Let’s look at the incentives. If the economy is doing well in 2012, Obama wins. Otherwise he loses. So the Republicans will do everything they can to gut the economy. Propose tax cuts for the rich and oppose spending increases and tax cuts that are likely to stimulate the economy. Push a balanced budget amendment.
Obama’s strategy will be to peel off a few Republicans so as to thwart that. Hope that a well crafted pork package goes through – or take the other tact and fund an infrastructure bank.
But hey, what do the Republicans themselves say? Are they claiming that they want to work with the President? No.
So I guess nothing will happen with the economy for the next two years… Which as pointed out, helps Republicans… maybe. I’ve forgotten… Just how much effort will it take Republicans to do the active stuff they’re promising (e.g. repeal HCR)? How voters react may depend on whether the party holds things in stasis, or actually moves their agenda forward. Certainly the latter will be better received by their base than the former. It may also depend on how all those new Republicans actually perform compared to their rhetoric. (And the new Dems, too, but there will be fewer of those, IIRC.)
Either way, I guess we’re all doomed, economy-wise?
Those who think more/bigger stimulus is needed are probably already resigned to not getting it long ago, so it may not make any difference to them. Still, everything’s an open question… and one that’s driven me away from political blogs for the time being, just as with the last election.
I must be looking at the wrong graphs if it was all the most recent Republican administration–which, in any case, was not anything close to fiscally conservative.
First Mr Bush comes along and spends us into near ruin invading other countries like a twit, continuing to allow idiots and incompetents to borrow money they don’t know how to repay (a situation created by the bleeding hearts encouraging home “ownership” and promptly seized upon by Wall Street to be made into speculative financial instruments), and expanding social programs. Then the Democrats come along with their panicked amateur stab at fixing Wall Street by bailing them out, bozoing “job creation” by confusing actual job creation with a “job” temporarily funded with borrowed funds, and making sure the Unions and pensions stay happy.
I don’t think the next wave of Republicans claiming to be fiscally conservative confuses themselves with either the Bush “Republicans” or liberal Democrats, but you won’t get any argument from me that pretty much all politicians have the IQ of watermelons, and should they prove to be no different from the current and past Presidencies, I’ll continue to be disappointed. And continue to buy gold, for when the dollar completely craps out.
What’s a fiscal conservative to do when every politician has figured out the way to get elected is to put a chicken in every pot funded by future citizens?
The so-called Wall Street bailout was Bush, not Obama. And your caricature of the stimulus is, well, wrong – at least according to, you know, economists.
But keep buying into that gold bubble. You show them stupid politicians.
The repubs will push for deregulation of oil and banking. They will filibuster anything Obama proposes, like they did the first 2 years. It will 2 years of gridlock with a careful eye on winning the presidency in 2102. They will be horrible and tea baggers will love it.
But was it wrong according to, you know, the jobless?
As for gold, well I’m up enough so far to bail in time when the bubble bursts. But thanks for the tip. May I suggest you short it? You show them stupid gold bugs.
Like now, but more so. They’ll do their best to keep the Democrats in general and especially Obama from having a single success. They’ll block everything and do nothing positive themselves. They’ll demand compromise (aka total capitulation) from the Democrats, who will cave in - and the Republicans will throw it back in their face with a sneer anyway. They’ll try to create as huge a disaster as possible so they can blame Obama, and to punish the American public for voting a black man into office.
I seriously hope the tea baggers playing dangerous politics while the US is on the brink of a depression wakes people up. But it wont, they’ve been doing that since 2009 and it has only made them more popular.
A big problem isn’t just the election, it is the narrative following the election. Many will proclaim that right wing conservatism is popular again and Obama was too liberal. None of that is true. The party in power tends to lose in midterms.
Add into that several factors working against the dems
People fear 1 party rule and will vote opposition to have balance
Midterms have higher turnout among conservatives (older, whte) and lower among liberal (non-white, younger)
The economy is shit and dems are the incumbents
The dems won tons of seats in 2006 and 2008, so seats that demographically aren’t really sustainably dem currently are in dem hands
The GOP base is motivated, the dem base is demoralized
A bigger problem is that dems will end up like they did after Reagan, so terrified of their own shadows for years and years that they pursue ‘third way’ republican lite policies for fear we are a ‘center right’ country.
Opinion polls show people trust the GOP even less then the dems. But that won’t make the mainstream narrative.
Not by this much. And, is “this is just a normal midterms loss” a falsifiable claim, or the party line you’ll trot out to explain any loss - even one that is the result of public backlash?
No, not by this much. That is why I listed all the other reasons the GOP will see gains this midterm.
This isn’t close to a normal midterm loss. It is a mix of rejection of 1 party rule, demographics in midterms, motivation gaps, horrible unemployment and dems holding house seats they only won due to backlashes in 06 and 08.
As far as the senate, the dems gained 6 and 8 seats respectively in 06 and 08. So the GOP winning 7-8 in 2010 will be a big win, but no bigger than the wins the dems made the last 2 cycles.
