I expect that in 2012 all the really big money will go to defeating Obama.

[Kablooie]

Think he could withstand that kind of monumental onslaught or will he be a one term president and we will find ourselves living in Bush world version 2.0?

[Drunken Irishman]

1. Luckily, Pres. Obama can fundraise like no modern president in American history.

If we've found our bearings as a country, I think he'll be okay.

Now just to find those bearings...

[cliffordu]

2. Yep. Our bearings will have great bearing on the proceedings.

:rofl:

[TheKentuckian]

11. How many billions do you think he can come up with and what will he have to sell to get them?

We can't give up but it is well past folly to think there is any hope of going war chest to war chest. Some of these special interests control the money supply at the moment and even if that can be squared away the wealth differential is staggering.

Also, Congress is the bigger problem. The majority of the Senate at least is already owned, a couple of cycles could give big money all the power they need regardless if a decent President can make it through the gauntlet if they can write whatever laws they desire and override vetoes.

The only chance is to truly rouse the people NOW and keep them regardless of the propaganda onslaught.

[Webster Green]

3. Bush world 2.0.3

Palin at the helm.

I'm leaving well before that happens though.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. So you're gonna just give up?

Lame.

[Webster Green]

10. Fine, I'm lame.

Thanks for your input! :-(

[kywildcat]

5. I'm not so sure of that-there are

many many moneyed interests that support a liberal or even a middle of the road agenda. Think Bill Gates. If the leash is off of corporate donors-that sword cuts both ways. The difference is the hatefulness that the conservatives are willing to deploy in their advertising. We need to be more concerned with our inability to appeal to people logically rather than emotionally.

[aquart]

7. I can see corporations going bankrupt over this.

Basically, it's the wild wild west and somebody is looking to be the new Tom DeLay.

[kywildcat]

8. for smaller firms and companies

without controls yes-larger companies and publically traded companies-never. Too many levels of approval within a company have to be met to allow that to happen. If smaller companies bankrupt themselves in order to manipulate an election-then they weren't viable long term anyway.
typo correction

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. this may be a blow to progressives - but not necessarily the Democratic Party

I'm sure there are many Wall Street titans that are actually quite uncomfortable with today's Republican Party and the crazy Fundamentalists, tea-baggers, freeper types and social conservatives who now dominate the GOP. Many of them would be reasonably comfortable with a pro-corporate, "pro-free trade" pro-Wall Street Democratic Party. Many, probably most typical yuppies of the 80's don't object to gay marriage, a certain amount of minimal regulations and most are probably pro-choice. They will not countenance however, ideas like single-payer, serious regulation of the financial markets, restraints on globalization, more workers rights protections or anything that interferes with their profit making schemes.

[DrDan]

9. if the unemployment rate does not improve, it will not take "big money"