"I see an asshat taking the oath of office . . ."

So what’s gonna happen next November and beyond?

First, let’s talk about what’s NOT gonna happen.

The Democrats are not going to regain control of the House. The math just isn’t there. They might pick up a few seats, but not nearly enough to regain control. They are currently down 50 seats (242-192) which means they would need to pick up 26 seats. Unless things change there just aren’t that many in play.

Secondly, let’s talk about what is almost certain to happen:

The Republicans will take control of the Senate. They only need a net gain of four seats, and the Democrats have to defend 23 seats to the Republican’s 10. Even worse, several of the current Democratic seats were part of the 2006 tidal wave that put the Democrats in power. Those seats normally trend GOP and the Republicans only need to get half of them back.

Now here’s what might happen:

Obama might win reelection.

I’m not saying he will. In fact, he really shouldn’t have a chance. But he does. Let’s assume for a moment he succeeds.

Obama is not going to morph into a progressive hero. He wasn’t one before when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, and there is no reason to think he’ll change now. He’ll be a lame duck facing a GOP-controlled Congress. They’ll pass what they want, and the only question is how much of it he’ll veto.

My guess will be not much.

Obamacare will start taking effect. If you think it’s unpopular now, just wait. This will be one area where Obama will use his veto pen – he won’t allow the GOP to repeal his signature achievement. This won’t help the Democrats in 2014 and 2016.

Other than that we’ll basically see four more years of the same old, same old. Even if the economy improves it will be unlikely that the voters will be willing to give the Democrats four more years in the Oval Office in 2016.

Next chance will be 2020, more likely 2024.

Obama could lose.

This is more likely, no matter who the GOP nominee is.

Right now I would have to say that the most likely nominees are Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is more likely to win the nomination, but Romney is more likely to beat Obama.

Regardless of which Republican is the nominee, if they win you can expect a full-out effort to repeal Obamacare, “reform” Social Security and Medicare, and a lesser effort to make cuts in government spending.

This is actually the best long-term outcome for the Democrats liberals and progressives.

When Reagan ran for president he promised to cut taxes and spending. Once he took office one of the first things he did was cut taxes. But when he tried to cut spending he ran into a buzz saw.

Every piece of government spending has a constituency. There is only so much “waste, fraud and abuse” that can be cut. The really big-ticket spending programs are taboo.

Military spending? Military retirees? Old people? Children?

If anyone tries to do anything more than tinker with Social Security and Medicare they’ll find out (like Ronnie did) why it’s called “the third rail of American politics.”

Anything the Republicans do to cut spending will anger lots of voters, including a big chunk of their own base. Everybody wants government spending cut, except for their own programs. Remember the Tea Partiers with signs that said “Government hands off my Medicare?”

Here’s the bad news:

Things have to get worse before they’ll get better. Remember when the Republicans controlled Washington. That was only a few years ago. They had Congress and the White House, plus a majority of the Supreme Court.

The voters were so impressed they voted the Democrats back into power in 2006-2008. But the Democrats blew it. Seriously, it was like they were determined to sabotage themselves. They didn’t try to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They didn’t investigate Bush-Cheney lawbreaking. They shoved Hillary aside for an empty-suit puppet of Wall Street.

If the Republicans take full control next year, things will get worse. Actually, they’re gonna get worse either way. But if the Republicans are in charge they’ll get all the blame.

The question is, when the Democrats get another chance, will they choke again?

This entry was posted in 2012 Elections, Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Politics, Republican Party, Ronald Reagan and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Prognosticatin’

  1. votermom says:

    I really like that pic of Christine O’Donnell. 😈

    I am kinda worried that a President Romney would not allow a repeal Obamacare. He seems to be just as tight with the Health & Pharma lobbies as Obama.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Good point. Sigh. I hate good points these days 😦

    • Karma says:

      That’s my problem with Mittens as well. I want to take out Obama and Obamacare. There’s no way health care is fixed with that horror show in the way.

      And is it just me or does Obamacare treat women as separate and not equal? Separate exchanges over private healthcare issues. Yeah..yeah…abortion….but there’s something else wrong with that solution. The feminist groups should sue over Obamacare if they had any principles left.

  2. 1539days says:

    Remember the Tea Partiers with signs that said “Government hands off my Medicare?”

    No I don’t. Do you have a pic of one of those signs?

  3. gxm17 says:

    I won’t have a horse in the 2012 race but I’m hoping the Republicans win only so that maybe, just maybe, in 2016 We The People will have a candidate that has our back. Yeah. I know it’s nothing more than a pipe dream. But if Obama wins, we’re totally screwed for the next 8, possibly 12, years. If Newt or Mitt win, we may only have another 4 years of craptocracy.

    • jjmtacoma says:

      Only works if there are serious shakeups in the democratic party leadership structure and teebee pontificators.

      If the economy continues to stall – maybe liberals will have a chance but mostly likely the anemic recovery will be complete in 4 years time and whoever sits in the oval office will take credit for that improvement.

      Neither the republicans or democrats deserves to hold any power at all, they do nothing to help Americans that aren’t already rich.

  4. yttik says:

    “Gingrich is more likely to win the nomination, but Romney is more likely to beat Obama.”

    That’s what I thought, but now I’m not so sure. Newt certainly would inspire some Dems to get out of bed and vote against him. Disgruntled Obots would be disgruntled no more. However, Obama only won because conservatives stayed home. The choice between McCain or Obama left them simply not caring. Conservatives won’t be staying home if Newt is the nominee, they’ll rally around him with enthusiasm. On the other hand, Romney creates such a luke warm feeling among conservatives, you’d have to weigh that against their fear of a second Obama term. Romney is like Obama-lite on the conservative side. After four years of Obama, more conservatives are going to turn out this time, but if the nominee is Romney, I’m not sure if there will be enough enthusiasm to tip the election.

    Also, Mittens is kind of petulant and pouty. I’m not sure how he’d hold up in the hot seat.

    • myiq2xu says:

      I don’t care who the GOPers nominate, the rank and file won’t stay home next November.

      Romney stands a better chance with the indies and won’t scare the disaffected Dems as much.

      Gingrinch can beat Obama too, it’s just that Romney has a better chance.

      Things could change. There is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.

      • 1539days says:

        If you look at 2010, I think it’s possible that Romney supporters will be the ones to stay home if he loses the nomination.

        • myiq2xu says:

          That would start a civil war among the GOPers.

        • 1539days says:

          Oh, it started. The Party bosses were able to push the meme that McCain lost because he was a squishy conservative and Sarah Palin was crazy white trash. But if you look at the vote differential it seems more likely that Romney supporters didn’t like that McCain beat him and saw Obama as a guy they could do business with.

        • elliesmom says:

          While I understand why some Republicans get behind candidates like Sarah Palin or Ron Paul with a strong fervor, I can’t for the life of me see what it is about Mitt Romney that makes his supporters so dedicated to him that they refuse to support another candidate when he loses. The man is bland beyond milk toast and has no passion for any issue. He’s not even into making a lot of money as much as he used to be. But I agree, there’s is more risk that they will be the ones to stay home if they don’t get their way.

        • yttik says:

          “I can’t for the life of me see what it is about Mitt Romney that makes his supporters so dedicated to him that they refuse to support another candidate when he loses”

          elliesmom, I could be unkind and say that Romney supporters refuse to support any other candidate because they are just as petulant and pouty as Romney is. We think of him as bland as milk toast, but that’s only because he’s the favored one right now . He gets really testy and whiny when he isn’t being admired.

      • elliesmom says:

        If you look at past record as an indicator of future performance, Newt has a much stronger record of being “electable”. Romney has run for political office three times and lost twice. When he did win, he declined to run for re-election because the writing was on the wall that he wouldn’t win. It took Gingrich a couple of tries to get his foot in the door, but then he kept winning. Newt has never faced a national electorate before so we really don’t know how he will play in Peoria. Romney has already lost on the national stage to McCain, and it wasn’t because McCain ran a stellar campaign. Romney won’t take Obama on. He’s into graphs and pie charts like Perot only with better hair. Newt will provide much better political theater, and if he doesn’t implode and that’s a big IF, he will have much better powers of persuasion. He might be shoveling BS, but it will come with pom-poms.

  5. DeniseVB says:


  6. myiq2xu says:


    If you would have asked me on 12/4/07 to predict how 2008 was going to turn out, the names Barack Obama and Sarah Palin wouldn’t have been part of my answer.

    • elliesmom says:

      I predicted in late May/early June 2008 that Sarah Palin would be McCain’s running mate. It’s on record somewhere here in the blogosphere if I could remember where I wrote it. Maybe under a moniker that I used to use at TalkLeft before I got kicked off the first time. But in December I wouldn’t have predicted McCain. If Romney gets the nod and chooses a woman, she’ll be woodwork come January 2012. Definitely not a woman in the Sarah Palin mold.

      • Pips says:

        “Ellie”(?) I recall reading those predictions and debates at TL – even looked up SP’s, at the time, quite non-descript homepage – so when McCain presented her as his running mate it came as no surprise to me. What did surprise me though, was Jeralyn claiming, that she’d never heard about her before. (But try as she might she couldn’t make her go away again, heh.)

  7. HELENK says:

    like a lot of ex dems this election is hard for me. Yes it is still ABO and many like me will vote for whom ever the republicans choose to win the nomination.
    In 2008 it was easier to vote for McCain, the anger at the dems was in full bore. Plus we did not choose the nominee for the Republicans , they did.that without us, we were voting for Hillary.
    This election we have to join in making a choice on who the republicans nominate.Looking a people who for most of our voting lives were looked at as the enemy feels strange. It is hard and I know that I considered Newt the devil incarnate during the Clinton years, But seeing Romney as another backtrack , I know I can not vote for him in the primary. If he is chosen as the nominee, I will vote for him and cry because we most likely will be getting another 4 years of backtrack himself or the republican version of backtrack

  8. guest says:

    Are there any polls to suggest a number for ‘anybody but Obama’? Would it not be roughly similar to ‘strongly disapprove’?

    • elliesmom says:

      There are a lot of disaffected Democrats who “strongly disapprove” but will not vote for a Republican under any circumstances. The worst (D) is better than the best (R). They may choose not to vote at all or register a protest with a third party vote. Some of them will “strongly disapprove” of Obama but still vote for him because their membership in the tribe trumps all. For example, see comments from someone named “Pat Johnson” at John Smart’s blog.

      • That’s the problem with Democrats; they do not punish their ruling class. Obama needs to be a one-term president. Voters need to show the ruling class that $1 billion won’t buy another Obama term.

  9. jjmtacoma says:

    I’d love to be able to vote “for” someone for a change.

    • elliesmom says:

      When I get asked if I voted for John McCain in 2008 as a ” protest vote”, I can honestly say “no”. I voted very positively for Sarah Palin to become VP. He was just on the ticket, too.

      • jjmtacoma says:

        Thanks for the reminder. My vote was for women, including Sarah Palin.

        I’m tired of the POTUS having to be such a useless jerk and I know the next election has no hope of fixing that.

        I have a cold and my attitude is suffering too.

  10. yttik says:

    “When the doctrine of allegiance to party can utterly up-end a man’s moral constitution and make a temporary fool of him besides, what excuse are you going to offer for preaching it, teaching it, extending it, perpetuating it? Shall you say, the best good of the country demands allegiance to party? Shall you also say it demands that a man kick his truth and his conscience into the gutter, and become a mouthing lunatic, besides?”

    -Mark Twain

  11. Uppity Woman says:

    I would grudingly vote for Mittens, although I will never get over what he did to his dog. There is NO WAY I will vote for that,megalomaniac, Newt. So looks like I will either be voting for Mittens or I will be staying home. I’m not alone. If the Republicans want to get the votes of the millions of Democrats who simply cannot stand Barack Obama, they aren’t going to cut it with that horse’s ass Newt Gingrich. Too many people Remember what he really was when he was speaker. And considering Newt’s big mouthed classless mother’s “bitch” inteview, they can scratch off Hillary diehards for sure. Maybe they won’t need our vote. I think they’re wrong. We shall see.

    I still say Newt will implode. Self-impressed A Holes like him always do. We shall see. On the other hand, if he comes up with some particularly malevolent idea, like say, using the poor as an alternative fuel source, he will be a smashing hit with the crazy-assed Right and garner all their votes in the primaries. They love that kind of shit.

  12. HELENK says:

    Fox5Atlanta, citing sources: Herman Cain will endorse Newt Gingrich on Monday

  13. Three Wickets says:

    Obama will have a better chance of beating Romney than Newt, and the Obots know it. Romney’s support is low intensity. Next year’s election will be very high intensity, for better or worse. Imho.

Comments are closed.