Obama Approval Rating 60%

[MoltenRock III]

But, that just means Obama needs to be on his toes to make sure that he will win with a resounding majority.

Why? Bush won with less votes than Gore in 2000, and only 50.7% of votes in 2004 and he and his minions proclaimed they had large mandates for their actions.

Meh. It doesn't matter. He just has to win the electoral college is all. Period. End of story.

 

[JB3]

Why? Bush won with less votes than Gore in 2000, and only 50.7% of votes in 2004 and he and his minions proclaimed they had large mandates for their actions.

Meh. It doesn't matter. He just has to win the electoral college is all. Period. End of story.

Because anything can happen in elections. If Obama gets complacent, its a bad thing.

 

[MoltenRock III]

If Obama gets complacent, its a bad thing.

While I have disagreed with many of Obama's decisions, I must say I have never, ever, doubted his drive to be President, and full of ideas. Never have I seen even a glimpse of "complacency".

 

[Kulindahr]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but given the Republicans' ongoing attempts to thoroughly bankrupt the country and turn us into a Latin American variety economy with a handful of plutocrats and a plethora of peons, I seriously hope Obama does a Lyndon Johnson on whoever the GOP candidate is, and carries enough House members with him to kick the Republicans back to minority status.

And if I may dream... I'd like to see Obama propose restoring the CCC.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Maybe you're not from around these parts...

..but everyone knows what the Civilian Conservation Corps is.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps

There was a special on it on PBS recently.

And buildings all over the place have plaques saying they were constructed by the CCC.

 

[JB3]

While I have disagreed with many of Obama's decisions, I must say I have never, ever, doubted his drive to be President, and full of ideas. Never have I seen even a glimpse of "complacency".

That's not exactly what I meant. I was more saying that he shouldn't get complacent with thinking how easy it will be to beat whatever the republicans come up with. I don't doubt his drive either, but if he's presented with a weaker candidate he may think it would be an easy win and not try as hard.

 

[thevofl]

Has Drudge come out yet?

No?

Ah...just another self-loathing closet case.

What does that have to do with the link I provided?

 

[CoolBlue71]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but given the [Republicans'] ongoing attempts to thoroughly bankrupt the country and turn us into a Latin American variety economy with a handful of plutocrats and a plethora of peons, I seriously hope [Barack] Obama does a Lyndon Johnson on whoever the [GOP] candidate is, and carries enough House members with him to kick the Republicans back to minority status.

And if I may dream... I'd like to see Obama propose restoring the CCC.

You may not believe some of what "I [am about to be] saying"…


This could happen: An incumbent president wins re-election, and also flips control by the opposition party of the U.S. House of Representatives back to his party. It hasn't happened since 1948 Harry Truman ["Do Nothing Congress!"]. (Truman also flipped the U.S. Senate back to the Democrats.) The midwest is where it would most critically happen (just as it did in 2006 and, perhaps more immediately memorable, in 2010), plus Virginia, some choice districts in the southeast, perhaps Arkansas as well (which carried for all Democratic presidents prior to Barack Obama and would've backed Hillary Clinton!). It's not a bet I'm yet willing to either make … or muster much belief in for such potential (thanks to gerrymandering; hello, Texas!).

At this point, I suspect Obama win re-election along the lines of Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush—less than 5% additional support with his national margin; a little color-trading of states (with scenario of Indiana flipping to the Mitt Romney-like-tiered Republican challenger; Missouri, Montana, and Georgia—narrow misses for Obama [who won the female vote in all three]—flipping to the president)—or we could see the GOP nominate a Sarah Palin-like-tiered bomb (in such case, retainment of all blues from 2008, a doubled national margin, and a resulting massive landslide that would shoot Obama's electoral votes modestly or well past 400).

On the flip side of the history of Republican-vs.-Democrat (dating back to Election 1856), I suppose Obama could become the third party-pickup president (flipping the White House from D to R or, in Obama's 2008 example, R to D) to lose bid for re-election. (The other three: 1888 Grover Cleveland; 1892 Benjamin Harrison, who unseated Cleveland four years earlier only to turn around and become unseated by the non-consecutive two-termer; and then there's 1980 Jimmy Carter. But the two Ds were flipped out during a "realignment" that did not favor their party.)

It would be interesting to see which [2012] Republican comes up with the message that [could?] really move the electorate back to Team Red; and to do so just four years after the party's last abomination—George W. Bush—couldn't leave office fast enough. (His last two years in office never saw the 43rd president with a job-approval score past 39% from Gallup—20s% and 30s% were the constant.)


Not recalling whether I've posted this here before: I suspect we're in another realignment presidential period—only this one would favor the Democrats, which just about all of us will not recognize.

Consider the nine/ten cycles of these presidential elections:
1860–1892 • Republican (just one Democrat, Cleveland, in 1884 and 1892)
1896–1928 • Republican (just one Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, in 1912 and 1916)
1932–1964 • Democratic (just one Republican, Eisenhower, in 1952 and 1956)
1968–2004 • Republican (two individual Democrats from a 10-cycle period: Carter, in 1976; Clinton, in 1992 and 1996)

And now we can wonder about…
2008–204? • Democratic [in question, of course, but as crazy as it may be to "look into the future," one may also review the last 150-plus years—always won by an R or D—and "why" these realignments" manifested…]

 

[chance1]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but given the Republicans' ongoing attempts to thoroughly bankrupt the country and turn us into a Latin American variety economy with a handful of plutocrats and a plethora of peons, I seriously hope Obama does a Lyndon Johnson on whoever the GOP candidate is, and carries enough House members with him to kick the Republicans back to minority status.

And if I may dream... I'd like to see Obama propose restoring the CCC.

LOL

yeah - let's give the Dems the keys to the car

thanks but NO

checks and balances are actually a good thing

and the Dems are much more likely than their counterparts to bankrupt the country

the best news about the current sitch is that Nancy Pelosi is not in power anymore

I'm fine with the Pres. being reelected - not a bad thing - perhaps a good thing - we'll see

but he/senate needs to be reigned in

Kuli - u have really changed

 

[CoolBlue71]

and the Dems are much more likely than their counterparts to bankrupt the country

Why did you insist of having your head up your ass during the entire eight years of the Bush-and-Cheney White House?

 

[chance1]

Why did you insist of having your head up your ass during the entire eight years of the Bush-and-Cheney White House?

social programs that are not effectively managed i have no use for

and they will bankrupt the country

nancy pelosi and her crew of spenders would like nothing more than to provide MORE for everyone - at taxpayers expense - thanks but NO

and guess what .......... the citizens of the country agree

and thanks for the "head up your ass" comment

 

[chrisrobin]

social programs that are not effectively managed i have no use for

Please name one. What determines "effective management"?

and they will bankrupt the country

The last time this happened was 1929. It had nothing to do with social programs.

nancy pelosi and her crew of spenders would like nothing more than to provide MORE for everyone - at taxpayers expense - thanks but NO

"Crew of spenders" sounds pretty diabolical. More for everyone? Such as what? There are services which cannot be provided on the local level. Somebody's got to pay for them. Also, why is Nancy Pelosi regarded as the Dragon Lady by conservatives? I'd put her ability to manage the House up to Boner's any day of the week. He can't even manage the members of his own party nor even himself. The Teabaggers seem to have him over a barrel.*

and guess what .......... the citizens of the country agree

Which citizens? What is your source?

During 1992 Republican Convention, the father of the former chief executive declared, "Read my lips, no new taxes." He was elected. He raised taxes. May I include him as a member of the "crew of spenders"? His son spent our money as if there were no tomorrow {2001-2008}. I marvel at all those who "found religion" (regarding Federal spending) since Jan. 20, 2009.

Also, despite the declaration that "the era of big government is over" by Ronald Reagan, I think he may have been a bit premature! The Republican mantra IS big government, as long as it conforms to their own agenda.

*The former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich was responsible for shutting down the government. What part of his "contract with America" succeeded? The other Speaker, Tom Delay, is awaiting sentencing for bribery (I think). Some role models!

 

[MoltenRock III]

social programs that are not effectively managed i have no use for

and they will bankrupt the country

nancy pelosi and her crew of spenders would like nothing more than to provide MORE for everyone - at taxpayers expense - thanks but NO

and guess what .......... the citizens of the country agree

and thanks for the "head up your ass" comment

How is it then that Medicare manages it's program at 1/15th of private insurance? How is it then that Social Security is managed at 1/4th or less than the average retirement fund is? Please explain.........

 

[BostonPirate]

nancy pelosi and her spenders paled in comparison to Dubya and his spenders.

But lets not let a bit of reality get in the way of a bit of demagoguery.

 

[Kulindahr]

and the Dems are much more likely than their counterparts to bankrupt the country

Good grief, dude, look at the record! The vast majority of our national debt came from REPUBLICANS -- and the ones in the House now are doing their darnedest to make it worse!

the best news about the current sitch is that Nancy Pelosi is not in power anymore

I don't know about "the best", but I agree it's a good thing. Unfortunately, one of the people I would have been happy to see replace her got shot and isn't likely to recover enough to do so.

Kuli - u have really changed

Your perception has changed, is all. We now have a ship of fools in the House, bent on reproducing the policies that it took Roosevelt <shudder> to overturn and bring back prosperity and even basic human dignity. I didn't support the lying fool George Bush with his reward-the-rich deficits and idiotic military adventure in Iraq, especially with his mendacious approach to financing that operation of death, and I don't support the lying fools in the House now as they proceed in ignorance of economics sharpened by ideological agenda.

Do I like the Democrats? No. Do I think they're more likely to restore our country and economy than the Republicans? Yes -- because the Republicans in there refuse to look at facts, refuse to think about the future, refuse to act like statesmen, and insist on clinging to economic ideas that are almost infinitely more likely to give us tyranny than liberty.

How is it then that Medicare manages it's program at 1/15th of private insurance? How is it then that Social Security is managed at 1/4th or less than the average retirement fund is? Please explain.........

I was astounded to learn that the management of SS gave the Salvation Army a good run for efficiency two years back. If they're in that company, they are hardly "mismanaged"!

 

[NineOfClubs]

As of May 14th, Gallup now has the President's approval rating at 48%.

 

[BostonPirate]

As of May 14th, Gallup now has the President's approval rating at 48%.

Did you cum a little when you read it?

 

[NineOfClubs]

No, just wanted to end the ridiculous circle jerk you were hosting.

 

[BostonPirate]

No, just wanted to end the ridiculous circle jerk you were hosting.

a genuine party at the old niners house tonight! He dug up a poll that puts obama down...lmao!!



If I knew you were giving out happy endings I would have worn cheaper clothes to the party

I hate cum stains on a good suit