Running from Obama

[aix_xpert]

Anyone think that the posturing of our president regarding both immigration executive action and potentially vetoing the pipeline are setup so that Democrats can take counter positions against him, thus alleviating the anchor he will continue to be in the 2016 election? You already see it with Landeau (sp?) in LA. I just find it hard to believe that anyone (including our president) is so narscisistic to pivot even further left following the drubbing from the midterms.

Justin

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Hary Reid wouldn't even allow a vote on the pipeline prior to the election, in order to appease billionaire and born-again environmentalist, Dem donor Tom Steyer. Now that the Dems have nothing to lose he's willing to let it come up to give a Mary Landrieu at least a puncher's chance in her upcoming run-off.

 

[imprimis]

No. Hide and watch. What we see from Obama the next two years will be unimaginable and never seen in our country previously.

Landrieu is doing this solely to keep her Senate seat.



This post was edited on 11/13 2:03 PM by imprimis

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by aix_xpert:
Anyone think that the posturing of our president regarding both immigration executive action and potentially vetoing the pipeline are setup so that Democrats can take counter positions against him, thus alleviating the anchor he will continue to be in the 2016 election? You already see it with Landeau (sp?) in LA. I just find it hard to believe that anyone (including our president) is so narscisistic to pivot even further left following the drubbing from the midterms.

Justin

The dems that lost were the ones that ran away from Obama.

Any move on immigration is completely calculated for maximum political effect, though.

This post was edited on 11/13 2:47 PM by 07pilt

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by aix_xpert:
Anyone think that the posturing of our president regarding both immigration executive action and potentially vetoing the pipeline are setup so that Democrats can take counter positions against him, thus alleviating the anchor he will continue to be in the 2016 election? You already see it with Landeau (sp?) in LA. I just find it hard to believe that anyone (including our president) is so narscisistic to pivot even further left following the drubbing from the midterms.

Justin

The dems that lost were the ones that ran away from Obama.

Any move on immigration is completely calculated for maximum political effect, though.

This post was edited on 11/13 2:47 PM by 07pilt

So are you saying that had those dems, that ran away from Obama, simply embraced him and had him campaign for them would have won?

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by aix_xpert:
Anyone think that the posturing of our president regarding both immigration executive action and potentially vetoing the pipeline are setup so that Democrats can take counter positions against him, thus alleviating the anchor he will continue to be in the 2016 election? You already see it with Landeau (sp?) in LA. I just find it hard to believe that anyone (including our president) is so narscisistic to pivot even further left following the drubbing from the midterms.

Justin

The dems that lost were the ones that ran away from Obama.

Any move on immigration is completely calculated for maximum political effect, though.

This post was edited on 11/13 2:47 PM by 07pilt

So are you saying that had those dems, that ran away from Obama, simply embraced him and had him campaign for them would have won?

Hard to prove a counter factual, but the biggest losers all ran away from Obama and a progressive agenda while left/progressive wing of the party did well relative to the blue dog wing.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by aix_xpert:
Anyone think that the posturing of our president regarding both immigration executive action and potentially vetoing the pipeline are setup so that Democrats can take counter positions against him, thus alleviating the anchor he will continue to be in the 2016 election? You already see it with Landeau (sp?) in LA. I just find it hard to believe that anyone (including our president) is so narscisistic to pivot even further left following the drubbing from the midterms.

Justin

The dems that lost were the ones that ran away from Obama.

Any move on immigration is completely calculated for maximum political effect, though.

This post was edited on 11/13 2:47 PM by 07pilt

So are you saying that had those dems, that ran away from Obama, simply embraced him and had him campaign for them would have won?

Hard to prove a counter factual, but the biggest losers all ran away from Obama and a progressive agenda while left/progressive wing of the party did well relative to the blue dog wing.

Hell I'll answer it for you since you never answer a question with at straight forward reply. The answer is a resounding no.

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by aix_xpert:
Anyone think that the posturing of our president regarding both immigration executive action and potentially vetoing the pipeline are setup so that Democrats can take counter positions against him, thus alleviating the anchor he will continue to be in the 2016 election? You already see it with Landeau (sp?) in LA. I just find it hard to believe that anyone (including our president) is so narscisistic to pivot even further left following the drubbing from the midterms.

Justin

The dems that lost were the ones that ran away from Obama.

Any move on immigration is completely calculated for maximum political effect, though.

This post was edited on 11/13 2:47 PM by 07pilt

So are you saying that had those dems, that ran away from Obama, simply embraced him and had him campaign for them would have won?

Hard to prove a counter factual, but the biggest losers all ran away from Obama and a progressive agenda while left/progressive wing of the party did well relative to the blue dog wing.

Hell I'll answer it for you since you never answer a question with at straight forward reply. The answer is a resounding no.

Prove it.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

100% of the GOP Senators-elect that grabbed a Dem seat ran ads opposing Obamacare.

 

[TPOKE]

07pilt reaching sys and Cup levels of delusion.

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

100% of the GOP Senators-elect that grabbed a Dem seat ran ads opposing Obamacare.

And all of those dems that lost seats (including Landrieu) are all from the right wing of the party . Hagan was pro Keystone and anti immigration.

Contrast the losers with Merkley and Franken.

This post was edited on 11/13 5:26 PM by 07pilt

 

[TPOKE]

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

100% of the GOP Senators-elect that grabbed a Dem seat ran ads opposing Obamacare.

And all of those dems that lost seats (including Landrieu) are all from the right wing of the party . Hagan was pro Keystone and anti immigration.

Contrast the losers with Merkley and Franken.

This post was edited on 11/13 5:26 PM by 07pilt

Oregon and Minnesota, Nice try. Next.

 

[squeak]

Oregon and Minnesota?!?!?!?! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[JimmyBob]

Originally posted by TPOKE:
07pilt reaching sys and Cup levels of delusion.


I find "ignore" a very effective counter to "delusion" and horse-shit.

 

[poke2001]

This may be the dumbest argument made by pilt yet.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

100% of the GOP Senators-elect that grabbed a Dem seat ran ads opposing Obamacare.

And all of those dems that lost seats (including Landrieu) are all from the right wing of the party . Hagan was pro Keystone and anti immigration.

Contrast the losers with Merkley and Franken.

This post was edited on 11/13 5:26 PM by 07pilt

They all voted for Obamacare.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by poke2001:
This may be the dumbest argument made by pilt yet.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

You call "prove it" an argument. My nine year old makes better arguments than that.

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Originally posted by poke2001:
This may be the dumbest argument made by pilt yet.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

You call "prove it" an argument. My nine year old makes better arguments than that.

No that is not an argument. Neither is "The answer is a resounding no."

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by TPOKE:
Oregon and Minnesota, Nice try. Next.

Obama's 2012 Oregon results: 54.24%. Merkley's 2014 Oregon results: 55.8%.
Obama's 2012 Minnesota results: 52.65%. Franken's 2014 Minnesots results: 53.2%.

Obama's 2012 North Carolina results: 48.35%. Hagan's 2014 North Carolina results: 47.3%.
Obama's 2012 Colorado results: 51.49%. Udall's 2014 Colorado results: 46.0%

Next.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by TPOKE:

Oregon and Minnesota, Nice try. Next.

Obama's 2012 Oregon results: 54.24%. Merkley's 2014 Oregon results: 55.8%.
Obama's 2012 Minnesota results: 52.65%. Franken's 2014 Minnesots results: 53.2%.

Obama's 2012 North Carolina results: 48.35%. Hagan's 2014 North Carolina results: 47.3%.
Obama's 2012 Colorado results: 51.49%. Udall's 2014 Colorado results: 46.0%

Next.

Are you claiming Udall is from the right wing of the party?

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:
Are you claiming Udall is from the right wing of the party?

Yes. Member of the blue dog coalition and by almost any measure he is to the right of the median democratic senator.

 

[TPOKE]

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by TPOKE:

Oregon and Minnesota, Nice try. Next.

Obama's 2012 Oregon results: 54.24%. Merkley's 2014 Oregon results: 55.8%.
Obama's 2012 Minnesota results: 52.65%. Franken's 2014 Minnesots results: 53.2%.

Obama's 2012 North Carolina results: 48.35%. Hagan's 2014 North Carolina results: 47.3%.
Obama's 2012 Colorado results: 51.49%. Udall's 2014 Colorado results: 46.0%

Next.

Are you claiming Udall is from the right wing of the party?

Are you also claiming that a Republican ever had a chance in Oregon and Minnesota?

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Originally posted by poke2001:
This may be the dumbest argument made by pilt yet.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

You call "prove it" an argument. My nine year old makes better arguments than that.

No that is not an argument. Neither is "The answer is a resounding no."

Prove it.

 

[imprimis]

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by TPOKE:

Oregon and Minnesota, Nice try. Next.

Obama's 2012 Oregon results: 54.24%. Merkley's 2014 Oregon results: 55.8%.
Obama's 2012 Minnesota results: 52.65%. Franken's 2014 Minnesots results: 53.2%.

Obama's 2012 North Carolina results: 48.35%. Hagan's 2014 North Carolina results: 47.3%.
Obama's 2012 Colorado results: 51.49%. Udall's 2014 Colorado results: 46.0%

Next.

Are you claiming Udall is from the right wing of the party?

There is no right wing in the democrat party. Those people are now republicans.

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by TPOKE:

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by TPOKE:

Oregon and Minnesota, Nice try. Next.

Obama's 2012 Oregon results: 54.24%. Merkley's 2014 Oregon results: 55.8%.
Obama's 2012 Minnesota results: 52.65%. Franken's 2014 Minnesots results: 53.2%.

Obama's 2012 North Carolina results: 48.35%. Hagan's 2014 North Carolina results: 47.3%.
Obama's 2012 Colorado results: 51.49%. Udall's 2014 Colorado results: 46.0%

Next.

Are you claiming Udall is from the right wing of the party?

Are you also claiming that a Republican ever had a chance in Oregon and Minnesota?

Udall would have likely lost in both states. All of this is beside the point. The original question is whether the coming Obama positions on immigration and keystone will be intentionally unpopular to give Dems something to disagree with Obama on in 2016. The answer is no, since it is not an effective strategy.

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by imprimis:
There is no right wing in the democrat party. Those people are now republicans.

I know that you are smart enough to know that right wing is a relative term not an absolute term. Just like Alaska has a southern half no matter how northern it is as a whole.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Udall did not support Keystone and he agrees with the Pres. on immigration. And voted in favor of Obamacare.

 

[07pilt]

And rather than running on that he spent the whole campaign trying to nail Gardner on Women's issues.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by 07pilt:
And rather than running on that he spent the whole campaign trying to nail Gardner on Women's issues.

Staples of the right wing agenda...

 

[07pilt]

Pretty middle of the road considering his Republican opponent is pro over the counter abortion pills.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

He was nicknamed Mark Uterus during the course of the campaign.

 

[TPOKE]

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by TPOKE:

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by TPOKE:

Oregon and Minnesota, Nice try. Next.

Obama's 2012 Oregon results: 54.24%. Merkley's 2014 Oregon results: 55.8%.
Obama's 2012 Minnesota results: 52.65%. Franken's 2014 Minnesots results: 53.2%.

Obama's 2012 North Carolina results: 48.35%. Hagan's 2014 North Carolina results: 47.3%.
Obama's 2012 Colorado results: 51.49%. Udall's 2014 Colorado results: 46.0%

Next.

Are you claiming Udall is from the right wing of the party?

Are you also claiming that a Republican ever had a chance in Oregon and Minnesota?

Udall would have likely lost in both states. All of this is beside the point. The original question is whether the coming Obama positions on immigration and keystone will be intentionally unpopular to give Dems something to disagree with Obama on in 2016. The answer is no, since it is not an effective strategy.

"The dems that lost were the ones that ran away from Obama." This was your quote 07. My point was that you bringing up Merck and Franken, who stuck with obama, won even though there wasn't a snowballs chance for a Republican in those states.

 

[gulfshorespoke]

How did it work out in Maryland? He spent more time there than anywhere as did the wookie and lost the gov race. Well done Barry.

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by TPOKE:

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by TPOKE:

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by TPOKE:

Oregon and Minnesota, Nice try. Next.

Obama's 2012 Oregon results: 54.24%. Merkley's 2014 Oregon results: 55.8%.
Obama's 2012 Minnesota results: 52.65%. Franken's 2014 Minnesots results: 53.2%.

Obama's 2012 North Carolina results: 48.35%. Hagan's 2014 North Carolina results: 47.3%.
Obama's 2012 Colorado results: 51.49%. Udall's 2014 Colorado results: 46.0%

Next.

Are you claiming Udall is from the right wing of the party?

Are you also claiming that a Republican ever had a chance in Oregon and Minnesota?

Udall would have likely lost in both states. All of this is beside the point. The original question is whether the coming Obama positions on immigration and keystone will be intentionally unpopular to give Dems something to disagree with Obama on in 2016. The answer is no, since it is not an effective strategy.

"The dems that lost were the ones that ran away from Obama." This was your quote 07. My point was that you bringing up Merck and Franken, who stuck with obama, won even though there wasn't a snowballs chance for a Republican in those states.

And my point is if you look at the numbers a Republican would have had great chance in both states if he/she were running against Mark Udall.

 

[Headhunter]

When Republicans can win the Governor position in Illinois and Maryland you now Obama and the Democrats are totally in the crapper.

Didn't Obama campaign for both Democrat candidates in those states?