Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

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."

AZGrizFan wrote:
KYJelly.....come out and plaaaayayyyyyy!!!!

[youtube][/youtube]

BlueHen86 wrote: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 wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote: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 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
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 wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
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 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
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.

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.

AshevilleApp wrote:Lets start the campaign ads now.

Cap'n Cat wrote: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 wrote: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.

kalm wrote: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.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote: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 wrote: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]

Cap'n Cat wrote:You are a one-issue Conk

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

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AshevilleApp wrote:Lets start the campaign ads now.

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

kalm wrote: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.