Politics Who's Gonna Win?

Of course, I wasn't referring to those of us on the outside looking in. Liberal congressmen are not voting for liberal issues as truly liberal issues never even get to the floor for a vote. The best they can do is vote nay for Republican sponsored right wing bills and those sponsored by Democrats which have been so eviscerated or watered down in sub-committee, they come out looking no different than what a Republican would have sponsored.

No big liberal issues have resulted in a truly liberal outcome. Take the Healthcare bill for instance- a liberal version would have included a public option - instead we get a bill that sort of works for some of us and definitely works for the insurance industry.

In their efforts to compromise with the uncompromising, answer to corporate and special interest funders, and attempt to win elections, liberal Democrats in both houses have moved to the middle and beyond. So yes, though they may still be liberals at heart, they resemble lightweight Republicans in their actions.

I don't agree that liberal options need to become more centrist. I believe the fiscal reality would benefit from a more liberal approach to the problems.

Am I disappointed at their lack of balls? Yes.

 

Have to agree with you in your disappointment in their lack of balls. I think part of Democrats problem is a serious lack of successful advertising knowledge. The views, and message they are trying to sell to the American people is fluid, and unclear. There are many democratic issues the majority of people support, but they continually let them get distorted by Republicans.

I also agree with your thoughts regarding congress and legislation being eviscerated or watered down. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act is a good example.

I did not say that liberal options need to become more centrist, I believe it is more an evolution of democratic thought.

 

Generally, I read the whole thread before commenting but since the OP really is asking for essentially a one-word answer here it is: Obama.
I don't make bets but unless something awful happens ending his ability to be President, I have no doubts whatsoever that Obama remains our president for a second term.
In my view the Republicans are putting on their show giving much fodder to the comedic community and that's fine. When the smoke clears with our two party-system represented by Mitt Romney and President Obama, Romney fails. Obama wins.
The only frustrating thing for me is how anyone with as lick of sense could put the entire pack of Republican Presidential wannabes onstage like they have a chance in Hades of winning. It's fodder for more idiocy to give them an excuse to argue amongst one another for over a year.
In short, no Republican that has declared himself a candidate has enough support to beat Obama and I do not believe it is 'too early' to say that.

 

I knew we were in agreement. And I don't think moving towards a more centrist position on the part of liberal Democrats is a negative in instances when the conservative Republican position is also moving towards the center. Unfortunately the Democrats move is a result of being pulled there strongly by the radical right wing elements of the Republican party. A party who, for the time being anyway, wishes to pull the Democrats even further to the right - framing anything in the middle as the "new liberal agenda".

It's bizarre and fairly unprecedented in my lifetime. Of course, we've never had a Tea Party before. Hopefully, their reign will be short lived and we can all get back to normal bi-partisanship soon.
--- merged: Dec 5, 2011 10:52 PM ---

It doesn't bode well for any Republican presidential candidate and I agree that Obama looks to be the shoe-in. I wonder how the Republican Congressional candidates will do? Will the Democrats win back the house or at least narrow the gap and gain a larger majority in the Senate? I sense the sane and reasonable voters in this country are fed up with a great many of the shenanigans going on. It's not difficult for them to look at the current state of Congress and point at least one finger at the Tea Party backed representatives who have driven the agenda of the entire Republican Party this past year.

I'm just not sure how they will fare this coming election. I wonder too about the Tea Party and Koch Bros backed Governors who have caused such a mess in their respective states.

 

All excellent questions Joniemack.
I wonder too if the Dems win back the house--what will that mean?
The Tea Party-backed representatives should be scrutinized for the company they keep and for their motives that saw them begin to do so.
Oh, and the Governors. <eyeroll> Ours (Rod Blagojevich) is getting his sentence for corruption handed to him in the next day or so. And they are going to smack him hard. Despite Illinois being known as corrupt politically, when the bastards do finally run out of ways to not get caught, we tend to send them to the big house, increasingly for a long time. I believe Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. is next in line to be hearing about how he should have known better than to discuss with ex-guv Rod purchasing Obama's Senate seat.

 

I am agreeing with Fangirl, that Obama will get a second term. And considering the alternatives I perfer him over the Republican candidates on offer. However he can lose, he can beat himself and this concerns me. Obama is seen as a failed idealist. He's the guy that thought nievely that members of Congress were rational reasonable people that would work towards a happy compromise in the country's interest. He's Mr. Smith. And Congress is, well Congress.
I don't think the masses are disapointed in his policies, but in his apparent unwillingness to fight for them. I think we all hoped that he could work with Congress. But when we AND he realized it wasn't going to happen, we wanted him to stop asking and start twisting some arms. He hasn't done that.
That said, we gave Mr Bush a second term while we made jokes aboout his intelligence. Clinton got another term and we knew he was a horny bastard. I think we will give Mr Obama another go at it and just hope he grows a set

He can lose by campaining. The smart thing is to sit back and let his opponents destroy themselves and each other.

 

I think he has a chance. He looks at times more like Clinton than Carter, both were considered weak and corrupt, but Clinton was smart, he let the GOP destroy themselves and make him a martyr and the underdog. Carter was just weak and had too much negative on his side. The Iran Hostage Crisis was his true downfall though, I still find it amazingly coincidental that as Reagan was sworn in the hostages were on a plane home. Funny that, oh and even more coincidental was George Bush I had been head of the CIA in the not so distant past (at that time). Carter also didn't help himself with his honesty, stating he had lusted in his heart therefore he cheated on his wife, admitting he asked his daughter Amy about nukes and appeared that he allowed his preteen daughter to influence his policy decisions. Carter was and is truly a good man but presidents aren't good men in the way he is a good man. (cough cough honest cough cough). Clinton on the other hand was a good man but knew how to play the game and had better handlers. Plus the GOP gave him '96 with a very weak Bob Dole (who got the nod solely because it was "his time" and the GOP wanted his wife Elizabeth (who was a powerful GOP voice) to be happy).

I think this is true also. Like I said it's what Clinton did in '96 he let the GOP run against themselves. Obama will play his weaknesses and become a martyr in some aspects stating how he is trying to do what is in the people's best interest but Congress is bought and paid for by special interests and they will not do what is right for the country. This could also be a nice way to win back congress. The GOP with governors like Kasich, Walker and so on are destroying their states support. A GOP candidate will need Ohio, Florida and perhaps Wisconsin to win and the governors there are eroding any support with their hard line GOP dictatorship games. Kasich took a hellacious blow when issue 2 failed, he's an ex Wall Street insider, the GOP candidate would be wise to distance himself as much as possible from Kasich and Walker and so on. Which I don't see any of the GOP candidates doing. So, yeah, the GOP will destroy themselves.

 

It was also Gore's turn.

Clinton 2016

 

Very true that. Just as in '84 it was Mondale's.

I don't know about that, her last few pictures she isn't looking to healthy and her job as Sec. of State hasn't been one to write home about.

 

I certainly hope the democrats take back the House! This constant gridlock is insane. The lack of laws passed to address the economy is hurting so many people in our country.

I am leaning towards Obama winning, but with the new ability for PACs to spend unlimited money, and the voting hurdles put in place in many Republican states, I worry/

 

Gridlock in the govt isn't a bug, it's a feature. Read the Federalist papers. The govt was designed that way purposely. And it has worked pretty well for >200 years.

 

no, gridlock is gridlock. The system was designed specifically to make sure that nothing gets done without a high degree of consensus. One person's obstructionism is another's prevention of disaster.

and btw, I disagree with you about whether the govt doing nothing is better. I think the govt already was doing way too much when the recession hit, it had a huge role in causing the recession, and most of what it has done since has impeded a recovery. We tend to like governmental activism as a response to misfortune but thats' not always the right answer. The issue is to exercise judgment, and sometimes the best thing to do is nothing or less than nothing (i.e. stopping to do the things you were doing before). That's not politically advantageous, though, particularly when politicians can point fingers of blame elsewhere -- it's the single biggest drawback of representative govt.

 

I have to agree with the sentiment stated above...Mistakes have been made, but doing nothing would have been far worse IMHO. Though I am not an Obama worshiper, I will give the man credit for trying (and in many ways succeeding). My problem with the current state of affairs, is the obvious disdain in the actions of the right, to the point of harming us all. This petty nastiness is beginning to hurt the GOP, and it is likely the result of this damaging activity will be another term for Obama...regardless of which candidate gets the nod.

Reagan is rolling over in his Grave

 

I'm not quite sure how one can claim that the government has made the recession worse without relying on hopelessly theoretical extrapolation. In that vein, I'm pretty sure there are counterfactual situations where the economy is now thriving because instead of catering to its more extreme members and obstructing anything that might have actually done anything for the economy, the GOP acknowledged the glaring fact that supply side economics have been proven a failure by the last ten years and decided to let the government engage in activities which would have stimulated the economy and that didn't involve uselessly cutting taxes for people who already have more money than they know what to do with.

 

I agree that there is no logical way to extrapolate a reality from possible outcomes. What we have instead are those pesky facts.

1) The Economy was in free fall before Obama (thus TARP)
2) The influx of capital into the economy increases stability in our type of system
3) The system has indeed leveled off the fee fall, and has shown signs of rebound
4) Doing nothing would have certainly allowed a more severe drop in equity, possibly leading to depression

It is very hypocritical in my opinion, for those in opposition to our President to blame him for our ills, while trying in every way to prevent him from acting on repairs.

 

I'm fairly certain the the leaders of the GOP in congress have made it pretty clear that their main goal is the defeat of Obama. I think Mitch McConnell claimed that it was his number on political goal. Not the economy. Not jobs. They want the economy to continue failing because they think it will mean political success for them. They don't care about "job creators". In fact, their policies have purposely resulted in massive public sector job losses, which is a brilliant example of putting ideology over utility. Because in an economy largely driven by consumer spending, it makes sense that during a depression, you'd want to cut public sector jobs to give more money to "job creators" who are already flush with cash and have repeatedly shown that they aren't willing to use it to create more jobs without the type of demand increases that coincide with increased consumer spending. That way, but laying off public employees, you can decrease consumer spending, and with it demand, all while giving people who have a lot of money already and aren't spending it for wont of demand more money that they won't spend because the demand isn't there. Wait. No. That's dumb.

It doesn't help that they are aided by a set of democratic congresspeople who seem completely willing to place a higher priority on prolonging their own political careers than they do on doing anything worthwhile. And I'm not shooting for the false equivalence thing here. I think it's pretty clear to anyone who is paying attention that while the GOP is attempting to steer us off a cliff, the democratic party is all too willing to put on a good show of not going along while quietly acquiescing.

 

I could go into detail and refute what you wrote , but if you stop a second and think about what you wrote, you'd see it makes no sense. Every single recession in history had a trough. The economy then leveled off and turned upward. Is there any basis to think that that we would have stayed in free fall back to the stone age? It never happened before during a downturn, why should it happen now?

Unless you think TARP was somehow magical (which it wasn't; it had short-term utility to stop the financial system from locking up, and once that was done, it turned into a huge slush fund, which is what usually happens when govt has discretion over a pile of money), it didn't do much. Cash for clunkers? a dud. Home mortgage renegotiation program? a dud. Chrysler and GM bailouts? cronyism with a large dose of dud. The ACA? a bad enough dud that everyone is clamoring for waivers.

The likelihood that any of this frantic cronyism and blatant use of taxpayer money to purchase loyalty of favored contingencies actually helped the economy is close to zero. The likelihood that it hindered the recovery that would have occurred on its own is pretty high.