honestly, though, polls aren't too bad at predicting most of the time. i agree that it's harder with a house race than a presidential race, but there's something to be said for zeitgeist being picked up in generic polls.
I guess it's a two-way street, though. The whacked-out stuff coming out of the Repub committees in the Senate would never get 60 votes - and maybe not 50 votes most of the time. The real tragedy, I think, is going to be the loss of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. She's one for the books.
I think the odds the GOP takes the House are more like 3 in 5. I kinda wish we would lose the Senate and keep the House. Nancy Pelosi is money. If we lost the Senate, I'm honestly not sure it'd make that much difference and the GOP would have to come up with at least one idea beyond tax cuts.
You mean, of course, the never-ending bitch session on some left-leaning blogs? What was it Obama said about people "not being serious in the first place?". It's like - One day I am going to be a doctor....Medical school???....I"ve been had!!!
each in their own way. the push for homeownership (including the federal tax break) effectively subsidizes mortgage companies and artificially increases the price of homes. environmental regulations increase the cost of doing business. Ag Policy is currently geared toward massive harvests with prices supported through tax breaks for exporting food. The Federal Reserve lends money to large banks at a lower rate than the banks lend it to us, allowing the banks to turn over large amounts of money to keep themselves in business. i think the federal push for homeownership should end and ag policy should go back to the allotment program in place before 1973. i also think the fed should have some power to lend to small businesses directly. as far as environmental regulations, i think the problem is that they aren't enforced consistently or honestly.
certainly none of these created large corporations, but they can cement the hold large corporations have on their markets.
I mostly agree. Although I'm not sure if the "far left" is necessarily to blame. I think it's a pessimistic or maybe impetuous mentality, not necessarily the Cartesian distance of one's philosophy from pure moderate. People see HCR not go far enough, or DADT get voted down, or the tax cuts fumbled in the most assinine way by Congressional Dems, and they want somebody to blame. I know I do. But Obama isn't the person to blame. And 90 % of the Democrats aren't the ones to blame. But how do people show their displeasure? Not voting, voting Republican, or writing blog posts. What other recourse to people have? But I'd also add that the constant 15-minute update tends to nurture this impetuousness in political junkies. So people read MyDD, or Firedoglake, or TPM, or DailyKos, or C&L and they absorb the displeasure of the bloggers there. You can argue over the motivations of the people running the blogs, but mostly it comes down to being impatient and failing to take a long view of politics.
In defense of the Right. I would say that from their perspective, Progressive interventions such as environmental regulations, Agricultural Policy, Medicare, the push for homeownership, and the existence of a Federal Reserve (to name a few) are all actions that solidify the hold that large corporations have over our lives. I think there is some truth to this. But I also think that rolling back corporate regulation (such as it is), cutting the social safety net, and going back to a gold standard at this juncture would not result in a pefect society the way some libertarians do. Part of me wonders if the real problem is Progressive action that is taken in the context of compromise. For example, if we just went whole-hog and had Medicare funded and administered by public entities rather than insurance companies, you'd probably get a more efficient system that didn't stack the deck so heavily in favor of big insurance. But that would be Socialism. And Glenn Beck does not like Socialism. Just ask him.
These are the people we need to be fighting. Obama is right. He's pushing things forward despite the foot-dragging by Congress.
This is when "Progressives" should be on Obama's side, but instead they're letting the Public Option keep them on the sidelines. Our choices are Obama & Pelosi or Boehner & Palin. You better take sides soon.
We're probably not that far apart. I tend to blame Congress more than the President, though. I think Nancy Pelosi will go down in history as one of the great Speakers of the House. I'm reserving judgment on Harry Reid. Mostly I think he's an intolerable pussy, but his job is considerable more difficult than Nancy Pelosi's. There are a lot of Democratic congresscritters who I just for the life of me can't figure out what the hell they're thinking. You can only feel like you've been punched in the gut so many times and still feel motivated to vote for the Democrats. But I think a lot of that is the Congress. Obama only has limited control over them. Don't forget that repealing DADT was blocked by the Republicans including Susan Collins who said that she favored the repeal, but not the process. How do you work with people like that? Besides, I think repealing DADT isn't dead. It's popular enough that if the Republicans don't bring it up, it could hurt them in 2012. Same with repealing high-income tax cuts and a few other initiatives. Like I said, I can be extremely naive sometimes. Part of me thinks Obama did the hard stuff when he knew he had strong Democratic majorities and he'll use the easy stuff to split the Republicans. But then again, I thought John Kerry was going to stop talking about his Vietnam service in July of 2004 because everyone already knew about it and he would appear more statesmanlike to be mute about it.
There are things that I wish the President did more forcefully. Like ending warrantless wiretapping, closing Gitmo, pushing harder for immigration reform or a sensible energy policy. The naive optimist inside me thinks that he's saving the more popular battles (like ending warrantless wiretapping) for when the GOP is in control of Congress. It's a great wedge issue and they'd have a hard time opposing it. Same with gays in the military. He had to do the hardest things (financial reform, HCR, credit card reform) while he still had a Democratic Congress. I realize they left a lot undone that the Republicans will never, never, ever touch. But that's Congress, not Obama.
Beyond that, the administration can only do so much. Obama used a lot of political capital getting HCR passed. I agree that it should have been stronger, but the thing just barely squeaked by as it was. There is a universe where Obama pounds his fist on the table and people like Nelson, Lieberman, Collins, Snowe, and Lincoln all fall in line and do exactly what he wants, but that's not the universe we live in. Think about the middle class tax cut issue. Only the Democrats in Congress could screw something up that badly.
Granted, the Obama Administration makes some really dumb comments about liberal bloggers, etc. But, really, if you read enough liberal blogs, you can understand why.
Oh, and the millions in donations comment was snark. Rhymes with shark.