Why is it wrong??

[kentuck]

When the Republican Party decides to nationalize the mid-term election and make every race about Barack Obama, then Democrats are wrong when they don't go along with the plan? When Democrats say this race is not about the President, it is about my opponent and I, then the media is obligated to criticize the Democrats for not going along with the Republican election plan? Don't you agree that Democrats should do exactly as the Republicans want?

[Xyzse]

1. Should NEVER go along with what they plan.

That is a recipe for losing.

[RKP5637]

2. Democrats set themselves up to lose by presenting a fractured party. Many are gutless

and unable to stand up for the democratic party hence trying to be republican like.

[kentuck]

3. Is this a fair question?

Should Democrats be forced to play by Republican rules??

[YarnAddict]

4. Do you think the Democrats didn't do

the same thing in 2006? You better believe the whole election was about Bush and his agenda. It happens whenever a President's approval ratings are in the toilet.

[kentuck]

5. I don't recall the media...?

...demanding and questioning why Repubs did not get behind their President?? I may be wrong?

[YarnAddict]

10. Eh, it was a long time ago

I don't remember that, either. I just know, it WORKED. We took over both the House and the Senate.

That was a glorious day.

[Jenoch]

6. "When Democrats say this race is not about the President, it is about my opponent and I..."

It's wrong because of the grammar error.

[kentuck]

7. Me would not know,

[Jenoch]

9. Ha!

[Youdontwantthetruth]

8. Just like in past elections the Democrats that will lose are the Democrats that are not Liberal

or Progressive

If Democrats want to win they need to act and pass legislation that is liberal and progressive, anything else is GOP Lite and the Republican will win.

Just Ask Harry Truman

and I know I do not care one little bit if the non liberal or progressive Democrats lose, good riddance I say. We are better off with out them, no matter what the out come of the election is.

Just think We could of had single payer but the Moderate/Conservative/Blue Dog Dems made sure we could not have it so we get GOP Care instead, a half assed fix that will not work.

[kentuck]

11. Probably.

They are under the illusion that voters are looking for moderate, rational voices, when in fact, they are looking for the exact opposite.

[Youdontwantthetruth]

12. Yup America wanted an angry black president instead we got Urkel.

[Savannahmann]

13. The half truth that all politics are local.

I say half truth, because it is a half truth these days. Yes, the congressional candidates, and senatorial candidates will be elected by local people. But the issues facing those local people, are national. There you are left with a few less than palatable choices. You can embrace the leader of the party, and his positions on the issues. This is probably choice one if your party holds the Presidency. It is a millstone if that President is unpopular. It is a millstone of epic proportions if the President is on the unpopular side of several issues.

Option two, you can run as a disloyal member of the party. That is where the independent leaning Democrats come in. They hope that they can sound independant enough that the voters will not link them with the aforementioned unpopular President. In my district, John Barrow is running ads about how he opposed the President on several issues, and the Republicans are running ads about how he voted with Obama 99% of the time. By the way, I don't think that John Barrow has much to worry about, I think he will be re-elected to another term.

The national party really let the candidates down when they didn't have a national agenda other than the overplayed War on Women. Because the questions our guys are getting are local approaches to national issues. The ACA, Immigration, NSA, Economy, and so on and so on. So the candidate is left trying to define himself on local issues, that have national import, and are part of a national discussion. Immigration for example. Barely more than half of the people polled think that immigrants are an economic plus. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/poll-immigrants-seen-economic-plus-border-crisis-over-n232506

So let's say you're running for office in Rural Georgia. You get a question about your stance on Immigration. Do you torpedo the President to show you're independent and in tune with the locals? Do you come out in support of the President? You have to be careful, because if all you do is oppose President Obama, then you're a wannabe Republican and the people will vote for the real thing.

You have to nationalize the issues, and take common sense and most importantly populist sides on a handful of issues. Reforming the NSA, legalizing marijuana, ending the militarization of the police. Those are three populist issues that enjoy support of more than half the people in the country. That puts the Republicans on the defensive, making them defend all the asinine examples of police militarization for example, as vital to the security of Keen New Hampshire as another example.

If you don't do that, then your candidates when the run as independents, will be labeled as disloyal for trying to chart a very difficult path. Then those politicians have to be re-elected. So that means they have to actually vote like that enough of the time to screw up things for the party. We bemoan the disloyal Democrats who vote with the republicans here, but we don't give them national coverage and a platform of populist issues to run on.

No, I am not saying we should be little more than flags, flapping which ever way the wind blows. If populist support said to ban Maple Syrup I'd say laugh it off and then turn that to your issue. "Well, that's great Jane (pretending the reporters name is Jane obviously) and I'm really gratified to hear it. Why you ask? Well with the ACA dealing with a vast majority of the healthcare issues in this nation, experienced by the american families, the residents of district 12 have the time to consider the weighty issue of Maple Syrup."

But without those national issues that the party is united on, all they have is. "Maple Syrup? Why certainly I'm aware of the studies conducted by the Fly By Night school of public health. I had hoped to propose legislation that would see to the regulation of this offensive substance that has caused so much harm. But the schedule in the Congress didn't allow any time to consider it, but you can bet your booties that I'll be proposing it just as soon as the residents re-elect me to represent their wishes in the future.

[kentuck]

14. I do think the President and the Party leaders..

..could have done more to defend and promote the President's policies. They sat back and let the Repubs define the President, as his favorability continued to drop. You have to fight back when you are being attacked.