Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To quote Bill Clinton (which it pains me to do) It's the economy stupid. If the economy continues on its present coarse, Obama and the democrats don't have a prayer of surviving the 2012 elections, irrespective of who the GOP nominee is.
More than likely, barring any unforseen events, you are right.
To quote Bill Clinton (which it pains me to do) It's the economy stupid. If the economy continues on its present coarse, Obama and the democrats don't have a prayer of surviving the 2012 elections, irrespective of who the GOP nominee is.
I think it will matter.
If Republican Candidate gets nominated who :
Wants Cuts to Social Security
Wants Cuts to Education
They have a history of "OMG What A Dumb Ass" statements.
If they are Overly Religious.
Their Views on Gay Marriage, may not be agree
How they plan to help the unemployed.
The Republicans may have to flip a few states.
Bachmann, Palin or any of Tea Party backed Candidate probably wont flip many states. There may be a bigger win margin in states that are already solidly red. The Tea Party cater to such a small circle. They are unwilling to bend/negotiate. I believe that will cost them votes. It's a turnoff to many Americans.
Many Polls, show how americans feel about the tea party. It's not that positive.
It really matters who the republicans nominate. I have a feeling 2012 wont be a good year for the republicans..I would not be surprised if Obama did get reelected.
To quote Bill Clinton (which it pains me to do) It's the economy stupid. If the economy continues on its present coarse, Obama and the democrats don't have a prayer of surviving the 2012 elections, irrespective of who the GOP nominee is.
Exactly.
Next year at this time they will not be able to blame Bush.
Texas is solid R and AZ probably as well. THe rest I have no idea. Of course I am only giving my opinion but I can't see Texas or AZ going any other way.
Nita
Quote:
Originally Posted by wehotex
Why is West Virginia so solidly Red? it was Blue for many years up until Obama. The MSM showed lots of racist sentiment in that state during the 08 election. Is WV's red status due entirely to racism?
It can't be racism. I thought Democrats were immune from racism and WV is as reliably Democrat as California and Massachusetts are.
Wehotex, when you peel back the blogosphere blinders, and realize that racism is not the explanation for the opposition against Obama, you only had to look at Obama's green energy rhetoric and see that WV, a state which prides itself on its extensive coal industry, is not going to support a president that wants to put them out of a job
If you look at what Wisconsin did in recent elections, I wouldn't say they are a solid blue state.. They now have a republican governor and legislature.... It may be closer there than anyone thinks,
I was thinking the same: MI yes, but Wisconsin is pretty up for grabs I would guess.
Not racism, but more about Obama's stance on coal. The same for Kentucky. Kentucky can go either way and for years usually voted in line with the eventual winner. If it wasn't Obama, I would say KY could be a toss up. It leans heavily Democratic in state and local elections...until lately. Everything cannot always be blamed on racism.
Plus, they were blue because of their beloved Governor for so many years. When Rockerfeller left the blue part started to crumble. Heck, look at AR, we still have more registered Democrats and yet, for the first time in history all but one federal elected rep is a Republican and that one could go next time.
It really matters who the republicans nominate. I have a feeling 2012 wont be a good year for the republicans..I would not be surprised if Obama did get reelected.
I feel the exact same way. The Republicans have a great chance to make Obama a one term president. But they seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and nominate someone who independents and moderate Democrats/Republicans won't be comfortable voting for. So then there would be four more years of whining, crying and complaining.
And it appears like a lot of the Republican Senators/Representatives are so obsessed with playing to their very vocal and extreme segment, that they are forgetting that the majority of the electorate is not part of that segment. Continuing on down that path could make the 2012 election unpleasant for them, especially if they lose the House back to the Democrats.
If you look at what Wisconsin did in recent elections, I wouldn't say they are a solid blue state.. They now have a republican governor and legislature.... It may be closer there than anyone thinks,
Do you think it's because of everything that has happen after that election? Think of the recall elections, too.
I have a question for the politicos. Since the number of electorals is important why is it that some states that don't have a large number of electorals are key states? We always hear about Iowa and I think, Ohio. Of course, CA and FL are always big. But, what about NY, NC and some of the others with fairly large electorals?
Why is Iowa with only 7 electoral votes always so important?
I feel the exact same way. The Republicans have a great chance to make Obama a one term president. But they seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and nominate someone who independents and moderate Democrats/Republicans won't be comfortable voting for. So then there would be four more years of whining, crying and complaining.
And it appears like a lot of the Republican Senators/Representatives are so obsessed with playing to their very vocal and extreme segment, that they are forgetting that the majority of the electorate is not part of that segment. Continuing on down that path could make the 2012 election unpleasant for them, especially if they lose the House back to the Democrats.
I agree. There seems to be frustration with Obama from the supporters, who are environmental professionals or where environmental protection is key. Also, some supporters are frustrated with him 'rolling over' for the very obstructive Republicans. However, once Obama gets in full swing with his campaign I think some of that frustration will be quelled.
Besides, look at the alternative. Everyone is so focused on Perry....as if he already has the nomination.
I agree. There seems to be frustration with Obama from the supporters, who are environmental professionals or where environmental protection is key. Also, some supporters are frustrated with him 'rolling over' for the very obstructive Republicans. However, once Obama gets in full swing with his campaign I think some of that frustration will be quelled.
Besides, look at the alternative. Everyone is so focused on Perry....as if he already has the nomination.
forget that story, or maybe you depend on Huffinton for all your information? God I hope not, but from your postings I think you might.
Nita
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and WV is as reliably Democrat as California and Massachusetts are.
