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|
No argument, except we probably need more than the Democrats and Republicans to (mostly) choose from. I think both parties have royally fucked things up.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||09/30/2013|
Assholes really need to stop claiming both parties are "the same"... and need to stop throwing tantrums to "show Democrats" they have to be more liberal.
First things first: Get Republicans out of power. THEN we can get Democrats to move left.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||09/30/2013|
If you think things are bad now, wait until the 2014 elections when the R's take over the Senate. We need to start working on that NOW to minimize the losses.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||09/30/2013|
The GOP will not take over the Senate. They might not even keep the House. Especially if they shut down the government.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||09/30/2013|
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|
R4 You're living in a fantasy world.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||09/30/2013|
R6, no, that's Republicans & the Tea Party. Completely delusional.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||09/30/2013|
Obama is totally responsible for all of this. If he had been a true Progressive or dare I say Liberal and had been on the side of the poor, workers and the middle class instead of kissing WS and the banks ass people would have felt entirely different about him. If he had balls to begin with and didn't crave Republican love and didn't live in fear that if he stood up for the poor people might think he was a....shhhhh...negro, this wouldn't have happened.
If Obama had immediately gone after W and Cheney for their war crimes and after WS and the banks and we'd seen perp walks and real jail time for those who brought America to its knees things would be different.
The Tea Party never have caught on no matter how much the Koch Bros. tried to make them happen. The House wouldn't have gone Republican and there wouldn't have been this gerrymandering that will now keep the Congress in the hands of Republicans for decades.
We desperately needed a real Democrat in 2008, an FDR or LBJ and instead we got Republican lite Mr. Please love me as I need a loving daddy figure and I just want to be one of you, rich white guys Obama.
If by some miracle Obama and the Democrats (which I doubt since it was Democrats who have just done a cut to SNAP) can grow a pair and stop caving maybe things can change but I think it's too late. What happened in 2010 will destroy this country. So Obama won again in 2012, so what. For the Republicans it's as if that never happened. Only if Obama and Democrats become fierce fighters, especially for workers and the poor it's as if Romney and Ryan won.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||09/30/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 9||09/30/2013|
R8, you're a fucking moron.
How about you blame Republicans for what they've done, and stop blaming Obama for what Republicans have done and are doing.
Jesus Christ, grow up and stop acting like a petulant tea-party thing.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||09/30/2013|
R9, those numbers aren't taking into account the shutdown. The same sort of shutdown that killed the GOP in the 90s.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||09/30/2013|
Obama has no moral center. Look at who has been running the economy for his administration: Wall Street vampire squids.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||09/30/2013|
[quote] If he had been a true Progressive or dare I say Liberal
oy, boy, not only are you ignorant but have diarrhea of the keyboard.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||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|
The GOP win was a direct reaction to Obamacare. The fact is we'd not be here if the Senate had passed a budget in the past four years. It hasn't, and it won't appoint conference committees. Reid and Obama are the dictators. The REpublicans control one House of COngress and have a legitimate seat at the table. They must be negotiated with. It's not a dictatorship however much Obama wishes it were.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||09/30/2013|
They will keep the House in 2014 & knowing Hills, she'll stumble and we'll have Christy in 2016
|by Anonymous||reply 16||09/30/2013|
You pathetic, lying freeper troll. Budgets are always negotiated in conference committee. Democrats have never refused to appoint a conference committee; it is essentially an automatic process.
Obama can't negotiate with a gun pointed at his head. It would be the end of his presidency if he did that.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||09/30/2013|
I wish we could resurrect some of those threads from the 2010 elections.
Many of us insisted that Obama was making progress and that it would take time. The elections were critical.
And then you had the malcontents. They didn't get their ponies. They were insufferable. They attacked all and sundry who disagreed with them and characterized the rest of us as Uncle Toms who were traitors to LGBT Equality and Democratic principles.
We now know who was right. The elections changed nothing in terms of LGBT Equality.
But, boy, did we show those Dems!
Yup. We lost in key states where GOP legislatures and governors flipped to red. They in turn gerrymandered districts which favor GOP candidates.
In retrospect, it was the massive fuck-up. The trolls who told people to refrain from voting as a form of protest were utterly wrong.
Some of them are still around, arguing that there are no differences in the political parties and generally encouraging apathy.
They should be viewed as plants - no one advocating for Equality would ever claim there is no difference.
So, yup, this would not be happening if the spoiled kids weren't so upset that change didn't happen faster.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||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||09/30/2013|
There's always a choice.
The idea of the "rugged individualist" who's so strong and independent of society that he can afford not to vote for anybody is libertarian bullshit promoted by right-wing think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the like.
Not even the super-rich are independent of society. People who don't support the Democratic ticket are either psychopathic, stupid or both. That so many poor people vote against their own interests to maintain some Gary Cooper superman self-image shows the power of the MSM.
Just vote Democratic. When all the Republicans are finally gone, then people like r8 can pick and choose who's the "best" Democrat. Until then, just support the ticket.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||09/30/2013|
R20, try this grape Kool-aid.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||09/30/2013|
Jim Jones as we know was a Republican operative connected with the John Birch Society during the 1970s. Then he suddenly started supporting (infiltrating) progressive causes in the SF Bay Area. Jones' CIA ties have been too well documented in the MSM media to repeat here.
Jones' best friend was Dan Mitrione, a friend from childhood. Mitrione was the CIA agent connected with the International Police Academy, a CIA front for training counterinsurgency and torture techniques.
We'll just let Jim go back to work, putting cyanide into the cups of his Teabagger friends.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||09/30/2013|
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|
[quote]If you think things are bad now, wait until the 2014 elections when the R's take over the Senate.
What makes me furious is that so many Democratic Senators are retiring in 2014. Don't they realize they should have stayed on so that we would have a better chance of keeping their seats?
|by Anonymous||reply 25||10/01/2013|
Even worse than the 2010 losses is that it's likely to lead to 10 years of GOP control in the US House and several "swing" states that Obama won in 2012, much in part because of the gerrymandering of the districts and that year being a census year.
Democratic areas are so easy to pack because they're generally all located in one isolated area (urban areas, cities) while the rural areas that are located elsewhere all over the state are overwhelmingly conservative. This is how despite Obama winning in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, etc, their congressional delegations are all tilted to GOP controlled.
For example, Obama won Michigan by over 9 points, yet their delegation is 9-5 Republican.
Luckily, the next census year in 2020 is a presidential election year and will likely turn out more Democratic voters. Though that likely won't have much of an impact since most governor races are held in off-year elections.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||10/01/2013|
[quote]The REpublicans control one House of COngress and have a legitimate seat at the table.
Yes, but you forgot to mention the part about the House Republicans losing the popular vote. And that they totally gerrymandered the House.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||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|
[quote]The GOP win was a direct reaction to Obamacare.
No. But the 2012 presidential election was.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||10/01/2013|
Exactly, r30. The majority spoke.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||10/01/2013|
Democrats in Congress would rather win than be right. Big problem.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||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|
R47? A lot of good got done between 2008 and 2010 ... Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority for about 6 weeks or so (give or take ... between the seating of Al Franken and the death of Kennedy). If the GOP hadn't grossly abused the filibuster during the rest of those two years, a lot MORE would have gotten done. But it was a very productive House, and most bills died in the Senate due to GOP obstructionism.
If the GOP hadn't taken over the House in 2010, we WOULD be a lot better. A lot of bills died in the house since. It's by far the most unproductive Congress EVER. We wouldn't be having this shutdown, just for starters. And the American Jobs act would have passed, and unemployment would be a couple of points lower (and the deficit lower too).
There's a lot to bitch about with respect to the fucking left-"purists" who threw a tantrum and stayed home that year.
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.
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).
|by Anonymous||reply 49||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||10/04/2013|
[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||10/04/2013|
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||10/04/2013|
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|