Democrat running for Congress in Ohio (Charlie Wilson) accuses Republican opponentn(Bill Johnson) of "Supporting" Obama.

Quote:I am disappointed that Congressman Johnson supported President Obama’s free trade agenda this year.

Funny thing, Wilson LOST in 2010 because Johnson was successful in tying Wilson to Obam.

No! I don't support him, you do!

So Casey ducks Obama in PA, now this. Come democrats, you'll have to be seen with him at the DNC on NATIONAL TELEVISION. Ironic just 3 years ago you dirtbags were begging him to make an appearance with you.

Barry does not have even a sliver of coat tail today.

You guys are still vastly underestimating the political ability of Obama. I dont support the man, but he is going to be formidable in the general. Structurally, his roadmap to 270 is much easier than people on this board give him credit for and that is a scary proposition. We don't need 4 more years of Obama but we also dont need 4 years of Gingrich either.

(12-03-2011 12:49 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  You guys are still vastly underestimating the political ability of Obama. I dont support the man, but he is going to be formidable in the general. Structurally, his roadmap to 270 is much easier than people on this board give him credit for and that is a scary proposition. We don't need 4 more years of Obama but we also dont need 4 years of Gingrich either.

I think Obama will probably win, particularly since no republican seems to be latching on to a large base of support. But to win I think he is going to have to fracture the country with such a class warfare divide and conquer strategy that he's not going to have long coattails, if any.

(12-03-2011 05:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-03-2011 12:49 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  You guys are still vastly underestimating the political ability of Obama. I dont support the man, but he is going to be formidable in the general. Structurally, his roadmap to 270 is much easier than people on this board give him credit for and that is a scary proposition. We don't need 4 more years of Obama but we also dont need 4 years of Gingrich either.

I think Obama will probably win, particularly since no republican seems to be latching on to a large base of support. But to win I think he is going to have to fracture the country with such a class warfare divide and conquer strategy that he's not going to have long coattails, if any.

I think the Republicans will take the Senate and keep the House. Obama's legislative agenda will be stopped even if he isn't defeated

The GOP chances of picking up the Senate dont look at good as they did just a month ago. The board still sets up for the GOP but the Dem candidates in the open seats are stronger than expected.

(12-03-2011 12:49 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  You guys are still vastly underestimating the political ability of Obama. I dont support the man, but he is going to be formidable in the general. Structurally, his roadmap to 270 is much easier than people on this board give him credit for and that is a scary proposition. We don't need 4 more years of Obama but we also dont need 4 years of Gingrich either.

No doubt it's easy when he starts out with 146 electoral votes in 10 states where he will not have to campaign or spend any money.

CA-55
NY-29
IL-20
MA-11
RI-4
CT-7
DE-3
MD-10
DC-3
HI-4

Another 61 in 7 states where a little campaigning and spending a small fraction of his $1billion war ches and he is at 207 of 270, needing only 63 to win. If he wins FL that puts him at 236 the last 34 should be easy taking 3 from OH, MI, WI, VA, IA, NC. It is going to be EXTREMELY difficult to get the vermin out of the White House.

(12-03-2011 09:28 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(12-03-2011 12:49 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  You guys are still vastly underestimating the political ability of Obama. I dont support the man, but he is going to be formidable in the general. Structurally, his roadmap to 270 is much easier than people on this board give him credit for and that is a scary proposition. We don't need 4 more years of Obama but we also dont need 4 years of Gingrich either.

No doubt it's easy when he starts out with 146 electoral votes in 10 states where he will not have to campaign or spend any money.

CA-55
NY-29
IL-20
MA-11
RI-4
CT-7
DE-3
MD-10
DC-3
HI-4

Another 61 in 7 states where a little campaigning and spending a small fraction of his $1billion war ches and he is at 207 of 270, needing only 63 to win. If he wins FL that puts him at 236 the last 34 should be easy taking 3 from OH, MI, WI, VA, IA, NC. It is going to be EXTREMELY difficult to get the vermin out of the White House.

I personally think that WI and MI would be in your second category and PA would be in your tossup category depending on the opponent.

The map sets up very well for him and is one reason why the GOP field is so weak this time around. Everyone thought he would be easy to beat until they looked at the map.

(12-03-2011 09:28 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(12-03-2011 12:49 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  You guys are still vastly underestimating the political ability of Obama. I dont support the man, but he is going to be formidable in the general. Structurally, his roadmap to 270 is much easier than people on this board give him credit for and that is a scary proposition. We don't need 4 more years of Obama but we also dont need 4 years of Gingrich either.

No doubt it's easy when he starts out with 146 electoral votes in 10 states where he will not have to campaign or spend any money.

CA-55
NY-29
IL-20
MA-11
RI-4
CT-7
DE-3
MD-10
DC-3
HI-4

Another 61 in 7 states where a little campaigning and spending a small fraction of his $1billion war ches and he is at 207 of 270, needing only 63 to win. If he wins FL that puts him at 236 the last 34 should be easy taking 3 from OH, MI, WI, VA, IA, NC. It is going to be EXTREMELY difficult to get the vermin out of the White House.

I personally think that WI and MI would be in your second category and PA would be in your tossup category depending on the opponent.

The map sets up very well for him and is one reason why the GOP field is so weak this time around. Everyone thought he would be easy to beat until they looked at the map.

(12-03-2011 09:08 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  The GOP chances of picking up the Senate dont look at good as they did just a month ago. The board still sets up for the GOP but the Dem candidates in the open seats are stronger than expected.

The GOP is screwing this up.

First, their primary focus should be on the senate. They have a chance to take control in a position where they'll be able to hang onto control for a while, and that has more importance even than beating Obama.

Second, the only real chance Obama has is to run against congress. So take that away from him. Give him some of what he wants in exchange for some of what they want. How much could they get in return for the "Bush tax cuts." None of what Obama wants is going to help the economy, and quite frankly, precious little of what the republicans want is going to help, either. So let him have a little of what he wants, get some of what they want in return, and they'd be better off. There is one problem with that approach. Obama is a Chicago street hustler, and like street hustlers anywhere, he is adept at lying to get what he wants and then crafting another lie to cover it up. So if you're going to negotiate with Obama, you'd better get it nailed down in writing. And that means nailed down tight. You can probably do better negotiating with Reid and Pelosi. Of course, the idea that even Reid and Pelosi have more integrity than Obama is pretty scary to contemplate.

4 more of Obabba, will see MORE SCOTUS appointments. Ruination.

(12-03-2011 10:36 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  4 more of Obabba, will see MORE SCOTUS appointments. Ruination.

If republicans control the senate, his chances of getting another Kagan or Sotomayor through are nil.

I could see any more supreme court vacancies being gapped until the next president.

(12-03-2011 10:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-03-2011 10:36 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  4 more of Obabba, will see MORE SCOTUS appointments. Ruination.

If republicans control the senate, his chances of getting another Kagan or Sotomayor through are nil.

I could see any more supreme court vacancies being gapped until the next president.

I sure hope so. At lest hope the conservative Justices can hang for 4 more years.

(12-03-2011 10:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-03-2011 10:36 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  4 more of Obabba, will see MORE SCOTUS appointments. Ruination.

If republicans control the senate, his chances of getting another Kagan or Sotomayor through are nil.

I could see any more supreme court vacancies being gapped until the next president.

Kagen has surprisingly split with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court several times. GOP can't ask for a more moderate justice than Kagen coming from Obama. I agree with you on Sotomayor.

(12-03-2011 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-03-2011 09:08 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  The GOP chances of picking up the Senate dont look at good as they did just a month ago. The board still sets up for the GOP but the Dem candidates in the open seats are stronger than expected.

The GOP is screwing this up.

First, their primary focus should be on the senate. They have a chance to take control in a position where they'll be able to hang onto control for a while, and that has more importance even than beating Obama.

Second, the only real chance Obama has is to run against congress. So take that away from him. Give him some of what he wants in exchange for some of what they want. How much could they get in return for the "Bush tax cuts." None of what Obama wants is going to help the economy, and quite frankly, precious little of what the republicans want is going to help, either. So let him have a little of what he wants, get some of what they want in return, and they'd be better off. There is one problem with that approach. Obama is a Chicago street hustler, and like street hustlers anywhere, he is adept at lying to get what he wants and then crafting another lie to cover it up. So if you're going to negotiate with Obama, you'd better get it nailed down in writing. And that means nailed down tight. You can probably do better negotiating with Reid and Pelosi. Of course, the idea that even Reid and Pelosi have more integrity than Obama is pretty scary to contemplate.

Reid and Pelosi get a bad rap from the Right. While they are both liberal, they are also realists who are willing to compromise. The GOP should make the deals you are talking about but dont do it with Obama. Go at Reid and Pelosi.

I completely agree with you about the Senate. That should be the focus of the RNC.

(12-03-2011 11:06 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-03-2011 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-03-2011 09:08 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  The GOP chances of picking up the Senate dont look at good as they did just a month ago. The board still sets up for the GOP but the Dem candidates in the open seats are stronger than expected.

The GOP is screwing this up.
First, their primary focus should be on the senate. They have a chance to take control in a position where they'll be able to hang onto control for a while, and that has more importance even than beating Obama.
Second, the only real chance Obama has is to run against congress. So take that away from him. Give him some of what he wants in exchange for some of what they want. How much could they get in return for the "Bush tax cuts." None of what Obama wants is going to help the economy, and quite frankly, precious little of what the republicans want is going to help, either. So let him have a little of what he wants, get some of what they want in return, and they'd be better off. There is one problem with that approach. Obama is a Chicago street hustler, and like street hustlers anywhere, he is adept at lying to get what he wants and then crafting another lie to cover it up. So if you're going to negotiate with Obama, you'd better get it nailed down in writing. And that means nailed down tight. You can probably do better negotiating with Reid and Pelosi. Of course, the idea that even Reid and Pelosi have more integrity than Obama is pretty scary to contemplate.

Reid and Pelosi get a bad rap from the Right. While they are both liberal, they are also realists who are willing to compromise. The GOP should make the deals you are talking about but dont do it with Obama. Go at Reid and Pelosi.
I completely agree with you about the Senate. That should be the focus of the RNC.

I have mixed emotions about Reid and Pelosi. I think they are both basically sleaze balls, but I do think they have more integrity than Obama. I'd put them in the same category as McConnell or Gingrich or DeLay, scumbags but at least potentially useful scumbags. Opposite of Boehner, who is probably honest but not very bright. Maybe it's that they're liberal because being liberal gets them elected and gives them lots of power, so at the end of the day they will deal to get something done, whereas Obama is more a socialist-communist ideologue to whom the agenda is so important that lying, cheating, and stealing to get there is all fair game.

In terms of integrity, I'd take Bill Clinton over the whole lot of them.