Why are the Democrats in danger of losing control of Congress in 2010? /nt

[still_one]

[Wednesdays]

1. Why do you still beat your wife?

nt

[still_one]

9. gee, the polls are saying one thing, and you put your fingers in your ears and say

I can't hear you?

If one doesn't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it

[Wednesdays]

31. This is delicious

You guys really are in full-blown panic mode! :rofl:

Now excuse me, but I have some phone-banking to do. Seeya! :hi:

[Codeine]

2. Politics is cyclical.

Pendulums swing.

Lots of idiot right-wingers are still here and voting their angry asses off.

People who talked about the death of the Republican party were talking bollocks, just like when people made the same pronouncements about the Democratic Party when Gingerich and Co. swept in.

[still_one]

15. True, but I think probably the biggest effect was the communication act of 2000

which allowed for mass media mergers, and the elimination of the fairness doctrine

[Codeine]

16. No argument there, sir. nt

[bvar22]

37. I believe you are thinking about ...

...the Telecommunications Act of 1996, supported and signed by a "Centrist" Democratic president.

[Codeine]

42. Replied to the wrong poster, I think. nt

[bvar22]

46. Oops....Yes I did.

Hate when that happens.

[Karmadillo]

3. The administration didn't run hard enough against its liberal base?

nt

[jaxx]

5. Are you taking credit should they lose?

[Karmadillo]

13. No. I don't have the ego for that. All credit should go to the administration.

nt

[jaxx]

19. They'll share it with dubya and the repubs in congress.

Unless you've forgotten from where the problems came.

[Karmadillo]

25. Maybe the Dems are about to be trounced not because of where the problems came from, but

because of how they handled those problems. Instead of warmongering and bankster bailouting and health insurance industry cuddling and looking forwards not backwardsing, they could have addressed the needs of the American people who have suffered so much under the bipartisan Corporations First policy.

[jaxx]

32. Maybe people could open their eyes and see that the President

has done what he had to to keep this country from going down. But then some people don't like the President's policies and can see nothing good in anything that has been done. Calling the President a warmonger and the rest is counter productive.

Really, the corporations first crap is a total turn off to Democrats who understand that the country's survival is on top the list before personal issues. If the country goes down we all lose.

[kenfrequed]

33. It isn't all the White Houses fault

Granted, they should have been more aggressive and done a lot mroe arm twisting early on, but the Blue dogs stupidly sabotaged us from day number -30 of the Obama administration. Thank you Evan-friggin Bayh.

The administration could have done a better job putting out a coherant and aggressive progressive message. But again the shitheels in congress kept the Democrats confused and divided and prevented anything sound from coming out.

The administration could have made a bigger deal about the most obstructionist minority party in American history that used every sneaky device to prevent real change from occuring and demanded extra bullshit and bribery at every turn, and it would have been easier to do so were it not for the friggin Blue Dogs yipping and nipping at his damned ankles.

When the progressives recognized this and wanted to target these folk and get them to act like proper democrats WE got called 'F-ing retards.'

Meanwhile we have Tim Kaine continuing to grasp the purse strings of the Democratic party and favor his own wherever possible (except in extreme cases).

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. We face the largest and most pressing crisis of our lifetimes

and the Democratic Party did not, as a whole, take it seriously.

The Republicans took it even less seriously, but the voting public is not super nuanced.

[still_one]

22. I think the Democrats as a whole did take it seriously, they had no choice, however, there is no

quick fix

[depakid]

26. Seems as though that output gap wasn't so illusory at all

Nor were the eminently foreseeable state budget crises- with their anti-stimulatory effects.

Seeking and then touting a poorly targeted, half measure stimulus was bound to put the Dems in a poor position, as some of us predicted at the time (and it didn't take Nostradamus to see it).

Of course, as Frank Rich noted: allowing so many thousands of banksters, fraudsters (along with torturers and all manner of corporate criminals) to walk away scot free with their ill gotten gains didn't help.

Nor did associating the party leadership with such popular groups as health insurers and PhARMA, while at times going out of their way to backhand, demean or gratuitously insult key constituencies.

The list goes on, and will likely be discussed ad nauseum next week.

[One_Life_To_Give]

6. Unemployment too high and wasn't job 1

Unemployment, underemployment and the fear of millions that they may become unemployed in a bleak job market.

For much of the country this has been the overwhelming priority throughout the current administrations term. As necessary as HCR was (still is) it was much like Nero fiddling while Rome burned. IMHO

[still_one]

24. Didn't the government fund infrastructure jobs for the states, and why wasn't this exploited in the

campaign?

[One_Life_To_Give]

28. Much of Stimulus is Unspent

IIRC about $300B is still unspent. And the actual amount given for Infrastructure Construction projects was a very tiny fraction of the overall stimulus. The work done by Stone Masons under the WPA, in and around the NYC metro area is amazing. But I havn't seen anything like that this time around.

[Egnever]

7. Cause the American public is largely uninformed or missinformed

:shrug:

[still_one]

17. That is definitely a factor, and it started with the communication act of 2000 /nt

[GeorgeGist]

8. One reason is ...

that corporate media knows that freak shows are entertaining.

[still_one]

18. and now that the Supreme Court has said corporations are people it looks more dire /nt

[tjwash]

10. Because dems and repugs at each others throats keeps the corps having their way with the country

And until people stop acting like elections are sporting events and popularity contests, the owners of this country will continue to have their way unopposed.

[still_one]

21. It won't stop then, because to the political strategists it is a game /nt

[ixion]

11. Because they maintained the status quo, and ignored the populist outcry

from the millions wanting change.

[still_one]

23. We are an inclusive party, and that is a problem. There has to be some limit on who we include in

the party

For instance, social security, medicare, civil rights, and that everyone has a RIGHT to healthcare should at least be the minimum standard

[Bigmack]

29. Not populist...

populist is anger from the "common man". "a folksy appeal to the 'average guy' or some allegedly general will"... wiki

I believe the outcry was a Progressive outcry...a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies. wiki...

I feel populism is the Teabaggers...

[ixion]

34. if the tea baggers are real populists, then we're in a whole heap of trouble...

Just sayin'...

[Bigmack]

45. I think we are.. not just as a Party....

but as a country.

The Rabble is getting restless, and the Rabble-rousers like Beck are directing that restlessness toward the wrong target. The "common man" is being manipulated into supporting the people who are the problem.

[MilesColtrane]

12. It's the economy.

Many transgressions by the incumbent majority party, real or imagined, are dismissed during good economic times

[Bigmack]

14. Not aggressive enough. nt

[Romulox]

20. Banskter bailouts = too small; Mandatory health Insurance for All = what about life insurance?

:hi:

[kctim]

27. They're not

but the seats we lose will be because those voters did not like the policy that was passed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. The people voted for "hope" and "change". They got politics as usual.

Obama is a centrist, professional, politician who ran as a leftish populist with many nice slogans and speeches about changing the system. Bush and the Republicans had made a monumental hash of everything and the people wanted a major reset. Obama offered them that and then went the "triangulation", "third way", route of pandering to the right.

The voters were fed up with politics and politicians then, and they still are now.

[stray cat]

35. because the vast majority of people who care are voting republican

because they think the GOP cares more about them and their interests.

[stray cat]

36. only 1 rationale reason people think the gop cares more for their interests

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

48. Are they right? Why?

[Valienteman]

38. The party in power traditionally loses in an off-year

So this is simply the continuation of a trend for both parties.

[geek tragedy]

39. 1) Cyclical trends (virtually every competitive seat went to the

Democrats between 2006 and 2008 so a swing back in the opposite direction was inevitable); (2) Bad economy means the party in power gets blamed and punished, regardless of how awful the minority party is.

[bobthedrummer]

40. Because of the powerful political machine within the Party that threw their traditional base under

the bus decades ago--the archived thread below still reflects where I'm coming from as an independent-these corporatists have to go.

Inconvenient truths about the New Democrats, the Third Way, Democratic Leadership Council, etc (started 3-7-08)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2973191

[emulatorloo]

41. Dunno, maybe your crystal ball is on the fritz?

Guess we will know soon enough. There is movement in the polls towards the dems. Media still stuck on the "GOP TSUNAMI" narrative. Sure we will lose some seats, don't know about a "TSUNAMI" though.

[strawberryfield]

43. The cons have a structural advantage

The Democratic vote is clustered in urban districts. The Democrats win these districts by huge margins, but there are actually more districts that lean Republican. Until the Democrats can figure out a way to widen the base geographically, they are going to be vulnerable.

[Xithras]

44. Because the Democratic leadership has allowed the Republicans to control the discussion.

The Democratic leadership is concerned about bipartisanship. It wants to play politics, and work with the Republicans. It refuses to speak out against Republican talking points because doing so might alienate the Republicans.

Republicans, on the other hand, have been busy waging Total War on the Democratic leadership every chance they get. They don't care about politics. They care about winning.

Every night, you see Republicans on TV and the radio talking about this "failure", or that "bad idea". You rarely see Democratic leaders out there countering it. When was the last time you heard a Democrat call a Republican a liar? I just heard a Republican calling a Democrat a liar YESTERDAY.

Politics is war. If you play nice, and you refuse to fight...you LOSE.

The Republicans have fought a better fight.

Centrism is a losing strategy.

[Individualist]

47. It's because of adherence to DLC's agenda.

Pro-military, pro-corporatist, anti-progressive.

[GSLevel9]

49. economy. economy. economy.

if the economy was "normal" it'd be a great DEM year. But the party writing the checks will get the blame. That's politics.