One for the liberals - Bachman announces an exploratory committee

[werepossum]

If not for the economic crisis or if the economy turns around before next fall then Obama is basically 99.99% in.

If the economy is more or less the same as it is today then theres a small chance Obama could lose, if the right candidate is put forward, not really sure who that is yet or if he even exists.

I think the new census data will also take affect in 2012 so it will make it even harder for Obama.

If I had to bet today I'd say Obama keeps the presidency and the republicans pick up the senate and keep the house.

That's my best guess too.

 

[Perknose]

My views on Kim Jung-il are the same as on any of you far lefties (see Kucinich or Biden referenced above.)

So, in your eyes I'm a far lefty? Not just possibly left-leaning or left but a far lefty?

. . . And thereby commensurate in your eyes with Kim Jung-Il?

Wow.

:hmm: . . .

BOO! :biggrin:

If true, you must lead a sad, fearful, eternally angry and hysterically paranoid existence.

 

[jonks]

If I had to bet today I'd say Obama keeps the presidency and the republicans pick up the senate and keep the house.

Do you know what Senate seats in which states are up for reelection, and how many of those seats are R or D? Congressional predictions are one thing, the Senate is more complicated.

Just a quick example. John Ensign (R-NV) will not be running for reelection (ya think?) NV just reelected Harry Reid (D) in the worst year for democrats in a century. All things being equally crazy, this is a completely possible pickup for the Dems in 2012. The mood of the country effects the Senate to a far lesser extent than the House. Only 1/3 of them are up for reelection, you really have to go state by state.

 

[werepossum]

So, in your eyes I'm a far lefty? Not just possibly left-leaning or left but a far lefty?

. . . And thereby commensurate in your eyes with Kim Jung-Il?

Wow.

:hmm: . . .

BOO! :biggrin:

If true, you must lead a sad, fearful, eternally angry and hysterically paranoid existence.

AAAGH!
LMAO!

I consider you a far lefty, but by American standards. Not seriously comparable to actual communists, or even to TheRedUnderTheBed. The Kim Jung-il thing was a joke anyway; he and his ilk are indistinguishable from very far right dictators save in the economic methods used to starve their people. (As opposed to the Cambodians or Laotians who remained far left Marxists whilst murdering their own people.)

I am neither sad nor fearful nor angry nor paranoid. The left really IS out to get me, so therefore I'm not paranoid. Virtually all the voices in my head agree. (That was a joke too. There is hardly ever agreement among the voices in my head.)

Seriously, lighten up.

 

[Steeplerot]

AAAGH!
LMAO!

I consider you a far lefty, but by American standards. Not seriously comparable to actual communists, or even to TheRedUnderTheBed.

I am a garden variety Democratic Socialist with a luvin spoonful of left libertarian really, not a radical by any stretch.

US politics are really screwed up if *I* am a radical. I am one of the bigger defenders of uncorrupted non-crony capitalism in here. If you want actual hard lefties try http://www.revleft.com. They consider what I am a bourgeois socialist liberal there, and people think I am a commie here.

It amuses me somewhat, tbh the revleft folks are kinda dicks, I would rather argue with a teapartier then a Stalinist (both are reactionary imo) although usually the stalinsts are history buffs, which is more interesting.

I am thankful we do not have the Trotskyist/Stalinist/Left Libertarian endless fights in here. The left is so damn divided about things. But then any left debate would be nice instead of wasting time on mainstream talk radio distractions and bullshit.

 

[matt0611]

Do you know what Senate seats in which states are up for reelection, and how many of those seats are R or D? Congressional predictions are one thing, the Senate is more complicated.

Just a quick example. John Ensign (R-NV) will not be running for reelection (ya think?) NV just reelected Harry Reid (D) in the worst year for democrats in a century. All things being equally crazy, this is a completely possible pickup for the Dems in 2012. The mood of the country effects the Senate to a far lesser extent than the House. Only 1/3 of them are up for reelection, you really have to go state by state.

I haven't really taken an in-depth look at the upcoming senate elections to be honest, so you may be right. I feel like the minority will pick up some seats, will it be enough to become the majority I don't know for sure though, I suppose it will become more clear as 2012 approaches.

 

[theeedude]

I support her for GOP nomination. You read it here first.

 

[Perknose]

I consider you a far lefty, but by American standards.

So you really do consider me a far lefty. D:

So that I may better understand why, list for me some American public figures whom you consider leftist but not far left, and some American public figures whom you do consider far left.

And, hell, just for some good laughs, please list for me some American public figures you consider centrist.

Finally, since even when challenged you cling to calling me a far lefty, would you please give me your most precise definition of an American "far lefty?"

 

[Steeplerot]

Perknose is no radical, actually there are no radicals or even slighty revolutionary types on this forum.

Just because someone does not buy into the talk radio mainstream cult does not make them a radical, if anything its the opposite as the talk radio teaparty folks are radicalized as hell already from 20 years of propaganda.

Calling someone far-left on talk radio/fox is just their way of letting you know that the person they are about to talk about is someone "not in our club". It's a bullshit diversionary tactic from propagandists.

 

[soundforbjt]

The left hasn't really moved farther left in years, it's the right who has advanced further to the right in the past 30 years.

Need proof, read any speeches from Ike, or Nixon.

 

[werepossum]

So you really do consider me a far lefty. D:

So that I may better understand why, list for me some American public figures whom you consider leftist but not far left, and some American public figures whom you do consider far left.

And, hell, just for some good laughs, please list for me some American public figures you consider centrist.

Finally, since even when challenged you cling to calling me a far lefty, would you please give me your most precise definition of an American "far lefty?"

Soitantly. Off the cuff, and keeping in mind that different people score differently on different issues and at different times:

Centrist - Secretary Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, 2011 President Obama, Howard Baker, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown. (Centrists are rare in our two-party political system, and as often as not are forced there by circumstances. Bamacre, Hayabusa Rider, Darwin333, IndyColtsFan, ElFenix, Fern and Nebor spring to mind on this forum. Usually they are to the left of me, but sometimes to the right. Religious or tolerant of those who are. Amused at both far right and far left. Would score American politicians about evenly left and right, far left and far right. Rates self as about even by American standards, a bit right by European standards. Typically rates CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS news as a bit left to fairly straight, NPR as slightly left to fairly straight, MSNBC as far left, Fox News as right to far right. Willing to accept as valid a point which they do not consider decisive or with which they do not personally agree. Believes in government redistributing wealth only for the common good via public works or where someone actually cannot provide for themselves and their family. Believes unions are sometimes good and sometimes bad, but are a basic right except perhaps for government employees. Believes the environment is important, but people (though not necessarily corporations) are more important. Believes that capitalism is the key to prosperity, but government oversight and regulation is needed too. Blames some of the world's and country's problems on the left, some on the right. Sees the best as well as the worst ideas and people roughly equally on the left and right. Usually happy and humorous.

Leftist - First Lady Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Bill Richardson, President Carter, 2009/2010 President Obama. Jonks, CallMeJoe, Thraashman, Thump553, Carmen, and Bowfinger come to mind on this forum. Usually they are to the left of me, but occasionally to the right. Religious or tolerant of (though sometimes mildly amused at) those who are, as long as those views don't lead to seeking power over others' lives. Would score American politicians about evenly left and right, far left and far right. Amused and very occasionally angry at far right, tolerant of far left. Rates self as left by American standards, about even by European standards. Typically rates CNN, ABC, NBC, NPR, and CBS news as fairly straight, MSNBC as left to far left, Fox News as far right. Willing to intelligently defend positions with argument. Willing to accept as valid a point which they do not consider decisive or with which they do not personally agree. Believes in government redistributing wealth for the common good via public works, or where someone actually cannot provide for themselves and their family, or where inequities in opportunity clearly occur, or as a second chance for people who fail, or where people clearly have "more than they need" or "can afford it". Believes unions are fundamentally good but sometimes behave badly, and are a basic right for all employees. Believes the environment is important, but people (though not corporations) are equally important. Believes that capitalism is a key to prosperity, but that government oversight and regulation is at least as important. Sees the best ideas and people more common on the left than on the right, but can concede the left gets/has some things wrong and the right gets/has some things right. Usually happy and humorous, angered as much by stupidity as by far right views.

Far Leftist - Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Jim Hightower, Joy Behar, most of Hollywood, post-President Carter, Senator Obama. You, TheRedUnderUrBed, Craig234, and Sportage come to mind on this forum. Almost always they are to the left of me. Typically not religious and often highly derogatory toward those who are. (As the far leftist is himself clearly the pinnacle of evolution, any belief in a being above him is incontrovertible evidence of inferior intellect.) Almost always very angry at right and far right, deny there IS a far left. Would score American politicians about roughly 10% left, 30% center, 30% right, 30% far right. Rates self as center by American standards, center by European standards. Typically rates CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS news as very conservative/corporatist, NPR as mildly conservative/corporatist, MSNBC as fairly straight, Fox News as foaming far right. Unwilling to concede that any thinking person could honestly disagree with their positions and therefore meet any argument with derision; there are none with honest disagreements, merely evil partisans, the ignorant, the stupid, and the insane. Willing to accept as valid no point with which they do not personally agree; in fact, such viewpoints are usually met with foaming rage, and any position by any Republican is automatically wrong and evil because Republicans are inherently evil. Responds to most posts on this board with slurs towards conservatives and/or Republicans. Believes in government redistributing wealth for the common good via public works, or where someone actually cannot provide for themselves and their family, or where inequities in opportunity clearly occur, or as a second chance for people who fail, or just to punish those have "more than they need". After all, other people's success is almost always proof of malfeasance or inheritance (second hand malfeasance.) Believes unions are always good, should be forced on all employees, and are merely a small defense against evil corporations out to steal our wallets and rape our children and/or small pets. Believes the environment is important, people are less important (except of course where the far-leftist's personal interests are threatened by programs aimed to protect the environment), and corporations are occasionally useful but usually the tool of the devil. Believes that capitalism is at best irrelevant to prosperity; government oversight and regulation is what builds prosperity, and almost all bad things from war to recession to depression can clearly be seen as either failures of government oversight and regulation, or as successes of the right's evil intentions. Sees the best ideas and people exclusively on the left; the right is divided into evil cartoon villains and their brainwashed subhuman followers. Usually in a rage at the evil far right world around them, but occasionally laughs - usually when some right winger is humiliated or hurt.

 

[jman19]

It's the Hot in Cleveland effect.

Oh, and I disagree. She's definitely ok, I'd call her attractive.

I don't know, the whole "Krazee-Eyez Killa" thing she has going on is a big time turn off.

 

[Lemon law]

So, in your eyes I'm a far lefty? Not just possibly left-leaning or left but a far lefty?

. . . And thereby commensurate in your eyes with Kim Jung-Il?

Wow.

:hmm: . . .

BOO! :biggrin:

If true, you must lead a sad, fearful, eternally angry and hysterically paranoid existence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Silly Perknose, how can you claim to be otherwise politically rational, when you forgot to endorse the Michelle Backmann opposition to Kim Jung IL? Of course if you forgot to totally endorse some other Backmann politically correct position you forgot to endorse would leave you to be equally dammed. But face the facts, I know Michelle Backmann, and you, Perknose will never be a Michelle Backmann.

For shame or for pride, I too think Michelle is FOS, and take pride in the fact. There is no shame to be found.

 

[werepossum]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Silly Perknose, how can you claim to be otherwise politically rational, when you forgot to endorse the Michelle Backmann opposition to Kim Jung IL? Of course if you forgot to totally endorse some other Backmann politically correct position you forgot to endorse would leave you to be equally dammed. But face the facts, I know Michelle Backmann, and you, Perknose will never be a Michelle Backmann.

For shame or for pride, I too think Michelle is FOS, and take pride in the fact. There is no shame to be found.

LOL
Michelle Bachman is of course definitely full of shit; almost all politicians are. But she certainly has no positions which are politically correct. There are few if any serving politicians who are less politically correct. That is one of her (admittedly few) graces.

Re: her hotness, Jonks is of course correct with the Hot In Cleveland effect. Slap her down in a mall and no one would look twice at her. (Unless maybe you're old like me and the mall is almost deserted. Gotta enjoy what's there to be enjoyed, I say.) On an unrelated note, those women in Hot In Cleveland are smokin' hot, even Betty White (who is WAY too old for me - but I certainly wouldn't mind being able to say I'd done Betty White. Come to think of it, she's probably the only one my wife would let me do.)

 

[Fern]

Do you know what Senate seats in which states are up for reelection, and how many of those seats are R or D? Congressional predictions are one thing, the Senate is more complicated.

Just a quick example. John Ensign (R-NV) will not be running for reelection (ya think?) NV just reelected Harry Reid (D) in the worst year for democrats in a century. All things being equally crazy, this is a completely possible pickup for the Dems in 2012. The mood of the country effects the Senate to a far lesser extent than the House. Only 1/3 of them are up for reelection, you really have to go state by state.

This subject was much discussed prior to the recent election. The widely held view then was the Repubs had a much better chance to make big gains in the Senate in 2012.

I'm having no success at recalling the details, but yes it had something to do with the states that are up for senatorial election and whose currently holding office. Might be that are far more Dems currently holding seats in 'purple states' more likely to swing back to repubs.

Since it was discussed so recently, should be easy to find analyses with google.

Fern

 

[CallMeJoe]

This subject was much discussed prior to the recent election. The widely held view then was the Repubs had a much better chance to make big gains in the Senate in 2012...
Fern

I believe the idea was that toss-up or normally Republican-trending that had gone Democratic in the big 2006 Democratic win would be more vulnerable to Republican candidates than were the class of 2004.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm a little disappointed that I didn't make it onto Werepossum's list somewhere. Being left out makes me feel like chopped liver.

 

[lothar]

Do you know what Senate seats in which states are up for reelection, and how many of those seats are R or D? Congressional predictions are one thing, the Senate is more complicated.

Just a quick example. John Ensign (R-NV) will not be running for reelection (ya think?) NV just reelected Harry Reid (D) in the worst year for democrats in a century. All things being equally crazy, this is a completely possible pickup for the Dems in 2012. The mood of the country effects the Senate to a far lesser extent than the House. Only 1/3 of them are up for reelection, you really have to go state by state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2012#Race_summary

GOP seats:
Massachusetts: IMO is the only GOP held seat that is truly in the "toss-up" category. If Scott Brown is perceived as another "William Weld", he might win. Even though he won the "tea party" vote, he hasn't done a thing for them since he's been in the Senate which could better his chances for survival.

Nevada: Maybe, but Reid only stayed on the job because he has political power in Washington. What moron would vote from having the most powerful person in the Senate representing them to having a freshman Senator with the least power and being rank 100 on seniority? If GOP nominates someone stupid like Angle/Palin/O'Donnell again, DEMS may win this seat, but don't count on that happening.

DEM seats:
Virginia: If Tim Kaine runs, 50:50 chance either way. If he doesn't, +1 gain for GOP easily. The GOP messed up their chances a bit by foolishly doing a "closed" primary...again. If the primary was open, Tom Davis would win out right regardless of whether Tim Kaine runs or not, easily. The "toss-up" here is based ONLY on if and only if Tim Kaine runs. If he doesn't, just color the state red already since that is what will happen.

Florida: Tossup. If Charlie Christ runs, he'd win outright, but I think he has already burnt his bridges. Even if Charlie Christ runs and wins as an independent, it will still be a loss for Democrats. GOP might nominate someone else, Nelson might keep his seat. Too much drama to think about. Toss-up.

Nebraska: +1 GOP gain easily. Ben Nelson is out due to his health care vote. End of discussion.

New Mexico: Toss-up. There seems to be a GOP resurgence in this state. If Bill Richardson doesn't run, I'm not sure there's a DEM that can win. But lets still call this a toss-up.

Montana: Toss-up. Freshman Senator that won with only 1% of the vote in '06. If his former opponent Conrad Burns runs for a rematch, he'd easily win outright this time. However, lets still call this a toss up because they have a Democratic governor who surprisingly actually knows how to balance the budget who can challenge Jon Tester in the DEM primary and win easily. Just because he can win easily however doesn't mean he will actually run for it and challenge the current Dem incumbent.

Missouri: Toss-up, although it looks like this will be an easy +1 GOP gain due to her tax fraud/tax evasion/whatever the heck you want to call it case. I can see the ads now. She likely would never be forgiven by the voters there.

Ohio: Toss-up. Recent GOP resurgence in the state. Unknown what may happen. Too much drama to think about.

North Dakota: +1 GOP pickup??? If this is anything like the GOP resurgence happening in that area "Reagan Democrats" are now an extinct species in the midwest/great plains(or whatever you call the ND/SD/MT/NE region), the same way liberal GOP's are in the north east. I also doubt Earl Pomeroy will be back. None of the candidates are that well-known in the state. Will John Hoeven's popularity be enough to help whoever the GOP candidate is win?

In Conclusion:
GOP needs to keep all their seats and steal 4 seats from the DEMS to get a majority. Since two seats are already highlighted above as red, they only need 2 more?
Looks like Virginia, Missouri, Florida, and New Mexico will determine the outcome like they already do in every election.

 

[werepossum]

I'm a little disappointed that I didn't make it onto Werepossum's list somewhere. Being left out makes me feel like chopped liver.

Sorry, dude. Besides the fact that it wasn't meant to be a comprehensive rating of everyone, just a few examples, you'd be a bit hard to fit in. You seem as far left as Perknose, but without waking up to a fresh cup of rage each morning.

 

[Steeplerot]

Far Leftist - Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Jim Hightower, Joy Behar, most of Hollywood, post-President Carter, Senator Obama. Almost always they are to the left of me.

Hate to lay this on you Were, but honestly thats the problem, you almost always take the far rights view. Foxnews/talk radio is nowhere near centrist. Someone who is far left is actually left and wouldn't support any of those examples. And none of those folks show any revolutionary thought in their talk.

You really should read some leftist books to find out what they are?

Talk radio obviously has no clue what the opposition is about seeing all the nonsense thrown around in this forum daily about the left being about wealth distribution and shit.

 

[werepossum]

Hate to lay this on you Were, but honestly thats the problem, you almost always take the far rights view. Foxnews/talk radio is nowhere near centrist. Someone who is far left is actually left and wouldn't support any of those examples. And none of those folks show any revolutionary thought in their talk.

You really should read some leftist books to find out what they are?

Talk radio obviously has no clue what the opposition is about seeing all the nonsense thrown around in this forum daily about the left being about wealth distribution and shit.

You don't think the left is all about wealth redistribution? Then all the hate on the wealthy is merely coincidence?

Progressive /= revolutionary. Same goals, but different methodology.

I'm to the left of Obama on gay marriage, the environment, protectionism versus free trade, and reinstating Glass-Steagall. I'm to the right of most competitive mainstream Republican politicians on illegal immigration and not much else. But to those of you on the far left, I appear far right down the line, as does everyone with less than full leftist compliance. Problem is, your classifications leave only a percent or so to be far left, such as Van Jones or Saul Alinski. And when they get a bit of power, then even those one percenters become "mainstream". The difference is that where I am far right - such as illegal immigration - I happily admit I'm far right.

 

[jonks]

Someone on here asked why we pay attention to Bachmann, and that if it weren't for liberals pointing her out when she does stupid shit she'd get no coverage. This points out the bullshit in that argument:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263197/bachmann-2012-katrina-trinko

I like how they point out her close association with Steve King as a positive. He might be one of the few congresspeople even crazier than she is.

 

[Lemon law]

I think we need to look back to the race for the a GOP presidential candidate in 2008.

Even though the big target group to target in 2008 was the religious right and now the 2012 target will likely be the Tbaggers, its still the same problem and handicap in pandering to a target group.

Because someone like Backmann will be competing head to head with somewhat clones of herself. There will people like Sarah Palin and a big pile of others with Tbag roots, all competing for the same tbag limited GOP electorate in Iowa. And the first question to ask, is the Tbag electorate in Iowa even 50% of the the total Iowa GOP electorate? The second thing to ask is can one and only Tbag type candidate break out of the crowded field and receive the lion's share of the Tbag vote? Because if the Tbag vote is somewhat evenly split between four or five candidates, no one Tbag candidate will have impressive numbers coming out of Iowa. And will be similarly handicapped all through the 2012 GOP primary season in other States. At least until some of the weaker T-bag candidates start dropping out. Leaving the probability that some more centrist GOP candidate accumulating enough delegates votes to become unstoppable.

The other news is that the economy seems to be improving, and if that trend continues it will be advantage Obama and the dems. And if the economy temporarily improves and then turns to shit before the 21012 election, its very possibly that deterioration can be tied to the GOP doing something that amounted to killing the recovery.

Then there is another risk to going with a tbag type. Take for example Sarah Palin's opening speech, as she screamed drill baby drill as her overly simplistic panacea. We can ask ourselves what would have happened to the GOP vote if the giant BP oil spill had occurred before the general election of 11/2008. Given the fact competing Tbaggers will have amply opportunity to make similar stupid statements, that may soon be proved wrong by events before a single Iowa vote is cast, I wonder if a single
wannabee tbagger will not suffer from a bad case of foot in mouth disease.

But as the link pointed out, Michelle Backmann may have a spine of steel, but having a wooden head may be her undoing.

 

[Mursilis]

Someone on here asked why we pay attention to Bachmann, and that if it weren't for liberals pointing her out when she does stupid shit she'd get no coverage. This points out the bullshit in that argument:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263197/bachmann-2012-katrina-trinko

I like how they point out her close association with Steve King as a positive. He might be one of the few congresspeople even crazier than she is.

She's like that crazy chick guys like to date for the excitement and thrill, but would never marry, because the drama gets old after a while, and you know she'd be no good with kids.

 

[manimal]

I support her for GOP nomination. You read it here first.

I will be first to sign up for your twatter page...


would Joe the plumber as a running make work?



not the real joe wurzelbach-sic- mind you, just a cardboard cutout with a tag line about small business and such...