Debt deal

[MeGusta]

If that statement reads as admiration then I would need to shred my degree and re-evaluate my position of insisting that English is my first language.

[Ddrak]

Supporting the Tea Party because they held fast to their ideas of a balanced budget and deficit reduction during a balance sheet recession that have historically been shown to be a batshit stupid macroeconomic policy is hardly a winning argument. Voting for anyone BUT the Tea Party for working towards compromise seems much more sane to me. Standing by your ideological principles in the face of history and logic really isn't a virtue. It's kinda the opposite...

Could you clarify who you are talking to, please?

No one really - just throwing the strawman out there.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

@Dd

Responding to your observation that this will probably cost Obama the election.

I do think Obama will lose his bid for re-election if the Republicans can field a right-center candidate that can appeal to the independent voters, whom Obama has largely lost. But I don't think it was just this debt deal that did it. I think what will, and probably already has, sunk Obama's re-election hopes is the overall economy and unemployment. Despite massive "stimulus" spending, the economy is still on life-support. Unemployment is hovering around 9%, and I don't think any president in the last 50 years has ever been re-elected if the unemployment rate was over 7.5%. He has not enacted any substantive policy that had broad support with the voters. He's pissed off the leftist part of his base, who knows if they will vote for him now. The Republican candidate that emerges will have hard economic data to throw at Obama, and that's difficult for any candidate to defend against. He'll have to combat economic facts with political spin, and most Americans can see through that, especially the indepndents, who Obama desperately needs to win.

The Republicans are sitting pretty right now. They've given him his debt ceiling increase, and they are sure to mention that come election time, when the economy is still crap and unemployment hasn't changed. (And no credible economist thinks there will be substantial growth in the economy or reduction of unemployment between now and campaign season). All Obama needs to do to seal his fate and become Jimmy Carter II is make some blunder as Commander in Chief.

If the Reps can get a good candidate (and that remains to be seen), I predict that Obama will lose the Oval Office to the Reps, the Reps will gain a couple more net seats in the House, and the Dems will hold on to the Seante, but just barely.

[Harlowe]

I think stating the Republicans are somehow sitting pretty right now is delusional.

[Lurker]

Not going to bother rehashing the fact that Republicans sabotaged the recovery by filibustering needed legislation, including things that Embar thought critical such as the small business loan package... we discussed all that as it was happening.

But I would like Embar to clarify what this means.

They've given him his debt ceiling increase, and they are sure to mention that come election time, when the economy is still crap and unemployment hasn't changed.

Since the Republicans only insisted to the debt ceiling increase if it contained large spending cuts, and spending cuts are absolutely going to hurt economic growth and the unemployment picture, what exactly will the Republican's be sure to mention come election time?

What economic facts (since they would never resort to political spin) will they use to explain their role in our economic state? Hmmmm... maybe they'll have a flash of honesty and just admit that they sabotaged the recovery because they thought it would help them in the election.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

The Republicans are sitting pretty right now.

If by "sitting pretty" you mean fucked in the ass, then yeah, they're sitting pretty.

Disapproval of Congress at Historic Level, Poll Finds

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/po ... rss&src=ig

[Harlowe]

No one is sitting pretty right now, but if anyone is looking like the bigger, irresponsible assholes right now, it's the GOP. What Obama has going for him, is being the lesser of the evils because he's rational if nothing else.

The orange guy said himself, that he got 98% of what he wanted...if anything is attached to this shit sandwich, it's him and his preening. Also the level of Tea Party ass kissing the GOP is doing, isn't doing them any favors.

So sitting pretty? That's fantasy or you base your perception on Fox and Drudge - the sources that just tell you what you want to hear.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I don't listen to Fox. You don't see me quoting Limbaugh or Hannity or any of the other infotainment personalities that masquerade as legitimate political commentators. (I include Palin in there as well, I don't think she's a serious politician... only someone who seeks celebrity and uses political issues as her schtick).

I guess "sitting pretty" is a relative term, and it's obvioulsy caused some rabid reflex reactions in a couple of you. So how about this... I suppose a more concise description would be "better politically positioned for the upcoming elections". Any argument there?

[Lurker]

I would like Embar to clarify what this means.

They've given him his debt ceiling increase, and they are sure to mention that come election time, when the economy is still crap and unemployment hasn't changed.

Since the Republicans only allowed the debt ceiling increase if it contained large spending cuts, and spending cuts are absolutely going to hurt economic growth and the unemployment picture, what exactly will the Republican's be sure to mention come election time?

What economic facts (since they would never resort to political spin) will they use to explain their role in our economic state? Hmmmm... maybe they'll have a flash of honesty and just admit that they sabotaged the recovery because they thought it would help them in the election

[MeGusta]

No one is sitting pretty right now

I would say that anyone who can be perceived as an outsider or not as an insider at the very least is "sitting pretty right now" as it applies to a Presidential run.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.politico.com/arena/

I love Artur Davis' response (a former Dem rep). He likens Obama's position to Carter, Ford and Bush I (all of whom lost re-election bids) . And he goes on to say

This, however, is what should keep Democratic strategists up at night: not counting blacks, Obama's approval ratings have dipped dramatically with every sector of his 2008 majority, including Latinos, Jews, independents, white working class voters, and whites under 29. In other words, even if Obama achieves the 2008 turnout model, there is no guarantee that he will duplicate his '08 demographic performance levels. And if he does not, he will have almost no margin for error.

In other words... Obama must get the turnout he got in the first election to win, and he doesn't have that support now.

Also of import is his perception of Obama's support of those Americans who associate themselves with an African heritage. (I refuse to call them African-Americans... they are Americans... US citizens, and I don't care what ancestry they have. There are more "black" people in the US than itenerant Irish, and the "blacks" have been here longer. )

It's a good 10 second read.

[Kulaf]

I don't see Obama losing because I don't see a viable better alternative on the Republican side. It will come down to ..... the devil you know being better than the one you don't.

[Lurker]

Embar,
Are we to take your refusal to respond as acknowledgement that you were speaking out of your ass?

Nobody is surprised. The volume of inane, shallow, partisan spin you ingest every day is guarantee to produce the sort of contradictory nonsense you posted.

[Ddrak]

The GOP could easily win with a solely negative campaign. Despite the fact that GOP economic policy of cutting spending right now is going to drive the nation to a long-ass recession, I don't see that it will be too hard for them to spin it to "Obama's mad spending is causing all your problems", with the manufactured drama of "zomg Government Debt!". Honestly, when I see leading members of the GOP claiming victory because lowering the deficit will create jobs I have to cry inside...

I don't believe economic facts will help anyone, because the actual facts don't fit easily into anyone's soundbites or are too easily rebutted with hand-wavey truthiness. Most of the election will hinge on what happens next year and who gets the better message out, but I'd be shocked to see a positive campaign from the GOP.

Dd

[Harlowe]

Sitting pretty defined either way Embar, I'd feel the same. They aren't positioned any better poltically because of their anticts and ties to Tea Party crazy. Independents aren't all religious-right and the Tea Party candidates are promoting a religious agenda. That ain't going to play. The devil you know that isn't pushing a religious agenda is going to fare better.

As far as outsiders go, who is a charismatic, rational outsider running that would be sitting pretty? They would have to be part of the two parties or they won't win, the best they can do is act as spoiler for one of the others.

I don't think purely negative can win this. Frankly people get tired of it. It eventually becomes a turn off. I agree with this guy...The GOP caters way too much to the crazies to have credibility, it's not going to win them the WH imo.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/02/g ... ?hpt=op_r1

As it stands, the GOP's internal strife is making it difficult for either group to capitalize on Obama's vulnerability. While a recent Pew poll found independents are split on whether Obama should be re-elected, they are not going to hand the country over to someone who is going to try to legislate their rights away in the name of Jesus. And many of the Tea Party's heroes -- Bachmann, Palin and Texas Gov. Rick Perry -- are not shy about their theocratic intentions. Nor are the majority of independents going to trust a squabbling Republican Party that has to pacify radicals each time an important piece of legislation has to be negotiated.

As we saw during budget talks in the spring.

As we heard from the name-calling during the debt ceiling talks this summer.

Earlier this year, Donald Trump, who is essentially a reality TV star, was the Republican Party's potential leading candidate because he rang the birther movement's cowbell for a few weeks. Now it's the often fact-challenged Bachmann leading some polls. At this rate, Snooki might as well throw her name in. Why not?

If the GOP insists on claiming any one of their candidates would be a better president than Obama -- when most everyone can plainly see some of these folks are crazy -- then how can any rational independent voter continue to take the party seriously?

Boehner needs to step up and do some purging. Continuing to claim that the birthers, marriage pledge signers and all of the other radical elements of the tea party movement are among the best of the Republican Party is not a good look for him.

.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

I guess "sitting pretty" is a relative term, and it's obvioulsy caused some rabid reflex reactions in a couple of you.

How is it rabid or reflexive to point out that 14% approval ratings are about as far from sitting pretty as you can get? Sitting pretty with the lowest approval ratings in history? Seriously?

[Harlowe]

Whenever an opinion is strong or the response is incredulity or humor, it's either "angry" or "rabid". That's how some people blatantly try to dismiss what the other has said.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Techinically its not the first time Congress has had a 14% approval rating, and certainly not the lowest approval ratings in history. They only had 12% approval ratings in October of '08.

You can find all of that on RCP.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I guess "sitting pretty" is a relative term, and it's obvioulsy caused some rabid reflex reactions in a couple of you.

How is it rabid or reflexive to point out that 14% approval ratings are about as far from sitting pretty as you can get? Sitting pretty with the lowest approval ratings in history? Seriously?

Your link was about the disapproval of Congress, not solely the Republicans. I didn't know you we're trying to make the disticntion.

Anyway, that's almost beside the point, because a candidate for President is viewed differently than a group of Democrats or a group of Republicans. As I noted in a previous post, I mentioned the successful Rep candidate will have to be center-right. He or she will be beating the spending issue and the economy, and those are great strategies because Obama owns the economy, even though he didn't cause it. Same with the unemployment rate. He owns a lot more there since he claimed to have a plan that invovled spending huge sums of money that guaranteed unemployment would drop into the 7s. That obvioulsy didn't work and the Rep candidate is going to beat him with his own stick.

Tea Party... yeah, they're going to be an issue, but that said, if the choice is a Rep candidate they don't necessarily agree with and Obama... guess which way they will vote.

@LUrker - Sorry dude, I wasn't taking your posts seriously since they seemed more like a personal attack more than a real attempt at debate.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Tea party could go two ways, really.

If Ron Paul runs 3rd party again, they'll likely vote that way unless they get a Rep candidate they like. I only see 3, maybe 4, choices they'd vote for if they get the nomination. Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain... maybe Chris Christie if he runs.