Republican controlled senate means...?

[Timsup2nothin]

A Presidential year does not really help your case. 2012 was a competitive Presidential race through early October. In Congress next to nothing. Democrats regain 2 seats in each house.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/house/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/senate/

Look at it this way. Through three elections, Republicans are +71 in the House and +15 in the Senate. Given their hole in 2006, you can farm some of it off on recoil. That does not work for last Tuesday.

J

Close through October doesn't really mean much when the result in November is a blowout. And without winning the White House controlling the House and Senate doesn't really forward the Republican agenda, unless you are picturing a sufficient majority to override, and I don't see that coming.

Do you see any strategy that sets up the Republicans to win the presidential race in 2016, or is the albatross of GWB still too fresh on their necks? I really think control of the Senate hurts them more than it helps them. As you said, we've spent four years without having to look at Republican ideas, but the congress at this point really has no choice but to put their agenda into the form of actual bills which can be shown to the public. That's going to freshen the albatross, not bury it.

 

[Cutlass]

Legacy as worst President of the post WWI era? Yeah, okay, I'll give him that. Wait, no... there's still Carter. You dodged that one, Obama!

Oh, please. Bush, Reagan, Nixon. All worse than Carter or Obama.

 

[Traitorfish]

Plus, Roosevelt had that whole "concentration camps" thing.

 

[caketastydelish]

Yeah, specifically putting Japanese in camps is racist. He should have put liberal crybabies in those camps instead.

 

[Harv]

Do you see any strategy that sets up the Republicans to win the presidential race in 2016,

Try not shooting themselves in the foot. Pick a better candidate.

or is the albatross of GWB still too fresh on their necks?

So 2016 election will be about GWB backlash versus BHO backlash.

Legacy as worst President of the post WWI era? Yeah, okay, I'll give him that. Wait, no... there's still Carter. You dodged that one, Obama!

Why do you think Carter edges Obama as the worst post WWI president? Will two more years change that?

Oh, please. Bush, Reagan, Nixon. All worse than Carter or Obama.

I think the reason Bush, Bush, Reagan, and Nixon were all worse than Carter or Obama is because you disagree with their politics and policies, and nothing else.

 

[IglooDame]

So 2016 election will be about GWB backlash versus BHO backlash.

Especially if Jeb Bush wins the Republican nomination and Hillary the Dem nod. I don't really care how good either would be as President, I don't want another Bush vs Clinton election.

 

[JollyRoger]

Bushbacklash happens most every Saturday night in some igloos.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Try not shooting themselves in the foot. Pick a better candidate.

How? The primary process is what it is, and produces the 'winner' it produces. You think there is a way to get a 'stealth' candidate through that isn't willing to support the established Republican ideals? Or do you think the Republican party as a whole is ready to move away from the ideals of the Bush administration in the interests of winning?

As J points out, we've managed to avoid having those ideals out on public display for the past few years, other than during the Romney campaign. But I don't see how to keep them in the closet during a presidential campaign, and that's not Romney's fault.

 

[onejayhawk]

Close through October doesn't really mean much when the result in November is a blowout. And without winning the White House controlling the House and Senate doesn't really forward the Republican agenda, unless you are picturing a sufficient majority to override, and I don't see that coming.

Do you see any strategy that sets up the Republicans to win the presidential race in 2016, or is the albatross of GWB still too fresh on their necks? I really think control of the Senate hurts them more than it helps them. As you said, we've spent four years without having to look at Republican ideas, but the congress at this point really has no choice but to put their agenda into the form of actual bills which can be shown to the public. That's going to freshen the albatross, not bury it.

If 2012 was a blowout, then Tuesday was a blowout. The Republicans beat the Democrats worse then Obama beat Romney. 2016 is another story, but the albatross of Obama seems to be pretty heavy. He's the worst President of the 21st century to date. we have election results to prove it.

You should pay better attention. Romney was a moderate. You have Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich for comparison. I understand he is a long way from your position, but that does not make him an extremist.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If 2012 was a blowout, then Tuesday was a blowout. The Republicans beat the Democrats worse then Obama beat Romney. 2016 is another story, but the albatross of Obama seems to be pretty heavy. He's the worst President of the 21st century to date. we have election results to prove it.

You should pay better attention. Romney was a moderate. You have Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich for comparison. I understand he is a long way from your position, but that does not make him an extremist.

J

Harv is the one who said the Republicans need to pick a better candidate. It wasn't Romney that got blown out. It was Romney espousing the policies that the Republican party demands that got blown out.

Immigration problem solved by building a fence. Not just any fence, a 'high tech' fence. No clue how this absurdity is supposed to get accomplished, but a Republican candidate is not allowed to make sense when talking about this subject.

Democratization by invasion may not have worked in Afghanistan or Iraq, but third times the charm so it will work in Iran and we better get to it. Literally everyone outside the Republican party will get out and vote to stop this madness, but a Republican candidate is required to say it, and show that he means it.

Repealing the ACA is a far more expensive process than putting it into place was, and infinitely more complicated. Anyone who is even remotely paying attention knows that, but the Republican candidate is required to shout 'repeal' as if it is some sort of magic bullet mulligan...even if it was on a certain practical level his idea to start with.

How does the Republican party get control of the White House? That was the question and it remains the question. Because here's the kicker...the Republican party position, which Romney was forced to espouse, is indeed very very far from my position...and I'm a moderate. The Republicans did well Tuesday, because moderates didn't bother to vote. No need, because Obama in the White House keeps the Republicans from doing anything crazy whether they control one or both chambers of congress. But faced with the possibility of a Republican president I think moderates will turn out in hordes to vote against it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, we'll see about effectiveness. There are a few big issues, most everything else is diversion. The entitlements need to be fixed, and that's only feasible through a bipartisan effort. Automation-Induced Unemployment is going to be a giant golem, and will need some true forward-thinking. OPEC can shatter energy entrepreneurship whenever it wants to, and the AGW issue is only going to get tougher to get ahead of.

You'll find most of the issues will be focused on minor partisan stuff. Meanwhile, nothing has changed on Wall Street that will prevent the next 2008.

None of these things appears on the Tea Party radar, so the Repubs are going to have to do some serious reaching across the aisle.

 

[Cutlass]

If 2012 was a blowout, then Tuesday was a blowout. The Republicans beat the Democrats worse then Obama beat Romney. 2016 is another story, but the albatross of Obama seems to be pretty heavy. He's the worst President of the 21st century to date. we have election results to prove it.

You should pay better attention. Romney was a moderate. You have Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich for comparison. I understand he is a long way from your position, but that does not make him an extremist.

J

You keep ignoring the fact that Bush was worse in every respect. Most of Obama's problems were caused by the incompetence of Bush.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Obamacare is clearly much worse than Iraq 2.0.

 

[kramerfan86]

Bush is worse, but Obama is still a pretty bad president. His foreign policy which is the thing a president probably has the most real world control over is atrocious. Once again not as bad as bush, but not being as bad as bush isnt much of a positive for anyone to tie their legacy to.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Bush is worse, but Obama is still a pretty bad president. His foreign policy which is the thing a president probably has the most real world control over is atrocious. Once again not as bad as bush, but not being as bad as bush isnt much of a positive for anyone to tie their legacy to.

In terms of legacy I doubt that twenty years from now people will even spare a thought for Obama's foreign policy. Imperfect solutions for an imperfect world aren't really that memorable. Obama will be remembered as the president that got health care reform done. Unfortunately for GWBush he will be remembered for his foreign policy, as well as being inextricably linked to the crash of 2008.

 

[kramerfan86]

In terms of legacy I doubt that twenty years from now people will even spare a thought for Obama's foreign policy. Imperfect solutions for an imperfect world aren't really that memorable. Obama will be remembered as the president that got health care reform done. Unfortunately for GWBush he will be remembered for his foreign policy, as well as being inextricably linked to the crash of 2008.

Eh Obama's constant drawing of lines then running away when calling his bluffs go beyond imperfect solutions to bad conflicts.

Being the president who got healthcare done may not be a positive for his legacy if the costs blow up and it continues to be unpopular. That is a large question mark.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Eh Obama's constant drawing of lines then running away when calling his bluffs go beyond imperfect solutions to bad conflicts.

Do you really think any of that is going to be really memorable? For the past eight years the world has muddled along. Consider, when Reagan is mentioned how often does 'invaded Granada successfully' come up? Of course not. Of all the things that happened during his term that is barely a blip on the radar. When Clinton is mentioned does 'bombed Libya' immediately spring to mind? Not usually, and the sorry fact is that Clinton really didn't do much of anything that is all that memorable. For a foreign policy event to enter 'legacy' status takes a lot more than the world just muddling along.

President when the USSR collapsed. That's a legacy.

Orchestrated a world spanning coalition to repel an invasion by a larger country on a smaller country, with minimal losses and without continuing on into 'war for profit'...demonstrating that the concept of 'united nations' actually could work. That's a legacy.

First president to lead American forces into an unprovoked war of aggression, and dealing a death blow to that 'united nations' concept. That's a legacy.

Obama's foreign policy will be obscure trivia by 2020.

Being the president who got healthcare done may not be a positive for his legacy if the costs blow up and it continues to be unpopular. That is a large question mark.

Well, the thing about legacy is that it is by definition a historic view.

Putting healthcare reform into a historic view doesn't allow for the currently popular pretense that the healthcare system in America was the greatest thing ever right up until Obama came along. In fact the preexisting system was about to blow up in our faces, and everyone had known it for the past fifty years. The historic view is going to acknowledge that 'costs blowing up' is an unavoidable result of the demographics of the baby boom generation aging, not a result of Obamacare.

The historic view won't avoid the reality that even if Obamacare does nothing more than mitigate the disaster it will have succeeded, since the disaster has been seen coming for over fifty years, the pre-existing system could not have even begun to cope with it, and nothing else had been done to mitigate it before. Even if that mitigated disaster is still so bad that it leads to the collapse of the nation, historically there will be more questions asked about why Nixon didn't deal with the problem when he pointed out that it was coming. There will be more questions asked about why the reform didn't get done during Clinton's term, since by then the disaster was thirty years closer, still totally predictable, and he made a clear effort to do something about it but failed miserably. If it turns out to have been too late there will be more questions asked about every administration in between as to why they did nothing than will be asked of the one who did.

 

[onejayhawk]

In terms of legacy I doubt that twenty years from now people will even spare a thought for Obama's foreign policy. Imperfect solutions for an imperfect world aren't really that memorable.

That's his upside.

Obama will be remembered as the president that got health care reform done. Unfortunately for GWBush he will be remembered for his foreign policy, as well as being inextricably linked to the crash of 2008.

This is the down side. It's also why GW Bush will be better remembered.

Obamacare is clearly much worse than Iraq 2.0.

If by Iraq 2.0 you mean operation Iraqi Freedom, exactly right. Well put in fact.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If by Iraq 2.0 you mean operation Iraqi Freedom, exactly right. Well put in fact.

J

I think by Iraq 2.0 he means the first unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation ever conducted by US forces. The one that turned all the decades of noble rhetoric about 'peace through strength' that had been the USA's position on the world stage into hypocrisy and converted us into just another 'might makes right' thug. That's the main component of GWBush's legacy, without a doubt.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Obamacare is clearly much worse than Iraq 2.0.

More like Iraq 3.0, as you invaded Iraq in the 90s.

Third time is a charm!