Will Republicans win 2016?

[The Rabbi]

Republicans will hold the House and lose the Senate and White House in 2016

More Republican screwing of the middle class.

Is the middle class better off or worse now than the day Obama took office?
Yeah, tell us about it. Dems are the party of fuck you.

Good question

Where were we before Obama became President?
The middle class was being layed off at 770,000 jobs a month. We have added 200,000 or more a month all year now.....that is a million jobs a month difference

And yet income and household wealth are lower than 7 years ago. People were layed off and rehired but had to take McJobs to do it.
Thanks, Obama!

 

[candycorn]

How do you think and who would you vote?

No. Dems keep the Oval and re-take the Senate.

 

[Claudette]

It's all about the candidates at the top of the ballot.

The Democrats have HUGE advantages going in. Large registration majorities in most states, hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and in-kind contributions from big unions and government employees, and all others with vested interests in sucking at the Government's teats, ALL media (entertainment, music, news) deeply in their back pocket, and they are continually and obviously trying to buy votes with taxpayers' money. What do you think Barry's amnesty plan is all about?

But if they put Hillary up for President, they will have pissed it all away.

The "common knowledge" in Democrat circles is that Barry brilliantly outfoxed her to win the nomination in 2008, but this is pure baloney. HRC COULD NOT WIN. During her entire public career, from being First Lady of Arkansas to being Senator from NY, to being Candidate #1, and even a Secretary of State, the more the public sees of her, the less they like her. Alfred E. Newman would have won the Democrat nomination in 2008 against HRC.

As long as the R's don't nominate John McCain they will win.

I agree with your take on HRC. Doubt she could win because she's not well liked and she's showed just how inept she is by the way her State Department handled Benghazi.

They did nothing after months of warnings. Kinda makes you wonder how the hell she thinks she could run the entire US of A.

As for the Reps? It depends on who they run for POTUS.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I've gotten to the point where I think the optimum situation may be to have one party control Congress and the other the White House.

When Congress is divided, there is a good chance they simply won't pass bills, as we have seen. Then we will see stuff like the ACA, huge bills passed by the President's party in a purely partisan manner. In this scenario, with bills being passed, the White House and the Congress have to deal with each other at the highest, most visible level.

This all would assume that congressional crazies would be marginalized, however.

.

 

[JoeB131]

I've gotten to the point where I think the optimum situation may be to have one party control Congress and the other the White House.

When Congress is divided, there is a good chance they simply won't pass bills, as we have seen. Then we will see stuff like the ACA, huge bills passed by the President's party in a purely partisan manner. In this scenario, with bills being passed, the White House and the Congress have to deal with each other at the highest, most visible level.

This all would assume that congressional crazies would be marginalized, however.

Meh, not really.

What we need is a Republican party that goes back to not being dominated by rich assholes manipulating religious stupids into voting against their own (and my) economic interests.

"Hey, why my job is moving to China?"

"Look, those two fags are getting married!"

"What? That makes me mad!"

 

[JoeB131]

How do you think and who would you vote?

I think it depends who the GOP runs.

I think Hillary would have been a better president than Obama if she had won in 2008. Honestly, if she brings back the people her husband used to get us unprecedented economic prosperity in the 1990s, that would be awesome.

If the GOP runs someone sensible like Pence, CHristy, or Walker, I could vote for that person.

If they run a nutjob like Cruz or Rand Paul, the deal is off.

If they run Jeb Bush, the deal is off. Watching two Bushes bring us nothing but recessions and wars, I'm not getting on that train again.

 

[Judicial review]

Republicans already won 2016. Thanks obama!

 

[007]

.

I've gotten to the point where I think the optimum situation may be to have one party control Congress and the other the White House.

Why? Seems to me now that the only thing you need to have is the white house, because a president can act like a king without ever having to worry about congress.

 

[JoeB131]

Republicans already won 2016. Thanks obama!

Yet Hillary outpolls every contender you have.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I've gotten to the point where I think the optimum situation may be to have one party control Congress and the other the White House.

Why? Seems to me now that the only thing you need to have is the white house, because a president can act like a king without ever having to worry about congress.

Well, I understand your sentiment, but the reason Obama's doing this is that he can get away with it by pointing at a Congress that can't even get its shit together enough to send him a bill.

That's my whole point.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, I understand your sentiment, but the reason Obama's doing this is that he can get away with it by pointing at a Congress that can't even get its shit together enough to send him a bill.

That's my whole point.

Oh, is that your point?

Did you ever wonder WHY they can't get their shit together and send him a bill?

 

[007]

.

I've gotten to the point where I think the optimum situation may be to have one party control Congress and the other the White House.

Why? Seems to me now that the only thing you need to have is the white house, because a president can act like a king without ever having to worry about congress.

Well, I understand your sentiment, but the reason Obama's doing this is that he can get away with it by pointing at a Congress that can't even get its shit together enough to send him a bill.

That's my whole point.

.

That's very disingenuous, Mac. In fact, not only is it irrelevant as to why he's doing it, it's bull shit besides, knowing that THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY PLUS BILLS FROM THAT CONGRESS are sitting on dingy harry's desk, where he KILLED THEM.

I used to give you cred for at least being honest. You're losing that fast.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I've gotten to the point where I think the optimum situation may be to have one party control Congress and the other the White House.

Why? Seems to me now that the only thing you need to have is the white house, because a president can act like a king without ever having to worry about congress.

Well, I understand your sentiment, but the reason Obama's doing this is that he can get away with it by pointing at a Congress that can't even get its shit together enough to send him a bill.

That's my whole point.

.

That's very disingenuous, Mac. In fact, not only is it irrelevant as to why he's doing it, it's bull shit besides, knowing that THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY PLUS BILLS FROM THAT CONGRESS are sitting on dingy harry's desk, where he KILLED THEM.

I used to give you cred for at least being honest. You're losing that fast.

You're not getting my point.

Notice I said "he can get away with". Politics is about image, like it or not, and the GOP clearly doesn't understand that. Also notice that I said "in this scenario, with bills being passed, the White House and the Congress have to deal with each other at the highest, most visible level". If bills die in Congress - and yeah, Reid killed many - most of the public, the electorate, doesn't even know it.

Ask 10 people on the street if they know who Harry Reid even fucking IS, let alone what he has done with GOP bills.

I keep harping on the GOP's lousy messaging, that they don't see the importance of image in politics. That's what I'm talking about.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans will hold the House and lose the Senate and White House in 2016

More Republican screwing of the middle class.

Is the middle class better off or worse now than the day Obama took office?
Yeah, tell us about it. Dems are the party of fuck you.

Good question

Where were we before Obama became President?
The middle class was being layed off at 770,000 jobs a month. We have added 200,000 or more a month all year now.....that is a million jobs a month difference

And yet income and household wealth are lower than 7 years ago. People were layed off and rehired but had to take McJobs to do it.
Thanks, Obama!

Yet you claimed they were worse off in 2008

Repeating, the McJobs myth does not match reality. there have been 8 million jobs added since Obama became President and they are in all sectors. Are wages stagnant? Yes, they are. And what happens when Obama attempts initiatives to increase working class wages? Republican outrage

$26 TRILLION has been added to household wealth since Obama became President ....so once again you are lying

http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-household-wealth-hits-fresh-record-1411056031

 

[80zephyr]

For the Republicans to win, they need to come to terms with their own extremism.

On a thread the other day, one right wing poster claimed that there were no conservatives in Europe, only left and more left. This is obviously stupid, but also illustrative of how the right wing in America has lost its compass. There is the belief that "We are moderate, reasonable people" and that everyone else is a socialist.

This is why the GOP loses elections.

Ultimately the centre will not vote for anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-science, anti-gay marriage, anti-obamacare, but for positive ideas and policies.

The GOP needs to split from the Tea Party, and continue as a moderate conservative party - the kind that win elections in the UK, Australia, NZ, Germany and elsewhere.

Translation: If the GOP does not embrace liberal principles, it will lose.

You know what I find "extreme"? People that back abortion, gay marriage, and Obamacare.

Mark

 

[JoeB131]

I keep harping on the GOP's lousy messaging, that they don't see the importance of image in politics. That's what I'm talking about.

Guy, it's not the messaging. It's the message.

If people actually saw what the GOP was up to, they'd get less than 20% of the vote.

 

[JoeB131]

You know what I find "extreme"? People that back abortion, gay marriage, and Obamacare.

Okay, let's look at that.

Abortion- reality check- abortion on demand has been the law for 40 years in this country. 50 million women have had abortions. This is not an 'extreme" position.

Gay Marriage - Not sure why other people getting married effects your life in the least, but sorry, dude, 33 state hae gay marriage now.

ObamaCare- You guys had no problem with it when it was called "RomneyCare".

 

[80zephyr]

Showing economic growth for just the rich is not a winning strategy for either party. A stock market that is "high" because of the "smoke and mirrors" of such things as quantitative easing does not fool the American public.

Its the reason the Dems lost the last election.

And those "jobs" being created are part time, low wage smokescreen.

If things were really as good as the left says, they would still be in power. It is the people that go to work everyday that know the truth.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

You know what I find "extreme"? People that back abortion, gay marriage, and Obamacare.

Okay, let's look at that.

Abortion- reality check- abortion on demand has been the law for 40 years in this country. 50 million women have had abortions. This is not an 'extreme" position.

Gay Marriage - Not sure why other people getting married effects your life in the least, but sorry, dude, 33 state hae gay marriage now.

ObamaCare- You guys had no problem with it when it was called "RomneyCare".

What has become the law doesn't change the fact that it is extremist. Extremism is in the eye of the beholder.

BTW, since we are using settled law to make our case, just why does the left keep pushing for gun control? Aren't gun rights also "old and established"

I mean, if I have to throw up my hands and say "yeah, you're right, these things are the law of the land", when will you be returning the favor?

It appears that 40 years ago, fighting for abortion was an extremist position, did it stop you from doing so?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I keep harping on the GOP's lousy messaging, that they don't see the importance of image in politics. That's what I'm talking about.

Guy, it's not the messaging. It's the message.

If people actually saw what the GOP was up to, they'd get less than 20% of the vote.

What message would that be? That in order to keep our country from insolvency, we need to cut programs that people want?

I would call that being an adult. But I suppose you are right, who wants to vote for something like that?

Mark