It looks like Scott Brown (MA-R) is going to win today-and the demoncrats are very worried. My question: as this recession grinds on, more and more people are getting unhappy-so, is it possible we will see a massive shift tothe Republicans, this year and next?
What does Rahm Emanuel and his minions have to say about this?
I’ve heard that RE is already preparing a story, to explain Scott Brown’s upset victory.
“Demoncrats”? Really? Is that really conductive to a good debate?
(I confess I’m working under the assumption of deliberateness, but the rest of the post’s tone does seem to indicate so.)
Yeah. The libs on this board are concerned with words that are “conductive (sic) to a good debate.” :rolleyes:
In the next Great Debates thread: “Liberals: Baby Eaters, or just Feeders of Baby Eaters?”
ralph124c kicked this thread off with a load of heavily charged language (demoncrats, minions, upset, etc.). Such OPs very rarely result in a reasoned debate. Whaddaya gonna do?
I’m sure the WH has already considered the implications should Brown win and the Democrats lose the 60-vote (or 59 + Lieberman) majority in the Senate. I’m sure they will also have their particular spin to put on the events, much as the right-wing is already putting theirs on (“It’s DOOM for the Democrats, I tell you! DOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!” - see the OP for an example). But bye-elections tend to be even more extreme examples of what happens in mid-terms; there is an anti-incumbent bias just because there is always disillusionment that the promises of the campaign season have failed to translate into free puppies for everyone. It happens.
As I’ve said elsewhere, Coakley will not only suffer a hit from this factor but also from the fact that she can’t hope to fill the giant empty penny loafers of Ted Kennedy (because he was Ted Kennedy and she’s not exactly Ms Charismatic). Even if she wins it’s unlikely to be on her own merit. But anyone who thinks that this is an Evil Omen is listening to the wrong echo chambers.
And yes, the Democrats will lose more seats in the mid-term, unless the economy (which is already turning around, despite the “the recession is dragging on and inflation will skyrocket and no one will have jobs and we’ll have to eat our free puppies to avoid starvation” rhetoric the more excitable keep trumpeting) improves quickly enough for the far-lagging indicator of unemployment to show a significant improvement before election day. As I said - it happens.
The conditions are perfect for it to happen but the Republicans are in no position to take advantage of it. They will pick up seats in both houses but they are too busy shooting themselves in the foot to really grab either house.
Personally, I think using words like demoncrats and repugnantcans or what have you is a bad idea no matter who does it. When I see people like ralph124c refering to the president as “the messiah” or using word like demoncrats I react in much the same way that I do when I see Der Trihs talking about the village idiot or what have you; I typically just skip the post. The odds that there will be any intelligent commentary in the post drop to near zero when this type of rhetoric is in play. YMMV.
Regarding the OP: possibly, but I personally doubt it (and, to be honest, I seriously hope not). I doubt it because the Republican Party has yet to present a platform that is different from what they have been saying since 2004 and, in fact, have only became more negative and divisive over time. Most of the communication I see for (from) the GOP seems to come from people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. These guys may be entertaining (to some at least, personally I think their rhetoric is reprehensible), but I don’t believe they are rational or honest enough to swing the moderate independents that would be needed to flip the house and make serious inroads in the senate. The party luminaries seem to just echo the comments of these pundits and don’t really have a serious message of their own. All I hear from the Republicans are stories about death panels, socialism, bailouts (never mind that most of these were done during President Bush’s term), soft on terror (never mind that President Obama has dramatically increased predator bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan and has killed more Al Qaeda leadership in the last year than the previous three), etc… Until somebody in the Republican party can present a positive, constructive message and plan, I don’t think they will win over the large majority of independents needed to have a resurgence like that of 94’. Let’s face it, the party tent is small these days and I don’t see it getting bigger.
Yep, and I usually stay out of these stupid threads for that reason.
But this one is easy. No, we’re not going to see 1994 redux. Back then, the Pubbies took back both houses. Not gonna happen to either house this time. The Dems may lose a few seats, but not the majority.
The out-party usually picks up seats in the midterm elections, that’s to be expected. But there’s nothing in the offing to suggest a replay of the 1994 “Republican Revolution.” Back then the Pubs at least had a solid and novel marketing package, the “Contract With America.” This year, they have nothing of the kind and are far too divided internally to come up with anything of the kind.
Wow. I just got finished posting a thread chiding MSNBC’s Ed Shultz for recommending vote fraud to ensure a Coakley victory, and now I see this reminder that at least some folks on the other side are just as willing to poison the well. “Demoncrats?” Sheesh. Utterly useless and inflammatory crap in lieu of argument.
Yeah, I saw the Wash Times article on Ed Shultz and couldn’t decide whether to be more infuriated at Shultz or the gibbering in the comments section. In the end I’ve decided to be anti-idiot, which should cover it.
Some net trawling this afternoon suggests that turnout is much higher than anticipated despite the snow, which breaks the usual by-election model of low voter numbers. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it’ll be close, with a lot of the independents holding their nose to vote Coakley because they like Brown even less.
My call:
If Coakley loses by a large margin, it will definitely be seen as an anti-Obama message (and very rightly so).
If Coakley loses by a small margin, the right will still run with the anti-Obama message and the left will blame Coakley (and, again, very rightly so).
If Coakley wins by a small margin, the Dems will breathe a sigh of relief and the right will blame it on the unions/ACORN/Obama’s Illinois-style politics. One would hope that a Minnesota-type recount will not happen again, but…
If Coakley wins by a large margin…I’ll be very surprised.
Come on, as others on here have said, if you want to honestly debate a topic (This is GD right?) then lay off the stupid name calling. That goes for our side as well. Calling people demoncrats, the democrat party, etc., is just as stupid as calling the right repugnicans, etc.
And yes Rafe, the words people choose do matter do matter in discussions. It’s just a juvenile attempt to belittle the other party and is about as useful to valuable discourse as the 12 steps are to Rush Limbaugh. (See, stupid and juvenile, and doesn’t advance the conversation at all)
As to the OP, I think the Dems will lose a few seats in both the house and senate but won’t lose the majority. Fat lot of good that will do them though without a (tenuous) filibuster-proof 60. We’ll see the process grind to a halt and absolutely nothing useful (from either side) will get passed for the foreseeable future.
Mark
Ad having just commented in that thread about not being able to muster up a strong sense of outrage against a party, a large proportion of which have engaged in this sort of demonization of their opponents consistently for nearly a generation, let me say that I’m glad to see this post, did carefully gauge the width of my brush in the other thread, and rather like the idea of honest politics when both sides are willing to play by it.
I make regular typoes, and often catch and fix them during the edit period. Any attempt to excuse himself by inadvertence here by Ralph will be taken, given “minions” and other bits of innuendo, ad disingenuous – and I think rightly so.
I’m unsure what main text of the OP has to to with the thread title. Leaving aside the main text and just looking at the title, will we have a reply of 1994? Simple answer…not a chance in hell. The political conditions today aren’t anything like what they were in 1994. The Republicans are still, with few exceptions, in retreat from their recent mismanagement, and it will be a while before they managed to pull themselves back together into a coherent (for them) political entity. What we are potentially looking at here is ONE FREAKING VOTE. Sure, it’s important, but it’s no indication that suddenly the Dems are going to start losing seats in droves. For that matter, how many actual seats will even be in plan in the next election? I doubt enough to make a significant difference between the current balances of power.
-XT
The election is supposed to be a tossup. Why are the repubs declaring victory so soon?
This is all true, however the rest of the elections aren’t for almost 10 months. By then we may have even higher joblessness with millions having their unemployment benefits completely exhausted, and inflation eating up whatever savings they have.
The Republicans won’t have to have anything special or any particular superstar for the people to make the party in control pay for their woes.
So if they lose they can blame Ed Schultz for telling people to vote 10 times?
I just find it somewhat ironic that the grand repudiation of Obama’s health-care plan is going to come in the form of a Republican being elected who supported basically the exact same plan in his home state… how odd.
I suspect the electorate as a whole doesn’t have quite as short a memory as you presume, but I could be wrong.
Also, why do you think high inflation is likely in the ten months? I’ve seen nothing to suggest that.
And why do you think that those folks whose unemployment has run out will vote for the party that voted against extending said benefits?
We may hope it is! Inflation is usually a sign the economy is coming out of a recession/depression. (The “stagflation” of the 1970s was atypical in that it was caused less by any money-supply issue than by an increase in a real cost external to the American economy, i.e., the price of imported petroleum. Which is not immediately looming now but, of course, is not a possibility to be ruled out for the near future.)