Democrats Could 'Absolutely' Lose Majority Control in Congress, Some Strategists Say

[AlphaCentauri]

Source: ABC

Democrats, especially incumbents, could be in for a very tough fight in November's midterm elections as Americans increasingly switch their support to the Republican Party, according to a new poll.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll released today found that voters were split over which party they preferred to have a majority in Congress, with 44 percent favoring Democrats and 44 percent Republicans; 12 percent said they weren't sure. But 56 percent of those Americans who said they were most interested in the midterm elections supported Republicans, and 36 percent backed Democrats, "the highest gap all year on that question," according to the poll.





Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/democrats-lose-majority-control-midterm-elections-strategists/story?id=10633495

[Mz Pip]

1. It's true

If Democrats stay home then the Repugs will return with a vengance and nothing will get done for the next couple of years.

It's all about GOTV.

[wtmusic]

2. The could-ness is absolute.

I love those kind of headlines. :D

[wryter2000]

4. Agreed

Some say the Republicans could win enough seats in the Senate to override a veto. :)

[backtomn]

33. Override a veto???

I think that this would require a 2/3 majority for the Repubs. Not likely. Hopefully, you were being tweaking some of the more pessimistic among us.

[totodeinhere]

41. No, that won't happen. It's virtually mathematically impossible.

But the way the Senate works, if the pukes can only pick up two or three seats they will be able to make things very difficult.

[wryter2000]

53. "Some say"

I was kidding about how they puff up any anti-Dem message they get. :hi:

[wryter2000]

52. That was a joke

I should have put quotes around "some say." :hi:

[totodeinhere]

54. I guess it takes me a while to get it. LOL. n/t

[wryter2000]

3. ABC can hardly contain their glee

"Health care is dead!"
"Saddam has WMDs!"
"ACORN encourages pimps and murderers!"

Granted, there has to be some swing back from our two huge victories. However, the tea partiers are busy eliminating normal right-wing-moron Republicans from running and replacing them with Morons from Mars. How many of these undecideds are going to vote for them?

[SPedigrees]

6. I agree with you.

RW teabagger fanaticism could be the best thing to happen to the democratic party, and a real vote splitter for the republican party.

[wtmusic]

9. Don't underestimate the Undecided Martian Moron bloc. nt

[still_one]

16. The repukes have also cause a backlash from Hispanic voters, however, unless Tim Kaine gets off his

ass and starts doing his job, i.e., getting the message what Democrats stand for, instead of letting the other side define us, we will have problems

[notesdev]

5. I told you so

It is plain and clear to the average person that the government is primarily serving the purposes of financial interests and not serving the needs of the people. This is something that huge majorities are going to agree on. Those who don't get it should not (but will) be surprised when the electorate turns against them with a vengeance.

It all comes down to understanding why Democrats have the majority now. Democrats were not elected to pursue the Democratic agenda; they were elected as a repudiation of the ruling class (which was then Republican). Now that the ruling class is Democratic, and the peoples' requirements are still not met, the next repudiation will be to take out mostly Democratic officeholders.

When one party or the other puts a stop to the looting and pillaging, that party will hold power for a generation... assuming the looting and pillaging doesn't destroy the country entirely before either party "gets it".

[DJ13]

14. +1

Its too bad our party as a whole refuses to see that in the face of massive corporate campaign donations.

[humblebum]

7. The words "could" and "absolutely" kinda cancel each other out and

now is not a time to panic. There are still 6 months to go and a whole lot can happen in that time.

[BunkerHill24]

13. I concur. Besides, all politics are local. n/t

[tcaudilllg]

28. Disaster appears not in the form of a united GOP

but in a divided Democratic Party.

[Tesha]

61. Well, when you tell half the party in hundreds of different ways...

...that our views don't matter and would we please be kind enough
to just sit down and shut up, those sorts of divisions tend to crop up.

Ahh well, who knew, ehh?

Tesha

[kctim]

73. Very true

but us moderates make up more than half the party and we should not let little temper tantrums divide the party.
It is easier to reach across the party than it is to reach across the aisle.

[Tesha]

86. "There you go again"

Temper tantrums?

Expecting the Democratic Party to stand up for democratic values
is a temper tantrum?

Expecting our President to actually execute on the promises he
made while campaigning is a temper tantrum?

Clearly, with language like that, you don't want my vote in the
future.

Tesha

[backtomn]

35. I agree....but......

....if we just sit around and watch things for 6 months, things could get VERY bad. We still need to organize, get the word out, and vote. I have no indication that we are willing to do that yet. I would never underestimate the ability of the Repubs to blow this, but the wind is definitely in their sails.

In my opinion, as it stands now, we will lose the House and come close in the Senate. If that doesn't motivate people, I don't know what will. Six months is a lot of time, but only if we are motivated to do something.

[blue_onyx]

8. So...

and I could win the lottery. Doesn't mean it will happen.

[deutsey]

10. Yes, but you could "absolutely" win the lottery.

Big difference there.

:evilgrin:

[wtmusic]

11. Can you win the lottery less than absolutely

or is that like being half-pregnant? :shrug:

[deutsey]

19. Absolutely.

[wtmusic]

22. D'oh!

:rofl:

[onpatrol98]

26. or half ugly

:toast:

[sadbear]

12. Dick Morris said the same thing on Oreilly last night.

For what it's worth. :rofl:

[still_one]

21. That definitely gives me some hope. It is like crammer calling the market /nt

[pattmarty]

15. All I can say is watch the professionals. People like Nate Silver.................

...........and Charlie Cook are usually right when calling elections. The REAL problem (ala Scott Brown in Ma) is the Dems didn't do what the voters voted them in for. They didn't "change" a goddamn thing. AND, I don't wanna hear AGAIN about the terrific POS healthcare bill that passed. It's a POS and MOST voters think so too. The Dems will "pay" for that fucking bill for a long time.

[still_one]

18. B.S. It is the economy and jobs, and that's the problem. The healthcare bill isn't what is on most

people's priority right now

As far as your assessment about the "POS healthcare bill", that was the only type of bill that would have passed. They DIDN'T have the votes for anything else

Maybe you haven't looked lately, but the country is shifting to the right. This is evidenced by the racism from Arizona and other states who want similar like laws

When people start bring guns to political rallies there is a real problem, and it ISN'T because the idiots in this country crave a more progressive agenda.

That many of these people, ("independents"), cannot even discern how the repukes have hurt them is beyond me

[pattmarty]

23. No, it's because they didn't do shit with 60 Senate seats and what................

...........250 in the House and the White House too. They voted for "change" and got a shitty healthcare bill. Didn't have the votes? C'mon, Bush passed horrible shit with less votes. Try again.

[notesdev]

27. Not only with fewer votes...

... but also with Democratic support, from NCLB to the War on Terror to TARP!

[backtomn]

37. Let's face it......

Obama virtually wasted an entire year with complete control of the House, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and control of the executive branch. Can you imagine what would have happened with Bush as President and that type of Republican control. Yikes !! We get control and we have almost nothing to show for it.

[pattmarty]

38. That is EXACTLY what I have been saying in different posts.

[okieinpain]

55. you didn't have that type of control. democrats have never been

of one mind on anything and I don't understand why it was suppose to happen under obama.

[okieinpain]

39. really like what. just asking. n/t.

[still_one]

58. I'll ask you the same thing, which blue dog, the same ones who voted with bush

would pass single-payer?

[2Design]

31. if you take care of health care - then companies will have higher profits

and can STOP shipping jobs out - universal health care allows them to play cheaper elsewhere

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

20. There is a MAJOR difference in who a republican would choose for the Supreme Court vs a Democrat

[pattmarty]

25. Well, I wouldn't say "MAJOR", can you say Kagan? A better choice............

........of a word (other than MAJOR) is "better". Major, I don't think so.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

45. You don't think there's a major difference between Sotomayor and Alito?

Really?

[pattmarty]

59. We're talking about the "recent" choice, really. Trouble is we don't........

............know if there is ANY difference. He should have chosen a qualified liberal and fought through the Senate, Bush did it fucking TWICE.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

64. Yes, other than the fact that she has thus far voted exactly opposite Scalia, there is no evidence

she is any different from him at all.

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

62. Sotomayor could vote to reverse Roe on the grounds it was wrongfully decided

Too many Catholics on the Court. I wonder if they will follow Rome...

[SemiCharmedQuark]

65. You mean like those anti choicers Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry?

[Kablooie]

24. The country is nostalgic and wants the Bush years to come back. They were so wonderful.

[frylock]

29. wait... what?! democrats are in control of congress?

who knew? :shrug:

[KansDem]

36. Yes, and they may lose that majority...

...but then, are we going to notice?

[dflprincess]

30. If the Democrats lose I really doubt it will be because people have switched from them to

the Republicans.

It will be because too many of the people who voted for Democrats in 2006 & 2008 are fed up with being sold out by both sides and will either stay home or find a third party to support.

[paulk]

56. I agree

voter apathy is what will lose us the Congress this fall.

[Individualist]

77. +1

[2Design]

32. media is already predicting and influencing the election -

only idiots will vote republican and think things will be better because the media will brainwash them - they won't mention all the money wasted by the rethugs or the wars, or the scandals or the sex scandals or the senator who was against blacks but fathered a black child (by rape) - yes this is the media that sells us out

[Patsy Stone]

34. "Some say"

the moon is made of cheese.

[totodeinhere]

40. The enthusiam gap is scary.

And why are Democrats less enthused? The list is a mile long. No single payer, soldiers still dying in foreign wars, the Wall Street bailout, no progress on immigration reform, no repeal of DOMA and DADT, nominating a moderate for the Supreme Court, no prosecution of Bush Administration war criminals, and list goes on.

But it's not too late to change some of these problems, and we had better do it while we still have the votes. .

[okieinpain]

42. yeah why are democrats less enthused. I agree with two items

on your list war (but I understand why we are there) and the immigration reform (you have to admit the HCR bill probably sucked up all the will power people have for right now)

other then that I don't understand why people are so upset on the right or the left

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Maybe pissing off the left wing of the party wasn't such a good idea after all.

[Mari333]

46. [phone]

[Tesha]

63. Hear, hear!!! (NT)

[Marr]

80. Liberals really don't matter. They're just a tiny minority.

Except when the party loses. Then they're to blame for not bringing their massive influence out to support the corporate Democrats. So the party must be more corporate moving forward. Because the liberals are just a tiny minority and not worth catering to.

:crazy:

[Marr]

81. mispost

[Cali_Democrat]

44. This is, in fact, true

some say

[Proud Liberal Dem]

47. Whatever "gains" the GOP makes in 2010

will almost certainly be erased in 2012 IMHO when people vote en masse in the Presidential election. The thought of having a GOP Congress is horrifying after everything we've already been through and it's astounding that people have such short memories and/or are really *concerned* about President Obama and his agenda but once they see that the GOP essentially doesn't have much (anything) to offer and that most of them are just plain insane, hopefully, President Obama and the Democrats will be able to capitalize on their inevitable uber-obstructionism/fanaticism and strike back hard in 2012. It seems as though long term demographics indicate that, while the GOP will remain capable of winning elections, particularly in certain regions (i.e. the South), I don't see them as being able to sustain those victories, at least based on what I've read.

[totodeinhere]

49. I understand what you are saying, but there is much to be done if we are

going to have a better country, and having the pukes in control of congress for two years would set back President Obama's agenda in many areas, and I don't think we can let that happen if at all possible.

But having said that, they might make some gains but I seriously doubt if it will be enough to actually retake control of either the House or the Senate. But the problem is that even a modest gain in Senate seats would allow them to cause a lot of trouble given the way that the Senate works.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

50. I don't think they will regain control again a la 1994

They will undoubtedly make some gains but I honestly don't believe that they will have a blockbuster year like 1994 this year and if they do, it will be less about people embracing the GOP (again) and more about low turnout among Democratic voters IMHO. I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should not allow the Pukes to even get close to regaining control and do whatever we can to prevent it (or at least make sure we get anything really critical done ASAP- which is probably why HCR was finished as early as it was). We have approximately 6 months before the midterms and anything could happen and we need to all get out there and mobilize as though it were like a Presidential election b/c President Obama's agenda will ground to a screeching HALT if he has to deal with a GOP Congress for two years- not to mention the kind of harassment he will have to deal with from people like Issa who are itching to start *investigating* him and his administration for even the slightest "whiff" of wrongdoing (past or present). I THOUGHT that Democrats were on an upward trend in terms of polling since the passage of HCR, which is why this WSJ/NBC poll is a bit confusing to me. :shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

48. I wonder if the splinterists will be partially to blame a la Nader 2000. n/t

[SidDithers]

51. "Some Strategists" also said Sarah Palin was Presidential material...nt

Sid

[mochajava666]

57. Too soon to predict, but Obama needs to do his job and lead.

The voters are angry, but unfocused, so these poll numbers should be pretty volatile. The base and independents are looking for strong leadership, and finding their president and congressional representatives bought by the powers of the status quo.

If Obama shows some leadership instead of constant capitulation to the powers upholding the status quo, the base will be energized and the independents will be convinced that the Dems may have the ability to govern and bring about change. More of the same DLC bullshit and the people will only have a choice between a republican and a democrat acting like a republican. Independents choose the republican every time and the base will stay home. Is Rahm really a democrat. or is he more like what David Gergen and Dick Morris were to Clinton?

I think Obama would be thrilled to see big republican gains, because then he can triangulate like Clinton did, and get his conservative corporate and militaristic policies passed without him being totally complicit in the harm he will cause. He will then be applauded for reaching across the aisle with a coalition of DLC dems and repukes.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

66. Yeah, sure. That's EXACTLY what Obama is waiting for to happen

Surely ye jest.
:eyes:

I know that it's almost an accepted maxim around here that President Obama likes nothing more than to suck up to the Republicans and promote right-wing policies and right-wing SCOTUS nominees but c'mon. For somebody who supposedly likes Republicans so much, he sure gave them one hell of a spanking when he went to their House conference a few months ago and I haven't seen any real evidence that he has any real serious sympathy for Republicans and/or their agenda. I would have thought that the awesome *spanking* he gave them there (on their own turf no less) should put this pernicious falsehood to rest but I guess not.
:banghead:

[mochajava666]

69. Maybe a litlle, but to tell you the truth, I don't know anymore

The whole HCR process remains fresh in my memory. I was proud of him on how he showed that he was the only adult in the room in the HCR debate and in the conference (I assume you're talking about the meeting about the deficit and economy in general?). Those were great moments. His book was great. His campaign speeches were great. I have never contributed as much of my time and money into his campaign, and I don't regret it.

I just can't seem to reconcile that guy with the guy that did secret deals with Big Pharma, delayed DADT repeal, proposed increased off-shore drilling etc. You know the list.

As for him feeling good about republican gains, I didn't mean to imply repub takeovers, but just enough gains to be able to shut up Kucinich, Weiner, Grayson, Feingold, Boxer, Sanders and others that, IMO, stand on principle more than Obama. These are people that would propose throwing a 100 foot rope out to save a drowning victim 100 feet offshore. Repubs would say let the unfortunate person drown, saying we can't afford a rope. Obama would say getting a 50 foot rope is a perfect solution. These half measures have crippled his ability to bring about the change that he campaigned on.

I felt that the Obama administration viewed Kennedy's seat going repub as an opportunity because then the only way HCR had any chance any more was by dropping the public option, but keep in the mandates, which I think is what he wanted all along. I remember him liking co-ops and triggers. When Dean strongly disagreed, his administration started innuendo about Dean's mental health. Has he been that strong armed with conservadems? He's campaigning for Blanche Lincoln, so I don't think so.

I find in Obama a guy that knows what is right, and what needs to be done, but lacks the ability to really fight for his beliefs. A lot of things need fixing, and compromising with crazies and morons is not working.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

70. I'm one of Obama's biggest "cheer leaders" around here to be sure

and I've defended him on a lot of things and I freely admit that he has disappointed me on some of the things that you mentioned too. However, after the last horrific eight years, I'm so relieved just to have a Democratic administration back in charge in the WH that I'm willing to tolerate/overlook some of the disappointments at the moment. Everything has been bent out of shape so much by Bushco that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are having to spend most of their time just preventing further harm and getting things back on a more responsible course (with the Republicans, their lapdog mediawhores, and "teabaggers" constantly yapping and nipping at their heels no less). Even if President Obama's administration isn't a perfectly progressive administration, even if he hasn't totally reversed every last one of Bushco's most egregious anti-terror policies, and even if he doesn't prosecute a single person from the previous (mis-)administration, President Obama's long-term trajectory/vision is what is most important to me and on that score, I believe that he is pushing the country in the right direction. We may not all agree on the speed or the strategy (which is fine, of course) but I refuse to believe that he has some kind of secret love for Republicans and/or their policies or- even worse- that he just wants *excuses* to compromise away more progressive policies/initiatives in order to, I guess, get the Republicans to love him more (which I'm sure he's not naive enough to believe is even possible). :shrug:

[mochajava666]

72. I agree with everything you said until the end

Have you read his book? If not, I would recommend getting it in audio book form. It's great, because he reads it himself. You can feel his passion through his reading. After reading that book, I am more inclined to think that he is determined to change the way Washington works more than anything else. He talks about how much he enjoyed campaigning in very rural, very red areas of Illinois because he was always so moved by how much all Americans have in common. He really believes that whole red, blue, purple state thing. He refuses to realize that when you make a 50-50 deal with an idiot that means you harm, good things aren't likely to be the result.

One obstacle that stops him from making deals has been an energized left wing that has finally seen the presidency and both houses of congress solidly Democratic. They don't want ineffective half measures, and I think Obama doesn't want anything that is perceived as blue legislation and not purple legislation. Therefore, if the left is further marginalized, his agenda of changing the way Washington works is much easier.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

75. I did read (or rather, listen to) "Audacity of Hope"

It was a great book and turned me towards voting for him in the Primary more than anything else. I agree with your assessment of how he comes across in terms of wanting to change the way Washington works. For him, that seems to mean reaching out more to ALL Americans, not just liberals/progressives. Maybe you can make the argument that he is trying too hard to do that and maybe that such efforts are misguided (or at the very least, unproductive) but it's good to see him try to remain true to his pledge to change things in Washington and makes his speech that he gave in 2004 meaningful instead of just being "words".

There is definitely a small but vocal portion of the public (25-30%) that are so far down the "rabbit-hole", politically, ideologically, and/or socially, that they will uncritically believe ANYTHING and EVERYTHING people like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, or any number of right-wing ideologues and propagandists will tell them and support Republican obstructionism and fanaticism to whatever ends. There is probably no way that President Obama (or anybody with a "D" after their name) will EVER be able to reach them (and I don't really think that they are trying).

The Republicans in Congress have shown themselves to be nothing but obstructionists and naysayers and are simply not interested in doing anything to help the country because it might be considered a "victory" for the Democratic Party instead of simply being a victory for the American people. I think that President Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party- since December/January has largely given up on trying to work with them- save for one of two somewhat occasionally sane ones. After all, President Obama did NOT dramatically scale back HCR nor has he (permanently) given up on things like trying terror suspects in civilian courts and closing Gitmo (both of which have run into technical problems because of some DEMOCRATS in Congress) even though they would've been the more politically feasible moves to make.

However, there ARE some "soft" and/or misinformed Republicans/conservatives out there who President Obama and the Democrats MIGHT just be able to make some inroads with, so why should President Obama and the Democrats just give the finger to them and make damned SURE that we don't ever get a chance to engage/have dialogue with some of these reachable people? Also, I should point out too that President Obama seems to genuinely want to be President of ALL Americans (part of his pledge to change the way Washington works), not just Democrats and I don't really think that's such a bad thing for the country. It's actually a good thing (and quite refreshing actually) IMHO. It certainly would've been nice if George W. Bush had taken into consideration the incredibly divisive nature of the 2000 (s)election and the horrific attacks that occurred on 09/11/01 and genuinely tried to be the President of ALL Americans and not just Republicans but of course, we all know what ended up happening.

So, the fundamental question about all this to me is this: Do we just want President Obama to be a Democratic facsimile of GWB and simply attack/ignore/mock/smear a sizable number of people in this country whom- despite their conservatism and antiquated/misguided beliefs- are still basically decent people or do we work to try to win over some sensible Republicans (not just Congressmen or Senators) and make a genuine attempt to bring everybody together to help solve our country's problems?

[mochajava666]

78. Listening to his book was a great experience

As far as your assessment of his efforts to work across the aisle, I would say that the number of reachable Repubs is smaller than the number of conservadems that don't support him either. He could strong arm the conservadems and tell the repubs that if they want to be part of the process, they will have to join his efforts. What he does instead is gives them what they want, and then see if they will join him. The repubs then get a legislative victory while still trashing Obama.

I see that up front capitulation as not only ineffective, but it makes me wonder how passionate he is when he weakens his bills so easily. His starting positions are already moderate, so the compromises are then conservative. You would think that the Dems weren't in charge of governing. I guarantee you that the Independents will notice how ineffectual we are at governing, and will give power back to the repubs by default.

As for compromising with the insane, I see no reason to legitimize their lies. Bush was a dictatorial asshole, but Dems still worked with him because they felt they had to do their job of governing. These GOP assholes just want a black man to fail while looking weak and ineffective to add to their stereotypes that a black person doesn't have what it takes to be a leader.
If he could just grow a pair (or borrow Hillary's), then maybe he could get some GOP support. Their lizard brains respect power, not intellect or ethics. And they can't stand the idea of a black man in the oval office.

If the GOP was the GOP before Newt, then honest compromise would be possible and productive. But these repubs are not decent, nor is their constituency. I live in an area so red that I hear the N bomb about Obama every 2-3 minutes in any bar, gas station, or store. That part of America can go fuck itself. Remember that their definition of Bipartisanship is Date Rape. Our problems are so big, we need bold and strong leadership. Obama is not providing what America needs more than anything else, and he will pay a price in November for putting process ahead of the country.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

79. I respectfully disagree

However, I certainly appreciate and welcome civil debate such as this.
:hi:

I would argue that the Republicans- despite what "some might say" about what MIGHT happen in November- that President Obama IS a tough leader and the Republicans really aren't gaining any ground and, in fact, Republicans don't really appear to be having any success in "breaking" him like they were able to with Clinton during most of his first term.
To be sure, there is a definite anti-incumbent mood out there but I wouldn't say that it's necessarily an anti-DEMOCRATIC PARTY mood per se (we just happen to mostly BE the incumbents right now).

The reason that so many Republicans are so irritable, angry, and mean IMHO is because they can't knock President Obama down and he, in fact, keeps having successes in spite of them. President Obama got his stimulus, he got his first SCOTUS nominee (and will almost certainly get his second one), he FINALLY got HCR (less than many hoped for to be sure but more than what we've gotten in several decades), and he showed the Republicans up at both their own conference, as well as during the HCR "summit" he held during the final push to pass HCR. He successes do NOT bespeak a "weak" President IMHO.

His only real setbacks so far have been his attempts to try terror suspects in Federal Court (a previously non-controversial thing) and closing Gitmo but in both instances ran into problems with NIMBY conservadems. Neither of those things, however, are being scrapped AFAIK.

If Obama is not a strong leader, then what have the Republicans been successful at so far- other than electing a governor in NJ and VA and a replacement US Senator in Massachusetts in off-year elections- none of which had anything substantive to do with President Obama?

If the Republicans win HUGE in November- something that is most definitely subject to change- it will likely not be because people dislike President Obama or don't think he's a strong enough leader but rather that they are in a sour mood about the state of the country and don't see anything getting done in Washington. Of course, what many of them will soon discover that they made a horrendous mistake because the Republicans will spend most of their time looking for stained dresses and dead bodies instead of doing the people's business and, hopefully, most people will self-correct in 2012.

I just don't get where some people think that President Obama is "weak" just because he isn't getting the progressive things that some people want from him but that he didn't (in most cases) say that he would advocate for once in office. Also, I would add that I never expect somebody running for office to fulfill all of their "pledges" because, unless it's something that they can do with a stroke of a pen, it is wholly dependent on the legislative process and other factors over which they have little or no control over in most cases.

[mochajava666]

84. I also really appreciate your opinions, but let me clarify

why I think Obama has been weak. By changing his policies to attract republican support BEFORE negotiations begin is bargaining from a weak position. Republicans have gained ground without even fighting for it.

Take the stimulus package. If he spent more money on infrastructure and less on tax cuts, he would have been doing what America needs. Instead, revenue that could have been used to repair bridges, fix sewer systems, repair rail lines, clean up the environment, etc. were diverted to republican tax cuts. How many GOP votes did he get? One of the Maine women and Specter, and none in the House? That wasn't worth it. With HCR, he shouldn't have put reconciliation off the table. He ended up doing it anyway, and it cost him most of the year. A strong leader would have said we will reluctantly use reconciliation unless you negotiate in good faith. Grassley made a complete fool out of him. Take his energy policy. Now his capitulation to include off shore drilling may actually hinder the environmental bill.

I certainly don't think that he needs to fulfill all of his pledges (thanks for not saying pony), but when the time comes for one of his pledges to be considered, I want him to fight with the same passion that he had in his speeches.

What happened to the fierce urgency of now? Do we have time for half-measures? Dems were put in charge to lead, not follow. a near filibuster proof senate and a big majority in the house and a president that has a personal rating above 70%, yet the majority thinks we are moving in the wrong direction, and are equally divided over his effectiveness as a leader.

Once again, thanks for the civil discussion. I didn't realize that a person as disillusioned with Obama as I am had so much in common with a self professed apologist.

[Arkana]

60. Ah yes, that impartial bastion of commentary that is the WSJ.

[Javaman]

67. And I will equally look into my crystal ball.

:eyes:

[kentuck]

68. Here is why:

24/7 propaganda

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8333448

[redqueen]

71. ...

"Pollsters will even tell them that they are more enthusiastic than the Democrats for the next election."

And chances are, they will be.

But hey, it'll be a good year for the Greens. Progress, right?

[MilesColtrane]

74. The economy sucks now.

It will suck only slightly less in November.

People always vote their pocketbook.

Anger seldom takes the time to think about is the appropriate target. Most incumbents are going to get the high, hard one.

[HughMoran]

76. Republican Advantage in 2010 Voting Enthusiasm Shrinks (Gallup)

:shrug:

[backscatter712]

83. Today's Research2K polls show the same thing.

The enthusiasm gap is diminishing. Health care reform's law, people are starting to realize that the promises of repeal aren't going to happen, the GOP got several very public black eyes - Chicken Lady in Nevada, the oil spill as "Drill Baby Drill!" was fresh in people's minds, the GOP's attempted filibuster of Wall Street reform (finally, the Dems correctly handled a GOP filibuster!) resulting in McConnell publicly and repeated being called out for lying, the sudden support for a stronger Wall Street reform bill, the Arizona SB1070 causing teabaggers and supporting GOP politicians to be racist douches, meaning the Lation demographic is likely to vote Democratic this year. Most important of all, the economy is finally, slowly, but perceivably starting to recover. The unemployment situation still sucks, but jobs are being created, and people are starting to notice.

The teabaggers are finding the wind being stolen from their sails. Don't get me wrong - the November election will still be painful. We'll lose seats. But I don't think it will come close to being a repeat of '94.

[Marr]

82. And Dem politicians cannot *wait* to have an easy excuse for

passing corporate legislation. They've had to really get creative and make ridiculous procedural moves in order to really move that agenda since 2006. "Bipartisanship" is wearing a bit thin.

[Rex]

85. Dream on, ABC loves Repukes and wants Dems to lose seats

this November. Based on the number of chicken littles this so far out from November, I'd say 'certain people' are really worried the GOP is about to go into the trashbin of politics.

[Mojeoux]

87. Ha Ha

They hope that as usual a midterm election will be mostly Repug voters.
But thats NOT what happened in '06. Ha Ha

The oil gusher is in their face!

Teabaggers are sad racists that repel honest clear eyed Americans.

I wish I could make a simile mix of Palin with that undersea gusher footage coming out of her mouth. I see it in my head ha!