Would President Obama Be Better Off If Democrats Lose Control of Congress?

[oberliner]

From this ABC News article:

"President Obama's prospects for re-election improve if Republicans take the House and Senate," Peter Morici, professor at the University of Maryland business school, told ABC News. "The Republicans will slow down the Obama Express, but they don't have a program of their own that they can pass that will significantly improve the economy. Then the president can run against the Republican Congress in 2012 and win."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-election-president-obama-off-democrats-lose/story?id=11936899

Interesting analysis. Do folks here buy it?

[pstokely]

1. maybe, maybe not

same thing if Dems keep congress

[customerserviceguy]

2. That's the thinking when examining 1996

However, Bill Clinton was lucky enough to draw the lackluster Bob Dole as his opponent, I have a feeling that whoever the Rethugs nominate, there will be a tremendous coming together of those on the GOP side around that candidate. It won't be the faint approval that McInsane got two years ago.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Respectfully, That's Historically Incorrect And We Believe The Incorrect Version At Our Peril

Having a Republicant Congress as a foil helped Clinton but it didn't help as much as running when the GDP was growing at four percent a year and the unemployment rate was less than five and one half percent.

[customerserviceguy]

9. I believe I stated that I don't think that 2012 will be like 1996

and your reason is another one, in addition to the one I stated.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. With An Economy Like Clinton Had His Back And His Campaign Skills He Would Have Beat Any Republicant

Who did they have in 96?

[fasttense]

3. NO

The RepubliCONS will investigate everything President Obama does just like they did with President Clinton. They will waste years and millions of our tax dollars on useless expensive politically motivated investigations.

It will be a waste of resources and time.

Yes, President Obama could run against it but so what? He could run against a lot of things the RepubliCONS do. Either way he wins but putting dumber than a rock RepubliCONS in office will waste too much of our time and money.

[Cosmocat]

6. It would be an fin first rate disaster ...

First, you are spot on that the Rs will completely stop doing anything other than going after BO, and the media will lap it up ...

Second, people want to complain about how Clinton did so much with the republicans ... Well, it was a REPUBLICAN HOUSE ... You think a democratic house would have passed NAFTA or redid the communications act? People here already want to say BO is a sell out, they think it will get better if he has the most extreme republican controlled house in our history?

It is would be a first rate, unmitigated disaster, and all this "better for Obama" crape is just more beltway, elitist media circle jerk BS ...

[geckosfeet]

5. Would we better off?

I don't think so.

[oberliner]

7. That is a different question though

Look at it strictly from the perspective of Obama's election chances in 2012.

[Historic NY]

8. ...he'd be a lame duck which the Republicans want.

[Unvanguard]

10. It depends on how salient Republican control of Congress is.

If it is salient, if voters register that Republicans bear a large part of the responsibility for policymaking over the next two years, it will probably help Obama (though it will still be bad for the country.) If voters still think of the President as the principal locus of praise and blame, it will probably hurt him, because the Republicans will stop him from being able to do anything, and he will be blamed for the consequences anyway.

[scheming daemons]

11. Hard for him to run for re-election when he's fighting subpoena after subpoena...

[awoke_in_2003]

12. if the House is lost...

we will have nothing but impeachment hearings for the next two years. It will make Bill Clinton's time seem like a picnic.

[jeanpalmer]

13. Yes, that's the strategy

Alienate traditional Democrats, get Republicans elected to Congress, and then run against the do-nothing Congress. That's been the strategy for quite some time. If Dems control Congress, he gets unelected in 2012. He needs a Republican Congress.

[CakeGrrl]

14. Yes, I'm sure he can't wait for the impeachment witchhunts

Wow, why didn't you tell us you were sitting in on those strategy meetings? Bet you contributed MUCH of value.

Not.

[CreekDog]

16. Wrong question: Question is would we be better off?

doubt it.

[ibegurpard]

17. He would but WE won't

[JVS]

18. Nope. They'll impeach him and it will be really bad for achieving any goals.

[BlueIris]

19. Who cares? Our voting decision should be based on what's better for US,

as voters, not what is best for Obama.

And no, I doubt this next month is going to do anything good for the president.

[oberliner]

21. Will there be much of a difference either way?

Small majority either D or R won't make a significant difference in terms of passing legislation, will it?

[OhioBlue]

29. yes

If the Rs control the House, they control the legislative agenda and committees/subcommittees.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. NO!

[ProSense]

22. What is this: GOP messaging from the media? n/t

[The Second Stone]

23. The people won't be better off with a Republican Congress

than a Democratic Congress. Democrats are slower to give in to corporate destruction of our country. Obama is welcome to run again, but I expect him to put on a vigorous push the next few weeks: for Democrats.

[Hansel]

24. No, absolutely not. He and the rest of the country would be far worse off.

It would be another two years of gridlock or even farther right leaning legislation. There are far too many huge problems that need to be addressed now for anymore BS from Republicans. It will just empower them.

If the Republicans lose, the handful of moderate Republicans might finally abandon the "party-of-no" strategy. There will be a split in the Republican party and we will all be better off. If they win either the House or Senate they will just be emboldened and the moderates will be too piss-in-the-pants paralyzed to stop the extreme right of their party.

This is about the country, not Obama.

[craigmatic]

25. It worked for Clinton. He won by fighting them but also got limited by them too.

It really limited his presidency in a way that he never recovered from.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

31. hardly. WE would not have had finance deregulation

but for a GOP majority in Congress. Think of the trillions we would have saved, and the millions of lives that would be better off.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

26. Anyone who thinks the Repuke Congress was a good thing for Clinton

needs to remind themselves of the horrible legislation passed by that congress which Clinton signed (and should have vetoed all of it)

The 1996 telecommunications act, which made Clear Channel and FAUX Noize possible.

Welfare "reform"

The repeal of Glass Steagal, which directly led to the current depression in this country. (and yes, that's what it is)

just to name a few shining examples.

If Obama wouldn't tell the right wingers to sit down and shut up with a 60 vote (allegedly) Democratic majority and a huge majority in the house, then why would you expect him to resist whatever teabag lunacy would come from a Repuke congress.

Jesus doesn't want to get all biblical here, but if these psychopaths gain control, Armegeddon is gonna look like the best alternative.

[AtomicKitten]

27. Good grief. Hell no! nt

[Phx_Dem]

28. Yeah, endless investigations and impeachment hearings will definitely be good for Obama.

ABC News proves again what dumbfucks they are and what short memories they have. I never thought it possible that the GOP could hate and want to destroy anyone as much as they did Bill Clinton, but they've shown that their hatred for Obama has no bounds.

[joe black]

30. Sure

I think that's what he wants, takes the heat off of him for not doing jack shit.

[Teaser]

32. I sure as hell won't be.

.

[annabanana]

33. sure..let's relive Clinton's second term..

... got a lot done then.
:sarcasm: