• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Has Obama Destroyed the Democrats


youngdan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,371
As is clear now the lustre has left Obama, in the US anyway.

There are 5 major issues but as of yet only one has really hit the public consiousness and that is his health care plan. Not surprisingly there are very few in favour of it. People are happy with their health care system. I don't see anybody dying on the streets for want of care. Speaking for Massachusetts, everyone even illegals get taken care of.

Even though the democrats have a huge majority in the House, Pilosi could not bring it to a vote. The part where old people will be sent hospises while rich pigs like Ted Kennedy will waste 20 million to keep him alive a while longer is rubbing people the wrong way.

The people are making their voices heard at last. These poor democrats are having a nasty wakeupcall.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBa3dSGt0aE]YouTube - Steve Driehaus - Town Hall Meeting[/ame]

Look at that fool Driehaus, he dosn't know what hit him




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOLs7Cybnqw]YouTube - TIM BISHOP PROTEST, SETAUKET, NY (part one)[/ame]

This is Tim Bishop


My favourite of course is this one

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8UjY3YDlwA&feature=related]YouTube - Lloyd Doggett's meeting on Obamacare in south Austin, TX, 1 Aug 2009[/ame]



It is happening all over. Whoever votes for this is in serious trouble


However the cap and trade could be a bigger problem. It is not on the radar scoop of most people. It has passed the House by just 7 votes and would need to be voted on again but it will not pass the Senate. When people find out about this trillion dollar tax on the poor it will be some fun. The poor democrars will realise that they are getting the shafteroo while the rich jet arround to plant a tree.


The economy and the bailouts for the banksters continue apace. The latest is the Cash for Clunkers fiasco. Nobody could make this boondoogle up. What has Obama done for the democrat voter. The same as he did for his brother in the hut, that is jackshythe. After giving away about 4 trillion do you think that he could even have brought the credit card interest rate down from 29%. Of course not, because it is the poor that are paying and Obama is on the side of the banksters.

Another eyeopener for the democrat bluecollar worker will be when 25 million illegals get amnesty. What fun that will be


And finally we have the wars. I think the peaceniks have already figured this one out



We are only 6 months in and Obama is already a lame duck.
 


Electro

Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
91
No. All he has to do is keep his nerve.

His core policies are sensible, and will have the effect of dismantling the neo-con power base in the US.
 

ManOfReason

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,328
To answer your question: Not Yet.

But it is early days.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,389
We are only 6 months in and Obama is already a lame duck.
No, every morning you wake up and like to think to yourself that Obama is a lame duck. But he isn't. His approval ratings have done what most presidents' approval ratings have done - skyrocketed in the honeymoon period, then tailed off. No need for you to get so orgasmic about it, or you'll be in for a rough eight years.
 

youngdan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,371
No. All he has to do is keep his nerve.

His core policies are sensible, and will have the effect of dismantling the neo-con power base in the US.

He will keep his nerve, he is "all in"

It is the congressmen and whatever number of dem senators up for election who will face the music.

It is hard not to see a big swing away from the dems so Obama hasonly got 16 months
 

youngdan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,371
No, every morning you wake up and like to think to yourself that Obama is a lame duck. But he isn't. His approval ratings have done what most presidents' approval ratings have done - skyrocketed in the honeymoon period, then tailed off. No need for you to get so orgasmic about it, or you'll be in for a rough eight years.
This is why you are ridiculed. You combine vulgarity and stupidity in a rare combination.

You seem oblivious to the fact that he failed to get his health bill through despite a huge majority.


Stick to talking about Enda the Eejit
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,389
This is why you are ridiculed.
No, I'm just ridiculed by you - which I believe I can live with.

You combine vulgarity and stupidity in a rare combination.

You seem oblivious to the fact that he failed to get his health bill through despite a huge majority.


Stick to talking about Enda the Eejit
And as always, you're utterly incapable of having a rational discussion with anyone who dares to suggest that not everything you say is necessarily correct.

Just wondering, were you ever bullied at school?
 

Timeisshort

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
68
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Bpshk5nX0]YouTube - Crowd Explodes When Arlen Specter Urges That We "Do This Fast"[/ame]

This first speakers question might well be aimed at our gimps re lisbon
 

JRMcNelis

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
119
The Dems will lose seats in the House in 2010.
Probably around 20 seats.

That means Pelosi remains Speaker (unless replaced by another Democrat) but with a smaller majority.


The Dems will, however, gain seats in the Senate. At least 1 more, maybe 2.
This means the GOP will have to contend with a 60+ Democratic Senate for at least 2 more years.

As for 2012, Obama seems to be currently in good shape to win re-election, look at demographics to see why.
But anything can happen over 3 yrs.
 

youngdan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,371
The Dems will lose seats in the House in 2010.
Probably around 20 seats.

That means Pelosi remains Speaker (unless replaced by another Democrat) but with a smaller majority.


The Dems will, however, gain seats in the Senate. At least 1 more, maybe 2.
This means the GOP will have to contend with a 60+ Democratic Senate for at least 2 more years.

As for 2012, Obama seems to be currently in good shape to win re-election, look at demographics to see why.
But anything can happen over 3 yrs.

Do you agree that Dodd if he runs will be beaten, especially if as appears likely that Peter Schiff will be his opponent.


Do you think Spectre can fool the people by doing a switcheroo,

Do you think the Harry Reid can win.

McCain will be beaten imo if he runs but he hopefully won't




Who do you think will pick up seats
 

JRMcNelis

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
119
Dodd will win as it is conneticut, and they may flirt with voting against him, in the end he wins 52 to 48%

Reid wins easily as the GOP has yet to line up a candidate to run against him, and he has raised millions.

Spectre could lose to Sestak in the Dem Primary, but even if he does, Pat Toomey cannot win statewide.
So that is Specter OR Sestak's seat in 2011, not a GOP seat.

Voinovich's Ohio seat is vulnerable, as is Bunnings Kentucky seat.
Burr in North Carolina is vulnerable, as is Gregg is New Hampshire.
Vitter in Lousiana isn't close enough to be "vulnerable," but is close enough to force the GOP to pay money to keep it.

Carnahan will pick up the GOP seat in Missouri easily. So there is one.
then add in any one of the 4 seats I stated above are vulnerable for the GOP, and you get the 2 possible seats.

A Democratic fool would claim the Dems pick up 6 or more Senate seats.
A Republican fool would claim the GOP gains 1 or 2.

Any sensible person would see that the Dems will gain 1 or 2 seats, as the GOP will do better than expected in defending vulnerable seats in a midterm election, that carries lower turnout.

Don't believe me?
Revisit this post in November of 2010, and see how reality shapes up with it.


Oh, and McCain will win re-election, only 1 Dem could have beaten him (Napolitano) and she is out of the running.
 

youngdan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,371
It remains to be seen. For Judd to lose by would have to get 17% less than last time when the swing will be against the dems, same with Voinovich. Dodd in a recent poll I think was about 33% against a generic republican.



I think Spectre would not have jumped without a deal being made and I think he will lose. If the dems shaft him all the better. I think I will have a wager with Paddy Power on this one
 

JRMcNelis

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
119
What do you consider recent, and who are your sources?

Last Dodd poll on Real Clear Politics has him at 39% against Simmons with only 48%
As neither is above 50%, that is still an open seat.

I'm not saying Dodd wins easy, but I have lived in new England and followed politics long enough to know that Dodd will almost certainly win re-election, as New England is VERY liberal, and when push comes to shove, Conn will vote for party over candidate, and 9% down is not much when you have over 15 months to make amends to the voters who have given you so many terms already.

As for Ohio, currently the Dems lead there. Do you forget that Voinovich is retiring? Your post above certainly suggests you do.
As for New Hampshire, currently the Dems lead there. Do you also forget that Gregg is retiring, and not running?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latestpolls/2010.html


It's common sense, the Dems will gain a few token seats. And ask yourself this...
If party insiders thought the GOP were going to win seats, then why are so many Republicans retiring in 2010, and so few Democrats?

You don't retire when your party is GAINING seats, you retire when your party is LOSING seats.
Kansas, Florida, N Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, and Texas all have Republican senators retiring.

Why would they leave, if they had high priced advisors telling them what you are telling readers here?
Answer: they wouldn't. They'd stay on if they thought the GOP were going to win seats.

Next BIG year for the GOP in the Senate is 2014.
They will lose 1-2 in 2010, they might win 2-3 in 2012.

But 2014 will be there next chance to gain 5+
 

youngdan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,371
What do you consider recent, and who are your sources?

Last Dodd poll on Real Clear Politics has him at 39% against Simmons with only 48%
As neither is above 50%, that is still an open seat.

I'm not saying Dodd wins easy, but I have lived in new England and followed politics long enough to know that Dodd will almost certainly win re-election, as New England is VERY liberal, and when push comes to shove, Conn will vote for party over candidate, and 9% down is not much when you have over 15 months to make amends to the voters who have given you so many terms already.

As for Ohio, currently the Dems lead there. Do you forget that Voinovich is retiring? Your post above certainly suggests you do.
As for New Hampshire, currently the Dems lead there. Do you also forget that Gregg is retiring, and not running?

RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 Polls


It's common sense, the Dems will gain a few token seats. And ask yourself this...
If party insiders thought the GOP were going to win seats, then why are so many Republicans retiring in 2010, and so few Democrats?

You don't retire when your party is GAINING seats, you retire when your party is LOSING seats.
Kansas, Florida, N Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, and Texas all have Republican senators retiring.

Why would they leave, if they had high priced advisors telling them what you are telling readers here?
Answer: they wouldn't. They'd stay on if they thought the GOP were going to win seats.

Next BIG year for the GOP in the Senate is 2014.
They will lose 1-2 in 2010, they might win 2-3 in 2012.

But 2014 will be there next chance to gain 5+


Recent would be the last election he ran in. 6 years is a fair while but don't judge anything by 2008. Obama was a very weak candidate. Look at his opponent.

There is less life in McCain than the average of the 4 Kennedy brothers.

Imagine the beating he would have gotten if he had picked Huckabee



Now you know me JR, I am not one to argue but you say you know NE politics and that Conn will vote party over candidate. I could have sworn they did the exact oppposite last election
 

smitchy2

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
1,817
Fairly ridiculous postings here.
Once again way too soon- to analyse the effect of Obamas policies.
Let us not forgot the heap of sht of a mess that he was handed over.

The GoP is in a mess but of course as always happens they will make a resurgence in 3 years and to a lesser extent next year.

It’s a shame that the likes of Ron Paul persist with a party that he obviously objects to a lot of their fundamental thinkings.
 

dmc444

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
193
I really would not worry about the state of the GOP, More often than not they bounce back. The did it in 1952,68,80,2000.

To answer the questions has Obama destroyed the Dems, not but i think he has severly handicapped them. Obama had a brilliant chance to show that the Dems were prudent but instead he has just reverted to form and taxed and spent.

The Presidentcy is not really 4 years, you only have about 18 months in total to get anything on the domestic scene done and so far he has wasted his time but not giving a clear direction and he has a majority in the Congress that most Presidents would give there right arm for.

I like everybody else thought on November 4th, we would see our generations JFK take the Oval office but in just 9 months he has went from Jack Kennedy to Jimmy Carter.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top