Talk Elections

So, what kind of Presidency do you think he'll have?

I'm interested both in what his supporters expect from his and what his detractors fear from him.

I envision Jimmy Carter's second term. Well, I really don't expect anyone to have a good term, whether it be McCain or Obama. I think this country will be extremely polarized when he gets into office, and if he tries to push his liberal agenda forward, we could see a backlash in 2010 with a GOP resurgence in congress. I just see him as being an ineffective leader, which he has proven with his track record. I doubt he's going to have people do all the work for him so he can take credit like he's had done for him throughout his senate and Chicago days.

Bad bad bad

One good,  Sen. Obama will have close to 60 Democratic or liberal senaters in the Senate. But I he will have an ok first term.

Move over, Jimmy!

Better than Carter, a little worse than Clinton.  Overall, maybe a 5.5 out of 10; enough to get him reelected in 2012.

He has McCain arrested and extradited to Vietnam for his crimes.

Hey, I can dream...

I was hoping for a little more detail.  What kinds of things do you think he'll try to do?  How successful will he be at it?  What will the country and the world look like in four years?

+ A repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell within the first year.

+ A tax plan very similar to that of Bill Clinton's; the marginal highest tax rate will be raised to 39% and the capital gains tax will be raised.

+ Universal health care legislation pushed through by the end of his first year.

+ A sizable investment in alternative energies in a New Deal-like packaging that will help create new jobs and build new infrastructure.

+ Hank Paulson will not keep his job. Ben Bernanke will be replaced in 2010.

+ Above all, his first term will be defined by how he deals with the incoming economic tidal wave... his first few years will be defined by it. If he can successfully steer the country of a recession (or close to it) by 2012 , he will win re-election in a huge landslide.

whores himself to the right wing and wins re-election and becomes a dick

Depends. If the victory is high enough, he'll ride the honeymoon to Mid-2009 with favorables at 60-65%. The first he'll do is a check of finances, which exposes that the Bush regime has run up a deficit of 800 Billion $, rather than 400 Bio. $ If the economy recovers by then, Congress passes a few good laws (Socialized Medicine after lobbying by Hillary Clinton), as well as pulling out of Iraq, Obama may coast to re-election in 2012 by defeating Mitt Romney 62-38.

Oh man...

I hope its a sh**tty Left wing agenda anything is better than getting buttf.ucked for 8 years of George Dubya Bush, thus Rightwingers will have a huge mandate to get this bastard out of office in 2012. LOLZ

I think he will be a very successful president, even given the tough circumstances he will come into office with.  I think he will be extremely successful in foreigh policy, and leave the world a much more peaceful and stable place.  He will be a highly respected and admired leader around the world.

The bad news is that the economic troubles in this country will prevent him from doing a lot of things he wants to accomplish (universal healthcare). 

Good foreign policy, bad everything else.  Might get some traction on curbing spending, but with a partisan bent to the prioritization.

 The world image of America will soar dramatically.

Agreed. Its a process that is inevitable for those idealistic types who seek and ultimately become President of the United States, take for example Jimmy Carter and we all know what happened to him.


Who would have thought? I know I wouldn't have dared.

Wouldn't it be awesome if Obama keeps Gates on board like some think he will?  This would become Politico's most famous quote.

I think he's going to replace the entire Cabinet, including Gates. That does not mean Obama will not appoint Republicans, though, but it will certainly not be a Bush Doctrine Republican.

I think William Cohen ought to be Secretary of Defense again.

I have high hopes for a Obama presidency, although I'm not naive: he's not going to fundamentally change US politics.

Some important things will change though. First up, Obama is a unifier, not a divider like Dubya. He's exceptional at instilling hope and positivity in people and this is going to mean something, although he won't be able to live on it forever unless he delivers the goods.

In terms of foreign politics, things will change dramatically. Obama is popular in the US, but he's deemed a demigod in Europe and elsewhere. Did you see the "World electoral college" they had on CNN? It showed Obama leading everywhere in the world except for Georgia, Andorra and a third small country I have forgotten. I believe that the mere election of Obama and the removal of Dubya will IMMEDIATELY and dramatically shift the way that the world perceives the US. We will return to the Clinton days where the US was seen as a source of good in most places of the world. If there's any place in which rhetoric actually often means more than concrete action, then it's in foreign relations. Obama will make other countries believe that he cares about them (whether he actually does or not). Something Bush certainly didn't do.

In terms of the economy, there isn't THAT much Obama can actually do, no easy way to solve the crisis, but at least time will be working for him. 2009 and 2010 will be very tough years economically, but hopefully things will brighten up from then on.

Despite having the support of a democratic Congress, I actually believe that Obama will be much less partisan than GWB. As I said - he's a unifier. Some critics say that Obama is more style than substance, but here again style actually matters. Obama wants to be the president of all americans, not just democrats and I believe that he will succeed in doing so. The downside of this is that I believe that he won't push too hard for major reforms. Hopefully he'll at least do something on health care, but after Obamas tenure, we'll probably still be a long way from achieving universal health care.

I'm pretty sure that he will the best/worst president ever!

Internationally, Obama could become the most revered American president since JFK and we saw a taste of that in Berlin. That was for but a visting American citizen, not a visiting American president

Right-wingers might like to convince themselves into believing that crowd was full of "lefties" but it wasn't. Obama's appeal, beyond his own shores, transcends any ideological chasm. McCain couldn't handle that, hence the "celebrity" attack-ads of a bitter man

There is no doubt in my mind that an articulate, forward-thinking, visionary American president can, successfully, champion America's national interest ... without pissing off just about everybody else off

Millions of people had a very ill-feeling in their water (call it intuition) about George W Bush and I was one of 'em ;)

Dave

He will almost certainly end up being an enormous disappointment to many of his most devoted followers. Beyond that, I don't know. A lot depends on what goes on in financeland in the months before he takes office (assuming that he wins. Which looks very likely right now).

Agree with this.  I like Obama, but I think he's too tied to his party to be truly effect in the ways he might want.  Change, yes, but change bastardized by the Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosis of the world.

Well, it looks like his followers cannot conceive a scenario in which he will be unsuccessful. Even I will admit I don't see McCain doing that well in his first term given the current state of things. But no, he'll pass universal healthcare, end the Iraq war peacefully, initiate his tax plan and raise capital gains, while seeing the DOW soar back over 14,000 because investors feel like paying capital gains taxes is patriotic.

Well, of course not. They can, however, think of a scenario where their man ends up winning the biggest landslide in Presidential history (or at least very close to it with 62% of the vote)! It's too precious.

Obama for his first two years will be consumed with dealing with the financial crisis, and won't be carrying out any of his promises. His get out of Iraq in 16 months won't happen either, although he will claim he did by getting the troop levels down to just under a 100,000 maybe. Osama won't be killed (he might be dead anyway).

^^^^^^^^


^^^^^^^^

Have I been posting under another login in my sleep?

Someone is trying to jinx it...

If he wins enough of an electoral mandate, I could imagine Obama maneuvering (behind the scenes, of course) for Durbin to move up to the top spot.

As I have often pointed out, the solution to the economic troubles is spending - huge, costly new redistributionist government programs.  As Keynes taught us, and as history has proven, nothing else will work.

So the economic troubles will not prevent him from doing a lot of things that he wants to accomplish, they will require that he accomplish them, and enable him to do so.

Remember that the only time America has ever been able to break the stranglehold of the owners and accomplish reform is during periods of severe crisis, most notably the Great Depression.

Oh, we can only hope! I'd love for my former least favorite U.S. Senator to become the GOP punching bag.  ;)

The purpose of Keynesian countercyclical deficit spending is NOT wealth redistribution.  The purpose is to place capital in the hands of consumers in order to stimulate the economy through increased demand, and to prevent individuals from being permanently ruined by economic forces they cannot control.

To call Keynesianism "redistributionist" is a gross distortion.  Outlawing wealth and success is not the way to promote economic growth.

It would probably be a win for both parties, in that Durbin would be far more visible and vocal than has been that wimp Reid, with corresponding legislative and public relations benefits and costs for each caucus.

President Obama will be unable to focus on his own initiatives, as his first term will be spent cleaning up the financial mess left by this financial crisis and the Bush administration.  I would like to see a reform of our tax code to spur savings over consumption, but I am not going to hold my breath.

For the sake of stability and continuity, he will keep Robert Gates as his Defense Secretary, with General Odierno in command in Iraq, and General Petraeus in charge of Central Command.  When push comes to shove, he will listen to his generals, and will be very flexible on removing troops from Iraq while still trying to remain true to his timetable, at least rhetorically.  In practice, he will only be removing troops from Iraq based on conditions on the ground which will probably ultimately be well within the 16-month timetable he laid out, anyway.  

If he does a good-enough job in his first term, and accordingly wins re-election in 2012, he may be able to focus on doing what he originally campaigned on doing in his second term -namely, reforming health care and achieving energy independence.  

Beef, I never said that Keynesianism was redistributionist in intent.  Keyensianism is redistribution as a practical matter.  As you stated it, the purpose is 'to place capital in the hands of consumers in order to stimulate the economy through increased demand' - this is quite correct (though it is somewhat bizarre to call this type of dole spending 'capital'), and thus Keynesianism is redistributionist simply because that is what works.  Only the poor spend the money you give them during a Depression.

Which brings me to a response to the above post by Frodo - you want to encourage saving in the middle of a depression?  Do you not understand what is a depression?  We need to encourage spending, not saving.

In early 2009, he will pass a second stimulus package that is heavy on public works projects and includes another round of rebate checks and a significant middle class tax cut.  He will also pass some laws that drastically reform the banking and financial industry, with much more oversight on these companies by the federal government.  In early 2010, he will pass his healthcare program that helps cover most uninsured Americans who cannot afford healthcare and want it.  The ecomomy begins to recover in March 2010 due to this keynesian style of economics.  In early October 2010, he helps negotiate a nuclear weopons halt that includes the US and many middle eastern countries. 

Scary how optimistic his supporters are. What will they do if/when he isn't successful at all these things he's promised? Will they blame Bush or throw Obama under the bus?

If the root of the economic crisis is a credit crunch, then increased savings (and paying off of debt) is exactly the solution.  More money on deposit = more money available as credit = more loans to businesses and investment in securities.  That money creates jobs and growth.

There are two types of economic downturns: those resulting from a lack in consumption, and those resulting from a lack of available credit and capital.  This crisis is of the second variety.

You're mad!  There are plenty of 'savings', they're just not getting loaned out, Beef.  The trick is to force the 'money' out - either by simply printing it and sending it out to the people through both free giveaway programs and 'loans'.  You really have no idea what a crisis like this is all about.


Those are exactly the same thing, Beef!  Where do you think consumption comes from?  It comes from credit.  'Capital' doesn't even enter into it, as there is plenty of that, it is just sitting under the mattress - just as it did during the Great Depression, just as it always does during panics (such is the nature of 'private' capital).

The economic stuff will not be hard to get done if he brings in 60 Democratic senators with him, which I now think he will.  This is not going to be 1992, where the winner wins 43% of the popular vote and has zero coattails.  This is going to be at least a 1976.  

I doubt you're going to get very many unbiased answers to this question. Predictably, Republicans will think he'll be a disaster and Democrats will think (mostly) that he'll do an excellent job.

I make no secret of my own partisan and ideological preferences and I admit to having a great deal of faith in Obama. I think he's a man with extraordinary management skills. He's intelligent, prudent, and willing to take advice on a range of issues. My beefs with him are that he may at times be too overcautious. His ideology is actually somewhat small-"c"-conservative; he's been called a "Burkean liberal," before. He adheres to very progressive, liberal ideals but is skeptical of sweeping, radical changes, believing that gradualistic and bottom-up change is ultimately more sustainable and less disruptive.

On the domestic policy front, I would imagine the following:

Obama likely keeps Bernanke in place and may even keep Paulson in place for a short, interim period. The first year of his term will be heavily focused on economic matters. He will probably move towards a temporary nationalization of much of the banking sector, similar to what is being done in Britain and what Paulson appears to be moving towards.

Congress will likely pass one or two stimulus packages which include increases in unemployment insurance, investments in energy and infrastructure, increases in food stamps and the direct aid to homeowners.

I do think that an Obama Administration and a Democratic Congress will make a major effort to enact universal health care within his first term; it would be politically foolish for Obama to wait for a second term to do this, since second terms rarely have significant domestic policy achievements. I give him only a 50-50 chance of success here; the budgetary situation and the entrenched opposition to health care reform may force a watering-down of his plan. He may ultimately only pass something like what John Kerry proposed in 2004 -- a near-universal plan that includes greater choice, cost containment and an expansion of some public programs that is nevertheless less comprehensive than what Clinton, Edwards or Obama proposed in 2004. It's also possible that in order to secure health care reform, he will need to embrace proposals to reform Medicare, similar to the plans that were debated in the second Clinton term.

I also think it's possible that in an effort to pass health care reform, Obama will abandon his own plan in favor of Wyden-Bennett, which has several Republican co-sponsors. It's a more radical plan and it includes an individual mandate - something Obama has opposed. But if his goal is universal coverage and he remains pragmatic about it, then the prospects for Wyden-Bennett could be substantially better than the prospects for his own plan.

Obama will also likely push for his fairly bold and innovative technology proposals. He is likely to also push for universal broadband.

Like Clinton, Obama will likely push for several causes through the budgetary process. I imagine that infrastructure improvements, funding for alternative energy and increased aid to cities will all be written into the budgetary process.

I actually expect that the federal budget deficit may likely increase in the short and medium term. I doubt that even a two-term Obama presidency would see a balanced budget, although if economic growth is restored by 2012, I imagine you will start to see deficits reduced so that by 2017, the U.S. deficit may be about half of what it is today.

On the foreign policy front, I see Obama ultimately removing most U.S. troops by 2011 as he has proposed. There is near-unanimity on this from the Iraqi government and the U.S. government. He will, however, face some opposition from the left, as there will be some residual U.S. forces, probably based in Kurdistan and around Baghdad.

Afghanistan will likely be a mess. I expect some increase in troops in Afghanistan, but observers are very mixed in their assessments as to whether this will work. There are going to be intense pressures to open up lines of communication with the Taliban (something the Brits are already proposing), which politically may be very difficult for Obama to do.

I expect Obama will devote greater time and energy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and he will likely dispatch a top envoy -- Dennis Ross, Richard Holbrooke or even Bill Clinton -- to the region in an effort to wring out a peace agreement within a year. But his efforts will probably fail and the region will probably have to muddle through. Though I think Obama recognizes the centrality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to America's relations with the Middle East, I doubt he will risk his political capital on a peace agreement within his first two years. He will have his hands full with enormous domestic policy challenges, huge foreign policy headaches in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and I doubt he will want to torpedo his chances of success with a quite-possibly failed effort regarding Israel and the Palestinians.

On Iran, he will likely initiate more back-channel negotiations. The landscape will shift dramatically if Ahmedinejad loses the 2009 presidential election. I could imagine a full "grand bargain" with Iran, including full diplomatic relations, but such a deal would likely have to wait for a second term.

On Cuba, I also imagine a similar softening, although again I would not imagine a full restoration of ties until later.

What do I see being the biggest potential difficulties for Obama? Well, any of the above could go wrong, but I actually see gas prices as the big Achilles heel. The truth is that the trend in world oil prices is clearly going the wrong way. Any investments in alternative energy, greater fuel efficiency and even additional coastal drilling will take years to bear fruit. In the meantime, it is very possible we could have oil at $200 per barrel by 2012. That could wreak havoc on the economy and force a mammoth shift away from automobile use and huge increases in the cost of shipping, flying and business. We have done very little preparation for dealing with that. Even if an Obama Administration and Congress enact the right policies for dealing with that reality, they may well have to take ugly short-term measures such as big subsidies for gas in order to prevent massive chaos and dislocation. It would also hugely impair any economic recovery. Gas prices remain the thing that scares me most about the next four years, and they could easily undo Obama even if he has relative success in accomplishing the rest of his agenda.

I also could easily see another bailout of the automakers in the offing. It is likely that both GM and Ford are in for major restructurings and several venerable U.S. nameplates will likely be sold or discontinued. Chrysler will probably go under.

In short, I actually think Obama's short-term prospects are fairly good. With large Democratic majorities, he should be able to enact a fairly ambitious domestic agenda during the first couple of years, but ultimately if oil prices increase and economic growth stays anemic, he could have a very difficult time getting reelected. If that happens, he'll simply have to hope that the coming GOP civil war prevents the emergence of a strong challenger in 2012 and that his approval ratings stay close enough to 50% that he can win reelection.

I actually don't think he'll necessarily be a disaster. I have warned my fellow Republicans countless times not to think that he'll definitely be incredibly unpopular and that we'll be embraced. Far too many on my side are way too confident about that happening.

That being said, yes, I think he'll be bad. I'm just not going to act like I know this for a fact.

Well, that's what partisans always comfort themselves with. Democrats said the same thing about Bush, but they turned out correct (in part) -- still, they were wrong enough that Bush still managed to (narrowly) win reelection.

Democrats said that about Reagan too, though. And about Nixon.

I've been asking myself this question a lot lately.  Excellent idea for a thread, though responses are understandably predictable.  Including my own.

I think Barack Obama will be a very good President.  Of course, very good Presidents don't always get re-elected.  (I note, expecting a storm of protest from my fellow Democrats, that George H.W. Bush was a good, maybe a very good, President.  Doesn't take away any respect I have for Clinton...it just affirms the fact that I can point to the H.W. administration and see lots of good stuff going on domestically and internationally.)

So -- what will Obama do that I will like?

I think he'll keep us on track to get out of Iraq and, most importantly, dramatically step up the war in Afghanistan.  I sure hope bin Laden is killed (or dead already).  Because that man is a waste of oxygen...and I say that about very, very few people.  But even if he doesn't get bin Laden, if he succeeds in righting the Afghan ship and helping install a reasonably tolerant Muslim government...as The Decider correctly intended to do in the beginning...we will be well on the road to improvement.  It's complicated, no doubt.  The poppy is a big part of the problem and how we handle that will go a long way to antagonizing or energizing the Afghan people.

I think Obama will succeed in getting our marginal foes to take a breath for a minute.  I don't know about the "foaming at the mouth" sort of Muslim extremists.  I'm still unsure of the North Koreans, thought I sincerely applaud recent Bush administration successes on that front.  But Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria...countries like that?  I think Obama will give them and us some breathing space.  Too, without sacrificing American independance, I expect him to successfully restore some, at least, of the good will we enjoyed with our allies after the 9-11 attacks.  They are not gonna give us a "do-over".  But if they see we are willing to respectfully listen to...and, at least some of the time, follow their advice....that's going to help.  In no small part because, sometimes Canada is right.  Simple as that.  :-)

Economically, I believe the bleeding will stop during the Obama administration.  But I hope we recognize that both Democratic and Republican voices and ideas are in the mix here.  Obama must, and I believe will, seek out Republican and Independent ideas and solutions.  There's no doubt, uber-partisan Republicans will say he's our version of George W. Bush -- plugging his ears and shutting out all but the synchophants -- if he doesn't do everything they want.  But let's be real.  If Obama heeds Hank Paulson on somethings...or if he turns Dick Lugar loose on a problem, there will be no shortage of Democrats whining about how he is selling out to big business or the military industrial complex.  But I expect him to govern mostly from the left, with more than token cooperation with the center.  This is not an incurious, "my way or the highway" sort of man.  And I think that's a good thing for our country.

I am fairly confident that -- to the extent he is fiscally able -- Obama will try to spark job creation and economic growth by attending to grossly neglected infrastructure.  I only hope he will do this with an openness to the new, and not just the old.  I'm all for highway projects.  But high speed, energy-efficient rail can be practical and successful if done correctly. 

I guess my highest hope for Obama -- and the most tenuous one -- centers around what national conversations we have.  About race, reproductive choice, sexuality and human rights, immigration, energy and firearms.  Among other things.  My highest hope is that he will stimulate, encourage and facilitate entirely new conversations...using paradigms that go beyond stale, old standards of left and right.  Let's begin a national conversation about abortion rights and let's invite anti-choice liberals and pro-choice conservatives to the table.  Let's find what we can agree on.  Ending most abortions can ONLY be a good thing.  There are ways to do that without criminalizing abortion and punishing women who are often in crisis. 

Finally, I hope Obama will - (and I have absolutely no idea if he will or if any candidate would, because frankly, none of them seem to care very much) -- put this country to work on the crucial issue of clean water and safe industrial emmissions.  There should NEVER be a repeat of the disasters we have witnessed in places like Anniston, Alabama. 

http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/Jones/anniston.htm

I'm not talking about something as simple as reparations.  One of the reasons I detest the reparation idea is that it's so superficial.  Money makes it all go away.  Bah.  I want to find ways for companies -- even chemical companies -- to make money, employ people AND put little or no toxins into the air and water.  That's one thing liberals and conservatives seem to agree on -- "It can't be done."  Liberals say that's why we need to shut these places down for good.  Conservatives say that's why we need to accept the risk and let them run as they please.  I am hoping Obama will say, "You bet it can be done.  And I am counting on Republicans and Democrats to show us all HOW."  Ah, but will he?  Time will tell...and on this one, I rather doubt it.

JS, you are just such a hopeless optimist. I suspect you are a believing Christian, as a wild guess. This stuff about conversations and the like, to reach some golden mean of wisdom, just isn't the way things are done. What is realistic, is that Obama will be in a policy strait jacket, as his more rabid supporters bite at his heels. His real challenge will be to persuade his true believers that there is no there, there.

I do believe that Obama will be determined not to be a failed president, and he has the discipline and smarts to avoid that, if he has the courage to anger his base. We  shall see.

One thing that does give me joy, is that elite Dems now take economists and financial theory, seriously. They know, that indulging in what the bulk of their supporters want, is the road to financial ruin, and will never go there.

Two of the first acts of an Obama Presidency + Democratic Congress will be a significant increase in the minimum wage and passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Probably a greater contraction of the economy, coupled with unemployment.

Possibly a greater Iranian influence in the Persian Gulf.

Also, everyone will die.

Other than force a few folks out of work, and unionize a few folks down the road given doing away with elections and a private ballot, and this rolling card sign up thing (heck even George McGovern thinks that is a disgrace), without much if any economic impact, but maybe some political impact, that will mean next to zero.

Obama wins a mandate to govern.

He has a Democratic House of Representatives.

He has a Democratic Senate.

Since he now has no excuses for failure in what he has promised..........

He is now expected to, among many, many other things

resolve the economic crisis

resolve the Iraq war while at the same time keeping America safe from terrorists

clean up Washington with a reform package and reduce the power of lobbyists

take immediate action to implement a program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050

He will now have to deliver change you can count on and change we need

If President Obama, backed by majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate, is not able to deliver, we could be looking at President Romney being sworn into office as President of the United States in January, 2013.

LOL.  That slimeball will never be President.

Oh, good comeback.  I'm so impressed.

I'm just saying, that slimeball you support will never be President.

Anyway, here’s my prediction:

Obama will win 51%-47%.  He will take Florida, Virginia, and the three southwestern states.  Democrats will win Senate races in Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Minnesota.  The Democrats will have a 57-43 majority as Joe Lieberman will caucus with the Republicans after Democrats strip him of his committee spots.  The House majority will be 250-185.

ACORN will be revealed to have committed massive voter fraud.  The new administration will refuse to appoint a special prosecutor and block their US Attorneys from investigating.  This will become a huge problem for Obama.  It will taint his administration from day one and he will be forced to reverse himself and ask the Attorney General to investigate.

Obama’s inaugural address will be incredibly boring.  It will still be hailed by the press as the greatest speech ever given.

Artur Davis will be the Attorney General.  Larry Summers will be Secretary of the Treasury.  Richard Danzig will be Secretary of Defense.  John  Kerry will be Secretary of State.

Sonia Sotomayor, Harold Koh, and David Tatel will be nominated to the Supreme Court to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens.  Anthony Kennedy remains the key swing vote on the divided Court.

John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Hillary Clinton will join to screw Obama a la the gang of 14 at least once.

Joe Biden will say something stupid at least once.

The Democrats’ first big error will be trying to bring back the fairness doctrine.  This will backfire big time on them.  They will try to institute card check laws.  This will backfire big time as well.

There will be at least three significant corruption scandals involving Obama administration officials.

Obama will fulfill his pledge to meet controversial foreign leaders in his first year not by traveling abroad, but by meeting with them at the opening of the UN session in late 2009.  This will prove a clever gambit.  The meetings with foreign leaders will be hailed by all in the media.

Obama will not meet with Ahmadenijad.  Mehdi Karroubi will defeat Ahmadenijad for President in the June ’09 elections, letting Obama off the hook on meeting with Ahmadenijad.

When Iran tests its first nuclear bomb in 2010, Obama’s meeting with Iran’s leaders will become his “mission accomplished” moment.  His Policy of meeting with Iran’s leaders will be seen in retrospect as a massive failure.

Russia will grow stronger and try to finish off Georgia and then will move on to the Ukraine.

Obama will leave 40,000 troops in Iraq until the end of his term.  This will cause problems with the anti-war movement.  It will not cost him with the public at large, since violence will fade away almost entirely.

The troop surge in Afghanistan will fail to reduce violence.

Obama will have to stop his incursions into Pakistan when Pakistan threatens to shut down the Khyber Pass if the incursions continue.

He will get the Senate to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.  This will harm the economy even more.  People won’t care that it is good for the environment.

Obama will be loved by the world at the beginning.  At the end, he will only be loved in Western Europe.  His stance on trade will cost him popularity in most other places.

Obama will try to pass national health care.  He will be blocked by a filibuster by the remaining 41 Republican Senators.

Obama will try to nationalize the banking industry.  He will be filibustered again.

Obama will drop his middle class tax cut.  He will pass his energy plan and his stimulus package by attaching them to the 2009 budget he submits in February.  His stimulus plan will not stimulate the economy and high energy prices will continue to make a mockery of Obama’s energy plan.

The budget deficit will be $700 billion in Obama’s first year.  It will rise to $800 billion in year two and three.  It will fall to $700 billion in year four.  The deficit will cripple Obama’s domestic agenda and his Presidency.

Obama will not try to pass his tax cut.  He will let the Bush tax cuts expire, rather than repeal them (Think Jefferson with the Alien and Sedition Acts).

The recession will be deep in 2009.  When the credit crunch clears up in late 2009, GDP will grow again but so will inflation.  Unemployment will peak at 9% in 2010.

In 2010, the weak economy, high inflation, high unemployment, and huge deficits will lead to a significant loss of seats for Democrats in the House and three seats in the Senate.  Republicans won’t quite take back the House, but they will shrink the Democrat margin significantly.  Ken Salazar will lose to Bill Owens.  Byron Dorgan will retire and John Hoeven will succeed him.  Harry Reid will be crushed for re-election by 20 points.

The economy will keep struggling through 2011.

It will struggle again in 2012.

Obama’s hope rhetoric will stop being inspiring and start sounding delusional.

Network anchors will continue to love Obama.  The White House Press corps will come to hate him the way the beat reporters on his campaign have come to dislike him.

The weak economy, the continuing problems in Afghanistan, the ACORN scandal, and Iran’s bomb will all but ensure a Republican victory in 2012.

Sarah Palin will be the early frontrunner for the Republican nomination.  She will not be the nominee.  The Republicans will nominate Bobby Jindal for President.  He will choose Charlie Crist as his running mate.  He will win the election by a large margin.  Republicans will retake the House and Senate.

That was the only part of that post that wasn't BS.

Aw, you didn't even like my Supreme Court picks?

Agree.  If it is McCain, I think the term is quiet and sluggish.  Feels like ice cold water and little substantive change.

And you're from Maryland, too.  Bizarro.  *high fives*

Agree.

Salazar wont lose.  Colorado is becomming increasingly unwinnable for Republicans.  I also doubt Owens would run after he wouldnt run this year for Allard's seat.  In Nevada, the only guy who could beat Reid,  Rep. Jon Porter, is likely to be defeated this year.  Overall we are probably looking at a 1978/1990 style normal midterm were the party in power loses a small, but significant number of seats(a couple in the Senate and about a dozen in the House). 

Harry Reid's approval rating is in the 30s.  He is very unpopular and is a shoo-in to lose if he continues to be seen as a partisan water carrier.

Colorado is not becoming "unwinnable" for Republicans.  That is just a ridiculous thing to say.  Why, because its a swing state its now unwinnable for us?  Give me a break.

If the state was still a swing state, McCain would not be 10 points down there. 

Hillary Clinton might challenge Obama for the 2012 nomination in that scenario, Ford. If his approval ratings were that sucky, he'd almost certainly receive at least one if not several high profile challengers.

By 2010 he'll replace Jackson on the $20 and his head will also grace a special edition £2 coin and a 1 euro coin.

He'll make it onto Mount Rushmore by the end of his third year. The Republicans will be up in arms, not because he's going up there, but because Ronald Reagon isn't as well. They'll be rightly told to f*** off.

By 2016 they'll rename the month of September after him and give it 31 days to match July and August, with October losing a day. They'll be also moves to rename the plant Neptune after him but the Russians won't be so keen on that idea.

He's down 10 in a PPP poll.  Find me a real poll where he's down 10.

The RCP average has McCain down 4 in Colorado and down 7 nationally, so he looks to be outperforming his national numbers in Colorado.  He'll still lose the state and the election, but to say Colorado is becoming "unwinnable" is just way off the mark.

Not gonna happen.

Pelosi needs to be pushed aside, though. She's not the right person to lead the House.

Top 10 things in no particular order:

#1) get federal funding for stem cell research passed
#2) elect two liberal supreme court justices to replace the two liberal expectant outgoing justices (Ginsberg and Kennedy)
#3) timetable for Iraq
#4) get into serious discussions about socialized medicine
#5) get into serious discussions to further move along alternative energy
#6) get into serious discussions to further move along alternate fueled cars (sorry, but 35mpg by 2015 is NOT enough)
#7) hopefully get rid of that ban on partial-birth abortions
#8) pass more regulation of the markets
#9) more domestic spending
#10) implementing his proposed tax plan (tax cuts for the poor, tax increases for the excessively rich)

I don't know. He needs to be elected first.

but let me save many the time and effort of coming to this thread and reading it:

Republicans: It'll flipping suck, a 2nd Jimmy Carter! HATEHATEHATE

Democrats: Oh it would be the most amazing Presidency America has ever seen. YAYAYAY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

You know, try as hard as I might, I have never been able to understand the affinity of some of the Left for the notion of riping a living human being who has a pretty decent chance of being self-sustaining, out of the body of another who is quite obviously pregnant at this point, cracking open thier skull and sucking out their brain, all while the infant is kicking and screaming. 

Perhaps you could enlighten me. 

Have you ever seen one of these performed?

Its not so much that I have any feelings towards how abortions are performed, its just that if you are going to do something do it all or none...not somewhere in the middle.

It shouldn't be the Government's choice as to who can or can't have an abortion. If A women feels like it needs to be done, that's her decision. Why do you feel like you need to refuse a woman's right to do what she wants with her life/body?

I guess I can ask the same thing for Gay Marriages, since I think it applies there too.

First off, I'm not even talking about all abortion, I am talking about Partial Birth, in particular, so please don't retreat to those tired old lines about "right to choose" etc, etc, because in this case, it doesn't apply.  If you haven't made the choice by the time the child is viable, then that should be it, end of story.  If mommy has a problem with that then too fu(king bad.

When Bubba goes out and lynches a black man for sleeping with a white woman, we don't sit aroudn and invent excuses for why Bubba made that choice, and we certainly don't defend it.  We recongnize that someone took another functioning human life and ended it.

It shouldn't be the governments choice how I raise my kids, but if I beat them and lock them in a closet, then they... by which of course, I mean society and the law, ought to make it our business.  There are levels.  I am personally opposed to any and all abortions, but I can see arguments for keeping them legal... after six months, there are no excuses.

Well, that is an absolutely brilliant philosophy of government that would go a long way towards explaining how civilization got this far... I think civility, compromise, thoughtfulness and restraint were getting pretty tired anyway, right?

Bubba...dont you think thats a little racist?

I'm white.

Gay marriages aren't brutality.

I'm anti-abortion very strongly, but even more strongly pro-choice. It's the right of a woman to make an informed choice about the fetus for as long as the life/potential life is completely dependent on the mother. Partial-birth abortions strip the life from a living human being, pure and simple, and are brutal barbarism without OVERWHELMINGLY strong medical reasons.

I've never understood how people overlook that it's two bodies, not one.

I've also never understood how people write "a women," but that's beside the point.

Strongly agree.  Dems eat their own.

(To be fair, the GOP is loyal to a fault -- see Bush.)

Oh, someone who supports killing babies I see.  Well, aren't you just the big bad macho man.

Not really. Ford and Reagan battled it out in 1976. The Republicans had no reason to challenge Bush in 2004 anyway. He had a 52% approval rating and won reelection.

My prediction is, he'll stay toward the center in order to get things done.  That means several unfulfilled promises, but moving toward the center applies to mosts Presidents.

That doesn't help their argument!

I don't care about those.

A weak presidency, I hope.  The office was designed to be limited in authority, with but four specific duties delineated in the U. S. Constitution.  Over the years, many presidents have strengthened the office, usually to unfavorable effect.  I get the general impression that he'll be a president more in the mold that the founders had intended, which will be refreshing.

Beyond restoring general weakness to the office, I'm hoping he'll use the specific duties appropriate to his office to end the Iraq war within four years.  I'm fairly confident that he'll withdraw the troops, and his position on Iraq is closer to mine than McCain's, but I'm somewhat less confident that the withdrawal will be on the terms most desirable for our country.  But I think he'll surround himself with competent advisors so it's not too much to hope for a reasonably effective withdrawal.

Also, he can use his designated duty as national representative to foreign governments to great effect.  I think he'll be pro-active in restoring the image of the United States, abroad, as a positive force in world affairs.  He'll have a small head start.  His arabic first name, and arabic-sounding last name are definitely beneficial in this regard, and if the spin is done well, that, along with his decidedly ethnic look, can show the arabic-speaking world that we are not bigots toward non-Europeans.  Moreover, in a 24-nation survey published this month by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, pollsters found that Bush's exit helps U.S. image abroad, no matter who wins in November.  In Indonesia, for example, positive views plunged to 15 percent in 2003 from 61 percent in 2002, but they have now rebounded to 37 percent. In other countries like France, Britain and Turkey, favorable views edged up this year, but by less than four percentage points.  But despite the upward trends, only eight nations among those 24 surveyed have a majority favorable view of the US.  They are Britain, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Poland, South Africa, South Korea and Tanzania.  So it'll take more than a brownie with a vaguely arabic name to polish our tarnished veneer.  And it's important that the polish be applied, since we continue to require assistance defending intellectual property rights, fighting terrorism, and maintaining ecologically sound economic management.  And our shrinking share of the global aggregate GDP--22% now, down from 45% thirty years ago--demands it.  The good news is that Obama will be viewed more favorably from the get-go than McCain.  Let's hope he exploits the good will in a way that benefits the United States, rather than squandering it and over-negotiating.  Time will tell.  

On the domestic issues, I generally expect him to peel back some of the more grandiose parts of his legislative agenda.  Specifically, I think he'll encounter resistance in any attempt to provide universal health care at great expense to the taxpayer, which is good.  I also think he'll promote an agenda of greater self-sufficiency in energy.  He has already warmed up to the idea of exploratory drilling for oil, which is also a good thing.  But it'll take more than this to solve our energy-demand problem.  We need to invest more in research for alternative and more efficient technologies.  I think Obama will pursue this agenda, within limitations, and I hope he attempts to encourage more mass transit investment.  I am not hopeful of the latter, because it is precisely this weakness that will limit him.  I think most presidents have over-reached and strengthened the office too much, so I welcome a weak presidency, but in this one instance a stronger voice is needed.  Maybe he'll learn to be stronger in some areas, specifically when encouraging the congress to consider energy research, public transit initiatives, and exploratory drilling for oil in US waters and soil.

I do not expect him to pursue a radical social agenda.  If anything, I expect him to be less ideological than other presidents, republican or democrat, in this regard.  

Ford wasn't elected, and was not a popular or consensus pick.

The cracks in the Bush regime were showing in 2004, regardless of the popularity level.  Regardless, I'd more specifically point to the 2006 elections and the 2008 primaries as evidence of supporting the Bush administration for far too long.  If McCain loses, it may end up looking that way in hindsight, too (he has properly thrown Bush under the bus a bit since the convention, though not as much as I would prefer).

I hope so, Torie.  More or less, anyway. 

I am a believing Christian...I was a nutter for a long time, but shed that nonsense about 20 years ago.  That story's been told elsewhere.  I've a deep, abiding respect for Atheists, Agnostics and religious folk who don't see things my way.  Except those who define themselves on the basis of who and what they hate, rather than who and what they love.

This rap about national conversations isn't silly, I don't think.  It's uncomfortable sometimes.  Sometimes, it goes horribly sour.  But it does get us places.  Civil Rights is a good example.  The conversations were just whispers in the 30's and 40's...a few good people, preaching to the choir.  But the talk continued.  I am not saying new national conversations can do away with left and right completely.  Or even that they should.  Just that different voices can start to be heard.  And compromises, healthy ones, can be reached.

In 1998, President Clinton endorsed legislation authored by Tom Daschle that would have dramatically reduced the number of abortions in this country.  The package contained elements abortion rights opponents thought amounted to compromise...and elements pro-choice folk considered too restrictive.  I, for one, didn't like that more abortions would be criminalized.  We've had that talk...I think that's an exercise in futility.  But still...even the National Right to Life grudgingly admitted that there would have been about 300 thousand fewer abortions had the Daschle Amendment become law.  It failed.

And I believe it failed because the only voices heard were those of Eleanor Smeal on the left, saying it was too restrictive...and James Dobson on the right, saying it was too permissive.  Would that more Americans had heard Gordon Smith and Tom Daschle! 

I'm just saying -- it's how we have these conversations that matters.  And who we listen to and put out in front.  Rather than rely on a nutter to publicly decry abortion, consider advancing the message of arch-liberal Nat Hentoff...who also happens to be a rock-ribbed anti-choice guy.  Before we call on another angry, "it's just a blob of tissue" feminist to call for unfettered access to abortion, let's think about listening to a basically conservative guy, Tom Ridge, who happens to have some sympathy for the reality that the genie is now out of the bottle.

I think this can happen.  Will it?  Oh, I agree...it would be the hardest, most difficult task for us all.  Clean-burning, plentiful energy and finding a cure for cancer are probably easier -- if we put our mind to it.  (and we should)  Still, there's something awfully attractive about mutual respect, civility and finding higher, if not common, ground.

Yes, at least a videotaped presentation.  These are typically, though not always I gather, performed on fetuses that are afflicted with anencephaly.  In short, the baby's brain grows in-utero, outside the closed skull.  Children born like this can live into young adulthood...if they undergo multiple surgeries.  As I understand it, they are always -- not just most of the time, but always -- complete vegetables.  Even so, the parents can still choose to have the baby.  Or have it, and abandon it to the state.  They aren't forced to undergo any kind of abortion procedure.

Still, I would gladly support a ban on partial birth abortion if it is ever performed when non-anencephalous fetuses are involved.  And presuming anyone could agree on a legally appropriate punishment for violators.