Lib/Dems should ask themselves this question:

[sealybobo]

Meanwhile, Obama beats all Republican presidential candidates.

Obama vs. Romney, + 5.1 Obama

Obama vs Santorum, +6.3 Obama

Obama vs Gingrich, +13.7 Obama

Obama vs Paul, + 8.3 Obama

RealClearPolitics - President Obama vs. Republican Candidates

Not according to Gallup. Romney is ahead by 4 points. Santorum is basically tied with Obama. If you think Obama is going to have an easy time beating either of these candidates you are living in fantasyland....

Romney, Santorum Closely Matched Against Obama Nationally

If Santorum gets the nomination, you might as well get comfortable with Obama for another 4 years. I don't care what the polls show now.

Romney is his only threat.

And Romney has hung himself in Ohio and Michigan with his anti union talk. Now he's trying to back peddle. No chance. Romney is the poster child for the top 1%.

His own party doesn't even like him. What makes you think he has a chance when no one likes him?

Republicans Losing Interest in Presidential Race
A new Associated Press-GfK poll finds nterest in the Republican presidential race is slipping: Just 40% of Republicans say they have a great deal of interest in following the contest, compared with 48% in December.

Key findings: Only 23% are strongly satisfied with the field and 40% said they are dissatisfied with the candidates running.

 

[Zander]

Meanwhile, Obama beats all Republican presidential candidates.

Obama vs. Romney, + 5.1 Obama

Obama vs Santorum, +6.3 Obama

Obama vs Gingrich, +13.7 Obama

Obama vs Paul, + 8.3 Obama

RealClearPolitics - President Obama vs. Republican Candidates

Not according to Gallup. Romney is ahead by 4 points. Santorum is basically tied with Obama. If you think Obama is going to have an easy time beating either of these candidates you are living in fantasyland....

Romney, Santorum Closely Matched Against Obama Nationally

If Santorum gets the nomination, you might as well get comfortable with Obama for another 4 years. I don't care what the polls show now.

Romney is his only threat.

Oddly enough, that is exactly what I said about Hilary a few years ago. I figured with Obama's racist church, shady land deals with felons, "Present" votes, reckless stand on infanticide, friendships with convicted terrorists, and lack of experience- that he was a gift to Republicans. McCain would mop the floor with his skinny ass.....we all know how that turned out.....

 

[Zander]

Not according to Gallup. Romney is ahead by 4 points. Santorum is basically tied with Obama. If you think Obama is going to have an easy time beating either of these candidates you are living in fantasyland....

Romney, Santorum Closely Matched Against Obama Nationally

If Santorum gets the nomination, you might as well get comfortable with Obama for another 4 years. I don't care what the polls show now.

Romney is his only threat.

And Romney has hung himself in Ohio and Michigan with his anti union talk. Now he's trying to back peddle. No chance. Romney is the poster child for the top 1%.

His own party doesn't even like him. What makes you think he has a chance when no one likes him?

Republicans Losing Interest in Presidential Race
A new Associated Press-GfK poll finds nterest in the Republican presidential race is slipping: Just 40% of Republicans say they have a great deal of interest in following the contest, compared with 48% in December.

Key findings: Only 23% are strongly satisfied with the field and 40% said they are dissatisfied with the candidates running.

Romney is leading Santorum by 6 points in the latest Michigan primary poll. 2012 Michigan Republican Primary - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[Immanuel]

if the GOP gets "shellacked" in 2012 election, will the GOP finally admit that they are out of touch with the common american?

Hell no. The blame will be placed squarely on the shoulders of someone else. Ron Paul supporters who were mad because once again he was ignored? I don't know who, yet, but it won't be the GOP's fault. It won't be on account of the fact that they offered the John Kerry of the 2010's.

Immie

 

[rightwinger]

The only outrage is coming from people who were going to be outraged with him no matter what. They are hoping people who don't pay attention hear their whining and believe their lies.

But as for who learned more from the 2010 elections? We will see come the next midterms. I don't know if the 99%ers will show up in 2014. They didn't in 2010. But one things for sure. The tea party will show up every two years.

Will the Tea Baggers show up with Romney leading the GOP ticket?

The Tea Baggers who were elected in 2010 will have a tough time getting reelected. Their actions in Congress have not been too popular. They basically did what they said they would do and now the people who voted for them háček seen what Tea Bagging means

If Obama takes a huge lead in the polls, Conservatives will stay home to retaliate against the hated Romney. If so, Republicans will lose at all levels

They are stupid if they don't show up for Romney because Romney will clearly do whatever they tell him to do. Would Romney have stopped them from making all the cuts to social programs and medicare that they wanted to cut? Of course he would not. This worries me. I think they will ultimately show up for whoever the GOP nominates and it is up to us to show up in droves to win. We can't hope they are going to sit this one out.

What if he picks Ron Paul as his VP? My conservative buddy suggested that to me today and that could be interesting.

But isn't it odd that Ron Paul isn't the spokesman for the tea party? Why is that? Could it be because the Tea Party is backed by billionaires who actually like the fascism that Ron Paul would end?

I'm not a Ron Paul fan. I'm for changing the Democratic party back to the party that represented labor, or middle class America. Today it has been corrupted too much by money too and that needs to change. We as voters and constituents have the power to make our politicians do anything we want. And if they renig, we can always recall them. But we need the middle class Americans who are voting with the rich to stop doing that. Join us. And if a Democrat like Max Baucus votes with the GOP, replace him in the primary instead of running him as the encumbant because liberals aren't going to show up for a traitor like him or Liberman.

Tea Baggers are a vindictive lot. They do what they do out of spite, not out of political expediency

After the anybody but Romney strategy has failed.....they are not about to flock to Romney.

 

[Dragon]

Please run on that. Obama and the dems were too moderate, they [need] to confirm that they are every bit as [progressive] as their OWS base

[Text in brackets inserted to correct grammar and stupidity.]

I don't have any control over how the Democrats campaign, unfortunately, but yes, that's exactly what they need to do. Even better would be if they actually governed that way, but this is kind of late in the game to start.

Progressive means Marxist/Socialist/Fascist/Statist

Like I said, corrected for idiocy.

The other correction was just grammatical.

 

[jillian]

Congress cannot filibuster. You being a self-proclaimed attorney should know that.

you know congress is bi-cameral, right? That means, for the ignorant ( looking at you) that there are two bodies -- the House and the Senate. No law can pass without both houses. And the senate has a filibuster. But no doubt you felt better spewing nonsense.

Now you know.


So have they reinstated your voting rights yet or are you still barred for being a felon?

 

[Zander]

Will the Tea Baggers show up with Romney leading the GOP ticket?

The Tea Baggers who were elected in 2010 will have a tough time getting reelected. Their actions in Congress have not been too popular. They basically did what they said they would do and now the people who voted for them háček seen what Tea Bagging means

If Obama takes a huge lead in the polls, Conservatives will stay home to retaliate against the hated Romney. If so, Republicans will lose at all levels

They are stupid if they don't show up for Romney because Romney will clearly do whatever they tell him to do. Would Romney have stopped them from making all the cuts to social programs and medicare that they wanted to cut? Of course he would not. This worries me. I think they will ultimately show up for whoever the GOP nominates and it is up to us to show up in droves to win. We can't hope they are going to sit this one out.

What if he picks Ron Paul as his VP? My conservative buddy suggested that to me today and that could be interesting.

But isn't it odd that Ron Paul isn't the spokesman for the tea party? Why is that? Could it be because the Tea Party is backed by billionaires who actually like the fascism that Ron Paul would end?

I'm not a Ron Paul fan. I'm for changing the Democratic party back to the party that represented labor, or middle class America. Today it has been corrupted too much by money too and that needs to change. We as voters and constituents have the power to make our politicians do anything we want. And if they renig, we can always recall them. But we need the middle class Americans who are voting with the rich to stop doing that. Join us. And if a Democrat like Max Baucus votes with the GOP, replace him in the primary instead of running him as the encumbant because liberals aren't going to show up for a traitor like him or Liberman.

Tea Baggers are a vindictive lot. They do what they do out of spite, not out of political expediency

After the anybody but Romney strategy has failed.....they are not about to flock to Romney.

You don't know a thing about the Tea Party......

 

[J.E.D]

Yes, you noticed since the Republicans took over the house and the Dems won't even look at any of their jobs bills things are improving.

Kinda what we've been saying all along, doing nothing is much better than doing what the 111th Congress and the Pres did to us. Great observation!!

So, the GOP's supposed "jobs" bills that passed the House and are now stuck in the Senate - which means they have not become law - are the reason for the improvement in the economy? Are you sure you want to stick with that one? Republican bills that haven't become law have improved the economy?

Whoa!! Zip, over your head. Let me type this a little slower so you will understand.

D o i n g.. n o t h i n g.. i s .. h e l p i n g... S o m e.. of.. u s .. h a v e.. b e e n.. s a y i n g.. t h i s .. a l l .. a l o n g.

T h e..D e m..C o n g r e s s.. a n d.. Obama's..p o l i c i e s.. h a v e.. d e l a y e d.. t h e.. r e c o v e r y.

T h e.. A m e r i c a n.. p e o p l e .. w i l l.. p u l l.. u s.. o u t, n o t.. W a s h i n g t o n.

Doing nothing is helping the economy? Not only is that utterly stupid, but it's factually inaccurate. Things HAVE been done, just not the economy-killing things that Republicans propose.

 

[rightwinger]

They are stupid if they don't show up for Romney because Romney will clearly do whatever they tell him to do. Would Romney have stopped them from making all the cuts to social programs and medicare that they wanted to cut? Of course he would not. This worries me. I think they will ultimately show up for whoever the GOP nominates and it is up to us to show up in droves to win. We can't hope they are going to sit this one out.

What if he picks Ron Paul as his VP? My conservative buddy suggested that to me today and that could be interesting.

But isn't it odd that Ron Paul isn't the spokesman for the tea party? Why is that? Could it be because the Tea Party is backed by billionaires who actually like the fascism that Ron Paul would end?

I'm not a Ron Paul fan. I'm for changing the Democratic party back to the party that represented labor, or middle class America. Today it has been corrupted too much by money too and that needs to change. We as voters and constituents have the power to make our politicians do anything we want. And if they renig, we can always recall them. But we need the middle class Americans who are voting with the rich to stop doing that. Join us. And if a Democrat like Max Baucus votes with the GOP, replace him in the primary instead of running him as the encumbant because liberals aren't going to show up for a traitor like him or Liberman.

Tea Baggers are a vindictive lot. They do what they do out of spite, not out of political expediency

After the anybody but Romney strategy has failed.....they are not about to flock to Romney.

You don't know a thing about the Tea Party......

I know they would not support the author of Romneycare

What do you know about Tea Baggers

 

[Peach]

2010 proved nothing except that people were angry and were going to take it out on the incumbants. i'll also point out that the righties lost two senate races that should have been theirs in that climate, AZ and DE, and blew both of them because of how stupid your candidates were.

I'll also point out that you lost a safe repub seat in NY23 for the first time in generations.

What did you learn from those losses? To look at the ragtag line up you're running for president, you didn't learn anything from those losses. Nor did you learn that no one elected righties to be the G-d squad, yet the first thing the loons in this House did was pass a bill to absolve doctors of liability for letting women die. And now you're pursuing "personsonhood" laws and trying to force unnecessary invasive medical procedures on women just to "punish the harlots" and bully them into carrying children they don't want?

you think THAT'S what people voted for GOP candidates for?

Good luck with that. BTW, Rasmussen, which I know the right loves, has the president up by 10 over Romney and by 7 over Santorum.

Have fun running candidates without women voting for them.

Your first sentence says it all: " 2010 proved nothing except that people were angry and were going to take it out on the incumbants. ". Why were they angry? Don't know how any lib/dem can possibly blame the repubs when they had complete control and wasted it. Of course they're going to blame the incumbent if they aren't satisfied with their job performance, is that not how it should be? You guys are trying to make people believe the job Obama did was good; the coming election will be a referendum on that, just as the midterms were for Congress. Won't matter much who the repub person is, there's a lot of folks who will not support him this time around.

except they didn't "have complete control" because of a little thing called the filibuster. if you look at the latest numbers on how people see things going, they hate this GOP congress and trust the president more.

you need to look at those things.

the job this president did hasn't been a bad one. it's certainly better than his predecessor.

i know that offends the right. i'm sorry. but it's the truth.

George Will on your GOP candidates:

Today's Republican contest has become a binary choice between two similarly miscast candidates. Romney cannot convince voters he understands the difference between business and politics, between being a CEO and the president. To bring economic rationality to an underperforming economic entity requires understanding a market segment. To bring confidence to a discouraged nation requires celebrating its history and sketching an inspiring destiny this history has presaged.

Romney is right about the futility of many current policies, but being offended by irrationality is insufficient. Santorum is right to be alarmed by many cultural trends, but implies that religion must be the nexus between politics and cultural reform. Romney is not attracting people who want rationality leavened by romance. Santorum is repelling people who want politics unmediated by theology. Neither Romney nor Santorum looks like a formidable candidate for November.

George Will: Two miscast candidates for the GOP

Better than Bush II doesn't require much though.

 

[Wiseacre]

2010 proved nothing except that people were angry and were going to take it out on the incumbants. i'll also point out that the righties lost two senate races that should have been theirs in that climate, AZ and DE, and blew both of them because of how stupid your candidates were.

I'll also point out that you lost a safe repub seat in NY23 for the first time in generations.

What did you learn from those losses? To look at the ragtag line up you're running for president, you didn't learn anything from those losses. Nor did you learn that no one elected righties to be the G-d squad, yet the first thing the loons in this House did was pass a bill to absolve doctors of liability for letting women die. And now you're pursuing "personsonhood" laws and trying to force unnecessary invasive medical procedures on women just to "punish the harlots" and bully them into carrying children they don't want?

you think THAT'S what people voted for GOP candidates for?

Good luck with that. BTW, Rasmussen, which I know the right loves, has the president up by 10 over Romney and by 7 over Santorum.

Have fun running candidates without women voting for them.

Your first sentence says it all: " 2010 proved nothing except that people were angry and were going to take it out on the incumbants. ". Why were they angry? Don't know how any lib/dem can possibly blame the repubs when they had complete control and wasted it. Of course they're going to blame the incumbent if they aren't satisfied with their job performance, is that not how it should be? You guys are trying to make people believe the job Obama did was good; the coming election will be a referendum on that, just as the midterms were for Congress. Won't matter much who the repub person is, there's a lot of folks who will not support him this time around.

except they didn't "have complete control" because of a little thing called the filibuster. if you look at the latest numbers on how people see things going, they hate this GOP congress and trust the president more.

you need to look at those things.

the job this president did hasn't been a bad one. it's certainly better than his predecessor.

i know that offends the right. i'm sorry. but it's the truth.

George Will on your GOP candidates:

Today's Republican contest has become a binary choice between two similarly miscast candidates. Romney cannot convince voters he understands the difference between business and politics, between being a CEO and the president. To bring economic rationality to an underperforming economic entity requires understanding a market segment. To bring confidence to a discouraged nation requires celebrating its history and sketching an inspiring destiny this history has presaged.

Romney is right about the futility of many current policies, but being offended by irrationality is insufficient. Santorum is right to be alarmed by many cultural trends, but implies that religion must be the nexus between politics and cultural reform. Romney is not attracting people who want rationality leavened by romance. Santorum is repelling people who want politics unmediated by theology. Neither Romney nor Santorum looks like a formidable candidate for November.

George Will: Two miscast candidates for the GOP

They did have a filibuster proof Senate for several months and pretty much wasted it. That's totally on them, and even after Scott Brown was elected they still had a 59-41 edge, and still refused to cooperate with the GOP. As the majority party the Dems should've at least tried to work with the Repubs; instead, they tried to cherry pick one or two off. Rather than trying to work together they tried to get their way in everything.

You say the public hates the repubs in Congress, well I don't think they're too thrilled with the Dems either. Which was the point of the OP. And I wouldn't bet the rent people trust Obama, I don't think his numbers look too good right now compared to what they were when he took office.

You think Obama has done a better job than Bush43, that's fine. I'm not offended, but that is not necessarily the truth, that is your opinion. And irrelevant anyway, I don't give a crap how bad or good Bush43 was, Obama should stand on his own record with no comparisons to anyone else. Frankly, I wasn't too happy with Bush43, but I'm even less satisifed with the current occupant in the WH.

 

[Listening]

2010 didn't prove anything except just how ridiculously susceptible republicans are to scare tactics. Conservatives need to ask themselves why they are so willing to readily support people who do nothing more than confirm fears, real or imagined.

Oh, how I love it.

2010 didn't mean anything.

One of the biggest ass-kickings in political history and you ignore it.

That is why in 2012, we will finish the job.

Please, stay with your current platform. It's the best weapon we have.

 

[Listening]

if the GOP gets "shellacked" in 2012 election, will the GOP finally admit that they are out of touch with the common american?

Only if the dems admit that they were creamed in 2010 because they were out of touch with everybody.

 

[Listening]

i was thinking of sharron angle... but paladino works too even though he wasn't ever going to beat cuomo.

Yes, I figured you missed the state.

I hope you are not as challenged in other areas.

 

[Listening]

Why do you think the midterm elections went so bad for democrats?

Because a lot of progressive voters who had voted for Obama in 2008 became disillusioned that he and the Democrats gave us same-old same-old, and stayed home and didn't vote.

What a contradiction too.

Progressive pride themselves on being more intelligent than others.

But they didn't see through this charade, now did they ?

Many of us did. The only issue was that voting for McCain was almost as nauseating.

 

[Listening]

And not only did the GOP gain the house, they took a lot of state houses too.

And they don't stand to lose many of them that they won't make up elsewhere. Yes, I'd say the country has gone liber....uh, wait....no they haven't.

 

[rightwinger]

2010 didn't prove anything except just how ridiculously susceptible republicans are to scare tactics. Conservatives need to ask themselves why they are so willing to readily support people who do nothing more than confirm fears, real or imagined.

Oh, how I love it.

2010 didn't mean anything.

One of the biggest ass-kickings in political history and you ignore it.

That is why in 2012, we will finish the job.

Please, stay with your current platform. It's the best weapon we have.

I say by all means go for it!

Assume you have the same backing you had in 2010. Assume that President Obama is a weak candidate. Assume the Republicans will come out for Mitt Romney

 

[Immanuel]

Why do you think the midterm elections went so bad for democrats?

Because a lot of progressive voters who had voted for Obama in 2008 became disillusioned that he and the Democrats gave us same-old same-old, and stayed home and didn't vote.

What a contradiction too.

Progressive pride themselves on being more intelligent than others.

But they didn't see through this charade, now did they ?

Many of us did. The only issue was that voting for McCain was almost as nauseating.

Not only more intelligent, but also more tolerant.

Of course, that is only in their own minds.

Immie

 

[Listening]

2010 didn't prove anything except just how ridiculously susceptible republicans are to scare tactics. Conservatives need to ask themselves why they are so willing to readily support people who do nothing more than confirm fears, real or imagined.

Oh, how I love it.

2010 didn't mean anything.

One of the biggest ass-kickings in political history and you ignore it.

That is why in 2012, we will finish the job.

Please, stay with your current platform. It's the best weapon we have.

I say by all means go for it!

Assume you have the same backing you had in 2010. Assume that President Obama is a weak candidate. Assume the Republicans will come out for Mitt Romney

No...we don't do it your way.

We don't see ourselves entitled to anything or anyone's vote.

We'll be working for it.

I noticed you didn't deny that you got your asses handed to you in 2010.