Election Central Morning Roundup
Obama Promises Entitlement Reform, Action On Health Care
In an interview with the Washington Post editorial board, Barack Obama promised that his administration will make tough choices on entitlement spending. "Social Security, we can solve," said Obama. "The big problem is Medicare, which is unsustainable...We can't solve Medicare in isolation from the broader problems of the health-care system."
Obama Hitting The Sort-Of Campaign Trail For Stimulus Plan
Barack Obama is holding an event today in the Cleveland suburb of Bedford Heights, Ohio, where he'll be touring a factory that makes parts for wind turbines, in order to promote his economic stimulus plan. His meeting with factory workers to discuss the benefits of his plan is scheduled for 1:05 p.m. ET.
Biden's Senate Replacement To Be Sworn In Today
Senator-Designate Ted Kaufman (D-DE) is set to be sworn in today as Joe Biden's replacement. A political unknown, Kaufman served as Biden's Senate chief of staff from 1973-1994, and will only serve as a caretaker and not seek a full term in 2010 -- at which time Biden's son Beau is expected to run for the seat.
Steve King: Obama Can Say "Hussein," But I Can't
In an interview with Politico, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) criticized Barack Obama for saying he will use his middle name when he is sworn into office. King says it's a double standard that people on the right are attacked for referring to "Barack Hussein Obama," but Obama can do it himself: "Is that reserved just for him, not his critics?"
Blago Won't Attend Inaugural
Rod Blagojevich's office says he will not be attending Barack Obama's inauguration next week. Under most circumstances, it would be considered unusual for a governor to not attend the inauguration of his state's favorite son as president, but Blago's spokesman said the governor does not want to be a distraction.
With Small Numbers, House GOP Whip No Longer Whipping
The Hill reports that House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) is refocusing his job away from counting votes and ensuring party loyalty -- the official job of the whip -- and branching out into formulating policies and a party message. The reason: With only 178 members and having lost the presidency, House Republicans aren't in a position to win many votes.
GOPer Has Big Money For Virginia Gubernatorial Race
The new year-end fundraising reports from the candidates for governor of Virginia show that Republican nominee Bob McDonnell has more than $2 million in cash on hand. In the three-way Democratic primary field, state Sen. Creigh Deeds leads with $891,000, former state Del. Brian Moran has $770,000 on hand, Terry McAuliffe has $718,000 on hand -- an impressive amount, considering Terry only just recently got in the race.
So much fodder today!
1) Social Security: Wow. Obama thinks SS is solvable. I like that!
2) King: Asshat. Using someone's name as a pejorative is _always_ bad form.
3) Blago: Damn, son! Get over yourself! You _really_ think you are so freekin' important that your little foibles could in any way take the slightest bit of attention away from the Inauguration? Be gone before a house drops on you!
January 16, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve King, the only member of Congress that is capable of making Jessie Helms look tolerant and intelligent. Could there be a bigger bleepin idiot?
January 16, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rep. King is a serious idiot. CONTEXT, motherfarker, CONTEXT. You know what, I ought to start calling him "B. Hussein Obama" like Ann Coulter does, just to cheese wingers off. You get a good laugh, and the nutjobs get their blood pressure raised ten points. Win-win.
January 16, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, King is miffed that it didn't work. People not only blew him off, it caused them to run harder in B. Hussein Obama's direction. Cry, baby, cry.
January 16, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of like "President Hussein."
But yeah, King is a clueless immature racist jackass. And those are his good qualities...
Someone over at Kos pointed out that King's middle name is Arnold, so he's obviously a traitor.
January 16, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real idiots are the people in my district who re-elected him. I just did a blog about some other choice tidbits from King.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/debbiedoesnothing/2009/01/steve-kings-my-rep---im-so-pro.php
January 16, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
When will the GOOP just go f* themselves? Does that nut job even know what Hussein means? What about King Hussein of Jordan. Should we tell him to go F* himself because of his name?
January 16, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steven Arnold King is clearly disappointed that John Sidney McCain, III and Sarah Louise Heath Palin did not win the election. And I suppose Steven Arnold King would have a fair point if it was common for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. to be referred to by their full name all the time. I don't know about Steven Arnold King, though, but those extra syllables seem kind of unnecessary when everybody knows who you're talking about anyway. Most of the time, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is referred to simply by two or even just one of his names not because of political correctness but simply in the name of convenience and expediency. And as even Steven Arnold King should know, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is using his middle name now because everybody speaks their full name when giving an oath at inauguration. So when Steven Arnold King starts using a candidate's full name in public, clearly Steven Arnold King's intent is to draw attention to the full name somehow. I don't know if Steven Arnold King has some explanation other than to make Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. seem like an "other," but if he does, I eagerly await hearing it when he sits down to an interview with Katherine Ann Couric or perhaps Alma Dale Campbell Brown.
January 16, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post!
January 16, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
King is a total fucking asshole.
I keep thinking that Blago is the perfect subject for an opera by John Adams. It's even a good name for the opera. I can even see Gerald Finley in the title role.
http://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/season/production.aspx?id=9869&detect=yes
January 16, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose you're saying Blago is "radioactive," but you're really being unfair to Robert Oppenheimer, who was a fascinating and brilliant man. Blago in my opinion doesn't even rise to the level of a Scarpia -- maybe some minor Donizetti character...
January 16, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually he's a perfect subject for a John Adams opera. Finley's ability to shape shift from Oppenheimer to Blago is no insult to Oppenheimer - it's a compliment to Finley's diversity. Just because Meryl Streep can morph from "Sophie's Choice" to "The Devil Wears Prada" doesn't mean that Miranda is an insult to Sophie!
All Finley needs is a furry creature to wear on his head and he's Blago.
January 16, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I just find Blago much less interesting than you do. I don't find him worth Adams' time (or Finley's or Sellars' for that matter).
Blago's brazenness and delusion is entertaining, but in the end I don't find him tragic, or even all that evil, so much as venial and pathetic.
Like I say, maybe a minor character, comic relief in, say, the inevitable Obama opera?
January 16, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You would think that with a name like King he would judge people by the content of there character. Clearly one's name bears no resemblance to one's beliefs.
January 16, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing the discomfiting use of the "entitlement reform" buzz-phrase is going to be key to pushing through comprehensive health care reform. He's obviously studied the mistakes of the Clinton era, but damn, that phrase just rubs me the wrong way. They're called positive rights, Barack.
January 16, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. King: Are you serious? Those like you are not fooling anyone. Your side uses soon to be President Obama's middle name with hate. So no, you can not use his middle name.
Be careful: The majority of voters support soon to be President Obama and your party is held in distain.
If I were the Republicans, I would do all I can to work with the new president. Americans support him and his policies. Your side does not have the votes. It's a new day. Republicans are in for a rude awakening.
I will feel total relief on Tuesday.
January 16, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The majority of voters support soon to be President Obama and your party is held in distain."
It's definately over for Republicans...Obama got an entire percentage point more than Bush did in the last election!
January 16, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
365 Electoral Votes, bub.
January 16, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think SFC Trollmaster was talking about the popular vote, but he's still wrong. B. Hussein Obama got 67 million votes and won by something like 8.6 million votes out of 127 million cast, according to the DailyKos scoreboard. He also beat Bush's 2004 numbers by five million.
Also according to the scoreboard, Bush got 50.7% of the vote in 2004, while B. Hussein Obama got 52.7% in 2008. That's two points, which is huge under the circumstances.
Suck it, cons.
January 16, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Popular vote isn't how we decide Presidential elections, so I don't give a rats ass what SFC meant. By the rules of the game, the Repubs got their asses whupped.
January 16, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
January 16, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's not just the vote on November 4. Obama's approval numbers are around 70% right now, and Bush is barely pushing 30.
Besides which, Republicans in general were trounced at the polls in November -- the Dems nearly ran the table in the Congressional races. Wallace is grasping at straws.
January 16, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
50.7-48.3 versus 52.9-45.7 is NOT a difference of one percentage point. But that's ok, SFCWallace. Nobody expects you to be able to count.
January 16, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you belong to a party dedicated to the proposition that 2+2=5 if you believe strongly enough and/or the perceived short term political advantages are high enough, his math makes sense.
And, indeed, its a line of thinking enabled by our MSM.
Foxnews--Sean Asshattery reporting: "OBAMA ONLY WON BY ONE PERCENTAGE POINT MORE THAN PRESIDENT BUSH DID IN THE LAST ELECTION!!!!! THAT'S REALLY ALMOST THE SAME AS LOSING!!!! WE REALLY WON THE LAST ELECTION AND OBAMA IS NOT A LEGITIMATE LEADER!!!! (I'M SHOUTING BECAUSE THAT WAY I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU LIBERALS AND YOUR SOCIALIST "MATH"!!!!!)
From MSNBC Correspondent Andrea Asshat: "Critics, however, point out that Obama only received one percentage point more than President Bush did in the last election. In fairness, some Obama supporters do claim that under what they contend are conventionally understood principles of mathematics, he in fact won by something closer to two percent."
Chris Asshat: "Either way, this looks like a huge problem for Obama!"
CNN Asshat: "Wolf, its buzzing all over town. One percent? Two percent? No one seems to know. And where is the missing percent? The Obama team's lack of candor and immediate forthcomingness on this question has already ssured that this story will dominate the news for weeks to come as troubling questions occur to us. And at a moment when Congress has aready balked at giving him what he wants on TARP before caving and when three of his most important cabinet picks seemingly in jeopardy due to the committees' invocation of an unusual procedure whereby members are allowed to ask questions of the appointee in a public hearing before voting to confirm, this largely self-inflicted wound couldn't come at a worse moment for the Obama team."
Wolf Assblitz: Thank you for that report. It's safe to say it what some are now calling Percentgate is a controversy that is not going away and that will haunt the new Obama Administration for years to come."
Drudge Blue Light Asshat Alert: "STOLEN! Senate Republicans demand appointment of special prosecutor to investigate growing Percentgate controversy! Developing . . ."
January 16, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another excellent post!
January 16, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama had the second highest EVER percentage of eligible voters in an election vote for him, only behind Reagan's second election.
Hows that for stats bub.
January 16, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
...and Clinton beat an incumbent by 1 point less than Obama beat McCain...Then beat Dole by a larger % and more Electoral votes...Obama won, but I have to point out, it's not the prologue that foretells the decimation of the Republican party.
January 16, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what _is_ the prologue then? Decimation is your destiny after all. All we're agruing about it whether Obama's trouncing of McCain should be considered the prologue, right?
January 16, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, the prologue for the decimation (which has already happened, since "decimation" refers to reduction by one-tenth, and since 2006 you've lost well more than that) was that people like you, except perhaps with marginally better communication skills, have been running the thing.
The leading indicators for the near-collapse of the party in the near future are things like its/your almost-overt racism, ignorance, arrogance, and the incomprehensible belief that you'd have done better if only you'd been more like your most noxious characters. (See Palin, Sarah)
So keep on runnin' yer yap there, "SFC", and we'll see the Republican Party become the regional party of Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma, and a very few other states.
Oh, and don't even bother with that "demographics" stuff - I suspect it will just make your head hurt.
January 16, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd agree that the vote totals for Obama don't foretell the decimation of the Republican Party.
The Congressional seats do, as do the abysmal approval ratings for Republicans, and the number of Republicans who have already announced they're outta here by 2010.
January 16, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just keep on focusing on things like the soon-but-not-soon-enough-to-be President's middle name. That's what Americans want, stupid rhetoric. Also, don't bother trying to solve any problems. We don't want that. We want a cesspool of hate surrounding a pyramid of unsolved issues. Right on.
January 16, 2009 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace:
Are you serious? Check out the electoral college vote. Bush is a joke.
Give it up. It's a new day and you should just sit down and let the grownups be in charge.
Folks like you need to step aside.
January 16, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, let's look at the Electoral College:
1. Obama won 4 states (OH,IN,FL,NC) totaling 73 Electoral votes by 1% or less.
2. McCain ran more than 15% points ahead of Bush's approval rating.
3. The 2010 census is projected to move as many as 9 electoral votes from blue states to red for the 2012 election.
Did Obama win? Yes. Are the Republicans destined to wander the wilderness for 40 years? Hardly.
January 16, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was that 15 points ahead of Bush's approval rating in 2004 or 2008? I'm sorry to inform you of this, but a box full of fresh cat shit could get Bush's 11/08 approval +15.
You're welcome to come over and clean out our cats' litter box anytime.
January 16, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace,
You contorted yourself into the shape of a pretzel coming up with those stats, talk about "putting lipstick on a pig." heh heh heh.
AS for your opinion; "Are the Republicans destined to wander the wilderness for 40 years? Hardly."
Tell that to all the Republican incumbents who are now and have already decided to not run for re election, then ask yourself "Why".
Get used to being in the minority, bub.
January 16, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for this "wandering the wilderness" thing, it depends on how the 9 CDs are apportioned out. If I remember correctly, the Democrats have been making steady gains in the state legislatures and governorships over the past decade, which would mean that reapportionment is far less likely to swing the GOP's way in 2012. At the very least, the red states will enjoy a fair and balanced reapportionment, relatively free of gerrymandering, which would probably not work to their advantage.
Furthermore, one has to ask oneself how the Sun Belt came to have more population growth than the Rust Belt. The plain fact that B. Hussein Obama was able to flip Virginia and North Carolina will give you a clue - they came from the blue states - places like New York where we've been hemorrhaging jobs for quite some time (the weather isn't so nice this time of year, either). So this migration of population is steadily making places like Dixie less red, which means those 9 seats are at least as likely to be won by Democrats in 2012.
January 16, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It should be pointed out to King that people used to be wrongly paranoid about Roman Catholic's like him in politics, especially for the presidency. It would be wrong for someone to attack King for being a Roman Catholic and so under the dominion of a foreign leader, (the same way Al Smith and Kennedy were attacked). While King would be within his rights to criticize people who attack him for being Catholic, it would not then be a "bizzare double standard" for King to then bring up the subject by talking about his faith.
January 16, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep your "logic," "common sense" and "functioning brain cells" out of it.
January 17, 2009 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
King reminds me of those people who complain "Chris Rock says 'nigger' in his standup act all the time! Why can't I say it?"
January 16, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
You just did.
January 16, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, he was quoting "those people who complain...."
Stupid pills don't make a good breakfast, Sarge.
January 16, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This lament begs the question, "Why would you want to use that word in the first place?".
I can't think of a situation where I would ever miss the ability to utter that slur.
January 16, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It'll be close between Moran and McAuliffe. I know many of the local groups that built up to back Obama are now starting to form up behind Moran.
I saw an article the other day saying netroots organizations were forming behind McAuliffe. I'm wondering if this was just some phony press release by McAuliffe people to give the impression that something big was stirring to get people interested.
Personally, McAuliffe didn't seem like a genuine guy. But then again, I voted for the other guy.
January 16, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can only use middle names in 3 situations I can think of: when addressing self-important historians, when trying to sound really mad at your kid, and when swearing in the next President of the USA.
January 16, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
...or when writing about an assassin.
January 16, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't meant as an exhaustive list, just enought to point out King's an ass.
January 16, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just try to get in at least one post a day that doesn't elicit the barrage of "STFU!" "Who cares what you say!" "You F***ing troll Bastard!" comments.
January 16, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well regardless of whether I agree with what you say (usually not) at least you put a little thought into your comments sometimes. As far as trolls go I'd have to say you are by and large palatable.
January 16, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take palatable...
January 16, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
But, troll nonethelss.
January 16, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he puts in as little thought as possible.
January 16, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find the cockles of my heart warmed (necessary in Wisconsin at the moment) by the fact that you appreciate the faint praise with which I damned him...
January 16, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
King knows as well as any rational person, its HOW you use the middle name.
January 16, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I say let these bozo's keep going on. What would Obama say (WWOS)?
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."
January 16, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
My question to King is: Why do you have to? Can you not criticize Obama without saying his middle name? Do you use the middle name of everyone you write about? I think this guy is looking for permission to say President Hussein from now on. If Republicans like Colin Powell want to see the credibility of their party restored, they need to shut down dicks like Mr. King.
January 16, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a LINK showing Obama receiving the highest percentage of the total U.S. population, second only to Reagan second election.
...since people were talking about win percentages and all.
January 16, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meant to add for a non incumbent, he received the highest ever, only second to Reagan.
January 16, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The 2010 census is projected to move as many as 9 electoral votes from blue states to red for the 2012 election.
Yes, but that won't necessarily benefit the GOP, especially in states that are already becoming less red (i.e. Arizona). That's because the increased population in the rapidly-growing red states tends to come from higher-population areas (mainly the northeast), which, while increasing the population and therefore the electoral vote count of those red states, also has the effect of turning those states more purple. Look no further than the POTUS election results in Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado for evidence of this.
January 16, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the projections:
Texas +4
Arizona +2
Florida +2
Georgia +1
Nevada +1
North Carolina +1
Oregon +1
South Carolina +1
Utah +1
California -1
Illinois -1
Iowa -1
Louisiana -1
Massachusetts -1
Michigan -1
Minnesota -1
Missouri -1
New Jersey -1
Pennsylvania -1
New York -2
Ohio -2
That's 9 in states that went for McCain in 08. Only 2 from McCain states. I'm just not seeing the Repocalypse y'all are.
January 16, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this what you're clinging to? You're assuming states that went for McCain in '08 would remain "red", as opposed to turning blue like VA and NC, and ignoring the growing Hispanic population in western states that haven't already turned blue(such as CO and NV).
But hey, if this is how you losers need to spin it to give yourselves hope, go ahead. Good luck.
January 16, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I'm confident that most of the Red that flipped Blue will flip back Red...IN and NC for sure...OH and FL will be tossups for years to come. You can only elect "The First Black President" once. I do belive the states McCain won are firmly Red (with the only exception being AZ) the toss ups will be toss ups again. If Obama dose well and is popular come 2012 he'll keep them (like Clinton in 96). If not, we'll see.
January 16, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed no "Repocalypse" (cute).
But at least 4 years of country club vs. snake handlers civil war.
BTW Please please make Palin the new face of the party.
January 16, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Steve King, ever heard of relevance? Please, by all means Mr Brainiac, enlighten us on why you consider using Obama's middle name to be a valid form of criticism.
January 16, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFC Wallace: Grasping At Straws (aka GAS.)
January 16, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude...I thought that stood for Gracious And Sincere...
January 16, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blago's spokesman said the governor does not want to be a distraction.
That's the unintentionally-funniest thing I've read all week.
January 16, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know he's going to be selling those tickets.
January 16, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Steve King there is no double standard just intent. King's intent is all bad. King wants to spread hatred, ignorance and lies while Obama is just stating his middle name. Steve king is a racist
January 16, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's 9 in states that went for McCain in 08. Only 2 from McCain states. I'm just not seeing the Repocalypse y'all are.
Arizona and Georgia (representing 3 of the 9 projected red state pickups) aren't going to be sure things for the GOP in 2012. Arizona would've been a dead heat this time around if the GOP candidate weren't a native son, and I think it's reasonably likely to go Dem in '12 if the Obama administration's successful. Georgia's increasingly "pink" (if not yet "purple"), though it's not certain to go all VA-2008 on us next cycle, that's where it's trending.
Texas isn't LIKELY to go blue in '12, but it's not out of the question. UT and SC are pretty safe holds for the GOP, probably. (Well, "probably" re. SC, "definitely" re UT.)
Basically, I see this as a wash, mainly because of Arizona; I think the split's likely to be an effective +7/-4 for the GOP, rather than the +9/-2 that projections in currently red states indicates. Not enough to make a serious dent in what's now a strong Dem party-ID advantage; if the GOP comes back in '12, it's going to be because of Obama administration failures and/or external events, not because of a minor population shift in a handful of states.
January 16, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only shot Dems had at GA was this cycle. Just look at the numbers with and without Obama running. Obama the second time around won't generate near the hype as the first time.
January 16, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
If people think the country is on the right track in 2012 -- in other words, if Obama makes decent progress at cleaning up Bubba's messes --he will not only hold the states he won in 2008, he'll also have a chance at flipping Missouri, West Virginia, Georgia, Missouri, North Dakota, Montana and Arizona. Maybe even Alaska if Bible Spice isn't on the ticket.
January 16, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, he'd only flip one Missouri.
January 16, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I'm confident that most of the Red that flipped Blue will flip back Red...IN and NC for sure...
NC? Nah. (I mean, it might, but "for sure" is an overstatement. NC continues to add population from the northeast at a high rate, which isn't a positive trend for the GOP.)
Even Indiana's not definite--have you seen the map's showing the degree of movement toward the Dems in '08? It shows SERIOUS movement toward the Dems in virtually every county in the state--not just the predominantly black areas, but even in rural/downstate areas that quite frankly are unlikely to have supported Obama just for the sake of electing the first black president (if anything, the reverse is likely to be true; there's a pretty serious racist element in many parts of Indiana).
And NV, NC and VA are less likely to flip back, and MO's certainly no guaranteed hold for the GOP. Problem for the GOP is, even assuming a pendulum effect in the biggest states (OH, NC, FL, IN) that flipped blue this time, Obama still wins if everything else holds.
January 16, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
And NV, NC and VA are less likely to flip back,
"NC" should've read "NM." My bad. (I'll add Iowa to the list of states the Dems are likely to hold.)
And in the interest of fairness, the GOP's likely to pick up one more EV in '12, if we assume Nebraska's likely to abolish its EV-by-congressional-district system, which netted Obama 1 EV.
January 16, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is NO problem with SS, it is fully funded for decades. The funding calls on repayment of debt from the General Fund. THAT is the problem, it means that rich people must pay taxes again.
Medicare can be solved by regulating 4 industries... Hospitals, nursing homes, pharmaceutical corps, and medical equipment corps. The regulations have to do with profits and wages.
January 16, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink