Obama may lose both houses

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hipeter924, Jul 29, 2010.

  1. hipeter924
    Offline

    hipeter924 Not a zombie yet

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    6,092
    Thanks Received:
    620
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Nowhere you can follow
    Ratings:
    +1,433
    Impeachment? Who needs it if we get this. :)


    Democrats on edge of panic

    Obama's party fears it could lose control of both houses in November elections

    Sometimes in politics stating the obvious can get you into trouble. So it was three weeks ago when Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama's spokesman, admitted on a talk show that the Democrats might lose their majority in the House of Representatives in the midterm elections. This earned him a scolding from House Democrats, many of whom already resent Obama for forcing them to vote for unpopular bills and, as they see it, failing to campaign effectively enough to save their jobs in November.

    It is therefore safe to bet that Gibbs will not be giving public voice to a new fear now spreading through Democratic hearts, namely that it is not just the lower chamber that is vulnerable in November. The Senate might be in play as well.
    Only 37 of the Senate's 100 seats will be up in November. The Democrats are defending a majority of 59 to 41 (although their majority includes two independents), which means that the Republicans need a net gain of 10 seats to win control.
    Until recently this feat was thought to be beyond their reach, and many pollsters continue to think so.

    And yet Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, thinks that this could be another of those election years, such as 1980, 1986 and 2006, when most of the close races tip in the same direction and produce a shift of control. It is certainly the case that many once-safe Democratic seats, such as Wisconsin and Washington, are looking vulnerable.
    The Cook Political Report now judges it possible for the Republicans' Carly Fiorina, the deep-pocketed former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, to defeat the sitting Democrat, Barbara Boxer, in California.

    As well as winning the House and Senate, says Galston, the Republicans could hit the trifecta, capturing Obama's former seat in Illinois, Vice-President Joe Biden's in Delaware and, in Nevada, unseating Harry Reid, the majority leader.
    With more than three months to polling day, there might still be time for Obama's party to confound the doom-sayers. But the panic in the party is palpable -along with a mounting sense of injustice.
    Its Democratic masters say that the 111th Congress has been bold, busy and effective. Since starting work in the middle of an economic crisis it has authorized $1 trillion or so of stimulus spending, steered GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy, pushed through health-care reform and overhauled financial regulation.

    True, unemployment remains stuck above nine per cent, but haven't the Democrats just shown their superior compassion by overcoming hard-hearted Republican objections to extending benefits for the jobless?
    Don't they have one of the coolest and most articulate of presidents? Why, only yesterday (or so it seems; it was in fact 17 months ago) nearly seven out of 10 Americans approved of how Obama did his job.
    So what have the Democrats done to deserve humiliation in November?
    No answer to this question is painless to Democrats. Many explanations blame the fall from grace squarely on their own decisions.

    Was it a mistake to work so hard on a divisive health bill instead of the economy and, especially, job creation? Did they underestimate how bitter the average Joe would feel at the spectacle of the government bailing out the undeserving banks, and carmakers, and feckless home-buyers who had spent beyond their means?
    Has Obama positioned himself too far to the left? Could he have done a better job of giving his administration a sense of direction and his countrymen a sense of hope?


    The economy drives election results; Bush wrecked the economy; the Democrats succeeded in staving off a depression; but voters will blame them anyway for the recession they could not avert. To put the blame entirely on the economy might seem crudely deterministic. But consider the findings of a recent Pew survey on how this recession has changed America 30 months after it started.

    More than half of all workers have experienced a spell of unemployment, taken a cut in pay or hours or been forced to go part-time. The typical unemployed worker has been jobless for nearly six months. Collapsing share and house prices have destroyed a fifth of the wealth of the average household.


    Nearly six in 10 Americans have cancelled or cut back on vacations. About a fifth say their mortgages are underwater. One in four of those between 18 and 29 have moved back in with parents. Fewer than half of all adults expect their children to have a higher standard of living than theirs, and more than a quarter say it will be lower.

    Another way to put this is that for many Americans the great recession has been the sharpest trauma since the Second World War, wiping out jobs, wealth and hope itself. That is why fewer than half now think that Obama is doing a good job.
    He and his party will need to present an astonishingly good argument to talk the electorate out of doing what will come naturally in a midterm: casting a protest vote against the party in power. They have not yet provided an argument that is sufficiently persuasive.
    © Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2010
  2. washamericom
    Offline

    washamericom Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Messages:
    9,381
    Thanks Received:
    735
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,700
    Was it a mistake to work so hard on a divisive health bill instead of the economy and, especially, job creation? Did they underestimate how bitter the average Joe would feel at the spectacle of the government bailing out the undeserving banks, and carmakers, and feckless home-buyers who had spent beyond their means?
    Has Obama positioned himself too far to the left? Could he have done a better job of giving his administration a sense of direction and his countrymen a sense of hope?


    this is spot on. the democraps act all surprised when they realise that socialism goes over like a lead balloon. failed concepts in governing, ego gone bust. wrong country for those ideas. all you have to do is read the constitution to see that obama is a one term president. reid and pelosi replaced by default. thanks for posting this
     
  3. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,192
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,935
    Wait a second, he's not going to lose the house Convicted felon Tony Rezko bought him with money from Iraqi Oil for Food Fugitive Nahmdi Auchi is he?
     
  4. dixierat
    Offline

    dixierat Anti-Progressive American

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    26
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +3
    It's not that they couldn't avert the recession. It's that their policies have done nothing to alleviate the recession. By that I mean their policies have killed rather than cerate jobs. I think they'll pay by losing control of the House and have much reduced power in the Senate.
     
  5. topspin
    Offline

    topspin BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,149
    Thanks Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +196
    Gimmy back my gridlock!!!!
     
  6. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Could be.

    But the real question is will that make things any better?

    I doubt it.
     
  7. dixierat
    Offline

    dixierat Anti-Progressive American

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    26
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +3
    "Coming in January, to a Congress near you!" :lol:
     
  8. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,678
    Me too. By voting in RINO Republicans we'll only get Democrat Lite. That's why the TEA Party has been gaining traction.
     
  9. Soggy in NOLA
    Online

    Soggy in NOLA Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Messages:
    32,683
    Thanks Received:
    4,316
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,420
    Bush did not wreck the economy... any more than the Democrats themselves wrecked it. It has been systematically wrecked by decades of runaway entitlment spending, wasteful spending and fiscally stupid tax policies. Simply put, you can't get something for nothing. America has to decide: do we want a society where everybody is paying 50%+ ( and I mean EVERYBODY, and this is what it will take... none of this 40 %- 50% paying virtually nothing) of their earnings to a federal government so they can get things for "free"?

    And it ain't gonna get fixed by taxing the rich. You could confiscate EVERY $$ owned by every man, woman, child and coropration and you'd still be off the mark by $50 trillion.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2010
  10. Article 15
    Offline

    Article 15 Dr. House slayer

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    24,673
    Thanks Received:
    4,832
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +4,859
    Perhaps somewhere amidst all the subpoenas and special investigations they will find a way to balance the budget.
     

Share This Page