Is there any general idea of who the Republican candidates for the 2012 election yet? Its certainly not necessary at this point, but I'd imagine they'll try to get them out there rally against Obama while there might be blood in the water.

I've seen Romney and way too much of Giuliani(there's no way he runs again right?), but other than that is anyone starting to step forward? Please don't say Sarah Palin. Thanks.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:

dajafi wrote:

"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

-- President Obama, in an interview with ABC News.

Probably there's something to this, in that all recent elections seem to be primarily expressions of frustration with the in party.

So let me get this straight, according to Obama, "GWB-fatigue is responsible for Brown's victory in MA"?



Funny guy...

You've misinterpreted. Deliberately or not, I am uncertain.

I will explain. People are angry and scared. They were angry and scared last November, and voted for a guy who brought "hope" and "change". Alas, a year later, they're still angry and scared. So, they vote against the guy who promised "hope" and "change" but has so far failed to fulfill those expectations.

Obama could have been more generously interpreted as saying, Look, I ran against Bush, but in reality, he wasn't quite as bad as many of his critics said.

Or, to put it another way--a lot people voted for Obama in the same way a lot of people want Kolb to start for the Eagles next year. If Kolb doesn't get them a SB win, they'll want someone else. Matt Leinart maybe.

Not wanting to grapple with MP's questionable interpretation, I think the through-line of "the last eight years" has to do with the reality, borne out by data, that during the good economy, economic gains went pretty much solely to those at the top end... and during the recession, the ones who got taken care of, through the bailouts and other measures, were those at the very, very top end.

The sense is, entirely aside from partisan politics (economic populism was the Democrats' friend for awhile, and now it's the Republicans' friend), that the economy, and perhaps the whole society, is only advancing the well being of those already in good shape... including pretty much all incumbent office-holders.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Is there any general idea of who the Republican candidates for the 2012 election yet? Its certainly not necessary at this point, but I'd imagine they'll try to get them out there rally against Obama while there might be blood in the water.

I've seen Romney and way too much of Giulianni(there's no way he runs again right?), but other than that is anyone starting to step forward? Please don't say Sarah Palin. Thanks.

As a Democrat, I would like to see Sarah Palin get the nomination, assuming that she would crushed by Obama in the fall. But then again, if she somehow won, the country really is screwed.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:

dajafi wrote:

"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

-- President Obama, in an interview with ABC News.

Probably there's something to this, in that all recent elections seem to be primarily expressions of frustration with the in party.

So let me get this straight, according to Obama, "GWB-fatigue is responsible for Brown's victory in MA"?



Funny guy...

You've misinterpreted. Deliberately or not, I am uncertain.

I will explain. People are angry and scared. They were angry and scared last November, and voted for a guy who brought "hope" and "change". Alas, a year later, they're still angry and scared. So, they vote against the guy who promised "hope" and "change" but has so far failed to fulfill those expectations.

Obama could have been more generously interpreted as saying, Look, I ran against Bush, but in reality, he wasn't quite as bad as many of his critics said.

Or, to put it another way--a lot people voted for Obama in the same way a lot of people want Kolb to start for the Eagles next year. If Kolb doesn't get them a SB win, they'll want someone else. Matt Leinart maybe.

That's your spin. By referring to the last two years and eight years, he's specifically targeting Bush, which fits his administration's pattern of "blame Bush" since he took office.

If he meant to be more general about voter discontent, why the need to bring up the last eight years? I think his comments were much more intentional than you're suggesting.

jerseyhoya wrote:Brown raised $12 million online in January.

That's so unbelievably amazing for a Senate race I can barely fathom it. I wonder how much he spent? He's going to have a lot of CoH for his reelect, I imagine.

15% of MA employment is health care jobs, & is its fastest-growing employment segment. With his 'no vote on health' commitment, he'll have to hire about $12 million worth of security detail.

kopphanatic wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Is there any general idea of who the Republican candidates for the 2012 election yet? Its certainly not necessary at this point, but I'd imagine they'll try to get them out there rally against Obama while there might be blood in the water.

I've seen Romney and way too much of Giulianni(there's no way he runs again right?), but other than that is anyone starting to step forward? Please don't say Sarah Palin. Thanks.

As a Democrat, I would like to see Sarah Palin get the nomination, assuming that she would crushed by Obama in the fall. But then again, if she somehow won, the country really is screwed.

Yeah, you just can not take the risk, be it 15-20% that Palin wins in a general. She has to be stopped in the primary. Don't worry, jerseyhoya will fight like hell to stop her... until she wins the primary, then it's Go, team!

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Brown raised $12 million online in January.

That's so unbelievably amazing for a Senate race I can barely fathom it. I wonder how much he spent? He's going to have a lot of CoH for his reelect, I imagine.

15% of MA employment is health care jobs, & is its fastest-growing employment segment. With his 'no vote on health' commitment, he'll have to hire about $12 million worth of security detail.

But that would satisfy the teabaggers and the industry shills that run the Republican party. And set him up for this 2012 run that everyone is assuming will happen.

kopphanatic wrote:The American people are notoriously impatient these days, not just in politics but in general. They want instant gratification and throw tantrums when they don't get what they want promptly.

I don't agree. That said, are you also referring to 2008?

Oh lord Scott Brown isn't running for President

If you are referring to my question, I did not mean Brown. Sorry if I interrupted the flow of the thread.

Mountainphan wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:The American people are notoriously impatient these days, not just in politics but in general. They want instant gratification and throw tantrums when they don't get what they want promptly.

I don't agree. That said, are you also referring to 2008?

In a sense. I'm speaking in general, not just with regard to politics. But 2008 was different in that Bush had plenty of time and plenty of leeway to do what he wanted. People's anger in 2008 was justified. That being said, there are people on the left who wanted a universal health care system by the end of 2009, and they are unjustifiably pissed at Obama for not delivering what they wanted right away. I want a European-style health care system badly but I know that's not going to happen overnight. Polls have shown that Brown received no more votes than McCain did in MA, but many Democrats stayed home. So angry Democrats must shoulder some of the blame for what happened last night.

Here's an interesting take from John Judis at TNR...

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/he-doesnt-feel-your-pain

The Nightman Cometh wrote:If you are referring to my question, I did not mean Brown. Sorry if I interrupted the flow of the thread.

No, was responding to some others here talking about it

As far as who might run, Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota, Romney will run again, maybe Palin, Huckabee. I dunno, it'll clear up more after the midterms.

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:If you are referring to my question, I did not mean Brown. Sorry if I interrupted the flow of the thread.

No, was responding to some others here talking about it

As far as who might run, Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota, Romney will run again, maybe Palin, Huckabee. I dunno, it'll clear up more after the midterms.

If the Republicans were smart, they'd nominate a fiscally conservative, socially moderate (to the right of center) candidate. He/she would actually have a decent chance against Obama. It will never happen (maybe Romney, but he'd have to pretend to be socially conservative again).

kopphanatic wrote:People's anger in 2008 was justified.

That's what it comes down to, eh? It makes sense for people to have been mad at Bush because it was a miracle that he even was able to walk upright he was so dumb. People disagreeing with Obama's plans for the country and how he's gone about implementing them are not justified in being angry.

Thank you for summing up why this argument is so dumb in one line.

kopphanatic wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:The American people are notoriously impatient these days, not just in politics but in general. They want instant gratification and throw tantrums when they don't get what they want promptly.

I don't agree. That said, are you also referring to 2008?

In a sense. I'm speaking in general, not just with regard to politics. But 2008 was different in that Bush had plenty of time and plenty of leeway to do what he wanted. People's anger in 2008 was justified. That being said, there are people on the left who wanted a universal health care system by the end of 2009, and they are unjustifiably pissed at Obama for not delivering what they wanted right away. I want a European-style health care system badly but I know that's not going to happen overnight. Polls have shown that Brown received no more votes than McCain did in MA, but many Democrats stayed home. So angry Democrats must shoulder some of the blame for what happened last night.

Do you really believe that Brown won because angry liberals stayed home in droves due to not having "universal" health care less than one year into the Obama presidency?

kopphanatic wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:The American people are notoriously impatient these days, not just in politics but in general. They want instant gratification and throw tantrums when they don't get what they want promptly.

I don't agree. That said, are you also referring to 2008?

In a sense. I'm speaking in general, not just with regard to politics. But 2008 was different in that Bush had plenty of time and plenty of leeway to do what he wanted. People's anger in 2008 was justified. That being said, there are people on the left who wanted a universal health care system by the end of 2009, and they are unjustifiably pissed at Obama for not delivering what they wanted right away. I want a European-style health care system badly but I know that's not going to happen overnight. Polls have shown that Brown received no more votes than McCain did in MA, but many Democrats stayed home. So angry Democrats must shoulder some of the blame for what happened last night.

I haven't seen the breakdown yet, but I'm willing to bet that although the absolute votes may be the same as McCain's, the % of independent/democratic votes for Brown is quite different.

jerseyhoya wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:People's anger in 2008 was justified.

That's what it comes down to, eh? It makes sense for people to have been mad at Bush because it was a miracle that he even was able to walk upright he was so dumb. People disagreeing with Obama's plans for the country and how he's gone about implementing them are not justified in being angry.

Thank you for summing up why this argument is so dumb in one line.

Bush had eight years of almost unlimited power. Obama has had a year with a weak-willed Democratic congress and relentless attacks from the opposition party and the right-wing noise machine. You may have been happy with Bush, but after eight years of seeing Bush do so much damage to this country, from his idiotic invasion of Iraq to the the bungling of Katrina to everything in between, I believe that I, along 50 million other people, was justified in being angry about the direction of the country in 2008. And, in an attempt to be fair, I mentioned the unjustified anger of the left over health care earlier in the thread.

Mountainphan wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:The American people are notoriously impatient these days, not just in politics but in general. They want instant gratification and throw tantrums when they don't get what they want promptly.

I don't agree. That said, are you also referring to 2008?

In a sense. I'm speaking in general, not just with regard to politics. But 2008 was different in that Bush had plenty of time and plenty of leeway to do what he wanted. People's anger in 2008 was justified. That being said, there are people on the left who wanted a universal health care system by the end of 2009, and they are unjustifiably pissed at Obama for not delivering what they wanted right away. I want a European-style health care system badly but I know that's not going to happen overnight. Polls have shown that Brown received no more votes than McCain did in MA, but many Democrats stayed home. So angry Democrats must shoulder some of the blame for what happened last night.

Do you really believe that Brown won because angry liberals stayed home in droves due to not having "universal" health care less than one year into the Obama presidency?

If there's one state that clearly is representative of nationwide public opinion on universal health care, it's the state that already has universal health care, through a program largely indistinguishable from what the Democrats have almost-passed, which enjoys large majority support in Massachusetts and won the vote of Sen-elect Brown when he served in the state senate.

edit: If you want to chalk this up in part to MA voters' broad concerns about government overreach, spending too much money, etc, I can grant that playing a role. But casting it entirely or even largely as a rejection of health care on the merits of the (I'd wager very imperfectly understood--after all, "it's 2000 pages!") bill, that doesn't seem logical.

Though Brown didn't portray himself primarily as a Tea Party guy, the "screw you, I got mine" ethos at the heart of that movement probably did factor in.

cshort wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:If you are referring to my question, I did not mean Brown. Sorry if I interrupted the flow of the thread.

No, was responding to some others here talking about it

As far as who might run, Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota, Romney will run again, maybe Palin, Huckabee. I dunno, it'll clear up more after the midterms.

If the Republicans were smart, they'd nominate a fiscally conservative, socially moderate (to the right of center) candidate. He/she would actually have a decent chance against Obama. It will never happen (maybe Romney, but he'd have to pretend to be socially conservative again).

2012 is a referendum on Obama. Nominate anyone functioning above the level of a trained chimp (sorry Sarah) and then see what happens.