Why did the Democrats lose?

[native]

The facts speak for themselves.

"...The Democratic Party under Barack Obama in 2010 suffered the greatest defeat for a newly elected president in a midterm since the Republican Party under Warren Gamaliel Harding in 1922. Democrats, at this writing, dropped 61 seats in the House of Representatives, where they will now be in the minority, and 6 seats in the Senate, where they will continue to hold a slight edge. The Democratic defeat was historic by other measures as well--in House seats lost in a congressional election (the most since 1948), and in House seats lost in any midterm (the most since 1938). But it is the performance of a president's party following his first election that is the relevant point of comparison today. ..."

James Ceaser, Real Clear Politics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 07908.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

O'Donnell describes himself as someone who lives to the "extreme left", but I'm exaggerating.

Maybe you and Cappy need to get together for a study session.

BTW, I gave that one to ya so you're welcome.

That's the problem with labels. At the beginning of the healthcare debate, 70% of Americans supported a single payer system. So I guess 70% of Americans at that time were extremel radical progressives. [/quote][/quote][/quote]
Really?

Nice try, but during the health care debate, 49% of Americans supported a single-payer system.

http://www.srbi.com/MostAmericansEagerf ... eform.html

No need to leave anything out.
Care to discuss O'Donnell's extreme radical view to ban all guns? [/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

O.K., so only half of Americans are extreme radical progressives.

You're stance here betrays more about your own objectivity than it does about reality.

[JohnStOnge]

I thinkthe Democrats "lost" because about a third of the population is composed of people who have no firm idea as to which direction they want the country to go in and when things go bad ...or don't go as well as they'd like...they think there is a cause and effect relationship between that an the party in power.

I mean, I'm glad it happened. But it doesn't mean anything in terms of long term trends.

[Skjellyfetti]

I thinkthe Democrats "lost" because about a third of the population is composed of people who have no firm idea as to which direction they want the country to go in and when things go bad ...or don't go as well as they'd like...they think there is a cause and effect relationship between that an the party in power.

I mean, I'm glad it happened. But it doesn't mean anything in terms of long term trends.

+1

[mainejeff]

The Republican Party does a great job of pandering to their base and moderates without any noticeable $$$ sacrifice by individuals ("noticeable" being the key word......they are very conniving and do it in other ways).

[AZGrizFan]

The Republican Party does a great job of pandering to their base and moderates without any noticeable $$$ sacrifice by individuals ("noticeable" being the key word......they are very conniving and do it in other ways).

Which describes EXACTLY what happened in 2008. And 2006.

Something tells me JSO may be onto something here....

I thinkthe Democrats "lost" because about a third of the population is composed of people who have no firm idea as to which direction they want the country to go in and when things go bad ...or don't go as well as they'd like...they think there is a cause and effect relationship between that an the party in power.

I mean, I'm glad it happened. But it doesn't mean anything in terms of long term trends.

[Cap'n Cat]

The Republican Party does a great job of pandering to their base and moderates without any noticeable $$$ sacrifice by individuals ("noticeable" being the key word......they are very conniving and do it in other ways).

Which describes EXACTLY what happened in 2008. And 2006.

Something tells me JSO may be onto something here....

I thinkthe Democrats "lost" because about a third of the population is composed of people who have no firm idea as to which direction they want the country to go in and when things go bad ...or don't go as well as they'd like...they think there is a cause and effect relationship between that an the party in power.

I mean, I'm glad it happened. But it doesn't mean anything in terms of long term trends.

It's been demonstrated every election since 1968 by Conks, that, when they lose, they will lie, cheat and steal to get power back. Then they fall on their faces and lose to the Dems. John is right. The sheep in our electorate are dumb.

[AZGrizFan]

Which describes EXACTLY what happened in 2008. And 2006.

Something tells me JSO may be onto something here....

It's been demonstrated every election since 1968 by Conks, that, when they lose, they will lie, cheat and steal to get power back. Then they fall on their faces and lose to the Dems. John is right. The sheep in our electorate are dumb.

Your blindness (or stupidity, or both) is staggering.

[Cap'n Cat]

It's been demonstrated every election since 1968 by Conks, that, when they lose, they will lie, cheat and steal to get power back. Then they fall on their faces and lose to the Dems. John is right. The sheep in our electorate are dumb.

Your blindness (or stupidity, or both) is staggering.

As is yours, Z.

Cough, cough, Watergate. Cough, cough, Willie Horton. Cough, cough, Scooter Libby. More?

[AZGrizFan]

Your blindness (or stupidity, or both) is staggering.

As is yours, Z.

Cough, cough, Watergate. Cough, cough, Willie Horton. Cough, cough, Scooter Libby. More?

Cough, cough William Ayers.

[Cap'n Cat]

As is yours, Z.

Cough, cough, Watergate. Cough, cough, Willie Horton. Cough, cough, Scooter Libby. More?

Cough, cough William Ayers.

Cough, cough, Tom DeLay.................

[native]

Clifford Orwin writes in the Toronto Globe and Mail:

"...Nor was there a rage against incumbents. Incumbent Republicans in Congress sat pretty. All but two survived, while more than 50 sitting Democrats perished. In softball, they’d invoke the mercy rule...."

...and concludes, "...It’s clear the Democrats have two big problems. One is Barack Obama. The other is his program...."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1797191/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cap'n Cat]

Clifford Orwin writes in the Toronto Globa and mail:

"...Nor was there a rage against incumbents. Incumbent Republicans in Congress sat pretty. All but two survived, while more than 50 sitting Democrats perished. In softball, they’d invoke the mercy rule...."

...and concludes, "...It’s clear the Democrats have two big problems. One is Barack Obama. The other is his program...."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1797191/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, never heard of the Toronto Globa.

[native]

Clifford Orwin writes in the Toronto Globa and mail:

"...Nor was there a rage against incumbents. Incumbent Republicans in Congress sat pretty. All but two survived, while more than 50 sitting Democrats perished. In softball, they’d invoke the mercy rule...."

...and concludes, "...It’s clear the Democrats have two big problems. One is Barack Obama. The other is his program...."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1797191/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, never heard of the Toronto Globa.

[AZGrizFan]

Cough, cough William Ayers.

Cough, cough, Tom DeLay.................

Cough, cough...Charlie Rangel.

[Cap'n Cat]

Cough, cough, Tom DeLay.................

Cough, cough...Charlie Rangel.

OK, you win. He deserves it.

[AZGrizFan]

Cough, cough...Charlie Rangel.

OK, you win. He deserves it.

There's no winners amongst US. We're all losers when douchebags like these guys are in charge.

[Cap'n Cat]

Sorry, never heard of the Toronto Globa.

Barack ain't a bad guy, or a bad President. He's got two years to make up for some of the inexperience he's demonstrated.

[Cap'n Cat]

OK, you win. He deserves it.

There's no winners amongst US. We're all losers when douchebags like these guys are in charge.

Yeah, but don't exaggerate it, Z. The overwhelming majority of legislators are decent people who are doing the right thing. And the supposed "bad guys", Left and Right, (ex DeLay and Rangel) have to have some big ass balls to take on the insults, spears and arrows they do every swingle minute from every corner.

I blame the media for 75% of the alleged mess.

[native]

Barack ain't a bad guy, or a bad President. He's got two years to make up for some of the inexperience he's demonstrated.

I agree that barack is not a bad guy, for the most part. But he is a terrible president, quite cynical and duplicitous in his exercise of power, and unworthy of the job.

Hope springs eternal, but so far Obama has not demonstrated much of a capacity for change of himself, his ideas, or his inner circle. I will believe in the possibility of change when I see someone in his inner circle who is neither an ideological crusader nor an extremely partisan hack. So far his trusted cronies are both.

[BDKJMU]

Simple. The donks lost because they

1. Passed the 800+ billion democrat porkulous bill the majority of the electorate was against.
2. Continued the bailouts started under Bush that the majority of the electorate was against.
3. Continued the irresponsible spending in DC the majority of the electorate was against. Examples-voted to increase domestic discretionary non defense/non homeland security spending 24% for FY 09’-2010, continution of earmarks.
4. Passed the democrat Obamacare bill the majority of the electorate was against.
5. Pushed cap and tax that the majority of the elctorate was against.

If the donks didn't do those 5 above things they wouldn't have lost a couple of weeks ago.

[kalm]

Barack ain't a bad guy, or a bad President. He's got two years to make up for some of the inexperience he's demonstrated.

I agree that barack is not a bad guy, for the most part. But he is a terrible president, quite cynical and duplicitous in his exercise of power, and unworthy of the job.

Hope springs eternal, but so far Obama has not demonstrated much of a capacity for change of himself, his ideas, or his inner circle. I will believe in the possibility of change when I see someone in his inner circle who is neither an ideological crusader nor an extremely partisan hack. So far his trusted cronies are both.

Oh gawd, if only he were cynical.

[BlueHen86]

Barack ain't a bad guy, or a bad President. He's got two years to make up for some of the inexperience he's demonstrated.

I agree that barack is not a bad guy, for the most part. But he is a terrible president, quite cynical and duplicitous in his exercise of power, and unworthy of the job.

Hope springs eternal, but so far Obama has not demonstrated much of a capacity for change of himself, his ideas, or his inner circle. I will believe in the possibility of change when I see someone in his inner circle who is neither an ideological crusader nor an extremely partisan hack. So far his trusted cronies are both.

The same could be said of Dubya.

[native]

I agree that barack is not a bad guy, for the most part. But he is a terrible president, quite cynical and duplicitous in his exercise of power, and unworthy of the job.

Hope springs eternal, but so far Obama has not demonstrated much of a capacity for change of himself, his ideas, or his inner circle. I will believe in the possibility of change when I see someone in his inner circle who is neither an ideological crusader nor an extremely partisan hack. So far his trusted cronies are both.

The same could be said of Dubya.

Not at all, bh.

First, Dubya was not an ideological crusader. He did not set out to use executive power to change the system.

Second, Bush hired his share of partisan hacks, but he was not surrounded exclusively by partisan hack as is Obama. Andy Card, for example, was a great Chief of Staff and NOT a partisan hack. His public service professionalism stands in stark contrast to the Chicago homers hired by Obama.

Colin Powell, Robert Gates, Condi Rice, and Dick Cheney all brought legitimate public service experience to the table.

Third, Dubya was a loyal boss but fired people when necessary. Rumsfeld, for example.

[BlueHen86]

The same could be said of Dubya.

Not at all, bh.

First, Dubya was not an ideological crusader. He did not set out to use executive power to change the system.

Second, Dubya was a loyal boss but fired people several years after it was clearly necessary. Rumsfeld, for example.