Skip to main content

The following is based on nothing other than my casual observation…

Two things will happen between now and the 2012 elections. First, Republicans will most likely regain control of Congress in 2010, thus limiting Obama’s ability to push his agenda. Second, the stimulus, as horrible as it was, will start to visibly accomplishing things here and there (though it won’t accomplish enough to justify its price tag). Going into the 2012 election, we should be a couple of years removed from Obama forcing his agenda down our throats, and we should see a few stimulus programs come to fruition. Obama shouldn’t look as bad to independents and moderate Democrats 2 years from now.

Meanwhile, we will have a Republican primary. This primary will yield 3 types of candidates: a couple of true small government candidates, a few neocons, and a few neocons in Tea Party Clothing. Either a neocon or neocon in Tea Party Clothing will likely get the nomination. True small government advocates will see through this, and will not support the Republican Party in 2012. A third party candidate will become a real threat to steal Republican votes, and Republicans will vilify that candidate.

When we finally go to the polls, Obama won’t look as bad to independents and moderate Democrats, and the Republicans will have lost votes to a candidate who actually stands for what they pretend to stand for. Obama wins another term.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
...and the Republicans will have lost votes to a candidate who actually stands for what they pretend to stand for...


And establishment republicans will cry and moan about "splitting" the vote.

Matter of fact, they are doing it this go around as well. Back in March Mitt Romney cautioned about "divide and fail" in regard to Tea Party candidates.

Romney said that he hoped tea party candidates will instead run in primaries, and if they lose will back the establishment candidate in the general election.

But a few of these "establishment" candidates are falling to the tea part/small government backed candidates...So shouldn't they not be sore losers and support the grass roots candidate?

They should, but they are already crying and threatening to run as 3rd party candidates...see Alaska and Florida.
quote:
we should see a few stimulus programs come to fruition. Obama shouldn’t look as bad to independents and moderate Democrats 2 years from now.


And if the Republicans DO take over congress in 2010, you can bet your bottom dollar they will try to take credit for any good the stimulus program has done.
Well, blaming the other guy is par for the course as is taking credit.
The dot com bust started under Clinton, Bush got blamed. The TARP was started under Bush, Obama took credit.

As for 2012, I think the dems will continue to implode and Obama will not be re-elected. The 2010 election could be the deciding factor. Lots of incumbents on both sides could lose, if the big leaders like Reid, Pelosi or Boxer drop out, it will be a massacre.

I doubt it will happen, two are from California and they love their libs.
quote:
As for 2012, I think the dems will continue to implode and Obama will not be re-elected. The 2010 election could be the deciding factor.


I agree with the part about Democrats imploding. I don't agree with the part about Obama not getting re-elected.

The Democrats took a beating in the '94 midterms, and the gridlock that ensued (having the Executive and Legislative branches controlled by different parties) made Clinton look better in the '96 election. Obama's approval is actually better now than Clinton's was going into the '94 midterms. When you combine this with what is shaping up to be a debacle of a 2012 Republican Primary, I think the odds are clearly in Obama's favor already. This, of course, cannot account for unpredictable events.
Stimulus programs didn't work during the Depression and won't work now. The present stimulus funded few infrastructure programs. Most went for old Democrat wish list pork projects. The money is spent.

When government sucks up available cash, there's little left for the private market. Private markets circulate the cash, make a profit and pay taxes.
He has a long way to catch up to the Obamanation.

quote:
The $862 billion legislation has had little if any impact on high unemployment and has provided little momentum to the struggling economic recovery.

In a report released Wednesday morning by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the administration estimated that the stimulus package has saved or created 3 million jobs. In addition, the report predicted that the administration’s goal of creating 3.5 million jobs by the end the year will be met.

Economists critical of the administration’s policies contradicted the administration’s figures. And surely the cost of those estimated jobs created - even if those jobs really did materialize - was not cheap, about $287,000 per position.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
He has a long way to catch up to the Obamanation.

quote:
The $862 billion legislation has had little if any impact on high unemployment and has provided little momentum to the struggling economic recovery.

In a report released Wednesday morning by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the administration estimated that the stimulus package has saved or created 3 million jobs. In addition, the report predicted that the administration’s goal of creating 3.5 million jobs by the end the year will be met.

Economists critical of the administration’s policies contradicted the administration’s figures. And surely the cost of those estimated jobs created - even if those jobs really did materialize - was not cheap, about $287,000 per position.


I agree, let's fire them both.
But seriously, had McCain won, he would have spent the money too, and you would tell us in a long diatribe why it was justified.
Both parties are failing America, and are full of self serving traitors.
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
quote:
we should see a few stimulus programs come to fruition. Obama shouldn’t look as bad to independents and moderate Democrats 2 years from now.


And if the Republicans DO take over congress in 2010, you can bet your bottom dollar they will try to take credit for any good the stimulus program has done.


No, unfortunately, the Republicans have already told us what they will do if they have control of the House. They will investigate, investigate, investigate.
They will do nothing to help the economy.
They will (try) to go back to the same policies they had under Bush which dammed near destroyed our economy- still going on.
They are not interested in helping this president pull this country out of this recession for fear he will get the credit.
They want him to fail, and if the country goes down the drain in the process, well, that's ok with them.
What they have been doing the last 2 years is what we can expect from them in the future, whether or not they have control of the House.
REMEMBER - CONSERVATIVES ARE AGAINST CHANGE OR PROGRESS. If you don't believe me, just look it up in the dictionary. That is exactly what they stand for and what the word means. What we have is what we will have if they have their way.
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
quote:
we should see a few stimulus programs come to fruition. Obama shouldn’t look as bad to independents and moderate Democrats 2 years from now.


And if the Republicans DO take over congress in 2010, you can bet your bottom dollar they will try to take credit for any good the stimulus program has done.


No, unfortunately, the Republicans have already told us what they will do if they have control of the House. They will investigate, investigate, investigate.
They will do nothing to help the economy.
They will (try) to go back to the same policies they had under Bush which dammed near destroyed our economy- still going on.
They are not interested in helping this president pull this country out of this recession for fear he will get the credit.
They want him to fail, and if the country goes down the drain in the process, well, that's ok with them.
What they have been doing the last 2 years is what we can expect from them in the future, whether or not they have control of the House.
REMEMBER - CONSERVATIVES ARE AGAINST CHANGE OR PROGRESS. If you don't believe me, just look it up in the dictionary. That is exactly what they stand for and what the word means. What we have is what we will have if they have their way.


Poor old seeweed, he's hung up on a definition of a word, not actuality. In Europe, conservatives are referred to as liberals. Yes, I believe in the free market, in keeping to the word of the constitution, and in change. However, in careful slow change, when change involves human society. Every new belief system foisted on human beings during the 20th century based on theory and not careful experimentation resulted in mega-deaths and misery. Thanks, but I'll bypass that. Research what William F. Buckley and other conservatives believed in, before spouting off silly statements.

In "Revolt of the Masses," The Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset wrote, "But this willingness will fail because because the texture of the radical’s soul is inward and brooding. Because they lack the will and the instincts to deal with real problems in front of them, so they won’t. They will want to follow someone, but will not. They will want to hear other opinions, only to discover that they are deaf. "

Great description of left wing losers.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×