So what would happen if Obama won?

posted at 12:05 pm on November 30, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Every once in a while you need to bring yourself back down to Earth and make sure you’re prepared for hard times, no matter how optimistic you may be feeling. No, we’re not talking about the coming zombie apocalypse or the idea that the Patriots might still win the AFC East title this year. This is even more dark and foreboding. What would happen if Obama wins the election next November? That’s pretty much the point of a lengthy essay at Outside the Beltway by Doug Mataconis this week.

After noting that Obama’s prospects are certainly looking dim, Doug reminds us that nothing is ever a sure thing and it doesn’t pay to get too comfortable before all the votes have been cast. So what would happen to the Republican Party in the event of such a loss? Well, it largely depends on who he lost to.

How the GOP reacts to a loss in 2012 would depend, at least in part, on who ends up winning the nomination. If the nominee is Mitt Romney as many expect, including yours truly, then the initial spin from conservatives, the Tea Party movement, and the blogger and talk radio crowd is likely to be that the party lost because the nominee wasn’t conservative enough. This was the same argument that many Republicans made after Bob Dole lost in 1996, and after John McCain lost in 2008. In reality, of course, it’s not at all clear that it was a lack of conservative bona fides that doomed either of these campaigns…

If Romney is the nominee and he loses, it’s likely the reaction will be the same and that, at least, initially we’ll see the activists in the GOP go on another purity quest. On Capitol Hill, this would likely have the impact of making the House GOP even less willing to compromise than it has been since the 2010 elections for fear of facing trouble during the 2014 midterms. The danger this poses for the GOP, of course, is that a re-elected President Obama is likely to have at least some public opinion boost behind him in 2013, as well as the ability to claim a mandate…

What if the nominee isn’t Mitt Romney, but one of the Tea Party favored candidates, the most realistic of those being either Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich?

This may be the best alternative of all for the GOP, because while it’s likely to lead to the same kind of reassessment that a Romney loss would, it be more likely to bring about the kind of changes that would benefit the party in the long run. The Tea Party hasn’t been an entirely bad thing for the GOP. In fact, I’d say that without John McCain’s loss in 2008 and the rise of the Tea Party, we likely would not have seen the GOP take control of Congress in 2010. However, as we learned in 2010 and as we’re learning to some extent during the early month of the 2012 election cycle, the movement has also caused the party to go off on bizarre tangents at times and to take insane stands like appearing to be willing to take the nation to the brink of financial chaos back in August. The “no compromise” position that the Tea Party represents may be good for internal party consumption and it may make the true believers happy, but it’s not good government and it’s probably not a good long term political strategy. A loss in 2012 that gets pinned on the movement would likely re-energize the “establishment” and more traditional conservatives in the party and cause a backlash against some of the more radical elements of the Tea Party. In the long run, this would probably be good for the GOP.

As long as that excerpt is, there’s a lot more of it at the link, so before you draw conclusions, read the full explanation. But with that in mind, I have a couple of thoughts to add.

At the highest level, I agree that the Republican reaction (and almost unavoidable civil war) will depend entirely on who the nominee is. If it’s Mitt and he manages to lose, (which will be something of a trick since he polls better against Obama than any of his fellow candidates) then we’ll hear the same thing we heard about McCain following 2008. The finger pointing would be immediate, but we’d have to wait for a lot of data to find out if the base actually “stayed home” for a change, (they pretty much never do) or if we failed to make the sale to the middle third of the country again like last time. Beyond that, I think Doug is pretty much correct. It would likely fuel an even larger four year swing of rebellion against the perceived “establishment Republican Party” as well as another long stretch of Congress accomplishing essentially nothing.

But if the nominee turns out to be the “Anti-Romney candidate” (insert name here) and they lose, then a different dynamic plays out. The finger pointing ensues, but in the opposite direction. The conversation will run along the lines of, “You Tea Partiers! You just HAD to have it your way, didn’t you? You couldn’t just nominate Mitt. Noooooo. You had to put in another Christine O’Donnell candidate. You’d rather lose the war than win a battle!

Of course, the third scenario is the one where the Republican wins. No matter whether it’s Romney or Not-Romney, everyone sits back down quietly for the most part and breaths a collective sigh of relief. And if that’s the case, the coat tails will likely take the Senate back over to the GOP side and then the Republicans will get to prove whether or not their theories can actually improve things before we begin the whole shooting match all over again a year later.

I have a headache already.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

If Obama is reelected, then the Republican Party should dissolve itself. It is no longer a useful opposition party and should go the way of the Whigs.

And several state legislatures should immediately begin considering nullification legislation to prevent Obamacare and any other initiative begun by Obama from taking effect within their states. Coastal states should immediately move to allow offshore oil drilling, and remove NOAA’s limits on fishing. Ohio and Pennsylvania should immediately allow natural gas drilling, with reasonable taxation to pay for state-level environmental testing and remediation. The central states should get together and conclude their own deal wiyth Canada to build the Keystone pipeline.

I do not favor any sort of secession movement – this Union is strnger than Barack Obama and I’ll be damned if I sit back and watch him destroy it. Instead the states should simply fight back and get to work reviving our economy and restoring our freedoms.

Rick Perry would be a wonderful leader of such a movement. If it is successful he will be elected President by acclamation in 2016.

rockmom on November 30, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Shorter Mataconis – Can’t the lesser half of the Bipartisan Party-In-Government just rid itself of conservatives already?

Steve Eggleston on November 30, 2011 at 1:30 PM

the movement has also caused the party to go off on bizarre tangents at times and to take insane stands like appearing to be willing to take the nation to the brink of financial chaos back in August.

I don’t understand how someone agreeing to $2.5T more debt and eliminating Bush tax cuts can call forcing a balanced budget deal “insane”.

Neither of the leading Republicans follow Tea Party principles or have any of their own.

elfman on November 30, 2011 at 1:33 PM

And the voters will have themselves to blame. And we will be praying for 4 years of good health for SCOTUS Justice Kennedy, otherwise it’s game over for America as we know her. Oh, and for those of you that say “I will sit out and not vote if it is not (insert your prefered candidate here)” – you should think about that.

VegasRick on November 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM

And we have some like The Church Lady who have flat out said that they will vote for Obama if “insert my most hated name here” is the nominee.

katy the mean old lady on November 30, 2011 at 1:34 PM

I eagerly await this. When macro factors prevent a robust recovery, watching the GOP spin the lack of jobs and economic growth will be awful fun.

ernesto on November 30, 2011 at 12:21 PM

..to continue this pig-pile onto the second page of comments, ernesto, wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up first.

The War Planner on November 30, 2011 at 1:35 PM

we’re looking at four more years of very hard times, certainly, but not the world-ending apocolypse you seem to imply.

troyriser_gopftw on November 30, 2011 at 1:13 PM

The US debt, including unfunded mandates, exceeds $100 trillion dollars, which exceeds the world GDP by a factor of four. The US is currently borrowing and spending 100% more than they take in taxes, with increases of 9% per year being added to the unvoted-upon budget (three years running). If you don’t see a financial situation worse than the great depression shaping up, with the world’s policeman and financial backstop losing the ability to be either, and the resulting chaos, you are living in a dream world.

Vashta.Nerada on November 30, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Vegas Rick seems to be the only person (besides me) who is looking at the even worse pictures of an Obama Reelection. If the court turns left, America is finished as we know it. Also there is Iran spinning it’s way toward a nuclear bomb. By the end of Obama’s second term we will have a nuclear Iran and terrorism backed by the threat of a nuclear attack on Israel or some other nation. Not to mention a potential Middle East arms race.

Scorched_Earth on November 30, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are non-viable candidates. Neither of them can beat Barack Hussein Obama by a long shot. Period. None of the current GOP candidates can win. Save one. Mitt Romney. Period.

Barack Hussein Obama is termed out if reelected. There is nothing stopping him from going all in and doing anything and everything his seditious America loathing little charcoal heart desires that the Houses cannot and/or will not block him from doing.

…’nuff said

FlatFoot on November 30, 2011 at 1:43 PM

And afterwards, the Democrats will hold endless press conferences where they will denounce President Romney as a “right wing extremist” to their fawning stenographers in the press.

Kensington on November 30, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Exactly what they did with the COMPASSIONATE conservative Bush…I say heck give them what they having been projecting on every previous candidate…At least Reagan truly was Right wing…and the irony is they always use his amnesty act and bargaining that resulted in higher taxes for some as some sort of politcal moral authority to do evil (be charitable with the money I have earned!!!!)

RedLizard64 on November 30, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Just a few corrections for Vashta:

The US debt, including unfunded mandates, exceeds $100 trillion dollars, which exceeds the world GDP by a factor of four.

Leaving aside whether unfunded liabilities should be included, $100 trillion would be about 1.5 times world GDP not 4.

The US is currently borrowing and spending 100% more than they take in taxes

More like 50-60% more not 100%.

with increases of 9% per year being added to the unvoted-upon budget (three years running). If you don’t see a financial situation worse than the great depression shaping up, with the world’s policeman and financial backstop losing the ability to be either, and the resulting chaos, you are living in a dream world.

Either way it will certainly be bad enough that you don’t need to exaggerate.
Vashta.Nerada on November 30, 2011 at 1:37 PM

One major difference this time is it won’t just be the world’s policeman/men who is bankrupt but everyone.

jarodea on November 30, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Ok, some reason my last sentence got cut off.

Vashta, despite what I said above things will certainly be bad enough that you don’t need to exaggerate.

jarodea on November 30, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Oh, no it didn’t. I just put it in your comment for some reason.

jarodea on November 30, 2011 at 1:53 PM

FlatFoot on November 30, 2011 at 1:43 PM

The dude who got beat by the dude who got beat by the dude we are trying to beat is the only dude that can beat the dude?

Nathan_OH on November 30, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Vashta, despite what I said above things will certainly be bad enough that you don’t need to exaggerate.

jarodea on November 30, 2011 at 1:52 PM

I was ballparking the GDP, it is more like 2 not 4, however, the feds are spending $2 for every $1 in taxes, that is indeed 100% overspending, and the reason everyone will be bankrupt is because we, the backstop, are gone.

Vashta.Nerada on November 30, 2011 at 2:05 PM

None of the current GOP candidates can win. Save one. Mitt Romney. Period.
…’nuff said

FlatFoot on November 30, 2011 at 1:43 PM

So how is he going to argue for eliminating Obamacare, when he essentially had the same. His RomneyCare needed federal subsidy to work…so take that off the debate table…take Cap & Trade off the debated table, he stated in a debate that he thought the economic crisis in Europe was “hypothetical”…so now we have it down to the jobs and economy, and he was not much different on TARP and the bailouts as Obama, down to one argument, jobs. And Mitt has done as much to eliminate jobs as create them with his mergers and take-overs.
Instead of debates they will be mutually admiring what the other has done…
Add to that is Mitt has never won a consensus for any conservative office, he ran and won being a liberal.
He ran last time and got trounced, after spending a record amount of money in a primary…he, sadly, just cannot connect with the public.

right2bright on November 30, 2011 at 2:07 PM

The dude who got beat by the dude who got beat by the dude we are trying to beat is the only dude that can beat the dude?

Nathan_OH on November 30, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Darn, you said it better…

right2bright on November 30, 2011 at 2:08 PM

the movement has also caused the party to go off on bizarre tangents at times and to take insane stands like appearing to be willing to take the nation to the brink of financial chaos back in August.

Bite me.

We are on the brink of another financial crisis and you want to blame it on the only people willing to point out that unpleasant little fact.

PackerBronco on November 30, 2011 at 2:11 PM

What was that about “much ado about nothing”?

There is hardly a whisker of difference between the present positions of Gingrich and Romney. Five minutes ago, for both guys, it might have been a different matter.

They are both flip-floppers, both professional politicians (Romney has run for public office in each of the last three decades), both believe in big government (just a little less big than the present guy in office), both believe in global warming, both believe in some modified form of amnesty, both believe in a stron military, both have no issue with Fed actions over the last ten years, both supported (and may still support) government control of healthcare decision making and government control of personal health records, both support the present-day “security” apparatus of Homeland Security, both are for some form of gun control, both like high gasoline taxes, both support the present form of income tax (arguing only about little nits), both have unbelievable ego’s and both are widely disliked.

If one or the other is nominated and wins, the other will be included in the cabinet. Losing will have impacts on the party similar, one to the other.

MTF on November 30, 2011 at 2:13 PM

I was ballparking the GDP, it is more like 2 not 4, however, the feds are spending $2 for every $1 in taxes, that is indeed 100% overspending, and the reason everyone will be bankrupt is because we, the backstop, are gone.

Vashta.Nerada on November 30, 2011 at 2:05 PM

From the September 2011 Monthly Treasury Statement (which ended Fiscal Year 2011):

Receipts FY2010: $2,161,728,000,000 (rounded to the nearest million)
Expenditures FY2010: $3,455,931,000,000

Receipts FY2011: $2,302,495,000,000
Expenditures FY2011: $3,601,109,000,000

In FY2010, the federal government spent just under $1.599 for every $1.00 it took in. In FY2011, the federal government spent over $1.564 for every $1.00 it took in.

Even if you use the gross public debt metric, the federal government didn’t quite spend 200% of what it took in:

Debt increase FY2010: $1,561,794,000,000 (rounded to the nearest million)
Debt increase FY2011: $1,228,717,000,000

Steve Eggleston on November 30, 2011 at 2:21 PM

It doesn’t matter who gets elected. If it’s Zero, we just go down the tube faster. We’ve got too many crooks sucking the life blood out of the country and economy to survive. 47% don’t pay taxes. Perry couldn’t tell you the time of day and be right twice. Newt thinks too much after reading studies done by someone else. Mitt just wants some love. Cain’s been loved too much. Get a grip ’cause the roller coaster is heading for the down side.

Kissmygrits on November 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Steve Eggleston on November 30, 2011 at 2:21 PM

All I can tell you is what my congressman told me: “don’t trust the official numbers”

Vashta.Nerada on November 30, 2011 at 2:45 PM

If anti-Romney wins and loses to Obama, all the purists can go pound sand and watch Obamacare be fully enacted and more liberal judges be put on the Supreme Court.

That Romney hatred was just so worth it.

haner on November 30, 2011 at 2:50 PM

For anyone who had to read it twice slowly:

The dude (Romney) who got beat by the dude (McCain) who got beat by the dude (TOTUS) we are trying to beat is the only dude (guy) that can beat the dude (ToTUS)?

Nathan_OH on November 30, 2011 at 1:53 PM

RedLizard64 on November 30, 2011 at 2:53 PM

All I can tell you is what my congressman told me: “don’t trust the official numbers”

Vashta.Nerada on November 30, 2011 at 2:45 PM

I don’t, which is why I included the debt increase. BTW, who is your ‘Critter?

Steve Eggleston on November 30, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Yep, we’re screwed.
I’m thinking that it’s going to be more like Mad Max and Thunderdome rather than a nice tidy little secession.
That’s why I’m investing heavily in precious metal*.

*Pb

justltl on November 30, 2011 at 2:56 PM

He ran last time and got trounced, after spending a record amount of money in a primary…he, sadly, just cannot connect with the public.

right2bright on November 30, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Though we may disagree on the Other than Romney candidate…this is good to bring to the table…If the last election could have been purchased…Romney did more to achieve it than anyone else in history…Hopefully TOTUS did not learn that lesson and Billions of Liberal/Progressive dollars get flushed down the toilet (in free market capitlistic campaign expenditures) that the Democratic party consigns itself to the wilderness for 40 years…at which point I should be off the scene and have helped teach a generation the virtues of both God and Capitlism!

RedLizard64 on November 30, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Kissmygrits on November 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Obama won and Atlas Shrugged. Let’s all be willing to take a load off of Atlas’ mind!!

RedLizard64 on November 30, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Jeepers, the word “suh-sess-shun” must be filtered?

Bummer. I was all set to launch my big suh-sess-cion movement from here.

justltl on November 30, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Of course, if the Republicans win and take back the Senate, the Democrats fall back to their “obstructionism is good and the highest form of patriotism.” Funny how it works out that way, isn’t it?

Fred 2 on November 30, 2011 at 3:02 PM

A happy thought is that D’rats are “unlikely” to keep Senate and “likely” to keep the House. Can anybody spell i-m-p-e-a-c-h-m-e-n-t?
Or even just defunding/dissolving of the whole mess.

You know there is a silver lining even at $32/oz.

Caststeel on November 30, 2011 at 3:13 PM

What would happen if Obama wins the election next November?

Given a choice, I think I would prefer the zombie apocalypse.

iurockhead on November 30, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Arggh! “Reps are likely to keep House.”

Caststeel on November 30, 2011 at 3:15 PM

What would happen if Obama wins the election next November?

Civil War II.

SDN on November 30, 2011 at 3:16 PM

If the “O” gets to keep the keys to the White House be prepared for taxes only he can think of to hang on the necks of all, the rich and the poor, all in the name of equality. Free college to all, even to the ones that can’t spell college. There will be riots from those that want it all and all for free. The OWS crowd gave us a taste of this and I couldn’t believe the backers to this nonsense. He will continue to blame the mess on the previous administration and the Republicans that are left in the Congress. With 51% of the public on some sort of government check this could easily happen and I’ve not counted the millions that will suddenly become US citizens.

mixplix on November 30, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Fred 2, unless we take it back by a filibuster proof majority of conservatives, it won’t matter.

SDN on November 30, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Tea Partiers aren’t insane for not wanting to raise the debt ceiling, and capping spending isn’t a “bizzare tangent” seeing as restrained spending is the Tea Party’s primary goal.

theperfecteconomist on November 30, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Problem with political wonks is that they view and analyze everything through their political-wonk filter.

‘So what would happen if Obama won?’

Civil War. Taxpayers vs the Looters & Parasites & the Pols who ride them.

rayra on November 30, 2011 at 3:44 PM

What happens if 0bamam wins? Just like several other posters have said; secession and civil war. The country becomes top heavy with all of the free-loaders who don’t contribute 1 iota to this country and just take.

Mirimichi on November 30, 2011 at 3:55 PM

To be honest, I’m caring less every day who the republicans nominate, or, whether that person can win. I doubt it matters a damn.

trigon on November 30, 2011 at 3:59 PM

To be honest, I’m caring less every day who the republicans nominate, or, whether that person can win. I doubt it matters a damn.

trigon on November 30, 2011 at 3:59 PM

The Republic is dead, it just goes to show how vital it was that it took a century for the death throes to end.

Amend 16 & 17 for those who are lost.

Nathan_OH on November 30, 2011 at 4:17 PM

However, as we learned in 2010 and as we’re learning to some extent during the early month of the 2012 election cycle, the movement has also caused the party to go off on bizarre tangents at times and to take insane stands like appearing to be willing to take the nation to the brink of financial chaos back in August. The “no compromise” position that the Tea Party represents may be good for internal party consumption and it may make the true believers happy, but it’s not good government and it’s probably not a good long term political strategy.

So tired of people who don’t understand the TP presuming to understand what it wants. We’re not against compromise. We’re against being the only ones who compromise. We want spending CUTS, not cuts-to-future-planned-increases. We’d allow revenue increases to get said cuts. That’s compromise. What they’re offering us is no real cuts and revenue increases and tax rate increases, and say we’re inflexible when we turn it down. That’s not compromise, that’s capitulation.

alwaysfiredup on November 30, 2011 at 4:25 PM

I never have really seen the arguments that McCain lost b/c the base stayed home. I think that is a straw-man built up to then tear down. I don’t recall reading a single opinion piece that claimed that McCain’s loss was due to the base staying home.

the argument, as I’ve always maintained and I think other conservatives do as well, is that when you nominate a “moderate republican” you aren’t really giving the mushy middle a clear choice. And when people are choosing between 2 candidates without significant different sets of principals or stands, the default for many is going to be for the candidate from the party “that cares” and that the media supports and who has the better personality.

In 2008 you had the added problems of Bush fatigue and the most blatant media campaigning for a candidate ever. Plus McCain was just a lousy candidate on top of that.

But, if you had a decent candidate with strong convictions, running on something solid that can be clearly differentiated from the other guy, you have a better chance.

That doesn’t mean you have to always have a “true conservative” as I’m sure someone is going to claim I am saying. but someone with some set of clearly defined principals that can be sold to independents and that can be clearly differentiated from the dem candidate. Yes, I want those clearly identified and defined principals to be as conservative as possible. But, with a McCain or a Romney, you don’t have that. They are all over the board on issues and you can’t say that they have a unifying philosophy on how to govern.

Finally, I can’t take seriously anyone who uses the argument “the Tea Party forced the GOP not to compromise or negotiate and therefore took us to the brink of financial disaster” when discussing the debt ceiling debate. That is untrue on so many levels its not worth discussing – but shows a mindset of the writer that makes everything else in his piece lack any credibility.

Monkeytoe on November 30, 2011 at 4:39 PM

The “no compromise” position that the Tea Party represents may be good for internal party consumption and it may make the true believers happy…

The TEA Party is happy to compromise, but we’re done having the Republicans surrender and call it a “compromise.”

Look at the most recent great Republican “compromises.”

Boehner’s $100 billion spending cut turned into almost nothing, I’m not sure that a single dollar of spending was actually cut.

Boehner’s “compromise” on raising the debt ceiling was $2.4 Trillion in new spending debt for Obama in exchange for an $80 billion cut this year, which was most likely only a cut in their spending dreams, along with worthless Democrat promises of future spending cuts and the equally worthless super committee. Has a worse deal ever been made, even in DC?

RJL on November 30, 2011 at 4:53 PM

I’m struck by the stupidity of this exercise in “what if’s”.

It’s like worrying about how the home team will feel if they lose the big game only a thousand times worse – more like how the soldiers will feel if they lose the war. It doesn’t make any difference! There is no “oh well, maybe next year” when you lose the war.

As far as I’m concerned, this coming election will be the defining battle in the cultural war that’s been raging in this nation for the past 50 years. If we lose it’s over: hand wringing over “what if’s” and “should have’s” will be pointless exercises in futility. You can either bow to your progressive masters or escape across the border – which I’m doing.

Rod on November 30, 2011 at 5:25 PM

The TEA Party is happy to compromise, but we’re done having the Republicans surrender and call it a “compromise.”

Look at the most recent great Republican “compromises.”

Boehner’s $100 billion spending cut turned into almost nothing, I’m not sure that a single dollar of spending was actually cut.

Boehner’s “compromise” on raising the debt ceiling was $2.4 Trillion in new spending debt for Obama in exchange for an $80 billion cut this year, which was most likely only a cut in their spending dreams, along with worthless Democrat promises of future spending cuts and the equally worthless super committee. Has a worse deal ever been made, even in DC?

RJL on November 30, 2011 at 4:53 PM

I’m sure Boehner believes in “American exceptionalism” so much that he is very sure we will grow our way out of our debt, no matter what. China will be happy to lend us more when we hit 25 trillion. Interest rates will stay very low forever.

V-rod on November 30, 2011 at 5:28 PM

If Romney is the nominee and he loses, it’s likely the reaction will be the same and that, at least, initially we’ll see the activists in the GOP go on another purity quest. On Capitol Hill, this would likely have the impact of making the House GOP even less willing to compromise than it has been since the 2010 elections

Except that it isn’t the Republicans refusing to compromise.

Democrats provide no plans or strategies, other than “tax the rich”, while the Republicans draft plan after plan.

So the only people refusing to compromise on real economic proposals are Democrats…

… sheesh.

Yet people are too dumb, or just too stubborn to admit it.

Lawrence on November 30, 2011 at 5:34 PM

I was ballparking the GDP, it is more like 2 not 4, however, the feds are spending $2 for every $1 in taxes, that is indeed 100% overspending, and the reason everyone will be bankrupt is because we, the backstop, are gone.

Vashta.Nerada on November 30, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Steve already dealt with the deficit but as for world GDP it was around $63 trillion last year and probably around $66 trillion, so no not “more like 2″ but 1.5 as I said.

Everyone else is already bankrupt, and it has little to do with the backstop being gone. Whether or not we were capable we wouldn’t be able to bail out the world anyhow, though looks like we will at least do Europe.

jarodea on November 30, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are non-viable candidates. Neither of them can beat Barack Hussein Obama by a long shot. Period. None of the current GOP candidates can win. Save one. Mitt Romney. Period.

Barack Hussein Obama is termed out if reelected. There is nothing stopping him from going all in and doing anything and everything his seditious America loathing little charcoal heart desires that the Houses cannot and/or will not block him from doing.

…’nuff said

FlatFoot on November 30, 2011 at 1:43 PM

I am not sure if I agree with you here on Romney being the only one to beat Obama…and everyone on this site knows how big of a supporter I am of Romney’s!

I WILL vote for whoever our nominee is because THAT is the goal of getting Obama out of office…I agree that if the SCOTUS turns then that willbe more damaging long term to our country than Obama’s next fours years BUT it will be very close!

g2825m on November 30, 2011 at 5:59 PM

I don’t have as much of a problem with Republicans losing in 2012 as I do with what if they win!!! The way the Republicans have handled the debt talks, so far, indicate they still don’t have a clue how serious the debt problem is and how to deal with it.

If they have al lthe power and fail to deal with it then I feel we must actively think about forming a serious 3rd party to challenge them both.

bflat879 on November 30, 2011 at 6:24 PM

“The “no compromise” position that the Tea Party represents”

Sorry, but only a Liberal could write that with respect to the debt ceiling.

MrX on November 30, 2011 at 6:42 PM

But if the nominee turns out to be the “Anti-Romney candidate” (insert name here) and they lose, then a different dynamic plays out. The finger pointing ensues, but in the opposite direction. The conversation will run along the lines of, “You Tea Partiers! You just HAD to have it your way, didn’t you? You couldn’t just nominate Mitt. Noooooo. You had to put in another Christine O’Donnell candidate. You’d rather lose the war than win a battle!”

Backwards. It’s the establishment that wants Mitt, on the theory that he appeals to the independents, even though it’s clear that the Republican base doesn’t care for him. If they get what they want, and Mitt loses — as he probably would, being about as appealing as warm spit — then I’m quite sure the establishment Republicans and pundits would make excuses about how nobody could have won, and it was just a bad year.

I’m afraid the real bottom line is that we’d better focus on winning Congress, because we can’t count on winning the White House even in a year when it should be a cakewalk. The Republican party has drifted too far to the left in the hopes of appealing to the independents, rather than laying out a clear difference between themselves and the Democrats.

In fact, this whole article looks an awful lot like an extended pre-excuse for losing with a half-left candidate rather than someone the Republican voters actually like.

didymus on November 30, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Of course, the third scenario is the one where the Republican wins. No matter whether it’s Romney or Not-Romney, everyone sits back down quietly for the most part and breaths a collective sigh of relief. And if that’s the case, the coat tails will likely take the Senate back over to the GOP side and then the Republicans will get to prove whether or not their theories can actually improve things before we begin the whole shooting match all over again a year later.

Shaw, `there is another….`. Lets say Newt wins the nomination and then proceeds to clobber Obama with in-the-face fact attacks and wins with numbers equal to Reagan’s second term. You don’t think the Tea Party contingent is not going to stand up and say –

Damn it, I told you so!

The conclusion of which the Teas then demand the dismantling of the old guard to make way for a aggressive conservative second class citizens no more. That will be a revolution within the party.

That is the establishment GOPs’ worst nightmare and they know it.

Dr. Dog on November 30, 2011 at 9:31 PM

If Newt is the nominee and clobbers Obama, I give him three years before he has made everybody so irritated that they’ll be griping about not having nominated somebody with some executive experience and a steady hand.

The Democrats were nearly done for after the 1972 election and but for Richard Nixon’s descent into paranoia and overweening abuse of the powers of the Presidency, we might have had a second Era of Good Feeling. The GOP had become nearly as “progressive” as the Democrats. It eventually righted itself and became more conservative under Reagan, but it took 6 unnecessary years and gave the Dems a new lease on life.

Of course, nobody can really say, but I agree with Doug that if the GOP divides like the Dems did in 1968, it will be a squandered opportunity, maybe our last, best one.

flataffect on December 1, 2011 at 12:26 AM

Why do so many of us think this guy is invincible? He has done nothing right, diminished us at home and abroad and yet he is unbeatable? At the risk of being both politically incorrect and a racist, just how far is the color of his skin and white guilt going to take us before we wake up.

Cindy Munford on December 1, 2011 at 2:21 AM

I eagerly await this. When macro factors prevent a robust recovery, watching the GOP spin the lack of jobs and economic growth will be awful fun.

ernesto on November 30, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Excuses are for losers like PBHO. The job of POTUS (along with Congress) is to CHANGE the macro factors such that they improve our lives and standard of living. America is still the largest and most influential economy on Earth and Romney will not spend his entire 1st term crying about the mess (or ditch or whatever the lame metaphor of the day that PBHO uses) that his predecessor left.

He has already laid out a plan, full of the right forms of remedies, that is both realistic and will be effective in FIXING those macro factors by enabling capitalism to thrive first in America and then the rest of the world.

MJBrutus on December 1, 2011 at 6:40 AM

I think America actually needs another Obama term.
I say this bcs I still see the same ‘conservatives’ whining about where their gravy is.
Like for instance:
I am OWED SS/Medicaid. Bcs I paid into all these years. Therefore it’s MINE. (nevermind they’ll collect more in services & $$ on avg. than they ever paid into it).

I have a right to that unemployment. Bcs I paid into it. So it’s mine.
(same dealie)

I’m a TAXPAYER! I deserve (insert Federal Program name)!

Along with receiving grants for college, and all other manner of monies for this, that, and the other thing.
‘Conservatives’ in charge of spending at the local level.
Like for instance, the ‘conservative’ volunteer fire dept. choosing to spend their $$ on brand new oak cabinets for the firehall when the old ones were perfectly fine. They then apply for a federal homeland security grant to buy a brand new firetruck & trick it out with expensive rims, etc.

How many of these stories can some of us tell about our fellow ‘conservatives’?
It’s hard to have faith in your fellow countrymen when this is how they act.
Plus, over half, in my experience, of these ‘conservatives’, won’t even go out & take the time to vote, hold their local voted officials accountable by going to public meetings, etc.
This is why America deserves another 4 years of Obama.
I’m not saying those of us who stick by our principles deserve this.
But as a collective people, we are a sad sack of crap.
And we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Badger40 on December 1, 2011 at 7:02 AM

Badger40 on December 1, 2011 at 7:02 AM

We aren’t really going to be able to deal with any serious issues in this country until the baby boomer generation dies off. that generation truly is the worst generation in American history. Almost every current problem in America can be traced back to them in the 60′s and 70′s and the inability to do anything about those problems now can be traced to them currently. The most selfish, greedy, and arrogant generation of all time.

In fact, instead of calling them the “baby boomers” we should refer to them as “The Worst Generation”. It is much more fitting.

Monkeytoe on December 1, 2011 at 8:35 AM

What if the nominee isn’t Mitt Romney, but one of the Tea Party favored candidates, the most realistic of those being either Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich?

I don’t agree that the Tea Party candidates are Perry or Newt. When did the Tea Party select a candidate? Sarah Palin had a strong following as well as Michelle Bachman. Stop taking literary license.

Herb on December 1, 2011 at 9:58 AM

the Republicans will get to prove whether or not their theories can actually improve things before we begin the whole shooting match all over again a year later.

I eagerly await this. When macro factors prevent a robust recovery, watching the GOP spin the lack of jobs and economic growth will be awful fun.

ernesto on November 30, 2011 at 12:21 PM

So, lil ernie would rather see a lengthening of the recession – or even an eventual decline into a full-blown depression – than to see the Republicans succeed in turning things around.
Yeah. That’s pretty much typical of leftists and other America-haters.

Solaratov on December 1, 2011 at 12:00 PM

How are all these macro programs (from R’s or D’s) going to help the out of work guy in Detroit or Wilkes-Barre, again?

I need to buy an expensive dinner and ask Dear Leader about that.

IlikedAUH2O on December 1, 2011 at 12:32 PM

the Republicans will get to prove whether or not their theories can actually improve things before we begin the whole shooting match all over again a year later.

I eagerly await this. When macro factors prevent a robust recovery, watching the GOP spin the lack of jobs and economic growth will be awful fun.

ernesto on November 30, 2011 at 12:21 PM

The thing is that there is unlikely to be a “robust” recovery under a GOP president. However, unlike Obama who actively works against a recovery with his policies, a GOP president would do things to allow the economy to recover – although I believe it will be a long slow recovery.

Didn’t Obama run on solving all of Earth’s problems? But now its all stuff beyond a president’s control. Typical liberal. You can’t blame him for bad, you give him all the credit for good (although there has been almost none of that) and you blame republicans for everything. Clinton inherits an economy that was growing for more than 20 years b/c of Reagan’s policies plus the tech boom? Clinton’s tax increases caused it! Reagan wins the cold war despite complete opposition from liberals/dems? Oh – the USSR would have fallen anyway. Reagan didn’t really do anything.

Now with Obama? “Macro factors are causing all the problems, there’s nothing the poor guy can do”.

And you accuse us of spin?

Monkeytoe on December 1, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are non-viable candidates. Neither of them can beat Barack Hussein Obama by a long shot. Period. None of the current GOP candidates can win. Save one. Mitt Romney. Period.

Barack Hussein Obama is termed out if reelected. There is nothing stopping him from going all in and doing anything and everything his seditious America loathing little charcoal heart desires that the Houses cannot and/or will not block him from doing.

…’nuff said

FlatFoot on November 30, 2011 at 1:43 PM

See, I don’t see how Mitt can win against Obama; the guy couldn’t even handle an interview on Fox, who loves the guy.

If he can’t deal with Fox, how is he going to handle it when MSNBC and Politico bring out the long knives for the general?

Voyager on December 3, 2011 at 12:06 PM

What would happen?
The other 49 (or 56) states would be as boned as California is now.
No telling where California itself would be.

TimBuk3 on December 5, 2011 at 8:14 AM

Comment pages: 1 2