IF Obama loses then what?

[applecorped]

What do you think will happen if Obama loses? To America & the Democrat party?

[applecorped]

Just trying to get away from lipstick, bridges and drugs for a bit.

[TinfoilCat]

Then obviously, Mccain will win and life will go on. I doubt Mccain is stupid enough to cause anymore major trouble with the overwhelming pressure of a democratic congress. Hopefully America will change for the better, but most likely many new changes will not be made. This is all in my opinion of course. :D

[applecorped]

Then obviously, Mccain will win and life will go on. I doubt Mccain is stupid enough to cause anymore major trouble with the overwhelming pressure of a democratic congress. Hopefully America will change for the better, but most likely many new changes will not be made. This is all in my opinion of course. :D

Welcome!

[David Wong]

Well, McCain is likely a one-termer, because of age. Regardless of what you think of Palin as a VP pick, I think the demographic cards would be stacked against her in 2012 and I don't think she'd be a strong candidate.

That means 2012 would be just as much an opportunity for the Dems as 2008 was. The big question is would Obama try to run again (he'd only be 51). Once upon a time you could lose an election and then come back and win later (Nixon did it, right?) but these days parties tend to want to start over with somebody else. Hillary?

[SDC]

I can't help thinking of Wm Henry Harrison, an aged war hero (he was 68 when elected) who caught a nasty cold at his inauguration and died a month later.

Can you say President Pistol-Packin' Mama?

[BenBurch]

8 more years of war. And a new war with Iran. No coherent energy policy will be created. No work on global warming will get done. NASA will falter, and we never get back to the moon. Recession for at least 6 of those years which we only come out of because you can only go so low.

[applecorped]

8 more years of war. And a new war with Iran. No coherent energy policy will be created. No work on global warming will get done. NASA will falter, and we never get back to the moon. Recession for at least 6 of those years which we only come out of because you can only go so low.

8 years?

[BenBurch]

8 years?

If we are stupid enough to elect him once, we will be stupid enough to elect him twice.

[shuize]

What do you think will happen if Obama loses?


Thousands and thousands of crybaby Democrats will threaten to move to Canada but then not leave after all.

[FaisonMars]

NASA will falter, and we never get back to the moon.

Bush is the guy with the moon plan.

I for one think it should NOT be a priority to send people back to the moon. We should continue exploring with robots (much safer and cheaper), and we should find ways to encourage private enterprise in space (like the Google X prize).

The returns on the Apollo program investment had little to do with space... the returns came in the form inspiring a generation to study science and technology. Apollo Program -> Silicon Valley. We can't get that again by repeating our trip to the moon.

I wonder if we COULD inspire a generation through a moonshot-type program to develop renewable energy? "That's one small solar cell for man... "

[Coffee]

If Obama loses:

There will be a great wailing, gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair. The sun will turn black as sack cloth and the moon will be as blood. The multitudes will be plagued with suffering pustules and the seas will boil. The earth will be as a great desert followed by the greatest of all calamities....

Have a nice day. :)

[FaisonMars]

Thousands and thousands of crybaby Democrats will threaten to move to Canada but then not leave after all.

Actually, I do know quite a few people who threatened to leave the country if Bush won in 2004, and they did.

I posted this in another thread, but what finally occurred to me this election cycle is that it doesn't make any sense for me to move from Connecticut to Canada. Everyone around here agrees with me. I just have to find a way to get out of paying the share of my federal taxes that go to the war. And pray for the health of Justices Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens. (Except the only evidence out there about prayer and health suggests that it makes patients worse, so perhaps I should pray for Scalia's health.)

[Kaylee]

In addition to our staying at war, I would expect very conservative candidates to be appointed to the Supreme Court and the other courts. Roe vs. Wade might be overturned. Interest rates and unemployment (and number of people who have permanently given up looking for work) will go up.

I would not expect serious initiatives in a wide range of alternative energy sources to be pursued.

[leftysergeant]

A belt of nuclear fallout circling the globe and spreading north and south and irradiating even the cockroaches to extinction, while trhe whackadoodles in Alaska watch, thinking that their girl Sarah won it for Jesus and that they are about to be raptured up out of the way of that nasty radiation.

[TinfoilCat]

And a new war with Iran.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be extremely hard to go into a war with Iran when were currently occupied in Iraq? Also, if we do declare war on Iran, won't we be facing a war with its allies as well? Wouldn't it be difficult to declare a war when the majority of the congress are democrats who detest war?

I don't know if its just me, but I seriously doubt that even Palin or Mccain would easily be able to declare WWIII (or WWIV, depends how you look at it). :)

[TinfoilCat]

Welcome!

Thanks! :D

[BPSCG]

Actually, I do know quite a few people who threatened to leave the country if Bush won in 2004, and they did. Good. Glad they're gone. This country wasn't built by crybabies. This country was built by people who didn't know what lay ahead of them when they left their native lands, often didn't speak the language, were persecuted and discriminated against when they got here, and thrived and prospered and built "the shining city on the hill" that people today try to claw their way into by hook or by crook, because they know it's a thousand times better than what they have at home.

This is no country for crybabies. Every crybaby who leaves because he or she doesn't like the current occupant of the White House should be replaced by a random illegal Mexican who appreciates what a good thing he has here. And that goes for any Republican who's stupid enough to make the same threat if Obama wins, too.

[/rant off]

[ProbeX]

Thousands and thousands of crybaby Democrats will threaten to move to Canada but then not leave after all.

A friend of mine who isn't a Dem but was shaken by Bush's re-election, packed her bags in disgust, crossed the ocean and took up residence in London.

Now she's back here. One reason she returned is (she claims) there was a ridiculous amount of hostility leveled at Americans, to the point where she was constantly scolded for what Bush and co. had instigated.

[applecorped]

A friend of mine who isn't a Dem but was shaken by Bush's re-election, packed her bags in disgust, crossed the ocean and took up residence in London.

Now she's back here. One reason she returned is (she claims) there was a ridiculous amount of hostility leveled at Americans, to the point where she was constantly scolded for what Bush and co. had instigated.

I hope she didn't unpack.

[kallsop]

If? IF????

I thought it was going to be a cakewalk because Bush and republicans are hated. Now a few polls have McCanine ahead and folks are falling off the Obama bandwagon. So sad.

What went wrong?

[FaisonMars]

Good. Glad they're gone. This country wasn't built by crybabies.
[/rant off]

Well, it was actually only three people that I knew... one went to Canada, another to France, and another to London. All of them were very smart. I presume we don't want to scare all of the smart people away.

I wonder sometimes about the Black Migration from the South in the 1930's to the big cities in the north. It created a black middle class in places like Chicago as well as the Harlem Renaissance, but what if all of those people had stayed in the South?

[FaisonMars]

If? IF????

I thought it was going to be a cakewalk because Bush and republicans are hated. Now a few polls have McCanine ahead and folks are falling off the Obama bandwagon. So sad.

What went wrong?

There seems to be a lot of that sentiment going around.

I was surprised that McCain/Palin's convention bounce was so high, but this is the best position for McCain in the whole campaign, and he's only dead even.

Read this and chill:

http://wonkette.com/402658/pathetic-failed-presidential-candidate-barack-obama-to-win-presidential-election

[leftysergeant]

They got a bump because Palin looked good. Those bumbps tend to level out.

The longer she stays in purdah, the lower her numbers will dip among even Republicans. The undecideds will see that she is not even trying that hard to reach them. Bad news for her.

[Whiplash]

They got a bump because Palin looked good. Those bumbps tend to level out.

The longer she stays in purdah, the lower her numbers will dip among even Republicans. The undecideds will see that she is not even trying that hard to reach them. Bad news for her.

/shakes head slowly

[WildCat]

Good. Glad they're gone. This country wasn't built by crybabies.
But Canada was in part built by crybabies who left the US after the Revolution. ;)

[Malerin]

Mccain will be able to do very little with a hostile Democratically controlled Congress. Maybe some token immigration reform. Meanwhile, our problems will pile up. At the end of Mccain's first term, I would expect:

- 40+ million will still be without health care. Tens of millions more with inadequate coverage.
- National debt will be around 11.5 trillion, with another record budget deficit in 2012
- S.S., Medicare will be nearly insolvent, with no major changes done to either program
- Unemployment 6%+
- Median income and wages will remain flat
- Wrong track/right track direction of country: 85+/15-
- War in Afghanistan will reach a crisis point (some reporting it already has http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26642415/)
- 100,000+ troops still in Iraq
- Demand from India, China, and Southeast Asia will push oil over $175
- Stock market will continue it's anemic growth, closing at under 13,000
- Housing, credit crisis precipitates nasty 2+ year recession (which may already be happeneing). Slow recovery, more bailouts of major banks
- Iran either tests its first nuke or is attacked by U.S. or Israel.

None of those predictions is far-fetched. I think they're all more likely than not. In that environment, I would hate to be either party. Might be a good environment for a third party.

[Brainster]

We win in Iraq?

:D

[BenBurch]

We win in Iraq?

:D

You can't seriously think that is even remotely possible except via genocide, can you?

[New Ager]

Thousands and thousands of crybaby Democrats will threaten to move to Canada but then not leave after all.

Maybe we can give them a tax credit to help them leave. :)

[FaisonMars]

We win in Iraq?


I thought we already took out Saddam. Isn't the game over when you trap the other guy's king?

[New Ager]

Good. Glad they're gone. This country wasn't built by crybabies. This country was built by people who didn't know what lay ahead of them when they left their native lands, often didn't speak the language, were persecuted and discriminated against when they got here, and thrived and prospered and built "the shining city on the hill" that people today try to claw their way into by hook or by crook, because they know it's a thousand times better than what they have at home.

This is no country for crybabies. Every crybaby who leaves because he or she doesn't like the current occupant of the White House should be replaced by a random illegal Mexican who appreciates what a good thing he has here. And that goes for any Republican who's stupid enough to make the same threat if Obama wins, too.

[/rant off]

(Standing ovation)

You are a true patriot.

[Tailgater]

Maybe we can give them a tax credit to help them leave. :)

Polling suggests rebate checks are more popular. :boxedin:

[applecorped]

You can't seriously think that is even remotely possible except via genocide, can you?

Obviously you do. :rolleyes:

[BPSCG]

We win in Iraq?

:D

You can't seriously think that is even remotely possible except via genocide, can you?You're right:

All the experts acknowledge it:

Expert 1 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070419184534.ileoeb47&show_article=1):
The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.


Expert 2 (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/08/clinton_surgeery_iraq_policy_w.html):
"The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution. It has failed."

Expert 3 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/us/politics/22vets.html):
Senator Barack Obama said Tuesday that even if the military escalation in Iraq was showing limited signs of progress, efforts to stabilize the country had been a “complete failure” and American troops should not be entangled in the sectarian strife.

A dissenting viewpoint (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/obama-surge-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/):
“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

Well, maybe not beyond everyone's wildest dreams (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265260,00.html):

"Every day we read about or watch on television the latest car-bombing, IED explosion or sniper attack. But something else is happening, too. There are the first glimmers of progress. ... While these glimmers are no guarantee of success , and though they come early in the implementation of the new strategy, I believe they are cause for very cautious optimism," McCain said.

[andyandy]

If the Democrats can't win this election then they may as well disband and call this whole politics thing off for good. They have just about every factor in their favour:

no incumbent president or vice president to run against

over $1 trillion wasted on a war with nothing to do with the "war on terror"

Poor economic output with massive budget deficits and a tanking housing market

strong positions in both the Congress and the Senate.

An opponent whose image and oratory skills are badly predisposed to the new media age

a hugely unpopular president and vice president

a majority of the population thinking that "the country is on the wrong track"



It's hard to imagine any future election where they would enjoy more factors in their favour. If they do lose they should call it a day. :)

[steve s]

Thousands and thousands of crybaby Democrats Alaskans will threaten to move to Canada secede from the union but then not leave after all.

Oh, wait. They've already threatened to secede.

Steve S.

[FaisonMars]

It's hard to imagine any future election where they would enjoy more factors in their favour. If they do lose they should call it a day. :)

But they want to kill babies! And force everyone into gay marriages! And Obama's middle name is "Mohammed!"

[BPSCG]

It's hard to imagine any future election where they would enjoy more factors in their favour. If they do lose they should call it a day. :)Intrade (http://intrade.net/) has the current betting that they lose, 51% - 48.2%.

Never underestimate the Dems' ability to let their candidate get caught in a photo-op of him riding around in a tank (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/images/life/dukakis.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm10.html&h=442&w=585&sz=72&hl=en&start=4&um=1&usg=__W2DFxW74QNVYXU8ab8aEt-clTQc=&tbnid=fI4yEQBQpuDpLM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddukakis%2Btank%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26c lient%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN) looking for all the world like Rocky the Flying Squirrel, or saying, "I voted for the war before I voted against it," or saying he supports his VP running mate "1,000 percent" just a couple of days before dumping him (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7755888) from the ticket like he had bubonic plague.

I'm keeping my eye on Biden. I got $500 in Vegas that says he remarks, "Palin's got great knockers, doesn't she?" in a I-didn't-realize-the-mike-was-live moment.

[andyandy]

Intrade (http://intrade.net/) has the current betting that they lose, 51% - 48.2%.

Never underestimate the Dems' ability to let their candidate get caught in a photo-op of him riding around in a tank (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/images/life/dukakis.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm10.html&h=442&w=585&sz=72&hl=en&start=4&um=1&usg=__W2DFxW74QNVYXU8ab8aEt-clTQc=&tbnid=fI4yEQBQpuDpLM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddukakis%2Btank%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26c lient%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN) looking for all the world like Rocky the Flying Squirrel, or saying, "I voted for the war before I voted against it," or saying he supports his VP running mate "1,000 percent" just a couple of days before dumping him (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7755888) from the ticket like he had bubonic plague.

I'm keeping my eye on Biden. I got $500 in Vegas that says he remarks, "Palin's got great knockers, doesn't she?" in a I-didn't-realize-the-mike-was-live moment.


considering that in trade were quoting 6040 for the Democrats only last week, it looks like Palin has really shaken things up. It just seems that the Republicans are better at elections. Everyone expects right-wing parties to play in the gutter, whereas the Democrats always seem stuck between trying to be nice and trying to be combative. If they are too nice they just get walked over, and if they try to be nasty the faux-right-wing outrage negates their message as to being in any way different to their Republican opposition. It must be seriously depressing being a Democrat, select a genuine leftwing reformer? Lose. Select a worthy incumbent vice president and run on policy? Lose. Select a bona fides war hero and run on narrative? Lose. Select a charismatic youthful orator and run on change? Probably lose. :)

[Augustine]

- War in Afghanistan will reach a crisis point (some reporting it already has http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26642415/)
- 100,000+ troops still in Iraq
- Iran either tests its first nuke or is attacked by U.S. or Israel.


To only address the national security/military predictions:

The statement on Iran is true for both Obama and McCain, with the only caveat being that under Obama, Iran either tests its first nuke or is attacked by Israel.

The war in Afghanistan will be critical for either candidate. Obama has made more reckless comments regarding Pakistan. Regardless, I expect both candidates to give Petraeus what he requests for this theater.

Troops in Iraq: truthfully I expect little difference from the candidates. Obama has moved to the center on this issue from some statements during the primaries, and McCain will respond to the assessment of commanders on ground.

The question is not really whether these conditions will vary under one candidate or the other. The question is how each candidate will respond to these conditions, as well as issues with Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and Africa, to affect national power and the perception of national power at the end of their term.

[dudalb]

A belt of nuclear fallout circling the globe and spreading north and south and irradiating even the cockroaches to extinction, while trhe whackadoodles in Alaska watch, thinking that their girl Sarah won it for Jesus and that they are about to be raptured up out of the way of that nasty radiation.


Trying to win the outrageous rhetoric of the week award, Lefty?

[Bob Blaylock]

Just within my lifetime, we have had much better Presidents than either McCain or Obama are likely to be, and we have had much worse Pesidents. Regardless of the outcome of this upcoming election, the country will go on, and life will go on, and in four or eight years, we'll have yet another new President who will probably not be as outstandingly good or as outstandingly bad as what we have already had before.

[BPSCG]

...the Democrats always seem stuck between trying to be nice and trying to be combative. "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution." -- Ted Kennedy, trying to be nice.

[Lanzy]

Well we wouldn't get change, probably more of the same.

[Grizzly Bear]

If we are stupid enough to elect him once, we will be stupid enough to elect him twice.
I'll keep note of that next time I vote, thanks for giving people like me a category. I think people are entitled to vote for whoever they want without being labeled stupid, which is why I avoid making such comments despite my vehement disagreement with the democratic party right now. And for good measure to make sure my point isn't misconstrued as biased this applies to any party supporter, not just you.


8 more years of war. And a new war with Iran.
I see this contention alot, the political left spectrum seems to project that the US has a manifest destiny agenda where: if Afghanistan then Irag, soon Iran must follow.

There are no plans for it, if you actually took the time to read news articles you would be aware of the policies going on right now:
President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4322508.ece)
The title of the article is rather misleading though because it says the exact opposite of what the title implies. Still I think it makes the point through its content:
"This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided..."

I agree with the assessment that this article (http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000709.htm) makes on the news story I linked to, in that a better title would have been "the US will not invade Iran"

For the sake of derailing this place as little as possible you can refer to the second link for the assessment because it says most everything I'd have stated to you otherwise.


No coherent energy policy will be created. No work on global warming will get done. NASA will falter, and we never get back to the moon. Recession for at least 6 of those years which we only come out of because you can only go so low.
Life will go on as usual and the democrats will have another opportunity to run in 2012. And we either see our greatest fears or the most unexpectedly good outcome of the voter's choice. Whatever the case, just hope whoever gets elected does their job right.

[Just thinking]

You will hear the loudest, non-stop cries of "I told you so!" from the Clintons for a full 4 years, when Hillary runs again. And if she loses again in 2012, make that 8 years of cries.

[egslim]

It just seems that the Republicans are better at elections.
The Republicans have a few short and simple messages that appeal to nearly everyone's gut feelings. They want to "win in Iraq", "defend democracy against Russia" and "fight terrorism".

The closest the Democrats come to that is "healthcare for everyone", but that appeals to a much smaller group.

Of course the problem with the Republican plans is in the implementation. The world is complex, and simple solutions rarely work to solve complex problems. But few people like to hear that.