Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I actually remember all the discussion about this at the time - right after the 2010 Mid-Terms.
Obama was ALWAYS about Obama - he actually believed that stuff he used to say in his own Campaigns.
"a light would shine down and say vote for Obama". He had a very, very small group of "advisors" that really had no qualifications - they were cheerleaders drunk on their own Kool-Aid. Obama was obsessed with his Grand Legacy and he wanted his Legacy to be possibly 2nd only to Lincoln and he didn't really think passing Lincoln was out of the question.
In 2008, Obama was supposed to herald a new progressive era, the harbinger of a new New Deal. He flipped several solid red states blue -- or at least purple -- and many Democrats, led by Mr. Obama himself, believed that a permanent realignment had arrived. Then-candidate Obama, fresh on his return from speaking to an adoring crowd of Berliners, even reportedly told Democratic representatives that his candidacy "is the moment, as Nancy (Pelosi) noted, that the world is waiting for."
Confident that history was on his side, Mr. Obama ran Washington on a partisan basis, using solid Democratic majorities in the House and Senate to ram through Obamacare. It was the most partisan major piece of social legislation in a century.
The Obama Arrogance
Obama: You've Got Me |The Atlantic - January 26, 2010 There has been some disagreement among political analysts that I trust as to whether Obama's advisors started believing their own propaganda--whether they really believed that everything had changed, and they were FDR 2.0. But this suggests an arrogance far beyond that. This suggests that Obama genuinely believed that he was entirely untouchable. That may explain a lot about the past twelve months.
A key statement reported in the Washington Post, The Atlantic, Politico and others explains it well --
Democratic Senators and CongressCritters kept tying to tell President Obama that cramming down Legislation was going to cause a backlash like it did in 1994 against Bill Clinton (they had a then Historic Loss of 54 seats) -- Obama's Response was "Well, the big difference here and in '94 was you've got me."
Think about how he Campaigned in 2016 for Hillary Clinton -- He kept saying "MY Legacy is on the line - you have to save My Legacy".
Think about how he is Campaigning now -- same thing "This Economy is because of ME", "We have to take this Country back and restore MY policy". Think about how small his crowds are, think about how he must feel to see his failure. Very few even want Obama to Campaign with them.
1. Obama's #'s were generally at their low point leading into the midterms. If they happened to be held a few months earlier or later the losses likely wouldn't have been as bad.
2. Democratic turnout in both years sucked.
3. 2010 was basically the last stand of rural Democrats. Rural districts started trending away from the Democrats years prior, but they held on to quite a few seats up until 2010.
4. Previous wave elections. The Democrats had wave elections in 2006 and 2008, they picked up 52 seats in the House during those two elections. As a result going into the 2010 elections they held the majority of the swing districts and quite a few traditionally Republican leaning seats, many of which held by 1st Ave 2nd term incumbents. That gave many potential pick up opportunities for the GOP. If the Democratic gains in 06 and 08 weren't as large, there would have been fewer pick up opportunities for the GOP in 2010. Similar concept in the Senate in 2014. The bulk of the seats up were Democratic, especially the vulnerable ones in part because they picked up 8 seats in 2008 during the previous cycle.
The party in power almost always loses seats in the midterm.
This is not a phenomena strictly due to Obama.
Sometimes it doesn’t matter though due to the map. For example this year if Hillary was president republicans lose seats in the house anyway with practically 40% of the seats up being in CA and NY. The senate would be a different story. I’m guessing that Sinema Donnelly and Nelson are auto losses in a Hillary presidency. I do think McCaskill has an easier road though in that scenario
Sometimes it doesn’t matter though due to the map. For example this year if Hillary was president republicans lose seats in the house anyway with practically 40% of the seats up being in CA and NY. The senate would be a different story. I’m guessing that Sinema Donnelly and Nelson are auto losses in a Hillary presidency. I do think McCaskill has an easier road though in that scenario
I don't understand this analysis. All the House seats are up for re-election in the midterm regardless of who is president. Only 80 of the 435 House seats are in CA (53) and NY (27), less than 20%, and if Clinton was president, Democrats would have very poor prospects of achieving gains. With Trump in the White House and having middling to poor popularity in numerous suburban districts, there are many opportunities for Democrats.
Also why would it be easier for McCaskill if Clinton was president? Look what happened in virtually every red state Senate race in 2010 and 2014. In that scenario, Democrats would lose their argument for placing a check on the White House. McCaskill's situation is not significantly different from Donnelly's and other red state Democrats in challenging races this year.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
