Bad News, Democrats: 2012 Could be Worse...

[AZGrizFan]

http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom ... 2739.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WASHINGTON — Last week's election was bad for Democrats. The next one could be worse. Senate Democrats running in 2012 will be trying to hold their jobs in states where Republicans just scored major congressional and gubernatorial victories -- Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Virginia.
The Democrats' problems don't end with senators.

President Barack Obama carried those states in 2008, and he will need most of them to win re-election in two years. But this time they all will have Republican governors. These GOP governors can try to inhibit the president's policies and campaign operations. They also can help steer next year's once-a-decade House redistricting process in the GOP's favor.

Moreover, Democrats must defend Senate seats in hotly contested Missouri, and in four states that Obama has little chance of winning, assuming he even tries: North Dakota, Nebraska, West Virginia and Montana.

"The 2012 Senate landscape shows a daunting picture for the Democrats," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the GOP's Senate campaign committee. "They're not only defending twice as many seats as Republicans, but a number of them are in states where the Obama-Reid agenda is deeply unpopular."

KYJelly.....come out and plaaaayayyyyyy!!!!

[youtube][/youtube]

[mainejeff]

I don't think that either party should be looking forward to the 2012 election.

[Bronco]

I've been hearing some ads questioning Sen Testers votes.

No one has announced that they're running against him....so a Little unusual and early.

He barely won against a damaged Conrad Burns 4 years ago.

I'm sure he's seems a good target in a Red State.

[Skjellyfetti]

KYJelly.....come out and plaaaayayyyyyy!!!!

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

Go back and read articles from 2008 forecasting the 2010 elections. Ain't too accurate.

[BlueHen86]

Articles like this are a waste of time. 2012 will be decided by the economy. If it still sucks the Dems and Obama are in trouble. If it improves, Obama will be reelected.

All the other reasons/excuses are irrelevant, people vote their wallets first.

[AZGrizFan]

Articles like this are a waste of time. 2012 will be decided by the economy. If it still sucks the Dems and Obama are in trouble. If it improves, Obama will be reelected.

All the other reasons/excuses are irrelevant, people vote their wallets first.

Economy? Or deficit?

I think it's more the latter....

[BlueHen86]

Articles like this are a waste of time. 2012 will be decided by the economy. If it still sucks the Dems and Obama are in trouble. If it improves, Obama will be reelected.

All the other reasons/excuses are irrelevant, people vote their wallets first.

Economy? Or deficit?

I think it's more the latter....

I don't. If people are working and making money they are happy. The main reason that they are worried about the deficit right now is that they aren't working.

I agree that the deficit is a big problem, and it may cost the Dems the Senate and more seats in the house. But I don't think it will cost Obama his job if unemployment is down and the economy is going well in two years.

[AZGrizFan]

Economy? Or deficit?

I think it's more the latter....

I don't. If people are working and making money they are happy. The main reason that they are worried about the deficit right now is that they aren't working.

I agree that the deficit is a big problem, and it may cost the Dems the Senate and more seats in the house. But I don't think it will cost Obama his job if unemployment is down and the economy is going well in two years.

I'll ask the same question to you that KY couldn't/wouldn't answer in a different thread: define "down" and "well". How far "down" does it need to go and how "well" is well enough?

[BlueHen86]

I don't. If people are working and making money they are happy. The main reason that they are worried about the deficit right now is that they aren't working.

I agree that the deficit is a big problem, and it may cost the Dems the Senate and more seats in the house. But I don't think it will cost Obama his job if unemployment is down and the economy is going well in two years.

I'll ask the same question to you that KY couldn't/wouldn't answer in a different thread: define "down" and "well". How far "down" does it need to go and how "well" is well enough?

It's like porno, I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it.

I think Obama will be safe if unemployment is below 7% and has been steadily dropping. Other economic indicators will also have to be trending for the better. I am just pulling that number out of my ass, but that is a 2 percent drop from where it is now and both parties will try and take credit for the drop.

The unemployment rate rose for just over three years (October 2006 to Jan 2009), it has dropped so far this year. If it continues to drop for the next two years Obama will have a three year trend to run on.

[AZGrizFan]

I'll ask the same question to you that KY couldn't/wouldn't answer in a different thread: define "down" and "well". How far "down" does it need to go and how "well" is well enough?

It's like porno, I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it.

I think Obama will be safe if unemployment is below 7% and has been steadily dropping. Other economic indicators will also have to be trending for the better. I am just pulling that number out of my ass, but that is a 2 percent drop from where it is now and both parties will try and take credit for the drop.

The unemployment rate rose for just over three years (October 2006 to Jan 2009), it has dropped so far this year. If it continues to drop for the next two years Obama will have a three year trend to run on.

You sure about that?



Unemployment virtually unchanged, and this despite 70% of the $787 BILLION in stimulus money already being injected into the economy to stimulate jobs:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/67130" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Friday, June 04, 2010
By Penny Starr

(CNSNews.com) – The $787-billion economic stimulus bill was signed into law in February 2009, a federal spending measure that President Barack Obama said was urgently needed to “to jolt our economy back to life.” Fourteen months later, however, only 50 percent of the recovery funds have actually been injected into the economy.

Another 20 percent is supposed to be paid out between now and the end of September, and the balance -- $236.1 billion, or 30 percent – apparently will be paid some time next fall and into next year.

The unemployment rate currently is 9.7 percent. In May of last year, it was 9.4 percent.

So in essence, we've spent 70% of $787 billion just to TREAD WATER. Me thinks that ain't gonna do it for Obama's chances at reelection.

[AZGrizFan]

This graph ought to scare the SHIT out of you, 86:

[Grizalltheway]

From what I've read, economists don't expect it to drop to the historical norm of 5-6% until 2018.

[kalm]

Even if Obama's policies prevented a severe depression it's tough running on a "we kept it from getting worse" platform. Voters tend to lack patience, memory, and understanding.

[AshevilleApp]

Lets start the campaign ads now.

[Cap'n Cat]

More errant speculation from our friend in the desert, via Rush Limbaugh's puffy jowls. Obama's a lock for 2012. The public doesn't care about the defecit as long as they're working.

[Cap'n Cat]

Lets start the campaign ads now.

I'm turning off the TV from September, 2011, until January, 2013.

[wildkyle]

More errant speculation from our friend in the desert, via Rush Limbaugh's puffy jowls. Obama's a lock for 2012. The public doesn't care about the defecit as long as they're working.

This is from a guy who was telling us the GOP had no chance last week.

[AZGrizFan]

More errant speculation from our friend in the desert, via Rush Limbaugh's puffy jowls. Obama's a lock for 2012. The public doesn't care about the defecit as long as they're working.

Let me explain something to you: When you base an argument off of a series of other facts, using sources, many of whom agree with and support the position you're taking, it's not "errant speculation".

Errant speculation would be when you blindly throw out one-liners with no basis of fact or support purely to be a shit-stirrer.

Kind of like what you just did.

[AZGrizFan]

Even if Obama's policies prevented a severe depression it's tough running on a "we kept it from getting worse" platform. Voters tend to lack patience, memory, and understanding.

Exactly. He can claim "well, we know unemployment sucks but we saved 3.5 million jobs" 'til the cows come home, but that ain't gonna pack it come 2012.

[Cap'n Cat]

More errant speculation from our friend in the desert, via Rush Limbaugh's puffy jowls. Obama's a lock for 2012. The public doesn't care about the defecit as long as they're working.

Let me explain something to you: When you base an argument off of a series of other facts, using sources, many of whom agree with and support the position you're taking, it's not "errant speculation".

Errant speculation would be when you blindly throw out one-liners with no basis of fact or support purely to be a shit-stirrer.

Kind of like what you just did.

No, let me tell you something, you're speculating no matter the pretty graphs and sh*t you use in your posts. You are a one-issue Conk, most of whom's posted crap is tired, lame and repetitive.

Now, get in your Escalade, run over some immigrants on your way to work, laugh, log on and begin pontificating again before your three hour martini lunch with the Phoenix Conk movers and shakers.

[Appaholic]

http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom ... 2739.story

WASHINGTON — Last week's election was bad for Democrats. The next one could be worse. Senate Democrats running in 2012 will be trying to hold their jobs in states where Republicans just scored major congressional and gubernatorial victories -- Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Virginia.
The Democrats' problems don't end with senators.

President Barack Obama carried those states in 2008, and he will need most of them to win re-election in two years. But this time they all will have Republican governors. These GOP governors can try to inhibit the president's policies and campaign operations. They also can help steer next year's once-a-decade House redistricting process in the GOP's favor.

Moreover, Democrats must defend Senate seats in hotly contested Missouri, and in four states that Obama has little chance of winning, assuming he even tries: North Dakota, Nebraska, West Virginia and Montana.

"The 2012 Senate landscape shows a daunting picture for the Democrats," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the GOP's Senate campaign committee. "They're not only defending twice as many seats as Republicans, but a number of them are in states where the Obama-Reid agenda is deeply unpopular."

KYJelly.....come out and plaaaayayyyyyy!!!!

[youtube][/youtube]

2 years is a long time....just look at the dems.....

[89Hen]

You are a one-issue Conk

Trying to figure out what that one issue is...

[LeadBolt]

I don't think that either party should be looking forward to the 2012 election.

+1

[Ivytalk]

Lets start the campaign ads now.

I'm turning off the TV from September, 2011, until January, 2013.

What??? NO FOOTBALL???

[Ivytalk]

Even if Obama's policies prevented a severe depression it's tough running on a "we kept it from getting worse" platform. Voters tend to lack patience, memory, and understanding.

Unlike that Jedi master, kalmasutra.