What Happens To The GOP If Obama Wins In 2012?
Expect plenty of GOP infighting if President Obama is re-elected next November.
Nearly every conservative Republican activist I talk to seems convinced of the fact that Barack Obama is beatable in 2012, some of them even go so far to say that any of the current Republican candidates for President could beat Barack Obama in November 2012 (although most seem to qualify that statement when I ask them if that includes, say, Ron Paul). The idea that the President might not be re-elected is not an unwarranted assumption, of course. The economy continues to stagnate, unemployment is projected to be above or very close to 9% all the way through the end of 2012, and the Eurozone crisis continues to threaten to send the world into another recession, if not a full-blown financial crisis. Additionally, the President’s approval ratings overall and on the economy specifically remain pretty dismal (although better than one might expect given the state of the economy), and the public is nearly as pessimistic about the direction of the country now as they were in the dark months of Autumn 2008.
It all looks gloomy for the President, but that doesn’t mean that the President is doomed. With the exception of Mitt Romney, with whom he’s basically statistically tied, President Obama out polls every other Republican candidate in a head-to-head match-up. Moreover, as James Joyner and myself have said here on more than one occasion this year, history argues against writing off the President’s chance for re-election, especially at this still-early stage of the campaign. For a large number of Americans, the Presidential campaign won’t really begin until the conventions are over because, unlike those of us who do it on a regular basis, most Americans don’t spend their days following the ups and downs of the electoral politics. So, the President could most definitely be re-elected next November. In fact, one might say that’s still the most likely outcome at this point.
All of this has caused a thought to bounce around my head the past several days, and it starts with a simple assumption. Let’s assume Barack Obama is re-elected President of the United States on November 6, 2012. It’s likely to be by a smaller margin, both in popular vote and Electoral Votes, than 2008, and I think it’s safe to assume (at this point) that the Republicans will at least retain control of the House of Representatives. As far as the Senate goes, let’s assume for the sake of this argument that it remains, at least narrowly, Democratic, although its entirely possible that the GOP could gain narrow control of the Senate even if Obama is re-elected.
With those assumption in place, here’s the question I’ve been pondering, how will Republicans react to a second Obama term? There are, it seems to me, a number of alternatives open to them.
How the GOP reacts to a loss in 2012 would depend, at least in part, on who ends up winning the nomination. If the nominee is Mitt Romney as many expect, including yours truly, then the initial spin from conservatives, the Tea Party movement, and the blogger and talk radio crowd is likely to be that the party lost because the nominee wasn’t conservative enough. This was the same argument that many Republicans made after Bob Dole lost in 1996, and after John McCain lost in 2008. In reality, of course, it’s not at all clear that it was a lack of conservative bona fides that doomed either of these campaigns. In Dole’s case, he was running against a young, relatively popular incumbent in a year when the economy was in pretty good shape, and he ran what may have been one of the worst Presidential campaigns since the McGovern disaster in 1972. In McCain’s case, he was running against a young, personable opponent in a year when his party’s outgoing leader was massively unpopular and the economy had slipped into an historic crisis. Additionally, like Dole, McCain ran an incredibly bad General Election campaign. Nonetheless, the myth inside the GOP is that McCain lost because he was too much of a “moderate” and that the answer was to purge the party of such people. Hence, we saw the Tea Party rebellion and the purging of such long-time Republicans as Bob Bennett and Michael Castle (a war which continues in the 2012 cycle with campaigns against Richard Lugar, Orrin Hatch, and others).
If Romney is the nominee and he loses, it’s likely the reaction will be the same and that, at least, initially we’ll see the activists in the GOP go on another purity quest. On Capitol Hill, this would likely have the impact of making the House GOP even less willing to compromise than it has been since the 2010 elections for fear of facing trouble during the 2014 midterms. The danger this poses for the GOP, of course, is that a re-elected President Obama is likely to have at least some public opinion boost behind him in 2013, as well as the ability to claim a mandate. Another round of obstructionism is only likely to cause the public to further lose faith in Congress as an institution, and could have serious consequences for whatever is left of the GOP majority when the 2014 mid-terms roll around. In short, a reaction by the GOP that sends the party even further to the right and less willing to compromise would be precisely the wrong reaction to disappointing election results in 2012, and one that Republicans would likely come to regret in the end.
What if the nominee isn’t Mitt Romney, but one of the Tea Party favored candidates, the most realistic of those being either Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich?
This may be the best alternative of all for the GOP, because while it’s likely to lead to the same kind of reassessment that a Romney loss would, it be more likely to bring about the kind of changes that would benefit the party in the long run. The Tea Party hasn’t been an entirely bad thing for the GOP. In fact, I’d say that without John McCain’s loss in 2008 and the rise of the Tea Party, we likely would not have seen the GOP take control of Congress in 2010. However, as we learned in 2010 and as we’re learning to some extent during the early month of the 2012 election cycle, the movement has also caused the party to go off on bizarre tangents at times and to take insane stands like appearing to be willing to take the nation to the brink of financial chaos back in August. The “no compromise” position that the Tea Party represents may be good for internal party consumption and it may make the true believers happy, but it’s not good government and it’s probably not a good long term political strategy. A loss in 2012 that gets pinned on the movement would likely re-energize the “establishment” and more traditional conservatives in the party and cause a backlash against some of the more radical elements of the Tea Party. In the long run, this would probably be good for the GOP.
Of course, all of the above will be magnified if the GOP somehow manages to lose control of the House of Representatives, and the infighting is likely to be worse. As I said above, though, that seems fairly unlikely right now absent the unlikely event of an Obama victory as big as 2008, or bigger. Between the power of incumbency and the advantages the GOP gained in redistricting in many states, it’s going to be very hard to dislodge all but a few of the freshmen elected in 2010, two of the most vulnerable at the moment appear to be Allen West in Florida and Joe Walsh in Illinois mostly because both of them have been pushed into unfavorable districts. The GOP may lose a seat or two at the margins, but they’re still likely to hold on to control. If that doesn’t happen, though, expect even more soul searching inside the GOP.
Losing isn’t always a bad thing, of course. If Al Smith had won the 1928 election, Democrats likely would have been trounced in 1932 and the GOP would have been the dominant party leading into World War II. If George H.W. Bush had won re-election in 1992, there’s almost no chance Republicans would have gained control of Congress for the first time in 40 years in 1992. If John McCain had won in 2008, there would have been no Tea Party, and the Democrats likely would have gained seats in Congress in the 2010 elections. So, loss can be beneficial. If that’s what happens to the GOP in 2012, they have an opportunity to reassess, or really mess things up.
Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence…. specifically, that we as a country will survive four years more of a liberal at the helm… be he Obama, or Romney.
David Frum had an interesting essay recently – I believe for CNN – where he mentioned (but didn’t dwell on) the Republican assumption that there is nothing Obama can do to win, that anyone who looks at him sees nothing but a rank incompetent, and that everyone else shares this view as well. Therefore I think the immediate reaction with be total disbelief and over-the-top accusations of voter fraud.
It will be a long time after a defeat, perhaps only when the 2016 cycle begins, before they will think of looking inward and questionning themselves.
So the day after the 2012 election?
I think you’re pretty much on the mark–the reaction of the Republicans to an Obama win depends on who gets the nominations. If it’s Romney, expect the Republican right and its enablers on talk radio and Faux News to double down on the right wing crazy. If it’s Gingrich or Perry, expect some kind of reassessment of wingnuttery, although not before the accusations of voter fraud roll around the wingnut-o-sphere and Faux News for a while.
Say rather, the day after the second inaugeration. From the day after the election until the actual swearing in there will be a frenzy of efforts to stop it because the election was stolen.
Not to mention: you are falling for ongoing the (and incorrect) notion that the president is all powerful. –that salvation and doom fall from his hand.
But seriously: this is a ridiculous position to take.
If Romney is the pick, the Republican base and conservative indipendents will stay home. Obama wins, and the low turn out gives him back the house.
The voters deserve a choice beteween liberal and conservative. The GOP establishment sees themselves as the second liberal party.
If Romney gets the nomination, I will vote for a 3rd party if one is available. If not, I will write in none of the above.
Obama is a dirty, lying liberal-nazi.
The only way he will “win,” will be like the first time: rank fraud.
If Romney gets the nomination, and Obama wins, it’s time for a conservative party to take hold like the Republicans took over for the Whigs.
@Triumph: So McCain actually won but Democrats managed to gin up six percent of the total votes cast to give Obama a victory?
I think it’s funny that Obama is so beatable…yet the GOP does not seem to be able to form a coherent argument that is not a lie. Indeed Romneys first big ad buy had to put words in Obama’s mouth in order to make it’s point. If your argument is based on lies…it ain’t much of an argument.
As to the GOP’s reaction to the incumbent winning re-election: No question – they will double down on the Jan/Eric/Drew brand of bat-shit crazy and in the process destroy what little is left of the once-great conservative movement. The transformation will be complete…from moderates and centrists to radicals and extremeists and then to total irrelevance. Then the Tea Stained GOP will disappear. Only after this metaporphosis…when the larvae turns into cellular soup…will the party be able to reform itself…and make the election of someone like Huntsman a real possibility.
I don’t believe it is impractical to see the GOP lose when america has to pick between Big government/ Corruption from both parties, only Obama has shown his hand and independent voters know he failed to live up to his promises. Giving Gingrich or Romney the nomination when they have flip flopped on ever issue except their lack of support for the constitution. I have a hard time seeing Ron Paul win the Nomination, but I have a harder time imagining the race favoring Obama on Economic, Military, and even social issues. Ron Paul 2012
Politifact is currently scoring Obama at:
Promises Kept 158
Promises Broken 54
Still in the Works 179
I don’t think the facts match your ideology.
Heh, heh. He’s baaaaaaaaaack!
A big part of the republicans have not yet accepted the fact of a non-white in the white house. They are waiting for the outside reality to become again the same with their inside reality. If obama would win the election they wouldn’t change their way. They would just continue to wait. Some ideas have to be burried with their people.
Economic issues is a bleed over from Bush, military issues has resulted killing Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda and seeing the removal of qaddafi and the wars are the bleed over from Bush, and social issues, if you are talking about religion and the like, only evangelicals seem to be so concerned about that. It is still the economy, always the economy, and people are not happy with that with any party. Ron Paul is likeable, but he says little on jobs or other factors that effect peoples lives. People want government involvement in the right areas and not be ignored. Democrats are lost and republicans still ignore the middle class. China does not care about our constitution, they just take away our jobs.
Just judging by recent history, whenever there is a D in the White House the R’s move further to the right. So if Obama wins, the R’s will move further right.
It’s telling that the poster boy for this tendency – Gingrich – may very well be the nominee.
I know my prejudices are showing, but when the Republican presidential candidate loses not much happens. They all have inherent flaws that will allow supporters to write off any lessons that could be learned; Romney is not liberal enough, Perry not smart enough, Newt is too Newt, etc… In any case Republicans will tell themselves well if we had just had ______ then we would have won. I actually think Republicans would have more of a problem if they won the next presidential election because then they might have to realize how out of sync with reality they have actually become and how empty their ideology really is no matter who the candidate is.
What may cause the reaction that is mentioned in the article is what happens in Congress. Republican gains mean more of the crap from the last two years and loonier candidates next time around. Big losses will hopefully finally get that deep reassessment of priorities that some of us are praying for out of Republicans and a saner more consistant ideology going forward. Or at least a split of the “extremist” elements from “main stream” republicanism, which would also be desirable.
…Romney not conservative enough… need a proof reader.
“Just judging by recent history, whenever there is a D in the White House the R’s move further to the right. So if Obama wins, the R’s will move further right.”
The corrolllary to this is that when Republicans are in the White House, the Democrats move further to the right (as in Clinton was further to the right than Dukakis, who was further to the right than Mondale). and people wonder why the country’s center of gravity has moved to the right over the last few decades…
Oh, look. A rabid righty predicting doomsday is just around the corner if we elect a Democrat.
Eric, didn’t you predict the very same thing in 2008? And didn’t the rest of the rabid right predict that in the 50’s… and 60’s… and 70’s… and 80’s… and 90’s… and “00’s… ? And, look, America still stands.
I would say the only thing not in evidence is proof of you guys being right.
@Triumph: You’re back? But where’s the wit?
I had a Triumph back in the ’70’s.
It was slow.
Sorry dudes, it will take me a while to re-calibrate my game. I’m like an NBA player post-lockout.
Bob Dole’sThe Heritage Foundation’s health plan became OMG!Socialism over the course of 15 years.
I think Democrat pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen are right on the money with their recent op-ed piece: even if Obama wins, he and his party will ultimately lose. If His Majesty ekes out a narrow win, I’m sure he’ll proclaim to the high heavens that he’s received a “mandate.” However, he’ll merely reign over scorched earth. I daresay the toxicity in the DC political atmosphere will quickly rise to a level approximately that of Jupiter’s.
Assuming the (very likely) prospect that the GOP holds on to the House and narrowly picks up the Senate, anything Obama sends up to the Hill will be immediately DOA. The One will then be even more reliant on his parallel government of royal edicts, papal bulls, executive orders, czars, under-assistant secretaries, and regulatory hi-jinks. Doing this, of course, will put Obama on the Super Chief to a fast-track collision with Congress. Calls for impeachment, anyone?
Ergo, even if Obama wins in November 2012, my money says by Summer 2013 he’ll wish to hell he’d lost.
@de stijl: Indeed.
Obama: Moderate 90s Republican?
If the GOP does nothing but spend the time from 2013 to 2014 obstructing even the normal operations of government, I have a feeling they are going to be the ones who pay for it the midterms.
Your argument would have more punch if you could have mentioned Dick Morris somewhere.
@MarkJ: You sure do try to elicit symbolism about a dictator quite a bit. Odd, in that this is a thread referencing an election.
…Obstruction has paid dividends in spades for the GOP in 2010. The real problem is all the lies. Any objective review of the past 3+ years shows that Obama has governed like a moderate 1990s Republican. So far there have been few, if any, consequences for all the right wing lies.
…To paint him as a liberal, socialist, communist, nazi, foreign-born usurper is asinine.
…Sooner or later the truth will matter, and then the electorate will decide who has lied and who has told the truth. That will be the arbiter of power.
Just like riding a bicycle… You’ll get it back.
Triumph!!!! YaHoo the real conservatives conservative here to help the few of us
lefter, remaining kill off liberal infestation that has spread nasty icky puss all over the comment section…..you suckers are in for it now!!!!!
Damn bro, good to see ya, I was hoping you dint overdose:)
lol, I meant pus…..
Don’t worry, Obama will be defeated by Hairpiece McGee!
He’s backing it up with a display of his firm grasp on reality and super-awesome foreign policy skillz:
He also says he’s going to fire China, or something. Trump 2012!
After 2006 and 2008, I heard how the Republicans were really going to have to wake up and get their act together, move to the center, etc.
Instead, they doubled down on teh crazee, had a good midterm election, and will doubtless explain away a 2012 defeat (if they lose).
I just don’t see how the party is salvageable at this point, as the % of angry white guys in the country keeps dwindling.
“The corrolllary to this is that when Republicans are in the White House, the Democrats move further to the right (as in Clinton was further to the right than Dukakis, who was further to the right than Mondale). and people wonder why the country’s center of gravity has moved to the right over the last few decades…”
Um, your correlation does not follow: Clinton was president, not in congress. Actually, when Republicans are in the WH, Dems lose their minds and herd to the left. The only reason you see Dems to the right in this cycle is 1) The President is pretty moderate on the issues and 2) Republicans have lost THEIR minds in this cycle, and Dems are seeking to keep sanity at the center.
No, de stijl and I were discussing Presidential nomineesm by the party out of power, not Congressional actions.
Speak for yourself. I was just trying to score cheap rhetorical points and get a positive Helpful / Unhelpful rating.
Ron Paul polls better than any other candidate except Romney and leads in independent votes. He would beat Obama easier than he would get the GOP nomination because the media would have to cover him. Once people understand him, they support him wholeheartedly. He is the only one who seems to understand how dire our economy really is.
If Obama does get re-elected and the GOP takes the House and Senate, Obama will be impeached.
If Obama does get re-elected and the Democrats keep the House or Senate, you can kiss this country goodbye.
Cain still looks to be the best choice:
You must have missed the way conservatives won big. No fence sitters won new seats in 2008. The idea that what voters want is two liberal parties was shown to be a fanticy.
@Steven L. Taylor: no, mere fact.
and if the presidency isnt all powerful how is it we have obamacare on the books? certainly an abdication by congresss…. but that doesnt change the point, nor does that as an excuse lower the level of damages caused and the doubling down on porkulus….. plus the downright idiodic foriegn policy…. which u may recall is the domain of the whitehouse.
there is massive damage go our country done by obama and his enablers in congress…. and its not going to be repaired by four more years of a liberal potus
@Sid Ramone: quite correct, sid. thing is the establishment gop hasnt gotten the message
@Anderson: mccain was a crazy right winger?
do u really expect us to take u seriously?
First, there is no chance that President Obama will lose in 2012. Obama will get 250 electoral votes without spending a dollar of his $500 million dollar campaign fund. The idea that Romney or Gingirch had get 270 electoral votes is laughable. The only question is how bad the Republicans will lose and whether the Democrats win back control of the House. And more Republicans have been redistricted out of office than two.
Second, it does not matter what the Republican do moving forward in the future. The demographic trends in the U.S. are totally against the Republicans. The number of middle class private sector employed whites in the U.S. are shrinking. If the Republicans become a purer party, they will become a smaller party. If the Republicans move to the left and become the Democratic-lite party then politics is about government entitlements and goodies and who gets what. That type of election is a huge win for the Democrats.
Everyone should ask themselves what the Republicans could do to become the majority party in California. If one answers that question truthfully, then one realizes that the future for the Republicans is a long journey to becoming totally irrelevant.
Assertions and opinions are not facts.
A minor thing called the Congress–and it required massive majorities in both houses (and it was almost derailed by the death of 1 Senator). That the legislature voted for something you don’t like doesn’t make it abdication. This is your problem: if reality doesn’t confirm with your preference, you assume that reality is wrong.
You are going to have to explain:
a) How the current foreign policy is especially different from Bush’s second term,
b) How a GOP foreign policy in 2013 would be especially different
c) which disasters are you speaking about?
If you are going to assert massive damage and want to get beyond the assertion stage, evidence is required.
@Eric the OTB Lurker: yes i did predict destructiom if we elected obama. funny thing about that…. it happened.
Ok, so this answers my original question: this is a lot of hyperbole (and, it seems, an assessment more of your political preferences than, say, a useful and honest evaluation).
And before you start in about the economy, I would note the rather stubborn fact that the great recession started before Obama was elected (and that’s not “blaming Bush” but rather, you know, facts and stuff).
Excuse me, but in the annals of dumb things posted by Eric Florak, that has to be at the top of the list.
You must have missed the CRA thread from a few days ago. It was epic!
Stumps and rocks were jealous of that level of stupidity.
Yes, and you recently referred to “the economic downturn caused by this administration” – in response I refer you to Steven’s reality based comment above.
Also, I not that you never produced a single fact to back your claim that “lenders were told to make loans to people who could not pay them back or they would go to prison. Also, you have yet to support your claim that Jerry Kellman is “an avid communist.”
De plane, boss, de plane…
I had this conversation with a Tea Party friend this weekend. He was gobsmacked by the idea that Obama could win in 2012. I think by the time it would happen in Nov 2012, the polls and the run up to the election will have prepared him for it and he will have some ready made excuse for it but if it happened tomorrow, he might drop over dead.
I explained how repubs are at a systemic disadvantage in a presidential election, how the repub candidate has only got the most votes in 1 out of the last 5 elections, how winning 3 or the big 4 states (NY, FL, TX, CA) almost guarantees you win the election and Obama has NY and CA and FL looks very competitive in FL. (No matter who the nominee is, Rubio will be the VP candidate, repubs can NOT lose FL). Does not matter to him, Obama is the worse president in history, ever one knows that, no one will vote for him, they just tell pollsters they support him so people wont think they are racist, yada, yada, yada…….
He also can not wrap his head around the fact that repubs will lose seats in the house. I explained that they over performed in 2010 like the dems did in 2008 and they will give some of those seats back. He was dumbstruck. He is a hard core Fox head so I dont think anything like I was saying had every been uttered in his presence.
I use to be a republican. I can not believe what has happened to the right wing in this country. They have become completely like the left wing circa 1978. Totally out of touch.
It will be like the stages of grief:
Stage 1: fraud/stupidity. Some will allege fraud. Others will just be angry at their fellow Americans for stupidity (as I have been in the past).
Stage 2: Come up with a narrative that explains the loss in a way that does not challenge core ideology. Blame it on the candidate is one option (if it’s Romney, it will be that he wasn’t really conservative. If it’s Newt, it will be that he had too much baggage).
Stage 3: Search for new standard-bearer with the same ideology.
This applies to any party that loses an election, I think. Repeated losses might result in some ideological shift, I dunno. But for quite some time now, the GOP has responded by moving mainly in one direction (I say “mainly” because there are a few who have mellowed on things like Teh Gay).
This is pure unadulterated BS.
The Deomcrats have been trying to sell the story for decades and it’s no truer now than it was before. Making Republicans more like Democrats is suicide.
Just ask Microsoft how their “iPod-like” Zune is doing.
David Frum has got this milquetoast, RINO portfolio covered already. Unfortunately we’re never going to know what a Tea Party agenda could have done for the country because the usual suspects are busy doing what they always do: kicking the can.
Unlike 99.99 percent of the citizens of this country–including you, sir–the bond markets CAN do the fiscal and monetary arithmetic (only addition and subtraction are needed–no “mathematics” need be involved). Those of us who can see where this is all headed are labelled right-wing radicals. We’re not: you’re simply economics-challenged and have NO IDEA what is coming down the pike at you. Mark this well: what is coming to this country because of corrupt Dem and GOP big government, crony capitalism is going to make the last two years look like a day at the beach.
@Have A Nice G.A.:
“YaHoo the real conservatives conservative” actually posts over at RedState.
only addition and subtraction are needed–no “mathematics” need be involved
>I think by the time it would happen in Nov 2012, the polls and the run up to the election will have prepared him for it
You know your TP friend better than I do, but I should note that in 2008, when the landscape was much more favorable to Democrats, a lot of conservatives gleefully predicted Obama couldn’t possibly win. A year after his election I tried to gather up as many examples of these statements as I could find. Some of the quotes are from 2007 predicting Obama’s defeat in the primaries at the hands of the seemingly inevitable Clinton machine, but even after he nabbed the nomination there were still quite a few right-wing sources suggesting he’d certainly lose to McCain in the general election. Here are a few examples:
Rush Limbaugh: “[Obama] has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win — blue-collar, working class people. He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that…. He will lose big.”
Dick Morris: “Obama can’t possibly be elected.”
The American Thinker: “As I wrote last December, ‘[t]he pundits can talk until they are blue in the face about Obama’s charisma and eloquence and cross-racial appeal. The fact of the matter is that Obama has no chance of being elected president in 2008.’ I am more convinced of this conclusion than ever.”
The Washington Times: “Mr. Obama is doomed to defeat…. Mr. McCain will win – and win big – in November.”
Even by November, a couple of days before the election, Fred Barnes and Ed Morrissey were going out on a limb and predicting an electoral college victory for McCain. Of course by that point anyone who was paying attention must have realized Obama had a strong chance of winning (even Karl Rove and Frank Luntz admitted it), but it’s important not to underestimate the insularity of the average right-winger. Even if by next year the conditions for Obama improve, it’s unlikely he’ll be shoe-in for reelection, and if people in 2008 could convince themselves he didn’t stand a chance, thinking so today should be easy as cake.
There’s another effect that few are talking about: I suspect all the numbers are far worse for Obama than the polls show. Many people still feel like they have to apologize for not liking the first black president–as if that makes them racist. When the curtain is pulled on the voting booth, the real poll takes place. My guess is that Obama is 4-5% below where the polls now place him.
“the movement has also caused the party to go off on bizarre tangents at times and to take insane stands like appearing to be willing to take the nation to the brink of financial chaos back in August”
Right, the TP said “no new taxes, massive cuts for financial stability” and then compromised.
Obama said “Give me enough debt to cover me through 2012 or I’ll veto whatever bill you give me regardless of the specifics.” … and he held the line and forced that to be the agreement.
But the TP is the only one who made an ultimatum and put the nation’s finances at risk because they compromised? Or because it’s necessary to ignore Obama’s ultimatum?
If you’re going to argue against this, and position that “walking back from this ” is good for the party; what is good about spending 150% of income for the next decade? Is this so good you’re willing to spend all your assets, run up 600% of your income as debt, then attempt to spend 150% of your revenue for the next decade?
Or is it only good when you’re doing this with someone else’s money?
But yes, if we lose the Presidency we need to Compromise, increase the debt, increase spending, and go for 200% or even 300% of revenue as debt. Once our bonds are downgraded and we’re facing 55 interest rates and spending 10% of the GDP on interest alone we’ll have to borrow even more.
I suspect within 30 years we’ll have to spend more on interest than we receive in tax revenues… who exactly would borrow from us then? But yes, this is the “good” path, not cuts and a sustainable budget and trying not to crash the entire national economy.
We’ll be fine, we can just print more money; we’ll follow Zimbabwe to Prosperity.
Good to see the establishment anti-TP Conservatives have a plan. Lets see if we can get to Hyperinflation within my lifetime… great goal.
Was this any different under Bush? Did the tax cuts do any good? Did we pay for the wars? It was Dick Cheney who said “deficits don’t matter.” It was Bush who said “stay the course.” It was Hannity and others who said the deficit was a percentage of GDP. And if you are going to talk about the budget, deficits and debt, we need to talk about globalization and the loss of jobs. Which seems to be off the radar. And that is where the Tea Party and most others are-just one trick ponies. If you want to fix something, then put it all out on the table and fix it. If you fly a plane, you have to do 10 things at the same time.
Google: Bush guns and butter
HAH! Thats what my Tea Party friend said! It’s perfect. Since Obama is terrible anything that says otherwise must be wrong.
Let face it, this is waste of time, and yes, one that I am participating in. Arguing about if Obama can win or if the Dems will take the house is like arguing about what college team will win the NCAA basketball tourny. There is no point because you wont change any ones mind and it does not matter anyway because the day after the election, we will all know the answer (ok, granted but by 1 week after the election we should know)
Lets just put our pick on record and move on to something productive. So place you bets, does Obama win or not?
I say he does.
Stupid RINO! This isn’t hard to figure out. Yes, Romney will get the nomination, yes, he will lose to Obama, and yes, the Tea Party will then demand a complete party purging because the establishment will have failed undeniably by that time, and…now pay attention here because this is key…the establishment will retire/give up. Don’t deceive yourself into thinking that the aging, ineffective establishment will have the morale to continue to fight the Tea Party. They will throw their hands up with what little anger they are still able to muster and say, fine, do it your way, and don’t blame me for whatever happens. They are old men, and they will give up after hopeless losses.
Mark your calendar.
Oh, I almost forgot. Rand Paul in ’16. Mark this post “Helpful,” because it is.
I suppose that all depends upon one’s view of the Tea Party. As a self-described member, I honestly believe that the policies of BOTH political parties are moving the country toward the financial abyss (the Democrats are moving at 88 mph while the Republicans cruising at 45 mph) with not a whole lot of road left in which to make a u-turn.
Yes, we are passionate and energized about saving the US, but that doesn’t mean we are outhouse rat crazy. We likely just need to work on messaging and educating the voting public as to how dire our situation really is. THAT is the key.
If forced to choose, I would guess that Obama wins a 2nd term. The GOP is hopelessly corrupt and horrible at messaging. They have been completely absorbed by the Washington DC culture. But on the other side of the equation, we have the Democrat / media complex that constructed and maintains the DC-bureaucratic culture. A completely apropos quotation:
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”
Add the two together and you get yet another stepping stone on the way to the end game. Good luck, folks. You’re going to need it.
@Gerry W.: Yep, Bush and the Republicans ran up some imprssive deficits form 2002-2006 when they ran everything. Averaging a bit over 400 Billion a year.
Then the Democrats took over, and ran double that in deficits for the next 4 years. Bush did suck at allowing and encouraging massive spending… as I said at the time. And then the Democrats ran with massive spending.
Then Obama took over and got us another increase putting us at 1,500 billion dollar deficits.
But spending isn’t the problem? Have you looked at Government spending as a percent of the GDP? We just need to worry about globalization and keep spending 35-40%+ of the GDP every year forever?
Are you planning on also taxing 35-40%+ of the GDP? Or running ever increasing debt (even as a fraction of the GDP)?
From 1960 – 2011 we’ve received between 15-22% of the GDP in taxes… we need double the highest tax rates we’ve had since WW2 to have a chance to pay for this… or we need to cut spending.
Why is cutting spending a crazy thing to recommend?
Nothing wrong with cutting spending, it is just too bad that the ideology of tax cuts would solve all problems. And this comes on the backs of people losing their jobs. A lot of increased deficits under Obama came with a recession, with loss of jobs due to globalization, with wars still going on, with bailouts, with more government spending on programs that don’t work, and with more tax cuts that are useless after years of tax cuts. The Tea Party is still a one trick pony and does not address globalization issues. Like I say, put everything on the table.
I will go with what Tom Friedman said:
Cut spending in which democrats don’t like.
Raise revenue in which republicans don’t like.
Educate the population.
Attract the best immigration and talent.
Best rules for capital spending.
And government funded research.
But all of this comes after a steep price of trashing the middle class and having more income inequality. Democrats may be dumb, but republicans are a bunch of nuts.
The did not take place in a vacuum. Bush left the greatest economic crisis of our lifetimes on his desk for Obama to deal with. We were in real danger of a depression. Bush cooked the books to hide the costs of two wars. One of the first things Obama did was to put a stop to that.
We need to cut spending. We need to raise taxes. If the GOP can’t get real about that, they should abandon the fiction that they care about the deficit.
Let’s not forget bithead, who said “Obama can’t win”.
Those who can’t govern themselves will eventually be ruled by others. That day is coming for us and we will all be witness. For decades we’ve been creating a nation of dependents and weakest links– when what we’ve needed and will need are the strong cables of steely self-reliant citizens. And sore will be our need. Our feet have been too long on this comfortable path of ruin. It is a hard truth, but truth it is: Pain is the greatest teacher. And there is pain on the way folks. The choices now and ahead are pivotal. May we all choose wisely… .
To me as a German that sounds oddly familiar …
How in the world anyone conservitive or liberal could vote for the republican congress is beyond me.
This country is in dyer straights and we do not have the time for their partisan games.
Blocking and stopping progress at all turns to make a political point at the expense of our countrymen is obscene and immoral. They are willing to see this once great country brought to disaster for their stupid selfishness.
This is not a matter of politics anymore but a matter of national survival in the world.
If Obama had the power of a dictator and could work with out the congress, I have no doubt we would be much further down the road of a national recovery.
We don’t need a new President we just need a new congress.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.
The race stuff is really not working anymore, except in the fever swamps of the far left. Sure the right has racists, and so does the left. There are plenty of examples of both, including my own congressman Bobby Rush (IL1st), I might add.
Stick to talking points that have more substance, it does not help either side.
Good points, and here is the real crisis.
As a resident of Illinois, I can speak at length over the consequences of single party rule. One political party has controlled the state for 30 years and will continue to do .
To have things work, there needs to be a balance, a cantilever so to speak, to keep things between the 40 yard lines.
Want to know what happens when this goes away?
Look at Illinois.
A complete mess, totally insolvent, and not likely correctable for many, many years.
A terrible shame.
First we will need to sweep up all of the gray matter resulting from a multitude of exploding right wing pundit heads. Then we can assess the impact on the surviving members of the GOP.
Rationally-minded Republicans (yes, they do exist) will realize that they had become far too dogmatic and unreasonable, regarding the American people as collateral damage in their quest to “defeat Obama at all costs” and their misguided belief that the only Americans that matter are those at the very top of the economic food chain.
Tea partiers and other extremists (Limbaugh-lovers, Palinites, birthers, etc.) will become even more obstinate and outspoken in their self-righteous, self-serving indignation, vowing to continue to obstruct any and all policy proposals emanating from the White House. A few may even show their faux patriotism by calling for states to secede from the Union.
“One political party has controlled the state for 30 years and will continue to do .”
You’re half-right. One party controlled the Illinois Governor’s mansion continuously from 1977 to 2003. They haven’t won since then, though.
I am really more concerned about what would happen to the U.S.A. if Obama was elected in 2012.
I mean really, really concerned about us, fellow Americans. After all, our country has been invaded by millions of aliens who just walked over what Obama sees as a non existent border.
Our middle class has watched their jobs given to foreign countries that have no real desire to be our friends.
The merchandise on stores shelves either falls apart in less than a year or is recalled by an American protective agency.
Our food prices are are rising so fast that it appears famine may strike those who are poor and have lost their jobs.
Banks are raping the American tax payer threatening foreclosures, firings and closings, because of their poor management tactics, but believe those few of still working should give them our money.
The list goes on and on and on.
He goes on and, too. Vacations, mostly.
Jeezuz. I’m gone for a few days and I come home to find Eric took the keys to the car, invited all his friends over to this thread, and had a house party.
I have no response to the endless illogical, facile, over-the-top hyperbole from the usual krazies here, other than that It is kind of fascinating watching them try to outdo each other in breathless declarations of America’s imminent destruction if [ insert name of hated Democrat here ] gets elected.
Most of the action happens in Crook County. The Springfield legislature here is largely composed of and dominated by the Chicago machine.
4 of our last 5 governors ended up in jail. Some of the Republican dominance during that period was simply because the Democratic opponents were either in jail, headed to jail, or under indictment. Also, some of those governors could hardly be described as conservative.
Regardless, you have a point to a point.
I get your point, but it reallyt is single party rule here and has been.
I don’t recommend moving here, it is a total mess.
Divided government really is in the best interests of the state and the nation.
@John S: Apparently absolutely overwhelming majorities in the house, the senate, and a completely partisan 4th estate for several years were not enough?
So just what was holding him back exactly? Barney Frank? Chuck Shumer? Maxine Waters?
Keep in mind where the man came from. He is, I assure you, a product of the most corrupt political culture in our nation.
It’s not like he was found floating down the Potomac in a reed basket.
Look, I want anyone in that capacity to govern wisely, effectively but also with restraint. He over reached and lacked the leadership skills to be an effective executive. He also lacked the counsel of experienced people to help guide him through the process.
The disengaged leading the inexperienced.
We now have Illinois writ large.
of all the idiots running Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate worth listening to! I would love to watch President Obama try and debate him.
@Nathan: You took the words right out of my mouth, being a right leaning libertarian it galls me that Dr. Paul has to run on a republican ticket, unfortunately it’s only because most of our country doesn’t realize that there are more than two parties.
I am so tired of this stupid argument, really the race card still? Remember President Obama is half white also, and I don’t like that half either. I’ve only been around for 36 years but I have never seen our country more divided.
@Steven L. Taylor:
THIS is the downfall, please explain to me how Obama is any better than Bush? All he’s done is keep Bush’s failed policies (not to mention ADD to them) in place, President Obama is nothing more than a Bush 3
Obama shouldn’t have won, y’all hired a pool boy to fix your roof. But on the other side McCain isn’t any better. What’s the real difference between either of them?
I say he doesn’t.
What happens to the Republican Party if Obama gets re-elected is an academic issue. What happens to the country is the concern. Our country cannot survive another four years of the Marx1st.
@Nathan: You are beyond delusional.
@Steven L. Taylor: Actually it’s a pretty accurate assement. Obama has already shown a willingness to bypass the Constitution and Congress itself when it suits him to achieve his agenda. If Obama wins re-election he can use his lame duck Presidency to do pretty much whatever he wants..he will rule (unless enough bravery exists in the Senate to actually bring him up for impeachment) by Executive Order. From that moment forward the United States will find itself reorganized into the United Socialist States of Amerika with Comrade Obama at the helm ruling on high like the Emperor from the Star Wars saga. In short, if Obama wins re-election America as we have known it since 1791 will be over forever..America our founders gave us will be over. It’s defeat Obama in 2012 or bust. Give me liberty or give me death! Sic Semper Tyrannis
And those are pretty strong words (not to mention delusional ones).
It is one thing to not like a given
(hit post on accident)
It is one thing not to like a given candidate or politician, yet another to have assessments unfounded in empirical reality.
@Jonathan Rogers: Ridiculous. Just because President Obama doesn’t do what you want doesn’t make him a) a Communist, b) a Marxist, c) any other of the boogymen you’ve pulled from your head.
Do you even know what a Marxist IS?!!
Anyone up for one leftist’s wildest dreams? (disclaimer: I highly doubt these things will happen…for a good long while…and this is pretty much me, a Tennessean, college-age, life-long-atheist, socialist, liberal, rambling after imbibing some whiskey and reading poll numbers for the last hour and a half. Enjoy knowing the super secret liberal agenda.)
1. I hope for the demise of the Republican party, conservatives in general, and religion-based social values (except, you know, some of those values which are ACTUALLY in the Bible more than just in passing, i.e. alms for the poor, love thy neighbor, not mixing the rye and wheat crops or death…etc.)
2. I hope that this post-conservative nation will have a multi-party system, with various parties pushing candidates who, while all ranging from moderate to progressive to neo-communist (yeah, I went there), will debate individual issues passionately and devise new forms of thought and ways of dealing with our problems with the actual, and competent, competition borne out of so many different candidates vying for the top spot without any of the right-wing bullshit to cloud the debate. I personally would, in this (brave) new world, vote for the progressive socialists. As in, I’d be among the moderates. (see the super blatant new world order reference in there for you crazies? Yeah, have fun with that)
3. I hope the banking system gets gutted entirely, and the Fed is either replaced or abolished.
4. I hope we start to push our international weight around to end systemic human rights abuse, expand democracy around the globe, strengthen and re-adjust the UN, establish universal fair-trade pracitices, use international coordination and self-regulation to both expand and improve infrastructure, fund R&D, stabilize the economy, and reverse negative trends in the environment.
5. fund schools. Educate the populace.
6. Drop our heath care costs as a nation significantly by supporting even better and more universal healthcare and having local government encourage healthy food in schools, community gardens, etc.
7. taxing the ultra-wealthy in the way they should be taxed…as they used to be, closing corporate loopholes, declaring corporations most empathetically NOT people, overturning the Citizens United case, removing the ability of the wealthy to hold their wealth outside the country, thus removing their ability to avoid taxes
8. shit tones of building projects, government funded research projects, repair projects, as well as proper government backing of small buisnesses and buy-local movements.
9. re-organizing the military to make it more efficient, especially in finding ways to train soldiers to work in smaller, more fluid units which would be useful in the kind of wars we fight today. Improving our cybersecurity and moving off the grid. Fighting smarter, and harder. Takin’ out da terrorists like we do. (my brother’s in the Marines, so a big shout out to them…and for the record, my brother and I agree poltically)
10. We all have a giant “F*ck yeah, Left-Wing USA!” party and get smashed (or stoned…pick your poision).
But…no seriously, in all reality, I just hope this nation’s progressives finally figure out how to get elected, and then how to keep sane after being elected. It’s all I ask for…praying to my…uh…genetics and evolution textbook…
(also, I hope I haven’t raised anyone’s blood-pressure enough to kill them…if so…in the words of the great Mr. Perry, “oops”.)