2010 polling

I step away for a few days, and then look at the polling, and its even worse. And then I read Democratic partisans actually putting in print predictions that Democrats will retain both bodies of Congress (Donna Brazille, Bob Shrum). What are they high on?

The Hotline poll numbers are toxic city for Democratic House incumbents. A slew of 30's and a few scattered low 40's. These are incumbents folks!  Anything under 50% and they are 95% out the door.

And Obama's numbers. It amazes me to still read people saying that Obama is gonna win a landslide in 2012. He's rolling in the 30's on job approval in CNN polling states like MO, NV and OH, and in the 40's in states like NY and CT.

If Obama wins, no, the only way he will win, is by there either being a split of 3rd party, and/or a meltdown of the Republican candidate. Sarah Palin will not be their nominee. I will bet on it. But both of those scenarios are quite possible.

2011 is going to be soo soo ugly in DC. Not a single thing is going to pass. Obama, who is now in 8-9% approval among Republicans, will likely see that number go even further down. It's the Independents though, that are killing Democrats. A block of 55-60 in disapproval has been solid since last summer.

It is a combination of Obama hiring the same people who do the same thing (brand killer); letting the banks get 100 cents to the dollar of Gov't money and then letting their obscene bonuses happen (populist killer); not taking the small deal on HCR in July 2009 (jobs focus killer); and then Obama's War in Afghanistan over the summer (hope killer). Its never one thing that is an end-all, but a multiple of things that when, it tips, go south until they turn, and that can be a while.

When will the Democrats get a grove back?  Obama's numbers are likely to get even worse in 2011. We are going to have to see some vicious Democratic primaries that go against the anti-populist sentiment among the DC Democratic establishment. Otherwise, it may not be until 2016, and after Republicans take total control in 2012.

Its a few weeks away from the bloodbath, and I've no reason to look at the blood being spilled on a daily basis.

 

 

 

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

54 Comments

The less they do to us, the better

2011 is going to be soo soo ugly in DC. Not a single thing is going to pass.

Thank, god. As long as these congress-critters are so contemptuous of the voters that they brazen admit they don't even bother reading the bills, we should all breath a sigh of relief that they can't pass any legislation.

by hwc 2010-10-07 03:07AM | 0 recs
RE: The less they do to us, the better

Less they do the better, don't read bills .... Rightwing talking points.   

by RichardFlatts 2010-10-07 09:27AM | 0 recs
RE: The less they do to us, the better

Yea, imagine if they get together with Obama to reform the corporate healthcare bill-- it will get worse.

 

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-07 10:07AM | 0 recs
Its no wonder

Republican candidates have am radio, Fox News, rightwing blogs, outside special interest groups ... all on their side.   They take aim at their enemy, Democrats, and they fire with all they have.    Using lies, smears, slander, money, you name it.  

Democrats have nothing.   In fact Democrats are being eaten by their own.   I expect a lot of good people to announce retirement before their next election because of it.   We are going to see solid lawmakers lose this Nov. because of it. 

by RichardFlatts 2010-10-07 09:30AM | 0 recs
RE: Its no wonder

Democrats have sites like this with posts like this that might as well be on redstate as good as they are for republicans.

I hope I am wrong but Obama may be the best our side ever gets. I know this is a hated position and I hate it too, but our best shot is probably to have supported and helped our losers, like the repubs do for their losers, and hoped to turn the tide from a stronger position.

Once the fascists have control they will create a few jobs and unleash some incredible amount of propaganda that will make it impossible to get anywhere.

Have you seen the movie idiocracy ? I don' think we will have a happy ending.

by ottoman789 2010-10-07 10:57AM | 0 recs
RE: Its no wonder

Democrats have control of the government.  Good legislation and policies are all they needed.  Instead we got mandated health insurance, unchecked credit card rates, weak wall street reform.  Good policies (ie, pro-working/middle class) is all the press they would have needed.

by orestes 2010-10-09 12:31PM | 1 recs
If Obama loses in 2012 try 2020

2 out of the last 3 Repubs got two terms, and Bush 41 was hurt by Perot.

They will spend the money, and launch the smears and hold power for 8 most likely.  

 

Lets all give up and go home and come back in 2020.

by RichardFlatts 2010-10-07 09:33AM | 0 recs
RE: If Obama loses in 2012 try 2020

Then it may be time to think about a move to Canada or Germany.

If you thought the GOP trifecta in 2003-6 was bad, wait until 2013.  By then, the GOP could have bigger majorities than the Dems do now.  Reapportionment for 2012 and having to defend the 2006 and 2008 gains.  The Democratic senators elected in 2006 all have negative approval ratings.

by esconded 2010-10-07 10:11AM | 0 recs
RE: If Obama loses in 2012 try 2020

But you can't separate any of this from the economy.  I'm sticking with my prediction that an unemployment rate < 7% in 2012 means Obama wins easily.  Over 8 % or so and he'll have a really tough time getting re-elected.

by the mollusk 2010-10-07 12:07PM | 1 recs
RE: If Obama loses in 2012 try 2020

Well then at least we will be able to regroup and rebuild the party. 

by Kent 2010-10-07 03:00PM | 0 recs
RE: If Obama loses in 2012 try 2020

 

Listen, if handed a choice between say Kucinich and DeMint, America will go with DeMint in a general everytime.   Not saying it is smart, not saying it is right.   But it is true, and it is real.

If the left wants to govern they first have to sell the American people on their message.    Why do you think so many Democratic Senators are so moderate?   Why?   Because if they ran to the left they get slaughtered.   Liberals / progressives are getting destroyed not by Democrats, but by Republicans, who city by city, town by town, district by district, state by state have kicked liberal ass over the last 40 years. 

Can't you see that?  

McGovern couldn't beat Nixon.   Mondale couldn't beat Reagan ( to quote Dennis Miller who I used to think was funny, Mondale got "beat like a NARC at a biker rally").   Dukakis couldn't beat Bush.

Bring the voters and you get your way.  

Conservatives put in the work.  They carried their signs, they ran for school board, they protested abortion clinics (sick as that is), they worked for it.

Liberals seem to want it handed to them.  

How exactly will you "rebuild the party" in say 8, 10, or 12 years?  By blogging?   By bitching?  

Either take what you get, and Obama is the best liberals / progressives will get in a long long time, or stay home and bitch, or put in 30 or 30 years of hard work like the conservatives. 

 

by RichardFlatts 2010-10-07 08:43PM | 0 recs
RE: If Obama loses in 2012 try 2020

The Democrats party was doing fine before Obama.  They had won back the House, Senate and many local offices and would have held them for a generation had Obama not come in and screwed everything up.

Obama is a cancer on the Democratic party and we will need him out of office if Democrats are to be a viable political party again. 

 

by Kent 2010-10-07 08:50PM | 1 recs
RE: 2010 polling

Nevada seems to be moving to Angle...Thats the race I am watching..Spending , Deficits , Healthcare and government takeover , my prediction over a year ago ..By the way I believe Reid will lose that race..

by lori 2010-10-07 09:42AM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

It does seem that way, in NV, doesn't it. I remember thinking that they played the card of offensive agains her too early, but really, did they have a choice?  The interesting thing isn't that Reid is turning voters away from both, but that he's depressing turnout (based on CNN's poll)-- a huge mistake.

Also, WV, is a WTF. Does Manchin even want to win?  Hapless effort while Raese and the RSCC pound on him, but... hicky-gate might turn it around.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-07 10:13AM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

He cant get past 45 in Nevada , Rasmussen is coming out today with Angle at 50 with leaners , Reid at 46....Hickeygate is a non story , in wv , obama is the issue...

by lori 2010-10-07 10:21AM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

Government takeover ... more Fox "news" talking points.

 

Sad.

by RichardFlatts 2010-10-07 11:53AM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

A lot more people agree with your so called Fox News talking points ,basically a majority including a sizeable percentage of dems. . The stimulus , bailouts , healthcare ,student loans , if it isnt obvious there is more government involvement today than it should be then I dont know what will do it . All those issues are driving the election..One would only hope the democrats recognize that and dont have their heads buried in the sand like some seem to have.The

by lori 2010-10-07 12:14PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

It is not obvious at all that the problem is government involvement.  Krugman and other economists say that the stimulus was both too small and badly designed with too much in the way of tax cuts.  The healthcare was too complicated.  Medicare for all or even Medicare for some would have been a lot better and a lot more popular.  The student loans was a good idea.  I agree with you on the bailout.

Obama's best shot remains that the recession will end or at least moderate enough that he can run a "morning in America campaign."  The odds of that would have been much better if he had a properly designed and implemented stimulus.

 

by David Kowalski 2010-10-07 01:02PM | 1 recs
RE: 2010 polling

Stimulus?  Economists of all stripes argued it was necessary.   I am on the front lines ... commercial construction.   We were in free fall in the spring of '09, laying off 4 or 5 people a week.     Some economists argue that the stimulus wasn't big enough.   Teabaggers be damned stimulus probably is what kept us out of a Depression.

The bailouts?    Read up on the reaction at the Fed, and at the Bush White House, after they decided to let Lehman sink.   They crapped their pants, as money was flying out of the system, they knew they couldn't let another major firm go down.   That lead to TARP, signed into law by Bush.

Health care?   Now Democrats and Progressive who heard Clinton and Obama both campaign on it in the primaries, and Obama in the general, don't want it?   Didn't want it?   You serious?   

The overhaul of the student loan system flat out made sense.  Its SAVES tax payer money.    Banks were miffed because it was a no risk gravy train for them.   But they are hurting without it.   We've seen many post record profits.  

Again, I think you are a Republican.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck people.

by RichardFlatts 2010-10-07 02:06PM | 0 recs
Obama-Boehner show

I think that's not such a bad thing overall.  The Repubs will have to step up to the plate and propose things that actually work rather than screaming Death Panels! (tm) or Socialism! (tm).  Who knows, there may be a good idea or two rattling around in there.  But if not, the voters aren't going to stand for endless inquiries into Obama's passport or George Soros' influence over climate change scientists.  Besides, your premise seems to be that if nothing gets done in 2011 that it is somehow bad for Obama.  But a crap-load got done over the past 18 months and that didn't seem to be too good for Obama (and the Democrats) either.  Now he'll have the Republicans to play off of.  He can credibly separate himself from the inevitable morass which is Congress.  If all they do is pull crap like government shut-downs and try to impeach Obama for being a community organizer, they will be looking for work in 2012 (most likely as lobbyists making 3-5 x as much as a Congressperson).

by the mollusk 2010-10-07 12:05PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

I will go out on a limb here and say you are being way too pessimistic here. Yes the house is likely a lost cause (though it wouldn't totally shock me to see a narrow Dem majority) but the senate will stay in Dem hands. Reid will hold on against Angle, Hick-gate will push Manchin across the line, and the landslide in general will be less than predicted here. I think that nationally Dems are beginning to feel a sense of urgency that always comes later to the incumbent party who are less hungry and more complacent at the beginning of the election cycle. I know here at MyDD we are invested in being perpetually negative but I think that come Nov 3rd the picture will be less devastating than advertised.

by wasder 2010-10-07 12:29PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

Pessimistic compared to whom?  Bowers put 89 seats on the table yesterday, Nate Silver has about the same. I'm only invested in saying what I perceive as the truth.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-07 12:41PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

Its true that I am operating on a combination of wishful thinking and hunches but I am confident that the enthusiasm gap is being overstated in current polling. Either way, you are correct that 2011 will be brutal from a legislative standpoint.

by wasder 2010-10-07 01:32PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

Don't bother trying to talk down these doom-cryers.The Limbaugh Left has 435 Republicans in the House next year and they aren't budging from that prediction.

by spirowasright 2010-10-07 10:46PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

not all 89 will fall, but I could see a loss of 60 seats.

by esconded 2010-10-07 01:33PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

Agreed, its probably a base of 45-55, and from there really a matter of whom is running a great campaign, or not, all the way up to 100. We will know the great campaigns, for example, of those D's that win among these seats:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=197

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-07 03:15PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

Was electing Obama in 2008 really worth this?  If that idiot Hank Paulsen had done the right thing and rescued Lehman Brothers in 2008, Obama might never have been elected and we would have been spared this nightmare. 

 

by Kent 2010-10-07 03:31PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

If Hank Paulsen had rescued Lehman Brothers, Obama wouldn't have been elected. We'd probably have traded this nightmare in for a worse one.

 

But who cares?

As long as Upstate Kent had his veto-proof Democratic Congress, everything would be just fine..

BTW you selfish little jerk, accoridng to a recent poll, 81 percent of Democrats approve of Obama's performance and 19 percent agree with Kent.

by spirowasright 2010-10-07 05:55PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

And another thing...

If Kent got his wish, one of the Senate seats that would be sagfe Dem, would be IL, where that balck man who scares Kent so much would be running for re-election.

by spirowasright 2010-10-07 05:57PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

Hank Paulsen should fry in the electric chair for what he did.  His job was to keep financial markets and the economy stable, WHATEVER the consequences to the taxpayers. 

When a major firm is about to go down, you rescue it, no matter what people say.  If the taxpayers are stuck with a loss, tough, we're all in this together. 

Now we are stuck with Obama and towering Republican majorities in Congress.

You just wait until Republicans strap strings on Obama make him do everything they want.

Hank Paulsen should rot in hell.

 

by Kent 2010-10-07 06:49PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

Obama not getting elected would have saved the Democratic party from ruin.  I think Hank Paulsen and the Bush administration realized this as well, which is why Paulsen went insane and let Lehman fail. 

by Kent 2010-10-07 07:18PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

You think McCain really had a chance?   Really? 

Serious?

 

by RichardFlatts 2010-10-07 08:53PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

It would have been tough for McCain because the economy was already quite bad and getting worse in 2008, but he may have been able to pull out a squeaker had the focus not been so heavily on the economy.

There could have been something else that came out on the economy that would have done the same thing, like an AIG failure or something else if TARP had not happened.

We'll never know.

I would feel better knowing that Obama was going to win anyway. 

by Kent 2010-10-07 09:10PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

Puh-lease.

Am I the only one who thought that the Democratic Primary WAS THE ELECTION last time around? 

Seriously, I never thought McCain, or any other Republican stood a chance against Obama or Clinton. 

The tide was against them and it was a weak GOP slate.

by RichardFlatts 2010-10-07 08:48PM | 1 recs
RE: 2010 polling

With unemployment , the economy and the agenda coming out of Washington  opposed by most folks in this region , I would be surprised if anyone gets riled up about hick ad outside of the media bubble in dc...

by lori 2010-10-07 01:49PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

My thought about this is that if Raese is supposed to be more in touch with regular folks, this news will make him look hypocritical and way out of touch. I know you think that this will only resonate in media circles but I bet that most of the blue collar WV vote would not appreciate the description of them in that casting call. So if that becomes widely discussed among the voting public I think it will have a negative effect on the Republican candidate.

In re the agenda coming out of Washington, I am wondering what the folks in WV would be feeling if there had been nothing done this legislative cycle, no stimulus and no health care bill. Hard as it is to cut through the media meme that health care bill is an albatross I still feel confident that most of America will come to see it as an improvement over previous status quo. Its the kind of thing that will have to be weighed over a few years and won't help us in 2010 but in the end as each person weighs whether they are better off than they were I think the HC bill will be seen as a net positive by 2012.

by wasder 2010-10-07 02:42PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

Re: turnout

I too don't think it will be as bad among Democrats as many think.   Especially in states with early voting.   I am not an expert, but I have a hard time believing that a lot of the voters that have been active voters in 2004, 2006, and 2008 will suddenly decide they don't want to vote this year.   

 

I am not exactly thrilled this year.  I have a lot going on.   But I know where my polling place is.   I'll swing in and vote straight ticket and be on my way.    I hate wingnuts.

by RichardFlatts 2010-10-07 02:15PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

You quote Donna Brazille and Bob Shrum's comments Jerome.

What are they supposed to do? Run around screaming and hollering like the posters on this site?

Mimic Kent?

I'm not a Pollyanana or a cockeyed optimist, but the negativity on this site is downright disgusting.

by spirowasright 2010-10-07 02:09PM | 1 recs
RE: 2010 polling

The situation is negative. If you want to be sugar-coated and isolated, I'm sure its out there for the reading.

No one is holding a gun to their head saying 'lie or you die' and they don't even have a job that makes them have to lie.

Lets not get into what you are about...

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-07 03:06PM | 0 recs
RE: 2010 polling

It would be nice if they were honest Jerome and what you call "Sugar-cating" or spinning drives me nuts too, and has done so for more years than you are old, Jerome.

That's what they do. Sorry, that's politics.

 

BTW, according to a recent poll, 81 percent of Democrats approve of the job President obama is doing--and 19 percent post at MyDD .

by spirowasright 2010-10-07 03:14PM | 0 recs
This is such bullshit.

I think it's pretty clear that the Senate will stay democratic and right now it's looking 50/50 for the house IMO. A lot of it is going to depend on the ground game and Democrats KNOW and are FIGHTING the fight. With unemployment high it was inevitable that there would be a backlash.

But say the worst happens and democrats lose both houses; that gurantees reelection for Obama who will run against Congress from jump. He'll force votes he wouldn't have forced on democrats and he will put up an immigration debate in 2011 that will kill the Republican party.

The 2012 cake has been baked over the last two years and the hispanic and black vote is gone for the Republicans and the women and youth vote will evaporate after two  years of tea party rule.

 

by Rhoda 2010-10-07 03:21PM | 0 recs
RE: This is such bullshit.

I agree with you Rhoda. I don't know if the Dems have beaten back the GOP, but there seems to be a change in the atmosphere over the last month or so. At least you're not throwing the towel in and you have some points to ponder for the future.

Alas, this is the liberal blogosphere and encouraging words are very hard to come by, even in the best of times.

by spirowasright 2010-10-07 05:51PM | 0 recs
RE: This is such bullshit.

What? What the hell polls are you reading? The party is gonna get creamed. Voters are pissed about reckless out of control spending, a deaf congress, high unemployment and perceived arrogance of leadership ( In Pelosi and Reids case its not perceived. Those two arrogant pricks need to be booted out of the country as far as I am concerned).....Unemployment wont see the south side of 8.5 percent in 2012 and Obama will get kicked to the curb deservedly. His "new tone" bullshit was just that. He is arrogant, tone deaf and clueless. Next to Jimmy Carter the worst mistake voters have made in a generation.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-10-07 08:48PM | 0 recs
RE: This is such bullshit.

You dont have a right to complain.  You voted for Obama.  Obama told us exactly what we were going to get in the 2008 campaign. 

by Kent 2010-10-07 09:49PM | 0 recs
RE: This is such bullshit.

And if ronald reagan hadn't been elected in 1980, the GOP would have taken Congress 12 years earlier with the gown-ups still in charge.

by spirowasright 2010-10-07 10:50PM | 0 recs
RE: This is such bullshit.

The difference is that Reagan earned his election in 1980, which showed he was capable of being President.  Obama had the 2008 election handed to him on a silver platter and is not up to the job of being President.

What Hank Paulsen did was allow a very weak candidate to become President. 

It wasnt Paulsen's job to play god.  His job was to keep the financial markets stable by rescuing any big firm that was about to fail, no matter what the consequences to "the taxpayers". 

 

by Kent 2010-10-08 12:12AM | 0 recs
RE: This is such bullshit.

You don't think that Obama earned his election?

I think that you had your heart set on a Democratic romp in the 2010 midterms and with a Dem in the WH, especially one  not named Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich, you decided to push the pnaic button.

In short, you've got a clinker in your head about Obama, or you have your heart so set on the Dems partying like it's 1974 at the lower levels that it's clouded your perspective.

What's your problem Kent? This is beginning to sound like something far beyond politics.

Are you the only person in your neighborhood who doesn't have a bedsheet in his closet?

You don't think Obamam earned his election?

Jimmy Carter was a fish out of water, at best the fall guy for an out of gas governing coalition  that should have gotten the gate in 1968, but for some reason didn't

(This is a non-artisan view of history Kent, it's definitely above your level).

How you can say it was handed to him is beyond me and in a lot of ways he is very much up to the job. Just beacause you, Jerome and everyone else on this Limbaugh Liberal web site are panicking over the stopped clock elections and don't like the way he's doing as job as party leader in a difficult time doesn't give you any reason to brand him a failure.

But it must be nice to be perfect.

by spirowasright 2010-10-08 01:03AM | 0 recs
RE: This is such bullshit.

You yourself said Obama didnt earn this election when you admitted he wouldnt have won without Paulsen stupidly letting Lehman collapse. 

I would rather have had Paulsen not try to play god in 2008 and let Obama win the election on his own. 

by Kent 2010-10-08 02:02AM | 0 recs
RE: This is such bullshit.

Whatever. Just go away.

by spirowasright 2010-10-08 02:50PM | 0 recs
Senate outlook

It's deterioriated in a week from 52-48 Dem to 51-49 GOP.

Rossi has regained the lead in WA-Sen.  Also, today's jobs report was terrible.

by esconded 2010-10-08 11:38AM | 0 recs
RE: Senate outlook

Right now, the RCP/538 consensus is a Lieberman-controlled Senate: 50-50. If Rossi pulls ahead in the averages (Murray still up barely), it tips it to GOP controlled.

 

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-08 12:04PM | 0 recs
War of annihilation

The right doesn't want to just beat progressivism; it wants to end it.  In 2016 there may be nothing left to save.  I wish Democrats hadn't made it so easy.

 

by pat0704 2010-10-08 05:10PM | 0 recs
Does Obama care if he gets a GOP run Congress--Maybe not--He got what he wanted HCR

This is going to sound crazy but I am beginning to believe
> that Obama wants the GOP to take control of Congress. I have
> come to believe that his only goal was to use the Democrats
> 1. to get elected 2. to enact a Healthcare Law that would
> put him in history books as a President who go enacted a law
> which is a historical benchmark. LBJ has several of these
> laws in his biography i.e. Civil Rights and most of all the
> Medicare Bill.  FDR also with Social Security. These
> are benchmark laws and solidly anchor these 2 president into
> our history. Has Obama not gotten this done he would
> probably go down as a good caretaker type president who got
> us thru a bad recession but then "so what"....many
> presidents have done that: Truman, Reagan, Clinton,
> etc.  There's nothing hugely noteworthy about that.
>
> Now, here is my point. Obama has taken a careful look at
> the last 30 years in America and I think (and I agree to
> some extent) that there is now a greatly polarized Congress
> and American public too. There aren't many ways a president
> can leave a real true historic legacy for historians. Obama
> only has to go back to Clinton to get a true picture.
> Clinton failed early on to get his healthcare plan in place
> and really didn't do much after that. The Congress went to
> the Republicans in 1994 and Clinton didn't seem too
> concerned. I think he recognized that his chance for the
> only major legislation that he could pass was over ---
> healthcare reform.
>
> OBAMA DID IT!!  He got his healthcare legislation
> passed and what more is there to do. Much of what is left is
> a big pain in the ass. Trade issues, unemployment, slow
> growth in the economy, big deficits, attacks on Social
> Security/Medicare, etc. now face him. So I think he feels
> that he's worked hard, got the most of any president since
> LBJ, etc. So let the GOP take over the Congress. What the
> hell. True to form they will immediately drop any pretense
> of honoring their campaigns where they say they will get the
> economy going. They may even do like in 1994 when Newt
> Gingrich became speaker and decided to impeach Clinton and
> shut down the government. Bill Clinton just grinned and
> welcomed that. They got hammered in the Congressional
> elections of 1996 and 1998 and Bill got re-elected by a
> landslide. The public took out their wrath on the
> Republicans because they felt like they were not doing
> anything they promised--in 2010 Republican's in Congress
> have the
>  lowest ratings of all occupations--car salesmen are more
> popular.
>
> So, losing Congress didn't hurt Bill Clinton really and he
> left office in 2000 one of the most popular people in
> history.  Obama only has to look to GW Bush to see how
> things can blow up on the president once in office with all
> the fat promises and all the high expectations. Bush ranks
> near the bottom of presidents over the last 100 years. 
> Obama can look at Clinton and see his strategy for the 2012
> elections. Let The GOP run their hate and crazy wacko way of
> running the government. Obama can smile. Every time old John
> Fake Bake Boehner tries to screw Social Security / Medicare,
> there will be Obama with his VETO pen protecting the widows,
> retirees, and orphans of the world. By 2016 when he leaves
> he will be able to tour the world as an elder stateman
> (probably he will go jointly with Clinton and George Bush
> Sr.) seeking peace all over.
>
> It's an interesting view that I have blogged and gotten
> some positive feedback. Most Dems are concerned (as I am)
> that he is like Clinton, he is an Egomaniac who only cares
> about getting himself elected and his place in the history
> books. The problem with Clinton and I'm afraid for Obama is
> that Clinton left office not caring about Al Gore getting
> elected. That came from Bill's selfcentered ego and  I'm afraid the same thing will happen with Obama.
> He will leave the Dems destitute and the GOP will win big
> enough to push thru more of their crazy agenda i.e. big tax
> breaks for the rich.....
> I'm becoming less and less of an Obama supporter. In 2006
> and 2008 west Harris county where I work was approaching 50%
> Democrat --- only 20 years ago it was 98% Republican --now with Obama I can see us
> loosing  a lot of the county offices we have won over
> the last 10 years...this lax egomaniac has set us back 20 years...

I now only hope that Howard Dean will go
> after him in 2012 before we get hammmered badly in 2016....
>

by hddun2008 2010-10-09 12:40AM | 0 recs
RE: Does Obama care if he gets a GOP run Congress--Maybe not--He got what he wanted HCR

don't hold your breath waiting for Dr. Dean in '12.

As for '16, you'll probably get hammered by a more traditional Republican who will turn out to be a Carter-like misfit and that in turn will lead to a blowout in the other direction by 2024.

Nuh-uh doom-crying from the MyDD crowd in 3..2..1..

by spirowasright 2010-10-09 05:53PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads