Did Tuesdays elections push Range Rover over the edge?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Hello, Nov 4, 2010.

  1. Hello


    I believe the cheese has slid off poor range rovers cracker. 40 posts or more trying to hype Obamas popularity in the last 2 days after he just took the biggest asswhipping in an election since 1946, plus 15 polls repeatedly posted everywhere. And lets not forget the ultimate gem seen below where he says yesterdays elections were a good thing for Obama. I think these elections may have pushed the poor bastard too far.

    I say we start taking up a 2012 RangeRover psychiatric fund, so we can help the poor guy out when he has an all out breakdown after Obama loses.













  2. Others would agree

    Winning by Losing

    If the president wants to be reelected in 2012, he should hope that Democrats lose the House on Election Day.

    by Matthew Dowd

    Monday, October 25, 2010 | 12:36:32 PM

    With the midterm elections fast approaching, let’s take a moment and try to figure out what results would be in the best interest of President Obama’s political standing and reelection. What outcome might his political strategists celebrate on Election Night, even if they do so at a very quiet party?

    Assume for the sake of argument that the best Democrats can do is suffer substantial losses in the House and Senate but retain slim majorities in the two chambers, thus leaving them unable to push much of a legislative agenda in the next Congress. (That best-case scenario, by the way, is universally accepted by political strategists and prognosticators.)

    The president, if he is looking at the election results purely through the prism of his own political fortunes, should not be rooting for that outcome. He should hope, rather, that Republicans take the House by a bare majority, Democrats keep the Senate by a bare majority, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid loses his reelection battle in Nevada.

    Here’s why:

    If Democrats retain all the levers of power after the elections but still can’t get anything done because of their slim governing margins, President Obama and his party will likely bear sole responsibility for dysfunction in Washington. And, as we know, Washington is not a good place to be these days. The president and his party have had control of the White House, the Senate, and the House for the past two years and it hasn’t turned out well politically.

    The president needs Republicans to pick up the House or the Senate so he can either: 1) Blame Republicans for what does or does not happen in the next Congress; or 2) Reach authentically across the aisle to get things done in a bipartisan way and tell his own party that he has to do it. Either scenario would help the president’s political standing going into his reelection.

    Obama needs Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to go away. They won’t help him win a second term in the White House.It would not be good for Obama if Democrats lose both the House and Senate. The media, pundits, and Republicans would smell blood in the water and attack relentlessly. Losing one chamber and retaining the other would allow the president to blunt some of this inevitable story line.

    Why do I say it would be better for Obama if Democrats lose the House than the Senate? Because Speaker Nancy Pelosi is an albatross hanging around his reelection chances. Her personal ratings are lower than those of former Vice President Dick Cheney (who Democrats love to demonize), and she is so partisan that she would have no chance of corralling Republican support for legislation if the president chooses to go that route.

    Although Obama needs to keep the Democratic majority in the Senate, he also needs Harry Reid to go away, for similar reasons. Obama would benefit from a new majority leader who could help him either reach across the aisle or more effectively take on a Republican House leadership. Reid, like Pelosi, has dreadful approval ratings, is distrusted by his Republican colleagues, and has been an ineffective communicator over the past two years.

    Thus, the best bottom line for the president is to lose the House, keep the Senate, and not have Pelosi or Reid as impediments to his reelection strategy. And the funny thing is, as of today, the election looks likely to produce exactly that result. I am not suggesting that the president and his team have planned, orchestrated, or even strategized on this result, but their political mistakes over the past 18 months have certainly, from my vantage point, created an environment and a likely result that will hurt the Democrats in Congress badly but benefit the president in his reelection campaign.

    The decline in Obama’s approval rating since his inauguration has been the most precipitous going into a first midterm of any president in 50 years. Ultimately, whatever the election results, the president and his team need to better align his policies, vision, and messaging with the majority of the American people so that he can rebuild the trust he has lost over the past year or so. In the end, Obama’s approval rating will pretty much determine his reelection. If his approval rating is above 50 percent, he will win no matter whom Republicans nominate. If it’s below 47 percent, he will lose unless a third-party candidate siphons off anti-Obama votes.

    I believe we will know in the first part of 2011 and the new legislative session whether Obama is headed in the direction of Presidents Reagan and Clinton, who lost badly in their first midterms and went on to win reelection; or in the direction of President Carter, who started out with a united country filled with hope and expectation but never recovered after losing the people’s trust and went on to lose his reelection badly. Right now, the polling and approval arc suggests that Obama’s standing resembles Carter’s more than Reagan’s or Clinton’s.

    He has time to change this, but not much. Obama looks to be given a gift on November 2 to help him do so.
  3. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/09/21/losing_house_helps_dems

    Tuesday, Sep 21, 2010 08:30 ET

    Why losing the House would be good for Obama

    Republicans have had it easy for the last two years, but they'd look a lot different if they actually had power

    By Mark Greenbaum

    President Obama was asked if he'd be open to sharing the stage with John Boehner the way President Clinton and then-Speaker Newt Gingrich did at a town hall session back in 1995.

    "I think it's premature to say that John Boehner's going to be speaker of the House," Obama replied.

    Maybe it is. But it's an outcome Obama should be hoping for. Sure, a GOP House could mean endless investigations and subpoenas, but it would also give the president a better chance at winning a second term in 2012.

    Most observers agree that Obama's reelection will depend on the movement of the economy over the next two years. If it roars back, Obama will benefit politically, even if the improvement is not directly traceable to his policies. And if it continues to stagnate or worsens, he’ll be another Jimmy Carter. Fair or unfair, captaincy of the government gives a party ownership of the economy, particularly during recessions. Just ask the Republicans of 1982.

    As things now stand, Democrats, because of their control of both the White House and Congress, face wide voter unease, with Republicans posed to capitalize, even though their own brand is actually weaker and more disliked than the Democrats’. But if the GOP retakes the House, Democrats and Obama will no longer have 100 percent ownership of the government, allowing them to diffuse responsibility for the national state of affairs.

    Divided government would give Obama an avenue to establish clear and sharper divisions between his ideas and the Republicans', since the GOP would have to offer concrete legislation and solutions and not simply opposition talking points. More important, it would provide the president with a credible foil he can use to go on the offensive.

    In fact, what Democrats now see as their best-case scenario in November's elections -- holding the House by perhaps a handful of seats -- might actually be the worst thing for them. They would maintain ownership of the economy with limited ability to split up any blame, while Republicans in the Senate, boosted by significant gains, would prevent them from achieving anything significant over the next two years. The investigations House Republicans would presumably rev up would be infuriating, but a slim majority combined with a nearly 50-50 Senate would be a politically worthless alternative.

    Critically, with next year's GOP congressional ranks composed of scores of new Tea Party-friendly members, their own objectives will likely be more stridently conservative than the last time they ran the House, from 1995 to 2007, when the party was more regionally and ideologically heterogeneous. Against this opposition, Obama could use a Republican majority as the basis of his case for another term, shifting away from the aloof, professorial style that has been so ineffective to a more confrontational approach. In doing so, Obama would reinvigorate dispirited Democrats and also reengage moderates and independents who may vote their wallets and support Republicans in 2010, but who will also be turned off by over-the-top partisanship and obstructionism.

    By running against Republicans as equal partners, Obama would have important institutional and personality advantages. Steve Kornacki recently highlighted how the Newt Gingrich-led Republicans badly faltered when they shut down the federal government in 1995 as part of a standoff with Bill Clinton. The GOP failed miserably in that fight because it was such a public relations mismatch: Clinton and his I-feel-your-pain-warmth vs. the bloated, petulant Gingrich.

    Structural dynamics favored Clinton, too. As the nation's leader, he spoke with one voice, while House Republicans spoke with many. Clinton’s mastery of his Republican tormentors played a key role in allowing him to move past the loss of both houses in the 1994 midterms and to win a second term just two years later with relative ease.

    Regardless of his current standing, Obama remains a shrewd politician who is far sharper on the stump and on television than Boehner. That Boehner doesn't command the respect among Republicans that Gingrich (initially) enjoyed, along with the growing tensions between Boehner and some of his deputies, will only aid Obama further in fights with the GOP leading up to 2012.

    Obama should view a GOP takeover of the House as an opportunity to reclaim the stable footing he enjoyed in the 2008 campaign and in the early days of his presidency. Granted, this would require him to shed the conciliatory approach that has so infuriated liberals -- and there's no guarantee that he'd do so, even in the aftermath of losing the House. But if the president is going to win in 2012, he'll have to go on the offensive. Facing off with Republicans under a shared power relationship, he could find a way to get reelected.

    Losing the House now might just be the best opportunity for Democrats to save the White House in 2012.
  4. http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=11936899

    Would President Obama Be Better Off If Democrats Lose Control of Congress?

    Some Say President Would Get Re-Election Boost if Republicans Control Capitol Hill

    Oct. 22, 2010

    Two weeks from now Republicans may wrestle control of Congress away from Democrats in the mid-term elections, a development that the White House would desperately like to avoid.

    But might such a loss actually prove beneficial to President Obama in 2012?

    Even if that is a question that the president surely does not want to contemplate today, it warrants a closer look. Here is an examination of the most realistic options at this point in time.

    The best-case scenario for Congressional Democrats right now appears to be narrowly holding on to control of the House and Senate, even just by the thinnest of margins. A more realistic scenario is keeping control of the Senate, but losing the House.

    Either of those scenarios would leave Democrats spending the next two years fighting an uphill battle to get any part of their legislative agenda through a deadlocked Congress, hardly an ideal situation for the president as he launches his re-election campaign.

    On the other hand, losing the House and Senate could lead to numerous political benefits for the president in two years time.

    For starters, the White House might gain a political boost on issue number one in the minds of voters: the economy. The party that controls the government in turn takes ownership of the economy. If the government is divided -- with Democrats controlling the White House but Republicans at the helm in Congress -- then the president might not have to take all the blame for a sluggish economic recovery, should it not turn around in the next 24 months.

    In addition, the White House would have an easier time contrasting its agenda with the GOP's. If Republicans are in control on Capitol Hill, then they will have to propose specific legislation, rather than only blasting the Democrats' proposals.

    "President Obama's prospects for re-election improve if Republicans take the House and Senate," Peter Morici, professor at the University of Maryland business school, told ABC News. "The Republicans will slow down the Obama Express, but they don't have a program of their own that they can pass that will significantly improve the economy. Then the president can run against the Republican Congress in 2012 and win."

    Promise or Peril Ahead for President?
    Mark Greenbaum, a freelance journalist, recently made the case that even just losing control of the House could help the president win a second term in office.

    "Divided government would give Obama an avenue to establish clear and sharper divisions between his ideas and the Republicans', since the GOP would have to offer concrete legislation and solutions and not simply opposition talking points," Greenbaum wrote last month in Salon. "More important, it would provide the president with a credible foil he can use to go on the offensive."

    "Facing off with Republicans under a shared power relationship, he could find a way to get reelected," Greenbaum argued.

    However, none of this is to say that a Republican Congress would not pose real political drawbacks for the White House over the next two years. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is anticipating becoming the chairman of the House committee that investigates the government, a position he would inherit from New York Democrat Edolphus Towns, if the GOP wins control of the House. For the White House, Issa's leadership of the House oversight panel could mean a flurry of investigations and subpoenas.

    "A lot of it's going to be being fiscally responsible and holding government accountable," Issa said Wednesday on ABC News' Top Line.

    That is one reason why some political analysts such as Norm Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, believe losing control of Congress would not provide a political boost for the president as he seeks a second term.

    "Having a foil is nice, and forcing the opposition into some level of accountability is nice also. But having to face hundreds of subpoenas, having your top officials hounded with demands to testify in front of dozens of committees, losing all control over the nominating process, and over how the agenda gets framed, is not nice at all," said Ornstein. "On balance, if I were the president, I would be rooting strongly for the Democrats to maintain their majorities, even if by the narrowest of margins. Better Edolphus Towns than Darrell Issa."

    Of course, for the next two weeks the White House will be doing everything in its power to prevent the prospect of spending the next two years battling a Republican Congress, but at least if it comes to that, there might be a silver lining for the president.

    Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures
  5. Hello


    You Keep trying to rationalise/justify the loss, and you keep missing the point, just like the dems and Obama. You are in for a very rude awakening in 2012 if someone in their administration doesnt wake up.
  6. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    he's a cut and paste monkey who has no ability to think beyond the left doctrine.
  7. http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-obama-can-win-if-democrats-lose/19659999

    Opinion: Obama Can Win If Democrats Lose

    Barry Weintraub

    AOL News (Oct. 8) -- Depending on whom you listen to and what you read these days, the Republicans are going to sweep to victory in the House and eke out a win in the Senate. Or they're going to eke out a win in the House and leave the Senate in Democratic control. Or the Democrats are going to stun the world, concentrate on individual races and wind up holding on to power in both chambers. Short of predicting an alien takeover of Congress, I believe that leaves every possible scenario present and accounted for.

    The obvious response would be Democrats holding power in at least one if not both chambers. So forgive me for not playing the part of Captain Obvious today. As I see the political landscape, it seems to me if the Democrats win, Obama will continue to lose in the eyes of the angry American voter. Let me explain.

    I saw a headline Thursday reflecting a Washington Post poll that said essentially: More voters agree with the Democrats yet they plan to vote Republican. And how does this make any sense? Well, what it does is confirm for all of us just how broken our system is.

    Voters seem ready to reward the people whose entire strategy has been to "just say no," rather than those who managed to deliver on the things voters were actually promised. I can't explain how that works, I'm only here to point out that it does.

    And this brings me back to the question of which outcome would be best for Obama in November. I believe that losing the House and the Senate would in the long term be the best thing that could happen to Obama's re-election prospects, in light of the current mood of the nation.

    An Obama with slim Democratic majorities in Congress would continue to appear weak and ineffective, as the power of "no" would remain in Republican hands.

    But when that power shifts to the White House, and the president is seen as the last line of defense against the repeal of the health care reform or the reduction of the minimum wage or massive reductions and changes to Social Security ... well, under that scenario, recent history tells us people will support the president more.

    Sponsored Links This is why I see the midterm election as Barack Obama's "bring it on" moment.

    Republicans are poised to assume power, despite the lack of widespread approval for their agenda, solely because voters are angry and the GOP said no to everything.

    With Obama standing up and saying no to the GOP, my guess is he will wind up stronger and in a much better place come time for his own re-election.

    All he'll have to do is switch his slogan from "yes we can" to "no you can't."
  8. Arnie


    Range Rover is the guy in the black outfit......

    <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EryBnE7zmFc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EryBnE7zmFc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
  9. Hello


    I have heard it all from the democrats/liberals in the past few days, but my 2 favourite talking points i keep hearing from them is that they didnt do enough stimulus, and that the healthcare bill didnt go far enough.

    It just goes to show how out of touch most of these obama zombies are with reality. These guys dont have a clue.
  10. Says the people who are brainwashed by Rush and Palin
    #10     Nov 4, 2010