Barack Obama facing his first defeat as Sarah Palin hits Georgia campaign trail

[Omaha Steve]

WTF???

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/11/28/barack_obama_facing_his_first_defeat_as_sarah_palin_hits_georgia_campaign_trail

Posted By: Gerald Warner at Nov 28, 2008 at 16:56:03

"Please join me... on Tuesday, December 2, and head to the polls just one more time this year." That plea came from Barack Obama in a recent radio advertisement supporting Jim Martin, the Democrat candidate in next Tuesday's run-off election in Georgia for the state's Senate seat. If you thought the US elections were over - think again. Barack Obama knows they are not. He also knows he is facing probable defeat next Tuesday, in what will be the first major setback for his fledgling administration.


The Republicans, on 40, need just one more seat to mount a filibuster in the Senate against contentious Obama legislation. And there will be plenty of that, not least his Freedom of Choice Bill mandating unlimited abortion across every state of the Union. Obama's hit-the-ground-running, brook-no-opposition instincts demand a filibuster-free Senate. Two seats are still to be declared: Minnesota, where the recount will go on to mid-December and beyond. The Republicans have a wafer-thin 238-vote lead, with thousands of ballots in dispute.

So the GOP is not about to rely on Minnesota for its filibuster. Instead, it is throwing everything into the Georgia re-run. This was caused by the State law that prescribes the winner must take 50 per cent plus one of the vote. At the general election the Republican incumbent, Saxby Chambliss beat the Democrat Jim Martin by a comfortable 49.75 per cent to 46.83 per cent, but failed to reach the 50 per cent margin, hence the re-run. Up for grabs are the 128,000 votes cast then for the eliminated third candidate, but as he was a Libertarian his supporters are likely to increase the Republican majority.

Add to that the disillusionment within the Obama core vote over the growing "vote Obama, get Clinton" perception attaching to his emerging administration appointees and the GOP must be favourites to win. Both sides are piling in. Besides Obama's radio endorsement, Bill Clinton and Al Gore have already campaigned in Georgia for Martin. John McCain and Mike Huckabee have similarly weighed in on behalf of Chambliss. But the big one comes this weekend when Sarah Palin flies in for a fundraiser on Sunday night, followed by a barnstorming tour of the state on Monday, eve of poll.

Palin will play well with the Republican base in Georgia. That is not Obama's only worry. The polls show a projected Republican win. Rasmussen gives Chambliss a 50-46 per cent lead; Politico 50-47 per cent; and Public Policy 52-46 per cent. If translated into votes next Tuesday, this will be very bad news for Barack Obama, with the Republicans' intact Senate filibuster power putting the first drag-chain on his ambitions and reminding the world the recent election was not the GOP wipe-out he had expected.

[BlueManDude]

1. The Republicans retaining a senate seat in a solid red state is hardly a major setback for Obama.

and the "60" thing is overblown crap anyway.

[kennetha]

3. 60 is a bigger deal than you think

A disciplined minority of 40+ in the Senate, intent on regaining power eventually, can do a lot of blocking and stalling -- enough to make legislation they don't like fail. A minority of 40 or less is far less powerful than a minority of 41, unfortunately.

I don't really believe that the Republicans will try to help Obama succeed. They will cooperate in some areas where there aren't great partisan divides. But they want to regain power and they won't see enabling Obama to succeed as the key to their regaining power. They will be very disciplined and often obstructive. That's if they get 41 or 42. If they don't, then they are almost beside the point.

[Vinca]

5. I think some Republicans will have seen the writing on the wall -

Collins, of Maine, for example, often votes against against her party anyway. I'd watch the Senators whose terms end in 2010. No matter what happens, I think they'll be easier to get along with than before. I could be wrong, but if they stop progress, they'll be voted out next time around.

[GarbagemanLB]

9. I disagree. I think the GOP has no choice but to work with Obama, at least in the first year.

I am of course not speaking about working together on all the issues, but the big ones like the economy the GOP must not be seen as simply being the loyal opposition. The American people want solutions, not more partisan bickering.

Obama has keenly claimed the high ground on this issue starting on election night, speaking of those who didn't vote for him and appealing to the other side. The GOP must act in a similar fashion, or they will lose even more seats in 2 years.

[redsoxrudy]

11. 60 is meaningless

It is a great win for narrative if we can win 60. Filibusters have always been about single issues. On some we will be able to flip the Maine senators and Spector. Of course we can just as easily lose the votes of the Southern Dems. Most party-line procedural votes are not subject to filibuster.

[Orangepeel]

14. They're almost always disciplined and we never are

Having 60 in the caucus will almost never result in 60 unified votes for cloture on anything.

[BlueManDude]

17. the real obstacle is timid harry - who's gonna probably lose when he's up again anayway

[jrockford]

22. 60 be a big deal if you could count on all 60 democrats...but you can't. nt

[Orsino]

31. Nor could the Republicans count on "their" 40.

It's doubly fuzzy.

[mucifer]

2. I'd rather see Obama prepare himself for the next 4 years than campaign for

a seat we still could lose then he'd look even more powerless. The economy is too important

[TheBigotBasher]

4. The Telegraph is a UK Conservative paper.

It was not exactly pro Bush or especially in favour of eitrher Presidential candidate, but remember its right wing roots.

[dbmk]

6. Yep, and that blog entry is almost purely made of strawman.

[Unsane]

12. The writers always refer to dems as "democrat candidates, democrat politician," etc.

instead of the gramatically proper "democratic." The Liberal Democrat UK party is not the same as The American Democratic Party.

[bunkerbuster1]

30. Well, I'll know not to bother reading it then.

Obviously hyper-partisan Goopers are going to see a Martin loss as a "defeat for Obama."

They get bitter, and they cling to incumbent Republicans getting re-elected.

[LeftishBrit]

15. It's often known as the 'Torygraph'. They loved Thatcher!

[TheBigotBasher]

24. Maggie is Nor Republican Hero

Maybe of Reagan, in much the same way, Blair a "Domocratic Socialist" was Pro Bush, Thatcher was much closer to the Democraic Party than the Republicans. At least she kept the NHS, ie free universal health care (and increased funding to it by more than any other PM before or after (except of course when it was created)). Just a little fact to point out to Rethugs.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. The difference is that in your country it is politically impossible to eliminate the NHS

Whereas in our country it is politically difficult to get any form of National Healthcare. If it were politically viable I think Thatcher would've tried to eliminate the NHS. But I'm sure you know about your country's politics than I do so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[LeftishBrit]

26. I think you're right

Thatcher weakened the social safety net, but even she would not have dared to abolish it.

[LeftishBrit]

27. Not exactly IMO

The British politicians who most resembled Dems were perhaps the moderate pre-Thatcher Tories: Heath, Macmillan, etc. They were not socialists, but were prepared to actively support a social safety net.

It is difficult totally to compare British and American politicians in this respect, because as Hippo Tron says, by the time of Thatcher we *had* an established welfare state. Thatcher wanted to weaken the welfare state but could not totally destroy it; most Dems want to improve the public services and social safety net but have not been able to establish anything like a Europaean welfare state/ mixed economy. Thatcherites and Dems may arguably end up at the same point, but coming from opposite directions.

But I would say that Thatcher was overall akin to a Reaganite Republican. She did *not* subscribe to the religious-right aspect of Republicanism (but I think that was also less strong in America at that time); but her social and economic attitudes were very similar.

[TheBigotBasher]

29. It is difficult to compare any one to the Politicians of today.

Blair did more than Thatcher could ever have dreamed of in terms of changing and reducing the Welfare State (scrapping single parent benefits, privatising large chunks of the NHS and introducing student loans and fees!).

Bush has nationalised the banks.

What is left or right any more?

[Omaha Steve]

7. Wasn't Ben Nelson 1 of the 14 that saved the cloture when WE NEEDED it in 2005

It is a BIG deal.

[atimetocome]

8. The polls in the article have the GOP ahead. Unless

the repugs do not show up at the poll, it does not look promising for Martin.

[Clio the Leo]

10. He might as well pack it up and move it back to IL.....

.... please!

It's like making a big deal about a team not scoring a two-point conversion at the end of a game they won by 30 points.

[blogslut]

13. Author Gerald Warner is Not a right-wing hack, full of pus and puffery

So stop saying that. </snark>

Seriously, I get that Chambliss may win but to surmise that the re-election of an incumbent Republican = a major defeat for Barack Obama is wishful thinking at best.

We're probably not going to get our 60 Senator majority but I'll bet you dollars to donuts, the remaining Repubs in the Senate are as paranoid of pissing off the electorate as they were post-Nixon. Democrats gained seven seats in the Senate and 22 in Congress. Liddy Dole got her ass kicked and Ted Stevens was finally pried out of his big-boy perch, for heaven's sake. We have all three branches now. Obstructionist repubs are going to look like whiny children because an entire nation just gave them a very clear message: KNOCK IT OFF. 2009 will be the year of cooperation and it is our duty to shame every petulant, right-wing legislator into adult behavior. There's a new definition for unpatriotic - Obstructionist.

[Jennicut]

16. Oh noes! We are gonna lose in Georgia. Big f*ing deal, its GEORGIA

Last time I looked, Georgia was a solid red state and if not for some strange rules there Chambliss unfortunately would have won on election night (having failed to get to 50%). Stupid article. Also, Obama and the Dems never expected to get to 60, it was a hope but not expected. Dumb, dumb article.

[CitizenPatriot]

18. additions to the Toryfastic blog

Chambliss polls can be expected in GA, the state where Chambliss won his first election illegally with the use of later proven rigged Deibold machines which were uncertified at the time of the election, due to Diebold employees coming to polling places in Dem areas and adding an attachment to the outside of the machines AFTER they had been certified. Said machines were later turned over by a whistle blower to a GOP security expert who found that...yes...the machines had a vote flipping device on them. Odd that.

Then, there's this year's election. Gee, McCain (and hence Chambliss, when you adjust as nec for the libertarian on the ticket) won GA by 200,000 votes or so? That's a lot! Why, that's almost as much as the 200,000 newly registered voters who were PURGED by the SOS Karen Handel, against a judge's orders! Well, I can recognize a GOP landslide when I see one! There's usually a Diebold machine and a Katherine Harris type around.

Yeah, it doesn't look good, but we're still canvassing and hoping to keep Chambliss out. He is truly a repugnant human being. Let's just say that I fear for all of the animals (not to mention humans) in my town Monday, when he and Palin will be on the loose.

Donate a buck or two to Martin. He needs our help and it makes a great Christmas present.

https://secure.truemajority.org/o/2/t/21/p/7002/tmpac?donate_page_KEY=98

[NewJeffCT]

19. This is Obama? "Obama's hit-the-ground-running, brook-no-opposition instincts"

WTF? I thought he was like the total opposite of that.

[codjh9]

20. Yeah, I think it's b.s. Even if we DO lose, it won't be 'Obama's' loss.

[AtomicKitten]

21. I never expected Martin to win (not Obama's loss!). Georgia is a cesspool of election fraud.

In 2002, the magical overnight some 17-pt swing in the polls towards Chambliss was disgusting.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

23. This article is the biggest piece of shit ever. If Chambliss holds on then somehow

the election wasn't a crushing defeat for the GOP. It is to laugh.

[Juche]

28. There is always 2010

The senate is elected in thirds every 2 years and serve 6 year terms. And the public didn't start to really turn on the GOP until 2005. You can see party ID changing dramatically around 2005.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans



In 2004 the GOP picked up 4 seats and in 2010 there are 19 GOP senators and 16 democratic senators up for election.

I see no reason to think 2010 won't be a repeat of 2006 & 2008, where the GOP loses 5-6 seats. All the people who voted GOP in the senate 2004 will now have a chance everyone else had in 2006 and 2008 to throw them out.

Here is a fun fact. McCain won his seat for the 4th time with 76% of the vote in 2004 (the democratic candidate gained 21%). However polling near the end of the presidential election showed him losing to AZ governor napolitano by about 10 points. That is a 65 point swing against the GOP.


Anyway, if the GOP obstructs attempts at meaningful reform 2010 will be a massacre.