Schwarzenegger Says Obama Likely to Get Re-Elected

Schwarzenegger Says Obama Likely to Get Re-Elected

Barack Obama's Democrats may be facing a drubbing in upcoming US midterm congressional elections, but California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, says the US president will likely get re-elected. The Republicans, he argues, are incapable at the moment of finding a candidate viable against Obama.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says he is certain that President Barack Obama will get re-elected in two years -- even if his own party, the conservative Republicans, turn out to be the victors in midterm Congressional elections in November.

"I assume that Obama will get a second term in office," Schwarzenegger told SPIEGEL. Schwarzenegger apparently doesn't believe the Republicans will succeed in finding a challenger capable of securing a victory against Obama. If Obama's Democrats lose their current majority in the House of Representatives -- a development expected by many -- Schwarzenegger says it could actually provide a boost to the US president's prospects for re-election.

"Obama can watch this casually, knowing that afterwards he will be in a much better position," he said.

The Republicans have adopted Obama's health care reforms as their main campaign issue and they would like to roll those changes back after the election. But Schwarzenegger is defending the president against criticism from within the Republican Party. "The conservatives had many years in Washington to push through their reforms," the governor said. "But what ever happened to the Republican health care reform?"

i don't put much emphasis on any Ahnold says. He's no conservative, so his opinion is moot to me.

Obama will be a one-term prez.

Well he's not the sharpest tool in the shed, that's for sure.

He's the best that California can get though. The state is a very liberal far-left state. Their legislature is controlled by Dems and has been for quite some time. Any Repub in that state is basically powerless to do anything there.

Schwarzenegger only got elected because of who he is, not because of what he stands for.

Pretty much. But don't discount the guy he replaced. He was a miserable failure as a Gov.

Obama may lose the White House in 2012, but it would be to another Democrat. Personally I would love to see Joe Biden resign as VP and then run.

But no, I don't see any Republican winning the White House in 2012. They don't have any viable candidates.

i_luv_miley wrote:Obama may lose the White House in 2012, but it would be to another Democrat. Personally I would love to see Joe Biden resign as VP and then run.

But no, I don't see any Republican winning the White House in 2012. They don't have any viable candidates.

JOE BIDEN???? Biden doesn't two neurons to rub together!!! Why on earth would you want Joe Biden??? I mean, sure, he'd be less destructive that Obama, but the guy is a walking gaff machine with a brain the equivalent of a BB is a box car.

Oh, and there's a very, very slim chance that a Democrat will land in the White House in 2012. Republicans could probably run Bozo the Clown and sweep Obama or any Democrat challenger...

Seriously though, Obama is absolutely finished in national politics, and I can't think of a single candidate they could run that would win against the Republicans.

I could be wrong of course, 2 years is a long way off in political time, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

Let's meet up here in November 2012 and see.

i_luv_miley wrote:Obama may lose the White House in 2012, but it would be to another Democrat. Personally I would love to see Joe Biden resign as VP and then run.

But no, I don't see any Republican winning the White House in 2012. They don't have any viable candidates.

People are waking up to the fact that it really doesn't matter who's in the WH. What does matter is who controls congress.

Bama will face a real test after this fall. We'll see how bi-partisan he really is.

TexasBlue wrote:Pretty much. But don't discount the guy he replaced. He was a miserable failure as a Gov.

Gray Davis was a disaster... that's why he was booted out before he could even finish his term of office. You know you're bad if the people have to hold the state's first-ever recall election to boot you out of office.

Sadly, the guy I wanted, a real conservative, Tom McClintock, never stood a chance in that recall election, because he was a real Republican, as opposed to the RINO I knew that Arnold was and is.

Unfortunately, Arnold was only marginally better that Davis, so it took a little longer for the state to slide into the abyss it now finds itself in, but there was never any doubting that Arnold would get it there.

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:Obama may lose the White House in 2012, but it would be to another Democrat. Personally I would love to see Joe Biden resign as VP and then run.

But no, I don't see any Republican winning the White House in 2012. They don't have any viable candidates.

People are waking up to the fact that it really doesn't matter who's in the WH. What does matter is who controls congress.

Bama will face a real test after this fall. We'll see how bi-partisan he really is.

Actually, I disagree with this premise, and I always have. In fact, it is because the Democrats had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate (as opposed to the bare majorities that the Republicans previously held - especially in the Senate), that made a Democrat in the White House, and an especially radical one at that, that this country now teeters on the precipice of disaster. It VERY MUCH matters who is in the White House when both Houses are dominated by one Party.

And just imagine how much better things would have been had Reagan had a majority of Republicans in both Houses as large as the Democrats now enjoy (instead of both Houses being dominated by the Democrats). Why he could have followed through on ALL of his cost cutting measures, could have eliminated the Dept of Education (as he wished to do), could have slashed federal spending and reformed entitlement programs - could, in fact, have implemented all the truly conservative measures he desired, but was unable to because he had to wheel-and-deal with the Democrats to get anything done at all.

It is because we have never had a real conservative President at the same time as we've had a real, and overwhelming, majority of conservatives in both Houses, that we have the mess we have today. Yeah, Bush had a majority in the House and Senate, but it was never a large enough majority to overcome the Democrats incessant filibustering. And besides, Bush was not a real conservative Republican.

So it very much matter's who is in the White House. And if we are to seriously turn this country around, we are going to need an overwhelming majority of real Republicans in both Houses and a real Republican President in the White House.

dblboggie wrote:Actually, I disagree with this premise, and I always have. In fact, it is because the Democrats had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate (as opposed to the bare majorities that the Republicans previously held - especially in the Senate), that made a Democrat in the White House, and an especially radical one at that, that this country now teeters on the precipice of disaster. It VERY MUCH matters who is in the White House when both Houses are dominated by one Party.

That's what i was talking about. If Bama has a GOP controlled congress, that will put a stop to many of his big gov't initiatives. One can't always have or get what they want. We had a GOP controlled gov't and congress blew it back then... which gave us Obama in 2008 and the 2006 Dem control of congress. Had the GOP grew a set back in 2001 on thru to 2006, they (and Bush) would've had a better record to run on.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Actually, I disagree with this premise, and I always have. In fact, it is because the Democrats had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate (as opposed to the bare majorities that the Republicans previously held - especially in the Senate), that made a Democrat in the White House, and an especially radical one at that, that this country now teeters on the precipice of disaster. It VERY MUCH matters who is in the White House when both Houses are dominated by one Party.

That's what i was talking about. If Bama has a GOP controlled congress, that will put a stop to many of his big gov't initiatives. One can't always have or get what they want.

But just stopping further big government initiatives is not enough! We MUST repeal those already enacted and reverse the massive increase in unconstitutional government power already passed by this Congress. And we CAN'T do that with just a majority of Republican's in both Houses - Obama, or any Democrat President could simply veto any attempt to reverse the damage this Congress and Obama has done.

TexasBlue wrote:We had a GOP controlled gov't and congress blew it back then... which gave us Obama in 2008 and the 2006 Dem control of congress.

But I've already addressed this. We did NOT have enough of a Republican majority to avoid the Democrats filibustering. One has to have enough of a majority to override a filibuster or you're screwed! And to make things worse, part of our Senate majority were outright RINO's, they may as well been Democrats! When you add that RINO Bush to the mix, then we truthfully had little more than Democrat-lite!

TexasBlue wrote:Had the GOP grew a set back in 2001 on thru to 2006, they (and Bush) would've had a better record to run on.

But again, even if the House had a pair, they didn't have enough of a majority to act on it. Therein lies the rub. And Bush was NEVER going to be other than he was, a RINO, a big government, big spending Republican in name only.

What we need is the Republican version of what the Democrats have now. We need a true conservative President, a true conservative House and Senate leadership that can inspire the members of congress and whip them into line to do the right thing. Nothing less is required to reverse the track this nation is on.

You're right.

I have a funny feeling that even conservatives are going to be surprised at the results next month. Pleasantly surprised. Of course, the media is going to go ape shit.

Which leads us back to what i said.... that Obama is going to actually be bi-partisan. He hasn't been in the 20 months he's been prez. Even when he had a filibuster-proof Senate, he couldn't get some legislation passed and still blamed the GOP.

TexasBlue wrote:You're right.

I have a funny feeling that even conservatives are going to be surprised at the results next month. Pleasantly surprised. Of course, the media is going to go ape shit.

Which leads us back to what i said.... that Obama is going to actually be bi-partisan. He hasn't been in the 20 months he's been prez. Even when he had a filibuster-proof Senate, he couldn't get some legislation passed and still blamed the GOP.

Yep... that's what I'm hoping for; that the Blue Dogs and some other Democrats will take a Republican sweep as the cue to resist an attempt by the Democrats to jam through card-check and cap-and-trade and other destructive legislation in the lame-duck session. It's a faint hope, but it is hope nonetheless.

And yes, I did not miss the irony of Obama blaming the Republicans for the failure of some of his initiatives despite the fact that the Democrats had overwhelming majorities and could have passed anything they wanted had they all been on the same page.

For those not in the know in here, the House can pass anything with a simple majority which the Dems have had since 2006.

From the middle of last year, the Dems had a filibuster-proof Senate majority... even thru the HC debate/bill. Filibuster-proof is that the opposition can't stop any legislation from passing except to slow it down with procedural maneuvers.

i_luv_miley wrote:Obama may lose the White House in 2012, but it would be to another Democrat. Personally I would love to see Joe Biden resign as VP and then run.

But no, I don't see any Republican winning the White House in 2012. They don't have any viable candidates.

Does Obama still have to retain the support of his party then prior to the 2012 elections? Interesting, party leaders here are leaders until they resign or are given a vote of no confidence.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:Obama may lose the White House in 2012, but it would be to another Democrat. Personally I would love to see Joe Biden resign as VP and then run.

But no, I don't see any Republican winning the White House in 2012. They don't have any viable candidates.

Does Obama still have to retain the support of his party then prior to the 2012 elections? Interesting, party leaders here are leaders until they resign or are given a vote of no confidence.

Nope. His party could turn against him 100% and he stays till his term is done. If he ends up with a GOP control congress, he won't get much of what he wants like he has been getting. He'll have to compromise. Compromise is always best when dealing with what he's going to come January. If the GOP only grabs the House and not the Senate, its still the same scenario.

No sorry, what I meant was does he have to go through a voting process within his own party as he did against Hilary Clinton in 2008 in order to be put forward for reelection to the Presidency in the first place?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:No sorry, what I meant was does he have to go through a voting process within his own party as he did against Hilary Clinton in 2008 in order to be put forward for reelection to the Presidency in the first place?

Oh ok. Yeah, if he runs for re-election, it's the same process all over again. He has to secure the nomination of his party.

Ok, thanks for clarification. I find it a bit odd, but not surprising. I guess it gives his party the chance to ask "is this person really the best person to take us into the next election?" I guess it is usually a foregone conclusion that an incumbent President is bound to get the backing of his party.

As I said, over here a party leader cannot be deposed except with a vote of no confidence or resignation.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Ok, thanks for clarification. I find it a bit odd, but not surprising. I guess it gives his party the chance to ask "is this person really the best person to take us into the next election?" I guess it is usually a foregone conclusion that an incumbent President is bound to get the backing of his party.

As I said, over here a party leader cannot be deposed except with a vote of no confidence or resignation.

Yeah, and given his performance so far, he might not get it next round unless things improve. I'm sure that there's going to be other Dems that will challenge him for the nomination.... Hillary being one of them (i bet).

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Ok, thanks for clarification. I find it a bit odd, but not surprising. I guess it gives his party the chance to ask "is this person really the best person to take us into the next election?" I guess it is usually a foregone conclusion that an incumbent President is bound to get the backing of his party.

As I said, over here a party leader cannot be deposed except with a vote of no confidence or resignation.

Very interesting Matt. I confess a massive ignorance of your system of government. Tell me, on what schedule are elections for the office of Prime Minister held in the UK?

Here, we have Presidential elections every 4 years (preceded by the primary races of course) concurrent with elections for US Representatives (House) and Senators. In between we have mid-term (mid a Presidential term) elections for US Reps and Senators. US Reps serve two year terms and US Senators serve 6 year terms. Only one third of the Senate is up for election every 2 years.

How does it work in the UK? Is it that simple, simpler, or is it more complex that that?

We don't elect Prime Ministers. The party chooses its own leader. At a General Election, Parliament is dissolved and we elect MPs to represent each area at Parliament. The party with the most votes wins the election and its leader becomes Prime Minister.

At the moment, elections can be held whenever the exisiting government decides to call one but he period between each election must not exceed five years.

We don't elect Prime Ministers. The party chooses its own leader.

Heh. In theory. Our former Prime Minister was not elected by his party -he just took over when Tony Blair left - because no one would run against him. The Labour Part is, after all, full of spineless conniving jellyfish.

At the moment, elections can be held whenever the exisiting government decides to call one but he period between each election must not exceed five years.

Ask him what he means by 'at the moment', wuhahaha! I am Eeevil! If you do - he will have to explain the other part of the parliamentary reforms that the Conservatives want to introduce - regarding the percentages required to dissolve parliament. Hehehe. Evil.