Would a Republican victory in 2010 save Obama's Presidency?

Mmm, I don't know; I think it depends on what happens in the next few months. I think some, namely conservatives and republicans, are claiming Obama is a sinking ship way too early. Yeah, he's had some major difficulties, but what president hasn't?

With the way the Repbulicans have been behaving (obstructionist, and not at all constructive -- not to say the dems have been amazing and all...), I truly hope they do not get control of both parts of congress. At that point, because...well, many just don't like Obama no matter what he does, there would be nothing done, just look at the way things are going with health care.

I would hate to see a repeat of the Gingrich era. >_> Heh, american dreams/promise and contracts be damned. I've lost a lot of respect for him over the last year and half.

~AJ

Addendum:

The likely scenario - unless something drastic happens between now and then - is that the Democrats will lose (albeit in a close race) either the House or the Senate. I think it will more than likely be the House that they will lose. Seems drastic considering the number of seats they have, but it's still possible.

~AJ

President Bush II had higher approval ratings in his first year and didn't seem to have those major difficulties.

Pre- or post-9/11?

Your point?

I am still curious why so many people keep puting Republicans as the reason very little has been accomplished in an Administration controlled by Democrats from all 3 sides. White House, Congresss and Senate. Seems to me that the only real obstructionist here are those who would rather change their opinions on what Democrat agenda should be passed as oppose to losing their seats in 2010. Those whom I speak of are Democrats BTW.

But even more interesting is that very few people, especially those who continue to blame Republicans for the Democrats failure to achieve anything, continue to ignore the most important thing here; the American people, AKA the voters. I have to believe that the reason those Democrats who can not come together to an agreement of a Healthcare Bill that they would not need Republican votes to pass is that they are listening to the voters and are not willing to risk losing their positions in Congress and the Senate to pas something that one would have to is not a very popular concept at the time. Otherwise why would they be fighting amongst themselves and getting nowhere? This would indicate that recent polls are correct in that the majority want reform on healthcare just not what the Democrats (especially Obama) are offering. So again I wonder why do so many continue to blame Republicans for obstruction when the Democrats are the ones having difficulties passing anything, especially when it's something the majority does not seem to want.

Can it save Obama? If he is as smart as some put it, it might. But as frustrated as I am with the Democrats I am even more frustrated with the Republicans. Very few have actually shown any signs of loyalty to their constituents. Most of them are more like hyenas waiting for the sick Democrats to die rather than like lions taking control and showing who should be leading.

I can agree with that.

I'm not saying that they are THE reason Charles, but given that Obama has made attempts (which I'm sure you'll disagree with me on that) to be bipartisan. Granted, the responsibility of accepting any GOP concessions toward bipartisanship falls on congressional demcorats - who, admittedly, have been assinine (See: Pelosi, Reid) How can someone work with another group if that groups is so staunchly and viriulently against the person? Compromise, progress, change, bipartisanship, et al. is a two way street, and....well, will both parties work accordingly? In fact, I believe (don't quote me -- the article I'm vaguely remembering this from is, I think, in Salon) that the Senate version had many GOP introduced parts.

So....now what?

Stardock Thanks for the feature.

Everyone else... thanks for your input. As I said in the article, everything beyond this point is pure speculation. Its purpose is to follow the progression of actions (or  lack there of) as well as outside events that will shape the 2010 - 2012 elections. No responses are wrong for obvious reasons and events can change your position over time. All is fair. Both major parties (and maybe a third) will be in play.

Personally I'm looking for parallels between the Obama and Clinton administrations. I think although the events are quite different there are some broader similarities. I will not support or oppose anyones position (fair and balanced), but you all are free to engage as you see fit. After all this is America.

I really do hope there is a third pary in play; I would love to see some in-roads made by them. My money is on the Libertarian Party.

~AJ

When was President Bush's first year?

2001.

It pretty much ended with 911. But his approval ratings before that were apparently also higher than Obama's.

Apparently George Bush didn't have those "major difficulties".

Eight US soldiers died in Afghanistan yesterday at a remote outpost. As the casualty rate climbs, still no movement in Washington. Will this potential spoiler gain greater significance in the coming weeks? During the 2008 election Iraq was not the top issue and Afghanistan was even farther down the list. Obama stated that the Afghan war was the "just" war. Is he having second thoughts now? Bush was accused of not listening to his generals early on. Will Obama mimic his predecessor?

President Obama has won the Nobel Peace prize. Will this validate his policies at home or is it wishful thinking on the part of liberal Scandinavia? Obama's nomination, along with all other nominees, was entered back in February, only weeks after taking office. Will the Nobel committee get what they want from their selectee or will they have put all their eggs in one basket with a person that talks a good game but has yet to deliver much? 

I wouldn't call that hotbed of fascism and racism "liberal", but I think I know what you mean.

I wouldn't suggest that Scandinavia is a "hotbed", more of an indicator of where their head is. IMO it is not unusual at all that when it comes to world peace, many nations believe they are morally superior to the US... yet what have they ever accomplished to that end?

They simply think that there would be no wars if the US and Israel just stopped fighting them.

They honestly believe that.

Gone from a region that was at war constantly to....what was it again...oh right, peace...? There's "just a few"other things too, but I won't bore you with them.

Bit of a pronouncement; I mean we're not exactly Jesus now are we? I'm sure we like to think so at times...but anyways.

~AJ

Thank you. Lots of nations oppose war until it knocks on their door, as it did the US in 1941. Some again people long for the day when we will say no to the world in the interest of peace at home. It is easier to put out a small trash fire than wait until the house is burning.

Don't you know? You're not supposed to mention Jesus and politics in the same breath. We may not be like Jesus, maybe more like God, he doesn't mess around when he's unhappy. But anyway, we saw how peaceful the Norwegians were when the Nazis moved in, no turning the other cheek then. I guess they are the enlightened ones now, right? I wonder how peaceful will they remain when their populations become predominately Muslim?

Mm, I guess I get what I deserve for being a tad acerbic.

That being said, it's all well and easy to be judgmental and high and mighty concerning historical conflicts - they weren't as advanced and proggressive as we are (which is questionable, lol). It's far too easy to see them as barbarians....but really, are they - or are we? (Sorry, getting into phiolosphy/ethics, etc.) Simply put: Europe has done a lot, and I think you're being to American-centric, and not realy looking at what they have accomplished.

Whoops, my bad; I guess I'm the black sheep (Or a red headed step son at the Kennedy compound). Anyways, I really don't care what I'm supposed to say or not say. *shrugs*

Your point? You're twisting things around. On one hand you've justified military action that is clearly a violation of numerous things we're bound by, then you've supported military action that is - in my opinion at least - morally questionable....and yet you turn around and slam the Norweigans who were defending their country? wtf?

(Btw, Muslim's are 1.8% of the population of Norway, so approximately 84,000.)

~AJ

Sure, much better to analyze history and learn from it than repeat it.

I don't see anyone as a barbarian (even some cultures that could be considered that). You must be thinking of Mumble (he believes Americans are uncivilized). They can think what they want but just so they don't sell crazy here.

Not a slam. I applaud anyone that defends their nation. Just don't put down those that do, because you feel safe nowadays (due in a large way because of the nation you criticize).

...and growing.

I have noticed that Muslim immigrants are generally more popular where there are few of them and less popular where there are many of them.

Similarly Jews are more hated where there are few of them and accepted where there are many of them.

Interesting observation, I would tend to agree. My neighbor is Muslim, and I hardly see him or his family at all (perfection), Jewish families are few here as well but you can tell from their holiday displays, so I would say more visible than the Muslim population in my area at least. I'm wondering if your observations applies to visual presence as well? 

What I mean is that for example stories about Israel are most popular in Sweden, where there are almost no Jews and least popular in the US. In Europe, Germany has a somewhat high Jewish population and people are less anti-Semitic than in Sweden and Norway.

I also know from my own experience that Palestinian Arabs usually hate Jews and Israel less than your average European "peace activist".

The explosions in Ramadi this week, capital of Anbar province in Iraq, bear the hallmark of Al-Qaida. Will the Iraq War, largely thought to be won, slip back into chaos? How will this effect Obama's foreign policy?

The other day President Obama gave himself a "strong" B+ on his job performance. Personally speaking, I believe it is unwise for any politician, but especially the president, to grade their own performance. There are plenty of pundits to do that for them. So how does the JU public grade his performance? Here ate the categories: Afghanistan, Health Care, Climate Change, Jobs, Foreign policy. Add any additional areas you feel are relevant.