kalm wrote:Those numbers will change once the republicans gain control of congress, launch their investigations, and remind those in doubt how much worse the alternative is.
The latest theory I've heard is that Obama will switch biden and clinton to strengthen his 2012 chances and get Hilary a jump start for '16.
Most plausible scenario.
Conks, with hate oozing from their pores, will show their asses in the next two years and reaffirm to an edgy public that what they did in 2008 WAS the way to go, after all. All Progressive wounds heal and Conks get buried for another twenty years after that.
P.S. Someone shoots and kills Palin in a hunting "accident".
kalm wrote:Those numbers will change once the republicans gain control of congress, launch their investigations, and remind those in doubt how much worse the alternative is.
The latest theory I've heard is that Obama will switch biden and clinton to strengthen his 2012 chances and get Hilary a jump start for '16.
Most plausible scenario.
Conks, with hate oozing from their pores, will show their asses in the next two years and reaffirm to an edgy public that what they did in 2008 WAS the way to go, after all. All Progressive wounds heal and Conks get buried for another twenty years after that.
P.S. Someone shoots and kills Palin in a hunting "accident".
uh, wasn't that the prognosis for the GOP after the 2008 election, that they would likely be a decade out in the wilderness before they ever got close to power again? And here we are just a day away from that hibernation lasting all of 2 years? Very much like how the GOP was sure they had the Dems buried for the foreseeable future back in 2004, with their permanent GOP majority, only to lose it two years later.
I think it's pretty safe to say that neither party is going to be written off any time soon.
B.O. andf Hillary are birds of a feather so he knows not to turn his back on her.
B.O. cheated Hillary out of the nomination.
She will get even.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. Al Swearengen http://www.whirligig-tv.co.uk/tv/childr ... bronco.wav" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hey, all I know is that if Obama is re-elected Prez, he'll make my mortgage payment for me..he'll pay for my gas for my car! Oh what a glorious day that will be!
kalm wrote:Those numbers will change once the republicans gain control of congress, launch their investigations, and remind those in doubt how much worse the alternative is.
The latest theory I've heard is that Obama will switch biden and clinton to strengthen his 2012 chances and get Hilary a jump start for '16.
kalm, this theory was floating around in April, and it was debunked then.
That aside, I don't think Obama has anything to fear from a more centrist primary challenger in today's Democratic party. There will be fewer of them around after tomorrow!
CitadelGrad wrote:And how exactly would you measure an improved economy? Would you say the economy is improved if GDP growth reaches 3%, but inflation is higher and unemployment is still above 8%?
Well, since you said there was a strong recovery between 1982 and 1984... I would be fine using those standards.
7.5% unemployment, GDP growth of 6.6%. That's completely attainable in the next two years... not even to account for the fact that the economy was far worse 2 years ago than it was in 1980.
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
CitadelGrad wrote:And how exactly would you measure an improved economy? Would you say the economy is improved if GDP growth reaches 3%, but inflation is higher and unemployment is still above 8%?
Well, since you said there was a strong recovery between 1982 and 1984... I would be fine using those standards.
7.5% unemployment, GDP growth of 6.6%. That's completely attainable in the next two years... not even to account for the fact that the economy was far worse 2 years ago than it was in 1980.
How exactly is 7.5% unemployment and 6.6% GDP growth completely attainable. Do you see another stimulus package on its way?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787
CitadelGrad wrote:And how exactly would you measure an improved economy? Would you say the economy is improved if GDP growth reaches 3%, but inflation is higher and unemployment is still above 8%?
Well, since you said there was a strong recovery between 1982 and 1984... I would be fine using those standards.
7.5% unemployment, GDP growth of 6.6%. That's completely attainable in the next two years... not even to account for the fact that the economy was far worse 2 years ago than it was in 1980.
It may be attainable but with the uncertainty of the impact of the health care bill, future tax rates, cap and tax, etc. it's not going to happen.
If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism. Ronald Reagan, 1975.
Skjellyfetti wrote:
Well, since you said there was a strong recovery between 1982 and 1984... I would be fine using those standards.
7.5% unemployment, GDP growth of 6.6%. That's completely attainable in the next two years... not even to account for the fact that the economy was far worse 2 years ago than it was in 1980.
It may be attainable but with the uncertainty of the impact of the health care bill, future tax rates, cap and tax, etc. it's not going to happen.
Key word is "uncertainty", Fiver. Conks pounced early on all that stuff and wrongly told the public that they were sinister Communist plots, thus begetting those Teabagger idiots. Conks will have Hell to pay in the coming years.
Wait until they TRY (and fail) to repeal Obamacare after which the Conks get portrayed as the Evil Hate 89Hen Fvcks they are for denying a poor pregnant woman care for delivering her baby, something the very human Obamacare would guarantee for her. If she's black, Conks won't care, anyway.
kalm wrote:Those numbers will change once the republicans gain control of congress, launch their investigations, and remind those in doubt how much worse the alternative is.
The latest theory I've heard is that Obama will switch biden and clinton to strengthen his 2012 chances and get Hilary a jump start for '16.
Most plausible scenario.
Conks, with hate oozing from their pores, will show their asses in the next two years and reaffirm to an edgy public that what they did in 2008 WAS the way to go, after all. All Progressive wounds heal and Conks get buried for another twenty years after that.
P.S. Someone shoots and kills Palin in a hunting "accident".
93henfan wrote:Hey, Ivy. I assume it's because of our ISP address in Delaware, but are you getting an O'Donnell ad at the bottom of every thread today? Sheesh!
No, I've been lucky, 93 ... but I did have 3 of her flyers in my mailbox today!
93henfan wrote:Hey, Ivy. I assume it's because of our ISP address in Delaware, but are you getting an O'Donnell ad at the bottom of every thread today? Sheesh!
No, I've been lucky, 93 ... but I did have 3 of her flyers in my mailbox today!
I heard that one of the unions sent out an anti-O'Donnell flyer that cackled like a witch when you opened it. I was disappointed I didn't get one.
Only five eligible sitting presidents have failed renomination, and four of those were before the primary era. Of those four, only one was elected; the other three ascended from veep after an assassination.
The only one who failed renom in the primary era was LBJ, who quit before the primary when it became obvious that he'd lose to Bobby Kennedy.
No potential Democrat has come out of the woodwork yet. Of those likely to announce, only Hillary has the potential backing to deny Obama. The others seem willing to do their dirty work (Reid/Pelosi) behind the scenes or know that they are too divisive (Frank) to stand a chance.
As far as the veep flip-flop goes, well, I doubt Biden would stick around as SoS if Obama wants Hillary to be veep. He would likely either retire or go back to the Senate. The idea is intriguing, and I'm about 50-50 on its likelihood.
All this (unfortunately for GOPers) says Obama gets the renom. Whether or not that's good enough to win re-election is another story. Others in this thread noted that two recent presidents had low mid-term approval ratings but were re-elected while two others had high mid-term ratings but were thrown out. That might come into play here. For me, Sarah has the only shot, but someone else may well pop out of the woodwork between now and then. Two years is a long time. Anything can happen. But for now, I think the most likely scenario is Sarah-and-Unknown vs. Obama-and-Biden/Hillary.
SuperHornet's Athletics Hall of Fame includes Jacksonville State kicker Ashley Martin, the first girl to score in a Division I football game. She kicked 3 PATs in a 2001 game for J-State.
CitadelGrad wrote:
You'll find out tomorrow. 50 seats, no. 70 seats, yes. 60 seats, just the independents.
That could also be a reflection of low turn out.
How about the party's ability to govern?
That's the difference between you and me, Kalm. You are worried about HOW we will be governed.
I am worried about BEING governed.
Republicans have not changed their position. They have always CLAIMED to be for smaller government, which I also subscribe to. They have not always kept to their mantra, but this country is center right and they will ALWAYS prefer a bad attempt at less governemtn over and overt attempt at more.
The Tea Party is just a reminder to the Republicans that we will fire their a$$es too, if they do not come home to the conservative principles to which they claim to aspire.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
kalm wrote:
That could also be a reflection of low turn out.
How about the party's ability to govern?
That's the difference between you and me, Kalm. You are worried about HOW we will be governed.
I am worried about BEING governed.
Republicans have not changed their position. They have always CLAIMED to be for smaller government, which I also subscribe to. They have not always kept to their mantra, but this country is center right and they will ALWAYS prefer a bad attempt at less governemtn over and overt attempt at more.
The Tea Party is just a reminder to the Republicans that we will fire their a$$es too, if they do not come home to the conservative principles to which they claim to aspire.
So the party that is anti-government is bad at it. I agree.
I also agree that too much government is bad. And the Dems have brought us a bunch of unneccessary shit.
It's like driving in the snow, Cid. I don't worry about myself, it's the other assholes on the road that need help.
CID1990 wrote:
That's the difference between you and me, Kalm. You are worried about HOW we will be governed.
I am worried about BEING governed.
Republicans have not changed their position. They have always CLAIMED to be for smaller government, which I also subscribe to. They have not always kept to their mantra, but this country is center right and they will ALWAYS prefer a bad attempt at less governemtn over and overt attempt at more.
The Tea Party is just a reminder to the Republicans that we will fire their a$$es too, if they do not come home to the conservative principles to which they claim to aspire.
So the party that is anti-government is bad at it. I agree.
I also agree that too much government is bad. And the Dems have brought us a bunch of unneccessary ****.
It's like driving in the snow, Cid. I don't worry about myself, it's the other ******* on the road that need help.
You're the one who (given the long list of priorities you could have referred to) elected to wonder aloud if the Republicans could govern. That's called worrying about others.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
kalm wrote:
So the party that is anti-government is bad at it. I agree.
I also agree that too much government is bad. And the Dems have brought us a bunch of unneccessary ****.
It's like driving in the snow, Cid. I don't worry about myself, it's the other ******* on the road that need help.
You're the one who (given the long list of priorities you could have referred to) elected to wonder aloud if the Republicans could govern. That's called worrying about others.
Any Republican that was smart enough to come out and say something to the effect that government is a neccessary evil and needs to be managed more effectively would get my vote. Instead, all I hear is gov'mint's bad, get gov'mint off our backs, blah, blah, blah.
CitadelGrad wrote:Palin isn't going to get the GOP nomination. No way, no how.
Palin isn't going to get the GOP nomination because CitadelGrad said so.
Yeah, right....
SuperHornet's Athletics Hall of Fame includes Jacksonville State kicker Ashley Martin, the first girl to score in a Division I football game. She kicked 3 PATs in a 2001 game for J-State.
