What do you hink of the opinion that the best thing for Obama

[napi21]

would be if the Dems lost both houses? They were talking about that on Tweety's show just now.

I can see both sides of the argument.

IF the Dems hold the Senate & squeek by holding the hosue by a few, Obama wont be able to get ANYTHING DONE AT ALL for the next 2 years & Obama will be blamed for simply eing ineffictive.

If The Dems keep the Senate & los control of the Hosue, the Pubbies will claim they've only gotten part way and can't b effective because of that damn Dem Senate.

If the Dems lose BOTH Houses, Obama will still have to compromise with the Pubbies, BUT they will be taking charge of the economy whie it's deep in the mud and will HAVE to deal with it, while Obama still weilds the veto pen.

ONE the other side of those coins, if th Pubbies take the House, we will have to deal with sbpoenas out the ying yang for TWO YEARS! However they will be held accountable by the American votes for not fixing the economy & unemployment fast enough.

[bobbolink]

1. I have a feeling we aren't allowed by the rules to discuss this.

:shrug:

[napi21]

10. If that's true, I apologize. I sisn't realize anything like this wasn't allowed. n

[bobbolink]

15. That wasn't meant as a criticism of you... not by any means... no need for apology.

I was commenting on how stringent the rules have become concerning this sort of thing.

I wouldn't comment for that reason.

What you brought up is interesting, and something I have thought about. I just wouldn't speak about it on DU. I consider you brave to do so. :hi:

[emulatorloo]

16. Discussing what the idiots say on the Tweety show is not against the rules

:patriot:

[bobbolink]

17. Saying it might be good if the Dems lose IS, though.

That doesn't mean I agree with it.

Just saying how rigid this forum has become, and don't want to see someone get blasted.

That's all I'll say on the subject, so have a fine evening. :hi:

[emulatorloo]

19. Rules have never permitted anybody to say "I Want The Dems To Lose". I don't think they prohibit

discussing whether or not it would be a "good thing for Obama if the Dems lost". Anyway you have a great night too! :hi:

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. Thinking losing is ever better than winning is just rationalization in my view n/t

[county worker]

3. That's like asking if we should let the bear sleep in the bed room with us or keep

him just outside the door.

[eleny]

4. I think it's a load

A veiled tactic to get people to stay away from the polls.

:thumbsdown:

[TheKentuckian]

5. Can't turn a shit stain into silver lining and stop putting Obama over the nation, it is gross.

[DailyGrind51]

6. Then Progressive reform is dead for a generation!

[pampango]

7. 1978: Democrats retained control of House and Senate, then Carter lost; 1994: Democrats lost both,

then Clinton won. Democrats lost 15 House seats in 1978 (resulting in 277 D, 158 R) and 3 Senate seats (resulting in 58 D, 42 R). Then in 1980 Carter got defeated soundly 50.7% to 41.0%.

In 1994 Democrats lost 54 House seats (resulting in 230 R, 204 D) and 8 Senate seats (resulting in 52 R, 48 D). Clinton got reelected 49.2% to 40.7% in 1996.

Obviously there are many variable in any comparison like this, but you could make the argument that retaining control of Congress in the mid-term election is not the best thing (nor losing control the worst thing) for a Democratic president's reelection chances. (Of course, it is hard for any normal Democrat to wish for a "Speaker Boehner". :) )

Carter retained both houses of Congress in 1978, while Clinton lost both in 1994, then the repubs overplayed their hand and Clinton won reelection. If Obama loses control of the House, but retains the Senate I wonder how that would affect his chances in 2012? Will the repubs in the House be so obnoxious and ineffective that they prove repubs can't govern as they did in 1996?

[gateley]

8. I disagree, but I do see both their sides that they presented. I thought the most

accurate was Fineman saying that an insider (Republican) told him it would be best for them if they lost both, just one seat short. That way we'd still have "the majority" and keep the house and the senate, but they'd have more people to throw wrenches into the works. :scared:

[Crazy Dave]

9. I'm predicting most remaining democrats in office will copycat and go "Tea Party"

There's already a lot of democrats this very moment using anti-Obama comments in their campaigns and come 2012 others will try to sink Obama in the general election just to win over the moderates and independents. The Blue Dogs, the Reagan Democrats will all be campaigning saying that they're now against deficits, against entitlements and especially against Obama health care.

[defendandprotect]

11. It would obviously be the best thing for pro-corporate-Dems ... but upside down thinking ...

and going backwards isn't a good idea for liberal/progressive Democrats --

who want an end to wars, bankrupting of the Treasury, inflation, homelessnes,

class warfare by the rich -- pro-corporate bailouts by Dems --

and pro-corporate health care deform by Dems --

Everyone should go out and knock out as many Republicans as they possibly can --

[stray cat]

12. Bad for America - maybe ok for Obama

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Losing a national election is generally considered a defeat.

The theory that this would be a good thing is shit alchemy.

[MilesColtrane]

14. I assume that by "the best thing for Obama" you mean his reelection chances.

No?

The best thing for him is the least amount of Republicans on the Hill. Period.

I don't agree with your assumption that voters will assign more blame to Congress than to the President in an extended economic downturn.

In bad times, voters tend to turn on all Congressional incumbents, but their own.

It is a case of, "throw the bums out, but keep my guy because he's brought some pork home".

[KoKo]

18. I think he has maybe a year..if that. No reform...Dems discouraged... Remember Campaign 2012 star

I think he has maybe a year..if that. No reform...Dems discouraged...

Remember Campaign 2012 starts after the Mid-Terms for the Mainstream Media! So, if there's No Reform ...Repugs join in even if they get what they want. Reading the Financial Sites it's going to be a hard, long slog for our country and it's citizens no matter whether the Repugs or Dems Control Congress. What Bush and Obama gave away...is setting the scenario for the future. And, the future is grim no matter who wins.

And, to try to put a challenger in to Obama for Progressive Left will be met with huge opposition. Where would such a challenger come from? Nader/Kucinich/Gravel are all out. Others who could have been strong are dead like Wellstone and there's no MOVEMENT that can AGREE on any kind of PROGRESSIVE PATH...because we are waiting on our PRESIDENT...(Hope and Change) to have TWO YEARS TO PULL RABBITS OUT OF HAT!

What do we do? We have to hope that the Pollsters and Media are reading this Mid-Term all wrong. That Dems will HOLD with few losses ...therby giving a SURPRISE to the REPUGS/CORPORATISTS/WALL STREET.

If we all get out there and VOTE then we COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE. But, if we lose then there is so much work to get done...and WHO WILL BE LEFT...LEFT enough to do it? Or, do we drift off into a morass with another Repug President elected in 2012 and he's a Place Holder during a REVOLUTION...because the country is such a mess that it cannot be held back anymore.

If Obama and Democrats don't change course...I fear Obama is a One Termer. I'm an older politico...and these are my thoughts for what they are. My first vote was cast for JFK. I've seen a lot throught the years ..and always been a Democrat. But, these are "Times that Try Men's (women's) SOULS and REAL CHANGE MUST COME. I really don't want to live through the terrible times I see coming..but it might HAVE TO COME...

We have an Open Book and the Blank Pages are yet to be written in it as to how it could go. History however does provide clues. And Past Performance should be some part of evaluating which strategy should be used to Move Forward when "THE COMPANY" is in deep trouble and there is "UNREST" in the LAND (or Corporate Community) as things are these days with WHO REALLY RUNS AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.