marharth Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 If he gets a second term though, will he have a majority in either the Senate or the House?With the next elections, it is likely a lot of republicans will be voted out. Most people identify themselves as a republican or democrat nation wide. If they vote for a democratic president its highly unlikely they will vote for a republican congressman. This changes if something drastic happens, like the tea party movement in 2009 for example. I think the republicans currently holds a house majority, and the democrats currently hold a senate majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 If he gets a second term though, will he have a majority in either the Senate or the House? That's a valid question.... I suspect though, that if he DOES get a second term..... it will be because public opinion has (yet again) swung away from the republicans, and he may end up in the sweet spot, with majorities in both houses. If he is elected simply because the republicans can't come up with an electable candidate, he may end up with both houses stacked against him. Personally...... I wouldn't mind if they all got replaced....... Yeah, pretty slim odds on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csgators Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 If Obama had vetoed this I would have actually had some respect for the man but as it stands now he is the negative on that score. It is way to early to predict the next election but I would not be surprised to see a Republican sweep after the disaster that has been the last two and half years, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 If Obama had vetoed this I would have actually had some respect for the man but as it stands now he is the negative on that score. It is way to early to predict the next election but I would not be surprised to see a Republican sweep after the disaster that has been the last two and half years, Not really a disaster, more along the lines of: Not focusing on the really important issues. Like the economy right here at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csgators Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 If Obama had vetoed this I would have actually had some respect for the man but as it stands now he is the negative on that score. It is way to early to predict the next election but I would not be surprised to see a Republican sweep after the disaster that has been the last two and half years, Not really a disaster, more along the lines of: Not focusing on the really important issues. Like the economy right here at home. Most defiantly but also a very unpopular health care bill and the abandoning of almost every single campaign promise he made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 If Obama had vetoed this I would have actually had some respect for the man but as it stands now he is the negative on that score. It is way to early to predict the next election but I would not be surprised to see a Republican sweep after the disaster that has been the last two and half years, Not really a disaster, more along the lines of: Not focusing on the really important issues. Like the economy right here at home. Most defiantly but also a very unpopular health care bill and the abandoning of almost every single campaign promise he made. I am in complete agreement with you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannywils Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I don't agree with this....in any way. However I must say that the President...was damned if he did and damned if he did not on this one. LP, I sort of understand what you are saying here, but this decision should not have been a political one, ie it was not about whether or not he was damned if he did or if he didn't. Because now we are the ones who are going to be damned; apparently forever. :verymad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I don't agree with this....in any way. However I must say that the President...was damned if he did and damned if he did not on this one. LP, I sort of understand what you are saying here, but this decision should not have been a political one, ie it was not about whether or not he was damned if he did or if he didn't. Because now we are the ones who are going to be damned; apparently forever. :verymad: Its the military, and the various intelligence agencies whining that NOT passing it would "seriously compromise national security"....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csgators Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 I don't agree with this....in any way. However I must say that the President...was damned if he did and damned if he did not on this one. LP, I sort of understand what you are saying here, but this decision should not have been a political one, ie it was not about whether or not he was damned if he did or if he didn't. Because now we are the ones who are going to be damned; apparently forever. :verymad: I disagree, if a politician sticks to his guns even when I disagree with them my respect level goes up and I am more likely to support them despite our differences. I just want a guy who does what he says he will do and stands up for what he thinks is right. He could have had a huge win with a veto but he caved, again. I don't think "It's Bush's fault" will get him elected this time, especially since the only difference I can see is that he has out spend Bush by a country mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I don't agree with this....in any way. However I must say that the President...was damned if he did and damned if he did not on this one. LP, I sort of understand what you are saying here, but this decision should not have been a political one, ie it was not about whether or not he was damned if he did or if he didn't. Because now we are the ones who are going to be damned; apparently forever. :verymad: I disagree, if a politician sticks to his guns even when I disagree with them my respect level goes up and I am more likely to support them despite our differences. I just want a guy who does what he says he will do and stands up for what he thinks is right. He could have had a huge win with a veto but he caved, again. I don't think "It's Bush's fault" will get him elected this time, especially since the only difference I can see is that he has out spend Bush by a country mile. Find me a single politician that actually does what he said he would do once elected. So far, I haven't seen a single one in many, many years. They are all liars and cheats, and not a one is worth the powder to blow them up with. (No, I am not advocating violence against anyone.) And you are correct, The only person he has to blame for his problems this time around is going to be himself. The country isn't any better off because of his policies, and some would argue that we are actually worse off. Of course, a fair few of his policies are simply continuations of his predecessors....... But, folks don't seem to have that long of a memory. Elections in 2012 are going to be darn right interesting. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now