Meanwhile, Back At Reality....Lord Jim Predicts...

[Lord Jim]

The real clear average now has the House race boiling down to:

177 Democrats

Toss Ups
36

Republicans 222

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... e_map.html

Those predictions are based on polling done in the individual House races, which have been moving relentlessly into the GOP column....


In the Senate:

51 Democrats*
Net Change
GOP +8
Republicans 49

That's with all the toss ups moved to the column of the current leader...

I don't think we're going to take the Senate; I think the O"Donnell nomination has probably made that impossible....

I think we'll get to between 48 and 50 seats, (depending on California and Connecticut...if we get to 50 Vice President Biteme will break the tie and the Dems will still organize the Senate)

I think we're going to wind up with a 50-55 seat pick up in the House, 8-10 in the Senate....

(And oh yes, Le Page is going to win the governorship in Maine)

[Gob]

So will the Repubs then accept responsibility when things go wrong? Or will they still blame Obama?

[Lord Jim]

So will the Repubs then accept responsibility when things go wrong? Or will they still blame Obama?

I assume that's a rhetorical question?

But seriously...

There are two schools of thought on what will happen next, and being an eternal optimist, I'm hoping for the former....

The first possibility, is something similar to what happened after the Dems lost their majority in 1994....

A liberal Democratic President, "getting it", and understanding that he had to move to the center if he wanted to be re-elected, and working with a Republican Congress, (equally well motivated) producing some of the best legislation this country had seen in a generation; The Welfare Reform Act and The Crime Bill....

Today that would mean a stimulus strategy that emphasizes the resuscitation of small business, and an energy policy that actually produces energy....

The other possibility of course, is absolute gridlock; Obama and his folks may decide that the best political strategy would be to let the country go completely to hell, refuse to compromise at all, and hope they can blame the misery on the Republican Congress...

In my view, not only would that be terrible for the country; it would be really bad politics...

If he adopts that approach, I believe he will find himself sitting in a heated chair on the East Side of The Capitol at noon Jan., 20th 2013 watching Mitt Romney sworn into The Presidency....

[Scooter]

The other possibility of course, is absolute gridlock; Obama and his folks may decide that the best political strategy would be to let the country go completely to hell, refuse to compromise at all, and hope they can blame the misery on the Republican Congress...

There is, of course, another recipe for gridlock, and that would be for a Republican majority to continue to act as the Republican minority has thus far done, with no agenda except to make the President and his administration look bad, with no regard whatsoever for the good of the country.

[rubato]

And we want the party who fucked us into the worst economic collapse in 80 years to be running things because ....

And we want the party who, for the only decade since WWII, reduced the median income back in power because ...

And it is a good thing to have the party who supported, and still excuses, the use of torture, something George Washington repudiated even at the risk of his own life, because ..

We're stupid? Mean? Insane?

yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

The other possibility of course, is absolute gridlock; Obama and his folks may decide that the best political strategy would be to let the country go completely to hell, refuse to compromise at all, and hope they can blame the misery on the Republican Congress...

There is, of course, another recipe for gridlock, and that would be for a Republican majority to continue to act as the Republican minority has thus far done, with no agenda except to make the President and his administration look bad, with no regard whatsoever for the good of the country.

Exactly. Given the GOP's behavior over the last two years, it's easy to be pessimistic. They may well decide that since their blatant obstructionism succeeded in making the Democrats rather than the Republicans look bad, they might as well continue with more of the same in the hope of regaining the Presidency in 2012.

[Lord Jim]

They may well decide that since their blatant obstructionism succeeded in making the Democrats rather than the Republicans look bad, they might as well continue with more of the same in the hope of regaining the Presidency in 2012.

Here's what I see as the fundamental flaw in that theory:

It assumes that the top priority for Republicans that are swept in to office is going to be re-capturing the White House. That's simply not correct. The top priority for any politician is their own personal fate. Their number one priority is going to be to get themselves re-elected. (Just as was the case in after the GOP took control of Congress To do that, they're going to have to have something to show for their time in control of Congress; particularly an improving economy.

On the other hand, here's an indication that my concern that Obama will continue to take a heavily partisan approach may have merit:

In recent stump speeches Mr. Obama has said, “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they’ve got to sit in back.”

It’s widely expected that Republicans will make major gains in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, leaving Mr. Obama in a tough situation.


Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/ ... z13YauJoce

Now granted, at the moment Obama is trying to do everything he can to fire up the base and improve Democratic turnout. (The latest Gallup poll shows a 26% voter enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans. To put that number in perspective, on the eve of the '94 election, which brought the GOP control of the House for the first times since 1948, the gap was 9%.)

I hope comments like that are not indicative of his intending to continue to refuse to engage in any meaningful bipartisanship, which has been the hallmark of his first two years in office. As I said, if he does this, I believe he will be a one term President.

There's also another real possibility. Obama may realize that it's in his political self interest to finally start compromising with Republicans, but initiatives that he agrees to with the GOP leadership may be derailed by a Liberal obstructionist minority in the Senate.

[Big RR]

A liberal Democratic President, "getting it", and understanding that he had to move to the center if he wanted to be re-elected, and working with a Republican Congress

Jim--so wher's this liberal agenda the administration has been pursuing thus far--from Gitmo remaining open, Afghanistan escalated again and again with no end in sight, a watered down healthcare bill, it seems this movement to the right is exactly what Obama has been doing. From the bailout and stimulus bills patterned on what W did on, the repubs have had a major say in most legislation; what do you think will change?

[oldr_n_wsr]

In recent stump speeches Mr. Obama has said, “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they’ve got to sit in back.”

Too funny
Wonder what the "backlash" would be if a Republican said that about Obama?

[Lord Jim]

the repubs have had a major say in most legislation

I don't know where you got that idea, Big RR....

Pelosi and Co. completely shutout the GOP in the House on the stimulus bill refusing to allow a single Republican amendment, even in committee....Obama didn't lift a finger to prevent that from happening....

Then when they refused to line up and salute this bill they were prevented from having any influence over, they got accused of "obstruction" of being "the party of no"...

That steamrolling, followed by the cynically dishonest characterization, set the tone for the past two years. Obama is reaping what he has sewn.

[Big RR]

jim--honestly, if W were still president, do you think you would have seen a different handout to banks and big business (sorry, stimulus) bill? giving money to businesses without any strings is a liberal idea? Billions to businesses and little or nothing to the masses suffering is a liberal idea? Forcing people to buy prvate health insurance with no government alternative is a liberal idea? Keeping Gitmo open to house these dangeous prisoners (sorry detainees) is a liberal idea? Appealing the court decision saying don't ask/don't tell is a liberal idea?

Where is this liberal agenda or liberal president?

[Lord Jim]

Big RR, I believe you're confusing the "Stimulus" Bill with the TARP. The TARP btw, though I would have liked have seen it structured with more oversight and controls, has turned out to be a pretty good investment.)

The MOAP "stimulus bill" was mainly a combination of a tax cut so poorly designed that it did nearly nothing to stimulate the economy (that's not an easy thing to do; it's pretty tough to find a way to have a tax cut that does so little good) and a payoff to the public sector employee unions.

Now that their stimulus bill turned out to be a bust, the Dems have decided that the best way to pull the economy out of the ditch is to raise taxes, including the capital gains tax. (Which instead of being raised ought to be abolished, or at the very least suspended)

[Big RR]

Jim--not confusing, more like blending. But in 2009, the WSJ (I wanted a pro business paper) summarized some of the direct payments to businesses (via tax credits and accelerated depreciation) as follows:

An infusion of cash into money-losing companies by allowing them to claim tax credits on past profits dating back five years instead of twoBonus depreciation for businesses investing in new plants and equipmentDoubling of the amount small businesses can write off for capital investments and new equipment purchases Allowing businesses to claim a tax credit for hiring disconnected youth and veterans

Tax cuts and credits to businesses hardly sounds liberal. Add to the the technological investments the government was making to provide grants to private businesses (e.g. in the energy sector), and we see a lot of public money funding private enterprise--again not a liberal idea.

There was money to comepnsate the states for certain federal mandates (in healthcare, e.g.) and some long overdue investments in infrastructure, but these were given to be used at the state/local levels and not subject to much federal control--again not something I think is particualrly liberal.

And there was a pretty small tax cut for most individuals, coupled with with a tuition tax credit. Liberal? Not owhen one considers the deficit generated by the spending--liberals are usually tax and spend, conservaives, just spend and cut taxes (which is what was done here).

[Crackpot]

Actually I think Obama appears so liberal since he made the mistake of believing Congeress was competent enough to implemet his programs on thier own.

[Big RR]

Mistake? i don't think so. IMHO he is not really committed to any programs, and wants to use Congress for cover/as an excuse when any program fails or runs into problems. He reminds me of Clinton more and more.

[Crackpot]

As I've said before I'm waiting to see how he bahves post election to make a firm decision of him since it really only bacame clear how bad congress was doing at the beginning of the election season. If he doesn't start using the bully piulpit on both parties his presidency will be a waste. From I see he was operating under the illusion that congress is a funtional body without some outside frorce riding it for results.

[Big RR]

Time will tell Crackpot; I hope you're right.

[Guinevere]

Take the Massachusetts 10th off the "toss-up" list and give it back to the Blues -- Jeff Perry is imploding here. You should read his lies (and see the ads) about his role as a police sergeant when one of the officers under his command illegally strip-searched a 14-year-old girl in 1991. He was crucified yesterday morning in a head-to-head discussion with his opponent at a local Chamber of Commerce event. He should probably go back under the rock from whence he came -- its ugly.

Check out this piece from the Globe, which only hits the highlights: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... for_perry/

(and I don't think LePage is going to pull it off, despite the polls, he's a complete whack-a-doodle)

[Guinevere]

Mistake? i don't think so. IMHO he is not really committed to any programs, and wants to use Congress for cover/as an excuse when any program fails or runs into problems. He reminds me of Clinton more and more.

That was clearly his poorly thought out strategy with health care, but I don't get the impression that's his general M.O. And I don't think Clinton was anything like that. Certainly Congress did try to sink a lot of his programs, and what's wrong with pointing that out?

[Big RR]

Clinton nothing like that? Maybe not with Congress; with healthcare it was "blame Hillary, I had nothing to do with it". And, FWIW, what programs was he committed to after the first midterm election, not to mention after his reelection? He did take positions before that, notable his early tax increases (which, despite all the conservative doom and gloom, generated a surplus and ushered in a period of prosperity), but he backed away from most of what he stood for over and over again. he seemed always to want some sort of political cover/blame; IMHO he was either gunshy after the midterm election or especially after Lewisnky, and didn't move unless he had the fall person.

As for Obama, I see some of the same. Healthcare is the best example, but he always seems to want to have someone he can deflect the blame on, from his generals to congress to his cabinet. He's backed away from standing up to loudly for most anything, despite democratic control of both houses of congress with susbstantial majorities, but IMHO, like Clinton, the guy just can't accept blame or being called wrong. Indeed, I think that's been a prblem with many democrats of late. FWIW, what programs do you see him committed to? closing Gitmo? Ending the wars/occupation (or even having a plan for ending them)? Rolling back Patriot Act excesses? Real healthcare reform? All principles he ran on, and now appears to be running from.