Brace yourself, bcspace, for 4 more Obama years

[_EAllusion]

Kagan is a relatively centrist supreme court judge who, at a minimum, is highly deferential to executive power and endorses conservative Bush/Obama views on civil liberties where the constitution and "war on terror" is concerned. And those will loom large over important decisions the Supreme Court has to make in this era. Her appointment had the net affect of moving the court a little towards the right because of who she replaced.

Here's an actual figure from the left pointing this out during her nomination process.

Where someone stands on The Gayz! is not the sum-total of where a person stands on the political spectrum.

[_Hoops]

It Will christian conservatives be able to stomach a Mormon in the white house just to get rid of the liberal black guy?

Let's see how many on the board will line up to call you the racist that you apparently you are.

[_The Dude]

Obama has bent over backwards trying to do things with bipartisan support, and the Republicans have spit in his offers before throwing them back in his face. There can be no real bargaining and compromise with a party which seems to have decided that the Prime Directive is to defeat Obama at the next election, and that everything else, including any and all cooperation on any and all issues in Congress, may be sacrificed on the altar to achieve that. They cannot, and will not, allow Obama to succeed at his Presidency, because that will make him harder to beat.

100% agree. The Republicans, especially the new crop in the House, are bad-faith politicians. Their brinkmanship over the dept increase basically showed a willingness to dine-and-dash on the food the country had already eaten rather than pony up and work with the commander in chief.

Actually, he's running us into the ground with his socialist policies and four more years would likely ensure a hard left Supreme Court. So it's not like the GOP is unwilling to compromise, it's more like they are saving the ship. Plus, the Democrats have yet to deliver on their promised spending cuts dating back to the Regan years when Regan figured out he couldn't trust them to do what they promised to do even after Regan delivered on his end. Obama has shown us his true colors so no, he is not eligible for President based simply on his stance on the issues.

In all seriousness, this type of hyperpartisan delusion is the greatest danger to the future of our nation. It is the reason our national government doesn't work and we cannot turn the ship away from its collision course with the iceberg.

[_Darth J]

Obama has shown us his true colors so no, he is not eligible for President based simply on his stance on the issues.

Here is a link to Article II of the Constitution of the United States:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2

Please specify where a person's substantive political views determine his or her eligibility for the presidency.

[_sock puppet]

Have you forgotten how vicious the Clinton/Obama race was?

I think that the rabbit Obama could pull out of his hat is dumping Biden as the VP and asking Hillary to take Biden's place. That might swing it back his way.

The Clinton - Obama race was about issues and was not played out between a thoroughly disgraced political hack who has the demeanor of an angry pit bull and a wealthy poser who is far too moderate for red meat Republicans and therefore feels compelled to fudge the truth at nearly every opportunity.

by the way, I would also like to see Hilary Clinton as Obama's VP running mate. She has done a great job in this administration and I can't think of anyone in the Democratic party that I would rather see a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Although Hillary has done a great job as Secretary of State, I think that Obama should have asked her to be his running mate from the get-go. She would have been a much better pick than Biden.

I think that the economy would have been in a lot better shape if Clinton had been the VP. She knows how to communicate across the aisle. There would have been much less deadlock, and a lot more bipartisan solutions on the table.

That sounds like you think Hillary would have been a better pick by the Democrats in 2008 for their nominee, for president even. If so, I agree.

[_Bond James Bond]

Hillary Laughed this suggestion off the other day. Said no way, she is retiring in the upcoming year

If Obama asked her to be VP I have a feeling she'd at least sleep on it. (When I saw that Hilary war retiring I thought every college football coach who ever vehemently denies he was leaving his job for the big job and then three days later was being introduced at the big school like he'd been there for years.)

[_Bond James Bond]

Although Hillary has done a great job as Secretary of State, I think that Obama should have asked her to be his running mate from the get-go. She would have been a much better pick than Biden.

I think that the economy would have been in a lot better shape if Clinton had been the VP. She knows how to communicate across the aisle. There would have been much less deadlock, and a lot more bipartisan solutions on the table.

What exactly could Hilary have done that Obama hasn't tried to act in a bipartisan manner? (Except being white and definitely not being a Kenyan born socialist).

Obama didn't get as much done as he should have this term (especially 2008-2009 when Democrats controlled Congress) because he tried and begged and pleaded with Republicans for bipartisan compromise.

[_moksha]

Has this photo been doctored? I feel certain that the caption originally read, "What me worry?".

I think Obama would fair best with Newt Romney as the candidate. An angry Daddy Warbucks would have everyone embracing President Obama once again.

[_Bond James Bond]

Overall, Obama has been slightly to right of Richard Nixon and the notion that he is somehow a hardcore socialist or a coup for the progressive left is based in repetition of propaganda rather than reality. His closest presidential analogue is George W. Bush, and if you found yourself having extreme like or dislike for that president, then I can only wonder what sort of partisan rationalizations would allow you to have diametrically opposing feelings in the case of Obama.

(My Bold) and Thank you! (I wonder how people would react to "Barry Dunham", Senator from Illinois, if he was a white guy with the same centrist, moderate, corporatist positions that black man Barack Obama has...hmm.)

As to the election results, I think Obama has a far easier path to re-election:

Electoral College: 270 needed to win

Obama safe votes:231
California-55
Oregon-7
Washington-12
New Mexico-5
Minnesota-10
Wisconsin-10
Illinois-20
Maine-4
Vermont-3
Connecticut-7
Rhode Island-4
Massachusetts-11
New York-29
Washington DC-3
New Jersey-14
Delaware-3
Maryland-10
Pennsylvania-20
Hawaii-4

Republican safe votes:161
Texas-38
Tennessee-11
Utah-6
Wyoming-3
Alaska-3
Montana-3
Idaho-4
Louisiana-8
Kentucky-8
West Virginia-8
Oklahoma-7
Arkansas-6
Kansas-6
Nebraska-5
Mississippi-6
Alabama-9
Georgia-16
Arizona-11
South Dakota-3
North Dakota-3
South Carolina-9

Tossup: 146
Florida-29
Ohio-18
New Hampshire-4
Nevada-6
Colorado-9
Indiana-11
Michigan-16
Iowa-6
Missouri-10
North Carolina-15
Virginia-13

I think my guesses are relatively conservative and some states could probably be slotted into "safe" columns. But I'd say the electoral math favors Obama even though the electoral reapportioning netted Republicans six votes.

[_moksha]

Once the people, formerly known as corporations and PACS, are allowed to pour their money unchecked into campaign coffers and media blitzes, then all conventional wisdom can change including counting on safe states. Only those who vote the perceived wishes of their religious leaders can remain pure and delightsome amid this big money campaigning.