WHO should be elected in 2012?

[inked]

Given that Obama is trying to get Hillary out of the way as Secretary of State, who do you think should be elected in 2012? You can go for either party in the USA, or any party, because I'm sure that if Ralph Nader and Ron Paul are still kicking, they'll be running.

As an independent, I have to confess that Obama is doing a great job setting up his next run by trying to get Hillary out of the picture early. If she accepts the SoS position, she'll have to leave the Senate and be a lot more out of the public eye. If she doesn't take it and remains in the Senate, she looks like sour grapes and intending to run again in 2012, which makes her look less than perfect as an Obama supporter. Either way, Hillary loses, I think.

What think ye Democrats and Republicans and Greenies et alia ad infinitum?

And how about those Demo's NOT bailing out the auto industry? Is this a signal of the true meaning of "change" in the Obama administration? A president-elect with no suuasion over the democratic party? That would be a change! I wonder why Nancy Pelosi couldn't whip 'em into line to support the pres-elect's expressed desire? That's not looking too good. Congressional Democrats go with BIG Business - just not blue collar job types!

DID I MENTION THAT I LOVE BEING AN INDEPENDENT?

[Insidious Rex]

A little early to say isn’t it? lets see what he does as president first before we start writing his memoirs and looking to see who should overthrow him. And whats this about the democrats not bailing out the auto industry? Isn’t it the republicans who are staunchly against that? And they still have filibuster power until January 20 if Im not mistaken and may even have it after that. last I head the democrats said they were going to open that debate again after the new administration officially comes in and they have more seats.

Frankly I have no sympathy for the auto executives who have been bone headed and stubborn enough to run their companies into the ground based on a strategy of $1 a gallon gas and SUV worship. Pathetic American greed at its worst… So if we give them a bail out it better come with a TON of strings in regards to significant increases in gas mileage for their vehicles and a number of other things whose time has long come but have been ignored by the Bush administration.

DID I MENTION THAT I LOVE BEING AN INDEPENDENT?

Yer about as “independent” as I am inked and I am one too actually… So I guess we cancel each other out.

[inked]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Democratic Congress, unwilling or unable to approve a $25 billion bailout for Detroit's Big Three, appears ready to punt the automakers' fate to a lame-duck Republican president. Caught in the middle of a who-blinks-first standoff are legions of manufacturing firms and auto dealers—and millions of Americans' jobs—after Senate Democrats canceled a showdown vote that had been expected Thursday. ...

Ummm, IR, some facts rather than speculation from YOUR independent perspective, please!

No, I don't think it's too early to speculate on 2012 election because from MY INDEPENDENT perspective the O-man is positioning himself to do just that by this appointment. Did I not make that clear?

MEMO: Obama's offer of the Secretary of State position to Senator Hillary Clinton is a ploy to secure the 2012 Democratic nomination to himself REGARDLESS of how his 4 years of office-holding turn out. Is this good or bad? Depends on if your are Hillary.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

No one really knows if he's offered that position, you know, inked. There's a lot of speculation, but the principals haven't said, either way. I've read complaints (supposedly from people "in the know' on both sides) that say there's pressure TO ask her, NOT to ask her, that she's lobbying for the job.... It's fairly unclear, I think.

Not at all possible that the man is just trying to get ready for a big new job, is there? Or is it 'independence' that makes it certain he's scheming about something.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Democratic Congress, unwilling or unable to approve a $25 billion bailout for Detroit's Big Three, appears ready to punt the automakers' fate to a lame-duck Republican president. Caught in the middle of a who-blinks-first standoff are legions of manufacturing firms and auto dealers—and millions of Americans' jobs—after Senate Democrats canceled a showdown vote that had been expected Thursday. ...

Ummm, IR, some facts rather than speculation from YOUR independent perspective, please!

Ok here are your facts apart from your spin up there…

Washington Post Finance Section: Earlier today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that she and Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will send a letter to the heads of GM, Ford and Chrysler, telling them what they need to show Congress in order to get federal bailout money.

Earlier this week, GM's Rick Wagoner, Ford's Alan Mulally and Chrysler's Bob Nardelli (along with UAW head Ron Gettelfinger) were in Washington asking lawmakers for $25 billion in emergency cash so they can, essentially, stay in business.

But Pelosi, Reid and other lawmakers were unmoved by the plea, saying to automakers: We know you need help, but you haven't adequately told us what you will do with the money which, by the way, comes from taxpayers.


Pelosi said that she wants lawmakers to tell Congress that, if it approves the bailout, Detroit will:
-- pay no shareholder dividends,
-- give no bonuses to employees making more than $200,000,
-- explain how they will invest in advanced technology to make more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Sounds like a good start to me… Sure beats the heck out of Bush and Paulson and Co. dropping $250 billion into the arms of the banks with NO restrictions or transparency whatsoever and what can you imagine happens? Why they still wont lend any money to the taxpayers they just took it from… Imagine that! But it seems they are still spending money on high end bonuses and AIG style executive retreats… What a great investment that was!

[inked]

IR, see here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081121/...NkDMOWPSBI2ocA

I really don't have to spin this, now do I?

[OldHippie]

May as well toss my thought out there..................

Palin............2012

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by OldHippie

May as well toss my thought out there..................

Palin............2012

Really?
What kind of hippie were you?

[shesabrandybuck]

Originally Posted by OldHippie

May as well toss my thought out there..................

Palin............2012

Yes! Michael Palin for president!!
haha, no I'm joking.

...or am I?

[OldHippie]

LOL A rather Conservative one. We do things a bit different in Upper Michigan.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by OldHippie

LOL A rather Conservative one. We do things a bit different in Upper Michigan.

Yeah, I've spent time up there, although no one would classify my activities as 'conservative' in any sense.

But I doubt anyone in Michigan or anywhere else could combine the concepts of "hippie" and "Sarah palin" in a logical way. You might need to change your title to "Recovering hippie" or "former hippie" or "more like a hippie than Ted Kaczynski' to reduce my cognitive dissonance with this POV.

[OldHippie]

OK,I can't figure out the multi quote thingy so here goes.

SisCuz.............. The Ted Kacinzsky reply had me on the floor laughing..... Great one

Curufin.............. Hayden did more drugs than Timothy Leary

Shesabrandybuck................

[Curufin]

Okay! I was wrong! I admit it! I picked a bad example! My high school research wasn't perfect!

Can we move on to the point now???

[shesabrandybuck]

Originally Posted by OldHippie

OK,I can't figure out the multi quote thingy so here goes.

SisCuz.............. The Ted Kacinzsky reply had me on the floor laughing..... Great one

Curufin.............. Hayden did more drugs than Timothy Leary

Shesabrandybuck................

to multi quote, just simply press the multi quote button next to the quote button. If you want to quote three people, first you would click multi quote on Sis's post, multi quote on Curu's, and then quote on mine
that help?

[Curufin]

As an independent, I have to confess that Obama is doing a great job setting up his next run by trying to get Hillary out of the picture early. If she accepts the SoS position, she'll have to leave the Senate and be a lot more out of the public eye. If she doesn't take it and remains in the Senate, she looks like sour grapes and intending to run again in 2012, which makes her look less than perfect as an Obama supporter. Either way, Hillary loses, I think.

Ok, sorry, but this is just silly. The democratic party is going to run the incumbent in 2012. Why? Because it is the incumbent who wins a huge majority of the time. In congress, I know, the statistic is 95%+. The democratic party is not going to run Hillary Clinton, no matter what. Look at American history. In all of history, here is the list of times the incumbent has not won:

Thomas Jefferson unseated John Adams (1800)

Andrew Jackson unseated JQ Adams (1828)

WH Harrison unseated Van Buren (1840)

Benjamin Harrison unseated Grover Cleveland (1888)

Grover Cleveland unseated B Harrison (1892)

Woodrow Wilson unseated WH Taft (1912)

FD Roosevelt unseated Hoover (1932) [depression]

Jimmy Carter unseated Gerald Ford (1976) [who was never actually elected, so 'incumbent' is an iffy term]

Ronald Reagan unseated J Carter (1980)

Bill Clinton unseated GHW Bush (1992)

That's it. That means, historically, the presidential incumbent has a 77.2% chance of winning. Hillary will not run in Obama's place, with all the baggage she carries and a 22.8% historical chance of winning.

[inked]

So, you automatically think the incumbent will be run?

Good thing he's moving Hillary, then. No nasty intra-party squabbling like this last cycle.

But I'm not sure Democratic feminists would agree that the "patriarchal history" of the election of US presidents should necessarily be determinant.

It'll be fun to watch again.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by inked

But I'm not sure Democratic feminists would agree that the "patriarchal history" of the election of US presidents should necessarily be determinant.

I'm not actually worried about that. Us old girls are pragmatists. Hillary worked HARD for Barack, and the party won.

It'll be fun to watch again.

Just how I feel about the cultural wars opening up in the republican party.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Ok, sorry, but this is just silly. The democratic party is going to run the incumbent in 2012. Why? Because it is the incumbent who wins a huge majority of the time. In congress, I know, the statistic is 95%+. The democratic party is not going to run Hillary Clinton, no matter what. Look at American history. In all of history, here is the list of times the incumbent has not won:



That's it. That means, historically, the presidential incumbent has a 77.2% chance of winning. Hillary will not run in Obama's place, with all the baggage she carries and a 22.8% historical chance of winning.

One thing I wonder about - has an incumbent President ever not received their own party's nomination, when they tried to get it?

I know Reagan almost beat out Ford in 1976 - but those were rather exceptional circumstances (Ford only being there because first the VP resigned, then the Prez resigned). And... I know Johnson just didn't bother in 1968, because the Vietnam war was becoming so unpopular. But... did any sitting President, who tried to run again, actually not get their own party's nomination?

They most often seem to run unchallenged - or with no serious challenger.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, on any level, Val, it's a poor idea. Causes a primary fight, which is expensive, and since incumbency comes with a lot of goodies (you've already hired people for jobs who will lose them under a new administration, for example) it's a dumb idea.

Lieberman, for example, is someone who, although incumbent, lost his party's nomination. He actually sits in the Senate as an Independent, having defeated the choice of his own party.

And you see how well he's behaving (from a party POV) .

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Valandil

One thing I wonder about - has an incumbent President ever not received their own party's nomination, when they tried to get it?

I know Reagan almost beat out Ford in 1976 - but those were rather exceptional circumstances (Ford only being there because first the VP resigned, then the Prez resigned). And... I know Johnson just didn't bother in 1968, because the Vietnam war was becoming so unpopular. But... did any sitting President, who tried to run again, actually not get their own party's nomination?

They most often seem to run unchallenged - or with no serious challenger.

Not in the modern era...Truman was very unpopular in 1948- a guaranteed loser - and many Democrats were desperately looking for someone else, but he kept it.

You mentioned Ford, and there was Carter in '80, challenged by a Kennedy, no less- but no, a sitting president has enormous power over the party.