My feeling, though, is that if the President isn’t pretty firm about this, then it will keep happening. And if it keeps happening, then:
[ul]
[li]If we keep doing this, sooner or later someone will miscalculate and take us over the cliff anyway, without even really meaning to.[/li][li]Sooner or later someone will make a demand which the other side simply can’t give in to. (And for me, defunding Obamacare is probably already over that line.)[/li][li]The country will simply become pretty much ungovernable.[/li][li]If we keep playing chicken with the economy of Planet Earth on a yearly basis, even if we haven’t actually defaulted, the rest of the world will get sick of our shit and stop seeing dollars as the 21st century equivalent of gold and U.S. debt as the equivalent of a self-storage unit–no more “Here, U.S. Treasury! Please take our money! We’d be happy to pay you a reasonable fee to keep it safe for us!”; people will start actually treating us like, you know, a debtor.[/li][/ul]
So, this nonsense needs to be stopped, now.
And, OK, so they gave us all that money, so we can keep it. What are they gonna do, invade?
Europe owes us, saving their butts from Hitler. Russia, the same. China owes us for saving their asses from Japan, and Japan owes us for saving their asses from China. Which just leaves Australia and really, who cares?
Well, that would be one way to get around this ridiculous “debt ceiling” thing. Just make the federal government, or substantial portions thereof, “self-financing”:
“Hey, Kuwait! This is the United States Fifth Fleet, just dropping by! Nice little country you’ve got here! Lotsa oil, huh? Be a shame if anything were to…happen to it, if you know what we mean.”
Probably not great from a constitutional standpoint though, or for the continued health of our democracy, or for World Peace and stuff.
I’ve been looking for good polling data too.
Interesting analysis of the PPP (Moveon) poll by Sam Wang from Princeton.
http://election.princeton.edu/2013/10/08/the-risk-to-the-gop-house-majority/
Thank you for that link Tabby Cat. I had forgotten about Sam Wang! He was as (or putatively even more) on target with his analyses as Nate Silver had been. (He just does not package as well for those of us who are less statistically deep in the weeds.) Highlights for those who don’t feel like reading a link: PPP is a good house and had the best accuracy in 2012; these polls would mean Dem takeover of the House if the election was held today … the election is not being held today and a year from now is a long time:
Interesting bit in the comments section that was noted by some here as well - gerrymandering creates more GOP leaning districts but also makes some of them more prone to swing.
New APGfK poll. Results as expected, everyone involved looks bad, GOP looks worse.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/poll-gop-gets-blame-shutdown
I’m not sold on the methodology though, seems like it’s an online poll of some sort.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=20513959
Asia’s crowded. Europe’s too old. Africa’s far too hot, and Canada’s too cold.
Exeunt, pursued by Three Bears.
I just checked out a few other polls and, yes, this seems to be the case. However, I would argue that the GOP doesn’t look much worse. Obama is generally running 10 or so points better than the GOP on taking the blame for the shutdown.
This is a lot better for the GOP than I was expecting.
It’s also interesting that the Tea Party is 40% of the GOP and only about 1S% of them desire the GOP to compromise more with Obama. I guess that puts me in the 15%, which isn’t a huge surprise.
It won’t play against him, because the media won’t let it.
As Gingrich and every rational person knows, the media is determined to downplay and spin anything that might make Obama look bad. If both Obama and the GOP refuse to negotiate, the media (apart from Fox) will spend 90% of their time talking about how the GOP refused to negotiate.
Of course this is going to go over like gangbusters on the SDMB - they order the Obama Flavor-Aid in the Big Gulp size.
Regards,
Shodan
Interesting cites, and analysis DSeid.
So, what should Obama do about this? Can he twist the knife even more and push these numbers higher by changing his rhetoric? Without changing his position on anything, he could soften his language about not wanting to compromise and agree to meet with Republicans just not give in to anything they actually want. This might help the independent voters view him as not at fault even more?
Or is Obama playing this well with his current strategy?
Did you mean to post a different video? Rove was disagreeing with the decision of Fox News calling Ohio so early. He didn’t say it was going Romney, he just thought a difference of 991 votes with 25% of the votes not counted yet wasn’t enough to justify calling it.
He wasn’t “losing his shit” in any way.
Well, there’s only one thing the Republicans actually want here, isn’t there? To kill the ACA.
Weren’t they?!
Paging Marilyn Monroe!
Yes.
Don’t get me wrong. What I’m suggesting is pure showmanship, and nothing more than that. As Gingrich points out in my OP, if this were Clinton in the white house he’d probably be lamenting the fact that we can’t all just get along and would be willing to meet to talk things over. Obama could do that, but it doesn’t mean he actually has to agree to kill ACA. Just ham it up for the CSPAN cameras.
I’m not saying it would work. I’m just asking if it might. Thoughts?
That’s just the focal point. The thing they want (and I’m not limiting it to the teabaggers since the entire party is going along) is to defeat Obama. Somehow, some way, as long as it’s definitive.
You know the old saying: If your opponents are shooting themselves in the foot, don’t get in their way.
And because the people understand the need not to appease terrorists, and for the most part do not support the Republican strategy or tactics. This is hardly a media creation. :rolleyes:
Gingrich was so rational that he caused the last government shutdown, in pique over riding Air Force One or some silly shit, causing economic damage to the country and electoral disaster for his party. Is that what you mean by rational? Are you implying that he learned from his experience and is passing on that wisdom to his party? If so, a cite might be nice.
You might as well have added “lamestream” in front of your every use of the word “media”. Damn.
Custer should have demanded concessions from Sitting Bull, then blamed him for refusing to negotiate.
Then maybe Obama can give them a written statement certifying that if they agree to quit it with the BS he’ll agree to leave the White House in 2017, unilaterally, permanently and without conditions ?