American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Stan posted a short essay on his views on stimulus, which I thought had enough academic merit to deserve a response. I'll respond to the main points not every single statement.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;412329]And the dire H1N1 warnings were all supposedly based on legitimate science.[/QUOTE]The dire warnings were not necessarily of what would happen but what could happen. It did meet the WHO criteria of a pandemic. Given the data available at the time the steps taken were prudent.

Your main point here is that so-called legitimate predictions based on science (or economic models, etc) are sometimes wrong. Well of course this is true. Sometimes wrong, sometimes right. Such as those few economists who predicted back in 2005-07 that the US was on the verge of a housing / financial meltdown and deep recession.

If you wanted to remind us that predictions aren't accurate all the time, fair enough.

[QUOTE]Now, we come to the multiple "Stimulus" efforts that have been deployed, and the new ones that are being proposed. Conventional wisdom, based on what the media feeds us, is that stimulus programs were necessary because we were in a recession. But, we've been in many other recessions and came out of them without anything that approaches the massive spending done by this administration. Yes, they claim, but this recession was [I]really[/I] bad, and desperate times call for desperate measures. Not so fast. The recession now is [I]really[/I] bad, based on its length and the unemployment rate alone, but those were the things all this stimulus spending was supposed to fix. The only response you generally get is, "well, it would have been worse without the massive spending. " There's nothing to back it up.[/QUOTE]See how quickly you segue into right wing exaggerations of "nothing to back it up".

For one, we just had the news from NBER that the recession officially ended in June 2009. Which was 4 months after the Stimulus (ARRA) was enacted. Coincidence? Doubtful.

We have reports that ARRA boosted employment by 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs and raised the nation's annual economic output by almost $400 billion. These conclusions are backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7.

[url]http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm[/url]
[url]http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1326[/url]

[QUOTE]The only "science" that suggests these programs were necessary or even worthwhile are based on economics. They call economics "the dismal science" for a reason: It got its name after Thomas Malthus projected that population growth would cause a parade of horribles, eventually leading to starvation and death for much of mankind. He was dead wrong, and the name stuck, if only as a reminder that economic models are notoriously inaccurate.[/QUOTE]A feeble attempt to discredit economics. Of course it is an imperfect science, but it still plays an important role in both the public and private sectors.

[QUOTE]So, why does anyone take it seriously when the current administration, based on so-called "expert" economists, concludes that any of the stimulus packages were necessary? To the extent that any of these "experts" provide any basis for their conclusions, it almost invariably is predicated on some Keynesian economic principle that is questionable [I]at best[/I]. Real world data debunks nearly every Keynesian theory. It's junk science, yet we're led to believe that billions in spending was and is necessary because these junk scientists tell us so.[/QUOTE]More unconvincing discreditation of economics and economists.

This whole episode we've been through of financial sector failure, followed by successful government intervention via TARP and ARRA will go down in history as one of the greatest validations of Keynesian theory.

This report from Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder analyzes the combined effect of the government's responses:

[i]"For example, we estimate that, without the government's response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8.5 million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation. "[/i]

How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End
[url]http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE]What proof is there that these Stimulus programs were unnecessary? Of course it's impossible to "prove" now, but the best evidence is historical. In only one recession have we even approached the record level of stimulus and deficit spending that has been happening. It's called "the Great Depression, " and it lasted longer and was deeper than any other recession. By comparison, Europe did not engage in anywhere near the government stimulus FDR rammed through (measured as a percentage of GDP), and its economies recovered more quickly and its unemployment rate stayed lower at all points than the USA. In all other recessions, we have not spent anywhere near what this team has, and we suffered less (measured in nearly any way possible) and emerged more quickly. So, you can't conclusively prove what would have happened without the massive stimulus, but the smart money bets on experience.[/QUOTE]You're free to put more weight on historical comparisons. I'll put more weight on the analysis of respected economists who factored in the unique elements of the latest recession.

[QUOTE]So, if it's not the junk scientists with their demonstrably false Keynesian models, [/QUOTE]You've established that only in your own mind.

[QUOTE]then who should we believe as to why stimulus spending is necessary? Obama and Geithner? Geithner's the same guy who either can't figure out how to pay his taxes, or was attempting to evade them. We've either got a buffoon or a crook running Treasury, yet we're supposed to trust him to spend nearly a trillion dollars wisely. This is the same pair who went to the G-20 meeting in June to trumpet the success of the USA stimulus packages and to chide Europe for even thinking about cutting spending to get their budgets in line. [url]http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-26/geithner-says-g-20-needs-focus-on-domestic-demand-not-deficits.html[/url]

They were laughed out of the room by European leaders, particularly Germany, which cut spending instead. Turns out, Germany had the first and last laugh. Their economy is healthy by all accounts, while the Obama / Geithner Stimulus has succeeded only in driving up the deficit. The Obama-led Stiimulus does feed his arguments, though: He claims we [I]can't afford[/I] tax cuts for the wealthy. Why not? Well, because he was so busy blowing our wad on worthless Stimulus projects. (He usually forgets that last part in his stump speeches) [/QUOTE]Geithner's tax issue has zero to do with the argument of whether the Stimulus was worthwhile or not.

And a comparison with Germany is possibly the poorest argument of the bunch. Germany did not have a giant housing bubble with massive financial leverage tied to it. Nor the same spike in unemployment. And yet they still had two stimulus packages worth $104B, which are credited with helping the German recovery. There is a case here that the US stimulus was in fact too small.

[QUOTE]These are the sorts of issues that are driving the Tea Party. It's one thing to raise taxes for worthwhile projects. But, taking other people's money is justified only when the government gets its house in order and cuts all the wasteful spending that is abundantly apparent. ObamaCare and cash for clunkers are but two of many examples, and they are on top of the worthless Stimulus programs. Obama's "wish list" spending proposal today is just more evidence. Dems may think that the Tea Party is driving a wedge between the Republican party. But, the truth is, the Tea Party is symptomatic of the general disgust at the misguided policies and wasteful spending that has occurred and is still being proposed by this administration. Absent this, the Tea Party wouldn't exist. Come November, thankfully, we'll be done with all of these ludicrous stimulus proposals, brought forth by a team that couldn't govern its way out of a paper bag.[/QUOTE]You sure convinced me! Great job.

BTW, the Stimulus/ARRA included $288B in tax benefits. Was that part also worthless?

If we hadn't had a stimulus and now had even higher unemployment, you can bet almost everyone in the country would be complaining that the government didn't do anything.

[QUOTE=Esten; 412559]Stan posted a short essay on his views on stimulus, which I thought had enough academic merit to deserve a response. I'll respond to the main points not every single statement.

The dire warnings were not necessarily of what would happen but what could happen. It did meet the WHO criteria of a pandemic. Given the data available at the time the steps taken were prudent.

Your main point here is that so-called legitimate predictions based on science (or economic models, etc) are sometimes wrong. Well of course this is true. Sometimes wrong, sometimes right. Such as those few economists who predicted back in 2005-07 that the US was on the verge of a housing / financial meltdown and deep recession. [/quote]You mean George W. Bush? He first rang that bell in 2001.

Don't get me wrong, other than homeland defense GWB and I don't agree on many issues. However, as the Left's boogieman (again, not the dancing kind) it is funny how in hindsight he was correct, yet they still can't bring themselves not to hate him. (please note that the use of a double negative in the preceding sentence was intentional for illustrative purposes)

[quote=]If you wanted to remind us that predictions aren't accurate all the time, fair enough.[/quote]What good does that do us when the earth is turning into a fiery ball of death due to bovine flatulation!

[quote=]For one, we just had the news from NBER that the recession officially ended in June 2009. Which was 4 months after the Stimulus (ARRA) was enacted. Coincidence? Doubtful.[/quote]Hi hip hooray! The Recession ended 15 months ago! So all you unemployed layabouts are just faking!

[quote=]We have reports that ARRA boosted employment by 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs and raised the nation's annual economic output by almost $400 billion.[/quote]I have a report that says my schlong is nearly 14" long.

[quote=] These conclusions are backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7.[/quote]Goldman, across the board in its research is pretty clear that the 'stimulus" was anything other than stimulative. If the "stimulus" was actually stimulative, when it is gone there would be continued growth coming out of those investments. To the contrary, GS clearly states that the impact of the so called "stimulus" on the economy was temporary and artificial going further to say that the end of stimulus will result in unemployment going back north of 10%. Wow, great ringing endorsement of Barrack Hoover Obama.

[quote=]A feeble attempt to discredit economics. Of course it is an imperfect science, but it still plays an important role in both the public and private sectors.[/quote]Having been trained as an economist, I can assure you that two equally competent economists can darw diametrically opposed opinions from the same data, based upon ideology and who pays their salaries.

[quote=]This whole episode we've been through of financial sector failure, followed by successful government intervention via TARP and ARRA will go down in history as one of the greatest validations of Keynesian theory.[/quote]"Yeah, sing with me, sing for the year.

Sing for the laughter, sing for the tear.

Sing with me, if it's just for today.

Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take you away "

[quote=]This report from Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder analyzes the combined effect of the government's responses:

[i]"For example, we estimate that, without the government's response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8.5 million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation. "[/i]

How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End.

[url]http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf[/url][/quote]See comment above regarding economists. Zandi was right on the ball at Moody's with this whole global economic meltdown thingy.

Binder is a pointed headed academic.

Why not make your own judgments based upon what you see in your day to day life? Looks pretty bleak in many parts of the US.

[quote=]You're free to put more weight on historical comparisons. I'll put more weight on the analysis of respected economists who factored in the unique elements of the latest recession.[/quote]Do you posses the ability to form your own opinions or do you just regurgitate what you are spoon fed?

[quote=]Geithner's tax issue has zero to do with the argument of whether the Stimulus was worthwhile or not.[/quote]Agreed. It was merely one other piece of evidence that he was not fit for this position. His performance bears it out. Had BHO's vetting been along historic practices (I. E. Disqualify known tax cheats, wife beaters, etc) perhaps we would have got a more qualified candidate.

[quote=]And a comparison with Germany is possibly the poorest argument of the bunch. Germany did not have a giant housing bubble with massive financial leverage tied to it. Nor the same spike in unemployment. And yet they still had two stimulus packages worth $104B, which are credited with helping the German recovery. There is a case here that the US stimulus was in fact too small.[/quote]There is a case that the eruption of Vesuvius was too small.

You are correct, Germany is a poor example because they are cutting taxes

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended her plan to cut taxes despite the country's soaring budget deficit as she introduced her conservative alliance's manifesto ahead of national elections in September.

Lower incomes taxes would "provide motivation" and encourage economic growth, Ms. Merkel told a conference of her party, the Christian Democratic Union, and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union.

"It would be wrong not to do what is right and necessary for growth, and so prevent ourselves emerging quickly from this crisis, " Ms. Merkel said in her conference speech. "

[quote=]BTW, the Stimulus/ARRA included $288B in tax benefits. Was that part also worthless?[/quote]Do you know the difference between a tax cut and a tax benefit?

[quote=]If we hadn't had a stimulus and now had even higher unemployment, you can bet almost everyone in the country would be complaining that the government didn't do anything.[/QUOTE]Looking at historical analogies, most economists believe that had the govt done nothing, we'd already be on the road to recovery (whether or not the Administration declares a 'summer of recovery'. Yet here we are stuck in the mud.

You are correct that many in the public would have complained about the govt doing 'nothing. ' That is why we might want to chose candidates more focused on doing the right thing rather than the political expedient or dogmatic adhesion to a radical agenda.

Not even African American, first-time-voters, on welfare, from the South Side support Obama like Esten and Miami Pro.

I obviously enjoy the back and forth and debating issues but now Esten has spoiled it by revealing himself as a fraud.

It's like being with a chica, I like being lied to a little but if she takes it too far, it kind of kills the moment. You know what I mean, the chica that says "ahhhhh siiii! " too much or the Kgirl that keeps telling you how big your noodle is. (well maybe you aren't familiar with the latter)

This spoiled the moment for me:

[QUOTE=Esten;412559]This whole episode we've been through of financial sector failure, followed by successful government intervention via TARP and ARRA will go down in history as one of the greatest validations of Keynesian theory.[/QUOTE]Liberals are not known for their senses of humor, therefore, Esten isn't trying to be funny, he ran out of thing to say, doesn't really believe this and threw it out along with the kitchen sink thinking it sounded like the expected liberal drivel.

Oh well, now that Esten has spoiled the moment, let's review some chicas.

Daily Affirmation.

September 22,2010.

This is my choice: I listen to my inner voice.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412569]Not even African American, first-time-voters, on welfare, from the South Side support Obama like Esten and Miami Pro.[/QUOTE]WW. You have a real problem reading into me. I clearly said that while I did vote for Obama, thinking I was going to get something different. Meaning a more pro progressive agenda. I have been disappointed by lack of desire to see the issues I really wanted fall to the way side. Which became abundantly clear after Rahm Manual made the comments he did regarding the progressive voters. At this point I am not prepared to vote for Barack again in 2012. Of course I will have to see what my options are at that time.

So when you make a comment like that, It clearly shows you have your head stuck in a dark place between your legs.

[QUOTE=Miamipro; 412575]WW. You have a real problem reading into me. I clearly said that while I did vote for Obama, thinking I was going to get something different. Meaning a more pro progressive agenda. I have been disappointed by lack of desire to see the issues I really wanted fall to the way side. Which became abundantly clear after Rahm Manual made the comments he did regarding the progressive voters. At this point I am not prepared to vote for Barack again in 2012. Of course I will have to see what my options are at that time.

So when you make a comment like that, It clearly shows you have your head stuck in a dark place between your legs. [/QUOTE]I did not mean to offend you by painting you with a socialist, neo-marxist brush by equating your support of Obama's most radical agenda as actual support for the President. It is amusing to see what offends you.

I understand that you think you are to the left of the President. I am quite happy to know that you are part of a very small minority.

If you're not going to vote BHO in 2012, maybe you'd consider Palin.

BTW, you can check some of my 2008-2009 post-election musings about how Hillary will seek the dem nomination in 2012 (a view I still hold. You probably think she is a right winger.

Just to let you know, I have much more respect for liberals who believe what they say (Esten, MiamiPro, MiamiBob, etc) than RINOs.

I like true believers, I just happen to prefer oath-takers and 3%ers to marxists

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 412583]I did not mean to offend you by painting you with a socialist, neo-marxist brush by equating your support of Obama's most radical agenda as actual support for the President. It is amusing to see what offends you.

I understand that you think you are to the left of the President. I am quite happy to know that you are part of a very small minority.

If you're not going to vote BHO in 2012, maybe you'd consider Palin.

BTW, you can check some of my 2008-2009 post-election musings about how Hillary will seek the dem nomination in 2012 (a view I still hold. You probably think she is a right winger. [/QUOTE]Oh I am not offended. I actually find it amusing how you try to paint your own picture of politics. Its to bad those paintings look more like abstracts.

Sarah Palin? Sure I will vote for her. If we are talking about which women has become the biggest punchline in political history. Even if she was to toss her hat in the Presidential Elections. Which I hope she does. She will loose and loose big.

We all seem to be involved in a circular argument regarding the Recession.

In our (independent / conservatives) opinion the house of cards was built by the Democrat’s desire to see more home ownership, a laudable endeavor to be sure, but they decided to achieve that end via lowering lending standards at Freddie and Fannie (just a sidebar but why is the Government in the home lending market in the first place?) and it went on down the line with other private lenders. The housing market boomed and the economy along with it. Everyone was happy but ignored the fact many home buyers were marginal at best. Next the financial markets sensing money to be made bundled mortgages in to financial instruments and sold them. Everyone was making money, but the now marginal home buyers were slipping down the slippery slope of debt over load and the bubble collapsed from within initiating the Recession. (Short simple version here)

From the liberal point of view it is even simpler – the evil villain George W. Bush did it. (Long complex version here)

Now regardless what you want to say even if in analytical terms the Recession ended in June 2009 as you look around at 9.6% unemployment (and that figure does not include the folks no longer receiving unemployment – they are just invisible now, anemic growth since they have revised it down to at or under 2% annual growth, and the real possibility the economy will stall completely or worse fall into stag-flation (remember Jimmy Carter) how can anyone crow about what the government has done. The best they can say now is “it would have been worse without government intervention” which is as meaningless as the “jobs SAVED or created” which nobody really buys anymore.

I really enjoyed Esten’s statement that in 4 months TARP and Stimulus stopped the Recession. Hell, the government had not spent the bulk of the TARP money much less the Stimulus in 4 months! Please Esten tell me you were just jerking me off with that one.

The most telling indicator of Obama’s slippage and the Democrat’s demise was when in a carefully screened audience for Obama’s last “town hall meeting” a black woman stood up and challenged him, saying she voted for him, defended him and his policies but was totally exhausted and wanted to know when he was going to deliver on his promises as the economy remains in tatters directly effecting her family. Obama is so disconnected from reality he laughed first them answered with students could get loans for school, healthcare and a few other meaningless things to this woman.

Esten, Maimipro; WW is correct about economists, you can shop and fine one that will say whatever you want to hear.



Reminds me of the joke about three CPA’s interviewing for the same job. The prospective employer gave all three the same root information and asked them to come up with the correct answer. CPA 1 came up with one answer, CPA 2 came up with a different answer, CPA 3 did nothing and when asked by the prospective employer for his answer CPA 3 asked “What do you want it to be? ” Guess who got hired? I hope I have not belabored the point but this should answer your questions regarding economists, statisticians, and the CBO.

First they bail, now they're eating their own.

Jimmy Carter has been making the rounds the past week, trying to rehab his image as the worst President in modern history. He should be waiting two years and the problem would take care of itself.

Among other things, he emphatically stated that the country is on the wrong track. That's nothing surprising, but I'm sure Obama appreciates the support.

He also asserts that he would have had health care coverage for all, but Ted Kennedy killed the CarterCare bill out of spite and ego. According to Carter, but for Ted Kennedy we'd all already have CarterCare.

Finally, this: "I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents', " Carter said. "Primarily because of the activism and the. And the injection of working at the Carter Center and in international affairs, and to some degree, domestic affairs, on energy conservation, on. On environment, and things of that kind. We're right in the midst of the. Of the constant daily debate. ""

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100921/pl_yblog_upshot/jimmy-carter-hasnt-been-mincing-many-words-of-late[/url].

Hey, if folks won't give you the credit you think you deserve, then you just take it. It's part of that whole entitlement mentality that Democrats are so fond of. So there you have it: The Most-Superior-Ex-President award goes to Jimmy Carter.

Al Gore's got a press conference called tomorrow to claim the award for Most-Superior-Ex-Vice-President before anyone else grabs the mantle. Biden's crying foul because he can't get his resignation paperwork processed in time to get in the game.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;412594]Biden's crying foul because he can't get his resignation paperwork processed in time to get in the game.[/QUOTE]I just pissed myself laughing! Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. Tick Tick Tick. Never underestimate America you Liberal Bitchs. Tick Tick Tick!

Now that I've spoiled things for Walleye, I do hope he spends more time reviewing chicas and less time cluttering this thread with crackpot commentary.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;412594]Jimmy Carter has been making the rounds the past week, trying to rehab his image as the worst President in modern history. He should be waiting two years and the problem would take care of itself.[/QUOTE]Jabs at Carter?? LOL. Must be a slow news day. Carter does his own thing, he is not on someone's ship.

And I see Doppel brought up Bush again today. As I said before, the conservatives in this thread bring him up far more than other posters. And when I sometimes respond about Bush, Doppel complains, oh Esten, you always love to blame everything on Bush. LMAO!

For the record, I liked Bush. I agreed with the wars and with his bold support of TARP to address the financial crisis. I've said that before. Obviously I also disagree with much of the right wing philosophy and policies he and his party represented. But I certainly do not hate him or blame everything on him.

Stan commented that Carter is viewed as the worst president in modern history. Let's see how that assertion holds up with the Siena College Research Institute's recent survey of 238 presidential scholars:

[url]http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/02/survey-ranks-obama-15th-best-president-bush-among-worst.html[/url]

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt.
13. William Clinton.
15. Barack Obama.
18. Ronald Reagan.
32. James Carter.
39. George W. Bush.
43. Andrew Johnson.

Clinton and Obama ahead of Reagan. Carter ahead of GW Bush. Poor Bush in the bottom five.

Now interesting is FDR at #1. As we know, FDR was a Democrat who implemented Keynesian approaches to lift the country out of the Great Depression. Not unlike Obama and the Great Recession he inherited. I'm sure you have read the comparisons. Just remember where FDR ended up on this presidential survey.

[QUOTE=Esten;412605]Now that I've spoiled things for Walleye, I do hope he spends more time reviewing chicas and less time cluttering this thread with crackpot commentary.[/quote]Crackpot?

[quote=]Jabs at Carter?? LOL. Must be a slow news day. Carter does his own thing, he is not on someone's ship.[/quote]That's right, he is an independent (wishful thinking) The funny part is liberal columnists are the ones drawing the Obama = Carter analogy.

I believe that Carter popping up right now is part of the Democrat strategy. Hold up Carter and hope that people's instinctive reaction is "well it could be worse. "

[quote=] I've said that before. Obviously I also disagree with much of the right wing philosophy and policies he and his party represented. [/quote]Please illuminate us on the subject of GWB's right wing philosophies. GWB was not conservative.

[quote=]Stan commented that Carter is viewed as the worst president in modern history.[/quote]That's only because BHO is currently in the office and not yet history.285 months from now, Carter will need to hand over the crown.

[quote=]Let's see how that assertion holds up with the Siena College Research Institute's recent survey of 238 presidential scholars:[/quote]Boy, I wonder what the average political persuasion of those "scholars" happens to be.

This is like saying the Michael Jordan-era Bulls were the best team in history. Any such poll is just a subjective, opinion survey.

I don't need a poll to tell me what I know.

[quote=]Clinton and Obama ahead of Reagan.[/quote]Save your breath.

[quote=]Now interesting is FDR at #1. As we know, FDR was a Democrat who implemented Keynesian approaches to lift the country out of the Great Depression. Not unlike Obama and the Great Recession he inherited. I'm sure you have read the comparisons. Just remember where FDR ended up on this presidential survey.[/QUOTE]Like I said, I don't need a poll to tell me what I know. FDR is one of the main reasons why were are in the mess that we are in. He trampled all over the Constitution and the Framers' intent and burdened this country (even worse for the individuals with in it) with a permanent underclass, dependent upon the govt for everything. Wow, what a great president.

Esten, in my post I only alluded to the liberals using George W. Bush as their primary fall guy. You are now trying to tell me that Obama, the Democrats and liberals in general have not been hammering the electorate over the head with “It’s Bush’s Fault” since before the 2008 presidential elections, as well as using him as the fall guy and general boogieman for every failure of their economic plans to improve the economy since Obama took office are you?

Regarding your “ranking” citation of former presidents, perhaps you read my little joke about the 3 CPA’s and the comparison with the CBO, economists and statisticians, it’s all in who you select and what their bias and political bend is. Check the link below, in general none of your boys make it into the top ten nor is George Bush in the bottom ten as you posted. In viewing the website you can easily see a person could pick and choose only those outcomes they have a vested interest in and ignore the rest.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States[/url]

Esten, both you and Maimipro seem to fail to grasp the electorate is mad at everyone in Washington (Democrat and Republican) for pushing programs they neither asked for nor wanted on them and for the sorry state of the economy. Conservatives and independents are “mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore” and they are going to the polls to vote. The Democratic base is disillusioned and demoralized at this point which explains the nearly 2 to 1 advantage the Republicans have in primary voters who have turned out. While the dissatisfaction is taking a toll on both parties it is the Democrats who will by far suffer the worst.

In Delaware the major news media and Democrats have been castigating O’Donnell with personal attacks, not even getting near the issues of the election – probably because they know they will lose. I would not count her out – she hasn’t even cast her first spell yet! Dennis Miller had a great idea for her bumper sticker “Bewitched or Bewildered” referring to her vs her Democratic opponent.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;412613]Esten, both you and Maimipro seem to fail to grasp the electorate is mad at everyone in Washington (Democrat and Republican) for pushing programs they neither asked for nor wanted on them and for the sorry state of the economy.[/QUOTE]I am pretty sure you don't need to bring up my name in your quote. You have no idea what I grasp. I actually agree with you when you say everyone is mad at Washington. But I am mad at things like why can't both Parties come to agreements on whats best for the people instead of whats best for Party. I am mad at the Dems for not pushing hard enough on polices they said they were going to push all the way on and then cave in for self serving reasons.