Fault to the Core

I don't see how anyone can feign skepticism any longer-- its called denial at this point. Nit-picking Gallup internals becomes quite the stretch when you have to start doing the same for Pew, AP/GfK, Rasmussen too, for pointing out the same truth. I will merely point out in summation what I've already posted as to the why:

1. The Democrats became the face (you could argue they embraced it), of the DC banker bailout culture of the privileged (those with access), while the average American has been downsized.

2. For those of you who have been at the forefront of the attacking the Tea Party enthusiasts, bloggers or otherwise, give yourself a big pat on the back for going after (usually in a obnoxious elitist manner) this years swing voters.

3. Tim Kaine, with the status-quo Moving America Forward, delivered a faulty to the core messaging. Saying that the status-quo is just fine will go down as an out-of-touch, and helping to exacerbate the losses. He really should be fired, and so should the pollsters and consultants who advocated for this messaging disaster.

Here's your chart, and I'll deliver a bit more, to substantiate the above, below the chart.

For the above 1-3, here are the most relevant items:

1. The bailout problem for Democrats:

Having voted for TARP, having bailed out Wall St 100 cents to the dollar for their bad investments, and having looked the other way while the banker class subsequently awarded themselves obscene bonuses, that populist foundation (which was certainly prepped for by Democrats during the 2006 and 2008 campaigns) crumbled.

Its tough to see how Democrats regain footing on this populist issue, because even thought they have improved, its on the margins, and pales with the bigger mistake. Basically, Democrats are left waiting for Republicans to let down the populist anger that is bringing them into power.

2. The Idiocy of Attacking the Tea Party enthusiasts for 2010 implications:

And the kicker from the Gallup poll on the Tea Party: Many of the Independents or soft Democrats that Democratic candidates most need to win, identify themselves with the Tea Party. Yes, 79% of them identifying with the Tea Party likewise identified with the Republican Party. 

The more relevant item from that Gallup poll of Tea Party supporters is the other 21 percent, especially more telling for the 2010 landscape. They are moderate and conservative Democrats, and pure Independents. Read the poll. Yes, they overlap widely with Republicans, but also overlap with the swing voters that decide elections.

3. Some heads need to roll:

The weakest messages assert we should “go forward, not back.”  Voters are not moved by Democratic messages that say ‘go forward, not back,’ mention President Bush, compare then and now, or even that hint the economy is “showing signs of progress.”  No matter how dramatically these messages set out the record of Republican obstructionism, their work for the wealthiest and Goldman Sachs, the millions of jobs lost and Democrats’ support for jobs, small business and new industries – these messages falter before the Republican attack.

The messages get lower scores and lose voters.  After hearing this battle of Republican and Democratic messages, 8 percent shift their vote to support the Republican, while only 5 percent move to the Democrats.  We lose ground.  These messages are helping the Republicans.

 

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

74 Comments

There's this thing called democracy

Jerome, 

You've changed, as a blogger.

 

The webstrong group is indeed a good resource for people running campaigns.  I'm happy that you continue to contribute to the political process, and if it is as a paid gun to get someone elected - and not, as it was before when you were just doing it for kicks. What was MyDD originally -- my Due Diligence?  Anyway.

 

The important point here is that there is this thing called democracy, and it happens when people vote.  I really think it's stupid to say a disaster has occurred when the votes haven't been counted. 

 

This post represents a forensics analysis of an event that hasn't yet happened. That is a deeply flawed perspective.

 

With Respect,

 

T

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-10-22 09:32AM | 1 recs
RE: There's this thing called democracy

No, I don't think Jerome has changed. He's an activist to the core, perpetually crashing the gate. But that doesn't necessarily make for sane analysis or practical solutions, though.

How many present-day tea party activists voted for Obama in 2008? 0.
What was Barack Obama's margin of victory in 2008? 9,522,083.
How many congressional districts that voted for George W. Bush <i>a second time</i> in 2004 now have democratic incumbents? 85.
How many Senate seats did Democrats pick up in 2008 thanks to a democratic wave? 8.
Before Obama, how many times since LBJ has one party controlled all three electoral goals? 3
And many times did that control end in a wave election? 3

After a long hiatus, I was just curious to see what madness had broken out here as we face midterm losses. Boy, was I not disappointed.

When politicians are losing, they always blame inadequacy of the message, as Jerome does here. The message is no good, they cry! If anyone ever stepped outside and went canvassing for OFA, they'd see how wrong their conclusions are. The message is fine. Voters just have a different opinion.

The fact remains, this country hasn't changed over the years. It's the same country that voted for George W. Bush two times, and the same country that voted for Barack Obama (except demographics do keep shifting towards the D).

You know why the democrats are going to lose seats? Because Republicans are pissed off. That's why. And why are Republicans pissed off? Because Obama accomplished more liberal achievements in 2 years than any President since FDR or LBJ.

And you know why democrats won in 2006 and 2008? Because Republicans were disillusioned with Bush. And why were they disillusioned with Bush? Because governing means being practical and compromising and doing things like bailouts. Look at how Joe Sestak turned it around with the dog doo commercial in PA.

People don't like or trust the government. That religion comes from decades of ingrained beliefs. If bloggers ever left their computers and talked to people outside their activist bubbles, they'd know that. The only demographic that likes or trusts government is the young. Add to this 9.5% unemployment and a deficit, and what is happening should be no surprise.

So Barack Obama's only two options were to govern as a Republican or take midterm losses here. Yes, better messaging might have saved some districts and senate seats. Fair enough. But these losses were inevitable, just as Bush would have lost seats in 2002 if not for 9/11. People want divided government.

The Democrats will lose 45 House seats and 6 senate seats (Nate predicts -49 and -7 as of todat). Yawn. It's a 1994-lite. Life will go on.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-10-23 12:57PM | 0 recs
Tea Baggeres "This years swing voters"?

Boy you have gone over to the dark side. There is nothing elitist a calling a con job a con job! Tea Baggers are 99% right wingnut jobs and thats not eletist it's fact. There have been serious pols confirming that fact.

by Ed beckmann 2010-10-22 09:34AM | 0 recs
RE: Tea Baggeres "This years swing voters"?

Its a poll I refer to Ed. Read the post and follow the links to Gallup. Now, here's something:

Are you still involved in Tea Party activities?
I do my own protesting via email and postcards. Anyone who thinks I'm crazy about Sarah Palin, Bush, etc. has made quite the presumption. I have voted Democrat all my life, until I started listening to what Obama was promising and started wondering how the hell will this utopian dream land be paid for? For those who actually believe that their taxes won't go up in order to pay for all this insanity: good luck!

Sounds swing (lost) to me.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-22 10:58AM | 0 recs
RE: Tea Baggeres "This years swing voters"?

I speak bumper sticker also.

 

Just for the record: The republican talking points are -

 

1.  Tell everyone to ask 'how is this getting paid for?'

2. Tell everyone healthcare reform was a big controversy.

3. Tell everyone that Obama is a bad president.

 

Make sure to refer to it all as "Obamacare" and not healthcare.  Make sure , whenever you want to say the word 'Idiot' , to use the word 'liberal' instead.  Scare people. 

Behind the scenes, spend alot of money.

Oh by the way. The RNC under Michael Steele is going broke.

My talking point: These are the people we want to rule us?

They can't even balance their own checkbook.

by Trey Rentz 2010-10-22 11:37AM | 1 recs
RE: Tea Baggeres "This years swing voters"?

 

Jerome, you are spot on with point no. 1, point no. 3 is debatable, with hindsight we can judge many things to have been wrongly decided... But on the 2nd point you are dead wrong. The Tea Party ist dominated by conservatives. Not a single Tea Partier is running on a democratic ticket.  Their policies consist of denying man made climate change, denying gays the right to marry, getting rid of separation of state and religion, fighting earmarks as their secret recipe to balance the budget, at the same time lower taxes for high incomes thus increasing income inequality, fighting for the right to carry automatic weapons in public, rooting for a repeal of health care thus denying millions of americans with preexisting conditions health care etc etc etc. I wont go into latent racism at this point, because all of the above, which is official Tea Party policy and supported by all Senate Tea Party Candidates I know off, is enough to show, that the democratic party never stood a chance to get those peoples vote. What you are conveniently leaving out are polls showing that the broader american electorate has actually soured on the Tea Party. Favorability ratings have actually plummeted this year as a result of Democrats actively undermining the Tea Party in the few momemts they dont undermine themselves. Decrying the democrats efforts to drive up the Tea Parties negatives is crazy! The evidence simply doesnt bear out what you try to make us believe with you blog post. And yes, you have changed as a blogger. Sometimes I think that some rightwinger has taken over MyDD and is masquerading as you. All these doom and gloom and I told you so posts. Why dont you wait till after the election with that stuff?  I am disappointed in many of the things Democrats have done/not done the last 2 years. But I dont spout them off on a blog, further depressing the democratic vote. I hope and I pray that you wont succeed with your pessimism. Because people who dont believe they have a fighting chance anymore wont knock on doors to convince others. I have been registered on this site since 2003, it was the second political blog after draftwesleyclark.com that I registered with. And the diversity of opinions, the lively but fact based discussion, the pragmatic way to change the country by supporting candidates was uplifting, giving hope that things would get better. All that changed in the presidential primaries. The tone got nasty here, you got into lots of cat fights with Markos, that -except you yourself- not many people found amusing. You began to become the warner in chief. I remember the posts where you would look into your crystal ball and say: Look here, here The Anointed will fail, here he will disappoint you, that he wont do, this is something y'all misunderstand and so on. While you certainly were right here and there, your bitterness about Obama edging out Hillary in that primary became more apparent every day. I remember all those PUMAS claiming they'll vote McCain if Hillary wont get nominated and see a lot of parallels to the quotes you give now of so called tea Partiers who claim to be life long democrats. Those are anecdotes. Nothing more. Of MyDD I expect much more than anecdotes. Judging by the few comments and original diaries I guess I'm not alone with my opinion. And while you might not care about MyDD having gone down the drain since 2008, I do. I rather visit TPM nowadays, where there is no denial, but also no gloom and doom atmosphere like on MyDD.  I miss Chris Bowers, Armando and others. If you dont feel like putting many resources into this site, you should consider selling it to someone who does!

Jerome,

 

you are spot on with point no. 1, point no. 3 is debatable, with hindsight we can judge many things to have been wrongly decided...

 

But on the 2nd point you are dead wrong. The Tea Party ist dominated by conservatives. Not a single Tea Partier is running on a democratic ticket. 

 

Their policies consist of denying man made climate change, denying gays the right to marry, getting rid of separation of state and religion, fighting earmarks as their secret recipe to balance the budget, at the same time lower taxes for high incomes thus increasing income inequality, fighting for the right to carry automatic weapons in public, rooting for a repeal of health care thus denying millions of americans with preexisting conditions health care etc etc etc.

 

I wont go into latent racism at this point, because all of the above, which is official Tea Party policy and supported by all Senate Tea Party Candidates I know off, is enough to show, that the democratic party never stood a chance to get those peoples vote.

 

What you are conveniently leaving out are polls showing that the broader american electorate has actually soured on the Tea Party. Favorability ratings have actually plummeted this year as a result of Democrats actively undermining the Tea Party in the few momemts they dont undermine themselves.

 

Decrying the democrats efforts to drive up the Tea Parties negatives is crazy! The evidence simply doesnt bear out what you try to make us believe with you blog post.

 

And yes, you have changed as a blogger. Sometimes I think that some rightwinger has taken over MyDD and is masquerading as you. All these doom and gloom and I told you so posts. Why dont you wait till after the election with that stuff? 

 

I am disappointed in many of the things Democrats have done/not done the last 2 years. But I dont spout them off on a blog, further depressing the democratic vote.

 

I hope and I pray that you wont succeed with your pessimism. Because people who dont believe they have a fighting chance anymore wont knock on doors to convince others.

 

I have been registered on this site since 2003, it was the second political blog after draftwesleyclark.com that I registered with. And the diversity of opinions, the lively but fact based discussion, the pragmatic way to change the country by supporting candidates was uplifting, giving hope that things would get better.

 

All that changed in the presidential primaries. The tone got nasty here, you got into lots of cat fights with Markos, that -except you yourself- not many people found amusing. You began to become the warner in chief. I remember the posts where you would look into your crystal ball and say: Look here, here The Anointed will fail, here he will disappoint you, that he wont do, this is something y'all misunderstand and so on.

 

While you certainly were right here and there, your bitterness about Obama edging out Hillary in that primary became more apparent every day.

 

I remember all those PUMAS claiming they'll vote McCain if Hillary wont get nominated and see a lot of parallels to the quotes you give now of so called tea Partiers who claim to be life long democrats. Those are anecdotes. Nothing more.

 

Of MyDD I expect much more than anecdotes. Judging by the few comments and original diaries I guess I'm not alone with my opinion. And while you might not care about MyDD having gone down the drain since 2008, I do.

 

I rather visit TPM nowadays, where there is no denial, but also no gloom and doom atmosphere like on MyDD. 

 

I miss Chris Bowers, Armando and others. If you dont feel like putting many resources into this site, you should consider selling it to someone who does!

 

by MarcTGFG 2010-10-22 01:25PM | 0 recs
RE: Tea Baggeres "This years swing voters"?

Am just going off of #2 by the Gallup poll that was done. The point being that it found 21% of those who 'like' the Tea Party, or say 'yea' or whatever to it (being its so decentralized) are conservative dems and independents that traditionally, like in 2008, vote Democratic.

You may not like it, but those are the poll findings.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-22 02:01PM | 0 recs
RE: Tea Baggeres "This years swing voters"?

I still want to know how many of this supposed 21% voted for Obama in 2008.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-10-23 01:06PM | 1 recs
RE: Tea Baggeres "This years swing voters"?

well, 21% for a start isnt a very high number, given that even among self identifying republicans 5-10% are peeled off by democrats.

They say, that they were voting dem in past elections. Just like many Tea Baggers claim, that they are not racist against those ni**ers. 

Even if their memories of having voted dem in the past are true for 2/3 of them, that might only apply to statewide races. Many conservative democrats vote dem locally, but not for senate or president.

I also question the high number among the population who identify as Tea Partiers. They are angry, they have to vent. Also it's kind of a cool trend (in certain circles) to say so. It reminds me of this years British election. When after the first TV debate everyone became a fan of Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg. In what was referred to as Cleggmania, his personal favorability shot up into the stratosphere, his partys voting share went up more than 50%. But on election day it just didnt materialize. People returned into the fold, to their usual voting patterns and I believe we might see something like that on 11/2 in the US. Maybe not enough to hold the house, but enough to disappoint lots of Republican operatives who are already measuring for curtains. 

Also: 2008 was a wave election after a long period of republican dominance and failure and the US was in the midst of a great recession. Yeah, more people voted for Obama than would have in a "normal" year. 

And if I remember correctly, the tea Party made its first real splash by storming tiwn hall meetings on HCR in the summer of 2009, like a true mob. And partly organized by republican operatives. I don't see where the basis for talks and potential agreement would have been.

Their whole existance is based on visceral opposition to anything coming from the feds, especially everything that "so called American Barack Hussein Obama" is rooting for.

Questioning his nationality, religion and eligibility IS just a coded form of racism for many of them.

How on earth was he supposed to get their vote? By not doing anything, like the former administration and congress? Shouldnt he have pushed comprehensive HCR? Should he have done nothing on the economy and waited whether the great depression would have vanished on its own?

I think your analysis on point no. 2 is deeply flawed.

And you have conveniently forgotten to respond to my general criticism of this site and my proposition to lay MyDD in other peoples hands!

When I am depressed I dont use a public forum to vent and infect other people with my negative thoughts.

Please, DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE with MyDD!!!

 

by MarcTGFG 2010-10-23 02:23PM | 0 recs
I wonder if Jerome took the Liz Sidoriti bait?

Remember, how a few days ago, there was an AP story that 8% of former Obama supporters were voting Republican? And all the pessimists went into orbit?

Burried under the lede, 9% of former McCain voters were voting for the democrat this time.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-10-23 04:59PM | 0 recs
So this guy voted for Obama?

And now he's advocating austerity?

I think you're drawn to the tea party activists because they are activists, even though they are predominantly conservative activists, and can't fit in the democratic tent.

 

by NoFortunateSon 2010-10-23 01:05PM | 0 recs
RE: Tea Baggeres "This years swing voters"?

 

Something else for you in your quest of growing up that this seemingly swing voter (and quasi-celeb) says:

What are some misconceptions that people have about Tea Parties (and their attendants) in general?

That they're all racists, they're all religious nuts, they're all uninformed, they're all stupid, they want no taxes at all and no regulations whatsoever. Those "arguments" are presented by the Dems in order to keep their base of uninformed voters on their side. In my opinion, as soon as you start name-calling, your opinion is immediately deemed invalid!

The childish name-calling is quite the example on display here.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-22 11:03AM | 0 recs
RE: Tea Baggeres "This years swing voters"?

Sorry we children have a habit of believing our lying eyes. Any suggestion that tea baggers are not overwhelmingly populated by Rethuglicans need only Count the number of Teabaggers who are running as or supporting Democrats or independants. There are certainly a lot of them who claim the mantle of "Independents" as a way of disguise. The tea bag movement is not a swing voter block in the traditional sense. I put No weight in either Gallup or Rammas. Selective quotes by so called " I've voted Democratic all my life" have been trotted out over and over again and again ad nauseam. In fact "Faux not the News" brings out those "Democrat" pundits all the time to support their propaganda. I think what irks so many here is the inherent  enthusiasum and apparent rooting for a rethuglican victory displayed in your positions. You may not actually feel your are being biased but to others it sure feels like  you are.

by Ed beckmann 2010-10-22 11:43AM | 0 recs
Name calling?

as soon as you start name-calling, your opinion is immediately deemed invalid!

Have the teabaggers done nothing else but call Obama names?

In fact, outrageous name calling from the far right seems to be the Hallmark of the past two years.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-10-23 04:34PM | 0 recs
Look at what you're writing before you post it

I'm willing to overlook the typos, but not the stupidity:

"Tea Baggers are 99% right wingnut jobs and thats not eletist it's fact. There have been serious pols confirming that fact."

You refer to a group of people with a pejorative term like "wingnut jobs", and then declare that your disparaging statement is a "fact". Sorry, bud, but that just doesn't make any sense.

And let us know when you can produce these "serious polls" confirming your "fact".

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-10-22 03:19PM | 0 recs
RE: Look at what you're writing before you post it

Well BJ to me the very term Rethuglican and Teabager are perjoritive. I often laugh at so called liberals who attack real liberals for acting a little like the thugs. Wheres your PROOF you demand I don't mind you misspelling but have to mention it anyway. Yet you don't have a problem with the Tea bagger wingnuts who thrive on their stupidity and not providing any proof of their assertions. Now you demand I provide a serious pol ok you got it. If you scroll down I have some more detail for you mr effite snob. You elitists are all alike ruining our country.

by Ed beckmann 2010-10-22 05:42PM | 0 recs
Well, maybe not 99%

But it's more than enough.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-10-23 04:38PM | 0 recs
Jerome could be right in the end…

…but right now I still feel like the much-touted "enthusiasm gap" means that the numbers are actually on our side if we get people out to vote. I don't think that's called "denial". Trouble is, there's still not enough optimism about the future out there to ensure a decent turnout.

by tru blu 2010-10-22 10:51AM | 0 recs
RE: Jerome could be right in the end…

Thing is, none of the individual polling is reflecting the generic landslide. So, I would counter that a non-gap has been built in already, assuming it will happen. Here's an article to explain the dis-connect. It's probably not even close.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-22 11:06AM | 0 recs
Is the individual polling right or wrong?

There's no generic R or D on the ballot.

And those individual polls all have their own LV screens.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-10-23 05:02PM | 0 recs
I still read MyDD, but...

Every time I read a post by you, Jerome, I shake my head.  I agree with Trey Rentz...you've changed as a blogger (did it start with the Hillary / Obama split, or before?). 

Your posts have an overtone of anger and derision. You seem to delight in the woes of Democrats--or more specifically, the perceived shortcomings of your fellow liberal bloggers. (Though I rarely see you spend much time discussing the shortcomings of Republicans.) It's almost as if you end every post by saying "I told you so! Nanny Nanny Boo Boo!" 

I'll admit, I'm out of line to play armchair psychologist, but I'll do it anyway.  It seems like you're pissed that your co-author of "Crashing the Gates", Kos, has met with so much success, and you're constantly shouting about how everybody else has it wrong, except you, and why aren't people paying more attention to you!?

by Swan 2010-10-22 11:01AM | 1 recs
RE: I still read MyDD, but...

that's funny, cause Markos and I have shared in some very big success of late together with SBnation.

I'm not sure why you have such a visceral personal reaction toward a post that is just pointing at my opinion of why this is about to happen.

Nothings changed, I always tell the truth, and have always put that ahead of being on a team or any other partisan nonsense.

I've also never really cared about having a big blog or many readers. Having tuned this on and off multiple times over the years, and given the ad revenue to others. Its a side gig for spouting off on the state of things political.

I'm much more interested in working internationally than with Democrats any more. Or with renegades or 3rd party efforts going forward.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-22 11:17AM | 0 recs
RE: I still read MyDD, but...

It's not just this post,but a lot of your posts.  I DO appreciate that you read and respond to comments. Maybe my reaction is more anbout me than about you.  I'll keep reading and I'll let you know. :)

by Swan 2010-10-22 11:24AM | 0 recs
RE: I still read MyDD, but...

The idea that you can claim this election failed, is false. It's not the truth.

It is also going against the prevailing results of the primary season - there were many surprise contests that were decided by voters, not pollsters.  Mike Castle is a good example of this.

His polling showed him far in the lead, even up to election day - and then he was thrown out of office by the voters, by more than he'd ever expected. Not just a razor thin margin but his primary was lost by a signficant margin.

There is no personal reaction here from me, just a simple observation that you are completely discounting the democratic process.

One that has changed significantly - given the prevalence of cellphones and the influence of the net - our democratic process is tilting towards early voting, and a network-aware voter that is using sources such as this blog to help make their decision.

What has changed, in my view - is that you are less interested in substance and issue - and more interested in polling, and ad revenue.

 

How can you claim you have a success in SBNation when the republicans are crashing the gate.

 

Cynical reference to former book title of same name, is intentional.

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-10-22 11:32AM | 0 recs
RE: I still read MyDD, but...

Ad revenue?  I couldn't care at all about it, how many times must I say that I distribute it and don't make money here and never have!

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-22 11:36AM | 0 recs
RE: I still read MyDD, but...

No.  This is a political advertising season, and the reference to ad revenue was not directed merely at MyDD (which has suffered, as a result of the layout changes made to accomodate banner advertisement).

 

This was a pointed remark toward the fact that you now head up the WebStrong Group,  an integrated PR, Public Affairs, and Political Advertising Company

http://www.webstrong.com

And your focus is there.  Am I mistaken?

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-10-22 11:57AM | 0 recs
RE: I still read MyDD, but...

We've had that firm up for a few years. I've always worked as a political consultant, for the past 7 years, no difference. I've been focusing on a tech buildout there that WS used for Brazil.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-22 12:01PM | 0 recs
RE: I still read MyDD, but...

The visceral reaction stems from the desire to keep working for a democratic House majority until November 2nd. We cant do that if you infect us with your pessimism, with a nice dose of "I told you so".

And, Jerome, there are lots of us who have this visceral reaction but have more or less given up on MyDD. Many did so in 2008 when your bitterness because of Hillary losing made this site the breeding ground of so called PUMAS.

Do something constructive with this site!

Blog about who the party committees should support in the homestretch (Alaska, Kentucky?).

Let's discuss how candidates should frame their closing message.

Let's pick a candidate MyDD users especially like and do a money bomb.

Ask creative users among us to create exciting dog poop -I mean tv ads.

You are doing none of this. :-(

I don't want to be harsh, but in its current form MyDD is simply redundant IMO!

 

by MarcTGFG 2010-10-22 01:39PM | 1 recs
RE: I still read MyDD, but...

Your spot on! I sometimes want to ask Jerome to change MYDD to I told you so.  I hope he gets your message.

by Ed beckmann 2010-10-23 11:59AM | 0 recs
RE: I still read MyDD, but...

Your spot on! I sometimes want to ask Jerome to change MYDD to I told you so.  I hope he gets your message.

by Ed beckmann 2010-10-23 11:59AM | 0 recs
Obviously, the Republicans are going to do very well this year

Nancy Pelosi is probably done as Speaker.  Harry Reid may be done as Senate Majority Leader, although I think the Dems will hold the Senate.  The ironic part of this is that Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman probably did as much as anyone to sully the image of Democrats, and a Democratically-led Senate in particular.  And yet Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman are still around and the Senate will still most likely be led by the Democrats.

What I think Jerome misses in his analysis is that Democratic enthusiasm is fairly high this year by previous mid-term standards.  It's just that Republican enthusiasm is super duper high by mid-term standards.  The crazies have their anti-Obama knobs turned to eleven.  It could be that the polls are missing some Democratic enthusiasm, but most likely they are correct that a Republican wave is coming.  But I don't think it's for lack of stirring the base.  Obama's 2008 win was based on a tenuous coalition of youth and minority turnout.  In the long run this will serve the Democratic party well, but it's hard to expect a huge crop of 20 year-olds to turn out for a fairly (to them) vague mid-term election.

Having said all that, I don't think this is the end of the world or even necessarily all that unexpected.  The Republicans will need to play ball next year.  If they don't, they will not find themselves in the majority in 2012.  This talk of shutting down the government is a perfect recipe to destroy Republican gains.  Imagine Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment benefits STOPPING in this economic climate.  And yet, if a government shut-down does not materialize, what is going to happen to the Tea Partiers?  Will we see Boehner challenged from the right in 2012?  How can Mitt Romney perform in that kind of environment?

I think a lot of the disillusionment on blogs today is by the same people who were insisting that the Republican party was finished...finished after the 2008 elections.  That always struck me as a naive position, but it was very prevalent on left-leaning blogs.  Of course the Republicans were going to make a comeback.  And, as always, the comeback would be led by the right and not by the center.  But the right and the right-leaning are going to have to fight this out after this election.  It ain't gonna be pretty. 

by the mollusk 2010-10-22 11:36AM | 1 recs
RE: Obviously, the Republicans are going to do very well this year

Ben Nelson will get his due in '12, and yea, the Cornhusker Kickback was a killer.

Part of Obama's win was due to Independent moderates and actual Republicans, which he's now lost. He's probably not getting them back either. So, can he up the base of youth and african-americans even more for 12? That's really doubtful too. His re-elect is stuck right now at 39 percent. 

I'm wondering if Steny Hoyer is going to have the votes there, given a lot of Blue Dogs are going to be defeated. If 60-70 D's are ousted, I am begining to doubt that the House turns to him.

 

 

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-22 11:48AM | 0 recs
RE: Obviously, the Republicans are going to do very well this year

This thread oozes with washington parlor talk. Who cares what happens after this election?

What's important is the election itself.  We vote. That's what we do. We're citizens. Not washington insiders.

by Trey Rentz 2010-10-22 11:59AM | 0 recs
RE: Obviously, the Republicans are going to do very well this year

P.S.

All that is needed for evil to come into the world is for good men to do nothing.

by Trey Rentz 2010-10-22 12:00PM | 0 recs
RE: Obviously, the Republicans are going to do very well this year

Is it realistic to primay Obama from the center?  This is bad scenario for Democrats, as after the election, there will be realignment talk again, as the Midwest will be gone.

Let's see--if no bailouts, no stimulus, no HCR reform, where would unemployment be now?  Over 10%.  That's not a way to win a midterm election, is it?  Would doing less lead to a better result?

No, the problem is that there was no consistent message, no attempt to sell what was accomplished, and yes, the bailouts.
Would Obama be better off attacking the deficit first? 

As for 2012, the GOP will wise up and nominate Huckabee or Romney, or maybe Thune.  And who will lead the Democratic minority--there isn't anyone.

 

 

 

by esconded 2010-10-22 12:43PM | 0 recs
RE: Obviously, the Republicans are going to do very well this year

Yea, debt and deficit politics. He'll follow the Austerity path.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-22 01:46PM | 0 recs
RE: Obviously, the Republicans are going to do very well this year

Yeah, those are good points.  Except that the Repubs are in some doo-doo too.  Any Republican who thought about voting for Obama in 2008 probably isn't too enamored of this Tea-Party nonsense taking over the Republicans currently.  So the Repubs have to thread the needle and keep these non-crazy Republicans voting Republican while keeping the Tea Party enthusiasm.  That's no small task.  Josh Marshall often posts blogs talking about the structural difficulties of Republicans reaching out to minorities.  It's not as easy as it sounds because the very act of reaching out to minorities would turn off a significant portion of their base.  I see a close analogy in the current moderate GOP versus Tea Party tensions.  If Boehner comes out all moderate and concilliatory, he'll retain the moderates, but lose the crazies.  If he comes out swinging, he'll lose the moderates and retain the Tea Partyers.  As usual, it's a good game.

by the mollusk 2010-10-22 12:45PM | 0 recs
For a man stuck at 39%

He sure draws high job approval, which is ~ -4%.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-10-23 05:04PM | 0 recs
Unemployment = 9.6% in a mid-term election

everything else is just masturbation.  

by BinME 2010-10-22 01:05PM | 0 recs
RE: Unemployment = 9.6% in a mid-term election

A huge stimulus package should cure both of those.

by the mollusk 2010-10-22 02:35PM | 0 recs
RE: Unemployment = 9.6% in a mid-term election

+1

by BinME 2010-10-22 03:15PM | 0 recs
RE: Unemployment = 9.6% in a mid-term election

I figure it would have had to been upwards of $3 Trillion to get unemployment down to 5%. But yeah, the liberal bloggers would have loved it.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-10-23 01:09PM | 0 recs
The problem begins at the top with Obama

The problems the Democrats are facing this year go all the way to the top:  Obama.  The contrast between an extremely well-run campaign and extremely inept governing are staggering.

It starts with Obama's assumption that he could personally change the way that Washington works, which manifested itself in a mindless pursuit of "bi-partisanship."  Yes, the polls showed then and now that the public is tired of the bickering and bi-partisan impasse.  But to break that impasse, you have to have people on both sides willing to do so.   

The Health Care Reform process is the perfect example.  Obama's team made hundreds of concessions in negotiations with Republicans and got zero votes for it.   A rule of American politics is this:  you don't make concessions unless you extract the votes in return.   A corollary is thus:  the minority party understands that it will not get everything it wants nor even half of what it wants but it will get some of what it wants...the Republicans, the Party of NO!, were not willing to accede to this.  And why should they?  Democrats kept compromising and compromising without any ironclad demands in return.  Were I faced with that response, I would have kept pushing too.  One disgusted truly independent friend of mine isn't planning to vote this year:  "What's worse, evil Republicans or spineless Democrats?" he asks.

Obama's seeming aloofness and disengagement has not worked to his advantage.  The Presidency is a bully pulpit and Obama has largely abdicated that advantage.   George Bush was a horrible president...I rate only Buchanan, Harrison, and Garfield below him (the latter two getting grades of Incomplete)...but he knew how to speak to the country in direct terms and make an emotional connection whether you liked him or loathed him.  Bill Clinton could do the same.  Obama?   Pfft.  The detached, cerebral delegator is not what Americans are looking for an more importantly it's not an effective mode.

The lack of acumen about legislative process has been appalling.   One of the flashing yellow lights that worried me about an Obama presidency was Obama's seeming disinterest in the legislative process while in the Senate, compiling a very thin legislative record and a low profile.   His appointment of Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff reassured me but Emmanuel has been a disaster at orchestrating and driving the various elements on the Hill...I guess you need more than a capacity to drop F-bombs.

Finally, a tone-deaf tunnel vision has been misplaced.  I disagree with critics who say that Obama shouldn't have made the mega-battle for Health Care Reform his first priority.  A battle like that is for first year, first term...as President, you'll never have more political capital.  But the almost cavalier lack of attention to the economy, particularly employment, is criminal.  See Bill Clinton:  "It's the economy, stupid."   

The economic downturn may have been set up and begun on Bush's watch.  The structural problems such as the anemic job growth from 2000 to 2008 may lie at Bush's feet.  The class warfare, whose results include a staggering concentration of wealth juxtaposed against flat or declining income for the middle class is a result of Republican-backed policies.   But when unemployment starts going up, most American's don't care about when/why/who...they look at it as a current problem and they want it addressed NOW.  Obama was slow off the mark to deal with this, seemingly content to push sunshine when too many people were starting to feel pain.

I voted for Obama in 2008 and will vote for Obama in 2012 because as inept as he has shown himself to be, an inept and spineless Democratic administration is worse than an actively evil reprise of two Bush administrations or a foray into Tea Party land.

But after the drubbing the Democrats receive in two weeks, Obama, his staff, and the Democratic leadership need to spend some time looking in the mirror when they start trying to identify what went wrong.

by InigoMontoya 2010-10-22 01:24PM | 2 recs
RE: The problem begins at the top with Obama

The Democrats will not lose control of the Senate, they will maintain a majority there.

I laugh out loud when I think of the concept that a political party who is running a Senate Candidate that doesn't know what the First Amendment means - propped up by massive corporate contributions but trying to pass themselves off to independents..

And for whom their National Committee just went into the red and can't manage their own cashflow ..

 

Seriously thinks they're going to revolutionize our country.

I've always said the TEA party is a decent idea, but we need to remember that the reason the TEA party is there, is because the GOP is breaking apart.

The concept that this is a super duper strong year for them is laughable.  Millions are being spent to prop up the GOP and the whole idea that it needs to be propped up - a rotting carcass - is the issue.  It does not stand for 'conservatism', and it succeeded in doing nothing over the past two years, and doing almost everything wrong over the past ten.

 

But the key issue is the toxicity of lobbyist money. The point there is not that people care about where the money comes from, because they really don't - they're not wonks.

But. It is poison to the candidate. In so many ways. Watch and see, I say.

This election is a make or break for the GOP, and there are plenty of vested interests in DC that want the GOP to be still around ....

 

Your question, as a voter - is if you think you can afford to have them around. The multi trillion dollar crash they engineered is very, very expensive.

 

If you throw the real bastards out, this will be an election that will change America forever.

 

Some of us here just want America to change a little bit. It's ok. They have bills to pay...

 

 

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-10-22 01:59PM | 0 recs
RE: The problem begins at the top with Obama

Obama really thought HCR was the key to fixing the economy.  But he never really got it on jobs. 

It's fascinating, because even in state House races, they're running against Obama and Pelosi.  I guess holding all 29 statewide offices plus the legislature isn't enough in Texas, and the GOP will gain seats in the state House, and lots of legislative seats across the country.  That's going to keep the Dems in the minority for a long time.

 

 

by esconded 2010-10-22 02:06PM | 0 recs
RE: The problem begins at the top with Obama

I dunno.  My understanding of gerrymandering is that you create hugely lopsided districts for your opponent and narrowly partisan districts for yourself.  But any change in the national tenor puts all of those narrowly partisan districts at risk simultaneously.  So while there are some short-term upsides, it can backfire too.

by the mollusk 2010-10-22 02:38PM | 0 recs
RE: The problem begins at the top with Obama

Thats fine.  We'll just be a White House party from now on. 

by Kent 2010-10-22 03:56PM | 0 recs
Jerome's style and message

There's been a lot of commentary about what Jerome says and how he says it. There are two things Jerome does that almost nobody else does, and both are extemely important to a successful movement: separate your preferred outcome from the likely outcome, and recognize Democratic faults.  Pretty much all of his posts are about how all of us (liberals who read blogs) are being delusional about the coming disaster.  I certainly think I am.  Since 2002, I have been keeping my own spreadsheet of all Gov and Congressional races since and assigning ratings to try to predict the next election. I have a tendency to scoff at the ratings of Cook and others, thinking "there's no way [seemingly safe Democrat] is vulnerable. I'm keeping them at Safe Dem."  Then Barney Frank goes and releases an INTERNAL showing him only 12 points ahead (in his D+14 district Obama won by 29%).  Yeah, it's closer than it should be, but I refused to believe it at first. My predictions were very wrong in 2002 and in 2004, when Dems did very badly or just kind of badly. I was spot on in 2006 and 2008 when Dems were sailing to huge victories. Today, I still have the Dems barely holding onto the House at 222, and holding 54 in the Senate. Yet, I secretly believe we're losing the House. I acknowledge reality when I like it, and I sometimes make excuses for specific races when I don't like the polling. Sestak is a strong closer. Feingold always has close races. Polls in Arizona aren't predicting strong Latino turnout. The Republican is too extreme. Cell phones. All may be true, but that doesn't mean we win. I am biased, even when just thinking to myself about a specific race. Jerome does not appear to have this bias when he looks at data. Neither do the guys at SSP. Their ratings are consistently non-delusional, even more so than Cook sometimes. So that's my defense of Jerome. I read him regularly for the reality check. I don't always like how he says it, and I don't like the sense of dread he gives me, but I think his intention is to wake everybody up so somebody freaking does something about it, instead of speculating about what could have done when it's too late.

by bpfish 2010-10-22 01:53PM | 1 recs
RE: Jerome's style and message

I was like that too once, in 2002, and even though I could see the late shift happening, I was able to allow myself to say what I saw, and change the races. So I was terribly wrong. I actually stopped blogging and thought about quiting all together. My feeling is that if I don't feel like I can say what I really see, truthfully, why bother.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-22 02:28PM | 0 recs
RE: Jerome's style and message

Honestly, if the Dems held 222 in the House and 54 in the Senate, I may join those saying the Republican party is dead.  Given the numbers and the environment, they have to be favored for at least the House at this point.  If they can't close on it, we really may be looking at a new day in American politics.

by the mollusk 2010-10-22 02:41PM | 0 recs
redistricting

Even then, we are looking at redistricting in 2012. Should be a great year for primaries on both sides.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-22 04:39PM | 0 recs
The issue is not losing seats, but how many.

Look how the polls missed in 1994: the Republicans gained almost twice as many House seats as predicted. Polls are unreliable.

by MainStreet 2010-10-22 04:15PM | 0 recs
RE: Fault to the Core

All three of Jerome's points are spot on.

One and three are undeniably correct. The Democrats are percieved, with more than a little bit of justice, as the banker/Wall Street party now. And just saying everything is fine, "stay the course," when unemployment is at 10 per cent and people are being kicked out of their houses left and right is a terrible message.

And the general claim, that the Dems are going to get killed in the election, is also correct. All the polls show it. And it is almost comical to read the Markos/Bowers emails saying that "we're winning."

As for the much-maligned point two, Jerome is right again. Sure, most tea partiers are Republicans or Republican-leaning Independents. But a fair number of them are true or even Dem leaning Independents. More importantly, at least part of their message is no different from what the country at large is PO'd about. Namely, the bailouts of the banks and Wall Street. The Tea Partiers were the only ones who made a big, loud, populist noise about this issue. The left was co-opted by Obama and the DC Dems. Tut tutting about how the bailouts were "necessary," that there was "no other choice" and on and on. The same ole', same ole' elitist, we know more than you, if you disagree with us then you are stupid mentality. This infuriates people. And rightly so.

Anyway, for all the talk about how astroturfing and how the Tea Party was bought and paid for and so on, it still can't be denied that it is, at core, a real grassroots movement. The Tea Partiers did all the things that we liberals say should be done....they organized, they went to Town Halls and spoke out, they protested and demonstrated, they fielded primary candidates and worked their asses off for them, and they beat the Party machine in State after State and district after district. And they did it WITHOUT forefronting the issues that the knee jerkers want to paint them with...they say next to nothing about gays, religion, or even abortion. Instead, they've tapped into and channelled a real grievance that most Americans have, namely that DC is totally out of control and that the denizens thereof have completely lost touch with the lives of average people. In DC, "everyone" "knows" that we just had to have TARP and the other bailouts. Well, I don't "know" that, and neither do most people I know. We aren't stupid either, we just don't believe self serving, elitist bullshit.

Moreover, it is never good politics to respond to specific claims with irrelevant, shop-worn attacks..."they're racists, they're homophobes, etc." Most people are tired of hearing this crap anyway, and even more so now when the main issues are jobs and housing. People tune it out. Even if they don't like the Tea Party, and even if they agree with some of the accusations. Worse yet when the accusations become nothing more than insults..."they're wingnuts, they're stupid, etc." Calling someone a "wingnut" might be a winning argument on left leaning blog, but, to the general public, it means nothing. It means you have nothing of substance to say. And worst of all is when the Tea Party is assailed on the basis of the characteristics, many of them immutable, of its adherents..."they're white, they're old, they're Christian, they're from small town, middle America." Who cares? And how does that refute their policy claims?

As Jerome rightly stated, this is just obnoxious and elitist. And it turns off everyone, not just the Tea Partiers.

by freemansfarm 2010-10-22 06:59PM | 2 recs
RE: Fault to the Core

Excellent.....you are spot on. Simply stated, they dont get it. I love the last part "they're white, they're old, they're Christian, they're from small town, middle America." Who cares? And how does that refute their policy claims?"

Its simple, to the folks in Washington, to the liberal elites, those people are stupid. Thats all, they are just plain old dumb, uneducated trash. Forget the fact that those white, christian folks from middle america are the heart and soul of the country. They work in the factories, in the stores, they build our homes, fix our plumbing, oh and my goodness, some of them there bumpkins are Doctors, lawyers, teachers.......who cares what they think.

The elite in Washington and on this blog simply dont get it. They are too smart for the rest of us.

 

 

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-10-23 12:59PM | 0 recs
Earth to Obam-orons: don't shoot the messenger

Most of the comments here are a series of ad hominem attacks on Jerome, and are a script we've seen before: Obama (and perhaps other Dems like Tim Kaine, in this case) are criticized in a diary, and Obama's supporters respond by launching into personal attacks on the diarist.

One can only conclude that the reason they engage in these attacks is that they are unable (or unwilling?) to defend Obama. At this point, his record is so sorry---and he is so incompetent---that he is a difficult subject to defend. So instead of demonstrating support for the incredible shrinking President, the Obam-orons resort to personal attacks on Jerome.

This is both petty and juvenile, but it's what people do when they can't debate or win an argument based on the merits.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-10-22 07:02PM | 1 recs
RE: Earth to Obam-orons: don't shoot the messenger

You know the expression, dont confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-10-23 12:55PM | 1 recs
RE: Earth to Obam-orons: don't shoot the messenger

You know the expression, dont confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-10-23 12:55PM | 0 recs
I'll debate you

Hey BJ, I know you sympathize with the teabag, but I'm willing to stand by the most progressive record of any President since FDR (or maybe LBJ).

People don't vote against incompletes, they vote against accomplishments.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-10-23 04:52PM | 0 recs
Messaging

We are obviously going to lose seats, but I am not convinced it will be the bloodbath people think.  Jerome, I do remember you wondering how in the hell Obama could win the GE after it became clear he would pull away from Hillary in the primary.  He won in a landslide.  If we could predict the future, we wouldn't need to play the game.

I do agree that the Democratic messaging "machine" is absolutely pathetic.  Clinton provided the blue print for this election in his PBS interview, yet Democrats didn't seem to listen.  He suggested some national adversing essentially acknowledging that we are in a hole so deep that it will take time to dig our way out.  Americans gave the Republicans 6 years to get us where we are now, at least give Democrats 2 more years to dig us out.  If things are not better by 2012, the public will have the opportunity to change both the executive and legislative.

I don't think Democrats properly empathized with the public this election cycle, and will pay a price.  Its unclear how big a price.

by agpc 2010-10-22 07:45PM | 0 recs
RE: Messaging

Sure, I wondered aloud in June. But by October, go look it up, I predicted right where he landed-- missed one state iirc, but got the % right; same with right on House and Senate. This is October.

I was at 50 and 5 for about a year, but these numbers make me think 65 and 9. We'll see if it changes.

I agree, that just having a level of honesty here would help a lot. Its a shame their egos are so big that they can't admit it ahead of the election.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-10-22 08:30PM | 0 recs
RE: Messaging

Jerome, I wish you had been right in June about Obama not being able to win the general election.  Unfortunately, the progression of the economy went in the direction that made it impossible for McCain or any other Republican to win. 

Murphy's law struck us and continues to strike us.  Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong. 

by Kent 2010-10-23 02:51AM | 0 recs
RE: Messaging

Your not alone Jerome......there are some here as you can see, who understand and agree completely.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-10-23 01:00PM | 0 recs
RE: Messaging

Yes thera some like Kent and you who agree on the gloomy forecast and actually ravel in it. But what are reublicans doing on a blue grassroots website? 

Since the 2008 primary between Hillary and Obama this site has become a breeding ground for PUMAs, concern trolls and sympathetic republicans.

Even is Jerome were 100% correct in his analysis, what purpose does it serve this late in the campaign to say that democrats suck and we are heading off the cliff? Thats something professionals do and analyze AFTER an election!

This talk just suppresses democratic votes. Everybody engaging in this discussion should do GOTV instead, donate money, talk to their neighbeirs, become an active democrat in their communities, whatever. But stop the whining. It wont get you anywhere!

The analogy would be a depression. Do you watch a sad movie on purpose so you can cry and feel even worse or do you switch on the comedy channel or invite your best friends for dinner?

It's your choice. Choose wisely!

by MarcTGFG 2010-10-23 02:40PM | 0 recs
A stopped clock is right twice a day.

They knew they were going to have big midterm losses in January of 2009. You can't hold 85 seats that voted for Bush a second time in a faltering economy.

That's why those who fashion themselves Cassandras here get no credit.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-10-23 04:49PM | 0 recs
RE: Messaging

Give it a rest. Why is it, that anyone who disagrees with the liberals on this site are immediately attacked, or in this case you keep insisting I am a republican. I have been a registered and voting Democrat since 1988. Is Jerome a republican becuase he is stating the obvious truth? Its not worht even arguing the point with you.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-10-23 11:43PM | 0 recs
You would be a more effective advocate

if you weren't so driven by fear.  To say that a liberal blog which is dedicated to a more progressive country has the power to depress votes by stating opinions which are sincere is frankly pathetic.  Remaining silent is a recipe for political disaster (check the annals of history on this one).  Instead of being cowed by republicans, tea partiers, and moneyed interests, one should unite and form a coalition to battle them.  Telling porgressives to shut up does not promote that cause.

by orestes 2010-10-24 03:43PM | 1 recs
RE: Messaging

The only poll that counts is the one on November 2.

I predict Dems lose 30 seats in the House, 6 seats in the Senate, retain control of both chambers (Just barely in the House).

And, by not losing terribly, Dems win.  I, for one, I am going to be popping a big bowl of popcorn to eat while I watch the punditocracy fumpher and fumble and try to figure how they could have been so wrong.   Watching Chris Matthews' face drop.  Watching heads explode at Fox News.  Good times.

Jerome, I told you that you were wrong when you said Barack Obama could never win.  You are wrong again.  Thank goodness.

 

How can I be so sure about this?  Three words: demographics, demographics, demographics.

by Reluctantpopstar 2010-10-24 12:48AM | 1 recs
When Jerome Armstrong gets hysterical, it's good news for Dems

I remember Jerome's doomsday hysteria and dire predictions from 2008 after Obama won the primaries, after Reverend Wright, after Sarah Palin, etc, etc, which usually turned out to be almost exactly wrong. If his instincts serve us as well as they did in 2008, then the losses will be bad but not catastrophic, Dems will hold both houses with smaller majorities, and life will go on. My wife and I are 20-something, cell-phone only voters, and the polls don't reach us and people like us. We are both rabid liberal Democrats and definite voters. I'm not getting my hopes up, but I am reasonably confident that Jerome's pessimism is way overblown. This blog should be renamed, "Buzzkill.com" or something more appropriate to the toxic climate that permeates this sad, sad blog. Now back over to Daily Kos...

by ajpuckett 2010-10-24 12:45AM | 0 recs
RE: When Jerome Armstrong gets hysterical, it's good news for Dems

I used to read this blog site all the time back in 2004-06.  2008 changed everything with the relentless attacks on Obama during the primary season and even into the general election.  For whatever reason, I decided to take a look again today.  OMG, this site is worse than ever.  Jerome still seems to hold a grudge against Obama. I am a realist and know that the climate is tough for the Dems this year, but Jerome is almost gleeful in his wish for a tsunami.  It's most disturbing and pretty sad, actually. 

by sbbonerad 2010-10-25 02:53AM | 0 recs
Obama approval rating at new low---37%

Many of us here have been wondering when Obama would eventually cross the Bush-ian era approval threshold, and make it down to the 30's. According to the Harris poll, it happened this month:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/10/25/Poll-Job-approval-for-Obama-at-new-low/UPI-92211288034024/

It's pretty clear why we're headed for a shellacking next Tuesday. When a fish rots, it rots from the head down.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-10-26 11:32PM | 0 recs
wow

he simply will destroy the party if he continues like this

by changeagain2012 2010-10-27 04:43PM | 0 recs
Nice

He is somewhat a gatecrasher if that happens

 

miami repairs
by 2010-10-28 11:08AM | 0 recs
Nice

He is somewhat a gatecrasher if that happens

 

miami repairs
by 2010-10-28 11:08AM | 0 recs
Tea party

With regard to attacking the Tea Party, I think we generally get the sense that this group is a crazy hate monger.  What we fail to see are the other party members not at these rallies. Many don't want the party face to look that way and are to busy working or dropping their children off at school.

by jeffrtho 2010-10-29 05:38PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads