American Mid-Term Elections

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sven Sven's picture
American Mid-Term Elections

 

Give all of the Democrats in [url=toss-up">http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_... races[/url], it looks like the Republicans will make huge gains and very likely retake control of the House in less than eight weeks.

.

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

 Another way to look at it is that the Democrats only need to win about 25 out of the 35 tossups to retain a majority in the House and that is largely where the battle will be fought this time.

Sven Sven's picture

peterjcassidy wrote:

Another way to look at it is that the Democrats only need to win about 25 out of the 35 tossups to retain a majority in the House...

But, given the polls (and, as importantly, the trend of the polls), winning 25 of 35 toss-up races will be extremely difficult...and unlikely.

My guess is that in the Senate, however, the Democrats will retain control (at least nominally -- as they will lack the nesessary 60 votes to break a filibuster).

The bottom line is that, regardless of the specific results, no significant legislation will come out of Congress after this election...everything will largely grind to a halt.

George Victor

How do you FEEL about that, Sven?  What would a crippled Congress MEAN, to YOU?  What will a Republican-dominated House DO, besides causing "everything (to) largely grind to a halt"?  What legislation will that block that YOU would like to see passed?  Do YOU feel any qualms about a Teaparty-led GOP? 

Up here, we can be glad that Nancy Pelosi's visit to Ottawa has made clear that she and the environmentally conscious Democrats are against the U.S. purchasing even more sludge from the Tarpits.  Wouldn't that sliver of sanity disappear under a nutbar-dominated Congress?

Sven Sven's picture

George Victor wrote:

What will a Republican-dominated House DO, besides causing "everything (to) largely grind to a halt"? 

I am not sure that they will do much beyond that, as I am highly skeptical that they have any plans to do anything proactive.  Their whole MO has been to simply criticize the Democrats - and that has been a highly effective political strategy - but that won't work if, after November, they have actual control over (and responsibility for) any portion of the legislative process.

George Victor wrote:

What would a crippled Congress MEAN, to YOU?

It means that very real problems (principally jobs and the massive and growing debt) will go unaddressed, unless bi-partisan control of government forces bi-partisan cooperation.  Because of the massive majorities the Democrats now have in government, they are going to be the targets of voter ire in November.  But, if the Republicans gain control of the House in November and if there is no bi-partisan cooperation in 2011, then the blame for inaction on key issues will rest with both parties and all incumbents (Obama as president and many of the Republicans and Democrats then holding seats in Congress) will be in danger of being swept out of office in 2012 by the voters.

As I've said here many times before, the key to political success in America is delivering results expected by independent voters.  Because only about 25%-30% of the population is composed of die-hard Democrats and about 35%-40% of the population is composed of die-hard Republicans, the independents in the middle determine who will have political power.

DaveW

an optimist says the current CW is wrong

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/10/campaign-2010-democrats-calm-down-really/

If Obama can rev up Democratic voters and win back some independents, and if his party can get everything right in terms of mechanics (fundraising, advertising, get-out-the-vote efforts, etc.), then perhaps with all these small changes the Democrats have a chance of protecting their House majority. Nevertheless, a poll here, a speech there only offers so much reassurance. Democrats should keep the panic button close by. It still might come in handy.

 

Sven Sven's picture

DaveW wrote:

an optimist says the current CW is wrong

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/10/campaign-2010-democrats-calm-dow...

Yeah, I read piece by Corn that earlier today.  We'll find out on November 3 if Corn's optimism was warranted.

George Victor

Helping make the defeat of Democrats in November possible:

 

The NYTimes

September 8, 2010, 7:09 pm

"Ads to Target Democrats Who Supported Health Care Law
By DAVID HERSZENHORN

Revere America, a conservative advocacy group dedicated to repealing the health care law enacted earlier this year, announced on Wednesday that it is undertaking a multi-million-dollar television advertising campaign aimed at ousting Democrats in Congress who supported the law.

The ad campaign was announced by former Gov. George E. Pataki of New York, a Republican who is now serving as chairman of Revere America. At a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington on Wednesday, Mr. Pataki said the group hoped to raise and spend at least $5 million on the effort by Election Day.

Mr. Pataki did not name specific Democratic lawmakers who would be targets of the operation. But he said at least one would be in his home state of New York.

The group unveiled a generic version of one television ad that it plans to broadcast called "Defeat Your Congressman."

In the commercial, a male narrator speaking in ominous tones, says: "Your congressman voted for Obamacare. Government run health care. It's a bad plan Government bureaucrats will benefit. Seniors will get hurt. Costs will go up. Care will go down. Longer waits in doctors' offices. And your right to pick your own physician taken away. It's a plan we didn't want and don't need but he voted for it anyway. Defeat your congressman."

While the potential impact of much of the health care law is open for debate, at least one assertion in the ad is false - the notion that Americans would be denied the ability to choose their own doctor."

DaveW

Sven wrote:

DaveW wrote:

an optimist says the current CW is wrong

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/10/campaign-2010-democrats-calm-dow...

Yeah, I read piece by Corn that earlier today.  We'll find out on November 3 if Corn's optimism was warranted.

well, two full months till then, and I think the endlessly repeated parallels to 1994 are strained; back then, Republican surge was a surprise for Democrats;

not this time:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/08/why_democrats_w.php

 

 

Aristotleded24

George Victor wrote:
environmentally conscious Democrats

These types of Democrats exist? News to me.

George Victor

Yeah, a guy by the name of Kennedy, protecting rivers, and a few others.

I'm not surprised by a closed mind finding it news.

DaveW
Sven Sven's picture

The [url=latest">http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_... polling data[/url] continue to look ever more grim for the Democrats (in the link, look at the sea of blue -- i.e., Democrat -- seats that are in jeopardy).

So, the trends seem to point to an all-but-certain Repub takeover of the House in the mid-term elections, which occur in 18 days.

George Victor

Yep, a gullible nation incapable of understanding their tendency to flock, Sven.

Scary?

al-Qa'bong

Should anyone with Stephen Harper as a Prime Minister be justified in feeling so smug?

George Victor

It is "smugness" that got the poor bastards south of the 49th into their current precarious state, al.  

Canadians can't feel smug. 

But I'd still like to hear Sven's response .  Now there's smug.  Smile

al-Qa'bong

George Victor wrote:

It is "smugness" that got the poor bastards south of the 49th into their current precarious state, al.  

 

And here I thought it was hope for change.

 

Quote:
Canadians can't feel smug.

 

Yet some say we're defined by our smug attitude towards the USA.

 

George Victor

What can one say in correspondence with someone with such a hate on for America's last hope.

quote:

"Yet some say we're defined by our smug attitude towards the USA."

 

Can't imagine what they're drinking.

George Victor

Hey there, Sven?  You've got the Canucks going at each other again.

Doug
al-Qa'bong

Geez, it's his name; what's he supposed to do?

 

I'll bet you're a Mack man.

takeitslowly

i dont give a fuck if the democrats lose or win. They are not achieving anything regardless.

George Victor

And things can't get worse, right?

right?                                                                 Sven?

Aristotleded24

takeitslowly wrote:
i dont give a fuck if the democrats lose or win. They are not achieving anything regardless.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

Well I'm going to do my part and try and keep the Democrats in control of congress come this November. Economic change takes time and 2 years is not enough considering were we are trying to come from. Sadly I fear most people in the USA lack the will to allow the time for things to come about economically and are grasping for the nearest quick fix idea. That and the "tea party", which is the neo-con branch of Republican party in sheep's clothing, is playing on those emotions. Electing "them" into office is not going to achieve anything but keep the comedians at SNL employed  and you Canadians amused until the tsunami of shit washes up your way. (And don't be so smug ;-) to think it won't)  

One of, not all of the problem of course, I see is congressional terms of service: congressmen only have two years to serve and that means almost as soon as they get in office they have to start campaigning for reelection. This leaves them little time to really dedicate time to serving the people who elected them. I think a three or four year term might be a bit better for them. I don't know. Senators serve six years so I think they have enough time...

The reality for me is I'm actually pretty secure in my job for the next 5 years at least, democratic or republican congress it doesn't matter... My house and car are paid off, I DON'T run credit card debt, and my only real bills are utilities and taxes when they are due. Still I want what I think is best for my country and its people and the republicans are not the answer for me. There is no real progressive party here in the USA that has any power to make any difference right now so I'm stuck with the democratic candidates for my district. Oh well you can always hope.

For you Canadians who claim it doesn't matter who gets elected all I have to say is "How the fuck do you know? You're Canadian. You don't live down here". I don't talk Canadian politics here or anywhere else because, well, I don't know shit about it so I STFU about it. Oh and saying you lived down here before only tells me you don't live here now... {That was a bit of humor guys}

Anyways that's my two cents for now...

 

al-Qa'bong

You spelled "humour" wrong.

Quote:

That and the "tea party", which is the neo-con branch of Republican party in sheep's clothing, is playing on those emotions.

Granted I'm not a yanqui, and so don't know the subtleties of your system, but isn't the whole Republican Party a pack of neocons (like our Reformatories), sheepclad or otherwise?

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

You spelled "humour" wrong.

Quote:

That and the "tea party", which is the neo-con branch of Republican party in sheep's clothing, is playing on those emotions.

Granted I'm not a yanqui, and so don't know the subtleties of your system, but isn't the whole Republican Party a pack of neocons (like our Reformatories), sheepclad or otherwise?

 

No, believe me there's differences amongst them, still I can understand your thinking; most republicans are so far to the right they all look like neo cons from the left side of the fence.  

I imagine it depends on where you political point of balance rests.

 

As for the spelling error, here you go, doesn't quit cover spelling but it's still entertaining.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1935115

al-Qa'bong

Oh well...

George Victor

GDC:

"No, believe me there's differences amongst them, still I can understand your thinking; most republicans are so far to the right they all look like neo cons from the left side of the fence.  

I imagine it depends on where your political point of balance rests."

 

 

A refreshingly nuanced take on U.S.politics, from the Land of the Free itself. Thanks, GDC. More please... and in particular, is there any sign of a nascent right wing that, like Theodore Roosevelt demonstrated, can spell environment? There were signs of an emergent Christian findamentalist/stewardship breakout a couple of years back, but I've seen nothing lately.

al-Qa'bong

Correction:  I should have written "neoliberal" above rather than going along with your term, "neoconservative."  I wasn't paying very close attention.

takeitslowly

Some republicans actually got more guts than the so called fierce advocate for LGBT Americans.

 

http://www.thenation.com/blog/155420/obama-wrong-republicans-are-right

takeitslowly

 

And the american public wouldn't be so angry at the Obama administration if they actually had the courage to do what majority of the americans want them to do, include a public option onto their health care bill, time and time again, they have allowed the republicans to filibuster the senate and continue the absurd rule that the democrats need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate.

 

The democrats don't have the gut to take charge and say that majority vote is enough to pass a bill in the democratically controlled senate and the democratically controlled congress, so what GOOD is electing a blue dog democrats or having a democratically controlled senate or congress if they don't have the gut to push through their mandate?

Obama, Harry Reid and Gates are all to blame for the current state of the democrats party. You have to be a dailykos subscriber /blogger to still give a shit about the democrats.

 

Some of the other fucked up and disappointing things the Obama administration has done:

 

Not closing down the detention center in Cuba

Continue using evidence obtained through torture at "military tribunal"

Continue to enforce the policy Don't ask Don't tell while vowing that they are opposed to it

Continue to keep the Bush created policy to illegally wiretap countless Americans

Continue to utter meaningless disapproval toward illegal zionist settlements on Westbank

 Promise to enforce the federal marijuana law in California even if Prop 19 is passed

 

Fuck Obama. It wouldnt matter really if the democrats have 40 or 59 sests in the Senate and the congress can pass whatever they want, Obama doesnt have to sign it and the dems can filibuster.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

George Victor wrote:

is there any sign of a nascent right wing that, like Theodore Roosevelt demonstrated, can spell environment? There were signs of an emergent Christian findamentalist/stewardship breakout a couple of years back, but I've seen nothing lately.

 

 

You mean like this here? http://belmontgreenteam.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24&Itemid=38 (this is a random link)

 I haven't heard too much coming from the right lately on this... it might get mentioned by tea party candidates when questioned about their environmental policies if they get elected but is only used as a blanket to cover up the fact they really have no real plan. You know kind of like "Oh yeah God wants us to take care of the environment and I'm going to do that" kind of stuff.

Sadly there is no Teddy Roosevelt in sight... pity maybe he'd shoot some of these crazy bastards...LOL

Right now the right is in turmoil from its defeat in 2008 which brought on the tea party movement and is getting pulled hard right... but its weird, it's not towards classic neo conservatism but some tootie fruity brand of Christian-patriot homegrown craziness I can't put my finger on. Classic neo cons like Cheney and Rumsfeld, hate them for what they're worth, at least knew what the fuck they were doing (in an evil kind of way) and had long range goals and plans. I can't say that about this new movement; they are all shoveling coal into the engine, crazy assed Sarah Palin included, but nobody seems to have their head out the cab window and their hand on the throttle or break. 

The Democrats are in trouble over the economy not picking up fast enough (I covered that above) and flaws in the recovery bills being exposed and bashed by the Republicans (along with the tea party). What dumb founds me is how people who supported the general ouster of the Republican party two years ago with an ass whipping so bad Obama had the electoral votes to win before they counted allot of west coast states can now think bringing them back will fix anything... I love my country for better or for worst, the good, the bad, the ugly but god dam, the impulsiveness I'm seeing these days makes me what to scream sometimes.

Takeitslowly here listed a litany of stuff he don't like about Obama; well at least he will be responsible for keeping the Supreme Court reasonably balanced for the next decade or so. McCain would have replaced the retired judges (all liberals) with conservative judges and we'd be stuck with a conservative majority Supreme Court for years to come. That would really suck.

His list by the way is mostly stuff the USA people are distracted away from right now and aren't going to push Obama on (for now)... when your worried about if you'll have a job to pay the rent next month GITMO and smoking pot in CA is the last thing on your mind; it really is the economy.

George Victor

South of the 49th, takeitslowly would be Teapartying with Sarah  LOL 

Thanks for your take on your situation, BDC.    Now I know three people who are uncomfortable in the Land of the Free, you and my two cousins.   Smile

 

DaveW

regarding the horse-race aspect, I have been carefully bookmarking some columnists , Right and Left, who say: no question, Dems are going to get levelled

maybe, but maybe not:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/10/19/the_wave_and_the_reality_107628.html

WASHINGTON -- I'm cautious about the conventional wisdom that the Democratic Party is about to get flattened by a Republican steamroller. Pollsters are less certain than they'd like you to believe about who's a "likely voter" and who isn't. It's easy to imagine how Democrats, facing near-unanimous predictions of a wipeout, could bestir themselves to narrow the enthusiasm gap by just enough to turn a potential "wave" election into a regular midterm setback for the party in power.

 

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

DaveW wrote:

regarding the horse-race aspect, I have been carefully bookmarking some columnists , Right and Left, who say: no question, Dems are going to get levelled

maybe, but maybe not:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/10/19/the_wave_and_the_reality_107628.html

WASHINGTON -- I'm cautious about the conventional wisdom that the Democratic Party is about to get flattened by a Republican steamroller. Pollsters are less certain than they'd like you to believe about who's a "likely voter" and who isn't. It's easy to imagine how Democrats, facing near-unanimous predictions of a wipeout, could bestir themselves to narrow the enthusiasm gap by just enough to turn a potential "wave" election into a regular midterm setback for the party in power.

 

 

 

I'm hoping all this talk about a Republican landslide will back fire and get everyone out to vote and NOT stay home. If that happens and people get out to vote things won't turn out so bad for the Democrats. I voted early, yesterday as a matter of fact, and there were allot of Democrats there voting early because, like me, they weren't going to be home in November come election day and they realize how important this election really is. We'll see... I'm thinking the key for the Democrats is if the young people and minorities that helped elect Obama in 2008 get out and vote again this election... the problem is while they can be very passionate about voting they also seem to disparage easily as well and that is what the Republicans are counting on.

Bastards...

takeitslowly

I am sure Daniel Choi, a former American infantry, who was discharged from the U.S military for being openly gay this year is very concerned that he lost his job for being gay while Obama is appealing the decision to keep DADT intact and continues to talk about how much he is opposed to DADT in the same breath.

 

I guess it would be easier to understand why so many are NOT excited about democrats winning office especially if you are a LGBT Americans who have been waiting for the passage of the Employment Non Discrimination Act that would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity since 1994.  Maybe for a heterosexual, it would be hard to understand how so many would be discouraged that the strengthened Democratic majority in both the Congress and the Senate, as well as the personal support of President Obama are still unable to pass this bill to protect the JOBS of Americans.

 

Btw, I am a she.

And also, I do not doubt that the Democats are better economic managers, good for them. That's the change people can believe in and feel good about!

 

You know, some people actually do prefer to know who their enemies are instead of having to listen to how change is almost around the corner if you just vote for them again.

 

remind remind's picture

Sealed

George Victor

I'd really like to know if your ignoring the GOP's role in Congress, lately, is based on your residency in Canada, takeitslowly, or just plain ignorance of the role they have played in successfully opposing everything that the Dems have tried? 

p.s.  I find it hard to understand that you would prefer what the right have in mind for the U.S.citizenry who don't live in gated communities.  Perhaps you are independently wealthy?

DaveW

Sven wrote:

DaveW wrote:

an optimist says the current CW is wrong

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/10/campaign-2010-democrats-calm-dow...

Yeah, I read piece by Corn that earlier today.  We'll find out on November 3 if Corn's optimism was warranted.

  yeah, we will...

DaveW

Sven wrote:

DaveW wrote:

an optimist says the current CW is wrong

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/10/campaign-2010-democrats-calm-dow...

Yeah, I read piece by Corn that earlier today.  We'll find out on November 3 if Corn's optimism was warranted.

  yeah, we will...

Aristotleded24

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
For you Canadians who claim it doesn't matter who gets elected all I have to say is "How the fuck do you know? You're Canadian. You don't live down here". I don't talk Canadian politics here or anywhere else because, well, I don't know shit about it so I STFU about it.

For one, this is a politically oriented site, so we tend to discuss politics from all over the world.

Specifically in the case of the United States, we in Canada are so saturated with American news that we can't help but pick up on things. Also, decisions made in the United States have an impact on Canada.

George Victor wrote:
I'd really like to know if your ignoring the GOP's role in Congress, lately, is based on your residency in Canada, takeitslowly, or just plain ignorance of the role they have played in successfully opposing everything that the Dems have tried?

Up until Senator Kennedy's death, the Democrats had a fillibuster-proof Senate and a large amount of political capital, so this excuse doesn't hold any water. Frankly, Obama could have accomplished anything he wanted in the first little bit, but instead he decided to squander that political capital trying to be concilliatory to those very Republicans who hate him. It's also why progressive politics is discredited in the States because, unlike those on the right who push their policies when they have a change, the Democrats are always trying to water it down to appease the right wingers and back away from their ideas at the first sign of controversey. (Plus the fact that for many people their economic situation is still quite bad 2 years after Obama's election, unlike under FDR when things began to turn around in 1933.)

500_Apples

I forsee a new era of bipartisanship next term.

The republicans legislate and Obama decides to agree as a compromise position.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
For you Canadians who claim it doesn't matter who gets elected all I have to say is "How the fuck do you know? You're Canadian. You don't live down here". I don't talk Canadian politics here or anywhere else because, well, I don't know shit about it so I STFU about it.

For one, this is a politically oriented site, so we tend to discuss politics from all over the world.

Specifically in the case of the United States, we in Canada are so saturated with American news that we can't help but pick up on things. Also, decisions made in the United States have an impact on Canada.

 

I have no problem with that. That was aimed at people who make broad brushed statements claiming it doesn't matter who gets elected in US politics and were more interested in bashing than discussing. It wasn't aimed at people who want to really talk about it (like you).  

 

I agree the Dems seem to be too soft at times even when they are in power and it's aggravating, but as I've said before what are the realistic alternatives to them? There aren't any; no other party has the power to face up to the republicans.

 

Back on the subject.

Republicans nationwide are attacking Democrats with a "failed stimulus" campaign drumbeat. More negativity and fact spinning...

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101020/ap_on_bi_ge/us_elections_stimulus

 

Quote:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported last month that 1.4 million to 3.3 million people are employed because of the program, a blow to Republican claims that the stimulus failed to increase employment.

The stimulus program has kept many state and local governments fiscally viable, and the money has been a boon to the construction industry, financing thousands of road and bridge projects. In other areas - tax cuts, Medicaid health benefits, unemployment checks, food stamps - the stimulus has provided some relief to millions suffering in a tough economy.

 

Sven Sven's picture

DaveW wrote:

yeah, we will...

Since that OP six weeks ago, the trend is getting significantly worse for the Democrats.

Six weeks ago, the number of seats solidly or leaning Democrat was 193 and the number of seats solidly or leaning Republican was 205 (with 37 seats classified as toss-ups). Meaning that if the Dems won all seats then leaning Dem and the Repubs won all seats then leaning Repub, then the Repubs would need to pick up 13 of the 37 toss-up races to win control of the House.

Today, the number of seats solidly or leaning Democrat is 180 (down from 193) and the number of seats solidly or leaning Republican is 214 (up from 205), with 41 seats now classified as toss-ups. So, if the Dems win all seats leaning Dem and the Repubs win all seats leaning Repub, then the Repubs only need to win four of the 41 toss-up races to take control of the House.

That trend has been steady for the last six weeks.  With the election only 13 days away (and with many votes already having been cast by absentee ballot), those numbers are unlikely to change too much either way between now and election day.

That all said, I suspect that the Repubs will end up with a 20-30 seat majority in the House (with an effective majority even larger than that due to Blue Dog Dems) and will be 3-4 seats shy of the majority in the Senate.

2011 will be an interesting year to watch, particularly since Obama's next objective will be winning re-election in the following year.

takeitslowly

Obama needs to be challenged in 2012. Americans need a real progressive president, not a fraud imitation of one..

 

The brave judge who struck down DADT refused the request of the government's stay motion.

 

 

So today, Daniel Choi and others servicemembers formerly discharged is trying to re enlist after Pentagon is directed to stop enforcing DADT.

 

http://www.365gay.com/news/troops-discharged-for-being-gay-try-to-re-enlist/

 

However, the Department of Justice is once again asking another court, the Ninth circuit court to issue an immediate stay on Wednesday to stop Choi and others from reenlisting the military.

"We respectfully request that the Court enter an administrative stay by today October 20, 2010, pending this Court's resolution of the government's motion for a stay pending appeal, which would maintain the status quo that prevailed before the district court's decision while the Court considers the government's stay motion," said the filing.

 

 http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/10/20/DOJ_Appeals_For_Immediate_Stay

 

/

JKR

Sven wrote:

2011 will be an interesting year to watch, particularly since Obama's next objective will be winning re-election in the following year.

If the Republicans win the House they will be able to obstruct things even more then they have so far. They're willing to deepen the recession in order to win back power in 2012.

Americans are being fooled. The Republicans are most responsible for driving the economy in the ditch in the first place.

Hopefully America's lunacy won't take down the entire world's economy. But maybe that's what it'll take for Americans to wake up and see the how bankrupt the neo-cons and Tea-Party really are.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Quote:

Obama needs to be challenged in 2012. Americans need a real progressive president, not a fraud imitation of one..

Ok and who might that be? I see nobody "progressive" that would be taken seriously by the amount of people it would take to win the democratic nomination for an incumbent president seeming reelection. I don't think any party in recent history has ever switched candidates for president if theirs is an incumbent...

Sven Sven's picture

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Quote:

Obama needs to be challenged in 2012. Americans need a real progressive president, not a fraud imitation of one..

Ok and who might that be? I see nobody "progressive" that would be taken seriously by the amount of people it would take to win the democratic nomination for an incumbent president seeming reelection. I don't think any party in recent history has ever switched candidates for president if theirs is an incumbent...

I think that's pretty accurate, Bec.De.Corbin. The great mass of people in the US occupy a center-right position on the political spectrum. It is highly unlikely that anyone left of Obama would have even a remote chance of being elected president in a general election.

George Victor

Thanks, Sven.

The viewers hereabouts need to read that...the bit about it being "highly unlikely that anyone left of Obama would have even a remote chance of being elected president in a general election."

 

Stick around, please, BDC and Sven. You're needed here. Badly.

takeitslowly

 

Maybe its impossible to replace Obama in 2012,but I would prefer if people do speak up about challenging Obama and aiming much needed criticism and dismay at the Obama administration for creating false hope and being a let down to the many people who voted for him.

 

 

Maybe I am too much of a bleeding heart, but I found it absolutely unconscionable that gay teens and adults are killing themselves everyday while Obama is telling them to stay in the closet in the U.S military. I might understand if you absolutely must vote for the Dem to prevent the Tea party, but I  don't think its in touch with reality to attack someone who expressed their inability to support such a president and party.

 

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/10/20/Michigan_Gay_College_Student_Commits_Suicide/s

 

Instead of playing defense, I believe it is  righteous and ethical and progressive to challenges a politician and let him or her suffer the consequences if they have acted immorally or incompetently.  This is and will be the only way progress can be achieved.

 

I believe a politician who does not give false hope and is not seen as a cowardly or a flip flopper is the best way to prevent the rise of right wing populist extremism.

 

Would I vote for Obama instead of Palin in a close race in 2012? thats up for me to decide, mean while i will continue to show my distaste for both of them online regardless of online attacks. I am happy i never have to make that awful decision because

I am also NEVER moving to America, and i am not an American, but i will talk about american issues because I can and I am informed relatively speaking.

I feel that if someone has to vote for a party that does not look out for them or represent them because they are less destructive or scary than the other party election after election, it is best to consider moving to another country or find some other more meaningful activity to engage in.

*unless you work for CNN or like crossfire kind of reality shows, it would be pretty fun and entertaining to talk about blue and red and which team you are supporting every 2 years*

People who will defend the lesser evil and a political party at all costs in order to prevent another party from winning is what poison the p
olitical well and create polarization and extremist partisanship (read TEA party)
I would never ask anyone to support a tea party candidate, but there is a difference in not supporting a democrat and supporting the republicans, sorry "strategic voters".
Ralph Nadar didn't elect George Bush into office, Gore simply lost.
Don't blame or bash people who decided to not give support for the democrats, blame the democrats for not being able to maintain the support of those who voted for them in 2008.

Pages

Topic locked