Democrats freaking out after an absolutely disastrous election

[texdav]

I think democrats are not likely to want to repeat the experience with the left progressives and Obama. The centralist have already staredt the move to take back the committee and thus the platform.

[runswithscissors]

Originally Posted by Mistermobile

I think the worst thing to happen in politics in years was when they started to color the election maps red and blue. In real life no one is 100% anything.

Then why do they vote that way?

How do you depict the VOTES of the country WITHOUT a visual map?

And the purpose of the map is WELL SERVED to remind people what is ACTUALLY going on especially in densely populated Progressive urban centers.

Of course, the Liberals will gladly tell you the MAJORITY of the COUNTRY are just a bunch of rubes who MUST BE STOPPED and DRAGGED kicking and screaming to the ELITIST position because they...are SO. MUCH. MORE. EVOLVED.

All you have to do is listen to some Liberal people ranting about "abortion/birth control rights" for example.

Even 65 year olds who have no personal interest to be gained, especially considering all the other issues that actually ARE impacting them.

The difference is blind ideology versus pragmatism. AND control any way possible. Ends justify the means.

NOW we see the TRUTH. While the entire country was fixated on Sandra Fluke's lack of FREE TAXPAYER FUNDED birth control as a 30 year old "student" in 2012....GRUBER and the entire healthcare industry and Obama administration and Congress were committing FRAUD against the country with the entire foundation and execution and THEORY of the ACA. FOR YEARS!

Screaming "squirrel" to keep the debate silenced. And the biggest criminals of all, the media were happy to make sure it happened.

[lurtsman]

Originally Posted by Steve-o

I dont know about you all, but Im absolutely reveling in the moment.

Gotta love all those A**holes that got elected. Oh, I'm sorry, the PR term is "homophobic". The level of ignorance possessed by the morons we have elected suggests that states truly believe elections should be about selecting which person you want to exile from your state and impose upon Washington, D.C., not about which individual is best qualified to represent your area.

[blisterpeanuts]

Originally Posted by jwkilgore

This is it. Obama didn't win in 2012 so much as Romney lost. I just could not bring myself to vote for Romney/Ryan. I disliked Obama/Biden almost as much, so I voted for Johnson.

Almost the same thing happened in 2008. McCain had promise as a moderate candidate... then he selected the "Quitta from Masilla" as his veep. I still voted for him, but it was a hard decision. Lots of moderates who would have voted for McCain switched and voted for Obama.

In spite of the "wave" of Republicans getting in this year, if they can't select a better team than McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan they'll lose again in 2016 and we'll have 12 years of Democrat presidents.

If John McCain were ten years younger and had he picked a more conventional running mate, he would have beat Obama easily. Oh it probably wouldn't have been a landslide, but a definitive win.

What hurt him was a perception that he was erratic and losing his grip. The odd choice of Sarah Palin made people question his judgment. Palin's own erratic behavior, e.g. her resignation, just added fuel to the fire.

Romney 2012 was also a poor choice; he simply failed to make a case for why he should be president. He lacked the passion and rhetorical energy of Reagan or Bill Clinton both of whom blew an incumbent president out of the water. His unfortunate gaffes played right into the hands of the Democrats who portrayed him as an out of touch elite. Even so, he came remarkably close to knocking Obama out of office.

Obama is therefore an accident of history, a blip. The next person the Democrats nominate needs to be a reasonable moderate with a chance of winning over swathes of the conservative and moderate population who constitute at least 50% of the electorate, or risk another four years of irrelevance.

[Ringo1]

Originally Posted by jetjoe

I wish everyone would vote. But I also wish everyone would think it through and be informed. You seem to think old people and Fox news isn't worthy of your time. But ask yourself this? How often do you see what is reported on Fox or talk radio disputed and proven wrong?

At least daily I see one of their outrageous 'news' reports debunked.

We, "old white" guys have been around the patch. All we want is for the younger generation to enjoy what we had be they black white, yellow, red. Not change our modify or society to suit our wants and desires. We don't need hope and change. We need self responsibility and hard work. Most vote Democrat for one reason, more free stuff! Prove me wrong.

Why should I attempt to prove you wrong when you have proven nothing with this statement? Your opinion is not fact.

Unfortunately, "the world they will inherit" as you put it, at this time comes with over twenty thousand dollars of debt for every living citizen and unfortunately half of those will pay none of it. Truth is, if your the type to hold a job, your saddled with over one thousand dollars per year in taxes just for the debt. A good education if they are so lucky to get one, will leave you another forty thousand in the hole. But it is so much easier to **** and moan and hold your hand out. Blame all your shortcomings on the "old white" guy. And of course stick your head in the sand and let the Liberals give you even more. And vote for them of course to keep it coming. If you are a liberal with a job and continue to vote for this, your a fool. Sooner or later, again if your lucky, everyone grows old, and the vast majority comes around to be conservative. Actual experience trumps a dream every time.

We can thank the Republicans for ALL those expensive wars and the billions of dollars that we pay in corporate welfare, thank you very much. I don't know how old you think I am but I've worked for a living ALL my life. Quite a good living, thank you very much.

Then tell me when I blamed all my shortcomings on the old white man. I'll be waiting for that one.

Those liberal teachers failed to impress on you just what we are leaving you. Because in their minds the ultimate solution is Socialism or Communism. Then you (we) have nothing! If this is what you want there are plenty of places on earth to run to right now. That would be much easier than trying to convince us (old white guys) who don't agree with your philosophy. The hard work has been done. Go!

Medicare is socialism. Give it up. Finally - liberalism does not = socialism. But that is what Faux would like you to believe and so you do.

[markg91359]

If John McCain were ten years younger and had he picked a more conventional running mate, he would have beat Obama easily. Oh it probably wouldn't have been a landslide, but a definitive win.

No Republican was electable in 2008 after the financial crisis occurred. Up until that time, it would have been a hard climb for McCain, but not an impossible one. GWB's approval ratings were lower than Obama's are currently. If you doubt me go back and check the RCP average. Sarah Palin certainly didn't help things, but once the economy fell into that deep financial crisis, no Republican was going to the White House.

What hurt him was a perception that he was erratic and losing his grip. The odd choice of Sarah Palin made people question his judgment. Palin's own erratic behavior, e.g. her resignation, just added fuel to the fire.

McCain was very comfortable talking foreign policy and it showed. However, the two things that ruined this for him was a sense among much of the electorate that we should never have been in Iraq (which he had supported) and the fact that by November 2008 voters could have cared less about virtually any foreign policy issue. Many felt the country was on the edge of an economic precipice and was about to shatter into a million pieces.

Romney 2012 was also a poor choice; he simply failed to make a case for why he should be president. He lacked the passion and rhetorical energy of Reagan or Bill Clinton both of whom blew an incumbent president out of the water. His unfortunate gaffes played right into the hands of the Democrats who portrayed him as an out of touch elite. Even so, he came remarkably close to knocking Obama out of office.

You can argue that, but the reality is that if you look at polls Romney was the only GOP candidate running within 2 or 3 points of Obama. The others ran considerably behind that. The GOP held debates and those debates were probably the least helpful thing the party could have done. Rick Perry and some of the other candidates looked like nuts before they were done. Romney looked the best, but the other candidates attacked him and gave the democrats hordes of material for negative ads. In many ways, I feel sorry for Romney. He was trying to hold onto ultra-conservative voters while appealing simultaneously to centrist voters. All this occurred, while many people still had very unpleasant memories of GWB. In the end, he simply couldn't appeal to broad enough base to beat Obama.

Obama is therefore an accident of history, a blip. The next person the Democrats nominate needs to be a reasonable moderate with a chance of winning over swathes of the conservative and moderate population who constitute at least 50% of the electorate, or risk another four years of irrelevance.

There is definitely great truth to the idea the democrats need to be able win over moderate voters. The election of 2014, ought to be cause for considerable concern here. However, its also true that many people who would have voted democrat, didn't bother to show up for this off-year election. It was the same pattern in 2010 when 7 or 8 senate seats were also lost. Presidential elections tend to energize those who tend to vote democrat. Where, on the other hand, Republican voters will generally vote in all elections.

The reality is that its too early to make many predictions. Much will happen in the next two years. I expect the next 700 + days to be extraordinarily interesting.

[Mistoftime]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

I generally identify republican (more libertarian), though I tend to think for myself rather than vote party lines. But.. Republicans have been given a chance to fix things. Better do it. Otherwise, another wave will come around in 2 years.

Obama has been a pretty bad president from the compromise side. I've completely been against him since the "Go win an election" comment. Republicans held the house when he said that, guess how they did it? by winning elections. Well, they won an election without question now, so now what, Chuckles? Oh, it doesn't count because there was low voter turnout? Idiot.

It still remains though.. this election was nothing more than "Ok, they've totally screwed up.. Your turn.. You've got 2 years to impress us"

Republicans need to drop the 'repeal Obamacare' mantra.. focus on fixing what's wrong with it vs throwing the whole thing out. There are some good parts of it. Both sides need to shut up and compromise. And if the Libertarian party would get off its butt and do some Perot type organizing, they could steal 2016. Yeah, that's not gonna happen, but.. It's a nice dream.

I would very much like to see Libertarians and others in power instead of this insane two party system. Today the Democrats are no more than self serving wanna be communist and the Republicans are no more than talking heads for big business, filled with corruption. Yet we run from Democrat to Republican, election after election, clapping like trained seals after every pandering speech they give. As a historian, there is a very distinct and disturbing trend I have seen for the last several decades , and that is the lack of intelligent, patriotic leadership going to Washington. A prime example of comparison is to look at our founding fathers and the ones who sacrificed everything to make this country the best and strongest in the world and a constitution to keep it that way. Now look what we have been placing in office as our modern day leaders, George Bush, puppet of big business, who gave us Homeland Security, A huge threat to our freedom, the corporations that are "Too Big to Fail" Crap so we as tax payers could bail them out. Barack Hussein Obama, "Community Organizer" Wanna be King who says our constitution is a flawed document, Who's administration in so deep in lies and deceit it has become a joke to any intelligent person. John Boehner, a weak paper tiger. And last but not least, Nancy Pelosi... What does one say? It's beyond reason how anyone of such low comprehension to governmental affairs could hold office. And what does that say about the ones who placed her there to represent them? Harry Reid, totally self serving. Obama Care? Our health care system did need repairing but to place a tax law through total deception on the citizens with spin doctors who knowingly and willingly deceived the voters, pushing their own agenda, Obama Care was designed to fool the voter into accepting a very flawed piece of legislation, toss the damn thing out, it's intent and origin is contaminated with political corruption and should not be used as a base to build anything from. Yet American's go back for more of the same, election after election. two years for the Republican's to impress us? Do we really expect any real lasting change from Republicans, will the major corporations allow real change? I think not, and with every administration our rights and freedoms are being chipped away, no matter if it's a Democrat or Republican administration. Has the dumbing down of America been successful? you be the judge.....

[Listener2307]

Originally Posted by Listener2307
Some of what you say is true.

The sad part? You are waiting for people who "only think there is an election every four years" to come along and save you. And you admit it!

Even sadder: They might do it! They might be awakened from their uninformed stupor by a community developer who gives them a ride to a voting place, and vote for whoever promises that they do not have to learn or do anything in order to get by in life.
And that person will be a Democrat.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I have never understood why people like you feel the need to degrade people who have a different political ideology or party than yourself.

People like you are the reason this nation is so divided, all you do is attack people.

Then I will explain it to you.

Being uninformed and thinking "there is an election every four years" is not a political ideology. It is ignorance. And ignorance, dsjj, is inexcusable. Preying on those voters with promises of an easier life is a travesty.

[Listener2307]

Originally Posted by Ringo1

So? The old, white vote saved you this go-round. Do you have a problem with that? Would you prefer they stay home? One might argue that older people who are glued to their Fox News might be the ones that are uninformed.

I want young people to vote in every election. I want them to pay attention to politics. This is the world they will inherit; it's never too early.

Is it your premise that young people shouldn't vote? You seem to imply that they are so stupid they will vote for anyone who promises them a ride.

And THAT is why they continue to vote Democratic; we are just more in line with their values AND we value their vote.

We differ. I want people who have no knowledge of current events or issues to stay at home and let the people with information and informed opinions vote.

Democracy - and I am saying pure Democracy - has proved itself to be a bad idea. Our Republic was designed, remember, to prevent the uninformed masses from having too much input.

The young vote is courted not because the country is in need of "new fresh ideas", but because young people are easily manipulated.

We - you and I - agree that we want young people to pay attention to politics. But it ain't happening.

And let's be clear about one thing. "You seem to imply that they are so stupid they will vote for anyone who promises them a ride."...........I'm not implying that at all. I'm saying it is a fact.* I am saying that is how Obama was elected in the first place. Now, with promises unfulfilled, the low information, disengaged voters have withdrawn from the stage. Good. I hope they never come back.

*The Democratic leadership understand this. It was recently revealed that Jonathan Gruber, the man who authored Obamacare, counted on as he says, "the stupidity of the American voter". He wrote the legislature in a circuitous, obfuscating manner so that it could not be understood by the casual voter. Gruber was paid $400,000 for his work and this year has made $1.5M consulting for various states.

[blisterpeanuts]

Originally Posted by markg91359

You can argue that, but the reality is that if you look at polls Romney was the only GOP candidate running within 2 or 3 points of Obama. The others ran considerably behind that. The GOP held debates and those debates were probably the least helpful thing the party could have done. Rick Perry and some of the other candidates looked like nuts before they were done. Romney looked the best, but the other candidates attacked him and gave the democrats hordes of material for negative ads. In many ways, I feel sorry for Romney. He was trying to hold onto ultra-conservative voters while appealing simultaneously to centrist voters. All this occurred, while many people still had very unpleasant memories of GWB. In the end, he simply couldn't appeal to broad enough base to beat Obama.

I agree that the Republican debates were more damaging than helpful in many ways. In particular, Newt Gingrich's sharp attacks on Romney during the primary season were adopted by the Democrats to vicious effect. Someone might have reminded the candidates, Gingrich in particular who had so many years of leadership experience, that what they say matters.

On the other hand, remember that the 8-month Clinton-Obama struggle was also fratricidal and alienating. It was my view that they should have reconciled early on and formed an unstoppable team of Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton. Such a partnership might have unified the country rather than polarize it as happened with Obama-Biden, leading to the 2010 rout.

There is definitely great truth to the idea the democrats need to be able win over moderate voters. The election of 2014, ought to be cause for considerable concern here. However, its also true that many people who would have voted democrat, didn't bother to show up for this off-year election. It was the same pattern in 2010 when 7 or 8 senate seats were also lost. Presidential elections tend to energize those who tend to vote democrat. Where, on the other hand, Republican voters will generally vote in all elections.

The reality is that its too early to make many predictions. Much will happen in the next two years. I expect the next 700 + days to be extraordinarily interesting.

Agreed