Here's my prediction: the Libertarian ticket will win in zero states.

>> ^blankfist:

Here's my prediction: the Libertarian ticket will win in zero states.


So true! Seems like you guys should try and adjust your political strategies.

Wait, are you saying you think Ron Paul isn't a Libertarian, or won't win? How about Rand? I didn't mention him, but I expect he's going to be the new junior Senator from Kentucky after this fall.

Rand and Ron are both on the Republican ticket.

Sarah Palin will become super-president of the Fox Republicans, the new media-driven party.

no fing way
there's gonna be hell 2 pay for the economy stupid.

obama's plan is: "i'll stand here by myself and hope that the republicans respect that"

>> ^marinara:

no fing way
there's gonna be hell 2 pay for the economy stupid.
obama's plan is: "i'll stand here by myself and hope that the republicans respect that"


What's your prediction, then?

Democrats will lose either house or senate.

i actually just msged nate silver from http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

if he doesn't ignore me, he might answer if he's going to do polls for the midterms.

@marinara you're a strange person. Go to that URL, look in the upper left corner of your screen. Click on the chart, and you get the link I had in my original post, where Nate says "our simulation projects Republicans to gain a net of 4.0 Senate seats in this November's elections, a figure unchanged since last month" and "The Republicans now have only a 6 percent chance of an outright takeover of the Senate, according to the model".

I'm more optimistic than that about the Senate, but that's partly because I have seen polling data from May that Nate's post doesn't incorporate (yet).

As for the house, here's his most recent analysis, along with a graph plotting house popular vote vs. net change in seats. Right now pollster.com has the House Generic ballot polling an effective tie (43.1% R vs 42.9% D, for a net +0.2R), and if you look that up on Nate's chart, that would foretell a 30-seat swing towards the Republicans, which isn't enough for them to take control (the dotted red line on the graph), but it's worse than my prediction.

For a midterm, we're still very early in the process. Hell, even in 2008, at about this point in time we didn't know if it would be Clinton or Obama facing McCain in the fall, just to put things in perspective.

Wishful thinking. taxocrats are finished as of November, and if they ain't, shame on the Republic, the mob will have won.

I predict that CFR candidates will win. (channeling Constitutional_Patriot)

I predict that the situation overall won't improve with a slight shift in political control.

The win margins for Republicans will be fairly low.

There will be a small fanatic group but overall low voter turn outs.

i predict that a crappy economy, summer time price increases and a gulf full of oil will ruin my family trip to the beach and we'll have to settle for sleeping on uncle mike's floor and spending a day at seaworld. i predict my kids will once again be rather unimpressed by dancing water mammals and i will return with a serious sunburn, shot nerves and a sore left foot.

Either way, Obama still hasn't done anything really substantive on a variety of issues (Climate Change, Wall Street, that ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER, military spending, Iraq, Executive Powers, etc.).

And Canada still has a Conservative government.

FML.

>> ^Throbbin:

Either way, Obama still hasn't done anything really substantive on a variety of issues (Climate Change, Wall Street, that ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER, military spending, Iraq, Executive Powers, etc.).

What can Obama do about any of those by himself, particularly the "ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER"?

Much as I like the guy, it's not as if he can just swim down there and pinch off the pipe, superman-style.

That's really a list of things you're mad at Congress for failing to act on.

Hopefully your list will get one item shorter tomorrow -- they're holding a cloture vote on the Wall Street Reform package tomorrow (and all signs point to it passing with ease).

What can Obama do about those by himself? He could go after the Democratic caucus a little more than he has been. I don't think I'm the only one who noticed that Obama's rhetorical prowess (or his willingness to use it) has substantially diminished since the election.

Regarding the oil gusher - he could've NOT allowed for the expansion of offshore oil drilling in the first place (remember that?). I know it wouldn't have prevented the current fiasco, but it would have shown some backbone. He could have appointed someone competent (and not an oil industry stooge) to oversee the issuing of drilling and safety permits (I know you know about those).

Your are right - Congress is where most of the substantive issues of the day are dealt with. But Obama has such enormous political capital that he could use to sway them on many issues, but chooses to play it safe for fear of losing the 2012 election. That's no way to lead.

I like the guy too. But I like him alot less since hearing about many of the things he has done (and more importantly, hasn't done) since taking office.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Throbbin:
Either way, Obama still hasn't done anything really substantive on a variety of issues (Climate Change, Wall Street, that ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER, military spending, Iraq, Executive Powers, etc.).
What can Obama do about any of those by himself, particularly the "ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER"?
Much as I like the guy, it's not as if he can just swim down there and pinch off the pipe, superman-style.
That's really a list of things you're mad at Congress for failing to act on.
Hopefully your list will get one item shorter tomorrow -- they're holding a cloture vote on the Wall Street Reform package tomorrow (and all signs point to it passing with ease).

>> ^Throbbin:

What can Obama do about those by himself? He could go after the Democratic caucus a little more than he has been. I don't think I'm the only one who noticed that Obama's rhetorical prowess (or his willingness to use it) has substantially diminished since the election.
Regarding the oil gusher - he could've NOT allowed for the expansion of offshore oil drilling in the first place (remember that?). I know it wouldn't have prevented the current fiasco, but it would have shown some backbone. He could have appointed someone competent (and not an oil industry stooge) to oversee the issuing of drilling and safety permits (I know you know about those).
Your are right - Congress is where most of the substantive issues of the day are dealt with. But Obama has such enormous political capital that he could use to sway them on many issues, but chooses to play it safe for fear of losing the 2012 election. That's no way to lead.
I like the guy too. But I like him alot less since hearing about many of the things he has done (and more importantly, hasn't done) since taking office.

I agree with much of what you're saying here, but I think people often blame things that are a direct result of Congress's gridlock and corruption on Obama personally, simply because he hasn't been able to nullify it by his very presence.

Do I think Obama could have used his influence to make Health Care both more progressive and pass more quickly? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Do I think Obama needs to turn up the heat on his opposition, both within his own party, and across the aisle? Absolutely.

Do I blame Obama for failing to completely turn Congress into a rubber stamp for his policies? No.

Do I think Obama shouldn't have permitted offshore oil drilling? Yes and no -- if it would've guaranteed Republican votes for cloture on a cap & trade bill, hell yes. If it was just one of these "do this in good faith, and we'll think about maybe only calling you a socialist 10 times a day, instead of 20 times a day", no. From what I've read, that was part of a compromise that was somewhere between those two things.

I think the two main things Obama needs to answer for to his progressive base are his inaction on DADT (he could make it irrelevant unilaterally), and his continued use of Bush-era terrorism loopholes on civil liberties (which he could also make irrelevant unilaterally). I'm getting the sense that he doesn't want to fight either of these fights at all.

I think everything else he's done that I disagree with has been a difference over tactical choices, rather than an actual disagreement with a policy goal.

^I disagree with some of that, but I'm in a pinch right now. For now, I'd agree with your earlier projections on seat count, but also suggest that another blunder by Obama (or perceived blunder), and the Democrat Parties fortunes could fall dramatically.

>> ^Throbbin:

^I disagree with some of that, but I'm in a pinch right now. For now, I'd agree with your earlier projections on seat count, but also suggest that another blunder by Obama (or perceived blunder), and the Democrat Parties fortunes could fall dramatically.


I think again you're fixating on Obama too much. I think the big way this reverses itself is if the nascent economic recovery dies out and starts to turn into a new downward plunge. If that happens it's going to be a bloodbath.

It's a possibility. But from an outsiders perspective (meaning not-American) - it very much seems like Obama IS the democratic party. As Wichita falls, so falls Wichita Falls and all.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Throbbin:
^I disagree with some of that, but I'm in a pinch right now. For now, I'd agree with your earlier projections on seat count, but also suggest that another blunder by Obama (or perceived blunder), and the Democrat Parties fortunes could fall dramatically.

I think again you're fixating on Obama too much. I think the big way this reverses itself is if the nascent economic recovery dies out and starts to turn into a new downward plunge. If that happens it's going to be a bloodbath.

@Throbbin, I can't blame you for thinking that. He's the President, he's the most visible, most popular, and most powerful single Democrat there is. The press always has a strong tendency to make every political issue into a story about the President's personal political fortune, and that seems even more pronounced with Obama.

He's also the head of the Democratic party in theory, but we don't exercise the kind of party discipline you find in, well, virtually every other democratic country. There's no real punishment for failing to maintain party discipline on key policy votes (see Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, etc.).

Ultimately, the real power to do things in this country resides in Congress. Obama has a larger-than-average amount of sway due to being the President, and due to having his party in the majority, but he doesn't have anything like total control over what happens in Congress.