• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trouble Looms for Obama, Democrats with Election Day 2014 Approaching

upsideguy said:
Don't get carried away.... most of the contested races are in red states that were won by Dems in their sweep in 2008. This should be a walk in the park for an out of power party, in an off-year election. The cons will enjoy modest gains in the house (because those districts are so gerrymandered, there aren't that many competitive districts) and will likely, but not assuredly, have a change of control in the Senate, that they will struggle to achieve.

It will be a nice night for the Cons, but far, far, far short of the biggest sweep in history.

BTW... the same wind at that back climate that will flip the Senate in 2014, will be wind at the back for the other guys, so the Senate will flip back in 2016. Enjoy it while you can.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Voters are frustrated and they are going to lash out at the party in power. And like you said, most of the races are close and the races where republicans are leading are in Red states anyway.

I find it comical that most of the republicans talking points are not about what they can bring to the table, but how Obama is the scourge of the earth.
 
upsideguy said:
Don't get carried away.... most of the contested races are in red states that were won by Dems in their sweep in 2008. This should be a walk in the park for an out of power party, in an off-year election. The cons will enjoy modest gains in the house (because those districts are so gerrymandered, there aren't that many competitive districts) and will likely, but not assuredly, have a change of control in the Senate, that they will struggle to achieve.

It will be a nice night for the Cons, but far, far, far short of the biggest sweep in history.

BTW... the same wind at that back climate that will flip the Senate in 2014, will be wind at the back for the other guys, so the Senate will flip back in 2016. Enjoy it while you can.
Click to expand...

That all depends on whether or not the Republicans step up and start being conservative. If the continue to be lib lite you are probably right.
 
lifeisshort said:
That all depends on whether or not the Republicans step up and start being conservative. If the continue to be lib lite you are probably right.
Click to expand...

Yes, you just go an run those real conservative candidates in Blue states in 2016 and we will see how that works out.
 
upsideguy said:
Yes, you just go an run those real conservative candidates in Blue states in 2016 and we will see how that works out.
Click to expand...

Conservative policies work every time they are implemented and when the general brainwashed by the media public gets an opportunity to see that people shift. Reagan proved that.
 
lifeisshort said:
Conservative policies work every time they are implemented and when the general brainwashed by the media public gets an opportunity to see that people shift. Reagan proved that.
Click to expand...

Reagan was a big spending, budget busting, tax increasing, deficit exploding fiscal disaster. I know he's been reformed by the propaganda and short memories, but you really can't point to his record for evidence of "real" conservative policies, especially on the budget. ERTA 81 was a giant tax cut that he spent the next 7 years slowly undoing.
 
JasperL said:
Reagan was a big spending, budget busting, tax increasing, deficit exploding fiscal disaster. I know he's been reformed by the propaganda and short memories, but you really can't point to his record for evidence of "real" conservative policies, especially on the budget. ERTA 81 was a giant tax cut that he spent the next 7 years slowly undoing.
Click to expand...

Reagan made a deal with the dem congress that they reneged on and Reagan gets the blame. His spending on our military broke the back of the Soviet Union though and was money well spent. For the next 20 years we did great with the peace dividend he left us.
 
lifeisshort said:
Reagan made a deal with the dem congress that they reneged on and Reagan gets the blame. His spending on our military broke the back of the Soviet Union though and was money well spent. For the next 20 years we did great with the peace dividend he left us.
Click to expand...
had there been no Reagan, there would be no US right now.
 
lifeisshort said:
Reagan made a deal with the dem congress that they reneged on and Reagan gets the blame. His spending on our military broke the back of the Soviet Union though and was money well spent. For the next 20 years we did great with the peace dividend he left us.
Click to expand...

Not really. Between 1982 and 1989, Reagan requested roughly $5 billion MORE in spending than Congress enacted, with budget deficits totalling about $1,500 billion during that time. He more or less got the spending levels he wanted, as reflected in his budget requests (as opposed to public rhetoric).

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-107sdoc18/pdf/GPO-CDOC-107sdoc18-1-12-4.pdf
 
rcart76 said:
Say if I agree with your argument. How would the senate changing over to republican going to change that? You guys don't have the balls to impeach Obama. And if you are stupid enough to do so like back in the 90s then you will lose everything.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the Republicans have the balls or not. Right now the Repubs do not have the votes. A landslide victory might change that.

However, the Repubs still might not have the balls.
 
jimbo said:
I'm not sure that the Republicans have the balls or not. Right now the Repubs do not have the votes. A landslide victory might change that.

However, the Repubs still might not have the balls.
Click to expand...

Even though Obama is the worst president in my lifetime, it would be foolish for the repubs to waste their time with impeachment proceedings. IMO
They should be focused on doing things that would further their chances at the 2016 election cycle, not killing their chances at the cycle. just sayin'.....

Has nothing to do with having balls or not
 
JasperL said:
Say what? :shock:

I see the Canonization of St. Ronnie of Reagan is well underway!
Click to expand...
No, he just had a forward looking future for the US. One that included the destruction of the Soviet Union without war.
 
Meister said:
Even though Obama is the worst president in my lifetime, it would be foolish for the repubs to waste their time with impeachment proceedings. IMO
They should be focused on doing things that would further their chances at the 2016 election cycle, not killing their chances at the cycle. just sayin'.....

Has nothing to do with having balls or not
Click to expand...

I agree. I was responding to recart's post. He seems to be the only one in this thread mentioning Repub balls or impeachment.
 
rcart76 said:
Say if I agree with your argument. How would the senate changing over to republican going to change that? You guys don't have the balls to impeach Obama. And if you are stupid enough to do so like back in the 90s then you will lose everything.
Click to expand...

These two statements are confusing...unless you're trying to bait with the first. Or, are you saying they don't have the balls to be stupid? See, it is confusing.
 
CRUE CAB said:
No, he just had a forward looking future for the US. One that included the destruction of the Soviet Union without war.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine studied the Soviet Collapse as part of his dissertation for the Army War College, and lots of evidence indicates the Soviet Union was going to collapse with or without the Reagan defense build up - it was inevitable because their economic system had failed. The best that can be said, per his very detailed analysis and access to classified documents we can't see, is the defense build up hastened it by a bit, but didn't CAUSE it. The causes were far deeper and fundamental.
 
JasperL said:
A friend of mine studied the Soviet Collapse as part of his dissertation for the Army War College, and lots of evidence indicates the Soviet Union was going to collapse with or without the Reagan defense build up - it was inevitable because their economic system had failed. The best that can be said, per his very detailed analysis and access to classified documents we can't see, is the defense build up hastened it by a bit, but didn't CAUSE it. The causes were far deeper and fundamental.
Click to expand...
Some of that may be true, but the most dangerous enemy is one that is near collapse.
 
JasperL said:
A friend of mine studied the Soviet Collapse as part of his dissertation for the Army War College, and lots of evidence indicates the Soviet Union was going to collapse with or without the Reagan defense build up - it was inevitable because their economic system had failed. The best that can be said, per his very detailed analysis and access to classified documents we can't see, is the defense build up hastened it by a bit, but didn't CAUSE it. The causes were far deeper and fundamental.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate? How much is just a bit, and what other causes? I know there was no incentive to work hard under communism, but is that one of the other causes your friend found evidence of?
 
Meister said:
Can you elaborate? How much is just a bit, and what other causes? I know there was no incentive to work hard under communism, but is that one of the other causes your friend found evidence of?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I can't. He gave me a "civilian" copy maybe 10 years ago and I read it at the time and can't faithfully recount the details.

But I think if you read just about any analysis of the Soviet collapse in recent years, the idea that Reagan ==> Collapse just isn't widely shared. At best it's a controversial claim with many who would agree only that Reagan's actions hastened the inevitable collapse, and that it had MANY contributing causes.
 
JasperL said:
A friend of mine studied the Soviet Collapse as part of his dissertation for the Army War College, and lots of evidence indicates the Soviet Union was going to collapse with or without the Reagan defense build up - it was inevitable because their economic system had failed. The best that can be said, per his very detailed analysis and access to classified documents we can't see, is the defense build up hastened it by a bit, but didn't CAUSE it. The causes were far deeper and fundamental.
Click to expand...

I would guess that the main cause of the collapse was that one of those S's stood for socialist.
 
Meister said:
These two statements are confusing...unless you're trying to bait with the first. Or, are you saying they don't have the balls to be stupid? See, it is confusing.
Click to expand...



Repubs are going across country to town halls feeding their base red meat to win votes by saying that we (being the right) need to impeach Obama and what he is doing is unconsitutional. The base is just eating it up. However back in reality, they know that will be politcal suicide because the rest of the country think its bulls***.

My point is they talk a big game in front of their base, but just like most politicians, they'll shrivel up once they get the opportunity to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom