"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:58:59 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:27:18 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"HK" wrote in message

Really? The Dems beat the crap ap out of the 'pubs in 2008, even
winning
the White House despite the efforts of many racist 'pubs to demonize
Obama. If Obama gets a decent turnaround going, and it is looking more
and
more as if he will, the 'pubs will get trounced in 2010 and 2012.

That, of course, will make the 'pubs go farther to the right, and thus
continue their path into oblivion.




The Dem's did not beat the crap out of the 'pubs. Maybe you your small,
bigoted brain. The popular vote was only about 6% difference. After
the
previous 8 years and the Dem's can only pull 6 % majority? They are on
shaky ground. Obama may get a boost from the economy recovering
slightly,
but most people are not giving credit to the government for the turn
around.
If anything they look at the government as goign spending crazy and none
of
that spending is helping. The economy is coming back despite the Fed's.
The $Trillion or maybe $2 trillion by the end of the year the Dem
controlled
Congress is putting in play is not setting well with the people who
actually
vote and pay for it. Their immigration response is really ****ing off a
huge majority of the citizens. You may have a job near election cycle
trying to spin the developing election disaster for the Dems.

Ronald Reagan won a landslide against Jimmy Carter 9.7%
GHW Bush soundly trounced Mike Dukakis, margin of victory was 7.8%.
Barack Obama margin of victory 7.3%

He doubled the number of votes McCain received from the electoral
college, which as you know, is the main focus of the campaigns.

By any measure, it was a sizable victory for Obama and the D's.


Sophistry. And look how long the Party with the "landslide" controlled
the
Presidency in most of those elections.


Two terms would be just fine with me. If the R's get their ****
together and come up with better ideas that aren't snake oil like they
sold to Xtians, more power to 'em.

I wouldn't bet on it right now. They seem bent on self destruction.

There may be a huge opening for a viable 3rd party the way both majors are
going.

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:32:32 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Two terms would be just fine with me. If the R's get their ****
together and come up with better ideas that aren't snake oil like they
sold to Xtians, more power to 'em.

I wouldn't bet on it right now. They seem bent on self destruction.

There may be a huge opening for a viable 3rd party the way both majors are
going.

Maybe but it's hard to know how they could be successful at carving
enough of each party out to prevail. Seems like they'd have to be
walking the razor's edge.

My best guess is that it'd have to be somebody who sat in the middle,
a slight fiscal conservative with mildly liberal social identity.

I think anyone to the left or right or overlapping the present parties
would be co-opted.

Michael Bloomberg is a prime example but Obama already occupies a
similar ground. I think his presidency will dampen the opportunity
for a third party, no matter how ****ed up each party is.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:32:32 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Two terms would be just fine with me. If the R's get their ****
together and come up with better ideas that aren't snake oil like they
sold to Xtians, more power to 'em.

I wouldn't bet on it right now. They seem bent on self destruction.

There may be a huge opening for a viable 3rd party the way both majors are
going.

Maybe but it's hard to know how they could be successful at carving
enough of each party out to prevail. Seems like they'd have to be
walking the razor's edge.

My best guess is that it'd have to be somebody who sat in the middle,
a slight fiscal conservative with mildly liberal social identity.

I think anyone to the left or right or overlapping the present parties
would be co-opted.

Michael Bloomberg is a prime example but Obama already occupies a
similar ground. I think his presidency will dampen the opportunity
for a third party, no matter how ****ed up each party is.

"a slight fiscal conservative". You got to be joshing us!

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:17:15 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:32:32 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Two terms would be just fine with me. If the R's get their ****
together and come up with better ideas that aren't snake oil like they
sold to Xtians, more power to 'em.

I wouldn't bet on it right now. They seem bent on self destruction.

There may be a huge opening for a viable 3rd party the way both majors are
going.

Maybe but it's hard to know how they could be successful at carving
enough of each party out to prevail. Seems like they'd have to be
walking the razor's edge.

My best guess is that it'd have to be somebody who sat in the middle,
a slight fiscal conservative with mildly liberal social identity.

I think anyone to the left or right or overlapping the present parties
would be co-opted.

Michael Bloomberg is a prime example but Obama already occupies a
similar ground. I think his presidency will dampen the opportunity
for a third party, no matter how ****ed up each party is.

"a slight fiscal conservative". You got to be joshing us!

You cannot possibly offer an opinion on how Obama would handle the
budget if the economy were on solid footing. Whether you're willing
to accept it or not, he's a conservative thinker.

You may think you know, I think it'll take a few years to find out.