From Rasmussen

2012 Match-ups: Obama, Romney Tied at 45%; Obama 48%, Palin 42%

TR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From Rasmussen
>
> 2012 Match-ups: Obama, Romney Tied at 45%; Obama
> 48%, Palin 42%


Well, you only have three more years to wait.

2010 is only one year away and could be very telling.

WFB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2010 is only one year away and could be very
> telling.


The party in the White House typically loses seats during the mid-terms. The only recent exception was Dubya because voters were still freaked out about 9/11. Even Reagan lost inroads he made on the House side in the 1982 midterms.

Ugh. Let's just wait to see where things are at when they are working on all cylinders. The credit markets and a decrease in unemployment should be the first actions by year-end, followed by pilot program health care initiatives over the next two.

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ugh. Let's just wait to see where things are at
> when they are working on all cylinders. The
> credit markets and a decrease in unemployment
> should be the first actions by year-end, followed
> by pilot program health care initiatives over the
> next two.


I agree. It is too early to tell if Obama's policies are going to work. If Obama ends up being a total fuck up, I would have no problem voting Republican if they could produce someone who isn't a complete fucking nutcase. At this point in time, though, that's a huge IF.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> § Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ugh. Let's just wait to see where things are
> at
> > when they are working on all cylinders. The
> > credit markets and a decrease in unemployment
> > should be the first actions by year-end,
> followed
> > by pilot program health care initiatives over
> the
> > next two.
>
>
> I agree. It is too early to tell if Obama's
> policies are going to work. If Obama ends up being
> a total fuck up, I would have no problem voting
> Republican if they could produce someone who isn't
> a complete fucking nutcase. At this point in time,
> though, that's a huge IF.

Agreed. I would have voted for McCain, if not for that dumb bag of air he picked for VP.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Careful. She might get smart one day, say something that makes sense then win the nomination in 2012. If that happens and she wins, hell, I'll move to Russia!

But in four years her youngest daughter will be 18, and you know what happens to Palin girls at that age.

i hate to say it , but i think i would like to see Palin win the nomination more so than i would Romney. Palin is an idiot, but Romney is a smart idiot. Palin would be guessing how to fuck up the country, but Romney would know.

But once Palin quit her job as governor of Alaska, she gave up any opportunity to become president.

They'd have to do a monumental redefinition of cut-and-run in order to get her past all the jokes and arguments about how she gave up being governor because of a few ethics lawsuits.

Quitters don't do so well in elections. She quit being governor.

Even lame and mentally deficient downscale voters aren't going to vote for someone they think might quit halfway through her presidency.

This chick's future is giving speeches to halfwits and people with brain damage.

Thurston Moore Wrote:

> Even lame and mentally deficient downscale voters
> aren't going to vote for someone they think might
> quit halfway through her presidency.

She could just ask for a time out instead of quitting. I think she could pull off a whole 4 years.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She could just ask for a time out instead of
> quitting. I think she could pull off a whole 4
> years.

She could have also asked "what would Jesus do", and maybe had more sympathy from the masses of low-education voters.

Unfortunately, the low-education voters are now left with the image of this:



But to her benefit, she's a mouth breather who gulps air after each sentence. That seems to be a favorite among the low-education voters. "I'm Sarah, hhhee, palin, hhee, and, hhhe, I, hhhee, quit, hhhhe, my, hhhe, my, hhhhe, job!"

You betchya, hhhee.

For Republicans to take back Congress, they will have to make inroads among Hispanics, Asians, working/middle class Northeast/West Coast/Midwest whites, or Fairfax County (and similar counties) whites (I suspect Fairfax whites broke 50/50 in the last election.)

Focusing on 'Kenyan birth,' reflexive opposition, etc., may get the working/middle class Northeast/West Coast/Midwest whites if things continue going badly. If they go well, I suspect it'll be morning in America.

I'm not sure Hispanics and Asians will go to the GOP absent some major changes, and Fairfax County whites aren't going to flock to a Sarah Palin-type figure. I'd see Fairfax giving high single digits to a John Anderson type before going to Sarah Palin.

Or, GOP took back Congress in 1994, Bill Clinton got re-elected in 1996 once it became clear things were going okay.

I don't think Republicans will have to do much of anything honestly. They will not get much of the black vote just by virtue of who Obama is - unless he pulls a Michael Jackson and tries to become white or changes his nose size.

As far as Hispanics go, there are a lot of them here legally, and many of those folks don't support illegal immigration (without some form of control) either. It affects them in negative ways as well. Otherwise there are plenty of moderate "Asians, working/middle class Northeast/West Coast/Midwest whites" that are going to basically say enough is enough with all this government spending. You are also seeing a lot of States pass resolutions on their 10th Amendment Sovereignty rights

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104524

and if the Democrats in Congress don't figure that out, they will set themselves up to be defeated.

I would not count on Palin being the nominee - I think Romney will get it if he takes a serious run at it. The whole "He's a Mormon - gasp!" issue is out the window since we now have Obama who professes to be Christian but embraces Muslims. A Mormon will look tame in comparison.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think Republicans will have to do much of
> anything honestly.

Well, that pretty much sums up the Republican status quo as of late.

They put their proposals forward before all this. At the moment that is all they need to do. Pelosi doesn't allow for debate on House bills, and the MSM doesn't really cover that aspect of how bills are being pushed through, so if I were a republican in office I would do the same thing - sit back and watch them implode.

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't think Republicans will have to do much
> of
> > anything honestly.
>
> Well, that pretty much sums up the Republican
> status quo as of late.

True, but it is a tried and true formula to victory. What did the Dems have to do to win in '06 and '08? Not much. A GOP implosion handed them victory. A Dem implosion may be looming. I don't think it is enough to switch control, but it may be a wake up call. The problem is when a party starts losing seats, they tend to lose the more centrist members of their party. That is true for Dems or GOP. Look at the last two years of GOP control, it was dominated by the more conservative wing. If the Dems lose seats this cycle it is likely to be among the more conservative to moderate wing of their party. Will the Dem leadership respond to this by acting more moderate or allow the further left leaning members to dominate the discourse?

But the combustion has been weighted heavily on the right.....Ensign, Sanford, Spector, Palin quitting, etc.

Given the timing, perhaps the fireworks on the right were in celebration for our freedoms? Like a 4th of July celebration, only figurative.

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But the combustion has been weighted heavily on
> the right.....Ensign, Sanford, Spector, Palin
> quitting, etc.
>
> Given the timing, perhaps the fireworks on the
> right were in celebration for our freedoms? Like
> a 4th of July celebration, only figurative.

Call it what you want, but right now the story most people care about is why is the government going to raise my yearly expenditures, compromise my healthcare, and continue to spend indiscriminately while I face the potential of losing my job and/or my house. If Democrats want to spin their wheels with sex scandals the same way the GOP did in the 90s, have at it. FDR could have been fucking a baboon on the South Lawn in broad daylight with a string quartet providing background music and nobody would have given a shit if he was fixing the economy.

Well, that's where the fundamental difference lies. You're care about you and your standard of living, whereas I care about others and believe the changes to my overall lifestyle will be subtle.

There's a premium affixed to live in a civilized society and you get what you pay for. Right now, we can hardly call this civilized on all fronts, however with a little patience and funding, we may see some progress after all.

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, that's where the fundamental difference
> lies. You're care about you and your standard of
> living, whereas I care about others and believe
> the changes to my overall lifestyle will be
> subtle.

I think you grossly misinterpret what I "care" about. Perhaps using the terms "my" and "I" were inappropriate. I actually care that working families may be forced to choose between mortgage/rent, heat, or food after every given paycheck. That pie in the sky climate legislation that will raise enegry costs on consumers is best saved for a time when people can afford food and shelter. While the change to your overall lifestyle may be subtle, a few hundred dollars a year is a big deal to many in this nation. I hope that your conscience is mollified with your extra solar panels and wind farms while people struggle to pay for heating bills.

> There's a premium affixed to live in a civilized
> society and you get what you pay for. Right now,
> we can hardly call this civilized on all fronts,
> however with a little patience and funding, we may
> see some progress after all.

Funding, there is no lack of that from this Administration.

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, that's where the fundamental difference
> lies. You're care about you and your standard of
> living, whereas I care about others and believe
> the changes to my overall lifestyle will be
> subtle.
>
> There's a premium affixed to live in a civilized
> society and you get what you pay for. Right now,
> we can hardly call this civilized on all fronts,
> however with a little patience and funding, we may
> see some progress after all.

Well good for you, glad your life style will be affected subtlety. What a stupid statement - to then say you are more concerned about others. I am sorry, but folks losing their jobs in droves over a few people (who already get treated at local emergency rooms if they go) not "officially" on the health care rolls really is no comparison. Have you even looked into the fact that a lot of the people not covered by health care choose to NOT be covered? And they aren't choosing that because they know they will be covered, they just figure they are healthy enough to not want insurance since it allows to pay for other things they consider essential in their lives.

When they decide to come forward with a bill that will cover folks and MAKE SENSE, then I will be all for it, but right now they are just throwing a bunch crap out to try and get "something" passed. That is BS. Sure, they have debated this stuff for years - but at some point maybe they need to address the COST of health care, rather than the insurance costs. I have yet to see much of anything in the proposals being put forth that deals with the COSTS - it mainly seems to be focused on getting everyone into Government Managed health care insurance. I don't see how that lowers the cost of health care, OR increases the quality of health care. It seems those should be our primary concerns, no? And then if we can reduce the costs of the actual health care, it will allow for more people to get coverage. Hmm....

Well, I'll keep it short and simple because I'm running late for lunch.

You've come up with all of these problems that need fixing, and granted it's complex and has several moving parts, but let's hear the fresh new ideas from your party about how to fix health care. I don't believe we've heard much other than let's have tort reform to temper insurance costs (which I am for - only to impose a punative cap).

The only way tort reform will get passed is to get all the lawyers out of Congress - not much likelihood of that. But yes, tort reform will have a huge impact - since 30%-40% of many doctors costs are made up of either paying for malpractice insurance, or having to perform certain tests or procedures to protect themselves from potential malpractice suits.

Again - health care reform has been discussed for years and years. Obviously there are folks out there that have put forth solutions that make more sense than this BS we are seeing today.

Short term solutions could include the ability to setup group options that fall outside a specific employer group. In other words an insurance company would setup a plan that laid out specific benefits and costs (total cost per person - an employer can decide how much or how little they want to pay), plus filing methods, and then let any employer join that plan (whereas today they negotiate with each employer as to which version of a plan they would like, but the only numbers benefit is gained with the number of members employed). The more employers/employees that join, the less costs per person that would get passed to all the plan participants. They should also allow for individuals to join the plan, and pay their own premiums if they desire. That might address the insurance end, but you still have the costs of health care itself. They will have to address that much like the issue with financial industries now - if the hospital system is publicly owned then they should have limits on executive compensation to ensure money is not being bled out of the system to the detriment of health care operations.

Most of the crap both sides are pushing in Congress right now is geared toward placating their own interest groups. We need to come up with a solution that makes sense for everyone.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2009 12:18PM by Registered Voter.

The republicans will continue their blunders by running Palin

Palin will not be the candidate, but I'm sure they will groom her for the senate. Romney would be a bad choice. They need to find a progressive candidate or they will never win. The days of the religious right are coming to an end.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being vague is almost as fun as that other thing.

Melissa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The days of the religious right are coming to an end.


Thank God.



(no pun intended)

Melissa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Palin will not be the candidate, but I'm sure they
> will groom her for the senate. Romney would be a
> bad choice. They need to find a progressive
> candidate or they will never win. The days of the
> religious right are coming to an end.

Why do you think that the secret formula for Republican success is to be more like the Democrats? Republicans went along with a more liberal candidate, McCain, and that was a real bust.

Romney is the most probable candidate. Palin is still popular amongst conservatives and will make an impact. The current actions of the democratic administration and congress will turn people against them soon so what you say is very short sided.

Keep wishing.

I think Romney will be one of the candidates. Funny thing about religion - Romney never really brought his into the conversation other than as a defensive attempt to deflect all the media attention on it. Other people focused on his religious background, but he didn't walk around saying God guided his hand in all the decisions he made did he?

Here's a funny thought. Who here believes that an atheist could be elected President? That would be a resounding NOT. Go figure.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Melissa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The days of the religious right are coming to
> an end.
>
>
> Thank God.
>
>
>
> (no pun intended)


ill believe it when i see it...

And seriously... Biden? You know, I really think Sarah Palin has gotten a raw deal. For sure, Joe Biden is the dumbest rock known to man, and what are thinking sending this guy out on interviews and meetings with world leaders. The guy is an embarrassment. I don't know that Palin would have done much worse - and she would look much better in a dress than Biden does. :)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072701154_pf.html

Quote

...
MOSCOW -- An interview U.S. Vice President Joe Biden gave to an American newspaper was front-page news Monday in Moscow, where his characterization of Russia as a weakened nation hit a raw nerve.

Biden said Russia's economic difficulties are likely to make the Kremlin more willing to cooperate with the United States on a range of national security issues.

"I think we vastly underestimate the hand that we hold," he said in an interview to The Wall Street Journal published Saturday.

Biden's comments appeared to catch the Kremlin by surprise, coming less than three weeks after President Barack Obama said on a visit to Moscow that the U.S. wants to see a "strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia."

"It raises the question: Who is shaping U.S. foreign policy? The president or members of his team, even the most respected ones?" said Kremlin foreign policy adviser Sergei Prikhodko.

...

Some commentators said it was wrong to see Biden as diverging from the policy set by Obama, as suggested by Prikhodko.

Biden was most likely expressing Washington's "Plan B," said Vladimir Milov, a former deputy energy minister who now heads his own think tank. If the Kremlin proves unwilling to compromise, the United States was likely to reduce relations to a minimum and push Moscow to the periphery of world politics, Milov wrote in the online Gazeta.ru.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an apparent effort Sunday to reassure Moscow, saying on NBC "Meet the Press" that the administration considers Russia to be a "great power."

"Every country faces challenges," she said. "We have our challenges, Russia has their challenges. There are certain issues that Russia has to deal with on its own."

So I guess Joe missed the whole "ok, stick to Plan A" memo.

Melissa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Palin will not be the candidate, but I'm sure they
> will groom her for the senate. Romney would be a
> bad choice. They need to find a progressive
> candidate or they will never win. The days of the
> religious right are coming to an end.

you thing because they lost one election they are going to completely change?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."