T Nation

What's More Important?


#1

This is an area I'm still unclear on; so I hope Zeb, Bolt, others will jump in.

The "ideal" would be for the GOP to win the White House and a clear majority in the Senate and House.

Do any of you see this as possible/probable?

If the GOP wins a clear majority in the House and Senate; how "important" (from a Legislative standpoint) does the Presidency become?

The TeaRepubs have been somewhat "quiet" in the Primary; but promise to be EXTREMELY active in House and Senate races; and in the upcoming Presidential Race. (If the 2010 Mid-Terms taught us anything; it's that the TeaRepubs are now a strong force in American politics).

Thanks for yor input!

Mufasa


#2

I know I am not among those you listed, but I think Tea Party Republicans do not see a candidate in this upcoming election that gets them fired up. I think Obama will most likely be reelected, but I think Romney gives him a good scare. I think the Tea Party is going after the Senate, and I think they will get it. I don't see the economy turning much more, it's going to take many years to turn this around.


#3

CHA!

I always want you input, Max! Even when we disagree, we often see where each other is coming from.

(You still need to get the Hell 'outa Cali and move to Montana with Push, though! LOL!)

Mufasa


#4

I saw one Representative of a local Chapter (I think in Florida) who said just what you said, Max.

The "hope" was that it was going to be Perry..."maybe" Cain...but both just fizzled out.

At least their Chapter (along with others) appeared focused on Senate Races.

Is this the "right" strategy?

Mufasa


#5

I think the Republicans will get a spanking , I don't think Obama is worried about any of the nominees


#6

I don't think that the President will win.

(BUT...I was the one who picked "McCain/Palin"...so what do I know?)

Mufasa


#7

To say Romney can't win it being being very overconfident. Keep something in mind, he is a moderate governor in Liberal Massachusetts. He also does not have the same support that he did back in 2008. He has had some scandals that are less than stellar (Fast and Furious, Solyndra, unemployment going over what he predicted with the bailout money, shovel-ready jobs not being so shovel-ready after all.)

All I am saying is, this is not in the bags for him.


#8

Rest assured that the President and his Team are not over-confident.

They realize that it will be an uphill struggle to a second term.

I'll say THIS again also; this Presidential election is for the GOP to lose...not for the President to win.

Mufasa


#9

The only way to stop Obama from stealing more of our money and putting forth a full court press on his far left agenda is to make sure republicans win both the House and Senate. And I thank that this could happen if we have a strong nominee. What we don't want to do is give Obama coattails then we lose it all.

And while this is off topic.....

A warning to the Paulies--After February but before Super Tuesday I will be rubbing it in your faces that Paul has done EXACTLY what I predicted he'd do.

(I'm a mean guy sometimes:)


#10

Zeb:

Why do you think that there needs to be a strong Presidential nominee in order to win a clear majority in the House and Senate?

Mufasa


#11

It will be a dog fight. It will be a close race. But, in the end, Obama will win again. The Republicans might lose a few seats, but they'll still keep a majority in the House, but stay the minority in the Senate. It'll be a repeat of the last 2 years.

CS


#12

I've heard this more that once, CS...by both Conservative and Liberal pundits.

Interesting. Why a "hold" by the DEMS in the Senate?

Mufasa


#13

I think the GOP will take back the Senate.

Gallup also has Romney polling equal to or better than Obama in the swing states.

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/01/gallup-poll-shows-split-between-barack-obama-and-mitt-romney-swing-states/Q3XwBnErDFEkrePR992h5K/index.html


#14

The first time a politician has EVER been honest, and my Governor (unfortunately).


#15

I don't think the Republicans will get a spanking, but they do need one.

But Romney wants to get one, a spanking that is. Really, everytime he opens his mouth, he gives another reason to not vote for him.


#16

It's because the Republicans don't have any viable Senate prospects and that the Democratic party has better grassroots campaigning.

CS


#17

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#18

If the GOP wins the Senate (and therefore Congress, more or less), the White House is less needed to certain extent, but if Obama wins the Presidency and the GOP wins back Congress, that will make for an awful 4 years.

Obama has already made it fairly clear that he does not govern well - or really, much at all - unless he has full wind at his back, i.e., Democratic majorities in both Houses. Whe he can't get things done through a compliant Congress, he takes his ball, goes home, and tries policymaking through the executive branch. Even Democratic lawmakers are beginning to publicly complain about this.

But here is the thing: if Obama wins the Presidency and the GOP wins back Congress, each can claim a "mandate". The GOP will say "we won back a majority precisely because the American public wanted us to go a different path than the Obama-crats", and they will be emboldened with big legislation or big standoffs with the President. Obama will say "I was re-elected president, so the public clearly wants me to keep charging forward with my vision", and he will do even more outside of Congress (executive end-arounds) and lots of vetoing.

This could be a mess. Now, I am usually one who favors a little bit of divided government - it has a way of putting the brakes on reckless legislating - but given the crises that we face, and because these crises were exacerbated by the Obama-crats (not to be confused with all Democrats), we need some very important, timely legislation to be passed soon, and the kind of divided government we'd have with GOP-Congress and Obama Presidency would not be good.

Compare to Clinton - he was a centrist, and post-1994, he became more of one and was able to work with a Republican Congress, with everyone sharing in some of the glory of accomplishments, but at a minimum, he remained relevant to the legislative process, even as the prerogatives and the priorities of the legislation became more conservative (as reflected by the 1994 shift in Congress).

There's not much indication Obama is capable of the same, and that would be mean a very partisan, do-little 4 years, I think.


#19

Thanks, Bolt!

Let's expand.

Do you see any "negatives" to the GOP having clear control of congress AND the White House?

Mufasa


#20

Yes, I do. For one, I don't think that Republicans are actually all that fiscally conservative, and I think that once the GOP controlled all lawmaking branches, the enthusiasm for balanced-budgets (and the hard choices required to do so) will wane, and the "hey, I tell you what will fix everything - tax cuts and the magic of supply-side economics - and we don't need to worry about deficits so much" will take back over.

I don't think the GOP has ever truly abandoned that political philosophy in the nearly religious belief in the power of supply-side to remedy all our fiscal ills - unfortunately, I think the GOP only gets religion on bona fide fiscal conservatism when a Democrat is in office. Consider Paul Ryan - the new darling of fiscal sobriety, he voted for Medicare Part D back in 2003, an enormous unfunded liability.