Incredible Shrinking Democratic Party

[Chukpike]

"Reporting from Washington —

Democrats searching for good news amid the rubble of Tuesday's midterm election results can look to Latinos and African Americans, two groups of voters that stayed with the party in large numbers." LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-coalition-20101105,0,2358264.story

The only problem is later in the article they state:
"To make matters worse, while black and Latino voters remained relatively loyal to the Democratic Party, they voted in far fewer numbers than in 2008. And even in those groups, 3% to 5% defected from Democrats to Republicans. "

I did enjoy this statement:
"But that, in a sense, is like taking comfort in that fact that as your house is falling down around you, it isn't also on fire.":lol:


Makes it really funny when you think of the articles two years ago claiming the death of the Republican Party, and how they never would recover. Quite a few people on this forum echoed that sentiment.

 

[A Can of Man]

It's just a cycle.
People will be disappointed in the Republican Party, then they will vote in the Democrats. Then they'll be disappointed in the Democrats and vote in the Republicans. etc etc

 

[Chukpike]

It's just a cycle.
People will be disappointed in the Republican Party, then they will vote in the Democrats. Then they'll be disappointed in the Democrats and vote in the Republicans. etc etc

True, and President Obama and the elected Congressional Democrats will need to work better together if they hope to hold on to the Presidency. Although they could hold on if the Republicans can't field a viable alternative. (Not Sarah Palin)

California this year had a solution-less Governors race, Jerry Brown or Meg Whitman. In California it is almost impossible to elect a Republican. We ended up with Brown because so many voters have died since he was last elected as Governor in 1978. Even this campaign he did not run on his record as Governor, but more on his fathers. He was generally considered a very poor Governor 28 years ago. No matter what he says to the voters, he will "do his own thing".

 

[A Can of Man]

I think we may be seeing a serious flaw in the system.
Personally I don't care which party gets the Presidency, I'd rather just like to see things get done.

 

[George]

I'd rather just like to see things get done.

Depends on the definition of "done". I prefer gridlock vs getting Obama's agenda passed, not that that is likely.

 

[A Can of Man]

Whatever. If it's good for the country, I'd like to see it get done.

 

[mmarsh]

Depends on the definition of "done". I prefer gridlock vs getting Obama's agenda passed, not that that is likely.

That's a piss-poor attitude.

And what happens when the situation is eventually reversed? And its the Democrats are blocking everything the GOP is trying to do, simply because Republican is in the White House. Are you going to whine that the Democrats are obstructionists? Keep that in mind the next time a Republican is in office.

If the GOP plays full obstruction defense they are going to pay very dearly for it in 2012. A party of no ideas will not get very far. The anti-Obama rhetoric will please the base...and thats about it. In 1996 the GOP tried doing the same thing by shutting down the government and the end result was Bill Clinton getting re-elected.

Obama polls are not great, but historically compared to other presidents he's not in any real danger of losing so far. The last Newsweek Poll had him at 54%. The reason the Dems lost last week was that most Dems are demoralized and didnt come out to vote...but they will in 2012, as will the blacks and Hispanics. You can count on it.

The crazies in the GOP are making sure that the main GOP demographic remains over 50, male, and white. Thats a guaranteed way to lose. For the GOP to have a real chance, his numbers would have to really plummet between now and November 2012 for that top happen and thats not likely to happen barring some unforeseen disaster. Chances are, the economy will be better in 2012 and as long as the economy is doing better I see very little chance for the GOP to win.

...and thats assuming the GOP nominee is NOT Sarah Palin. If you make Palin the nominee or appear anywhere on the Ticket the only people who will be happy about it will be the writers on SNL.

 

[George]

That's a piss-poor attitude.

And what happens when the situation is eventually reversed? And its the Democrats are blocking everything the GOP is trying to do, simply because Republican is in the White House. Are you going to whine that the Democrats are obstructionists? Keep that in mind the next time a Republican is in office.

If the GOP plays full obstruction defense they are going to pay very dearly for it in 2012. A party of no ideas will not get very far. The anti-Obama rhetoric will please the base...and thats about it. In 1996 the GOP tried doing the same thing by shutting down the government and the end result was Bill Clinton getting re-elected.

Obama polls are not great, but historically compared to other presidents he's not in any real danger of losing so far. The last Newsweek Poll had him at 54%. The reason the Dems lost last week was that most Dems are demoralized and didnt come out to vote...but they will in 2012, as will the blacks and Hispanics. You can count on it.

The crazies in the GOP are making sure that the main GOP demographic remains over 50, male, and white. Thats a guaranteed way to lose. For the GOP to have a real chance, his numbers would have to really plummet between now and November 2012 for that top happen and thats not likely to happen barring some unforeseen disaster. Chances are, the economy will be better in 2012 and as long as the economy is doing better I see very little chance for the GOP to win.

...and thats assuming the GOP nominee is NOT Sarah Palin. If you make Palin the nominee or appear anywhere on the Ticket the only people who will be happy about it will be the writers on SNL.

The Dems tried to shut Bush down @ the beginning, untill 9-11 made him a popular war leader & the Dems decided they had to play along, @ least for a while. Reps arn't "idealess" they have been proposing pro Capitalist solutions all along that have been rejected out of hand by the Dems.
How things turn out depends on weather the new guys get some influence to guide policy or if the big govt Reps like Hatch & others set the agenda. Clinton shut down the Govt by vetoing the bug=dgets sent to him & used his lap dogs in the Press to claim it was the Reps who somehow shut it down. In case it didn't make the French papers, 2 black Republicans, backed by the TEA Party, won Tuesday.

 

[Chukpike]

The crazies in the GOP are making sure that the main GOP demographic remains over 50, male, and white. Thats a guaranteed way to lose. For the GOP to have a real chance, his numbers would have to really plummet between now and November 2012 for that top happen and thats not likely to happen barring some unforeseen disaster. Chances are, the economy will be better in 2012 and as long as the economy is doing better I see very little chance for the GOP to win.

The news article in the first post of this thread disagrees with your above statement.

"The Democratic Party was overwhelmingly rejected by whites, independents and seniors. Perhaps most troubling to Democrats was that increasing numbers of women also turned toward the Republicans.

Young voters, so crucial to President Obama's historic victories two years ago, showed up in lower numbers Tuesday, and many more voted Republican than before."

 

[A Can of Man]

And like I said, when they realize the Republicans are also not the solution, they'll vote for the Democrats again. Then they'll realize the Democrats aren't the answer and...

 

[Rob Henderson]

Thus the rather vital flaws in a two-party system... Nobody ever gets anything done because each party is too worried about making sure the other one looks bad. Just look at campaign ads. When was the last time you saw a political ad that actually promoted the candidate instead of bashing the hell out of the OTHER guy?

 

[mmarsh]

The news article in the first post of this thread disagrees with your above statement.

"The Democratic Party was overwhelmingly rejected by whites, independents and seniors. Perhaps most troubling to Democrats was that increasing numbers of women also turned toward the Republicans.

Young voters, so crucial to President Obama's historic victories two years ago, showed up in lower numbers Tuesday, and many more voted Republican than before."

One election result is hardly a trend.

I'll give you independents as a "maybe", but in the long term I believe the trend of women and seniors voting right-wing is going to be very temporary because the GOP is fundamentally opposed to those groups central issues.

Issues was the one thing the GOP avoided talking about last week. But the moment the GOP goes back to its core platform like SS privatization and being unflinchingly pro-life will cost them whatever gains they made with both groups. Its exactly what happened in 2008 when McCain thought he could win women voters with a attractive but very anti-feminist Sarah Palin. Same deal for Seniors, the moment the GOP starts pushing a SS privatization scheme they will effectively lost the AARP, because nobody but the GOP diehards, the financial industry, and their cronies really want to privatize SS. Unless the GOP is willing to abandon unpopular ideas, it will never reliably get those voters.

And of course, there are still 2 more years left in Obama's term...

George

9-11 happened 8 months after Bush took office, and the only real bit of legislation that happened in that time was the 2001 tax cut WHICH PASSED IN JUNE 2001. So your fantasy claims of Democratic obstructionism are totally baseless. The Democrats are gutless wimps, they couldn't obstruct a kindergarten.

Yeah its those "pro-Capitalist" (meaning: Pro-Millionaire, Pro-Corporate America, Pro-Wall Street) policies that got us into the current economic mess in the beginning. Thanks I'll pass. Ever notice George that whenever the GOP is in charge the economy just seems to tank? From Ronald Reagan, to Bush, to W. Meanwhile everyone else on Main Street takes it in the rear. If the GOP in 2012 runs on the platform of continuing Bush's economic policies I can already tell you what the election result is going to be.

2 black Tea-Party members win House Seats hardly represents Black and Hispanic voters. I could probably find you a black member of the KKK. I am willing to bet you anything that those two were elected primarily by Whites and not Blacks. There are Black conservatives (I never said they wern't) there just not very many of them nor do they speak for the black community nor black voters.

 

[Chukpike]

Thus the rather vital flaws in a two-party system... Nobody ever gets anything done because each party is too worried about making sure the other one looks bad.

As the topic is more about the Democratic party losing support, would you be more comfortable with only one party? It seems multi party countries dominate the rankings of world economies. I would think they are doing something right.
P. S. Don't think you meant "vital"?

One election result is hardly a trend.

I'll give you independents as a "maybe", but in the long term I believe the trend of women and seniors voting right-wing is going to be very temporary because the GOP is fundamentally opposed to those groups central issues.

"One election result is hardly a trend." quote mmarsh

Agreed, that probably indicates why the Democrats faired so badly after doing so well in 2008.

"I'll give you independents as a "maybe"," quote mmarsh

Actually you will give me nothing, as I quoted from the article referencing the independent vote, and was not my statement. While you can voice your opinion it is hardly supported by facts or sources.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. Which is the defection of Democrat voters. It would seem the Democrats should worry more about where to get their votes. Seems President Obama agrees as he has all ready stated he will have to make "midcourse corrections".

"NEW DELHI – Hampered by heavy election losses at home, President Barack Obama promised from India on Sunday to make "midcourse corrections" to reinvigorate his embattled domestic agenda in the face of a testier American public and more combative Congress." By BEN FELLER, AP White House Correspondent

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101108/ap_on_re_us/obama_asia_49

 

[Rob Henderson]

As the topic is more about the Democratic party losing support, would you be more comfortable with only one party? It seems multi party countries dominate the rankings of world economies. I would think they are doing something right.
P. S. Don't think you meant "vital"?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vital
Definition 4 B.

Yes, multi-party systems ARE the dominating force in world powers... More than 2 in a lot of them. I am not advocating a single-party system, and I did not infer that. I support a multi-party system. Not a dual-party system.

 

[Chukpike]

Thus the rather vital flaws in a two-party system... Nobody ever gets anything done because each party is too worried about making sure the other one looks bad.

P. S. Don't think you meant "vital"?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vital
Definition 4 B.

Yes, multi-party systems ARE the dominating force in world powers... More than 2 in a lot of them. I am not advocating a single-party system, and I did not infer that. I support a multi-party system. Not a dual-party system.

"Thus the rather vital flaws in a two-party system..." quote Rob Henderson
Vital: Definition 4 B: of the utmost importance

So flaws are the utmost importance in a two party system?

Whatever, it does not matter, as the topic is the defection and loss of Democrats in this last election.

 

[Rob Henderson]

"Thus the rather vital flaws in a two-party system..." quote Rob Henderson
Vital: Definition 4 B: of the utmost importance

So flaws are the utmost importance in a two party system?

No, the most important flaws of a two party system include the flaw that neither party will make concessions with the other. There are other flaws, but that is among the most VITAL.

And remember, YOU are the one who brought up my word choice.

Whatever, it does not matter, as the topic is the defection and loss of Democrats in this last election.

Yes, and I stated my opinion on that, yet you chose to not respond to the rest of my post... Only concerning yourself with my use of the word vital.

Yes, multi-party systems ARE the dominating force in world powers... More than 2 in a lot of them. I am not advocating a single-party system, and I did not infer that. I support a multi-party system. Not a dual-party system.

 

[mmarsh]

As the topic is more about the Democratic party losing support, would you be more comfortable with only one party? It seems multi party countries dominate the rankings of world economies. I would think they are doing something right.
P. S. Don't think you meant "vital"?


"One election result is hardly a trend." quote mmarsh

Agreed, that probably indicates why the Democrats faired so badly after doing so well in 2008.

"I'll give you independents as a "maybe"," quote mmarsh

Actually you will give me nothing, as I quoted from the article referencing the independent vote, and was not my statement. While you can voice your opinion it is hardly supported by facts or sources.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. Which is the defection of Democrat voters. It would seem the Democrats should worry more about where to get their votes. Seems President Obama agrees as he has all ready stated he will have to make "midcourse corrections".

"NEW DELHI – Hampered by heavy election losses at home, President Barack Obama promised from India on Sunday to make "midcourse corrections" to reinvigorate his embattled domestic agenda in the face of a testier American public and more combative Congress." By BEN FELLER, AP White House Correspondent

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101108/ap_on_re_us/obama_asia_49

Point 1. Arrogant much? I your find "off topic" excuse an obvious dodge and the hypocracy of your response sails right over you as you immediately get after Rob on the correct definition of the word "VITAL" which incidentally, is about as on interesting as watching paint dry. So get off your podium Preacher...Now do you what to have a real conversation on the Democratic Party or do you want to keep pussyfooting around?

Point 2, you are wrong. The Dems won the 2006 Midterms AND 2008 presidential elections...which IS a trend, or at least the start of one.

And Obama's sentence about Mid-course connections can be interpreted MANY different ways. If I were him I would start by course correcting by Ignoring the obstructionist GOP and start reconnecting with my BASE, which is possible since he has hopefully freed himself of Rahm Emmanuel destructive policy of "belittle your base" and "don't sell your accomplishments" which would explain tuesdays low Democrat voter turnout. Of course he might have other ideas...

 

[George]

Point 2, you are wrong. The Dems won the 2006 Midterms AND 2008 presidential elections...which IS a trend, or at least the start of one.

Dems made gains by pointing out the spending of the Big Govt Reps of Bush, many Dems ran to the Right of the Big Spends both times, there's still critisism of Bush's spending. It should be noted that the spending topped out in '04 & declined 05-06, then turned sharply higher after the Dems got control of Congress in '06. Bush doubled the debt in 8 years, alienating many Reps, many quit the Party. But the Dems still effectivly blamed Bush, even though they pushed up the spending 07 on. What happened next is the moderate sounding Dems, once in total controll, doubled the debt again & in only 2 years. The people saw a massive increase in Govt power & size, not what many thought they were getting.

 

[mmarsh]

Dems made gains by pointing out the spending of the Big Govt Reps of Bush, many Dems ran to the Right of the Big Spends both times, there's still critisism of Bush's spending. It should be noted that the spending topped out in '04 & declined 05-06, then turned sharply higher after the Dems got control of Congress in '06. Bush doubled the debt in 8 years, alienating many Reps, many quit the Party. But the Dems still effectivly blamed Bush, even though they pushed up the spending 07 on. What happened next is the moderate sounding Dems, once in total controll, doubled the debt again & in only 2 years. The people saw a massive increase in Govt power & size, not what many thought they were getting.

What does that have to do with what I said? Chukpike stated it 2008 wasn't a trend, I pointed out that it was as the Democrats won two elections and not one.

George, not even most Republicans would deny that Bush was a huge spender. John McCain in 2008 even admitted as that the GOP lost the 2006 election because they had spent too much money. That money was spent on Tax-cuts, Wars, and a lot of Pork like Sarah Palin's Bridges to Nowhere. Yes Democrats got involved in that too but nobody outdoes the GOP in terms of wasteful spending. Nobody.

Second of all your timeline is off. The Dems took control in Feb of 2007 not 2006, that means that Bush only really about alittle over a year with them as the rest he was a lame duck. But here we are focusing on 3 years the Dems had the HoR (half of which was under Bush threat of Veto) and blissfully ignoring the other 5 years when there was no opposition whatsoever.

Its very simply arithmetic 2 expensive wars + 2 huge taxcuts = one giant donut hole.

The GOP talks a fine line about small government, but when have they ever practiced what they preached? The GOP in the past 40 years has done nothing but amass enormous debts and deficits. Like Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny Small government Republicans simply don't exist or if they do they dont get elected. The Democrats record on economics is far better than that of the GOP.

 

[Chukpike]

Point 2, you are wrong. The Dems won the 2006 Midterms AND 2008 presidential elections...which IS a trend, or at least the start of one.

"which IS a trend, or at least the start of one." mmarsh

That is a trend? Guess that trend ended rather abruptly.

And Obama's sentence about Mid-course connections can be interpreted MANY different ways. If I were him I would start by course correcting by Ignoring the obstructionist GOP and start reconnecting with my BASE,

Many different ways? Any way you slice it his policies are losing Democrat's votes. If his course corrections continue to diminish his party where will the Democrats be?

What does that have to do with what I said? Chukpike stated it 2008 wasn't a trend, I pointed out that it was as the Democrats won two elections and not one.

No you didn't, you said, "or at least the start of one." See above comments.

George, not even most Republicans would deny that Bush was a huge spender. John McCain in 2008 even admitted as that the GOP lost the 2006 election because they had spent too much money. That money was spent on Tax-cuts, Wars, and a lot of Pork like Sarah Palin's Bridges to Nowhere. Yes Democrats got involved in that too but nobody outdoes the GOP in terms of wasteful spending. Nobody.

Second of all your timeline is off. The Dems took control in Feb of 2007 not 2006, that means that Bush only really about alittle over a year with them as the rest he was a lame duck. But here we are focusing on 3 years the Dems had the HoR (half of which was under Bush threat of Veto) and blissfully ignoring the other 5 years when there was no opposition whatsoever.

Its very simply arithmetic 2 expensive wars + 2 huge taxcuts = one giant donut hole.

The GOP talks a fine line about small government, but when have they ever practiced what they preached? The GOP in the past 40 years has done nothing but amass enormous debts and deficits. Like Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny Small government Republicans simply don't exist or if they do they dont get elected. The Democrats record on economics is far better than that of the GOP.

Yada! Yada! Yada! Back to those evil Republicans.
Where is your conversation?
"Now do you what to have a real conversation on the Democratic Party or do you want to keep pussyfooting around?"mmarsh

If people were to visit your past posts they would find you a broken record: Wah, Wah, Wah, it is those evil Republicans that are ruining the world!:crybaby:

This topic is about the Democrats failure to deliver on their promises and the subsequent loss of support.
You want to whine about the GOP start your own topic.

"If I were him I would start by course correcting by Ignoring the obstructionist GOP and start reconnecting with my BASE," quote mmarsh
If you were him you would not "Ignor the obstructuinist GOP", since that is all you ever talk about. How is President Obama going to ignore the party that controls the House of Representatives? He is at least smart enough to know he will have to try and work with them.

So quit "pussyfooting around" and "have a real conversation on the Democratic Party".