Warren Ballintine:Sarah Palin will be the next President

[bigdarryl]

IF we African Americans do not get out and vote this November.So he says he's basing this bullshit on some fact that Micheal Bloomberg is seriously thinking of running in 2012 he thinks Bloomberg could take votes from Obama giving her the electoral collage if the rethugs are in control of Congress because it would be up to them to make the final call.I personally haven't heard of Bloomberg thinking of running in 2012 I don't know where he's getting his info from on this.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. this is Koch-ie talk, nothing else.

The Kochs have invested so much into I'll ask her's finest moose hunter, that they have to try to finish it up.

Sarah is stupid, energetic, demanding, greedy, unread, but 100% damned sure of herself. Despite a voice that mimics nails on a chalkboard, she also has legs and tits. Unfortunately, that seems to be enough for member of the Tea Bagger Party.

The truth is that she has no chance. Most GOPers cannot stand her. even more non-affiliated do not trust her. And I don't see one democrat ever voting for her. I have met snowballs deep in satan's kilns, that have a better chance than she.

[bigdarryl]

4. YEAH I here what your saying but there are a lot of STUPID candidates running in this election

that probably will win unfortunately

[shraby]

2. What's with all the b***s*** talk of who will be the next

president when this election isn't over yet? We got a bunch of prophets running around now? Tweety tried that garbage yesterday too.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. They're setting the stage.

By early 2012 they want to have the notion firmly in place that Obama can't be re-elected.

Start early, slip in the little comments here and there like an entering wedge, and soon the whole media establishment is trumpeting the same theme.

They need to run a Democrat in now & then to take some of the heat ff the Republicans for presiding over the corporate shift. Then they sink the Democrat. Clinton's the one that got away from them, although much of what he had to do to stay in office involved turning Republican-lite.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. Of what?

:shrug:

[Blue Owl]

5. Good to start the day off with a laugh or two

:rofl:

[Pirate Smile]

6. Obama is better positioned for re-election in '12 than Reagan was in '82

47% say they want Obama to run again in '12. In '82, that number was 36% for Reagan, according to Pew.

Obama Better Positioned For Re-Elect Than Reagan

By Jeremy P. Jacobs
October 26, 2010 | 7:55 AM

More Americans want Pres. Obama to seek re-election in 2012 than wanted Ronald Reagan to run for a second term when he was facing his first midterm election in 1982, according to new polling.

Still, Obama's position isn't particularly strong in the Pew Research/National Journal Congressional Connection poll that was sponsored by SHRM. The poll found that 47 percent want Obama to seek a second term. In August of 1982, only 36 percent wanted Reagan to run again.

And, unlike Reagan, less say Obama should not run for re-election. Forty-two percent responded that Obama should sit out 2012, compared to a majority -- 51 percent -- who said the same of Reagan in 1982.

The numbers indicate the well-documented struggles presidents typically have when they face their first midterm election after winning the White House. Both Reagan and Obama faced severe economic problems in their first two years in office. Like Reagan, Obama will undoubtedly seek to rebound after what looks like it will be a devastating midterm election for his party this year.

Obama's numbers are most reminiscent of Pres. Bill Clinton's when he was going into the GOP tidal wave in the 1994 midterm election. That year, 44 percent wanted Clinton to run again while a higher percentage -- 47 percent -- said he shouldn't.

The Pew survey was conducted Oct. 21 to 24. It surveyed 1,006 adults and had a margin of error of +/- 4 percent.

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/10/obama-better-po-1.php

I think I'll go post this as an OP.

[mwb970]

7. I realized today that $arah is the anti-me!

If you reversed everything about me, you would get a dumb, attractive, religious, conservative woman. And who does THAT sound like?

[political_Dem]

9. Having Palin or Bloomberg for President is one reason why we cannot skip an election season.

This is the time we've got to fight for our future because there are people in politics who want to seriously undermine it. People who love this country can't let it fall to the idiots. To do so would lead to disaster.

I for one do not want to go back to the fifties. There was nothing glamorous about Jim Crow.

[onenote]

10. while I think this is an unlikely scenario, it does focus attention on some interesting numbers

Under the Constitution (and, again, I think its unlikely it would get to this point), if no single candidate gets a majority of the electoral college vote, the presidency is determined by a vote of the House of Representatives, with each state getting one vote. In all likelihood, that means that if a State's Congressional delegation has a majority of Democrats, that state's vote will go for the Democratic Candidate; and if there are more repubs in the state delegation, the vote would go to the repub.

Again,again and again -- I don't think its going to come to this and I don't think anyone can truly predict how it would play out if it did. But it does serve to bring attention to the fact that today, twice as many of the state delegations in the House (32 to 16) have Democratic majorities (with two states split evenly). That's the good news. The less than good news is that in 24 of the 32 states with a Democratic majority in the delegation, a swing of only one or two seats from D to R would shift the majority to the repubs.

The wild card of course is that no one knows what the make up of the House would look like after 2012. Even if the Democrats lose the House next week, if the repubs nominate Palin and Bloomberg runs as a third party candidate, life for incumbent repub members running for reelection will be quite tricky, since hitching their star to Palin could easily cost them reelection. If Palin was to run, without or without Bloomberg, and no matter how well Bloomberg did, I suspect that the Democrats would pick up a number of seats from first term repubs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Bloomberg Like Perot Won't Carry One State

As someone with a graduate degree in Political Science I am amazed at the crap that masquerades as analysis by some pundits in the main stream press. They are really bad.

While Bloomberg won't win one state it is not implausible he will split the left of center vote and allow the right of center candidate, whomever he or she might be , to win.

[onenote]

13. I agree, at least as of today.

THe best Perot did was around 30 percent of the vote in Maine (he topped 25 percent in six other states). While I think its possible that Bloomberg could do better than Perot, I think getting over 35 percent in any state is a pretty big hurdle.

[CanonRay]

11. God, if there is one, help us.