Everything you say here is correct. I'm sure a lot of Republican primary voters are pretty angry at him right now, but will they still be angry 3 years from now? I'm not so sure. Up until a week ago the Ann Coulter wing of the party loved him, and I think they might be willing to forgive his political "sin."
I do think he'd need to shed a few pounds to have a real chance. People might elect an overweight president, but they aren't likely to elect an obese one.

I made him a lukewarm favorite for two reasons. One is because I think 2016 is more likely to be a Republican year. Obviously a million things could happen between now and then to change that, but Americans are generally hesitant to give one party three terms in a row in the White House. I think he still may qualify as a slight favorite over Ryan and the rest because of his big personality. A big personality rocketed Newt Gingrich to the top of the polls briefly this time around, and Newt had nothing else going for him (no money, lots of baggage, etc.). If he runs, Christie figures to raise a lot of money to go along with his other attributes. I think he could be tough.

I think that Christie's temperment is going to be his undoing. He comes across as a bully and he is heavy handed about pretty much everything. He does speak plainly and doesnt bullshit but that may not play well nationally because he just isnt that likeable to start with. The other factor is NJ has a lot of financial issues that arent going away but it seems more than ever superficial issues and likeability trump the real issues.

:tro::tro:

you can't pass a budget without a 2/3 vote of both the assembly and state senate. republicans have used that to block any attempts at raising state revenue and it's partially (note i said partially) the reason the state has been in such fiscal trouble.

when i take a look at the fact that the state's voters have just passed a tax hike on themselves (prop 30) while also reducing republican members of the legislative branch to a level that they're now virtually inconsequential, i have to wonder why california republican's keep signing grover nordquist's pledge.

you can fairly say that state democrats won't be able to avoid full responsibility for the condition of the state in 2 years. i don't think there will be any argument. but republican intransigence on the revenue side has a lot to do with what conditions are now.

and so long as you view "voter stupidity" as the main reason your side isn't winning elections you've pretty much guarenteed you won't be winning many in the future either.

republican's in california have had to work hard at offending people to lose the proportion of the hispanic vote that now votes democratic. there is no reason that gap wouldn't close if your leaders could put a muzzle on the party xenophobes.

i think republican idea's on fiscal responsibility should to be part of the debate. but your party has forgotten that responsible governence requires compromise. you don't start a good faith debate by saying that revenue increases are off the table and you'll only be discussing cuts to services.

You make some good points. Maybe things would be better if the dems had been able to raise taxes like they wanted to. But on the other hand, taxes are already very high in this state. I think they really need to cut back on spending. If the democratic legislature had total control to do whatever they want, would they ever cut spending? I'm thinking they would probably just keep raising taxes.

and if they do they'll be voted out in two years.

i'm hopeful the message received by democrats isn't that the locks are off the candy store. if they act the way you suggest, they'll be just as irresponsible as republican's have been for decades where they would only discuss 1 side of the fiscal problem.

republican's could have been part of the solution but chose to stick by a pure ideology rather than make reasonable compromises. so they're out of the conversation entirely now.

i wish it were different. i don't think it's good when either side has the kind of power democrats will have. but i think it's minimally preferable to the permanent state of crisis that the republican abdication of legislative responsibility has brought on.

But he (Obama) will be venturing back into a Congressional environment similar to that of his first term, with the Senate under the control of Democrats and the House under the control of Republicans, whose leaders have hinted that they will be no less likely to challenge him than they were during the last four years.

that's from a ny times article.

challenge or be completely unwilling to work with him, or find compromise or solution?
i recently read 'america's great debate" that is about clay, douglas and others finding a solution to the many issues (cali statehood, slavery, texas threatening civil war over land that is now part of new mexico just to name a few) that were tearing the country apart. it would be nice if we could get people willing to work together now. but i'm not sure we have people similar to clay, douglas, benton, webster and the others involved.

Agree with most of the comments here.

Regarding the voting, don't forget that most of the problems (outside of the hurricane areas) where in states where Governors deliberately shorted hours, eliminated polling places, and made voting more difficult for people. That disaster was a feature, not a bug.

Solution - vote for governors that believe every American deserves the franchise, and expand voting hours and make it easier and more accessible.

I do think it's time to make Election Day a national holiday, simply so everybody has it off. Only about half of eligible Americans vote now, anyway. I don't think the entire country should go vote-by-mail, leave that up to states.

Fiscal cliff? Go off it. Jump. It's not a disaster. It's the plan of Reid Senate right now, I believe. Let all the Bush tax cuts expire. Every single one.

Then in January, get bills passed to give the tax cuts you want to middle class. The GOP will not be able to fight against giving tax cuts. The Dems already have them over the barrel on this, and the Dems know it. The Dems know that McConnell won't compromise. Boehner lost about seven of his crazies, and may be able to compromise now. You simply make new tax cuts retroactive to January 1 so folks don't pay even a week of higher taxes. Not rocket science.

The federal spending has been cut. The deficit has been cut. People refuse to acknowledge reality. You can't pay off massive debt with only cutting the budget. You have to increase revenue, which means losing tax loopholes, the rich paying more, etc. Lots of little things. Eliminate the 10 largest corps in this country paying zero taxes.

16 T-T-T-TRILLION dollars. Yeah, spending was cut. 6 trillion more was spent under your beloved president than when his predecessor, also to blame for all Obama's shortcomings, left office.

You keep repeating this like a parrot, yet the multiple times I've asked you why you blame Obama for the 14.6 trillion that he didn't create you ignore me.

Why don't you stop repeating it?

Why do you blame this president for money taken from the Social Security trust fund 20 years ago?

Yes, spending was cut, Joey. Fact. Obama's cost to our country has been 1.4 trillion dollars in Obama policies. We are the lowest federal spending since Eisenhower. Spending is LOWER than during Bush. The deficit has narrowed.

You repeatedly have shown you lump everything together, and don't understand the concept that spending that occured under Bush - and not paid for - keeps happening with interest no matter who the president is.

And I think you do it deliberately. You simply refuse to acknowledge reality.

And he's your president, too. No matter what you "believe", he's cut federal spending, narrowed the deficit, extended the life of Medicare 8 years, and given you massive healthcare insurance protections. Keep suffering.

The scene on FOX News during election night was a remarkable admixture of rage, denial, and ultimately, not too much acceptance. The Excluders have lost, the Includers have won.

http://davidkeithlaw.wordpress.com/...

Watched ABC coverage till they declared the winner..flip to Fox, was like a morque..couple of guys and Rove...the guys were moaning and Rove says 'hold on a minute not so fast, there's a few counties in northern Ohio that haven't reported in'..lol...not like 2000 eh Rove...what, $360mil his superpac blew...yikes...

I am not sure bout odds, but a couple more names might be Duval Patrick, and today I heard Elisabeth Warren's name as a possible candidate. Great that she won :)

Your math is way off. Obama added 6 trillion to the national debt. That debt is the accumulation of the unpaid yearly deficits.

How do you get $1.4T? Give me the executive summary answer and not a thousand graphs.

Oh, God, please no. Please, please, please no. Can someone get RH10 to say he's a shoo-in? Please?

I guess because while money won't get you the Presidency, it can go a long way towards getting you the nomination.

Just as an aside to reality intruding on conservative dogma, #natesilversongs is trending on Twitter ...

Joey - if you would actually READ the graph I have posted multiple times, it details "how I get to $1.4T"

Ten right-wingers who got the election hilariously wrong.




http://www.salon.com/2012/11/08/ten_...riously_wrong/

They have confused religion for reality. They ignored this simple fact - that the middle line is 270 electoral votes and Romney has never been near it - for months:

newt gingrich should have at least gotten honorable mention.

That is your response? "You want to play games go ahead?" And then you go completely off topic. Respond to her post rather then your stock " Don't play games" which you tend to use when someone schools you and you have no way to defend yourself.

Eh, I didn't expect any different. During the summer he posted a screed about how abortion is murder, and when I tried to get him to get specific on what legal punishment he felt was appropriate for women who aborted pregnancies (execution? prison term? and how long?), he got all waffly, insisting that was up to the states to decide, even though I made it clear I was asking his personal opinion of what he, as someone who personally felt abortion was murder, felt was appropriate punishment. I have no idea if he ever finally answered the question.

There are people who confuse their political affiliation with their sports team and their behavior reflects accordingly.

does anyone else remember how riot's "head was going to explode" when obama lost?

give joey a break. he's operating under a pretty severe handicap at present.

How bout this guy's head...