A new low for Obama. 41% disapproval. On healthare 34% approval and 55% disapproval per CBS news poll. No wonder he is out campaignig for his heathcare bill after passing it. He is in damage control and trying to limit the butt whuppin' the Democrats will take in November. Republicans should get a decent field for 2012 as Obama looks no longer a sure thing in 2012. With uncontrolled spending and high unemployment he is struggling. Unnessessary Health Bill forced on the American tax payers makes the future more difficult for future presidents. Very selfish of the Democrats to spend like this and harm the country for decades to come. States are gonna be in a tough position to deal with the long term resonsibilities of the health care bill. We are becoming more like France were 10-15% unemployment is the norm and the unions and socialism are the power structure in the economy.

(04-02-2010 09:05 PM)OUBOBCATJOHN Wrote:  A new low for Obama. 41% disapproval. On healthare 34% approval and 55% disapproval per CBS news poll. No wonder he is out campaignig for his heathcare bill after passing it. He is in damage control and trying to limit the butt whuppin' the Democrats will take in November. Republicans should get a decent field for 2012 as Obama looks no longer a sure thing in 2012. With uncontrolled spending and high unemployment he is struggling. Unnessessary Health Bill forced on the American tax payers makes the future more difficult for future presidents. Very selfish of the Democrats to spend like this and harm the country for decades to come. States are gonna be in a tough position to deal with the long term resonsibilities of the health care bill. We are becoming more like France were 10-15% unemployment is the norm and the unions and socialism are the power structure in the economy.

There won't be a "butt whuppin'" in this year's election. Who could the Republicans possibly put up against Obama in 2012? Palin? No. Romney? The guy who's healthcare plan in Mass is very similar to the one just passed? No. Who do you see challenging?

(04-03-2010 02:04 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-02-2010 09:05 PM)OUBOBCATJOHN Wrote:  A new low for Obama. 41% disapproval. On healthare 34% approval and 55% disapproval per CBS news poll. No wonder he is out campaignig for his heathcare bill after passing it. He is in damage control and trying to limit the butt whuppin' the Democrats will take in November. Republicans should get a decent field for 2012 as Obama looks no longer a sure thing in 2012. With uncontrolled spending and high unemployment he is struggling. Unnessessary Health Bill forced on the American tax payers makes the future more difficult for future presidents. Very selfish of the Democrats to spend like this and harm the country for decades to come. States are gonna be in a tough position to deal with the long term resonsibilities of the health care bill. We are becoming more like France were 10-15% unemployment is the norm and the unions and socialism are the power structure in the economy.

There won't be a "butt whuppin'" in this year's election. Who could the Republicans possibly put up against Obama in 2012? Palin? No. Romney? The guy who's healthcare plan in Mass is very similar to the one just passed? No. Who do you see challenging?

A monkey could beat Obama at this point.

(04-03-2010 02:04 AM)RobertN Wrote:  There won't be a "butt whuppin'" in this year's election.

And this is based on what exactly? History has proven that in nearly every presidency, the mid-term elections have a loss of seats for the party in the White House. Add to that the gross unpopularity of Obama and Obamacare, the disapproval of Pelosi and Reid and congress overall and it very much equals a "but whippin" in November.

Could something happen to shift that? Sure, but right now no educated person with a hint of intellectual honesty could claim the dems won't take a serious hit come November if the current trend holds.

Which of course, is why you made the claim, as you are neither educated or intellectually honest.

15-25 seats. that's my estimate.............. Whatever Reagan lost in 82 should be the benchmark. 10% unemployment will take a toll.

(04-03-2010 06:19 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  A monkey could beat Obama at this point.

Wait for it....wait for it.... it's coming....

Minimum 30. Probably closer to 35. Not out of the question to go much higher.

Reagan lost 26 in '82. Clinton lost 54 in '94.

(04-03-2010 09:22 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Minimum 30. Probably closer to 35. Not out of the question to go much higher.

Reagan lost 26 in '82. Clinton lost 54 in '94.

There are 49 districts that went for McCain in '08 that sent a Dem to congress. Every one of those will have to be defended. Add to that districts where Obama did well where dems traditionally wouldn't and there are a signficant number of seats that can be picked up.

Mach example of Reagan is not apples to apples because Reagan didn't push through a massive new entitlement the majority of the country was against. There was no grass roots movement like the Tea Parties during that time. The anger and acrimony back then was not at remotely the same level as it is now.

30 to 35 seats is a given in my estimation, barring something big turning the political tide.

(04-03-2010 09:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  15-25 seats. that's my estimate.............. Whatever Reagan lost in 82 should be the benchmark. 10% unemployment will take a toll.

I think unemployment will tell the tale.

In the democrats' favor, this recession has run way past its course, and there should be considerable technical forces driving recovery by now. On the down side of that, I think history will ultimately treat the Bush-Obama "stimulus" activities in the same way that more and more economists are starting to see the Hoover-Roosevelt efforts of the 1930s--by overtreating the symptoms, they actually made the disease last longer and be worse than would have happened by simply letting things run their course. We could very well be looking at 20+ more years of this, like Japan. And while WWII jump-started us out of the 30s depression, I hope nobody tries to make WWIII the solution this time.

On the other side of the unemployment coin, when companies have time to digest the full cost to them of Obamacare, not to mention the other initiatives that Obama has on the table, I expect a strong chilling effect on employment. I still think we could see unemployment at 12 by November, but I think that's more likely next year.

I know this, if I were a CEO right now, and had any hope of expanding any time soon, and had the option of adding jobs in the US or elsewhere, there is simply no way that I'd be looking at the US. I'd have it as an option for my staff to look at, more for morale purposes than anything else, but I just don't see how the numbers could shake out to justify the risks. I spent a fair amount of my career working on plant-siting decisions, and although I really haven't done one in a few years, it certainly seems from the reaches of academia that everything is moving away from favoring the US right now, except perhaps in retail or service where proximity to customers was important. And a retail-service economy is got going to maintain our standard of living. Any efforts to revive the economy by stimulating the demand side push us further in that direction. We are not going to return to economic health without significant stimulus on the supply side. And I see nothing coming out of this administration to foster that. Keynesian economics assumes a closed system. More money in the hands of consumers means they buy more from domestic vendors, who restock from domestic manufacturers, and the money runs around the system creating the famous multiplier effect. When the money is in China or Saudi Arabia by the second iteration, the multiplier doesn't work. Hence the very low multipliers you see in attempts to analyze what's happening. Sorry to get off on the economics theory tangent.

The best thing the democrats have going for them is that the republicans are brutally incompetent. Someone posted that right now the republicans couldn't beat Adolf Hitler for mayor of Tel Aviv.

(04-03-2010 10:01 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-03-2010 09:22 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Minimum 30. Probably closer to 35. Not out of the question to go much higher.

Reagan lost 26 in '82. Clinton lost 54 in '94.

There are 49 districts that went for McCain in '08 that sent a Dem to congress. Every one of those will have to be defended. Add to that districts where Obama did well where dems traditionally wouldn't and there are a signficant number of seats that can be picked up.

Mach example of Reagan is not apples to apples because Reagan didn't push through a massive new entitlement the majority of the country was against. There was no grass roots movement like the Tea Parties during that time. The anger and acrimony back then was not at remotely the same level as it is now.

30 to 35 seats is a given in my estimation, barring something big turning the political tide.

Dick Morris has said it could go as high as 100. That's extremely optimistic if for no other reason than there are to many stupid voters. 30-35 is a conservative given estimation for the same reason.

Edit: Really? Dick. Richard Morris will have to do then.

(04-03-2010 10:22 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-03-2010 10:01 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-03-2010 09:22 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Minimum 30. Probably closer to 35. Not out of the question to go much higher.

Reagan lost 26 in '82. Clinton lost 54 in '94.

There are 49 districts that went for McCain in '08 that sent a Dem to congress. Every one of those will have to be defended. Add to that districts where Obama did well where dems traditionally wouldn't and there are a signficant number of seats that can be picked up.

Mach example of Reagan is not apples to apples because Reagan didn't push through a massive new entitlement the majority of the country was against. There was no grass roots movement like the Tea Parties during that time. The anger and acrimony back then was not at remotely the same level as it is now.

30 to 35 seats is a given in my estimation, barring something big turning the political tide.

**** Morris has said it could go as high as 100. That's extremely optimistic if for no other reason than there are to many stupid voters. 30-35 is a conservative given estimation for the same reason.

Dick Morris? Now THAT is a reliable source to get your info.

(04-03-2010 10:26 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-03-2010 10:22 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-03-2010 10:01 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-03-2010 09:22 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Minimum 30. Probably closer to 35. Not out of the question to go much higher.

Reagan lost 26 in '82. Clinton lost 54 in '94.

There are 49 districts that went for McCain in '08 that sent a Dem to congress. Every one of those will have to be defended. Add to that districts where Obama did well where dems traditionally wouldn't and there are a signficant number of seats that can be picked up.

Mach example of Reagan is not apples to apples because Reagan didn't push through a massive new entitlement the majority of the country was against. There was no grass roots movement like the Tea Parties during that time. The anger and acrimony back then was not at remotely the same level as it is now.

30 to 35 seats is a given in my estimation, barring something big turning the political tide.

**** Morris has said it could go as high as 100. That's extremely optimistic if for no other reason than there are to many stupid voters. 30-35 is a conservative given estimation for the same reason.

**** Morris? Now THAT is a reliable source to get your info.

Apparently you didn't notice I don't agree with him.

There is probably no other single individual whose judgment Bill Clinton relied on more heavily throughout his political career than Dickie Morris.

Two different men, but truly cut from the same cloth.

(04-03-2010 06:19 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  A monkey could beat Obama at this point.

(04-03-2010 09:08 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-03-2010 06:19 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  A monkey could beat Obama at this point.

Wait for it....wait for it.... it's coming....

(04-03-2010 04:12 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(04-03-2010 06:19 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  A monkey could beat Obama at this point.

And there it was.

Did you offer any thing positive in your diatribe? No. Your solution is to continue 20-30% annual health care increases. Offer solutions, not venom. No wonder people run from people who act like you. Again, be constructive.

(04-03-2010 04:39 PM)Pelican Power Wrote:  Did you offer any thing positive in your diatribe? No. Your solution is to continue 20-30% annual health care increases. Offer solutions, not venom. No wonder people run from people who act like you. Again, be constructive.

Who?

(04-03-2010 05:00 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-03-2010 04:39 PM)Pelican Power Wrote:  Did you offer any thing positive in your diatribe? No. Your solution is to continue 20-30% annual health care increases. Offer solutions, not venom. No wonder people run from people who act like you. Again, be constructive.

Who?

It was me because a monkey could not control health care costs. Guilty as charged. What i meant to say is a monkey could pick policies and adgendas as good or better than the Obama and ObamaZombies.

(04-03-2010 04:39 PM)Pelican Power Wrote:  Did you offer any thing positive in your diatribe? No. Your solution is to continue 20-30% annual health care increases. Offer solutions, not venom. No wonder people run from people who act like you. Again, be constructive.

We are not having 20-30% increases in health care costs (I assume that's what your poorly worded comment meant) now, so it would be hard to continue them.

The large percentage increases in insurance rates that were bandied about came about becuase of significant increases in coverage mandates in certain states, primarily in California. The reason California and Massachusetts insurance rates are so much higher than, say, Georgia insurance rates are because the high-price states mandate a lot more coverages (I believe Cali requires sex change and abortion coverage, for example). The reason republicans promoted interstate purchases of health insurance was so that a Cali couple who had no interest in sex changes or abortions could go to Georgia and buy a cheaper policy that didn't cover those things. With the feds regualting insurance companies, those mandates will become nationwide. Which means that Obamacare means 20-30% (or higher) increases in health insurance premiums, particularly in those states that don't include sex change and abortion coverage now. Of course, Obamacare has a provision for interstate purchases (or at least the last version I saw of the senate bill did), but that version would require Cali basically to agree that the Georgia plan met Cali's requirements (i.e., included sex changes and abortions), which makes it pretty much dead in the water as far as ever happening.

So it's the Obamacare proponents who would be continuing 20-30% increases--except you can't continue what hasn't happened yet.

What was the very old advert for Nutter Butter, "How can I have another Nutter Butter when I haven't had one yet?"

(04-03-2010 02:04 AM)RobertN Wrote:  There won't be a "butt whuppin'" in this year's election. Who could the Republicans possibly put up against Obama in 2012? Palin? No. Romney? The guy who's healthcare plan in Mass is very similar to the one just passed? No. Who do you see challenging?

Obama may very well win in '12. And maybe losing one or both houses of congress will sober him up a little, like it did Billy Boy Clinton.