Where did all the good diarists go? Jonathan Singer? Charles Lemos? Josh Orton? Brit?
Instead, we have front page diarists wanting to teabag the teabag Senate candidates. Rubio couldn't get 50% of the vote. If Clinton hadn't meddled in this race, first rewarding Meek for tampering with the primary, then trying to get him to pull out, Crist would have cruised to victory. Like the proto-teabagger turd before him, Martinez, I suspect he doesn't even complete his term, let alone run for President.
And Obama, after enacting the most comprehensive democratic legislation since FDR, which was the same legislation he campaigned on, somehow is the worst democratic President evah? Wow. Some people weren't paying attention two years ago.
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.
The source for the first paragraph was from Politico, citing unnamed sources in the Administration. All of which reaffirms the President's position clearly stated during the primary and general election that he believes in Civil Unions. So this shouldn't be a surprise. While I do not share his belief on the issue of marriage, I find little fault with his slow but steady progress on LGBT issues (extending the FMLA act, ending DADT by the end of this year).