How the Senate races stack up
Here’s a recent roundup of Senate races and how they stand.
And here’s some other news from Ohio that can’t possibly warm the cockles of Obama’s heart. Remember how close and how important Ohio was in ’04, determining the outcome of the presidential election? And then in 2008, Ohio went to Obama by four percentage points. But Ohio isn’t very happy with him—or the Democrats—now.
What happened in ny also didn’t go well.
it was 100 dollars to attend an obama speech
bargain basement compared to before
and he couldn’t fill up the venue
Also, the artist that did the soviet style posters for obama
Famed Obama ‘Hope’ poster artist losing hope
though i like this bs..
Fairey explained that when he came up with the poster in 2008, he was trying to find a single image that embodied the issues he cared most about — promoting health care, helping labor, and curtailing lobbyists. He likened the issues to projectiles.
yes, nothing says health care, labor, etc… like soviet realism and soviet poster art…
“Looking at Obama’s standpoint on various policies, it was like, ‘Why throw all these particular projectiles over the wall… when I could put all those things in one projectile that I could hurl over the wall,'” Fairey said in a phone interview from Los Angeles, where he lives. “Obama was the delivery device in theory. Now, I realize that he maybe is not the correct delivery device, and I’ll just deal with those issues separately.”
one soviet style bomb to ecapsulate obama, and now they are disappointed that he was not a mao, or stalin… not even a castro… or a chavez… not even a “big man”…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_excl/ynews_excl_pl3712
I found this Peggy Noonan column at the RWN link:
The Enraged vs. the Exhausted
Not bad. She still has her moments. Or, more cynically, she’s tacking back to the right because she can see which way the wind is blowing this year.
Neo:
You really think Obama’s heart has cockles? I think like everything else he boasts, they’re phony. F
F: I think his heart has cockles and mussels.
People on the right will be encouraged but not satisfied if the Democrats go down to 52 Senate seats. It’s not enough, and those 48 Republicans are not all reliable anyway.
Added bonus, both the Republican and Democratic candidates are less liberal than the last few groups.
Fortunately, there will be an entirely fresh crop of Democratic Senate targets to take out in 2012. We’ll need another 8 then.
And we can.
While I’d like to see the Democrats lose the Senate majority entirely, from a strategic perspective, I think a scenario such as the one AVI describes is probably more desirable for the long term. If the Republicans take over both the House and the Senate, they’d be able to block Obama’s agenda completely, but then he’d run against the “do-nothing Congress” a la Truman, and he might just get re-elected. If the Republicans get about 48 seats in the Senate, at least 40 of those can probably be depended on to block things through filibuster in a more reliable way than they can now. The squishy middle will be empowered again to work out compromises, but some of those in the middle will be Democrats fearing for their futures. If there are Democrats in the Senate willing to break with Obama’s agenda, then he’s more likely to face seriously uncertain prospects in 2012.
I don’t see a Senate majority as all that important. For one thing, all spending bills must originate in the House, or at least they used to when we followed the Constitution. For another thing, it would take 60 votes to really control the Senate and the Repubs can’t get that this year. Plus, that 60 would include several RINOS (Collins, Snowe, Brown, McCain, Graham). Better to get within striking distance and seek control in 2012 when many more democrat-socialists are up for re-election. And, it would give President Palin a good start in reversing the attempted socialist take-over. That is when the peasant class can show the ruling class who is in charge in this country.
“Assistant Village Idiot Says:
September 25th, 2010 at 12:10 am
Fortunately, there will be an entirely fresh crop of Democratic Senate targets to take out in 2012. We’ll need another 8 then.”
A possible benefit of a more conservative congress would be the blue dog democrats not being browbeat by Pelosi to walk the party line.
Well there is hope. But I for one never bought into the blue dog’s being conservative or moderate. When the dems were running them my thought was they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. They advertised themselves as conservative to they could run and win in conservative districts.
John wrote: “But I for one never bought into the blue dog’s being conservative or moderate. When the dems were running them my thought was they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. They advertised themselves as conservative to they could run and win in conservative districts.”
I’d certainly agree with you there. This has been my impression for several years. A few years back, I got to know a local politician in my state who painted herself as something of a mainstream, centrist Democrat who could reach across the aisle and be bipartisan. Her closest friends and acquaintances, though, were all as hard left as they come–left-wing activists of all stripes, SEIU types, admirers of Che, and so on, and she shared their values and principles. She even admitted once that she got most of her news about national affairs from “The Daily Show.” Although I had begun to suspect as much before, that was when it was I fully realized that there are no “centrists” or “conservatives” in the Democrat party, and anyone who claims to be such a thing is probably either deluded, or trying to make herself out to be more mainstream than she really is.
Dan Janousek and Kurt: the importance of the Republicans getting a Senate majority is that that is the only way to stop the Democrats from ending the filibuster (by the nuclear option) at the beginning of the 2011 term, if they so desire.
Of course, if the Republicans take control of the House, even if the Democrats end the filibuster in the Senate they’ll still have some trouble passing bills in the House. But Harry Reid would retain his post in the Senate, and he has gone on record as saying that he wants to end the filibuster in the Senate next term. It only takes a simple majority to rewrite the rules at the start of a new term. I’ve written about this before several times.