NYTimes Has Epiphany!

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,285
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Democrats Fret Aloud Over Obama’s Chances

1. Democrats are expressing growing alarm about President Obama’s re-election prospects and, in interviews, are openly acknowledging anxiety about the White House’s ability to strengthen the president’s standing over the next 14 months.

2. Elected officials and party leaders at all levels said their worries have intensified as the economy has displayed new signs of weakness. They said the likelihood of a highly competitive 2012 race is increasing as the Republican field, once dismissed by many Democrats as too inexperienced and conservative to pose a serious threat, has started narrowing ....

3. ...some in the party fear that Mr. Obama’s troubles could reverberate down the ballot into Congressional, state and local races.

4. “In my district, the enthusiasm for him has mostly evaporated,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, Democrat of Oregon. “There is tremendous discontent with his direction.”

5. ...a survey of two dozen Democratic officials found a palpable sense of concern that transcended a single week of ups and downs. The conversations signaled a change in mood from only a few months ago, when Democrats widely believed that Mr. Obama’s path to re-election, while challenging, was secure.

6.There is little cause for immediate optimism, with polls showing Mr. Obama at one of the lowest points of his presidency.

7. And polling suggests that the president’s yearlong effort to reclaim the political center has so far yielded little in the way of additional support from the moderates and independents who tend to decide presidential elections.

8. “The alarms have already gone off in the Democratic grass roots,” said Robert Zimmerman, a member of the Democratic National Committee from New York,...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/us/politics/11obama.html?_r=2


Now for the real question:

Is there enough 'schadenfreude' to go around????
 
Old news. Three months ago most DNC supporters were thinking Obama's only real shot at re-election was for Bachmann or Palin to be top of ticket. I haven't heard anyone say differently in a long while.

If Romney carries the nomination, Obama is done. If it's Perry, he might still have a shot, but it's a long one.

Before the GOP gets too excited though, the last few "permanent sea changes" have lasted 6 years and four years respectively. Folks are in a very strong anti incumbent mind set and I don't see that changing soon. The GOP's shot at power could end pretty fast if they aren't able to fix things either.
 
Old news. Three months ago most DNC supporters were thinking Obama's only real shot at re-election was for Bachmann or Palin to be top of ticket. I haven't heard anyone say differently in a long while.

If Romney carries the nomination, Obama is done. If it's Perry, he might still have a shot, but it's a long one.

Before the GOP gets too excited though, the last few "permanent sea changes" have lasted 6 years and four years respectively. Folks are in a very strong anti incumbent mind set and I don't see that changing soon. The GOP's shot at power could end pretty fast if they aren't able to fix things either.


"...might still have a shot..."


So...waddaya think...should I break out the party hats and 'fridge the champagne?
 
Romney's just a bit stronger then Perry. And both are very weak.

Puppy...did you use the word 'weak' without the name 'Obama'??

Aren't the two irrevocably and ineluctably united??

They both raised their hands during that ridiculous tax question. Eventually in the general they have to come back to that. Bankrupting the government is not what most people want to see..and eventually those Bush tax cuts have to go bye bye.
 
Democrats Fret Aloud Over Obama’s Chances

1. Democrats are expressing growing alarm about President Obama’s re-election prospects and, in interviews, are openly acknowledging anxiety about the White House’s ability to strengthen the president’s standing over the next 14 months.

2. Elected officials and party leaders at all levels said their worries have intensified as the economy has displayed new signs of weakness. They said the likelihood of a highly competitive 2012 race is increasing as the Republican field, once dismissed by many Democrats as too inexperienced and conservative to pose a serious threat, has started narrowing ....

3. ...some in the party fear that Mr. Obama’s troubles could reverberate down the ballot into Congressional, state and local races.

4. “In my district, the enthusiasm for him has mostly evaporated,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, Democrat of Oregon. “There is tremendous discontent with his direction.”

5. ...a survey of two dozen Democratic officials found a palpable sense of concern that transcended a single week of ups and downs. The conversations signaled a change in mood from only a few months ago, when Democrats widely believed that Mr. Obama’s path to re-election, while challenging, was secure.

6.There is little cause for immediate optimism, with polls showing Mr. Obama at one of the lowest points of his presidency.

7. And polling suggests that the president’s yearlong effort to reclaim the political center has so far yielded little in the way of additional support from the moderates and independents who tend to decide presidential elections.

8. “The alarms have already gone off in the Democratic grass roots,” said Robert Zimmerman, a member of the Democratic National Committee from New York,...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/us/politics/11obama.html?_r=2


Now for the real question:

Is there enough 'schadenfreude' to go around????


I had to laugh at this one comment coming out of the article:

Elected officials and party leaders at all levels said their worries have intensified as the economy has displayed new signs of weakness. They said the likelihood of a highly competitive 2012 race is increasing as the Republican field, once dismissed by many Democrats as too inexperienced and conservative to pose a serious threat, has started narrowing
.

So what do we have--3 former governors--1 CEO--a senator a congressmen/woman with several years under their belts and a former house speaker--and they refer to them as inexperienced when we have a "community organizer" running this country right now--who is in soooo deep over his head that his lack of experience is showing more and more every single day he's in the oval office-:lol:
 
Last edited:
Old news. Three months ago most DNC supporters were thinking Obama's only real shot at re-election was for Bachmann or Palin to be top of ticket. I haven't heard anyone say differently in a long while.

If Romney carries the nomination, Obama is done. If it's Perry, he might still have a shot, but it's a long one.

Before the GOP gets too excited though, the last few "permanent sea changes" have lasted 6 years and four years respectively. Folks are in a very strong anti incumbent mind set and I don't see that changing soon. The GOP's shot at power could end pretty fast if they aren't able to fix things either.


"...might still have a shot..."


So...waddaya think...should I break out the party hats and 'fridge the champagne?

Are you planning to celebrate a GOP victory? Then you're almost there.

I'll go deeper into why Obama may have a (long) shot against Perry:

1. Perry's Record isn't so great once you start digging. Texas is actually in pretty poor shape this year. On top of that, a lot of Perry's success has to do with the fact that Texas has a lot of advantages your average state doesn't have.
Why it doesn't matter: Your average voter, or reporter these days, isn't going to dig very deep into the fact that Perry has had almost 10-1 ratio of good years to bad years. And if this year isn't so great, so what? Everyone is struggling everywhere.

2. Perry and Bush: Perry has a lot of eerie parallels to Bush. And it isn't just policy, platform, or history. It's subtle things like mannerisms and speech patterns that even the most ill informed voter will pick up on.
Why it doesn't matter: After the last 4 years, people are actually starting to look back at Bush's tenure as President kinda fondly. And really, given Bush versus Obama, which is the center more likely to vote for now?

3. Perry is prone to "awkward statements".
Why it doesn't matter: 57 States. Nuc-u-ler. We're actually pretty forgiving on awkward statements. If anything, we find them enduring.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that unless the GOP picks Bachmann or Palin, or Perry REALLY screws up, Obama is probably going to lose this one.
 
Romney's just a bit stronger then Perry. And both are very weak.

Puppy...did you use the word 'weak' without the name 'Obama'??

Aren't the two irrevocably and ineluctably united??

They both raised their hands during that ridiculous tax question. Eventually in the general they have to come back to that. Bankrupting the government is not what most people want to see..and eventually those Bush tax cuts have to go bye bye.

You mean you wouldn't have raised your hand....or are you one who believes the pols when they give you a hard and fast promise...?

1. The Democratic Congress offered this deal: For every dollar you raise taxes, we’ll cu three dollars in spending. On that basis he [Reagan] signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. How did that work out? From Ronald Reagan’s WSJ op-ed: “Despite the “assurances,” “promises,” “pledges” and “commitments” you
are given, the spending cuts have a way of being forgotten or quietly lobbied out of future budgets. But the tax increases are as certain to come
as, well, death and taxes.

In 1982, Congress wanted to raise taxes. It promised it would cut federal
spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. Being a new kid in town, I agreed
to this. Unfortunately, although the new taxes went into effect, Congress never cut spending by even a penny.” (Reagan 1993)
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_01_01_bartlett.pdf

2. Here, this may be a better example...more on your level: you subscribe to the J. Wellington Wimpy School of Economics:
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

It's all about trust and experience.
 
Old news. Three months ago most DNC supporters were thinking Obama's only real shot at re-election was for Bachmann or Palin to be top of ticket. I haven't heard anyone say differently in a long while.

If Romney carries the nomination, Obama is done. If it's Perry, he might still have a shot, but it's a long one.

Before the GOP gets too excited though, the last few "permanent sea changes" have lasted 6 years and four years respectively. Folks are in a very strong anti incumbent mind set and I don't see that changing soon. The GOP's shot at power could end pretty fast if they aren't able to fix things either.


"...might still have a shot..."


So...waddaya think...should I break out the party hats and 'fridge the champagne?

Are you planning to celebrate a GOP victory? Then you're almost there.

I'll go deeper into why Obama may have a (long) shot against Perry:

1. Perry's Record isn't so great once you start digging. Texas is actually in pretty poor shape this year. On top of that, a lot of Perry's success has to do with the fact that Texas has a lot of advantages your average state doesn't have.
Why it doesn't matter: Your average voter, or reporter these days, isn't going to dig very deep into the fact that Perry has had almost 10-1 ratio of good years to bad years. And if this year isn't so great, so what? Everyone is struggling everywhere.

2. Perry and Bush: Perry has a lot of eerie parallels to Bush. And it isn't just policy, platform, or history. It's subtle things like mannerisms and speech patterns that even the most ill informed voter will pick up on.
Why it doesn't matter: After the last 4 years, people are actually starting to look back at Bush's tenure as President kinda fondly. And really, given Bush versus Obama, which is the center more likely to vote for now?

3. Perry is prone to "awkward statements".
Why it doesn't matter: 57 States. Nuc-u-ler. We're actually pretty forgiving on awkward statements. If anything, we find them enduring.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that unless the GOP picks Bachmann or Palin, or Perry REALLY screws up, Obama is probably going to lose this one.

Don't see you much, anymore. Probably means the little one is getting bigger and you have more important things to do! Good!


"Are you planning to celebrate a GOP victory?"

No, silly...I'm planning to celebrate a victory for America!

The nation is getting ready to proclaim that it made one giant boo-boo.
 
Don't see you much, anymore. Probably means the little one is getting bigger and you have more important things to do! Good!

It exactly. The boy is 3 and in the potty training portion of the show, and the little girl is 6 months and just about to start crawling. I actually don't have a lot of time for this anymore.

I'm not entirely convinced that another violent political swing is a victory for America. I'd be happiest if I saw a centrist third party come out of all this. But that said, I'm not going to be overly sad to see Obama go. He's been an incredibly weak leader.
 
"...might still have a shot..."


So...waddaya think...should I break out the party hats and 'fridge the champagne?

Are you planning to celebrate a GOP victory? Then you're almost there.

I'll go deeper into why Obama may have a (long) shot against Perry:

1. Perry's Record isn't so great once you start digging. Texas is actually in pretty poor shape this year. On top of that, a lot of Perry's success has to do with the fact that Texas has a lot of advantages your average state doesn't have.
Why it doesn't matter: Your average voter, or reporter these days, isn't going to dig very deep into the fact that Perry has had almost 10-1 ratio of good years to bad years. And if this year isn't so great, so what? Everyone is struggling everywhere.

2. Perry and Bush: Perry has a lot of eerie parallels to Bush. And it isn't just policy, platform, or history. It's subtle things like mannerisms and speech patterns that even the most ill informed voter will pick up on.
Why it doesn't matter: After the last 4 years, people are actually starting to look back at Bush's tenure as President kinda fondly. And really, given Bush versus Obama, which is the center more likely to vote for now?

3. Perry is prone to "awkward statements".
Why it doesn't matter: 57 States. Nuc-u-ler. We're actually pretty forgiving on awkward statements. If anything, we find them enduring.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that unless the GOP picks Bachmann or Palin, or Perry REALLY screws up, Obama is probably going to lose this one.

Don't see you much, anymore. Probably means the little one is getting bigger and you have more important things to do! Good!


"Are you planning to celebrate a GOP victory?"

No, silly...I'm planning to celebrate a victory for America!

The nation is getting ready to proclaim that it made one giant boo-boo.

It made it's "boo-boo" in 2004, when Bush (the decider) won a close election. He went on to spend all that "political capital" further destroying the country while "deciding" not to get Bin Laden.
 
Are you planning to celebrate a GOP victory? Then you're almost there.

I'll go deeper into why Obama may have a (long) shot against Perry:

1. Perry's Record isn't so great once you start digging. Texas is actually in pretty poor shape this year. On top of that, a lot of Perry's success has to do with the fact that Texas has a lot of advantages your average state doesn't have.
Why it doesn't matter: Your average voter, or reporter these days, isn't going to dig very deep into the fact that Perry has had almost 10-1 ratio of good years to bad years. And if this year isn't so great, so what? Everyone is struggling everywhere.

2. Perry and Bush: Perry has a lot of eerie parallels to Bush. And it isn't just policy, platform, or history. It's subtle things like mannerisms and speech patterns that even the most ill informed voter will pick up on.
Why it doesn't matter: After the last 4 years, people are actually starting to look back at Bush's tenure as President kinda fondly. And really, given Bush versus Obama, which is the center more likely to vote for now?

3. Perry is prone to "awkward statements".
Why it doesn't matter: 57 States. Nuc-u-ler. We're actually pretty forgiving on awkward statements. If anything, we find them enduring.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that unless the GOP picks Bachmann or Palin, or Perry REALLY screws up, Obama is probably going to lose this one.

Don't see you much, anymore. Probably means the little one is getting bigger and you have more important things to do! Good!


"Are you planning to celebrate a GOP victory?"

No, silly...I'm planning to celebrate a victory for America!

The nation is getting ready to proclaim that it made one giant boo-boo.

It made it's "boo-boo" in 2004, when Bush (the decider) won a close election. He went on to spend all that "political capital" further destroying the country while "deciding" not to get Bin Laden.

If Bush was a mistake...how come you elected a guy who copied most of Bush's policy....
and don't fib...I happen to know that it was your vote that put Obama over the top.
 
Don't see you much, anymore. Probably means the little one is getting bigger and you have more important things to do! Good!


"Are you planning to celebrate a GOP victory?"

No, silly...I'm planning to celebrate a victory for America!

The nation is getting ready to proclaim that it made one giant boo-boo.

It made it's "boo-boo" in 2004, when Bush (the decider) won a close election. He went on to spend all that "political capital" further destroying the country while "deciding" not to get Bin Laden.

If Bush was a mistake...how come you elected a guy who copied most of Bush's policy....
and don't fib...I happen to know that it was your vote that put Obama over the top.

:lol:

:eusa_whistle::razz:
 
It made it's "boo-boo" in 2004, when Bush (the decider) won a close election. He went on to spend all that "political capital" further destroying the country while "deciding" not to get Bin Laden.

The real mistake was putting John "Possibly the Worst Candidate in Modern Political History" Kerry up as the other option. Bush owes a lot of his victory in 2004 to folks that were just to excited to start attacking Bush that they short changed the nomination process.

Given they choice between Kerry and Bush, I don't regret my vote for Bush.

McCain made a similar mistake when he picked Palin. That might have been a close election for a while there.
 
It made it's "boo-boo" in 2004, when Bush (the decider) won a close election. He went on to spend all that "political capital" further destroying the country while "deciding" not to get Bin Laden.

The real mistake was putting John "Possibly the Worst Candidate in Modern Political History" Kerry up as the other option. Bush owes a lot of his victory in 2004 to folks that were just to excited to start attacking Bush that they short changed the nomination process.

Given they choice between Kerry and Bush, I don't regret my vote for Bush.

McCain made a similar mistake when he picked Palin. That might have been a close election for a while there.

You, like so many others, have a problem with a strong, beautiful woman who also happened to have a tremendous amount of life experience. Much more experience than the idiot who was shoved through harvard law school by ultra liberal tenured teachers and became a community vote buyer and eventually cheated his way into the state senate. It's obvious why Barry hasn't allowed anyone to see his school writings.
 

Forum List

Back
Top