Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Stop fucking blaming Reid and Obama, and VOTE THE GODDAMNED REPUBLICAN MORONS OUT!

Seriously, people... keep the blame where it belongs. The people DOING the evil.

by Anonymousreply 9704/18/2013

But Reid really dropped the ball on ending filibusters and that contributes to all the crap in DC, so I'm still kind of pissed with him for that.

by Anonymousreply 204/18/2013

This graph spells it out perfectly.

by Anonymousreply 404/18/2013

Yeah, that says it all

by Anonymousreply 504/18/2013

R6, no one is saying you need to give automatic support to the Democrats, but in this case it is pretty clear cut. And this was something most americans agreed was a good idea, as opposed to how split down the middle other issues can be.

by Anonymousreply 804/18/2013

"When the 113th Congress convened this past March, "

January. (Sorry. I keyed in some of this too quickly.)

by Anonymousreply 904/18/2013

I love people like R6. Obamacare barely passed in its watered-down version, but they just KNOW that a more left-wing version would have been possible.

by Anonymousreply 1004/18/2013

R7,

This is for you:

[quote]Using reconciliation will remain an option until Democrats can get 60 members to cooperate -- and the party wants to pass a health care bill this year. Liberal advocates for reform say getting all 60 Democrats to cooperate should not be difficult, even to pass a bill with the much-debated public option, since they do not even technically need to vote for the bill -- they simply need to agree to not stand in the way

by Anonymousreply 1204/18/2013

,

by Anonymousreply 1304/18/2013

Google can help you here, R6... click this link

by Anonymousreply 1404/18/2013

R8,

I'm saying that Democrats have to be held accountable. That's what I mean with "automatic support."

Next year -- watch to see if Sens. Max Baucus (D-Montana), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), and Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas), all of whom voted nay on the background-checks gun bill -- still get support and funding from the Democratic National Committee for their re-election bids (with their scheduled seats in 2014). I'm guessing all of them will get the party support.

by Anonymousreply 1504/18/2013

Reid was taking the long view. It's not hard to imagine some twist of fate that gives the GOP a Senate majority in 2014 and then where would the opposition be without a filibuster?

Not requiring 60 votes or whatever is great when you're in the majority not so great otherwise.

by Anonymousreply 1604/18/2013

R14 ...

"Reconciliation."

[italic]Also there is this:[/italic] Had President Obama intended to get a healthcare bill with the public option ... all his Democratic caucus would have supported with whatever he wanted. Or, in the case of Blanche Lincoln, her primary challenger would had the president's support. She did what was asked of her. As did Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, and Ben Nelson.

by Anonymousreply 1704/18/2013

R16 writes:

[quote]Reid was taking the long view.

Yes.

Harry Reid did not want the Democrats baring responsibility of leading the way on policies. Keeping the "60" remains the scapegoat for their failures.

That is the "long view."

by Anonymousreply 1904/18/2013

Really r20. This is the same congress with a Republican Party that has gone on record as wanting this president to fail. Have you been living under a rock?

by Anonymousreply 2204/18/2013

[quote]those who may be on the fence

That assumes Republicans are standing anywhere near the fence, let alone on it.

by Anonymousreply 2404/18/2013

[quote]Next year -- watch to see if Sens. Max Baucus (D-Montana), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), and Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas), all of whom voted nay on the background-checks gun bill -- still get support and funding from the Democratic National Committee for their re-election bids (with their scheduled seats in 2014). I'm guessing all of them will get the party support.

Of course they will.

by Anonymousreply 2604/18/2013

Clinton managed, quite effectively, across the aisle. Obama cannot. He is PRESIDENT for a reason. He shouldn't be distracted, or bow, to people that want him to fail. That is part of being a leader.

by Anonymousreply 2704/18/2013

R25, you make no sense, although the dredging up of the 2008 primary is telling.

by Anonymousreply 2804/18/2013

When the Republicans take control next time they will end the filibuster first thing. Harry Reid is a Mormon working for the other side. You all should have realized this long ago.

by Anonymousreply 2904/18/2013

[quote]Next year -- watch to see if Sens. Max Baucus (D-Montana), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), and Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas), all of whom voted nay on the background-checks gun bill -- still get support and funding from the Democratic National Committee for their re-election bids (with their scheduled seats in 2014). I'm guessing all of them will get the party support.

R15/R6, and why do you think that might be? Because it's more important to keep a Democratic Senate Majority than to vote out these DINOs.

Do you even think before you post? Or are you SO myopic you can't see the forest for the trees?

Seriously, you're just wrong in every post you make. At least you're consistent.

by Anonymousreply 3004/18/2013

R19, you're a fucking idiot. You're spinning and twisting reality to fit your preconceived prejudices. That's the opposite of the way you should be reasoning.

by Anonymousreply 3104/18/2013

[quote]Actually, there is a significant portion of "blame" to put on Obama. A significant part of his job is to work with Congress to build consensus or help sway those who may be on the fence. He absolutely cannot perform in that role. If people do not agree with him, he alienates and polarizes. He missed on this one.

Absolutely wrong, R20. Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove LOVE you, for buying into this bullshit.

The Republicans have [italic]conspired[/italic] to disagree with Obama NO MATTER WHAT. Obama will meet them halfway or even all the way, but the moment he supports something, they OPPOSE IT.

You cannot work with, negotiate with, or reason with people who have made it their singular goal to NOT work with you, NOT negotiate in good faith, and REJECT REASON.

Again, you're blaming exactly the wrong people... and Mitch McConnel and John Boehner love you for being that stupid.

by Anonymousreply 3204/18/2013

[quote]No, R21. What I have posted is true.

No, R25/R6 ... you've posted what you have chosen to believe, in spite of reality, because you're rather blame Obama than the people causing the problem, and you'd rather believe in grand conspiracies on the part of Democrats than on Republicans.

You are the opposite of rational, reasonable, or factual on this topic. You're giving Republicans a pass completely, and amplifying & exaggerating "conspiracies" in Democrats in order to blame them for what Republicans are doing instead.

This is the opposite of 'true'.

by Anonymousreply 3304/18/2013

[quote]Clinton managed, quite effectively, across the aisle. Obama cannot.

R27, Clinton was white. Republicans didn't swear to block Clinton at every turn (not to say they didn't fight him, they did... but Republicans don't believe Obama is 'worthy' of occupying the white house because they're racist assholes... the level of obstruction they're putting in front of Obama is about ten thousand times what Clinton faced)

by Anonymousreply 3404/18/2013

As much as I hate the filibuster, it actually saved the day yesterday, if it was not in place, a far more hideous bill would have passed yesterday that would have enabled conceal and carry weapon permits in every state in the union. So states like CA and NY which ban conceal and carry would be required to honor those permits issued in states like TX. It might be better off to have protected the tougher gun control laws in blue states instead of passing laws that propagate red state laws nationwide.

by Anonymousreply 3604/18/2013

R35, no YOU aren't getting it.

Obama could fight all he wants. With Republicans filibustering him and opposing him at every turn, and owning most of the media (and thus the narrative), and ruling the House...

Do you think he can just wave a magic wand? Do you think he's a dictator that can just demand things and thus make them happen?

THE REPUBLICANS ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT OBAMA.

Jesus, this is so simple and obvious, how can you not get it?

Put the blame where it belongs.

by Anonymousreply 3704/18/2013

[quote]This is like the 50th time he's tried the same gambit and it has failed almost every single time because of this Republican unwillingness to work with him.

Doesn't this mean he's a bit of a slow learner?

by Anonymousreply 3804/18/2013

R34 - Democrats and the Obama followers seem to care more about him being "black" than any Republicans I know.

by Anonymousreply 3904/18/2013

No, R38... it means the problem is with the Republicans, who would oppose him NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES.

R39, you're an idiot. Republicans & right-wingers refuse to accept him as a valid leader (thus the entire creation of the Tea Party, and all the consistent claims of 'muslim', 'communist', etc). The racism is all on the right, thanks. And they care DEEPLY that he's black... all the disrespect shown him is entirely due to his skin color.

Republicans are racist ignorant bigots and need to be voted out. REPUBLICANS ARE THE PROBLEM.

by Anonymousreply 4204/18/2013

R40? Just stop, you're embarassing yourself (clearly you failed in debate).

Stop with the stupid strawmen. The problem is the Republcian Party. Period.

Any other issue you have is a distant second, and completely irrelevant in the face of Republican obstruction and just plain evilness.

by Anonymousreply 4304/18/2013

R41, again... you focus on irrelevancies. You admit in your posts that Republicans are the problem, but you always end up blaming Democrats. Why is that?

Because you're LOSING FOCUS HERE. And the Republican party thanks you for that.

by Anonymousreply 4404/18/2013

The DLC were a conspiracy by the Republicans to run their opposition party. If you don't understand that, you don't understand anything.

by Anonymousreply 4504/18/2013

R45, the DLC doesn't exist any more and is irrelevant to this discussion.

by Anonymousreply 4604/18/2013

R44,

What do you mean by "focus"?

What is your understanding of the word [italic]focus[/italic] to be -- is it elections?

Are you looking to 2016? And is Hillary the answer?

by Anonymousreply 4804/18/2013

R46,

I know about the DLC.

The influence is not gone. What I pointed out -- either here or in another thread ("Obama Lame...Duck" beginning @ R-10) -- is that the last 30-plus years shaped this current Democratic party.

I look forward to 2016. I want to see if the primary and caucus voters actually back a liberal. That is, if it turns out Team Blue wins a third consecutive presidential election. [italic]That[/italic] will be partly determined by the poll numbers being performed by President Barack Obama.

by Anonymousreply 4904/18/2013

The solution is clear. We need to take over both parties by running progressives in every Congressional district in BOTH PARTIES next year. The Republican party would actually be easier to take over because their primary vote is lower, so that's where we should concentrate our efforts. Get the unions to elect real progressives. We could take over the Republican party, take over the Democratic party and force both of them to the left.

by Anonymousreply 5004/18/2013

r40 you must be seriously mentally ill.

by Anonymousreply 5104/18/2013

Take your pill, OP

by Anonymousreply 5204/18/2013

OP, you're a little hysterical, aren't you? Why are you insulting us, as if we don't know how to take action for matters that pertain to us and our beliefs?

(As for Reid and the filibuster, he is acutely aware that once the filibuster is gone, the opportunity for irrevocable damage by a crazed Republican majority, in concert with a Republican House and president, would be a real danger. You never know what the next election will bring. The Democrats would never attempt what the Republicans believe is their birthright and God's spoken word to them. Unfortunately, we can't afford the risk, even though the filibuster is abused by the rat's nest on the right.)

by Anonymousreply 5304/18/2013

R38 writes:

[quote]Doesn't this mean he's [President Obama] a bit of a slow learner?

It means he's slower than Forrest Gump.

Or full of shit.

by Anonymousreply 5404/18/2013

One problem at a time. Get the Republicans out. They are the root of all these problems.

Then you can try moving Democrats further left.

But come on, don't put the cart before the horse.

by Anonymousreply 5504/18/2013

[quote]OP, you're a little hysterical, aren't you?

No, just frustrated as shit that people blame Obama (and Democrats, and Reid) for what the GOP IS DOING. Giving the GOP a pass. Look at the morons in this very thread... completely distracted from the fact that all the problems are being caused by Republicans, quibbling about "might have beens" that [italic]wouldn't[/italic] have been, and "should have beens" that [italic]couldn't[/italic] have been, precisely because the Republicans are obstructing everything, no matter what.

That's not hysterical, that's justified frustration and outrage.

by Anonymousreply 5604/18/2013

R47/R6? I want you to give Republicans the blame they deserve... which is rightfully between 80% and 100% depending on the precise topic.

That you think it's anything less than 50% says a lot about you, none of it good.

by Anonymousreply 5704/18/2013

OP, there's plenty of blame to go around. No one has a monopoly now.

by Anonymousreply 5804/18/2013

Wrong, R58. Between 80 and 100% of the blame lies with the Republicans.

Sorry, you're factually wrong here.

On virtually every issue, the reason things are bad and not getting better (or not getting better fast enough) is due to Republican policies and obstruction and corruption.

They own it all, because they've caused it all.

by Anonymousreply 5904/18/2013

R55,

What does getting the Senate Republican seats flipped to Democratic accomplish if the Democratic party still backs Diet Republicans calling themselves [italic]Democrats[/italic]?

Who is losing out on the Republican side beside some low-hanging fruit -- Rs hailing from presidential D states? And not necessarily is that happening. For example: The Ds can outright win a Senate seat from [italic]Maine[/italic]. Susan Collins has been in the Senate for three terms, and backed President Bush on the war in Iraq and backed Mitch McConnell on the healthcare bill, and is only going with the Ds when it's politically doable for her. She will come out for marriage equality if and when her internal poll numbers inform her she's in a position where she can afford to do so -- that's in terms of the primaries before the general election of 2014. As another example, the president's home state, Illinois, and Pennsylvania -- blue since 1992 -- have been in a habit of having both parties repped with their U.S. senate seats. (They should be as blue as Oklahoma and Texas are red.)

I'd like to read more thoughtful analyses from you, R55.

by Anonymousreply 6004/18/2013

I'm with you, OP.

I can't seriously consider the President's or the democrats' possible failings when it has been apparent since the 2008 election that the Republican's hate of the progressive changes the President's agenda has embraced has fueled their positions on everything.

I once held the position that I voted on principle and not on party affiliations. The performance of the Republican party and current representatives have turned me into a lifelong anti-vote. I abhor that party.

by Anonymousreply 6104/18/2013

Bullshit, r58. Go look at the chart I linked then say that again.

by Anonymousreply 6204/18/2013

[quote]What does getting the Senate Republican seats flipped to Democratic accomplish if the Democratic party still backs Diet Republicans calling themselves Democrats?

You really are stupid, aren't you?

For one thing, it stops the abuse of the filibuster. There are literally HUNDREDS of bills (and federal appointments) that would have passed if the GOP couldn't abuse its filibuster to stop anything from happening.

Seriously, you're clearly too stupid for this conversation and should stop posting and making a fool of yourself.

by Anonymousreply 6304/18/2013

R61 gets it.

by Anonymousreply 6404/18/2013

R57,

I won't be giving Rs 80 percent of the blame, because they lost the Senate and House after the midterms elections of 2006. (Remember: Nancy Pelosi, who would become the 60th speaker of the House, said that impeachment of President George W. Bush was off the table.)

The Rs flipped the House with the midterms of 2010. Unlike the Senate, their passage of bills require a majority ... not a supermajority [three-fifths].

by Anonymousreply 6504/18/2013

Excuse me:

[bold]The Ds [can't successfully] outright win a Senate seat from [italic]Maine[/italic]. [/bold]

by Anonymousreply 6604/18/2013

R63 writes:

[quote]For one thing, it stops the abuse of the filibuster.

The Ds chose not to stop the outright "abuse of the filibuster" by not passing reform to the U.S. Senate rules.

That was just this past January. With 55 in their caucus.

That, no doubt, contributed to the defeat of this background-checks gun bill.

by Anonymousreply 6704/18/2013

[quote]I won't be giving Rs 80 percent of the blame, because they lost the Senate and House after the midterms elections of 2006.

What does that have to do with now?

And 2010 has more to do with idiot progressives staying home and not voting than the Dem politicians themselves. Petulant myopic voters reap what they sow.

I'm still failing to see where you think Republicans aren't to blame for 80% or more of the problems (from the national debt, to this gun control failing in the house, to lack of passage of ENDA and The American Jobs Act, to lack of passage of the DREAM act or immigration reform, to the entire Fiscal 2008 crash).

by Anonymousreply 6804/18/2013

[quote]The Ds chose not to stop the outright "abuse of the filibuster" by not passing reform to the U.S. Senate rules.

And for good reasons, that have already been adequately explained.

But again, you're blaming the victim and giving the criminal the pass. You're fixated on the fact that a woman dared to walk alone on the street, rather than some asshole rapist raped her. You're essentially saying "Democrats deserve it because look how they are dressed!" rather than putting your focus on the Republican party WHO IS ACTUALLY DOING THE FUCKING RAPING.

You're such a myopic idiot, R6, it's astounding.

by Anonymousreply 6904/18/2013

But again, you're blaming the victim and giving the criminal the pass.

by Anonymousreply 7004/18/2013

Bullshit, R35. Except for a handful of (mostly black) candidates, Congressional Democrats up for reelection in 2010 specifically did not *want* Obama campaigning for them; they saw him as political poison. So he didn't.

Fast toward to day after the November Massacre. All of a sudden, it's OBAMA'S fault we lost ; he "refused" to lift a finger to help embattled Democrats.

You people love to have it both ways when it comes to Obama. You're as conveniently forgetful as Republicans.

by Anonymousreply 7104/18/2013

They didn't "want" Obama campaigning for them because for months Republican attacks had gone unanswered. This didn't happen in a vacuum, and one must remember the responsibility of Rahm Emmanuel, who has proved himself a fucking republican since being mayor of Chi-town.

by Anonymousreply 7204/18/2013

That's a fucking lie R68, progressives did not "stay home" in 2010.

by Anonymousreply 7304/18/2013

Exactly, R71.

And R72 is still focused entirely in the wrong directly. The point is still about how evil and obstructionist the Republicans have been. You're so damn pissed off that people aren't opposing them "strongly enough" for your taste (however flawed that belief might be), but you don't seem to have any actual rage for the people ACTUALLY DOING THE HARM.

by Anonymousreply 7404/18/2013

The solution is clear. Run progressives to take over both parties (but especially the Republicans) in the Congressional elections (and Secretary of State elections) in 2014. That's what has to be done, and we have to start work on it now.

I want all dataloungers to start volunteering to run for Congress, provided you pledge a specific progressive agenda.

by Anonymousreply 7504/18/2013

R73, yes, they did. It's widely documented and commented on. Progressives and "emo-progs" and lefties all got their panties in a bunch that Obama didn't fix everything by himself instantly, that they were "disappointed" enough to stay home. And they did. Turnout among Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats was way down, while Republican/Conservative turnout was up (compared to non-Presidential Election years)... they were motivated by their racism, and all the lies they believed which were fed to them by the FOX News propaganda mill.

by Anonymousreply 7604/18/2013

You're fucking idiot R74. We've already told you the solution, which is to run left progressives in the Republican primaries in 2014 and you still want us all together in Kuumbaya. Fuck that. We need to organize. 5 million votes in the Republican Congressional and Senate primaries next year and WE OWN THAT PARTY. We need to get the union leaders together and start recruiting people to run because Progressives can take over the Republican party (and the Democratic party) in 2014 and put an end to all this bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 7704/18/2013

Here's a list of every senator who voted against background checks. I'd never live in any of those godforsaken states, and I wish the Northeast would secede and start a new country.

Alexander (R-TN)

Ayotte (R-NH)

Barrasso (R-WY)

Baucus (D-MT)

Begich (D-AK)

Blunt (R-MO)

Boozman (R-AR)

Burr (R-NC)

Chambliss (R-GA)

Coats (R-IN)

Coburn (R-OK)

Cochran (R-MS)

Corker (R-TN)

Cornyn (R-TX)

Crapo (R-ID)

Cruz (R-TX)

Enzi (R-WY)

Fischer (R-NE)

Flake (R-AZ)

Graham (R-SC)

Grassley (R-IA)

Hatch (R-UT)

Heitkamp (D-ND)

Heller (R-NV)

Hoeven (R-ND)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Isakson (R-GA)

Johanns (R-NE)

Johnson (R-WI)

Lee (R-UT)

McConnell (R-KY)

Moran (R-KS)

Murkowski (R-AK)

Paul (R-KY)

Portman (R-OH)

Pryor (D-AR)

Reid (D-NV)

Risch (R-ID)

Roberts (R-KS)

Rubio (R-FL)

Scott (R-SC)

Sessions (R-AL)

Shelby (R-AL)

Thune (R-SD)

Vitter (R-LA)

Wicker (R-MS)

by Anonymousreply 7804/18/2013

That's a lie, R76, it was not true at all. It was Rahm Emmanuel's lie: you know, the guy who just broke a teacher's strike and bragged about it in ads paid for by an education privatization company. That dude.

by Anonymousreply 7904/18/2013

again, that's insane, r75. You are not going to get enough voters to choose a "progressive" republican. There is NO such person anymore anyway.

by Anonymousreply 8004/18/2013

We don't need THEM to pick a progressive Republican. There are enough progressives in almost every Congressional district to pick a progressive instead of a Republican to run as the Republican standard bearer. We can steal their party out from under them. They are vulnerable because their vote is so low. True, there will have to be some stealth to it, in that we have to limit what the progressives campaign on in order for the GOP not to create a third party when we win, but it is totally a doable project. Hell, that's what they did to the Democrats with the DLC, and that was a harder project because there are more Dem voters.

by Anonymousreply 8104/18/2013

Of course the Republicans are obstructionists, but surely Reid, Obama and all of their collective aides and advisers could come up with a more effective strategy for dealing with them than we've seen to date. What the Republicans are doing is not that brilliant that it can't be overcome.

by Anonymousreply 8204/18/2013

Reid didn't have the votes for the rules change on the filibuster. Even my own senators, Boxer and Feinstein, were useless. People bitch too much about Reid - he can count.

by Anonymousreply 8304/18/2013

OP is right, the Republicans are the blame for EVERYTHING wrong in Washington and action has to be taken to get them out because they don't give a rats ass what the majority of the country wants.

by Anonymousreply 8404/18/2013

[quote]Next year -- watch to see if Sens. Max Baucus (D-Montana), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), and Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas), all of whom voted nay on the background-checks gun bill -- still get support and funding from the Democratic National Committee for their re-election bids (with their scheduled seats in 2014). I'm guessing all of them will get the party support.

Yesterday, I e-mailed Debbie Wasserman Schultz saying no more DNC donations from me if they support that trio. Their actions enable the Rethugs so there's little difference between them and the Rethugs.

by Anonymousreply 8504/18/2013

Let me raise that to stop fucking blaming Reid and Obama, and VOTE THE GODDAMNED REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC MORONS WHO VOTED AGAINST THE BILL OUT!

(yes, I know Reid voted against an amendment, but that was only to get the thing on the floor; after which he voted for the bill)

by Anonymousreply 8604/18/2013

[quote]Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas), all of whom voted nay on the background-checks gun bill -- still get support and funding from the Democratic National Committee for their re-election bids (with their scheduled seats in 2014). I'm guessing all of them will get the party support.

Why would the DNC want to support that trio when the majority of Dems despise what they did yesterday?

by Anonymousreply 8704/18/2013

R85, do you live in a deeply red state?

If not, you have no idea what you're talking about. Have you any idea how difficult it is to get a Democrat elected to Congress in states like Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, the Dakotas, Arkansas, Wyoming, etc? Especially after the evil bugcatcher Tom Delay and his minions made gerrymandering a postmodern art form?

Unless we return to the brilliant 50 State Strategy, and get MAJOR money into those races, I don't see pro gressive Democrats winning many seats in those areas. Unfortunately I count myself lucky to have Mary Landrieu as Senator. People here talk about Landrieu as if she were Paul Wellstone.

by Anonymousreply 8804/18/2013

"And 2010 has more to do with idiot progressives staying home and not voting than the Dem politicians themselves. Petulant myopic voters reap what they sow."

And comments like these are EXACTLY why we will never see an influx of progressive candidates in office (despite the cute solutions some of you are trying to pass off). When your own party goes out of their way to demonize them at every turn and blame them for everything, the chances of them being seen as having legitimate arguments are slim and next to none.

"It doesn't matter" that Reid dropped the ball. Okay. This is why I find political discussions here so amusing. The sports like analysis of the whole thing never ceases to amaze me in it's infantile way of thinking. We're citizens, not cheerleaders.

by Anonymousreply 8904/18/2013

The lion's share of the Democratic losses, in the House and Senate, weren't progressives. They were Blue Dogs. That was more apparent in the House.

As for the party -- they need to be liberal in policies shaped; but that's not happening. Consistent excuses are made in Appalachia that one has to run Blue Dogs because they are conservative states; yet the party establishment does what it can to discourage Ashley Judd from running for next year's U.S. Senate race in Kentucky. Does anyone think Mitch McConnell's weird early ads -- more than 18 months from the general election -- were not revealing he's scared to face Judd? Of course he is. The Ds would rather not flip this seat -- in a state that hasn't elected the party to the Senate since 1992 (when Bill Clinton flipped the state, and George Bush, to win the presidency).

Take a look at the Blue Firewall -- states that haven't carried for a Republican since the 1980s -- all U.S. Senate seats should be in the D column. (They're not. Illinois. Pennsylvania. Wisconsin. Maine. And there is New Hampshire, which has been red just once, in 2000. All have at least one Republican U.S. senator.) Presidential bellwether states Florida, Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio (and North Carolina is trending there) are more understood -- their Senate seats split the difference (one for each party).

The Ds winning in West Virginia (both seats), Montana (both seats), Louisiana (one seat), and Arkansas (one seat) aren't worth the Senate caucus numbers ... minus a party with without a disciplined platform requiring those states' candidates be liberal and not Blue Dogs. If this Democratic party wanted that, next year Max Baucus, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Mark Pryor would not be supported financially by the DNC with their bids for re-nomination let alone the general election.

by Anonymousreply 9004/18/2013

Republicans rigged the system. They can't lose now. We're stuck.

by Anonymousreply 9104/18/2013

I continue to be stunned that people feel all of the blame is on one party. I didn't think brainwashing was really possible until reading this bullshit. Politicians are politicians. No matter the party they will do what gets them elected again. Democrats are no saints.

by Anonymousreply 9204/18/2013

No one is blaming just one party, R92. We also blame nimrods like you.

by Anonymousreply 9304/18/2013

[quote]I continue to be stunned that people feel all of the blame is on one party.

I continue to be stunned that people can't see this obvious truth.

[quote]Democrats are no saints.

I don't recall anyone arguing that they were or are.

Duh.

by Anonymousreply 9404/18/2013

From PBS Newshour: Joining the political threats was the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which promised it would be "holding accountable Democrats who voted against their constituents by running (newspaper) ads in their states, featuring some of the 23,000 gun owners who have joined our campaign for common sense gun reform."

by Anonymousreply 9504/18/2013

Newspaper ad aimed at Sen. Baucus (D-Montana)

by Anonymousreply 9604/18/2013

Associated Press --- Begich, Pryor and Baucus are all seeking re-election next year. In an indication of the intensity of the feelings on the issue, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal group, swiftly announced it would run ads contrasting their votes with polls showing overwhelming popular support for gun curbs.

by Anonymousreply 9704/18/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.