EVERY election matters, not just the presidential ones!
This shit wouldn't be happening if the GOP hadn't gained power in '10.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||10/06/2013|
When will people understand that primary elections are important to. By the time most people start paying attention it's usually too late and the candidates on the ballot suck.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||09/30/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 9||09/30/2013|
Spare us your delusional Aaron Sorkin fantasy, R8. It's the same type of thing that the GOP does all the time and is rightfully mocked for it, the idea that Mitt Romney and John McCain lost because they just weren't conservative enough.
Obama could have arrested Dick Cheney for war crimes and the banksters for wrecking the economy, and we still would have had high unemployment in 2010, causing just enough dissatisfaction to give the Tea Party an opening. Low information voters wouldn't have said "fuck yeah, Obama's really sticking it to the man!" -- they'd say "I don't have a job, and all Obama's doing is trying to settle scores with his enemies."
Obama might have earned your support, along with Matt Taibbi's and the editors of Mother Jones, but it wouldn't have changed what happened in 2010. It would have arguably made the shellacking far worse.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||09/30/2013|
r18 it's the same mentality that led people to vote for Nader. They have no clue that the great uprising with messianic progressive presidency is never going to happen. They're just that deluded.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||10/01/2013|
OP is such a deep thinker.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||10/01/2013|
[quote]They will keep the House in 2014 & knowing Hills, she'll stumble and we'll have Christy in 2016
|by Anonymous||reply 24||10/01/2013|
OP, you can prove that just as accurately as you can prove that Rosie O'Donnell's fart caused the earthquake in Haiti. Nice one sided view of the world, but my lord are you stupid enough to think one party system is the answer to the problem? Check in with Russia, China, Nazi Germany, etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||10/01/2013|
[quote]Check in with Russia, China, Nazi Germany, etc.
Snowden got two out of three!
|by Anonymous||reply 29||10/01/2013|
Exactly, r30. The majority spoke.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||10/01/2013|
R30, you can't possibly believe ACA is the sole reason for re-election. The same thing that made him win the primary in 2008 and the 2008 election is what made him win in 2012 - skin tone. Unless there is a similar candidate in 2016, turnouts will be quite different and voting by demographic will be quite different.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||10/01/2013|
[quote]First things first: Get Republicans out of power. THEN we can get Democrats to move left
Good plan except it doesn't work.
How far to left did Democrats move from 2008 to 2010?
|by Anonymous||reply 34||10/01/2013|
R33, it was a major reason for my voting for Obama, along with many of his other more sensible policies. Skin tone was not a factor.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||10/01/2013|
[all posts by racist flame bait troll removed, ISP notified with full text of all posts.]
|by Anonymous||reply 36||10/01/2013|
This also wouldn't have happened if the GOP had won the Senate.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||10/01/2013|
[quote]Regardless, having one party in charge of the entire Federal government is never a good idea.
Let's look at two examples.
When FDR was in office the Democrats also were in the majority in the House and the Senate.
On the other hand when Richard Nixon was in office the Democrats were in the majority in the House and the Senate.
So yeah your point makes perfect sense.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||10/02/2013|
R21 It was FlavorAid, not Kool-Aid.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||10/02/2013|
2010 Rahm Emmanuel (secret Republican) was in charge of the Dems' campaign effort, so it failed miserably, guaranteeing ten years of Republican "strength through gerrymandering." Certainly no accident.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||10/02/2013|
R36 = moron.
When one party is full of human beings trying to do the job they're elected to do, and the other party is full of duplicitous lying assholes whose only goal is to undermine government itself... your point is invalid.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||10/02/2013|
Yes, R8, its easy to sit in Never Never Land and pass judgments when you don't have to be down in the dirt fighting for every inch the way the Democrats have to against the ever tightening grip of corporate control, GOP nihilism and their media accomplices.
Look at how hard it was to get the 1990s REPUBLICAN version of healthcare overhaul passed and tell me how much easier it would have been for Obama had he come in singing The Internationale.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||10/02/2013|
[quote] 2010 Rahm Emmanuel (secret Republican) was in charge of the Dems' campaign effort, so it failed miserably, guaranteeing ten years of Republican "strength through gerrymandering." Certainly no accident.
That just isn't true.
Emmanuel was in charge of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006 - when the Dems won a majority in the House. Although don't think for a second it was a liberal majority.
In 2010 he was gearing up for his own campaign for mayor of Chicago. Prior to that, until 10/1/2010, he was White House Chief of Staff.
He was faulted for abandoning ship - and not staying on to advise House Democrats.
But in charge. Nope.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||10/04/2013|
R43, When Democrats won in 2008, it was due largely to all the groundwork laid by Howard Dean. It had little to nothing to do with Rahm Emmanuel. In fact, it can be argued that our wins would have been much bigger if it weren't for Rahm.
He's an asshole, he has BAD strategies, and my first big disappointment in Obama was when he chose him.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||10/04/2013|
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||10/04/2013|
R44 - I didn't say anything about 2008.
As far as I'm concerned Emanuel is cut from the same cloth as Bill and Hilary Clinton. Moderate Democrats with a deep unending love affair with corporate America.
The facts in 2006 are as I stated. Emanuel was chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He won the majority in the House. I don't know anyone who disputes that he was responsible for that win.
Chris Van Hollen was chair of the DCCC from 2007-2011. Which of course would cover 2008.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||10/04/2013|
Oh the whiners are back with the same tired message.
Blah, blah, blah. The streets would have been paved in gold had we still had the majorities. Because you saw how well that worked out from 2008-2010. You saw how Pelosi stuck to her guns when the dems were elected in 2006.
Oh, but there's an excuse for that. There's always an excuse when the democrats fail at doing something. It's easy that way, because you don't have to debate anything.
Nevermind that there were democrats who voted to defund Obamacare. Or democrats who supported the government shutdown also.
These whiners love their DINO'S, and blame everyone else for being too foolish enough to see that they don't vote in their best interests. TIME and TIME again!!
Whine, whine, whine.
"The elections changed nothing in terms of LGBT Equality."
This is a priceless piece of stupidity. Yes, it changed absolutely nothing. You only had the first president come out in support of gay marriage. Are you still writing fantasies about how we would have gay marriage in every state by now?
What are you people doing about 2014? Oh, that's right. Still whining about 2010. Still whining about anyone who wants real change.
Big fat road bumps on the way to progress. Suck the DINO's dicks all you want, but please don't pretend that you truly care about change. Just keep standing and shouting your tired, false message while the rest of us try to enact change. You've done absolutely nothing so far, so why should that change now?
R41 is Elizabeth Warren an idiot too? She also shares the same idea.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||10/04/2013|
[quote] I don't know anyone who disputes that he was responsible for that win.
Again, I think MOST of the success should be attributed to Howard Dean and his 50-state strategy, which Rahm strongly disagreed with, and immediately started to dismantle when he could.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||10/04/2013|
"But it was a very productive House, and most bills died in the Senate due to GOP obstructionism."
And no democrats sided with the Republicans on any of them?
"There's a lot to bitch about with respect to the fucking left-"purists" who threw a tantrum and stayed home that year."
Well, that's not what happened, but if it makes you feel better to keep beating that tired drum, then by all means do. But after three years, it's starting to sound stale.
"I fucking hate people who say "Democrats aren't good ENOUGH, so I'm going to let the far worse REPUBLICANS win!"... it's cutting off your nose to spite your face."
Well, I don't recall anyone saying that. You're jumping to conclusions.
"The correct strategy is to get rid of the real problem (Republicans) and THEN work on the far smaller problem (moving Democrats to the left)."
I would say any democrats who side with Republicans on shutting down the government and not wanting healthcare for every person doesn't constitute a FAR SMALLER PROBLEM. And how can you possibly move the party to the left when you have members of the democratic party who participate in demonizing the left?
You're accusing others of wanting politicians to wave a wand and fix everything, yet your scenario is every bit as simplistic.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||10/04/2013|
[quote]And no democrats sided with the Republicans on any of them?
Huh? What are you talking about? How is that relevant if one or two Democrats didn't vote in lock-step with the majority?
[quote]Well, that's not what happened, but if it makes you feel better to keep beating that tired drum, then by all means do. But after three years, it's starting to sound stale.
It most certainly IS what happened (I've seen the voter-turnout graphs by party). No amount of saying "nuh-uh" is going to help you out here. You're flat-out wrong to assert that's not what happened.
[quote]Well, I don't recall anyone saying that. You're jumping to conclusions.
They don't SAY that you moron, that's the EFFECT they have. They throw a tantrum because Democrats aren't perfect, and through their actions (or inactions) allow Republicans to win... because they're too "pure" to vote for Democrats, so they throw protest votes to Green party candidates (mostly financed by Republicans I might add... Nader's biggest donors were the GOP itself).... and by doing so, allow the Republican to win.
You should learn to understand what you read and not be such a fucking literalist.
[quote]I would say any democrats who side with Republicans on shutting down the government and not wanting healthcare for every person doesn't constitute a FAR SMALLER PROBLEM.
Seriously, stop being a fucking moron. That 2% of Democrats don't follow in lock step is CLEARLY a much smaller problem than the 100% of Republicans who DO vote in lock-step.
[quote]And how can you possibly move the party to the left when you have members of the democratic party who participate in demonizing the left?
You deal with them after you've broken the lock on power than the Republicans have. Until then, it doesn't really fucking matter, does it?
[quote]You're accusing others of wanting politicians to wave a wand and fix everything, yet your scenario is every bit as simplistic.
No, it's just your incredible ability to not understand my scenario (or unwillingness to) that is proving how simplistic you actually are.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||10/04/2013|
[quote]Again, I think MOST of the success should be attributed to Howard Dean and his 50-state strategy, which Rahm strongly disagreed with, and immediately started to dismantle when he could.
You need to go back a read a little history. It sounds to me like you don't really know what Dean's 50 state plan was.
There was a definite conflict between Dean and Emanuel.
Emanuel had a targeted approach - recruiting candidates and funds for districts he thought could the Dems might win.
Dean's 50 state strategy was long term. Don't write off any states. But work to get Democrats elected at local and state levels - which will strengthen the party and lead overtime to a Democratic majority in House and Senate. A majority which could be sustained.
Not even Dean thought the 50 state strategy would yield a majority in 2006.
You can argue Dean had the better long term plan. I agree with you.
You can argue Emanuel won a majority that couldn't be sustained. Clearly time has proven that to be true.
But it was Emanuel's plan in 2006 as chair of the DCCC that won the House majority.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||10/04/2013|
[quote]You need to go back a read a little history. It sounds to me like you don't really know what Dean's 50 state plan was.
I worked on it. So yeah, I do.
[quote]There was a definite conflict between Dean and Emanuel.
No shit. Dean was right (and the State Democratic Parties loved him). Emanuel was wrong, an asshole, and a dick.
[quote]Not even Dean thought the 50 state strategy would yield a majority in 2006.
Yes, of course it was longer term. But it also had immediate effects. And even after it was being dismantled, it had some lingering effects. It should be credited for a lot of Democratic wins through 2008. Imagine how effect it would have been if it had been pursued consistently.
[quote]You can argue Emanuel won a majority that couldn't be sustained. Clearly time has proven that to be true.
I would argue how much of the win can really be attributed to him. Seriously, the guy is just so full of shit (and of himself, though that's sorta redundant).
|by Anonymous||reply 53||10/04/2013|
R53 - I'm not defending Emanuel.
I'm pointing out that you're re-writing history.
I honestly don't know why.
Emanuel's fingerprints are all over the 2006 win and Dean's aren't - and the win was achieved by a strategy that was in direct conflict with Dean's.
Dean wanted the money to go to all 50 states. He didn't want to write off any state. So of course state parties loved him.
Emanuel went around the state parties and hand picked the candidates and the districts he wanted to focus on. Ignored completely districts and states where there was no hope of electing a Democrat to the House. Then he raised money and funneled it to his candidates.
Are you honestly trying to claim when Dean was trying to run a national strategy for a long term Democratic victory he was stupid enough to pour substantial time, energy and money in campaigns that already had the full and generous support of the chair of the DCCC?
Let it go. Dean has no legacy in the Democratic Party. Let me tell you one reason why I think he doesn't. At the end of the day - party leaders don't want a Democratic party that comes to power from the grass roots. That's why Emanuel was the party's golden boy after 2006.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||10/05/2013|
[quote]Emanuel's fingerprints are all over the 2006 win and Dean's aren't - and the win was achieved by a strategy that was in direct conflict with Dean's.
I don't understand why you're not getting it. You yourself seem to grasp that Dean's strategy was long term. He put resources into states and local areas and energized them. You think that suddenly disappeared?
You ARE defending Rahm, and I remember well how he tried to take 100% of the credit and discredit Dean's strategy. He's full of shit, and so are you for parroting that historical revisionism.
Did you fail to notice how many of Rham's "hand picked" candidates lost??
Dean has an excellent legacy in the Democratic party. Is Rahm paying you to rewrite history and give him all the credit that he does NOT deserve?
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? It's like you're reading from Rahm's script rather than having ACTUALLY BEEN THERE like I was. I saw what that shifty little asshole was doing at the time, and there were at least a few journalists at the time that didn't parrot his story, and reported reality... that Rahm really didn't have that much to do with the wins, and that a LOT of his hand-picked candidates not only lost, but pissed off people and killed support going forward.
Seriously, stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||10/05/2013|
R55 Take a breath.
Just admit you're a Dean supporter.
Poor Howie got the cold shoulder in a big way from Obama while Emanuel got a big kiss on the lips.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||10/05/2013|
Dumbasses, it was Rahm who kept the White House out of the all important 2010 election. And since he's been Mayor of Chicago he has not done one single thing a Republican wouldn't have done except support gay marriage. He was a stealth Republican who infiltrated the Dems and conned them, and it worked. A brilliant strategy by whatever 1% puppetmaster put him up to it.
We can return the favor with even more success.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||10/05/2013|
What R57 said.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||10/05/2013|
What makes me mad is the fact that several Democratic Senators are retiring in 2014. Don't they realize they are putting those seats at risk of Republican takeover? They should put the interests of the party first and stay on for another term.
In particular, I am thinking of:
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sen. Max Bacchus (D-MT)
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
|by Anonymous||reply 59||10/05/2013|
Good riddance to Bacchus. He might as well have been a Republican.
It is Rockefeller and Johnson we should worry about.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||10/06/2013|