Matthew Miller at Race42008:

Waiting for 2012 for a REAL Conservative?

Not if you’re smart. Since the beginning of the 19th century, incumbent Presidents have sought re-election 21 times. They’ve won 16 times; a success ratio of 76%.

Matthew then runs through all the instances of incumbents losing. In all 5 cases, we were in the middle of a recession, or strongly perceived as being in such. He continues,

What are the chances that we’ll be in a recession in 2012 if Barack Obama is elected President? Recessions are, as a rule, relatively infrequent occurrences. I believe the general rule of thumb assumes that a recession will occur something like every 10 years. Now, we’re currently approaching a recession, so in the ordinary course of things we wouldn’t expect the country to be in one in 2012. To be sure, we’re speaking of electing Barack Obama, a man who’s policies are decidedly anti-growth and anti-free markets. It’s quite likely that he’ll negatively impact the economy. Unfortunately, even relatively optimistic predictions expect this current recession to last well into 2009. In order for the country to be in another recession by 2012, it would need to follow no more then 2-3 years on all the heels of this one. It’s not at all clear that even Obama can manage that. And the other possibility is equally unlikely; that we stay in this recession UNTIL 2012. There are really only two precedents for that sort of sustained economic malaise over the last hundred years; the Great Depressions and the late 1970’s.

In short, if Barack Obama is elected in 2008′, he’s quite likely to get a second term.

So, a quick rebound in 2012 following a McCain loss isn't really an option here, folks. Unless we manage to make up serious ground in the House and hold our losses to 3-4 in the Senate, 2010 could be out of play in terms of taking one or both chambers to keep President Obama in check, though we may well be mired in a recession then. And don't forget the awful redistricting cycle we're headed for.

Anyone making the calculation to leave anything on the field in '08 needs to fully factor in that it will be 2016 at the earliest before we take back the White House if we don't succeed in '08. Don't harbor any illusions of a quick bounceback. There is going to be a long sorting out process if we lose.

4
Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

Comments

so your saying

that 1976-1980 was a fluke?

 Hmmm a Democrat in times of economic stress passing tax hikes and regressive energy policies

 

1976 or an Obama 2009

 

I think Obama can VERY easily replicate the 1970s

But don't bet on it

That's Patrick's point. There was only one Jimmy Carter.

I would bet on it

Obama is going to keep energy prices high, and has said as much. He is going to tax people more. I think thats enough to keep 4 more years of economic weakness. then we add in the worst of the Social Security crisis and an obama tax hike there (and expansion of programs) and we'll have a nice warm cup of 21st century Mailase

Just remember. . .

. . .that you're betting the lives of soldiers in the field.  Along with all those glorious "gifts" that Carter gave us came a decaying military, hostages in Iran, and the expansion of Soviet influence.  If we can look forward to that kind of foreign policy while we have troops serving in active combat, it will undoubtedly cost American lives.  So, the question is, as long as you're betting, how many American lives are you willing to put on the table in the hopes of drawing a Reagan in order to fill your little inside straight?

McCain won't be better

Economically speaking. And I think Foreign policy and Defense Policy speaking the best I can say is it won't be as bad. So a Bad economy under Obama in 2012 and a likely bad to barely good economy under John McCain

 

The economy being in the tank for the next 4 years given the leadership we have is probable. If we elect McCain it MIGHT be better if Conservative Republicans can actually retake the party in 2 years (which I don't see happening) and pushing for a closer balance in the party majorities

4-year recession is big assumption

When was the last time that happened? Maybe the end of Carter and the first year or so of Reagan? How about before that, the Great Depression?

Remember, Bill Clinton's tax hikes were suppose to bring about a recession that would cost him. That didn't happen.

It's rare for a party to win from losing.

I don't think the taxes will

I don't think the taxes will be good for this economy. Recipe for disaster.

The other nonparallel to 1976-1980

is the GOP had someone warm in the pen for the next cycle. I know this will bother the various Huckabee and Romney fans out there, but we are not in a comparable position. 

They don't have a Reagan in that regard

But the economic conditions which COULD lead to an end to a Obama first term are there

Of course they are there.

But we are playing in a different ballgame than before. We are now playing politics in the "Communication Age". Politics will never be the same. If Obama wins in 2008, the economy will tank. The Republican Party will reform, hopefully, using the Internet to hasten such reform. By 2010 we will regain the majority, and by 2012, the presidency.

This scenario depends on the party reforming itself to bring in every registered Republican into the party structure online. it will mean holding Executive Committee elections online, creating political platforms online, holding county, state, regional and national deliberative  meetings online. It will mean turning the Republican Party into a truly cybernetic political party.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Sorry Kurzweil

I am not sure I buy that either

the only question is?

The only question is do we want to take a chance on having Barack Hussein Obama as president? The man is a disaster, a train wreck. Long gas lines, high gas prices, surrender in Iraq. Yuck...

I'm not so sure Bush 41, Bob Dole or Howard Baker

would've beaten Carter. O.k.-- Ronnie won by 10 points, but let's assume one of these less charismatic folks wins by 4-5 points, leaving Congress in Democrat hands. I think the 1980 election would be then regarded merely as a personal repudiation of Carter, not his governing philosophy.  

and folks, that might be our "best case" if we were to oust Obama after Term 1

Understand that if JMC gets elected

 ....and the economy tanks, were done in 2012. As in, done big time, till the 2020's. No Bobby Jindal, no Condi Rice, no Charlie Crist. We'll be exiled and out of power for a long, long time. 

The problem with McCain is getting him to proceed with pro-growth policies that will lead Republicans back to the promised land.

Rice, Jindal, and Crist not so good

But I agree with the rest

We're going to have to agree to disagree...

The Movement Cons didn't exactly tear up the nation in 2006. And Jindal and Charlie won their elections going away.

I'm not a person who argues with results. I also see a bright future for Sarah Palin and Pawlenty, unless McCain finds a way to screw up his career. 

Bottom line, I'm not terribly impressed with the McCain Campaign's approach to economic growth and Oil Exploration right now. But then again, there's not much to be impressed with the McCain Campaign, anyway, except Goldfarb's blog. 

How many movement conservatives were running in 06

I can't think of many that were on the ballot who were legit movement conservatives... a whole lot of weasels

McCain

I think the GOP needs to reign in McCain or tell him he is on his own.

While is not the GOP candidate I invissioned I can't imagine that Obama would be better. It's liek we are picking the best of the worst candidates.

 

More 4-year recession nonsense

In recent history recessions don't last that long. If  such a recession lasted through a McCain administration Republicans would deserve to lose since they obviously would have engaged in some lousy policies.

Yes because in recent history

(and no we aren't yet in a recession) In recent history when the economy has went in the toilet congress hasn't tried to pass taxes to make it worse. Last time that happened was in the 20s.

 

Howard Baker I think would have

But definately not Bush or Dole so we would have had even more pathetic economy

Because Baker was a guy who believed more in the kind of republicanism ROnald Reagan came up with

Bad Idea to Base Winning on the Opposition Screwing Up

Especially when the stakes are so high. The stakes are always high for presidential elections. Many figured Bill Clinton would be a 1 termer; however, the Republican congress stopped much of the damaging legislation & that, coupled with a relatively weak candidate in Dole, led to 2 terms for Clinton & great damage to our intelligence & national security apparatus. Look at the damage caused by 4 years of Carter & a Democrat congress. McCain is not perfect; however, he is exponentially better for the country than Obama.

I don't have to pray Obama is going to screw up

He tells me he is going to, and then his economic adviser comes out and says he doesn't mean it.

 

McCain also tells me he is going to ruin the economy... but he does mean it. Until a new way to meddle in the economy or peoples lives comes up

McCain could be worse than Obama

Senator Obama has demonstrated an ability to understand the long term consequences of his policy proposals such as open borders and unlimited immigration will benefit public sector employees and benefit the Democratic party.  However, Senator McCain has repeatedly demonstrate that his is both too stupid to understand the imapcts of his policy decisions and too lazy to try to learn about the impacts of his policy decisions.

Ask yourself this, could a Gore Administraiton been as stupid and as incompetent as the Bush Administration has been?  To argue that a Repubicans Administration would be good for the economy is contradicted by the Bush Adminsitration from 2001 to 2006.  McCain would probably run up the same high budget deficits as the Bush Administraiton, would open the borders more and would try to micromanage the economy with the same group of incompetent staffers that now run the Bush Administration.

It is time for conservatives to put an end to the incompetence that Republicans in Washington seem overjoyed to display. Voting for McCAin is a vote to continue the incompetence.

Well, said.

I don't like the hand dealt us anymore than anybody else. But the truth of the matter is, we, as fiscal conservalives,  are always going to be placed in this position until we either change the primaries (excluding all but registered Republicans, and a few other changes) and the party leadership understands conservatives will no longer blindly go along with the political blackmailing argument that voting for a neo-Republican is bad, but it is better than voting for the other candidate. It is simply not true.

We will have a strong minority in Congress, enough to block any really dangerous liberal legislation and Supreme Court appointments for at least two years, while we focuse on regaining Congressional strength in 2010. And with the restructuring of the party, hopefully, we can again move conservatism, especially fiscal conservatism, back into the forefront of American political thought, and elect a veto-proof Congress and the next president by 2012.

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

Umm. . .

. . .wouldn't it require the dread judicial filibuster to stop a liberal Supreme Court appointment?  And, didn't Andy McCarthy and the rest of the bunch who clawed at their flesh over the Gang of Fourteen say that those were extra-Constitutional and shouldn't be allowed?

Democrats Filibuster Judges

Republicans almost never do

 

they use other more obscure Senate rules

A few examples. . .

. . .perhaps?  Placing "holds" on them?  That's very temporary.  And, even then, of course, you hand the Democrats the "obstructionist" cudgel, which they will use with supreme glee against a Republican minority trying to thwart the will of "our first black president" who is fighting so hard to bring real change and hope to the American people who are tired of the partisan gamesmanship of the Bush era and want their government to go to work for them, instead of the powerful special interests in Washington.

I'm beginning to suspect that the emo-cons haven't given much thought to this process at all.

Oh I'm not advocating that far from it

I am just saying as a rule Filibusters were never the Senate Republicans bag of tricks

 

and who cares if they say republicans are being obstructionist. If the Democrats use their senate majority to approve a horrifically bad judge who is worse then Ruth Bader Ginsburg the Gop should obstruct any way they can short of a filibuster

And to be frank I have no reason to trust McCain on judges and when it comes to abortion issues only 3 of the 12 Judges appointed from pre-roe to today by republicans voted against abortion. (included in that 3 are 2 who sit on the bench right now). So with that track record a Republican is just slightly less likely to appoint jurists who want to whipe their buttocks on the constitution then a democrat if that republican is like John McCain

External events not factored in...

The biggest external event I see missing from the above is what happens on the watch of either Obama, or McCain is a large scale disruption to the energy supply.

Like Iran cutting off supplies in retribution for sanctions.  Or any number of oil producers teetering into civil war.

Also to consider, the next BIG terrorist attack.

Either of these could easily push us into another recession.

Or

the massive taxes both canidates propose (though one doesn't call them taxes) on Energy companies. And how they both want the Energy companies to give back some of their profits

 

thats why I know either McCain or Obama is going to screw up the economy.

 

Also the Modern Political party system was established post 1972.

Post 1972 we have

Incumbent losses (76,80,92)

Incumbent retentions (84,96,2004)

Open races won by the incumbent party (88)

Open races won by the opositional party (00)

So by those numbers ... the numbers that are apples to apples there is a 50/50 chance we can beat Obama (or Senator McCain can be beaten)

 

the one time an open race (like this one) was won by the out of power party was when economic numbers were weak. When it was won by the in power party numbers were strong.

So for an Obama win in 2012 (if he retains) he has to have a working economy and the plan he talks about on the stump (which his advisors are now saying isn't the real plan) will kill the economy with fire.

So yeah handicapping the odds PROPERLY its a coin toss

Judicial filibusters. . .

. . .were never in anyone's bag of tricks until Bush started nominating judges.

As for who cares whether they say Republicans are being obstructionists, there's an easy answer for that: voters.  And, once the Democrats exploit the meme effectively -- and it'll be fairly easy given that they'll be fighting on behalf of the walking, talking hope machine and America's first black president -- the Republican minority in Congress gets even smaller.  In fact, there's a better-than-even chance that it'll be so small that it will be absolutely powerless to stop anything an Obama administration decides to push through -- even more so after redistricting.

Your take on McCain's likelihood to appoint liberal judges as opposed to Obama's likelihood is sort of like going out to dinner with a couple of known coprophiliacs and a couple of mutual acquaintances and saying, "I'll just have whatever you guys are having."  And then, offering to foot the bill.

Did the voters care when the Democrats were obstructing Bush's

Appointees: Answer No

The Clinton appointees that got gummed up: Answer No

 

voters don't care. they do care if a judge is RADICAL and EXTREME. they care if a judge will force your kids to marry gay or will do back alley abortions on his lunch break

 

thats what people care about in judges

Judicial appointees. . .

. . .fall into a larger narrative of obstruction.  Voters don't sit around and say, "Gee, that Judge Reinhold would have been great on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, but the Republicans in Congress blocked his nomination.  To the ramparts!!!"

The Democrats will highlight every area in which the Republicans have obstructed popular legislation and appointments across the board, and use it as a means to browbeat the GOP for failing to enact the agenda of our first black president who was elected to bring the much-needed changes after the past eight years of partisan rancor.

And, again, there will be redistricting to deal with -- which is a guaranteed further loss of seats, on top of the loss of Republican seats that is inevitable in this cycle.

 

uhuh

And No one cares if the legislation is popular they care if the legislation is radical. Popular legislation won't get voters to the phones blowing up the senate call center. Radical legislation will. Popular legislation going to defeat or being blocked doesn't hurt a member up for re-election but Radicalism does.

Voters don't vote because "the honourable John smith stopped legislation X" they vote against him because he is against unwed mothers who need the public support that bill X could have provided.

this kind of rhetoric is the guy who gets you a yard or 2 per play on the football field. In a pinch it can win you a game but a yard or 2 a quarter means you turn over the ball to the other team

Great Post Patrick Ruffini

I think most conservatives here understand your point, Patrick. 

Obama winning the Presidency isn't going to magically put the Republicans in charge of the country.  We actually could be in the wilderness for a long time.   I could see a very plausible scenario where oil prices fall dramatically (similar to the housing bubble), the US leaves Iraq under good terms because we're currently on the cusp of victory, and the housing market works through its current funk all in the next year  or two DESPITE Obama's policies.  Then Republicans are really screwed.  The most left-wing President in U.S. history gets credit for "fixing" America, similar to how Clinton got credit for America's economic prosperity in the 1990's.

I put my country ahead of my party and idelogy.  Trying to get the better candidate to lose in the hope that the country will go to hell is wrong, plain and simple.  Especially when we're in the midst of a war.  It's similar to the Democrats hoping America suffers a humiliating defeat in Iraq in order to help their electoral chances.

There are better ways to cure the Republican party than destroying the country.  It's kind of like saying you should cheat on your wife if you're having problems in your marriage, because only once you have destroyed the marriage can you fix it.  It makes no sense and is needlessly destructive.

Excuse me?

I could see a very plausible scenario where oil prices fall dramatically (similar to the housing bubble),

 

Ummm with a President who wants massive taxes on oil companies, restricting consumption (massive taxes on individual fuel consumption) and massive taxes on upper income filers (killing small buisness, leading to less jobs) and creating new barriers for corperate governance (forcing more corporations to go overseas.

 

Also under an Obama Presidency their will be expansionistic military threats go strong from Syria and Iran

 

how does that work?

 

The Same Way It Worked Under Clinton

Clinton vetoed efforts to expand energy production, (such as blocking drilling in ANWR) yet oil was at historical lows.  The markets don't always perfectly track with a Presiden't's policy. 

The same happened with taxes.  Clinton signed into the law the largest tax increase in U.S. history, and the 1990's were the one of the most prosperous periods in U.S. history.  The stock market roared, unemployment was at historical lows, interest rates were low, inflation was in check, etc. This was not because of Clinton's tax hike, but despite it.

I think you over-estimate what a President can do.   Even though Obama he can make bad decisions, the markets can still function, just look at socialist Europe.  Capitalism still keeps chugging along, depite their horrible fiscal policies.

 

 

And I think your delusional

If you want to compaire the 1 trillion in taxes (plus) just for global warming Obama is going to put out there and his other 1 trillion in taxes he plans to lay on people. And the fact some upper income earners under obama will be paying if he gets the tax plan he wants 60% of their income to federal taxes.

 

thats what Obama says he is going to do. So if Obama has the doomsday majorities y'all think he's getting we are looking at an extra 2-3 dollars a gallon for gas. A gutting of small buisness in this country. Corporations moving their executive staff and offices overseas at a record level. A massive decrease in tax revenues and a massive increase in spending which will mean a higher deficit and a higher national debt. Pushing the fed to push intrest rates higher

 

stagflation 1970s... and when that happened in the 70s it killed a Republican administration and killed a Democratic administration.

Obama and Bush can easily replicate the Nixon-Ford-Carter Economic period with what they have done and what they say they plan to do.\

And this will give the Iranian government the strength to cut the US off of its oil which will (yes) push up oil prices more. Venezuala is running their oil industry into the ground so (yes) higher US oil prices. More US taxes (yes) higher oil prices. More farm subsidies (yes) higher fuel and food prices

And to think. . .

. . .you're advocating all of these things for the benefit of a political party.

Talk about delusional.

LOL

Yes because addressing the fact that we have a Democrat who has proposed 2 trillion in new taxes especially taxes regressive to consumers and small buisnesses and at least 2 trillion in new spending will not improve the economy... clearly trying to make an argument based on reality isn't going to help our party... because our party leaders thing ruining the economy slightly less then Obama is the trick.

 

well gosh I didn't realize we were trying to see who would fail this country the least

Karasoth

You're not convincing anyone here of your idiotic point-of-view.

Hoping that Obama runs the country into the ground is a stupid way to rebuild the Republican Party. I personally don't want to live in a country that's in shambles on the hope that I will have a "rejuvenated" Republican Party sometime in the future. I'm not going to gamble on this country's economic and national security in the hope Americans will suddenly transform into right-wing Republicans.

This web-site's purpose, and the overwhelming majority of people who participate here, want to help center-right Republicans win elections and enact conservative policies. No one here is buying what you're selling. You clearly want McCain to lose. There are other web-sites that will welcome that view with open-arms, but this isn't one of them.

Go ahead, don't vote for McCain, I would prefer immature "activists" like yourself leave the party, just don't expect a huge crowd to follow you out the door.

Ya don't get it

I am not hoping Obama wil run the country into the Ground. If Obama does what he says he will do he WILL run the country into the ground. He will drive energy and food prices up and their will be an economic change election in 4 years.

 

And if McCain is elected the exact same thing will happen

 

If we don't address the realities of this race we will lose. And that same losing attitude that you and John McCain advocate has been whats going on from 05-Present.

 

I want the Republican party to advocate ideas which make this country better. We will win when that happens.

 

Thats not the path we are on right now

What you're actually doing. . .

. . .is failing miserably in convincing anyone that you have a clue as to what you're talking about.  You seem to fancy yourself to be some sort of product of the spliced genes of Nostradamus and Milton Friedman, when in fact, you're much closer to a product of the spliced genes of Dick Morris and Paul Krugman.

Ok

How would making the Price of Gasoline more expensive (which Obama wants to do alot and McCain wants to do a little) Not make things worse Economically? How would making it harder for Small buisness to profit and grow (as obama's tax plan will cripple small buisnesses which provide 70% of the new job growth in the country) how would that make the possibility of the economy getting better?

You don't need to be Nostradamus. Its EXACTLLY what they did in the 1970s. Its the exact same playbook

For beginners. . .

. . .you're assuming that the McCain-backed piece of legislation wouldn't face any opposition in a Democrat-controlled Congress.  We all know better than that.  History has demonstrated otherwise time and time again.  There's no way that they'll give him a victory on energy policy when they're beholden to their environmental extremists.  And, there's no way that McCain will sign into law the kind of legislation that the Congressional Democrats support, simply because it will thwart the domestic drilling that he supports.  Odds are, energy policy will go nowhere -- espcially during the first two years of a McCain administration.  Congress will thwart him on it.

As for Obama's proposals, they might pass through the Congress, or they might not.  That depends on whether or not enough of the centrist Democrats get spooked.  That's a much dicier proposition.  There simply is no way to be certain -- public sentiment is fluid, and will be more fluid if gas prices continue to rise, and Obama refuses to ease drilling restrictions.

In any event -- worst case scenario, Obama wins, claims a mandate, and uses the bully pulpit to ram his proposals through a Democrat Congress, and then the economy goes to hell.

Best case scenario -- McCain wins, has to fight the Democrats at every step to enact an energy policy that doesn't have strong support among either the base, or much promise with the opposition.  He blames energy high energy prices on the Democrats' refusal to allow new domestic exploration and drilling, and Republicans use it as an issue against Democrats in congressional races.

WRT taxes, Obama proposes his increases on capital gains, his windfall profits tax on oil companies, as well as the tax increases on people making over $250,000 a year, as well as all the other taxes that Democrats tend to be fond of.  He has an unobstructed run through a Democrat-controlled Congress, the taxes are implemented, the economy goes to hell.

On the other hand, if McCain wins, he will face a fight with Congress on his tax cut program.  Congress will propose sunsetting the Bush tax cuts, he will veto it, and the Republicans in Congress can use it as an issue -- tax-and-spend, do-nothing, obstructionist Democrats in Congress voted to raise taxes and have fought John McCain every step of the way because he had the audacity to beat their messiah.  You end up with an economy that hasn't been unduly meddled with for the first two years of a McCain administration, and GOP candidates with a message to run on,

A lot can happen in the economy as well as politics over the next two years.  There's no predicting either way.  But, you can use history as a guide, and count on the natural gridlock in Washington whenever there is divided government to hold back the most radical stuff.  If you have one-party rule, all manner of irreversible crap can happen that winning back the Congress won't be able to undo for generations.

.you're assuming that the

.you're assuming that the McCain-backed piece of legislation wouldn't face any opposition in a Democrat-controlled Congress.  We all know better than that.  History has demonstrated otherwise time and time again.  There's no way that they'll give him a victory on energy policy when they're beholden to their environmental extremists.

 

You mean like the Global Warming legislation they put up (and it lost in the Senate) which used to have his name on it. His global warming bill will pass if he is President and Enough Republicans in the House and Senate will bite the bullet to keep the President's agenda from going down the drain.

simply because it will thwart the domestic drilling that he supports.

He has said he is "Open" to the idea. He never said he supported it.

Best case scenario -- McCain wins, has to fight the Democrats at every step to enact an energy policy that doesn't have strong support among either the base, or much promise with the opposition.  He blames energy high energy prices on the Democrats' refusal to allow new domestic exploration and drilling, and Republicans use it as an issue against Democrats in congressional races.

And McCain said he is open to it except in Florida and Alaska where we know some pretty large supplies are. He attacked tax credits passed in 2005 to do new drilling so does he support it or doesn't he. He never said he did he'd be open to it. Well that sounds like another recipe for John McCain to chase the NYTs and CNN and try to get their love again. If he believed in the issue of more drilling he'd say so. He says we need to curb our energy consumption from oil and the only way we can do that is massive taxes on buisness or the individual.

WRT taxes, Obama proposes his increases on capital gains, his windfall profits tax on oil companies, as well as the tax increases on people making over $250,000 a year, as well as all the other taxes that Democrats tend to be fond of.  He has an unobstructed run through a Democrat-controlled Congress, the taxes are implemented, the economy goes to hell.

Obama has also proposed MASSIVE tax hikes for Medicare and Medicaid which will discourage people from investing for their retirement which will reduce the amount of capital in the economy and hurt economic growth. Add to that he has a second tax plan to attack investment (the Capital gains tax increase) and he plans to spike the one percent tax bracket where many small buisness owners put their buisness taxes on their personal taxes (thus hurting buisness again)

On the other hand, if McCain wins, he will face a fight with Congress on his tax cut program.  Congress will propose sunsetting the Bush tax cuts, he will veto it, and the Republicans in Congress can use it as an issue -- tax-and-spend, do-nothing, obstructionist Democrats in Congress voted to raise taxes and have fought John McCain every step of the way because he had the audacity to beat their messiah.  You end up with an economy that hasn't been unduly meddled with for the first two years of a McCain administration, and GOP candidates with a message to run on,

Again McCain is pushing for 1 trillion in Tax increases on energy and thats assuming the economic analysis by the government is right (normally these kinds of analysis are on the low side). McCain hasn't stood up for tax cuts when there has been political pressure so we'll see another "No New Taxes" moment which will make things worse politically and economically.

We MIGHT be able to run on the Message you talk about if a Republican Congress would be willing to buck the President. But he Boil Weeval Democrats are part of what doomed carter. He was to liberal for the democrats, didn't work with them, and things ran into the ground.

We are talking a GOP minority so he MIGHT do better then Carter did in the same place but I'd not want to roll the bones on that

A lot can happen in the economy as well as politics over the next two years.  There's no predicting either way.  But, you can use history as a guide, and count on the natural gridlock in Washington whenever there is divided government to hold back the most radical stuff.  If you have one-party rule, all manner of irreversible crap can happen that winning back the Congress won't be able to undo for generations.

Obama says he wants 2 trillion in Tax inceases and those tax increases won't deliever. Now we might get lucky and have enough senators who are willing to stan up on the issue but enough Senators support half that agenda on our side that if the Democrats are united with a Democratic President they'll go along. Will we have the votes in the house to stop it no we won't. So thats 1 trillion in new taxes spread on your power bill, in transportation costs, and on your gasoline.

And since republicans think the 06 election is a reason they should move to the left what do you think a loss in 08 would tell them? we'd not have enough people willing to be warriors and they will buckle.

I think this goes from reasonable thought experiment far more then it goes into being a gamble

 

What you've just done. . .

. . .is practically write a campaign ad for McCain.  Because, given your obtuse distinctions (Your little quibble with "open to" as opposed to "support" being a good example) and rationalizations (Republicans should stand for things getting worse so that we can benefit) anyone who would use your rationale to support Barack Obama, without regard to the consequences it would have on the daily lives of Americans clearly doesn't have the interest of their nation at heart.  To folks like you, this is all nothing more than one big parlor game.  Well, I've got news for you buddy.  It's THAT kind of mentality, and your ludicrous rationalizations that have gotten the GOP in trouble.

You see, the problem with your approach to politics is that you have to mask your agenda.  What you propose can't be said in front of the little people because they just wouldn't understand.  You don't mind their suffering one little bit, as long as it furthers what you believe is in their best interest.  The sad fact is, you're the "elitist" that folks like you rail against.

Here's a question for you:  do you think a candidate could possibly win if they just came right out and said what you believe?  Do you think the average voter would run to the polls to support someone who believes that it is better to allow them to suffer more so that you might stand a better chance in the future of enacting the agenda which you think is better for them?

What you are, my friend, is an outright hypocrite who has no respect for the reality that people must live in.  You are safely ensconsed in some academic world, walled off from the very consequences of the ideas you promote.  Essentially, you're a socially stunted fantasy roll-playing gamer who has found an interest in politics.  You don't really care about people.  The troops in the field and their families mean no more to you than the average thug in the street.  Whether they suffer more under an Obama administration is of no more consequence to you than some character in a Dungeons & Dragons module.

Well, pal, it's folks like you -- albeit with diverging ideologies -- who have been running Washington for the last generation.  And, when the average person thinks about a person like you, and sees how it is reflected in politics today, and how much that has become the prevailing attitude among our supposed leaders, it makes them want to puke.  You want to know what the problem is?  It's you and everyone like you.

Well I would answer you

But thats not what I am saying. I am saying Obama will ruin the economy. Period point blank if he is elected. I am saying McCain will likely ruin the economy period point blank.

I am challenging the Underlying premise of this post and threads that its not likely the economy will be so bad in 2012 we don't throw all the bumbs out. Given the policies the Senators from Illinois and Arizona advocate thats a definative one. But if we have John McCain in the white house Republicans will march down the road to economic failure because they will want to protect their president and try to save their losses.

And then the Democrats will do what they did in 2006 Run Democrats who talk like Republicans and vote like Democrats and eat our lunch again in 2010.

I am not saying we should let Obama win. I am saying if Obama wins the economy will be so in the toilet we can win big in 2010 and 2012 if we believe in Republican ideals.

You want me to be so anti mccain I am out to crush thing. Thats not it... and if McCain screws up florida to the point the margins are within 2% come election day 'll vote for him. But I will in all likelyhood have the luxury of not voting for him. My vote will in all likelyhood not count to win the electoral votes of Florida

 

so what message can I send? can I reward a third party thats moving closer to my positions and to the American mainstream or can I just vote for a Party who hasn't shown me any sign that its learned its lessons yet.

When I have that luxury I will vote for Barr. But if when Push comes to shove I might make a difference in Obama becoming President I will do what I feel is in the best intrests of my country.

So instead of stereotyping me try reading what I say

No, You Don't Get It Karasoth

You're like the lunatic in a straight jacket who keeps screaming to everyone else that THEY'RE the crazy ones.

No one here is buying your view. We actually want Republicans to defeat Democrats, even moderate Republicans that are less conservative than we would prefer, because something is better than nothing. We understand that you have to win in order to enact policy, and the way to win is to put together majority coalitions.

Might I suggest you rejoin the Libertarian Party. I think you'd be happier there. They have the purity you crave, and they also always lose elections, which is also important to you.