• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Republican Wave" Breaks on Shore of Senate, Fails to Awe in House

Troubadour

Banned
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
464
Reaction score
181
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Amid unprecedented levels of untraceable corporate funding, ceaseless lies and propaganda from GOP-affiliated media organizations like Fox News, and a general atmosphere of auctioneering on the part of conservative groups like the "US" Chamber of Commerce, it was widely believed and asserted in Republican circles that the GOP was poised to "sweep" Congress.

While it is true that Republicans have made large gains from their current position and flipped the House of Representatives to their control, their best efforts - which is to say, lowest tactics imaginable - have failed to win them anything close to the current Democratic House majority, and have also left the Senate in Democratic control. There are currently 257 Democrats in the House, and after the inauguration of the new Congress in January, the Republican majority will hold 239. Furthermore, most of the defeated Democrats were conservative Blue Dogs who voted against their party much of the time anyway, so the actual shift in power is not even as significant as the numbers.

It would have been a major achievement if pursued as a normal campaign cycle, but the introduction of unlimited (and probably foreign) corporate funding into GOP coffers thanks to the "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision makes it far less impressive. With the aid of a lawless decision that, it seems, was deliberately targeted by conservative Justices toward making Republicans unstoppable, there was every expectation in its ranks of a "tsunami" or "red dawn" that could transform American politics back toward the path of fascism pursued during the Bush years.

Now, however, Republicans will have to deal with the reality that they are largely limited to doing what they've already been doing - malingering and obstructing. The American people can expect two years where absolutely nothing is accomplished except within domains exclusive to the Executive purview, and during which the public trust is repeatedly disgraced with random, profligate, costly investigations based on nothing but Republican malice, innuendo, and psychosis. Only time will tell if the GOP has fallen far enough into insanity to immediately impeach President Obama upon assuming office, or if they will at least look for the shadow of an excuse before attempting it.

The GOP now has a choice, and either option yields defeat in 2012: To be guided by the fanaticism of its base, and totally destroy any lingering impression that they are capable of governing, or ignore the base and face the wrath of their own tools. The people duped into voting Republican in this election were not voting to see gridlock or listen to Jim DeMint investigate whether the President's dog is an Iranian spy, but that's all they're going to get from Republicans: That and a never-ending supply of gaffes and scandals. Sweet dreams, my tea-drinking friends. :cool:
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,229
Reaction score
14,235
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Republicans did not win due to propaganda or because of Fox News. They won largely because most Americans do not approve of how the Obama administration is leading things. I don't think we should try and undermine these historic results. Republicans have gained a historic amount of seats. I think now the Obama administration has a choice. They can compromise with Republicans and truly act in a bi-partisan manner, or they can try to continue on with liberal legislation and have it fail in the House. Republicans winning the House was a good thing.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
You know it's an important and meaningful election when there are record turnouts at the polls - regardless of who everyone voted for - in an off-season cycle.

I had to wait in line 3 hours last night to vote, and I live in a small town with just 3,000 people.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,829
Reaction score
10,253
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It would have been a major achievement if pursued as a normal campaign cycle, but the introduction of unlimited (and probably foreign) corporate funding into GOP coffers thanks to the "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision makes it far less impressive.

While the Republican gains were not unprecedented, I don't think they should be discounted as something that is fairly routine either. Elections in which a party gains 60 or more seats in the House have been uncommon.

... back toward the path of fascism pursued during the Bush years.

Although President Bush undertook a range of policies with which many disagreed very strongly and fundamentally, it is more than a stretch to describe his Administration as fascist.

Now, however, Republicans will have to deal with the reality that they are largely limited to doing what they've already been doing - malingering and obstructing.

It will depend on where Republicans obstruct policy making. If Republicans block policies that the public opposes, that won't be harmful for them. If, however, they impede policies that the public desires and deliberately pass up opportunities for cooperation on matters that have potential large benefits for the public, that strategy could be costly for Republicans. Fiscal consolidation offers one potential area of cooperation. The biggest questions concern whether it should be front-loaded (probably not a good idea given economic fragility) or backloaded (probably a better fit given the economic situation) and how to assure that credible mechanisms are in place to bring about that consolidation.

Only time will tell if the GOP has fallen far enough into insanity to immediately impeach President Obama upon assuming office, or if they will at least look for the shadow of an excuse before attempting it.

There won't be any impeachment hearings. From the fringes one might hear occasional calls for impeachment. But such calls have been made during the tenure of most recent presidents. The House won't act on them.

The GOP now has a choice, and either option yields defeat in 2012: To be guided by the fanaticism of its base, and totally destroy any lingering impression that they are capable of governing, or ignore the base and face the wrath of their own tools.

A policy path that coincides with a return of more robust economic growth wouldn't automatically lead to a loss of the newly-won Republican majority in the House. Given the Senate seats that will be up for election in 2012, it could increase prospects that the Republicans could gain control of the Senate. Of course, if there is a continuation of stagnation, the unemployment rate remains very elevated, or worse, then voters could turn with a vengeance on Republicans as they did in 1948.

The people duped into voting Republican in this election were not voting to see gridlock or listen to Jim DeMint investigate whether the President's dog is an Iranian spy, but that's all they're going to get from Republicans: That and a never-ending supply of gaffes and scandals. Sweet dreams, my tea-drinking friends. :cool:

Voters expect results, particularly in the economic realm. Their threshold for excuses likely won't be high if there is not a meaningful improvement in the nation's economic situation by the 2012 election.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Amid unprecedented levels of untraceable corporate funding, ceaseless lies and propaganda from GOP-affiliated media organizations like Fox News, and a general atmosphere of auctioneering on the part of conservative groups like the "US" Chamber of Commerce, it was widely believed and asserted in Republican circles that the GOP was poised to "sweep" Congress.

While it is true that Republicans have made large gains from their current position and flipped the House of Representatives to their control, their best efforts - which is to say, lowest tactics imaginable - have failed to win them anything close to the current Democratic House majority, and have also left the Senate in Democratic control. There are currently 257 Democrats in the House, and after the inauguration of the new Congress in January, the Republican majority will hold 239. Furthermore, most of the defeated Democrats were conservative Blue Dogs who voted against their party much of the time anyway, so the actual shift in power is not even as significant as the numbers.

It would have been a major achievement if pursued as a normal campaign cycle, but the introduction of unlimited (and probably foreign) corporate funding into GOP coffers thanks to the "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision makes it far less impressive. With the aid of a lawless decision that, it seems, was deliberately targeted by conservative Justices toward making Republicans unstoppable, there was every expectation in its ranks of a "tsunami" or "red dawn" that could transform American politics back toward the path of fascism pursued during the Bush years.

Now, however, Republicans will have to deal with the reality that they are largely limited to doing what they've already been doing - malingering and obstructing. The American people can expect two years where absolutely nothing is accomplished except within domains exclusive to the Executive purview, and during which the public trust is repeatedly disgraced with random, profligate, costly investigations based on nothing but Republican malice, innuendo, and psychosis. Only time will tell if the GOP has fallen far enough into insanity to immediately impeach President Obama upon assuming office, or if they will at least look for the shadow of an excuse before attempting it.

The GOP now has a choice, and either option yields defeat in 2012: To be guided by the fanaticism of its base, and totally destroy any lingering impression that they are capable of governing, or ignore the base and face the wrath of their own tools. The people duped into voting Republican in this election were not voting to see gridlock or listen to Jim DeMint investigate whether the President's dog is an Iranian spy, but that's all they're going to get from Republicans: That and a never-ending supply of gaffes and scandals. Sweet dreams, my tea-drinking friends. :cool:

It took eight years, two wars, the 9/11 attack and the worst economic disaster in years to give the Democrats their significant majority in the Senate.

It only took 22 months for the American people to realize the mistake they'd made.

Can anyone say sour grapes, Dems?

As to nothing getting done in the next two years -- other than undoing some of the mess that's been made in the last 22 months, our country can do very nicely with NOTHING GETTING DONE by Congress for a looooong time. No new taxes? No new spending? Give me a glass of champagne.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yep - we most assuredly NEED a stalemate so we can readjust our brastraps.
 

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
crybaby2.jpg
 

soccerboy22

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
10,721
Reaction score
4,120
Location
A warm place
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Holy hell dude. You just got to accept it. The Republicans spanked the Democrats like a naughty school girl in the House race. Like the jokes we came up with were amazing.
 

Psychoclown

Clown Prince of Politics
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,786
Reaction score
1,472
Location
Hiding from the voices in my head.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This is the kind of partisan blindness and spin control that blinds me. The Repubicans had the largest gain by party since 1948. As others have pointed out, 60 seat swings are not at all common. And while they failed to take the Senate, they did narrow the gap considerably, positioning themselves to make a run at control in 2012.

I think the Republicans were given a strong mandate when it comes to reducing government spending and/or reducing the deficit. Yes, the economy helped, but that was not the only factor in play here. The question isn't are the Republicans going to continue to block the Democratic agenda (the Democrats clearly badly misread their mandate as a wholesale endorsement of left wing policies and not as a repudiation Bush and a Republican congress that abandoned all pretense of fiscal conservatism) but how far will the Democrats go to block the Republican agenda (provided the Republicans don't make the same mistake the Dems did and over reach their mandate)? If the Republicans push modest proposals that are a part of their mandate, such as preserving all of the Bush tax cuts, reducing spending, and perhaps even scaling back parts of Obamacare, the Democrats are the ones put in a no win situation. Either allow the Republicans push through part of their agenda or face a voter backlash for obstructing measures that clearly many voters want to see enacted.

Anyone trying to spin that this election was good for the Democrats or even "not that bad" is delusional. It was a massive repudiation of Democrats who over reached on their mandate and specifically on Obama's spending policies.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well - we also have to lend a respectful hand to the lazy voters who were rallied and 'out there' for Obama and who put the Democrats in the House and Senate last election - and who decisively decided to stay home, this time around.

Only serious voters take the effort to *go* to the polls on an off-season.

During last election I read a blog from a girl I know - she commented on how she was going to work early in the morning on election day, at like 6:00 - and there was a line a people, in the rain, outside the voting booth before it opened - Presumably, they were all voting Democrat (according to her) - and she was "So thrilled, they all get it"

Seeing as how that didn't pan out this way during this election apparently they just stopped getting it.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I can't even begin to delve into what's wrong with this post.

First, it was only in this past week...when expectations always tend to get over exaggerated as fervor happens and you have the other side sometimes aiding it in hopes of making it look "not so bad"...that taking the Senate was thought of as likely. For many people the Senate was an outside shot with the House being the only thing to bank on. There were definite disappointments in the Senate but also some good signs. Republicans did make gains. Not only that, three strong Tea Party backed candidates in Rubio, Paul, and Johnson won seats...Johnson doing so over a long time and popular democratic member of the Senate.

In the House, a month ago 40 seemed like the legitimate high end number, now its seeming like its going to be 60 to 65. The number is larger than the Republican shift in 1994 and I believe the largest shift of any party at least since World War II. I am wondering if it needed to have all the new members holding sparklers and streamers being thrown for it to not "fail to awe" for you. It exceeded expectations of just a few weeks back and actually lived up to the expectations of this current week when things always get exaggerated, with the potential of even going over it if it's closer to the 65 than 60 number.

In the governor races I believe you now have 30+ of the 50 states Red in the governors chair, including important battle grounds like Ohio and potentially Florida.

You have a number of "historic" instance such as Martinez in NM as the first hispanic female governor, Tim Scott as the first black south carolina congressman since the 19th century, and Nikki Haley taking the SC governoship for the first time for a woman.

If this is a "failure" then by god I hope the Republicans fail for years to come. Was this an absolutely perfect night? No. I don't think many realistically expected that. But this was so far from failing that its laughable to think it.
 

Troubadour

Banned
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
464
Reaction score
181
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Republicans did not win due to propaganda or because of Fox News.

Whatever else was involved, it can't be denied that both played a major role.

They won largely because most Americans do not approve of how the Obama administration is leading things.

Then why do Democrats still have the Senate, and why is the new Republican majority in the House so much smaller than the current Democratic one? It seems much more plausible that common midterm angst was magnified by all the shadowy money flowing to the GOP.

I don't think we should try and undermine these historic results.

But they're not "historic" - they lost their bid for the Senate, and their House majority is smaller than the one Democrats have now.

I think now the Obama administration has a choice. They can compromise with Republicans and truly act in a bi-partisan manner, or they can try to continue on with liberal legislation and have it fail in the House.

Republicans felt no obligation to compromise after their historic - and that election truly was "historic" - defeat in 2008. In fact, they insisted that winning meant the President was obliged to accommodate them. They became more determined than ever not to work with Democrats on even the smallest detail. When the President came to them with a stimulus package smaller than his advisors had recommended, hoping they would agree to it quickly and help an ailing country, they responded by simply increasing their demands. The GOP has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it cannot be appeased, and we both know that no level of "compromise" on the part of this President is going to stop the lies, obstruction, and inevitable abuses of power by a Republican House of Representatives.

Republicans winning the House was a good thing.

For whom?

While the Republican gains were not unprecedented, I don't think they should be discounted as something that is fairly routine either.

I think the concept of "routine" politics went out the window with reality in 1980. The consequences of America's decline since then have been every bit as complex and often surprising as the circumstances that originally made us great.

Elections in which a party gains 60 or more seats in the House have been uncommon.

Elections in which the minority party is suddenly granted unlimited funding by comrades on the Supreme Court are unusual - in fact, unprecedented.

Although President Bush undertook a range of policies with which many disagreed very strongly and fundamentally, it is more than a stretch to describe his Administration as fascist.

It's a cut-and-dried fact. The "range of policies" you refer to existed within an overall framework of unchecked power, propaganda, and crimes against humanity. But my point is not to wallow in the horror of those times - it's to note that the Republican Party now uses Bush's depravity as its template for governance.

It will depend on where Republicans obstruct policy making.

They will obstruct it everywhere it is not completely dictated by them. This is standard operating procedure in the Republican Party.

If Republicans block policies that the public opposes, that won't be harmful for them.

They're far more likely to pass legislation the public opposes in service to their financiers, at which point it will either die in the Senate or be vetoed.

If, however, they impede policies that the public desires and deliberately pass up opportunities for cooperation on matters that have potential large benefits for the public, that strategy could be costly for Republicans.

They trust in public amnesia and their ability to distract people from important facts. It's an attitude that usually rewards them, but not this time around: They're going to make a disgraceful circus of things, and everyone who voted for them but the Tea Partiers is going to lose patience very fast.

Fiscal consolidation offers one potential area of cooperation.

There are no potential areas of cooperation. The Republican Party is no longer actually a political party, but more like a club or association (or Mafia) whose only purpose is to increase the power of its leaders and the wealth of its financial base. They have no interest in sharing power, and no patience for compromise or opposition of any kind.

There won't be any impeachment hearings. From the fringes one might hear occasional calls for impeachment. But such calls have been made during the tenure of most recent presidents. The House won't act on them.

You're probably right - the House GOP leadership seems smart enough not to embarrass itself like that. But the Obama administration will be subject to endless, costly, arbitrary investigations with no basis whose sole purpose is to cripple the government and manufacture scandal. It's one of the Republican Party's standard techniques for imposing its will rather than working with people in good faith.

A policy path that coincides with a return of more robust economic growth wouldn't automatically lead to a loss of the newly-won Republican majority in the House. Given the Senate seats that will be up for election in 2012, it could increase prospects that the Republicans could gain control of the Senate. Of course, if there is a continuation of stagnation, the unemployment rate remains very elevated, or worse, then voters could turn with a vengeance on Republicans as they did in 1948.

I would hesitate to apply historic patterns on to contemporary voting, but I agree that Republicans face a dilemma: Delivering anything means they might strengthen Obama, but delivering nothing means they might share whatever wrath they could potentially direct against him. They are probably counting on another one of their standard tactics, misdirection, to turn 2012 into a referendum on something totally irrelevant, but if so they would probably fail.

It took eight years, two wars, the 9/11 attack and the worst economic disaster in years to give the Democrats their significant majority in the Senate.

Most of America's disasters from 2001-2004 were leveraged to Republican advantage - it was only after Hurricane Katrina that Democrats began gaining. And, BTW, we still have the Senate.

It only took 22 months for the American people to realize the mistake they'd made.

Then why were most of the lost seats Blue Dog conservatives, why do Democrats still have the Senate, and why is the new Republican House majority so much smaller than the current Democratic one?

As to nothing getting done in the next two years -- other than undoing some of the mess that's been made in the last 22 months

They can't undo anything with just the House, and even if they get things through the Senate there's always the veto.

our country can do very nicely with NOTHING GETTING DONE by Congress for a looooong time.

As in, no unemployment extension? Oh, that'll play well in Ohio and Pennsylvania come 2012.

No new taxes? No new spending? Give me a glass of champagne.

Those aren't mainstream priorities, and the GOP knows it. As for "no new spending," I suggest you take a look at the GOP's record the last time it controlled the House. Remind me of how much the Iraq War has cost us to date. Your paragons of fiscal conservatism will spend money like it's no object so long as it doesn't benefit anyone but themselves.
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,357
Reaction score
8,099
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Amid unprecedented levels of untraceable corporate funding, ceaseless lies and propaganda from GOP-affiliated media organizations like Fox News, and a general atmosphere of auctioneering on the part of conservative groups like the "US" Chamber of Commerce, it was widely believed and asserted in Republican circles that the GOP was poised to "sweep" Congress.

While it is true that Republicans have made large gains from their current position and flipped the House of Representatives to their control, their best efforts - which is to say, lowest tactics imaginable - have failed to win them anything close to the current Democratic House majority, and have also left the Senate in Democratic control. There are currently 257 Democrats in the House, and after the inauguration of the new Congress in January, the Republican majority will hold 239. Furthermore, most of the defeated Democrats were conservative Blue Dogs who voted against their party much of the time anyway, so the actual shift in power is not even as significant as the numbers.

It would have been a major achievement if pursued as a normal campaign cycle, but the introduction of unlimited (and probably foreign) corporate funding into GOP coffers thanks to the "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision makes it far less impressive. With the aid of a lawless decision that, it seems, was deliberately targeted by conservative Justices toward making Republicans unstoppable, there was every expectation in its ranks of a "tsunami" or "red dawn" that could transform American politics back toward the path of fascism pursued during the Bush years.

Now, however, Republicans will have to deal with the reality that they are largely limited to doing what they've already been doing - malingering and obstructing. The American people can expect two years where absolutely nothing is accomplished except within domains exclusive to the Executive purview, and during which the public trust is repeatedly disgraced with random, profligate, costly investigations based on nothing but Republican malice, innuendo, and psychosis. Only time will tell if the GOP has fallen far enough into insanity to immediately impeach President Obama upon assuming office, or if they will at least look for the shadow of an excuse before attempting it.

The GOP now has a choice, and either option yields defeat in 2012: To be guided by the fanaticism of its base, and totally destroy any lingering impression that they are capable of governing, or ignore the base and face the wrath of their own tools. The people duped into voting Republican in this election were not voting to see gridlock or listen to Jim DeMint investigate whether the President's dog is an Iranian spy, but that's all they're going to get from Republicans: That and a never-ending supply of gaffes and scandals. Sweet dreams, my tea-drinking friends. :cool:

What a bunch of bunk.

Dems had everything, and I mean everything, going for them after 2008, and in less than half Obama's term, they pissed it all away.

Last night was just the first quarter of a four-quarter rout. Did you see that map last night? Did you notice how red the midwest was? DID YOU SEE PENNSYLVANIA?

The ONLY thing that saved the Dems last night was that 2/3 of the Senate was not up for election. Otherwise, Republicans might own 70 seats in the Senate, too.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Most of America's disasters from 2001-2004 were leveraged to Republican advantage - it was only after Hurricane Katrina that Democrats began gaining. And, BTW, we still have the Senate.

Big baby. Hurricane Katrina didn't cause that upset. Eight years of Bush caused that upset. Who cares about the Senate? All the revenue bills start in the House.

Then why were most of the lost seats Blue Dog conservatives, why do Democrats still have the Senate, and why is the new Republican House majority so much smaller than the current Democratic one?

Spin it any way you want to, Troubie. The Republicans scored a victory. A mandate AGAINST the policies of Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress run wild.

They can't undo anything with just the House, and even if they get things through the Senate there's always the veto.

I don't expect them to undo anything...that was not a prediction but a comment that we don't need anymore government interference.

As in, no unemployment extension? Oh, that'll play well in Ohio and Pennsylvania come 2012.

Again, you take my comments literally.

Those aren't mainstream priorities, and the GOP knows it. As for "no new spending," I suggest you take a look at the GOP's record the last time it controlled the House. Remind me of how much the Iraq War has cost us to date. Your paragons of fiscal conservatism will spend money like it's no object so long as it doesn't benefit anyone but themselves.

If we're still pretty well deadlocked, which we probably are, it'll be GOOD for the American people. Washington needs to STFU.
 

Troubadour

Banned
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
464
Reaction score
181
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This has to be the biggest whiniest partisan hack sour grapes thread ever to hit the internetz. :lamo

Do you disagree with something I've said, or are you just really desperate not to talk about this?


When you said you'd put me on ignore, I had assumed you meant you weren't going to read or respond to my posts. I guess you only meant the first half.

Holy hell dude. You just got to accept it. The Republicans spanked the Democrats like a naughty school girl in the House race. Like the jokes we came up with were amazing.

Hey, I recognize it was a big turnaround - you're perfectly welcome to enjoy it. But be aware of the reality: Republicans won control of 1/6 of the government, with a majority smaller than the one Democrats have now, and have virtually no chance of delivering anything other than acrimony, gridlock, and disgrace.

The Repubicans had the largest gain by party since 1948.

The best result unlimited foreign money could buy.

And while they failed to take the Senate, they did narrow the gap considerably, positioning themselves to make a run at control in 2012.

No one denies their position has advanced, just that it's anywhere near meeting the hype.

I think the Republicans were given a strong mandate when it comes to reducing government spending and/or reducing the deficit.

I'd be more inclined to concede that if Republicans had ever conceded it in return, but they respond to Democratic landslides by saying that Democrats need to be less liberal. I would also be more inclined to agree if Republicans ever actually ran on those issues outside of their home turf, instead of trying to constantly deceive people about their intentions.

Yes, the economy helped, but that was not the only factor in play here.

I realize that the Republican base was motivated - the whole "black man in the White House" thing being a constant irritant to their sensibilities. But that in itself would have been overcome, much as it was in 2008.

the Democrats clearly badly misread their mandate as a wholesale endorsement of left wing policies

Then why didn't they enact any?

but how far will the Democrats go to block the Republican agenda

Republicans don't have an agenda. They favor cutting the taxes of their funding base because it kicks back to their campaigns, not because they know or care about taxation, revenue, or economics. That's why they don't commit to specifics, it's just always "taxes are too high" - there's always more of the public Treasury to loot, more of our nation's economy to break up and sell for scrap.

If the Republicans push modest proposals that are a part of their mandate, such as preserving all of the Bush tax cuts, reducing spending, and perhaps even scaling back parts of Obamacare, the Democrats are the ones put in a no win situation.

None of that is "modest." The American people wanted a more rigorous healthcare system than the one that was passed; they prioritize balanced budgets and public spending priorities over tax cut; and they don't have this twisted fetish for constantly trying to make rich people richer at the cost of dismantling basic economic infrastructure. Republicans know their agenda isn't mainstream, and that's why most of the time they don't run on it - they just try to deceive people and make things up to rail against.

It was a massive repudiation of Democrats who over reached on their mandate and specifically on Obama's spending policies.

You're just projecting your own opinions on to the electorate. The economy is still bad, despite some growth having occurred, ergo the party in power loses seats.
 
Last edited:

Psychoclown

Clown Prince of Politics
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,786
Reaction score
1,472
Location
Hiding from the voices in my head.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I realize that the Republican base was motivated - the whole "black man in the White House" thing being a constant irritant to their sensibilities. But that in itself would have been overcome, much as it was in 2008.

Ah, smearing your opponents as racists. You now have fullfilled every negative sterotype of a radical, blindly partisan left wing hack. Congratulations.

Then why didn't they enact any?

I'm guessing you're so far left that anything to the right of Comrade Lenin is a fascist to you, but to the American public massive stimulus spending, the government taking control of major corporations, and a massive healthcare bill were seen as left wing policies.

Republicans don't have an agenda. They favor cutting the taxes of their funding base because it kicks back to their campaigns, not because they know or care about taxation, revenue, or economics. That's why they don't commit to specifics, it's just always "taxes are too high" - there's always more of the public Treasury to loot, more of our nation's economy to break up and sell for scrap.

The Republicans haven't always been great about livingup to their campaign promises on spending. You'll get no arguemnt here, but clearly they ran as the party that will reduce spending and if they fail to deliever or at least push that agenda, their base will turn on them in a heartbeat.

None of that is "modest." The American people wanted a more rigorous healthcare system than the one that was passed; they prioritize balanced budgets and public spending priorities over tax cut; and they don't have this twisted fetish for constantly trying to make rich people richer at the cost of dismantling basic economic infrastructure. Republicans know their agenda isn't mainstream, and that's why most of the time they don't run on it - they just try to deceive people and make things up to rail against.

The Republicans ran on three things as a party: preserving tax cuts, cutting spending, and rolling back Obamacare. They were quite upfront about it. Now they have to follow through.

You're just projecting your own opinions on to the electorate. The economy is still bad, despite some growth having occurred, ergo the party in power loses seats.

A bad economy in midterm elections definately spells defeat for the ruling party, but not necessarily defeat on this scale. There was more to it then just voter frustration over the economy. The Democrats over reached and they got burned for it. America is generally a center-right country right now. Obama will need to move to the center now if he wants to have any chance at re-election.
 
Last edited:

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,951
Reaction score
28,520
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
from the Rev

Yesh your entire thesis is fail.


- again with the refereeing. You really enjoy both putting on the team uniform plus the stripes and whistle don't you? A good therapist might tell you that you show signs of an inferiority complex forcing you to announce your supposed victories over and over again to boost your own sense of self worth and confidence. But not being a good therapist I will not tell you that.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
from the Rev




- again with the refereeing. You really enjoy both putting on the team uniform plus the stripes and whistle don't you? A good therapist might tell you that you show signs of an inferiority complex forcing you to announce your supposed victories over and over again to boost your own sense of self worth and confidence. But not being a good therapist I will not tell you that.




Still waiting for links... Are you going to follow me around pouting in every thread now? :2wave:
 

Troubadour

Banned
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
464
Reaction score
181
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Dems had everything, and I mean everything, going for them after 2008, and in less than half Obama's term, they pissed it all away.

It had very little to do with the President's policies. Republicans turned this election into an auction and flooded their insane, shady-funded propaganda 24/7 against Democratic opponents whose resources were generally much more limited.

Last night was just the first quarter of a four-quarter rout. Did you see that map last night? Did you notice how red the midwest was? DID YOU SEE PENNSYLVANIA?

Yes, and we'll see how the Midwest feels when Republicans block unemployment compensation.

The ONLY thing that saved the Dems last night was that 2/3 of the Senate was not up for election. Otherwise, Republicans might own 70 seats in the Senate, too.

Could be, but all we can judge by is what actually happened - not desperate, alternate universe suppositions.
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,607
Reaction score
14,469
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Geez, you all have covered this one pretty good... not much I can add here.

All I can say is, if the democrats and progressives embrace these kind of attitudes and sentiments, the country is in big trouble... not to mention how it will negatively effect democrats in 2012.

Sour grapes anyone?
 

FilmFestGuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
1,244
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
You know it's an important and meaningful election when there are record turnouts at the polls - regardless of who everyone voted for - in an off-season cycle.

I had to wait in line 3 hours last night to vote, and I live in a small town with just 3,000 people.

Yeh...You and John Boehner think so. He just said: "More people are involved in their government than ever before". Except for the fact that 121 Million people voted in 2008 vs. 81 million in 2010. So...no. That would be his first lie as Speaker-To-Be.

But in Republican terms, 25% less equals "more than ever before". We should get used to that.

Let's see how suddenly and magically the unemployment rate goes down.
 
Top Bottom