty years in just two years of stupidity.
I wouldn't say they did anything worthwhile, but calling it squandered from a democrat prospective is silly. Obamacare is a lot closer to universal care than any previous step, the government gave tons of money to union companies, and some really anti-bank parts got passed.
The really sad part is that other than the union companies thing, they went after things that needed to be addressed. But naturally, why not make a bad situation worse?
... and some really anti-bank parts got passed.
Bullshit.
They created new federal regulatory agencies that wont be any more effective that the dozen plus that were already supposed to be regulating the financial industry.
The only "change" was locking in TBTF.
But it will be different this time.
They all seem to overplay their hand.
Swing voters broke for Bush the Lesser 'cause they were sick of the Clinton Administration's ethical challenges. ...not because they wanted to go to war with Iraq.
People voted for Obama becasue they were sick of the Bush Administration's Iraq War.
...not because they wanted ObamaCare.
Hopefully the next president will stay within whatever limited mandate he or she is given--but given recent history, why assume that?
The problem is the size and scope of the office, not who or which party is holding it. Hopefully the next one won't be as bad as Obama, but a pig is a pig.
...even if it's a pig in a dress.
One thing's for sure: after tomorrow, we'll never have to hear Barack Obama using the word "Slurpee" ever again.
he will join
Hey Dems, it's the economy, stupid.
Clinton was able to end welfare as we knew it, which defanged the Republicans on their strongest domestic issue. He was able to triangulate as a result.
Will Obama end health care reform as we know it? Yeah, right. And even if he did, he couldn't sell it as a centrist fulfillment of his campaign promises rather than as a rout in the face of public opposition.
Oh? So welfare is ended, is it? What's with all these people (and corporations) on welfare I'm hearing about, then? Are you sure you don't mean Clinton ended welfare reform?
As for health care reform, of course Zero-boy is not planning on ending that. He's planning on ending our health care, along with our economy and our country.
I'd say it depends on whether the Rs take the Senate this time around. If they take both chambers, they'll have enough agenda setting ability to remind the public of why they voted them out in 2006. Also, many of the seats that they'd have to pick up that were leaning Democrat were leaning Democrat because the Republican nominees are nuts and/or inexperienced means the better the Senate lead, the steadier the stream of gaffs coming from it.
If they don't take the Senate, they'll still be weak enough to play the opposition and the Dems will take the fall for the remaining 2 years of inevitable crapitude, making it more likely Obama won't get re-elected.