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.
Actually, the 2010 loss was because Dems "swung" to hard to the right. Seniors were concerned about their benefits and came out to vote in record numbers....and ironically for Republicans.
Once again, Democratic and the *****-footed Obama and Democratic enablers supported Medicare cuts while the the dishonest Republicans opposed him. Reach Out And Touch Medicare - GOP
The 2010 victory was not a teabagger victory, it was a victory since the elderly thought thought Democrats were undermining liberal institutions.
Actually, the 2010 loss was because Dems "swung" to hard to the right. Seniors were concerned about their benefits and came out to vote in record numbers....and ironically for Republicans.
Once again, Democratic and the *****-footed Obama and Democratic enablers supported Medicare cuts while the the dishonest Republicans opposed him. Reach Out And Touch Medicare - GOP
The 2010 victory was not a teabagger victory, it was a victory since the elderly thought thought Democrats were undermining liberal institutions.
Non-sense it was because Obama did not listen to many who do not want one party rule with no minority voice. He failed to carry the congress which had been won before he arrived because of voter concern with his policies and results. Even now the ACA isn't hugely supported, he is far left of Clinton who was much more approved of because he knew the lesson of compromise and support. He learned that in arkansas after losing the second term first time. He is quote that you can not govern from the left was based on that experience.Now we see the result of two congressiponal election on Obama's results;not just one. In state houses the results were much worse looking to future yearsas all politics starts at local levels.Evenh Bush knew in his medicare drug bill to compromise to gasi support fro other isde because it leads to st ettled law.that clearly isn;t the case with the ACA as we have seen. No mimority voive emans it will be chnage as they get the abiltiy to do so and m ot supported in changes otherwsie when it starts running into problems especially in funding as CBO point out it is already.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 27 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,573 posts, read 16,560,540 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav
Non-sense it was because Obama did not listen to many who do not want one party rule with no minority voice. He failed to carry the congress which had been won before he arrived because of voter concern with his policies and results. Even now the ACA isn't hugely supported, he is far left of Clinton who was much more approved of because he knew the lesson of compromise and support. He learned that in arkansas after losing the second term first time. He is quote that you can not govern from the left was based on that experience.Now we see the result of two congressiponal election on Obama's results;not just one. In state houses the results were much worse looking to future yearsas all politics starts at local levels.Evenh Bush knew in his medicare drug bill to compromise to gasi support fro other isde because it leads to st ettled law.that clearly isn;t the case with the ACA as we have seen. No mimority voive emans it will be chnage as they get the abiltiy to do so and m ot supported in changes otherwsie when it starts running into problems especially in funding as CBO point out it is already.
President Obama only had a super majority for 3 weeks, before and after those 3 weeks republicans held the most filibusters in hour nation's history, saying that the people did not want one party rule as if there was one party rule is intellectually dishonest.
the ACA is not hugely popular because president Obama does not control his own budget, where as the Republicans continue to spend 20X more than Democrats don on negative adds against Obamacare. That is why it was unpopular, not because people disliked the legislation, but because republicans were the only ones talking about it and they were speaking negatively of it.
I have no idea what you mean with that CBO line, clarification is needed.
Actually, the 2010 loss was because Dems "swung" to hard to the right. Seniors were concerned about their benefits and came out to vote in record numbers....and ironically for Republicans.
Once again, Democratic and the *****-footed Obama and Democratic enablers supported Medicare cuts while the the dishonest Republicans opposed him. Reach Out And Touch Medicare - GOP
The 2010 victory was not a teabagger victory, it was a victory since the elderly thought thought Democrats were undermining liberal institutions.
What was BO's excuse for not rectifying this situation in 2012?
had Obama moved to the right, he might actually have received more votes in 2012 than he did in 2008, like most Presidents running for re-election.
Even though the percentage was lower than 2008, Obama still won the popular vote in 2012 by 4%. Dubya didn't win the popular vote his first term, and won by 2% for his second. Try again.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 27 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,573 posts, read 16,560,540 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minethatbird
Which budget are you speaking of?
When the US government does anything that involves the public, there is a budget for advertising, pamphlets, brochures, flyers, tv commercials etc.....
the Department of Health and Human Resources(President Obama) only spent like 59 million dollars back in 2010 on those things while Republicans both the RNC and super pacs spent more than 160 million in 2010, and another 100 million in 2011 on advertising against Obamacare. And yes, im doing this from memory, so excuse me if my numbers are off.
After a devastating defeat to Democrats in 2010, all Obama had to do was slide right and endear himself to the electorate. His Presidency would have been immensely more successful. But he didn't. Instead, he succeeded to successfully divide the nation by bashing the very constituents that sent Democrats home. He learned nothing.....his amateurship on full display.
That the President now laments that he can get nothing done in Washington, he need only to hark back to 2010 and how he has conducted himself since.
The Perpetually Lame Duck President has no one to blame but himself for his sordid predicament.
Why exactly would he have done that? He's a democrat. Stupid post.
And no, he's not a lame duck president. He's actually trying to get things done. Blame congress.
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.
