Sarah Palin's bus tour?

I don't know a single person who supported Obama in 2008 that is willing to vote for him again, except for the far left liberals. I live in Iowa, and I'd say Iowa as a whole is fairly moderate. He is in big trouble with the swing states. Sarah Palin has an appeal with the middle class, and when it comes down to it, anyone who is a conservative, would vote for her over Obama if they had to make the choice.

 

Why do people care about Sarah Palin so much?

 

hmm, well I don't live in the USA so I'm not in tune to the nuances of US politics as much. From what I heard from foreign correspondents, is that she doesn't get much traction from people who aren't a deep shade of red.

meh, anyway.

 

I don't know many people who still support Obama either. Nobody liked the mandatory fee for the health care bill, and in my widely democratic environment, they didn't appreciate keeping Bush policies and expanding war. Then again, I don't know many people who regard Sarah Palin as more than a joke, not having a governing position right now, and basically being a media figure for the last four years, a "superstar" as McCain once called Obama. I think another Republican candidate has a better chance than Palin.

 

Like say the biggest electoral victory in over 60 years? Because that is what the Republicans pulled off in 2010

 

I did see a recent article on washingtonpost.com (and of course I cant find it now lol) where apparently on election day if unemployment was above 7.4% the incumbent president lost. everyone below there won. its in the nines right now. so bad news for obama if the economy keeps going sideways

 

^ I saw that article too.

I'm doubting Obama will win but that doesn't mean I have more faith in Palin.

 

That is called the pendulum effect, whenever there is a great crisis and one side can't solve it they immidiatly swing to the other. If mc cain would have won the democrats would have put a vicotry like that.

 

Yeah, that occurs in most democracies, barring Japan (until recently) and Singapore. I was also going to mention that American politics goes like this, due to it's structure.

Year 00, X Party wins Presidency and Congress
Year 02, midterm elections comes up for 1/3 of Congress, X retains presidency, but now loses Congress to Z
Year 04 2nd Presidency and another Congress election set. (Usually) X will win both.
Year 06, another midterm, X loses Congress.
Year 08, due to limitations, Current X President must step down, Party Z now wins both Congress and Presidency.
Year 10, Z retains Presidency, X regains Congress.

And so on. 2010 saw the usual throwback against the Presidential party, as midterms have done forever (or at least a long, long while). A cunning trick to prevent ongoing control for any one party for any long amount of time.

 

To a layman's political perspective both of you are right, the party not holding the Presidency tends to pick up victories in most off year elections. Again that is only to a layman's perspective.

However when you break it down by the numbers, the number of congressional seats won, the number of senate seats won, the number of governorships won, the number of state houses won. This was not a typical off year election. This was the biggest electoral victory for Republicans in decades, some people saying in 70 years.

So no it is not correct to chalk it up to just another off year electoral victory.

 

Except it is absolutely correct to chalk it up to just another off year electoral victory.

 

If it were another off year electoral victory the Republicans would not have gained such massive numbers, numbers again not seen in 70 years. Now unless you are going to claim that off year electoral victories come every 70 years. Then you are wrong.

 

Begging the question much?

 

First off, I fixed what you wrote so that it now is in comprehensible English. Don't worry; you don't have to thank me.

Second off, the only thing more absurd than me being wrong is an internet poster with a username like "BigLutz" claiming that I am wrong. Of course electoral victories don't come every 70 years. It's cyclical. People get fed up with a party, vote for the other one, then realize that party sucks, too, and they vote for the one they originally got fed up with. Especially considering the Republican Party has no all star candidates lined up (which is such a shame, poor Mitt Romney), Obama has smooth sailing right into his next term.

 

So you rely on personal attacks and nitpicking grammar, that already shows you are off to a poor start in debating.

Again which is correct from a layman's perspective.

However again when you look at the numbers, it was a massive electoral victory for Republicans, something unseen in decades. So it would be ignorant to chalk it up as just another off year election.

Seeing how Obama's approval rating is trending downward again after the "Osama Bounce", and the latest economic numbers point to a double dip recession, it is looking like almost anyone could beat Obama.

 

Yes, it has been acknowledged it's cyclical. He didn't say that electorial victories only come every seventy years. This was a major one. The last electorial victory was the largest, most dramatic electoral victory in seventy years.

 

Congressional elections and presidential elections are two entirely different things. You both fail to understand that, and if the Republicans can't put out someone that can rival Obama, they will lose.

 

The original discussion point was the public turning on Obama, the massive swing in Republican support in 2010 was a sign of that. And really the Republicans do not need to put out some one that can rival Obama, they just need to make the case that Obama has not helped America as President. If we go through another financial downturn as the latest numbers suggest we are heading for, that case becomes much simpler.

 

The fact that there is big crisis at the moment, gives the pendelum an extra push.

 

And there has not been a big economic crisis in the last 70 years? Hell in 1993 when the Republicans won back the House and Senate in much smaller numbers we were going through a bad economic downturn.

The answer you are fishing for is that the Democrats by and large spent two years working on unpopular issues, be it a failed Stimulus, bail outs, cap and trade, or Obamacare. All of these things are items that the President pushed, all of these things are items the public hated.