Anti-war, pro-environment, anti-racism, pro-human rights, pro-education, pro-science, pro-worker Democrat voters have been utterly betrayed by New Neo-con Democrats.  Not much has changed since the switch from George W. Bush to Barrack Obama. Republican to Republican-lites. 

The 2010 mid terms voter backlash: many people will vote for Libertarians/Republicans in droves as a protest vote against the Obama establishment.  Obama's Democrats are Another Republican Party that has utterly betrayed the promise of change. Only a convincing Democrat defeat will give any hope for a return of the Democrats to traditional civilized Democratic values.

Sarah Palin or another extreme religious right Republican has a chance of being voted in as President in 2012. America has to get a lot worse before real change occurs. However, having a Republican controlled Congress may strengthen Obama's position as President. 1994 and 2002  voter backlash in mid terms strengthened both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush chances at winning a second term. Incumbency is a strong position for a President. Giving up control of Congress may well be a blessing for Obama's chances of winning a second term as President. 

I highly doubt this.  It definitely won't be Palin, she has too many negatives at this point.  The only Republican that I can see possibly winning right now would be Mitt Romney.  And he's got problems as well.

Well Barry Obama did correctly surmise that if he was a politician in Europe he'd be in the mainstream right of centre party. Same would be the case in Aussie and New Zealand I imagine too; though maybe he would fit better into the Aussie Labour party. Not sure where he fits on the Canadian spectrum. That's just how right leaning America is. Which makes accusations of him being a socialist so dang funny for everyone outside of the USA.

I'm moving to Canada if Sarah Palin becomes our next president. Which she won't because most people/politicians think of her as a joke.

what, exactly has Obama failed to do that has you so upset?  Did you expect him to drastically change things overnight?  You might have noticed, but we are in a recession, and one thing that change needs is money, money we don't have.  

Lets see, Obama got health care reform passed (not perfect, but passing it allows it to be changed over time) and he passed financial reform (something that this recession has shown we needed).  Those are two very large bills that have been passed, and he has only been in office for a couple years.  

Now, think back to George Bush, what domestic bills did he pass?  No child left behind... and tax cuts on the rich, 8 years in office and he didn't do much domestically, pretty much all warmongering.  

I'd say Barack is doing fine, but I have to also note that I am not a Democrat, nor am I Republican, so I don't really care which party is in office, just that the office holder is doing a good job.  

Palin is not going to be President in 2012.

The problem Obama is going to have in 2012, is no matter how bad you fuck up in Washington, the American people will bounce back. Sometime in the next 2 years, the economy will recover a bit (hopefully).

When it does, the republican congress gets to take the credit (even though it won't be there doing). If not for Bush and Obama, we would have already recovered.

When we do in-spite of them, all of them will take credit for it. The ones with more credibility, will be the Republicans.

And the problem is not Democrate have become more like Republicans. The problem is Republicans have become more like Democrats. The solution to our problems, is for Washington to stop spending so damn much money, and to get there hands out of everything. We are failing because both parties think they can fix the problem by trying to economically help people by giving away money. Does that sound like a Democrate or Republican position?

In what I heard about on the radio, Fox News, and forums like this, Obama is considered a Marxist, and too liberal by individuals on the GOP side.  They have showed no signs of working with him.   Obama said he wanted to run under Change and do away with this partisanship.   In order to get anything passed, he happened to compromise a lot on this.  So, you can argue against Obama all you want, but he hasn't been in a place where he can get stuff done.  It is your choice on what you want to do Tuesday.  You could lay the groundwork for an Obama defeat in 2012, if that is your choice.

WTF are you talking about.

Obama never had to work with a single Republican to get everything he wanted passed. He has a super majority. He could not get what he wanted, because he could not get enough Democrats to agree with him.

Hell, I don't even blame him. All he gets to do is sign bills that come out of Congress. They couldn't get anything out of Congress that wasn't a steaming pile of shit, when they controlled everything.

To blame republicans for anything out of washington in the last 2 years, is absurd.

I wouldn't say most.

When it comes to "Most Admired women" She's at the top of the list in the USA.

Doubt she's electable, but i'd say well over half the country think she's sane.

Most politicians think of her as a threat not a joke. 

Just like the Tea Party.  The "joke" responses are simply part of the effort to get rid of them from being a future thorne in the side.

It's why you'll see the GOP themselves stealthly try and take out Palin after this current election.

Yeah, I mean... that's why super liberals are pissed at him.  Because he could of rammed through anything he wanted and he didn't.  Letting things like the Public option slip away.

Few presidents have had such a powerful advantage in congress in recent history.