53% Say Next President Likely To Be A Republican

[Revmitchell]

For the first time since Barack Obama was elected president last November, more than half of U.S. voters (53%) say it is at least somewhat likely that the next occupant of the White House will be a Republican. Thirty-one percent (31%) say it is Very Likely.

More Here

 

[BigBossman]

If Obama continues down the track he's on, people will get sick & tired of him if they haven't already. Its sad thing when it take a big time liberal to give America a wake up call. Its kind of what happened with Jimmy Carter. I'm willing to predict that the next Republican contender will use Ronald Reagan's line, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

 

[Magnetic Poles]

There's a 100% certainty the next POTUS will be either a Republican OR a Democrat. I must be a slagkick!

 

[JustChristian]

If Obama continues down the track he's on, people will get sick & tired of him if they haven't already. Its sad thing when it take a big time liberal to give America a wake up call. Its kind of what happened with Jimmy Carter. I'm willing to predict that the next Republican contender will use Ronald Reagan's line, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Were you better off in 2008 under Bush than you were in 2000 under Clinton?

 

[BigBossman]

Were you better off in 2008 under Bush than you were in 2000 under Clinton?

Yes, I was. I paid more taxes under Bill Clinton than I did with Bush. I also got more money on my tax returns when Bush was in office than I got when Clinton was in office.

Clinton dismantled our military & allowed homosexuals to get in. Clinton also put our military under U.N. command. Bush at least beefed it back up. However, homosexuals were still allowed to enlist or reenlist. Bush also never put our troops under U.N. command.

Clinton in my book is the first American king to be in the White House. Kings are not subject to the same laws that you & I are are subject to. After all, he can lie under oath & get away with it. You & I can't do that, we would go to prison for that. I also believe that Bill Clinton was a traitor to our nation. He gave nuclear technology to the Communist Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions in 1996. I also believe that he had a role in the murder of former Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown. He was to be involved in the Whitewater trial. He ended up on a plane that crashed. The black box recorders were never found. A bullet hole was found in Ron Brown's head. A woman on that flight was injured but conscious, she was loaded into an ambulance but when she arrived at the hospital, she was dead on arrival with a broken neck. Then after a breif investigation, there was no foul play determined to be involved. Most plane crashes take weeks of investigation.

But when you are talking about Bush, that ain't saying much. There are few things about Bush I liked. There are also alot of things about Bush I didn't like. That's why, I didn't vote for him. There was always someone more conservative than he was running against him.

I will give Bill Clinton credit for one thing, if it wasn't for him, I wouldn't be as conservative as I am today. Seeing how he did things made me want to be a complete opposite from him.

 

[just-want-peace]

What the next president (assuming that there will be one?) will carry before his name is immaterial!

Unless he is a true conservative, this nation is still headed for the swamp.

Only difference will be the speed and demeanor with which it's done!

Right now it's at warp speed and like a barroom brawl!

 

[LeBuick]

Yes, I was. I paid more taxes under Bill Clinton than I did with Bush. I also got more money on my tax returns when Bush was in office than I got when Clinton was in office.

Unless you're one of the rich this is an incorrect statement. Bush gave us a onetime check and not a tax cut per se.

 

[LeBuick]

For the first time since Barack Obama was elected president last November, more than half of U.S. voters (53%) say it is at least somewhat likely that the next occupant of the White House will be a Republican. Thirty-one percent (31%) say it is Very Likely.

More Here

According the poll, this could be either 2012 or 2016. Also, if you look carefully, it is the non affiliated or people like me who turned the poll like it is. Now I must caution you, it really depends on the candidates n each ticket. This is purely hypothetical until we know who the options are. ex... If Palin is on the conservative ticket, there is a 99.99% chance she won't get in the oval office unless invited by the president.

This is not an expectation related to the 2012 election. It is a question about the President following Obama which could happen in either 2012 or 2016.

Naturally, there is a partisan divide--77% of Republican voters say it’s likely the next president will be from their party. Just 39% of Democrats agree.

Still, that’s an increase among both parties from previous surveys. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 47% now say a GOP president is likely, while 33% think not.

 

[Alcott]

The economy is going to fluctuate over the next 3-4 years (and 7-8 years). If surveys like this are done regularly they will indicate corresponding pleasure or displeasure with the party 'in power.' That's just the way it is. But the irony of our political system is that, while we vote according to domestic affairs, particularly economy, the executive branch (embodied in the president) makes a much greater difference in international affairs and defense. To a point, that is. A popular war efforts [WW II] will keep a president in power, while an unpopular war effort [Vietnam] will oust the president (or his party). But in spite of Irag, Afghanistan, and threats from others, we are not at a such a state where foreign relations will rule national elections. But we might be in 2012 or 2016.

 

[matt wade]

Unless you're one of the rich this is an incorrect statement. Bush gave us a onetime check and not a tax cut per se.

LeBuick...I hope you know better than that. There were tax cuts across the board, not just on the rich. I am not rich by any means and I received a tax cut. I am pretty sure you did too. Read up on it:

a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.
the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

Additionally, EGTRRA increased the per-child tax credit and the amount eligible for credit spent on dependent child care

So, looks like just above everyone was covered by the above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001

 

[LeBuick]

LeBuick...I hope you know better than that. There were tax cuts across the board, not just on the rich. I am not rich by any means and I received a tax cut. I am pretty sure you did too. Read up on it:

So, looks like just above everyone was covered by the above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001

Sorry, how did I forget about the tax cut funded by the Chinese. Isn't that the tax cuts that made us borrow from the Chinese to make up the deficit difference?

 

[billwald]

The Rs will probably get elected next go around but nothing will change but the names.

 

[Andy T.]

Were you better off in 2008 under Bush than you were in 2000 under Clinton?

Yes, but it had nothing to do with either Bush or Clinton. It had to do with hard work and more importantly, God's grace. My hope and trust is in God, not in who occupies the White House or Capitol.

And LeBuick, why do you keep lying about Bush's tax cuts being only for the rich? Matt corrected you. And I've called you on it a few times in the past, as well. When are you going to stop lying about this?

 

[rbell]

Sorry, how did I forget about the tax cut funded by the Chinese. Isn't that the tax cuts that made us borrow from the Chinese to make up the deficit difference?

In summary:

You claim Bush didn't cut taxes.
When confronted with the truth, you backpedaled to the "Chinese" card.

Look, if you want to be a Democratic apologist, fine...but don't pretend there's objectivity there.

 

[Revmitchell]

Sorry, how did I forget about the tax cut funded by the Chinese. Isn't that the tax cuts that made us borrow from the Chinese to make up the deficit difference?

You mean like Obama is borrowing form the Chinese now.

 

[LeBuick]

You mean like Obama is borrowing form the Chinese now.

Exactly...

 

[JustChristian]

Yes, but it had nothing to do with either Bush or Clinton. It had to do with hard work and more importantly, God's grace. My hope and trust is in God, not in who occupies the White House or Capitol.

And LeBuick, why do you keep lying about Bush's tax cuts being only for the rich? Matt corrected you. And I've called you on it a few times in the past, as well. When are you going to stop lying about this?

So you're saying that Reagan's famous statement was politics as usual? I agree.

 

[Andy T.]

So you're saying that Reagan's famous statement was politics as usual? I agree.

Actually, my statement was intended to reveal something much more sinister than that. But I think you can figure it out.

 

[BigBossman]

Unless you're one of the rich this is an incorrect statement. Bush gave us a onetime check and not a tax cut per se.

I'm not rich, but I did get to keep a higher percentage of what I made under Bush than with Clinton.

 

[LadyEagle]

I doubt there will be a next president. Sinister is right.