There is no way we are going to get a Republican President any time soon.

[Duke41]

Way to many nut bags in the house. Rush, Gingrich, Palin. Too much us against those liberal idiots stuff. Too much hatred, racism, fear mongering. We need a moderate Republican president and we are not going to get one. Romney may be too weird, Santorum too weird and Gingrich too weird. We can't just come up with some normal moderate. why not? This just sucks. Wait till the Bush tax cuts end next year. Ouch! The dems aren't going away anytime soon and the Big O has done a pretty fair job as president, so let the republicans continue to polarize the country and they can sit and bitch and bitch and bitch for another 4 years.

[spence]

No no no no no...

Obama has radically changed the direction of this country in pursuit of the socialist European ideal. He is incompatible with American values at the most fundamental of levels. Barack Hussein Obama is the single biggest threat to the future of our country.

Republicans similar to RONALD REAGAN have by contrast modeled themselves after RONALD REAGAN to do RONALD REAGAN like things in RONALD REAGAN like ways.

It really does just come down to this.

-spence

[Duke41]

So Spence who do you vote for?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Duke41

So Spence who do you vote for?

that's funnier than Obama buying a Volt

[willdave]

Originally Posted by spence

Barack Hussein Obama is the single biggest threat to the future of our country.

Maybe some people fear the unfamiliar and unknown. I support the health care reform for example. What you said there sounds like something I would hear on the republican propaganda network
I mean FOX NEWS

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by willdave

Maybe some people fear the unfamiliar and unknown. I support the health care reform for example. What you said there sounds like something I would hear on the republican propaganda network
I mean FOX NEWS

Being new to the forum, you are not familiar with Spence's posts. He is being sarcastic (throwing chum as he might put it), he is more on your side than not.

So, you're all in for the Federal Government having the power to require you to buy something?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, you're all in for the Federal Government having the power to require you to buy something?

Detbuch, on one hand, it seems awfully totalitarian for the feds to require us to buy something, doesn't it?

On the other hand, hear me out here...some folks are born healthy (thanks to nothing but good luck), some are born sick (through no fault of theirs). It seems to me, and I bet most folks agree, that folks who are born sick, or get sick by bad luck, shou'dn't have to suffer financial hardship because of something they had no control over. Meaning, we should all be required to pitch in to help them out. And one way to do this is to require healthy people to buy insurance, and this will help create the funds to help pay for sick folks.

Maybe there's another way to fund what I'm talking about, without requiring everyone to buy insurance. But I have no problem saying to healthy people "look, you are only healthy by blind luck, so we all have the responsibility to help those who were not as lucky".

As for people who smoke, and choose to be overweight...they should have to pay a huge premium for healthcare.

What do you think?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Detbuch, on one hand, it seems awfully totalitarian for the feds to require us to buy something, doesn't it?

On the other hand, hear me out here...some folks are born healthy (thanks to nothing but good luck), some are born sick (through no fault of theirs). It seems to me, and I bet most folks agree, that folks who are born sick, or get sick by bad luck, shou'dn't have to suffer financial hardship because of something they had no control over. Meaning, we should all be required to pitch in to help them out. And one way to do this is to require healthy people to buy insurance, and this will help create the funds to help pay for sick folks.

Maybe there's another way to fund what I'm talking about, without requiring everyone to buy insurance. But I have no problem saying to healthy people "look, you are only healthy by blind luck, so we all have the responsibility to help those who were not as lucky".

As for people who smoke, and choose to be overweight...they should have to pay a huge premium for healthcare.

What do you think?

There is a lot to what you say. But, going from the general idea of helping the needy to the specific of how to do it, my first concern is that we don't automatically look to the Federal Government everytime there is a problem. As you may have noted by now, I believe that straying from the Constitution is the main reason the Federal Government has become as large, nearly if not all-powerful, and out of the control of the citizens. We The People are supposed to be the sovereign from which power is granted to our governments. It is, now, late in the process of turning this upside down so that Government is the supreme sovereign which grants to we the people whatever rights and oblligations that it deems necessary and proper.

The Constitution mainly intended that the States and their citizens were to grapple with the bulk of how we govern our lives including ALL things not granted to the Federal Government. If the People of every State want a Massachussets style health insurance plan, they can choose that. The Constitution does not grant that power to the Federal government. There is a FUNDAMENTAL reason that it is so. If you believe in individual freedom, you will understand that reason. Individual freedom thrives in smaller units of local government. A large, all-powerful, central government that can dictate at will is the enemy of individual freedom. The irony is that large government over small people is actually weaker than smaller government under a strong people. The latter is stronger in almost every way, including, and especially, economically. It is the freest, most innovative, most evolutionary and adaptable form of society, and as such, the most capable of providing for all, including the unfortunate. If you reduce the power of the People and transfer that power to government, the freedom, innovation, adaptability, all diminish, and, though the government is great and all-powerful, the people and their creativity are diminished, and society gradually, and then ,eventually, quickly withers.

As for insurance, in general, I have a probably oversimplistic view. My perception is that as more than some minor percentage of a population is enrolled in insurance, the less beneficial it is to them. When a small percentage of a population is in an insurance plan, the cost of what is insured is based on the ability of the large percentage of the population that is uninsured and must pay out of pocket. So the insurance company pays out much less in claims and the insured can pay less in premiums. In such a situation, there is an ADVANTAGE to being insured. But when the great percentage of the population is insured, the cost of medical care, for instance, is based on what the third party (the insurance company) can pay, which is much greater than what most can pay out of pocket. So the cost to reimburse claims is much higher, and the premiums are much higher, and a point is reached where a universal coverage gives no advantage to being insured. And if the Government is the third party, you not only have the "wealthiest" third party, but loss of market forces and all the corruption the government can provide to its lobbyists and cronies.

Out of pocket with catastrophic coverage and private charity with various State safety nets might be the best way. Federally mandated is probably the worst, and it chips away at the few remaining glimpses of Constitutional self-government remaining.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by willdave

Maybe some people fear the unfamiliar and unknown. I support the health care reform for example. What you said there sounds like something I would hear on the republican propaganda network
I mean FOX NEWS

Welcome to the Site....and since you wandered in here...

God Have Mercy on Your Soul.....

[spence]

Too soon to tell. Romney showed some early promise but he's looked really bad the past few months.

Unless the GOP get's its act together voter turn out is going to be really low.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Too soon to tell.

-spence

Spence, you really are too funnie.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, you really are too funnie.

If you search the archives you'd find that I was a McCain supporter before he won the nomination and sold his soul.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

If you search the archives you'd find that I was a McCain supporter before he won the nomination and sold his soul.

-spence

I figured you were waiting and hoping for the draft of some super consevative
Repub to get the nomination and your vote.

[Nebe]

diebold will make it happen

[spence]

Haven't heard a laugh that fake since Romney's last stump speech.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

If a Repub get's in it will only because it will be due to votes against
Obama not due to any great love for the Repub canidate.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by justplugit

If a Repub get's in it will only because it will be due to votes against
Obama not due to any great love for the Repub canidate.

That is exactly how it will happen.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

That is exactly how it will happen.

ISN'T THAT HOW IT USUALLY HAPPENS ? THIS IS WHY CANDIDATES SPEND MORE TIME TELLING YOU WHY YOU SHOULDN'T VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY(S) RATHER THAN WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR THEM THE TRACK RECORD BEING JUDGED IS THAT OF THE INCUMBANT....AND MANY WILL VOTE AGAINST THAT TRACK RECORD AND CONTINUING THE POLICIES AND TRAJECTORY

[justplugit]

LOL Rav, I gotta drive my "Humaround" down to the
computer store and get one a those spell check thing a ma jigs.
Seriously though, my spelling is horrible lately.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

ISN'T THAT HOW IT USUALLY HAPPENS ? THIS IS WHY CANDIDATES SPEND MORE TIME TELLING YOU WHY YOU SHOULDN'T VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY(S) RATHER THAN WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR THEM THE TRACK RECORD BEING JUDGED IS THAT OF THE INCUMBANT....AND MANY WILL VOTE AGAINST THAT TRACK RECORD AND CONTINUING THE POLICIES AND TRAJECTORY

Thus the principle issue with our political candidates, the perpetual "I'm not as bad as he is" approach. One of these days, we will hopefully get away from the negative campaigns and people will actually campaign on their own merit, not an implied lack of merit with their opponent.

During the last election, I asked a friend why he was voting for McCain and his reply started, "well Obama... " You hear it time and time again, "I'm voting for so and so because that other guy sucks."

It's the same in how people defend the political party or politicians they align with. This forum is a perfect example. If there is a criticism of a Republican, the first reply is typically spun into something about Obama. Our expectations have gotten so low when it comes to our elected officials that it's almost impossible to defend the officials we support on their own merits.

We are stuck in a perpetual situation of electing the "lessor of two evils."

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

THE TRACK RECORD BEING JUDGED IS THAT OF THE INCUMBANT....AND MANY WILL VOTE AGAINST THAT TRACK RECORD AND CONTINUING THE POLICIES AND TRAJECTORY

For sure. Except for this forum, I haven't heard any one say a good thing
about Obama for a over a year, and that includes a discussion as late as last Saturday morning with customers waiting on line at the Bagel Shop.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by justplugit

If a Repub get's in it will only because it will be due to votes against
Obama not due to any great love for the Repub canidate.

um Dave.... gotta watch your spellin there ol timer

just rememba it's not a DATE in a Can

it's a candy date

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Duke41

Way to many nut bags in the house. Rush, Gingrich, Palin. Too much us against those liberal idiots stuff. Too much hatred, racism, fear mongering. We need a moderate Republican president and we are not going to get one. Romney may be too weird, Santorum too weird and Gingrich too weird. We can't just come up with some normal moderate. why not? This just sucks. Wait till the Bush tax cuts end next year. Ouch! The dems aren't going away anytime soon and the Big O has done a pretty fair job as president, so let the republicans continue to polarize the country and they can sit and bitch and bitch and bitch for another 4 years.

"Way to many nut bags in the house. Rush, Gingrich, Palin."

IMHO, there are far more nutbags on the other side (Anthony Weiner, Deb Washerman-Shultz, Barney Frank, Obama for that matter...and if you don't like Rush (and I'm no fan) take a look at the prime time line up at MSNBC.

Don't give up hope. A Romney-Rubio ticket will be quite formidable. Romney, once he's officially the candidate, will have broad appeal. It will likely come down to the economy. If unemployment keeps improving, and the stock market is up, Obama will be tough. If the market tanks, if gas prices hit $5 a gallon, Obama is very vulnerable.

"We can't just come up with some normal moderate. why not? "

We tried that in 2008 with McCain, didn't we? And again, why don't you consider Romney a moderate? He's a hell of a lot more moderate than Obama, who is probably the most ideologically extreme president we've ever had...

"the Big O has done a pretty fair job as president"

His approval ratings are below 50%. And wait till gas hits $5 a gallon...he's way more vulnerable than you seem to think...I give him an A- on killing terrorists, a resounding F on the economy (at this point, if a president doesn't at least TRY to do anything to address social security and medicare, they get an F).

"The dems aren't going away anytime soon"

Did you forget 2010 already? The GOP absolutely took the Dems out to the woodshed in 2010, and all the polls say that the GOP is only going to pick up more house and Senate seats this year (in 2010, the Dems were lucky in that very few Democratic senators were up for re-election, not so this year). However, the presidential contest will be tight, I think...

"let the republicans continue to polarize the country "

Our country is more divided now than any time since the Civil War, and that all starts with Obama IMHO. He's very, very divisive...When he says that people like me cling to our guns and religion because we are bitter and racist, when he says conservatives have to sit in the back of the bus, when he blames wealthy folks for everything except the Lindburgh baby kidnapping, nothing is more divisive than that. What has Romney said that's as polarizing as those things?

This presidential election, like most, will come down to two things.

(1) who gets the majority of independent voters in the 8 (or so) swing states. Obama is losing independents in droves, particularly in the states that matter (FL, NC, VA, PA, OH, CO, MN, WI). If Rubio is the VP, FL is no longer a swing state, and that's huge.

(2) which side has the more passionate turnout - the youth and black vote was very high in 2008 because of the Obama "cool" factor. Let's see if he can duplicate that. The Tea Party is still a major force in American politics. The Occupy anarchists have all moved back into their parents' basements.

Way too early to call, as it will all depend on the economy. I see this as the most important presidential election in our lifetime. Although if he gets re-elected,. the GOP will control the house and very likely the Senate, so he won't be able to do much.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Way to many nut bags in the house. Rush, Gingrich, Palin."

IMHO, there are far more nutbags on the other side (Anthony Weiner, Deb Washerman-Shultz, Barney Frank, Obama for that matter...and if you don't like Rush (and I'm no fan) take a look at the prime time line up at MSNBC.

And the proverbial "my side isn't as bad as that other group" defense. I appreciate the timing.

"We can't just come up with some normal moderate. why not? "

We tried that in 2008 with McCain, didn't we? And again, why don't you consider Romney a moderate? He's a hell of a lot more moderate than Obama, who is probably the most ideologically extreme president we've ever had...

Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. Palin is anything but a moderate. And with regards to Romney, he's so spineless that no one knows where he is any more. He's as moderate or conservative as the group he is pandering to. I've said this before, Romney is the guy in the room that yells "Hey, I can be Conservative too. Let me show you."

"let the republicans continue to polarize the country "

Our country is more divided now than any time since the Civil War, and that all starts with Obama IMHO. He's very, very divisive...When he says that people like me cling to our guns and religion because we are bitter and racist, when he says conservatives have to sit in the back of the bus, when he blames wealthy folks for everything except the Lindburgh baby kidnapping, nothing is more divisive than that. What has Romney said that's as polarizing as those things?

I don't think the polarization all starts with Obama. I think his stance against the Republicans is a product of a polarizing buildup that has been happening since the latter part of Clinton. While their has been some slight decrease lately, there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House. At the same time, Obama has been just as unwilling to bend as the Republicans have been.

This presidential election, like most, will come down to two things.

(1) who gets the majority of independent voters in the 8 (or so) swing states. Obama is losing independents in droves, particularly in the states that matter (FL, NC, VA, PA, OH, CO, MN, WI). If Rubio is the VP, FL is no longer a swing state, and that's huge.

While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes.

Way too early to call, as it will all depend on the economy. I see this as the most important presidential election in our lifetime. Although if he gets re-elected,. the GOP will control the house and very likely the Senate, so he won't be able to do much.

At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

And the proverbial "my side isn't as bad as that other group" defense. I appreciate the timing.


Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. Palin is anything but a moderate. And with regards to Romney, he's so spineless that no one knows where he is any more. He's as moderate or conservative as the group he is pandering to. I've said this before, Romney is the guy in the room that yells "Hey, I can be Conservative too. Let me show you."


I don't think the polarization all starts with Obama. I think his stance against the Republicans is a product of a polarizing buildup that has been happening since the latter part of Clinton. While their has been some slight decrease lately, there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House. At the same time, Obama has been just as unwilling to bend as the Republicans have been.


While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes.


At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue.

"Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. "

Johnny, I hear this all the time. All the time. And it's demonstrably false. After McCain picked Palin, he surged ahead of Obama in the polls, and he stayed right there until the economy tanked.

I'm not saying I think Palin was qualified, or even that she was a good candidate (in my opinion). I'm saying that the economy, not her selection, doomed McCain. The polls at that time validate my theory, and dispute yours.

"there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House."

Agreed. That's also what heppend when there's a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled legislature.

"While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes."

You might be right. Maybe the independents aren't enthralled with Romney. But as they flee Obama, there's only one other realistic place to go. If "choosing the lesser of 2 evils" it what it takes to get this Mao-ist out of the Oval Office, I'm OK with that. I'd rather have a GOP candidate that actually energizes folks. But winning this election is what's important, not how you play.

"At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue."

I don't subtly admit, I'll say it explicitly. And furthermore, I say "thank God" for their obstructionism. If one believes in a radically conservative idea (oh, for example, that $60 trillion in debt is a bad thing), is such a person supposed to capitulate to Obama and give him a blank check?

When the Democrats resisted Bush, I kept hearing that "dissent was the highest form of patriotism". Now that Obama wears the crown, those same folks claim that dissent is the lowest form of racism.

My solution is to throw all the bums out (both parties), and elect normal people who actually know how to do things, with very strict term limits. We need true civilian legislators, not career politicians who want to stay in DC their whole lives to show what a big lasagna they are.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. "

Johnny, I hear this all the time. All the time. And it's demonstrably false. After McCain picked Palin, he surged ahead of Obama in the polls, and he stayed right there until the economy tanked.

I'm not saying I think Palin was qualified, or even that she was a good candidate (in my opinion). I'm saying that the economy, not her selection, doomed McCain. The polls at that time validate my theory, and dispute yours.

"there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House."

Agreed. That's also what heppend when there's a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled legislature.

"While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes."

You might be right. Maybe the independents aren't enthralled with Romney. But as they flee Obama, there's only one other realistic place to go. If "choosing the lesser of 2 evils" it what it takes to get this Mao-ist out of the Oval Office, I'm OK with that. I'd rather have a GOP candidate that actually energizes folks. But winning this election is what's important, not how you play.

"At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue."

I don't subtly admit, I'll say it explicitly. And furthermore, I say "thank God" for their obstructionism. If one believes in a radically conservative idea (oh, for example, that $60 trillion in debt is a bad thing), is such a person supposed to capitulate to Obama and give him a blank check?

When the Democrats resisted Bush, I kept hearing that "dissent was the highest form of patriotism". Now that Obama wears the crown, those same folks claim that dissent is the lowest form of racism.

It almost pains me to say this, but I don't think we're all that far off from each other. It's pretty much a wait-and-see situation right now. The only thing I don't agree with you on is how much the price of gas will affect Obama. Once he was elected (so, putting aside the hollow campaign promises), Obama has been pretty consistent. Included in that consistency is his drive towards Clean Energy. He took a lot of heat with Solyndra (sp?), but at the same time, he has continually pressed that we need to stop s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g oil from Middle East nipples. With that in mind, I think he will be able to *leverage* the high fuel prices and (as I stated in another thread) displace blame for high fuel costs onto the Republicans refusing to vote on energy reform.

My solution is to throw all the bums out (both parties), and elect normal people who actually know how to do things, with very strict term limits. We need true civilian legislators, not career politicians who want to stay in DC their whole lives to show what a big lasagna they are.

Couldn't agree with you more on this one.

[spence]

At about this time Ronald Reagan's approval rating was below 40%...as the economy started to improve so did his favor-ability.

It will all depend on the economy and right now the market is trending up, consumer confidence is trending up, jobs are trending up etc...the timing for Democrats couldn't be better.

This Republican primary might just leave the GOP as damaged goods. Romney will still be the likely nominee and on perhaps their biggest campaign issue -- repealing the Health Care Bill -- you have an opponent who we now know actually did advocate for the individual mandate at the Federal level.

07/30/09 - Mr. President, What's the Rush? | Mitt Romney Central

I didn't think it could get any worse for them, but it has.

Voter turn out is going to be low and this will help Obama. The vacancy in ME will also help the Democrats hold the Senate. Everything I've read indicates the GOP will lose House Seats.

You're over thinking the gas price issue. If anything people associate Obama as anti-big oil profits.

Independent voters don't see Obama as "the most ideological President ever", that's your fringe position. They look at his actual record which is left-center. Given a left-center Obama vs a right-center Romney and it's a wash...the incumbent wins because they're the devil you know.

The BIG wildcard here is Iran. If the Middle East erupts it could swing the entire election one way or the other based on how it's handled.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by spence

-- you have an opponent who we now know actually did advocate for the individual mandate at the Federal level.

07/30/09 - Mr. President, What's the Rush? | Mitt Romney Central

At least he waited 2.5-years to flip-flop this time, not 2.5 hours (like the blunt amendment)

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

At about this time Ronald Reagan's approval rating was below 40%...as the economy started to improve so did his favor-ability.

It will all depend on the economy and right now the market is trending up, consumer confidence is trending up, jobs are trending up etc...the timing for Democrats couldn't be better.

This Republican primary might just leave the GOP as damaged goods. Romney will still be the likely nominee and on perhaps their biggest campaign issue -- repealing the Health Care Bill -- you have an opponent who we now know actually did advocate for the individual mandate at the Federal level.

07/30/09 - Mr. President, What's the Rush? | Mitt Romney Central

I didn't think it could get any worse for them, but it has.

Voter turn out is going to be low and this will help Obama. The vacancy in ME will also help the Democrats hold the Senate. Everything I've read indicates the GOP will lose House Seats.

You're over thinking the gas price issue. If anything people associate Obama as anti-big oil profits.

Independent voters don't see Obama as "the most ideological President ever", that's your fringe position. They look at his actual record which is left-center. Given a left-center Obama vs a right-center Romney and it's a wash...the incumbent wins because they're the devil you know.

The BIG wildcard here is Iran. If the Middle East erupts it could swing the entire election one way or the other based on how it's handled.

-spence

"It will all depend on the economy and right now the market is trending up, consumer confidence is trending up, jobs are trending up etc"

Agreed. You also left out that the debt is trending up, and we should ask ourselves if the benefits we're seeing are worth the bill that we'll be sticking our kids with. The answer to that question may be "yes", by the way. But I'm not sure reducing unemployment to 8% is necessarily a good thing, if we bankrupt ourselves to get there. That's obviously an oversimplification of a complicated issue. But we should be talking about what he spent to get his results, is all I'm saying.

"the timing for Democrats couldn't be better."

Sure it could - the election is 6 months away, in case you didn't know. You don't want to peak too early. I'm not saying that's what's happening, I'm just saying if the market tanks in October, no one will care what it did in February.

"This Republican primary might just leave the GOP as damaged goods."

That's your fringe opinion. Chances are (after super Tuesday), Romney will be the lock, and that's 6 months before the election. Back in 2008, Hilary and Obama were in a brutal slugfest right up until the convention. I don't remember hearing you (or anyone) say then, that the primary would leave the Democrats as "damaged goods". Why the difference in opinion? Why is a bitter contest good for Democrats, but bad for Republicans?

"The vacancy in ME will also help the Democrats hold the Senate."

As of today, there are 33 Senate Democrats that are retiring or up for re-election. Only 10 Republicans are retiring or up for re-election. I'll make you any gentleman's wager you choose that the GOP has a net increase in the House and in the Senate.

'Everything I've read indicates the GOP will lose House Seats."

Given what I imagine your reading list to be, that doesn't surprise me, or worry me, in the least. You just keep believing what you read in The Huffington Post and in The Daily Worker.

"You're over thinking the gas price issue."

We'll see this summer, won't we.

"The BIG wildcard here is Iran. If the Middle East erupts it could swing the entire election one way or the other based on how it's handled."

Agreed. The economy and Iran are 2 huge factors.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Agreed. You also left out that the debt is trending up, and we should ask ourselves if the benefits we're seeing are worth the bill that we'll be sticking our kids with. The answer to that question may be "yes", by the way. But I'm not sure reducing unemployment to 8% is necessarily a good thing, if we bankrupt ourselves to get there. That's obviously an oversimplification of a complicated issue. But we should be talking about what he spent to get his results, is all I'm saying.

I think independent voters see the debt problem as bi-partisan.

Sure it could - the election is 6 months away, in case you didn't know. You don't want to peak too early. I'm not saying that's what's happening, I'm just saying if the market tanks in October, no one will care what it did in February.

I think we're trending strong and the economy will continue to gain strength if global instability doesn't disrupt it.

That's your fringe opinion. Chances are (after super Tuesday), Romney will be the lock, and that's 6 months before the election. Back in 2008, Hilary and Obama were in a brutal slugfest right up until the convention. I don't remember hearing you (or anyone) say then, that the primary would leave the Democrats as "damaged goods". Why the difference in opinion? Why is a bitter contest good for Democrats, but bad for Republicans?

No, it's a mainstream opinion. Hell, the biggest critics of the Republican contestants are the leading conservative media outlets.

We've covered this before. With Obama and Clinton the party saw 2 viable options. With the GOP the party doesn't see any viable options.

As of today, there are 33 Senate Democrats that are retiring or up for re-election. Only 10 Republicans are retiring or up for re-election. I'll make you any gentleman's wager you choose that the GOP has a net increase in the House and in the Senate.

Your numbers are wrong. It's 21 Democrat, 2 Independent and 10 Republican. Additionally, the majority of Democrat races are in Blue or Purple states.

I'll take your wager.

Agreed. The economy and Iran are 2 huge factors.

I think they're linked. If Iran blows up it will put a large strain on the economy.

-spence