what would the poll numbers be if..

[© tweed]

...Obama had nationalized GM, pushed through a multitrillion dollar public works program, stopped enforcing pot laws, and didn't deport a million illegal immigrants, and (fill in the blank)

[Vosem]

The third one would energize both supporters and opponents and all in all wouldn't affect anything. Between the other three, Democrats would have had much steeper losses in the House and state legislatures in 2010. Republicans would've taken the Senate outright, albeit narrowly. Romney has been laying the groundwork for 2012 long enough he would probably have ended up being nominated anyway; he'd be leading Obama comfortably. I'll say a 15% universal swing (in 2010) towards Republicans, though universal swing is imperfect and that might be overdoing it slightly. In 2012 Romney would be leading narrowly; a TP-dominated Congress would've been able to screw up a second straight landslide somehow.

Seriously, Tweed. Think of the public backlash against the stimulus and UHC. Square them. There you have it.

[Lief 🗽]

Obama would be leading comfortably because the economy would be a lot stronger. Of course a multritrillion dollar stimulus was never going to happen.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

We would wake up.

[Vosem]

Obama would be leading comfortably because the economy would be a lot stronger. Of course a multritrillion dollar stimulus was never going to happen.

Even if we for a second accept left-wing economic logic it still doesn't work. There would be a backlash in 2010 stronger than the real-life one, and then your own ideology dictates congressional conservatives would screw things up. Obama would be trailing Romney.

[Lief 🗽]

Why would there we a stronger backlash if the economy were stronger in 2010? That doesn't make any sense.

[Vosem]

Why would there we a stronger backlash if the economy were stronger in 2010? That doesn't make any sense.

Because there are a great many people firmly ideologically opposed to this sort of thing and even if there weren't Republicans would be able to convince voters that this is what is holding up the economic recovery. If unemployment were, say, 2% lower (6%), people would still perceive that as a lot, and the more Obama does, the easier it is to blame him for anything.

[© tweed]

Why would there we a stronger backlash if the economy were stronger in 2010? That doesn't make any sense.

Because there are a great many people firmly ideologically opposed to this sort of thing

not in the real world.  only among the elite.  real people like their lives to be better

[Reaganfan]

Why would there we a stronger backlash if the economy were stronger in 2010? That doesn't make any sense.

Because there are a great many people firmly ideologically opposed to this sort of thing

not in the real world.  only among the elite.  real people like their lives to be better

This is untrue. Those who are criminals and support such things, IE legalizing drugs, are detrimental to society.

[LastVoter]

1. sadly a dip
2. depending on when, if he started right away and it was shovel ready jobs probably enough to save democrats during 2010.
3. unaffected, but higher turnout in elections
4. unaffected

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why would there we a stronger backlash if the economy were stronger in 2010? That doesn't make any sense.

Because there are a great many people firmly ideologically opposed to this sort of thing

not in the real world.  only among the elite.  real people like their lives to be better

This is untrue. Those who are criminals and support such things, IE legalizing drugs, are detrimental to society.

Nobody is passionate about keeping marijuana illegal, sorry bro.

[Vosem]

Why would there we a stronger backlash if the economy were stronger in 2010? That doesn't make any sense.

Because there are a great many people firmly ideologically opposed to this sort of thing

not in the real world.  only among the elite.  real people like their lives to be better

This is untrue. Those who are criminals and support such things, IE legalizing drugs, are detrimental to society.

Nobody is passionate about keeping marijuana illegal, sorry bro.

There are people passionate about keeping marijuana illegal (olds), but I was really discussing the other three, which are all concepts a heavy majority of the American public opposes. The economy was OK in 1994 but it didn't stop Americans from voting the Democrats out due to opposition to UHC. The opposite happened in 1986 because of Iran-Contra.

[Boris]

Why would there we a stronger backlash if the economy were stronger in 2010? That doesn't make any sense.

Because there are a great many people firmly ideologically opposed to this sort of thing

not in the real world.  only among the elite.  real people like their lives to be better

This is untrue. Those who are criminals and support such things, IE legalizing drugs, are detrimental to society.

Nobody is passionate about keeping marijuana illegal, sorry bro.

VVD-CDA-PVV

http://www.new-rules.eu/newrules

Obviously doesn't directly contradict your statement, but yeah

[© tweed]

Why would there we a stronger backlash if the economy were stronger in 2010? That doesn't make any sense.

Because there are a great many people firmly ideologically opposed to this sort of thing

not in the real world.  only among the elite.  real people like their lives to be better

This is untrue. Those who are criminals and support such things, IE legalizing drugs, are detrimental to society.

'criminals' are the last people who would want drugs legalized

[Simfan34]

Why would there we a stronger backlash if the economy were stronger in 2010? That doesn't make any sense.

Because there are a great many people firmly ideologically opposed to this sort of thing

not in the real world.  only among the elite.  real people like their lives to be better

This is untrue. Those who are criminals and support such things, IE legalizing drugs, are detrimental to society.

Nobody is passionate about keeping marijuana illegal, sorry bro.

VVD-CDA-PVV

http://www.new-rules.eu/newrules

Obviously doesn't directly contradict your statement, but yeah

FF move.

[Maxwell]

Why would there we a stronger backlash if the economy were stronger in 2010? That doesn't make any sense.

Because there are a great many people firmly ideologically opposed to this sort of thing

not in the real world.  only among the elite.  real people like their lives to be better

This is untrue. Those who are criminals and support such things, IE legalizing drugs, are detrimental to society.

criminals support legalizing drugs? wow, that is a bone headed talking point.

[5280]

Criminals will always find something illegal and exploit it for nanny state to go after it once said product is legalized.  

[Lief 🗽]

Why would there we a stronger backlash if the economy were stronger in 2010? That doesn't make any sense.

Because there are a great many people firmly ideologically opposed to this sort of thing

not in the real world.  only among the elite.  real people like their lives to be better

This is untrue. Those who are criminals and support such things, IE legalizing drugs, are detrimental to society.

Other way around bro. Criminals support the status quo, police officers and other law enforcement generally support legalizing/decriminalizing.

[© tweed]

Why would there we a stronger backlash if the economy were stronger in 2010? That doesn't make any sense.

Because there are a great many people firmly ideologically opposed to this sort of thing

not in the real world.  only among the elite.  real people like their lives to be better

This is untrue. Those who are criminals and support such things, IE legalizing drugs, are detrimental to society.

Other way around bro. Criminals support the status quo, police officers and other law enforcement generally support legalizing/decriminalizing.

not correction officers

[© tweed]

Why would there we a stronger backlash if the economy were stronger in 2010? That doesn't make any sense.

Because there are a great many people firmly ideologically opposed to this sort of thing

not in the real world.  only among the elite.  real people like their lives to be better

This is untrue. Those who are criminals and support such things, IE legalizing drugs, are detrimental to society.

criminals support legalizing drugs? wow, that is a bone headed talking point.

prob. 4/5 FOX watching Republican fatass diabetic fool-asses believe it... effectiveness

[Oakvale]

Obama would be leading comfortably because the economy would be a lot stronger. Of course a multritrillion dollar stimulus was never going to happen.

^ Yeah, this, pretty much. It's nice to think about, and it'd certainly mean a much better economy, but the politics were untenable.

[Averroës Nix]

The poll numbers wouldn't matter because the only ways to effect that kind of change in the US aren't constitutionally practicable.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why would there we a stronger backlash if the economy were stronger in 2010? That doesn't make any sense.

Because there are a great many people firmly ideologically opposed to this sort of thing

not in the real world.  only among the elite.  real people like their lives to be better

This is untrue. Those who are criminals and support such things, IE legalizing drugs, are detrimental to society.

Nobody is passionate about keeping marijuana illegal, sorry bro.

VVD-CDA-PVV

http://www.new-rules.eu/newrules

Obviously doesn't directly contradict your statement, but yeah

I meant non-fundies/non-elites. Anyways, they're set to lose power by a fairly significant margin this year.

[The Mikado]

I don't think Congress would've gone for #2 on that list even if Obama had wanted to do it.

[LastVoter]

The poll numbers wouldn't matter because the only ways to effect that kind of change in the US aren't constitutionally practicable.

All of these are constitutionally practicable.