BGFalcons82;778507 wrote:I heard a good one last night. In May, 2007 (which is exactly where we are right now in the election cycle), John McCain was out of money and considering pulling the plug, Rudy Guiliani was leading all of the R polling, Hillary was all but coronated, and Obama wasn't a viable candidate to defeat Ms. Clinton. Too early to predict a candidate that won't be officially nominated until 15 months from now.

To me, the only one that would be the odds-on favorite to win the presidency isn't even a candidate....yet - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/05/chris-christie-2012-john-phillips.html

See you know though...I can remember hearing a lot of liberals talking about "Obama, this" "Obama, that" and remember feeling like "What do you know about this guy, why do you like him, etc." I just don't remember feeling like Obama wasn't going to be a major player in 2007. I'm telling you, people were obsessed with him, for what seemed to be no good reason, in 2004. Young liberals were ready for him to be president in 2004. I just don't remember thinking Hillary was all but coronated. I remember Dick Morris going on O'Reilly telling us it was going to be Hillary but I can remember young people especially being so excited about Obama and they couldn't tell me why...

But hey, that's just my anecdotal experience as best I can remember...

Now see, personally, I don't think Romney, Huntsman or Pawlenty are bad candidates. But, I don't think they believe AGW is absolutely, utterly impossible, that it is better to sacrifice people at the alter of the free market rather than follow the orthodox history of economics, that the Earth is 6,000 years old or that the greatest moral imperative of our times is to stop women from exercising their sovereign authority over their most intimate personal property rights (while simultaneously invoking the inviolability of property rights), among other things. But, they have to pretend they do if they hope to get the Republican nomination and conservatives know they're faking it. You go on freerepublic.com and these posters are calling Pawlenty, Hunstman and Romney liberals.

I mean I've always like Romney...but he's come out taking stances like a hardline toward Iran, against the mandate, etc. to appeal to the base because the man wants to be President. But, I just think the man, to have had the success he has had at every level, must be more reasonable than he has acted since losing the 2008 nomination.

Paladin;779397 wrote:Christie now has more people who see him as unfavorable ( 45%) than favorable (40%) in his own state. Another case of a loser that the R base thinks highly of that can't get elected in the general election. He has poor positions that Independents don't like. Every current R candidate has problems and will lead a party that will have high negatives from trying to kill Medicare and favor the rich . Polls indicate Independents turned off with the R agenda . Obama gets 4 more years easy and may be a high turn-over in R seats with Ds making hay over the rich vs Middle Class/Poor record that Rs look bad about. Rs have a disgusting record since elected. They'll lose seats.

Wait..you're trying to say that a Republican governor instituting some fairly right leaning policies has a slightly negative rating in one of the five bluest states in the country? The hell you say!!! :rolleyes:

This is some of the most astute and razor-sharp political analysis I've ever seen. You should have a cable show.

Does not matter at this point (to early) ...
Obama is self destructing. Each year / month / day Obama continues to make a ass out of himself, demonstrates incompetency, continue high employment, economic failure program, worthless spending, disaster foreign policy, energy cluster fuck and the list can go on of Obama being a Fraud Leader. I don’t know of anyone that I ask that would vote for Obama, no matter who is running in 2012…. IMO Obama is defeated already…

Belly35;779781 wrote:Does not matter at this point (to early) ...
Obama is self destructing. Each year / month / day Obama continues to make a ass out of himself, demonstrates incompetency, continue high employment, economic failure program, worthless spending, disaster foreign policy, energy cluster fuck and the list can go on of Obama being a Fraud Leader. I don’t know of anyone that I ask that would vote for Obama, no matter who is running in 2012…. IMO Obama is defeated already…

Belly is correct in one aspect, the 2012 election is a referendum on Obama. The R candidate could be a bowl of soup and still garner 42% of the vote, just because the latest polling shows this percentage will definitely not vote for O'bama. This is why nearly every D-leaning media member will do everything and anything to dig up dirt on any and all R candidates. When you have as rotten a record as Barry has, they better make everyone else out to be worse to make their guy look like the lesser of evils.

He can't run on making history as the first black POTUS.
He can't run on the hopey-dopey-changey thingy because...well...umm...he's failed miserably.
He can't run on being the most transparent administration ever, even though he promised this.
He can't run on a robust growing economic recovery.
He can't run on being a job creator, as there are 13,000,000 less of them today than on 1-20-2009.
He can't run on being fiscally conservative.
He can't run on balancing budgets.
He can't run on his promises to get completely out of Iraq/close down Gitmo/and bringing peace on earth.
He can't run on his border security stance.
He can't run on being Israel's and Britain's closest ally.
He can't run on his energy policy.

What's that leave? He can only run against George W. Bush again and claim his opponent will be the 2nd coming of his predecessor. That's it. That's the only bullet he's got. His 2nd term chances are not a lock, even if the bowl of soup gets cold.

BGFalcons82;779817 wrote:Belly is correct in one aspect, the 2012 election is a referendum on Obama. The R candidate could be a bowl of soup and still garner 42% of the vote, just because the latest polling shows this percentage will definitely not vote for O'bama. This is why nearly every D-leaning media member will do everything and anything to dig up dirt on any and all R candidates. When you have as rotten a record as Barry has, they better make everyone else out to be worse to make their guy look like the lesser of evils.

He can't run on making history as the first black POTUS.
He can't run on the hopey-dopey-changey thingy because...well...umm...he's failed miserably.
He can't run on being the most transparent administration ever, even though he promised this.
He can't run on a robust growing economic recovery.
He can't run on being a job creator, as there are 13,000,000 less of them today than on 1-20-2009.
He can't run on being fiscally conservative.
He can't run on balancing budgets.
He can't run on his promises to get completely out of Iraq/close down Gitmo/and bringing peace on earth.
He can't run on his border security stance.
He can't run on being Israel's and Britain's closest ally.
He can't run on his energy policy.

What's that leave? He can only run against George W. Bush again and claim his opponent will be the 2nd coming of his predecessor. That's it. That's the only bullet he's got. His 2nd term chances are not a lock, even if the bowl of soup gets cold.

Has anyone ask the Black Tax Paying population about voting for Obama again?

The Black National Chamber of Commence and its membership will not be supporting Obama that was made very clear publicly. So goes the voting via color…mentality

I think we saw a glimpse of what might come to pass in 2012 with the results of NY-26 last night. A Democrat won a seat which had been held by Republicans for nearly 40 years, using the Ryan plan for Medicare as her biggest argument. It was eerily familiar with what we saw in New Jersey and Virginia prior to the 2010 midterms. The Ryan budget plan, and any kind of support for it, could be political poison for any of the contenders for the Presidential race next year. There was well over one million spent by Republicans for a single Congressional seat in upstate New York and they failed. Think they placed any importance on the significance of this race?

stlouiedipalma;779886 wrote:I think we saw a glimpse of what might come to pass in 2012 with the results of NY-26 last night. A Democrat won a seat which had been held by Republicans for nearly 40 years, using the Ryan plan for Medicare as her biggest argument. It was eerily familiar with what we saw in New Jersey and Virginia prior to the 2010 midterms. The Ryan budget plan, and any kind of support for it, could be political poison for any of the contenders for the Presidential race next year. There was well over one million spent by Republicans for a single Congressional seat in upstate New York and they failed. Think they placed any importance on the significance of this race?

Is it similar to the Pennsylvania open seat a year ago?
Is it similar to the NY open seat a year or so ago?
Weren't these 2 open elections also portrayed as a forecast of the 2010 election? What happened there?

To win the seat, the D's had to employ a faux candidate, paint him in Tea Party colors, and allow him to lambaste the Republican candidate mercilessly, while giving the D candidate a virtual pass. Without the faux candidate, the Republican wins. Go ahead...play it up as a precursor for 2012. Stand on that hill and proclaim it so, just like the PA and NY seats noted above.

Finally, the Ryan proposal deserves scrutiny, but it also deserves the truth, don't you think? If you took a poll, you would find a significant number of seasoned citizens that believe they will be affected, even though the changes don't affect anyone 55 years and older. People don't know this....I wonder why???? Also, the Ryan plan only changes the structure of Medicare, it does not abolish it. Yet, there are those that will claim he's trying to wheel grandma over the cliff (see recent Dem ads stating so).

A couple of things...

The only polls which matter are done by secret ballot on Election Day.

Dirty tactics used in elections aren't exclusive to one party or the other, so you can quit playing that card.

Yes, the Ryan plan, in its current setup, doesn't affect anyone 55 or older. But what kind of outcry will we see from those who are 54 and they find that the voucher they receive can only buy them a limited-coverage 80/20 plan while their neighbor who is one year older enjoys the traditional Medicare plan? You may say it doesn't abolish Medicare, but it sure goes a long way towards rendering it obsolete, particularly for those who will be directly affected by the changes.

And those who support this plan should be held accountable for their support and accept that the consequences may be fatal to their political careers.

stlouiedipalma;779913 wrote:A couple of things...

The only polls which matter are done by secret ballot on Election Day.

Dirty tactics used in elections aren't exclusive to one party or the other, so you can quit playing that card.

Yes, the Ryan plan, in its current setup, doesn't affect anyone 55 or older. But what kind of outcry will we see from those who are 54 and they find that the voucher they receive can only buy them a limited-coverage 80/20 plan while their neighbor who is one year older enjoys the traditional Medicare plan? You may say it doesn't abolish Medicare, but it sure goes a long way towards rendering it obsolete, particularly for those who will be directly affected by the changes.

And those who support this plan should be held accountable for their support and accept that the consequences may be fatal to their political careers.

Yes, dirty tactics are used by both. But in this instance, the faux candidate - paid for by the Democrats - clearly affected the outcome. Yet, if I read you correctly, you are trying to extrapolate this particular election as some sort of referendum on Ryan and proclaim it's somehow a predictor of 2012. My point is that unless the Democrats can put up fake Tea Party candidates in the ~270 or so R House districts, the analogy is flawed and election extrapolations are not valid.

The Ryan plan does something that Democrats are failing to do, and that is get a handle on entitlement spending. Hell, the Senate, controlled by D's for several years, have yet to vote on a federal budget for nearly 760 days. Yet, here are the D's, along with their willing media accomplices, attacking, lying, and demogoguing Ryan's plan without understanding it and without putting out their own version of how to keep spending other nation's wealth and stealing from future Americans. Ryan's plan is the pits they say? What's their plan....we're all waiting for it...whenever they get around to it. As I stated earlier, Ryan never said it was the final plan, just a place to start discussions and improving upon it. So far, no one from the other side has offered anything to improve upon it, other than verbal sticks and stones in an attempt to shred it entirely. How sad is that?

BGFalcons82;779900 wrote:Is it similar to the Pennsylvania open seat a year ago?
Is it similar to the NY open seat a year or so ago?
Weren't these 2 open elections also portrayed as a forecast of the 2010 election? What happened there?

To win the seat, the D's had to employ a faux candidate, paint him in Tea Party colors, and allow him to lambaste the Republican candidate mercilessly, while giving the D candidate a virtual pass. Without the faux candidate, the Republican wins. Go ahead...play it up as a precursor for 2012. Stand on that hill and proclaim it so, just like the PA and NY seats noted above.

Finally, the Ryan proposal deserves scrutiny, but it also deserves the truth, don't you think? If you took a poll, you would find a significant number of seasoned citizens that believe they will be affected, even though the changes don't affect anyone 55 years and older. People don't know this....I wonder why???? Also, the Ryan plan only changes the structure of Medicare, it does not abolish it. Yet, there are those that will claim he's trying to wheel grandma over the cliff (see recent Dem ads stating so).

All those old people in NY-26 DID know that it wasn't going to affect anyone 55 years and up but it seems that fewer people hold Thrasymachus up as their moral compass after all and may want their children to experience the single-payer health insurance program that has allowed millions of people to live with dignity into their golden years. You may say it is justified to turn medicare into a voucher program for private insurance as opposed to a single-payer fee-for-service program but to say that he "doesn't abolish" medicare is false. Medicare under his plan will be completely and entirely different and continuing to call it "medicare" doesn't mean that it isn't abolished.

And in reality, there's no evidence to suggest that a voucher program would hold down costs because seniors would "deny business to inefficient providers." Paul Ryan justifies it by saying "look at our student loan system, that's a voucher program" and yet makes no mention as to how education costs have skyrocketed and how an incredible amount of students have used those vouchers by paying for the most inefficient types of schools like online proprietary ones.

Governing is a problem for the Rs. Its one thing to B.S. the public to win elections , but when you get totally exposed , you have no where to run. Its no secret that Walker (Wis.), Kasich (Oh), Scott ( Fla.) and Christie (N.J.) are R govs who are taking a killing with opinion polls of their states citizens with the poor performance in office. All have high negatives. So will the Rs in Congress in upcoming elections. Privatizing SS is also on their list of "things to do" after stamping out unions and ending Medicare. Add in the "runts" running for Prez in the R party and you have a total disaster on the way for the Rs.

Elections have consequences and 2012 will be a Waterloo for them.

Obama gets 4 more years. Ds clean-up in Congress. States flip back to Ds.

It's sounding like Palin is going to run...I actually had to think about that a few minutes to decide that may be the one scenario I vote for Obama. No, I'm not joking. More probably in that scenario I voice my displeasure by writing in a candidate.

I think you guys give the voting public way too much credit for thinking about and then voting for the issues. The fact is that the R's have no charismatic candidate...that is...someone who will exciting the great middle to cast their vote for them. No one really gives a shit unless it affects them directly...and if it does, they won't care whether it's good for the country or not...they'll vote their pocketbook. Book that.
The best us "R's" can hope for is to hold on to the House and make inroads in the Senate. The Dems have made their living buying votes with the public dole...and they'll continue till their house of cards collapses.

HitsRus;782493 wrote:I think you guys give the voting public way too much credit for thinking about and then voting for the issues. The fact is that the R's have no charismatic candidate...that is...someone who will exciting the great middle to cast their vote for them. No one really gives a shit unless it affects them directly...and if it does, they won't care whether it's good for the country or not...they'll vote their pocketbook. Book that.
The best us "R's" can hope for is to hold on to the House and make inroads in the Senate. The Dems have made their living buying votes with the public dole...and they'll continue till their house of cards collapses.

Unfortunately I think you're right.

You would think the Republicans could nominate Elmer Fudd this time around and clean Obama's clock. In my honest opinion, BHO is the biggest fraud the Dems have introduced to the American people since Jimmy Carter.. But for some strange reason the "R's" don't seem to be able to find a viable presidential candidate to save us from that fraud...or simply don't care.

I agree. Methinks the Republicans are content with conceding a second term to BHO and setting their sites on retaining the House and taking control of the Senate.

Still it's early. We'll see what happens this fall.

stlouiedipalma;779913 wrote:A couple of things...

The only polls which matter are done by secret ballot on Election Day.

Dirty tactics used in elections aren't exclusive to one party or the other, so you can quit playing that card.

Yes, the Ryan plan, in its current setup, doesn't affect anyone 55 or older. But what kind of outcry will we see from those who are 54 and they find that the voucher they receive can only buy them a limited-coverage 80/20 plan while their neighbor who is one year older enjoys the traditional Medicare plan? You may say it doesn't abolish Medicare, but it sure goes a long way towards rendering it obsolete, particularly for those who will be directly affected by the changes.

And those who support this plan should be held accountable for their support and accept that the consequences may be fatal to their political careers.

The 54 year olds have 11 years to start working on a supplement to the vouchers before they retire. If they can't come up with something on their own in that timeframe, the gene pool is better off without them.

Enterprising companies will be coming out of the woodwork like crazy with a bazillion supplement plans.

I'm getting weary of watching the left's demagoguery on this issue. Just let the fucking thing collapse and everyone can fend for themselves. :rolleyes:

^^^^(to believer)If you think about it, "The President" is a charismatic position. You are talking about a person who uses government to lead, which is almost the antithesis of what true conservatives, Libertarians, Tea Party members want. How do you elect somebody non-charasmatic...someone who will just get out of the way domestically.But do you want them to lead globally? Oh, wait! that's a Neo Con. No wonder the Dems are so vociferous in trying to discredit that faction...happily and somewhat unwittingly joined by the far right. What can true conservatives, Libertarians, Tea party-ers offer the voters? ...getting government out of the way...lower taxes? (consider that 40% pays no taxes). Well the answer is you can't. You can't win promising only 'freedom' when the general public is willing to vote it away and suck on a giant teat. Do the math. The last great Republicans who took the Presidency away from Democrats (Reagan, GWB) were Neo Cons. IMO, it's going to take a Neo Con to win the White House again....someone who can really deliver 'compassionate conservatism.'...someone who can placate the far right, without alienating the middle. It's not going to happen this time around.

HitsRus;782962 wrote:someone who can placate the far right, without alienating the middle. It's not going to happen this time around.

Maybe. I see a lot of parallels with 2004. People who didn't want to voted for Bush because they found Kerry so unappealing (and to a lesser extent, Gore was so unappealing and botched his campaign that people voted for GWB the first time). The budget is a much bigger front and center issue this time around, however. I think a lot of people will be content to throw Obama out for ANYONE they believe will spend less.

Sure, Obama is charismatic, but that shine has really worn off with people getting tired of the constant parade of photo ops and celebrity gatherings. What leadership? What foreign policy (or foreign policy changes)? Spending, lmfao. He's literally given us almost no reason to re-elect him over even an actual donkey. I think there is a pretty sizeable contingent of voters poised to elect ANYONE different. Like I said, similar to 2004 but yet drastically different because of the economy/budget.

I'm not joking when I say I'd struggle to choose between Obama and Palin, and I believe Palin is an absolutely fucking terrible candidate.

I can't think of one candidate that the right throws out that makes me want to vote for Obama.

I think Governor Perry could pose a serious challenge to President Obama.

bigdaddy2003;783218 wrote:I can't think of one candidate that the right throws out that makes me want to vote for Obama.

This. At this point the Pubs could nominate a farking bologna sandwich and I'd pull the lever for it.

^^^^That may be true...but your preaching to the choir here.

Gut, explain to me what you don't like about Palin.

bigdaddy2003;783508 wrote:Gut, explain to me what you don't like about Palin.

For starters, I think she's not very bright. Maybe it's just her folksy style, but after GWB (who while no Rhodes Scholar I think is more intelligent than given credit for) I'd rather have someone at least a little "Presidential". Quitting her governor job really, really doesn't sit well, either. And one thing she shares in common with Obama is a desire to cash-in on sudden celebrity. I don't blame either one for that, but again it doesn't sit well. I'm also not far right, and even if she's just positioning there now to build a base it's not something I care for.

I'm not entirely sure what she stands for, at least what isn't spoon fed to her like a puppet (somewhat of another similarity). I imagine she'll get destroyed in debates, but if she does well she could win my support (at least vs. Obama). Obama, at least, is very intelligent - mind you apparently not in any areas useful for governing, but he is smart.

A better question might be what do I like about her, or what should I like about her. And the answer is nothing. So she kind of aligns herself with the Tea Party, but not really, and even then plenty of rednecks want fiscal responsibility but it doesn't make them remotely qualified to be President.

bigdaddy2003;783508 wrote:Gut, explain to me what you don't like about Palin.

I agree with Gut with many of Palin's issues. Would I vote for her instead of Obama? Hell yes. Do I think Palin will get the Republican nomination? Hell no.