Coffee House

America’s new political battles begin

17 November 2012

It may be less than a fortnight since the 2012 US elections, but it’s never too early to start speculating about what might happen in the next ones. So here’s a quick first look:

2013: New Jersey and Virginia (and Massachusetts?)
It may be an off-year, but there’ll be at least two — and possibly three — exciting high-profile races to look forward to. Republican Chris Christie will likely run for a second term as Governor of New Jersey. He has strong approval ratings and has been praised for his response to Hurricane Sandy, but will likely face tough opposition in a state that Obama carried by 17 points. One potential Democratic challenger is Newark Mayor Cory Booker (who rescued his neighbour from a fire in April). A poll last month found him trailing Christie by just four points, 46-42.

In Virginia, Republican Governor Bob McDonnell will not be running, as the state constitution bars incumbents from seeking reelection straight away, and both parties look set to have competitive primaries. On the Republican side, state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is running against McDonnell’s Lieutenant Governor, Bon Bolling. Meanwhile, Terry McAuliffe — who chaired Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign — is running for the Democratic nomination, but will probably face opposition from former Congressman Tom Perriello, and possibly from former Governor and current Senator Mark Warner. The early polls point to a close election, unless the very popular Senator Warner does enter the race, in which case he’d be the clear favourite.

Claim your gift

There’s also a chance of a special Senate election in Massachusetts, if President Obama picks John Kerry to serve in his Cabinet as Secretary of State or Defense. If so, Republican Scott Brown — who lost his seat to Elizabeth Warren last week — would be hopeful of a quick return to the Senate. But the Democrats would be keen to beat him again — possibly with former Congressman Marty Meehan or Newton Mayor Setti Warren (no relation to the Senator-Elect).

Oh, and New York City will elect a new Mayor. Michael Bloomberg will have served three terms, the maximum allowed.

2014: The midterms
33 of the 100 Senate seats and all 435 House seats will be up for election. After the Democrats managed to retain — and extend — their Senate majority this year, they’ll face another tough set of races in the midterms. They’ll be defending 20 seats, many of which are in red states: Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. The Republicans, meanwhile, will be defending just 13 seats, and 12 of them are in reliably Republican states. The only exception is Maine, which the GOP should hold provided popular moderate Susan Collins runs for reelection and wins her primary. Overall, then, the fundamentals favour the Republicans, though probably not enough for them to take control of the Senate. But much the same was said in the run-up to last week’s elections, and the Republicans seemed sure to gain at least a few seats. Instead, the Democrats gained a net of two. They’ll be hoping to pull off a similar feat in 2014. One potentially very high-profile race is the one in Kentucky, where actress and Democratic activist Ashley Judd might challenge Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

As for the House, this year demonstrated how tough it will be for the Democrats to overturn the Republican majority. They won more votes than the GOP, but look likely to end up with 33 fewer seats. Nate Silver has an excellent post on why they are unlikely to regain control next time. Still, they’ll hope to build on the gains they did make this time and at least narrow that Republican majority a little further.

The Democrats should have a decent chance of making gains in the Governor’s mansions up for election in 2014. The Republicans have unpopular incumbents in Democrat-leaning Maine, and swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. They may also have a tough job defending in Arizona, Iowa and Michigan. The Democrats will have to mount strong defences of their own though, particularly in Arkansas (where incumbent Mike Beebe cannot run for reelection as he’ll have served the maximum of two terms) and Illinois (where incumbent Pat Quinn is deeply unpopular).

2016: Replacing Obama
President Obama won’t be on the ballot in November 2016, as the 22nd Amendment prevents him from seeking a third term. So who’ll be in the running to replace him? It’s very early days, of course but already a few names are attracting the bulk of speculation. We’ll have another post detailing the very early favourites for 2016 tomorrow.

Give the perfect gift this Christmas. Buy a subscription for a friend for just £75 and you’ll receive a free gift too. Buy now.

Show comments
  • the viceroy’s gin

    Gosh. Another reality tv analysis of US politics, from one of the Speccie teenagers. Who woulda thunk it? You even managed to work a Hollywood starlet into it. Well done, lad!

    But for those actually interested in the recent US election and where it shakes out historically, Michael Barone notes the growing strength of the Tea Party at the local and state levels, which is the key to politics in the US, as most knowledgeable understand. In governor’s mansions and state legislatures across the land, the Tea Party continues to exercise its raw political power, as the numbers show:

    The US House of Representatives is the natural federal expression of the grassroots sea change that the Tea Party continues to bring on locally and at the state levels. That appears to be the current status of US politics, this ever tightening grip on the US House. And make no mistake, since most of the historic numbers of the Tea Party class of 2010 have been freshly returned into office, that grip is going to tighten further, no matter the indeterminate and muddled results of 2012.

    UKIP is taking note of this, I’d guess.

    • telemachus

      The UKIP loops have their focus on immigration and little englandism
      Most of them probably think Washington is outside Dublin.

      • David Lindsay

        It’s just outside Sunderland, actually. Part of Tyne & Wear since Heath, its good burghers rightly insist that they are from County Durham.

        Ancestral home of the treasonable terrorist, complete with stars and stripes on the town crest. Not officially where he got them from, as taught in American schools. But the truth.

        • telemachus

          They make datsuns there dont they

          • David Lindsay

            Never confuse Washington and Sunderland.

    • David Lindsay

      While obviously bemoaning the specific circumstances, there are many, many very good reasons to be
      glad that Bobby Kennedy
      never became the President of the United States. But his proposed black-blue coalition now
      constitutes, if not the national majority, then certainly the Democratic
      Party’s electoral majority, as surely as does the coalition eventually put
      together by George McGovern, first through his Commission, and then at the 1972
      Presidential Election.

      The Democrats would not and could not have held the
      Presidency, nor held and increased their control of the Senate, without the
      votes of a coalition of white liberals and non-white ethnic minorities. Nor
      would or could they have done so without a coalition of blacks and blue-collar
      whites, whether white Southerners, Northern “white ethnics”, or those
      in the traditions of the Farmer-Labor Parties and the Nonpartisan League in the
      West. The first of those has consistently been treated
      as the Prodigal Son, appearing on the ticket in 1976, 1980, 1988, 1992 (both
      places), 1996 (both places), 2000 and 2004. The second has been treated, at
      best, as the Prodigal Son’s brother. The third has been treated as, if
      anything, the fatted calf.

      The present partnership of President and
      Vice-President embodies the partnership between the blacks and the
      white ethnics whom Kennedy, being one himself, mostly had in mind, as surely as
      that in 1960 embodied the partnership between the white ethnics and the South. At the same time, Obama’s mixed background, and
      his looser ties to the black church than those of earlier black leaders,
      manifest the changing racial composition of America, while it would once have
      counted against Biden that his wife was not a Catholic, even that she was not
      an Irish Catholic. In their Catholicism and their Orthodoxy, the white ethnics
      are the antidotes to an excessively pro-Israeli, and extremely right-wing
      Israeli, stance that is in any case an aberration in American politics and
      which causes the terrorism problem; Arab-Americans, a high proportion of whom
      are ancient indigenous Christians, are already often classified as white

      The first black President is a Democrat. The
      first, and to date only, Catholic President was a Democrat. The first Jewish President and the first
      Hispanic President will undoubtedly be Democrats. Why not also the first Mormon President? The
      Mormon vote is now up for grabs. Scott Howell’s 30 per cent in Utah was more
      than creditable against an incumbent quite as incumbent as Orrin Hatch, and that on a
      ticket including Mitt Romney, while Howell would have beaten a Tea Party nominee
      such as Mike Lee, who is up for re-election in 2016. Unlike Romney, Harry Reid
      does not derive an income from the performance of abortion.

      Speaking of abortion, while never a pro-life
      stalwart, Biden could not have been the running mate at any time between 1980,
      or possibly even 1976, and 2008. He spent 36 years in the Senate, well into the
      present century, voting to overturn Roe v Wade by constitutional amendment, voting year
      on year to prevent federal funding of abortion, voting against rape and incest
      exceptions until Henry Hyde himself was forced to accept them rather than be
      defeated by the Clintons and their allies (to this day, Biden has never cast a
      vote in favour of such exceptions), voting to ban partial-birth abortion, voting to overturn
      Clinton’s vetoes of such bans, and voting to recognise infants who survived abortion
      as fully protected legal persons. Joe Donnelly picked up Indiana even though
      its Presidential vote switched from blue to red. Mark Clayton’s 30 per cent in
      Tennessee was just stunning. Again, he would have beaten a Tea Party candidate.

      The ways of consolidating this progress have long
      been proposed by my friend Mark Stricherz and others: requiring primaries
      rather than caucuses, allowing Independents to vote in them, holding the first
      five or six primaries in the five or six tightest states the previous time (which might
      very well include Iowa and New Hampshire), abolishing superdelegates, and
      abolishing all delegate quotas based on sex, age or ethnicity.

      • eeore

        An interesting analysis.

        And if I might pull together various threads from the entirety of your comments on this page with reference to my comments.

        The Democrat party power relies entirely upon the division of society into groups defined by specified characteristics. And as long as those groups continue to accept the top down specification they can maintain their power. Hence the reliance on this is racist, that is sexist, as a way maintaining control. You yourself have resorted to this when frustrated by the goading of those desperate to hang onto a perceived version of the left right paradigm. And there is an irony in the issue that the democrats have gone from the party of outright racism – miscegeny etc – through the Margaret Sanger years and onto the ‘enlightened’ present. And obviously America has an advantage in this matter being a culture of anti-history and pragmatism, that reinvents itself roughly every twenty years.

        The problem is this. America has a tradition of the Know Nothing. Which is obviously identified with the WASPish movement of the 1840’s but can be seen in various movements such as the communist party of the 1930’s and the civil rights movement of the 1950 and 60s. And these movements have a habit of subverting into the dominant political force.

        So when you talk of ‘consolidating this progress’ I should be very careful that you don’t end up sounding like a the 1950’s newsreel I saw before a showing of the widescreen version of South Pacific that proudly declared ‘and because of the Douglas Skyhawk Lebanon will have peace by 1960.’

        • David Lindsay

          “You yourself have resorted to this when frustrated by the goading of those desperate to hang onto a perceived version of the left right

          Only because one cannot write tone of voice. Not unless one is Jane Austen or PG Wodehouse. Alas, I am neither.

          I am all for what, 40 years on, is now the Democratic Party’s McGovern Majority provided by the coalition between urban, suburban and coastal liberals (many of whom were Republicans before McGovern, so that, for example, abortion was legalised in New York by a subsequent Republican Vice-President and in California by a subsequent Republican President) and non-white ethnic minorities (many of whom, especially in the South, also used to be Republicans, if they were anything).

          Yes, since 1972 the Democratic Party has come to predominate among Hispanics and Asians. Yes, as in 1972, the Democratic Party massively predominates among blacks and Jews, although what that former actually entails does need to be kept in mind: the organisational backbone of the black vote is still the black church. And yes, since 1972 the Democrats have become the only party of urban, suburban and coastal liberals.

          But that is only one of the part’s two majorities, and it cannot win without both of them, although with both of them it cannot really lose. Manifestly, as we have just seen, Democrats also still account for a large and a potentially powerful bloc of Southern whites, Western whites, rural whites, white Evangelicals, white Catholics and white Mormons, with that bloc correspondingly comprising a large and a potentially powerful bloc within the Democratic Party, far larger than Asians and Jews combined.

          In the political pursuit of their Southern, Western and rural interests, and of their Evangelical, Catholic and Mormon beliefs, they have consciously chosen a broad-based, inclusive, economically populist, internationally peace-seeking, truly national party. Without them, that party cannot remain truly national. Without them, it could not have retained the Presidency, nor could it have retained control of the Senate, and that with an increased number of seats.

          What is the party doing to make and keep itself the broad-based, inclusive, economically populist, internationally peace-seeking voice and vehicle for Southern, Western and rural interests, and for Evangelical, Catholic and Mormon beliefs, among a whole host of others? What are the Southern, Western, rural, Evangelical, Catholic and Mormon Democrats doing to ensure that their party remains that voice and that vehicle?

          • eeore

            That is a great deal of words without actually saying anything.

            My point is simply this, when people realise they not representative of a pre defined hole, they will become No Nothings, and they will sweep aside the all of your analysis – it is the reason Malcolm X was killed, it is the reason the tea party is attacked, and it is the achilles heel of the Democratic party.

            But well done for your chimping efforts. I hope you have fun with the money.

  • eeore

    What makes you think Obama won’t be on the ballot?

    • David Lindsay

      My candidate for 2016 is Marcy Kaptur, and I wish that I could do more to encourage and support her, although I do receive fairly regular communications from people in the United States agreeing with me. As I always say to them, “Over to you, then.”

      But what of Joe Biden? Yes, he will turn 74 a few days after the election. But that is no disqualification. His hawkish foreign policy views modified considerably during the Dubya years. And at least he is not The Clinton, that double-headed beast of Glass-Steagall repeal, exportation of jobs to un-unionised Third World sweatshops, importation of those sweatshops themselves, global trigger-happiness, decades of
      race-baiting, and spectacular failure to deliver healthcare reform. The beast that is now plotting a return to its old lair on Pennsylvania Avenue, 24 years after first infesting it. Biden is not much older than The Clinton, but even a very small age difference makes all the difference between being 1968 and not. It is. He is not.

      For example, he was already a United States Senator before the judgement in Roe v Wade. During 36 years in the Senate, he voted to overturn that judgement by means of an amendment to the Constitution, he voted year on year to renew the Hyde Amendment banning federal funding of abortion, he voted against rape and incest exceptions until Henry Hyde himself was forced to accept them rather than see that renewal vetoed by The Clinton (meaning that Biden has never actually cast a vote in favour of them), he voted to ban partial-birth abortion, he voted to overturn both of The Clinton’s vetoes of that ban, and he voted to recognise as legally protected persons those infants who survived abortion.

      That is Biden’s record, still unchanged in terms of votes cast. To this day, whenever he has had the opportunity, he has never failed to vote in favour of a Human Life Amendment, in favour of the Hyde Amendment, against any rape or incest exception, in favour a ban on partial-birth abortion, in favour of overturning any Presidential veto of such a ban, and in favour of recognising surviving infants as fully protected legal persons. Biden has never signed up to the Freedom of Choice Act, and no Presidential nominee other than Barack Obama could possibly have got away with picking him as a running mate. Even Obama could not have done so if he had needed or wanted someone new in 2012. The wonder is that Biden was not made the occasion of a Roman holiday, so to speak, for the PUMAs, The Clinton’s irreconcilable followers among ageing 1970s feminists.

      Across the full range of issues, including abortion, Biden is not as good as Kaptur. But he is far more likely to run.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        Dude, Joe Biden LOVES abortion. Throughout his career, he’s passionately worked to kill babies. As has that Kaptur woman, and no leftist from northwest Ohio has any possible chance at a presidential nomination, least of all one who voted for that global warming kookiness in Spring of 2009.

        You’re as clueless about US politics as the Speccie teenager.

        • David Lindsay

          On the second point, you are living in the past, or in some fantastical version of the past. No one could possibly be kookier than whoever the GOP is going to throw up in 2016. That is just what the GOP now is. It is going around fomenting outright secessionism. And “Leftist” blah blah blah? Where have we heard that before?

          On the first point, you are just plain wrong. Biden is no pro-life stalwart, but the likes of NOW and NARAL have never trusted him, and he spent 36 years, well into the present century, giving them plenty of reasons not to. He voted to overturn Roe v Wade by constitutional amendment, he voted year on year to prevent federal funding of abortion, he voted against rape and incest exceptions until Henry Hyde himself was forced to accept them rather than be defeated by the Clintons and their allies (to this day, Biden has never cast a vote in favour of such exceptions), he voted to ban partial-birth abortion, he voted to overturn both of Clinton’s vetoes of such bans, and he voted to recognise infants who survived abortion as fully protected legal persons. He has never signed up to the Freedom of Choice Act. That list is not exhaustive.

          But then, George McGovern’s own doubts about abortion would have precluded his nomination for President in the last 20 years, although the 1976 Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, was even less keen on the practice and once elected signed into law the ban on federal funding of it. Both of McGovern’s running mates were pro-life Catholics. There has not been an entirely pro-life ticket of either party since that of the Democrats in 1968, and since then several Republican tickets have been entirely pro-abortion, with every single one headed by someone who was at least effectively so. For all his faults, the Democrat whose assassination prevented his nomination and election in 1968 was a totally pro-life Catholic, with 11 children to prove it.

          Only Obama, and then only in 2008, could have got away with picking a running mate with a record like Biden’s. But the fact that he did get away with it is illustrative of his having changed the basic landscape of American politics. The Democratic Party now has two majorities: the McGovern one 40 years on, and what have been the RFK one. It cannot win without both of them. But with both of them, as is now the case, it cannot lose.

          Obama again carried the Catholic vote, albeit by a smaller margin than
          in 2008, but with that drop accounted for entirely by the white males who were in any case Romney’s only constituency. For the second time,
          Catholics looked at two pro-abortion candidates and picked the one with
          whom they agreed on the issues where any choice was permitted. This
          time, they also chose the one who did not in fact derive an income from
          the performance of abortion, as Romney did and does.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Dude, I’m not even going to bother reading all that garbage. Biden is pro-baby killing, and always has been, as is that Kaptur woman.

            You are a blathering idiot.

            • David Lindsay

              And you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You’ll be telling me that Ronald Reagan was pro-life next.

              You are entirely typical of what was once a great party, but is now a collection of Ayn Rand devotees, birthers, would-be moon colonists, apparently serious secessionists, and people who think that Romney is pro-life when he not only introduced taxpayer-funded abortion in Massachusetts (whereas there is no such thing under ObamaCare), but continues to derive an income from its performance.

              Republicans are now in grave dereliction of their responsibilities, having turned America, by default, into a one-party state. I hope that you are both pleased and proud. Then again, I hope that you are not.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              I do recall a few years ago when Biden and Pelosi tried to explain away their baby murdering stance by claiming that the Catholic Church supports them. Several dozen bishops demurely but quickly disavowed them of their lies, and he crawled back into his hole alongside Obama, the legendary Alinskyite baby murderer.

              And that leftist nutter Kaptur isn’t even worth discussing. I don’t know which sewer you dragged up her name, but let me assure you… you’re the only person on planet earth who attaches her name to the White House.

              You really are a blathering idiot. You should stop now.

              • David Lindsay

                For “Leftist nutter”, read “Social Catholic”, in the tradition the consensus status of which makes possible the abortion restrictions and outright bans that are the norm in Western Europe.

                Whereas America’s allegedly conservative (and, in American historical terms, wholly late-twentieth-century) economic system, like Britain’s, actually depends on abortion, among other evils. It could not function without those evils, including abortion. There would inevitably be even more abortions if someone like Paul Ryan were ever let loose. Mercifully, he is never going to be.

                You do realise, don’t you, that GOP officials, as such, appear on the media here to describe suggestions that their party might ever limit abortion in the slightest as “scaremongering”? Based on its record rather than its rhetoric, they are right. Although Romney, an outright abortion profiteer, did mark a new low.

                On Kaptur, I am expressing a preference rather than making a prediction. A distinction with which you ageing racist blowhards, used to your own way automatically, are only just coming to terms. Most people tend to learn it in early childhood. But not you. So good luck. Try not to have the kind of breakdown that Karl Rove had on Fox as the results came in. Amusing enough. But deeply, deeply sad.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Again, I’m not going to read that blather, because you know absolutely nothing about US politics.

                  Go argue with the bishops. They’re used to arguing about baby murderers like Pelosi, Biden and Obama.

                • David Lindsay

                  I would suggest that you look up “Catholic Social Teaching”, but it is far beyond your attention span. You are quite a pitiable figure, really: trapped in a world that you do not like and do not understand, where the bellowing old white man is not obeyed automatically by everyone else, and where his borderline illiteracy is even pointed out to his face.

                  So I only ask this: why do you think that numerous European countries have 12-week limits and that sort of thing, and more than you might think ban abortion altogether, as matters very much of cross-party consensus, whereas America needs Roe v Wade and Americanised Britain needs the abortion up to birth bequeathed by Thatcher, in imitation of Reagan when he was Governor of California? What is the difference?

                  There, did even you manage to follow that? Probably not, but one lives in hope.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  The bishops, son. Save your worthless blather for the bishops.

                  They’ll know what to do with you, just as they deal with the baby murderer Biden, senile mate of the ghoulish Obama.

                • David Lindsay

                  And people like Romney, who legislate for their own profiteering from abortion, at taxpayers’ expense?

                  How many bishops do you actually know? A lot fewer than I do, I’d guess. And how much theology have you ever actually read? A lot less than I have, I’d guarantee. I’ll give you a tip: Ayn Rand doesn’t count.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Keep them short like that, and I might just read one of them.

                  But not that one, mind you.

                  The bishops, son. The bishops. Start there, with your Biden apologias. They’ve already publicly dealt with his baby murdering ways, but perhaps you can intercede, with your distinctive blather.

                • David Lindsay

                  Still not answering the question, then. Of course, you can’t. Romney was and is even more pro-abortion than Obama, who at least has never changed the law of a state so that he could extract money from its taxpayers in return for the performance of abortions, which is still one of Romney’s many sources of income to this day.

                  Biden, meanwhile, has, if only for its sheer 36-year length, by far the most anti-abortion record of legislative votes of anyone on either ticket in years, and years, and years. Not perfect. Far from it. But vastly better than anyone else’s. For example, who else had voted on both occasions to overturn the two Presidential vetoes of the partial-birth abortion ban? Who else had voted against the rape and incest exceptions every single year from when there started being any such votes until there stopped being any? (Thanks to Romney, those exceptions are now the policy of the Republican Party.) And so on.

                  Moreover, the GOP is now completely signed up to an economic system, historically most un-American as well as completely incompatible with Catholic Teaching, which actually needs abortion on demand in order to function. As well as being signed up to foreign policies that are anti-life on an industrial scale. Both of which the bishops tried to tell them the last, possibly the last time ever, that there was a Republican in the White House. To absolutely no avail.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Best you stay clear of US politics, son. It’s a bit beyond you, as your bizarre claims about Obama’s fellow baby extinguisher Biden clearly demonstrate.

                  And just to preempt you and the Speccie teenager… that buffoon Biden’s political career ends on January 20, 2017… if not sooner.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Oh and again, the bishops.

                  Talk to the bishops.

                  They’ll be helpful to you.

                • David Lindsay

                  I talk to bishops more often in a month than you have done, or will do, in your entire life.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Short enough to bother with. Congratulations.

                  And you obviously haven’t talked enough to the bishops, son, because you’re in here proclaiming the life avowing virtues of the grisly Biden, running buddy of the monstrous Obama, who the bishops have both declaimed.

                • David Lindsay

                  I doubt that you have ever had a conversation with one in your life. What would you and he talk about? Social justice, a term of Papal invention? Peace?

                  And I am only saying that Biden is better than most, which is true. Not saying much, but still true. If that is the choice, which it is, then that makes him good enough for a political office. No one suggests making him Pope.

                  But the transformation of some of the American bishops into GOP hacks is making them look sillier and sillier. American conservatism is no more an expression of Catholic orthodoxy than American liberalism is, and the attempt to rewrite Catholicism in terms of either of them is nothing more than a revival of the Americanist heresy of the nineteenth century, which was condemned by that remarkable figure, Pope Leo XIII, also the founder of Catholic Social Teaching. Tell me about Pope Leo XIII, tvg. Go on. Tell me everything that you know about him.

                  The transformation of the American pro-life movement into a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP is as bad, on every, as it were, conceivable level, as the transformation of the Democratic Party into a wholly owned subsidiary of the abortion lobby. The latter is very slowly, but quite surely, coming to an end. The former, alas, has scarcely begun.

                • David Lindsay

                  I know more facts about American politics than you do, despite not living there. Which is to say, based on your contributions here, that I know any facts at all about American politics.

                  And if Biden retires at the end of this term – after all, he will be 74 – then that will clear the way for someone from the resurgent, historically normative wing of the Democratic Party: the socially conservative Dems from the economically populist Left who did so well in the Senate elections, especially, this month. Against whatever moonbat the GOP throws up in 2016. All good stuff, in that case.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, lengthening up again, you are, so back to ignore.

                  The bishops, son. Check with them. Seriously. Agree or disagree, they’ll set you straight on where things stand, and you are quite confused, apparently.

                  And read through my posts.

                  In combination, the above should help you understand the macabre Biden, and US politics, both of which you appear to struggle with.

      • eeore

        Biden certainly has the necessarily credentials given his role at Waco.

    • Baron

      agreed, eeore, if the messiah plays his cards right, the electorate may do what the Romans did, engineer a switch to an Emperor, well, to smooth the transition, President for Life to start with. He hasn’t got that much to do, borrowing another couple of trillions, boosting the entitlement culture some more, repeating ‘the best is yet to come’ as often as possible, and he’ll be a shoe-in for the job for life.

      • David Lindsay

        Tragically, you really do believe this.

        • Baron

          David, of course not, only that weirder things have happened. The messiah seems to have buckets of charisma, didn’t he get the Nobel trinket at birth?

          • David Lindsay

            Which “weirder things have happened”, exactly?

            • eeore

              George Bush got elected, the WTC is attacked by a group set up by the CIA on 9/11 (that happens to the emergency service number), a prototype of AIDS being discovered by Lee Harvey Oswald’s girlfriend while they were researching weaponized cancer, the attempted assassination of Jimmy Carter involving Raymond Lee Harvey and Osvaldo Ortiz, Hurricaine Sandy hitting New York when Obama is trailing in the polls, numerous Democrats saying that the storm was a piece of luck that swung the election in their favour and no one mentioning the numerous patents held by Bill Gates and the US military, or indeed the UN treaty. about weather control, that blacks vote en bloc for the Democrats – who laud Margaret Sanger – when 52% of blacks in the US have never been born since Rowe vs Wade, that the date stamp on the pdf Obama provided of his birth certificate can be moved around the image, the rich and famous gather in a wood and offer a ‘human’ sacrifice to a 40 foot owl… all of these are weird things that have happened.

              • David Lindsay

                Nuff said.

      • eeore

        Given the oil boom in America at present and Obama’s willingness to use executive orders to by pass the constituion and the congress, a little thing like the 22 amendment shouldn’t be a problem.

        And the votes won’t be a problem, given that the last election was decided by some sort of google analytic.

  • Kevin

    When did CH stop wanting to discuss who should govern the United States?

Can't find your Web ID? Click here