'We will keep the House. We will keep the Senate. Obama will be re-elected'-Pitt

[miskie]

Will Pitt has thrown down the gauntlet - all but confirming a total loss for the Dems in November.
Nostradumbass predicts victory Here.

WilliamPitt  (1000+ posts)          Sun Aug-15-10 11:25 PM
Original message
We will keep the House. We will keep the Senate. Obama will be re-elected in 2012.   
      

Bookmark this thread. You can shove it up my ass if I'm wrong.

I'm not wrong.

[JohnnyReb]

Will Pitt has thrown down the gauntlet - all but confirming a total loss for the Dems in November.
Nostradumbass predicts victory Here.

The Pitt said, "You can shove it up my ass if I'm wrong."

It's official, he's as queer as Bonnie Fwank.

[Karin]

smalll (1000+ posts)      Mon Aug-16-10 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #36
51. Oooh! I missed that one! "Martha Coakley will win" --- 
 "bank on it."

 "BANK ON IT"


"BANK ON IT!"
 

Why, I could roll about on the floor here for, why, up to TWENTY-FOUR BUSINESS HOURS, that's so good! 

   

[BlueStateSaint]

So, what Nostradumbass is saying, then, is Obama will get swamped in 2012?

[franksolich]

Does anybody recall when the Bostonian Drunkard was ever right about anything?

Just once?

[BlueStateSaint]

Does anybody recall when the Bostonian Drunkard was ever right about anything?

Just once?

Naaah.  BTW, Coach, I love your avatar! . . . before you changed it, that is . . . 

[NHSparky]

Do I think they'll take the Senate in 2010?  No.  The GOP will come close, however.

The House?  Oh yeah.

Now what worries me is the fact that if the GOP DOES in fact take the House and possibly the Senate, this will force Obama to the center like it did to Clinton in 1994.

Before you say he's not adept enough or smart enough to do that, remember from where many of his handlers and a good many of his advisors came.  It's not just about Obama--they want to stay in power as well, mind you.

[BlueStateSaint]

Do I think they'll take the Senate in 2010?  No.  The GOP will come close, however.

The House?  Oh yeah.

Now what worries me is the fact that if the GOP DOES in fact take the House and possibly the Senate, this will force Obama to the center like it did to Clinton in 1994.

Before you say he's not adept enough or smart enough to do that, remember from where many of his handlers and a good many of his advisors came.  It's not just about Obama--they want to stay in power as well, mind you.

If that were the case, Sparky, then they would be sensing the mood of the country now and moving to the center now.  They'd have to be as blind as Ray Charles and deaf as Helen Keller not to do that, seeing that this time, people know what Obama is.

[djones520]

He must be drunk again.  I doubt even he can be that stupid when sober.

[Ballygrl]

And now we know why Pitt was brought back, to motivate the unmotivated troops!

[Ballygrl]

Do I think they'll take the Senate in 2010?  No.  The GOP will come close, however.

The House?  Oh yeah.

Now what worries me is the fact that if the GOP DOES in fact take the House and possibly the Senate, this will force Obama to the center like it did to Clinton in 1994.

Before you say he's not adept enough or smart enough to do that, remember from where many of his handlers and a good many of his advisors came.  It's not just about Obama--they want to stay in power as well, mind you.

Ding Ding Ding! that's exactly what I've said in the past, if the Republicans get elected and take over the House, and Americans start feeling more confident, the idiots that they can be sometimes will completely forget who was responsible for making them miserable and they'll re-elect Obama.

[Ballygrl]

If that were the case, Sparky, then they would be sensing the mood of the country now and moving to the center now.  They'd have to be as blind as Ray Charles and deaf as Helen Keller not to do that, seeing that this time, people know what Obama is.

The Democrats are going by history, Clinton got re-elected because the Republicans gained power and the Republican agenda was adopted by Clinton hence his re-election, even though both times Clinton was elected he was elected with less than 50% of the vote, he was still re-elected, and this is what Democrats in Washington are banking on. What better way to get Pelosi out of power than have the party being voted out of power, the Democrats will have no blood on their hands.

[BlueStateSaint]

The Democrats are going by history, Clinton got re-elected because the Republicans gained power and the Republican agenda was adopted by Clinton hence his re-election, even though both times Clinton was elected he was elected with less than 50% of the vote, he was still re-elected, and this is what Democrats in Washington are banking on. What better way to get Pelosi out of power than have the party being voted out of power, the Democrats will have no blood on their hands.

Obama is too much of an idealogue.  He will listen to his cronies ("Rev." Wright, Ayres, etc.) before Clinton's.  Also, Sparky brought up a good point--a lot of the people in Obama's White House were there under Clinton.  In Bill Clinton's eyes, Obama is the enemy, because the Obamessiah had the temerity to keep the Clintons out of the White House for another eight years.  One thing that I've heard about Bill Clinton is this--he never forgets his friends, whether they be James Carville or George H. W. Bush (or George W. Bush for that matter--rumor was that Clinton and Bush were closer than Clinton and Gore), and he never forgives his enemies.  Now, do you think that maybe the Clintons told said former employees that it would be alright to work for Obama . . . but to never forget just who got them there in the first place?

Just ponder that.  It would be Bill Clinton's perfect revenge, with Chelsea positioning herself as an up-and-comer on the political scene.

[true_blood]

Obama is too much of an idealogue.  He will listen to his cronies ("Rev." Wright, Ayres, etc.) before Clinton's

I totally agree with this statement.

[Ballygrl]

Obama is too much of an idealogue.  He will listen to his cronies ("Rev." Wright, Ayres, etc.) before Clinton's.  Also, Sparky brought up a good point--a lot of the people in Obama's White House were there under Clinton.  In Bill Clinton's eyes, Obama is the enemy, because the Obamessiah had the temerity to keep the Clintons out of the White House for another eight years.  One thing that I've heard about Bill Clinton is this--he never forgets his friends, whether they be James Carville or George H. W. Bush (or George W. Bush for that matter--rumor was that Clinton and Bush were closer than Clinton and Gore), and he never forgives his enemies.  Now, do you think that maybe the Clintons told said former employees that it would be alright to work for Obama . . . but to never forget just who got them there in the first place?

Just ponder that.  It would be Bill Clinton's perfect revenge, with Chelsea positioning herself as an up-and-comer on the political scene.

I totally get what you're saying BUT you need to look at things going on now, IMO they view Pelosi as being somewhat responsible for the predicament that they're in (wrongfully so IMO, it's not only her) she needs to go, look how the establishment isn't sticking by Rangel and Waters, they're letting those 2 sink, I really think the establishment Democrats WANT to let Republicans take over, the far left Progressives need to be silenced hence Gibbs comments being made.

I thought for sure Hillary was going to challenge Obama in 2012, now I'm not so sure, rumors started going around that Biden would be replaced by Hillary in 2012, maybe that's what they want, they want to get Hillary's foot in the door, and some inconvenient things need to be taken care of and that's the far left, hence throwing Democrats like Rangel under the bus to get to their eventual goal, although Rangel and Waters were initially Hillary supporters so maybe Obama is throwing them under the bus for that reason.

I don't know, but I think there's an ulterior motive here somewhere, and I sure as heck don't trust Democrats at all. Maybe losing the House is the only way to wake Obama up to reality.

[Tucker]

Does anybody recall when the Bostonian Drunkard was ever right about anything?

Just once?

Yeah. He was right about Bobo the Hobo being a bitch.

[BlueStateSaint]

Yeah. He was right about Bobo the Hobo being a bitch.

Meh.  Blind squirrel moment.

[Ballygrl]

smalll  (1000+ posts)
Mon Aug-16-10 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #31
46. Oooh! I missed that one! "Martha Coakley will win" ---
   
"bank on it."

"BANK ON IT"

"BANK ON IT!"


Why, I could roll about on the floor here for, why, up to TWENTY-FOUR BUSINESS HOURS, that's so good!

sea four  (66 posts)
Mon Aug-16-10 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
62. Freepers said the same thing in 2006 and 2008.

tridim  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) 
Mon Aug-16-10 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
78. The Repukes have no idea what they're in for during the next two months.
   
This Dem campaign is going to be relentless and fun.

The Repukes have NOTHING!

[BlueStateSaint]

Whose mole is tridim?

[ColonialMarine0431]

WilliamPitt  (1000+ posts)          Sun Aug-15-10 11:25 PM
Original message
We will keep the House. We will keep the Senate. Obama will be re-elected in 2012.   
     

Bookmark this thread. You can shove it up my ass if I'm wrong.

I'm not wrong.

And Angels will fly out my Arse.

[NHSparky]

sea four  (66 posts)
Mon Aug-16-10 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
62. Freepers said the same thing in 2006 and 2008.

Actually, we really didn't.  Now while we didn't anticipate the number of seats lost in those two elections, we harbored no illusions about maintaining control of the House in 2006, or getting it back in 2008.

Oh, and while you're at it, here's something that'll make DUmmy heads go a'splodin all over the world tonight...

NO FEDERAL CHARGES AGAINST DELAY

[Ballygrl]

Whose mole is tridim?

[USA4ME]

Does anybody recall when the Bostonian Drunkard was ever right about anything?

Just once?

He got hit in the head with a brick one time, so he did the right thing by not getting out of the way.

.

[Airwolf]

I totally get what you're saying BUT you need to look at things going on now, IMO they view Pelosi as being somewhat responsible for the predicament that they're in (wrongfully so IMO, it's not only her) she needs to go, look how the establishment isn't sticking by Rangel and Waters, they're letting those 2 sink, I really think the establishment Democrats WANT to let Republicans take over, the far left Progressives need to be silenced hence Gibbs comments being made.

I thought for sure Hillary was going to challenge Obama in 2012, now I'm not so sure, rumors started going around that Biden would be replaced by Hillary in 2012, maybe that's what they want, they want to get Hillary's foot in the door, and some inconvenient things need to be taken care of and that's the far left, hence throwing Democrats like Rangel under the bus to get to their eventual goal, although Rangel and Waters were initially Hillary supporters so maybe Obama is throwing them under the bus for that reason.

I don't know, but I think there's an ulterior motive here somewhere, and I sure as heck don't trust Democrats at all. Maybe losing the House is the only way to wake Obama up to reality.

There is always an ulterior motive with the Dems

[diesel driver]

Does anybody recall when the Bostonian Drunkard was ever right about anything?

Just once?

He did predict Zero would be elected president, but that was the last thing he was right about.

Kerry, LOST

Gore, LOST