So, Clearly, the Democrats Are Dead

[Bricker]

Progressivism, that fond rebranding of liberalism, has gasped its last breath. With last night's stunning victories of GOP candidates at the House and Senate levels, to say nothing about the takeover of the nation's statehouses, we can clearly see that the once-beloved donkey is set for a quick and pointless trip to the vet's needle.

Ha! Ha! I slay myself.

Of course, we heard similar sentiments when Obama swept into office directed at the Republicans. And those were as nutty as the paragraph above. The Democrats retain the White House, the Senate, and more importantly a bunch of ideas that still resonate well with the public. (Unfortunate, but blindly denying the obvious doesn't help).

I think Rubio said it best: this election is NOT an embrace of the Republican party. At best, it's a second chance for the Republican Party to do what they claimed to favor all along: limited government. Note to GOP: "limited government" does not mean "spending money like a drunken sailor on payday, but it's okay because we're spending on the military."

Democrats: chin up. You guys have two years to fix your strategy and give it another go. This is just a midterm.... 2012 is the prize.

[Jas09]

Agreed. "Permanent XXXX Majority" just doesn't exist in a world of changing circumstances and ideas.

In the end what is important is people of competence in positions of power, and I'm somewhat relieved that most of the victors (at least in the Senate - it's harder for me to know the House winners outside of my state) are of the mature, competent variety (Rubio, Portman, Blunt) and not the ideological types of unknown competence (O'Donnell, Angle, Miller - maybe).

As I said in the results thread (somewhere between being overly optimistic about PA and IL and scared shitless about my home district MO-3), interesting times ahead politically.

[Uncle Jocko]

I can't stand listening to the pundits this morning pontificating on how these results will carry over to 2012.

Just a sentence after they say, "How could anyone have seen this coming after the results in 2008?"

There's a very basic logical fallacy here. Prior performance does not guarantee future results, and all that. Recent administrations have tended to do very well in their re-election campaigns after disastrous midterms ... 2012 is both a long time away and right around the corner.

Good post, Bricker.

[Gyrate]

Excellent OP. I too recall the "ding dong, the Republicans are dead!" posts (and the responses from those with a longer view of history about the application of GAAP to prenatal poultry). This is no more a harbinger of Democratic doom than 2008 was for the Republicans. It's just the way politics operate in America.

I was also surprised and pleased by Rubio's comment, given the recent trend in stifling any intelligent comments from GOP candidates. Let us hope his fellow party members also learn from history.

[Sateryn76]

I am happy with the results, and happy that my state threw a seat in the Senate to the Pubs.

What I hope is that Dem leaders wake up and realize that the no one has a mandate, that lots of people disagree or want different things than they do, and they work toward the middle in hopes of finding a solution that most people can agree on.

The worst, most frightening part of Pelosi's madhouse was the attitude of "We're in charge here - we don't need to debate, and we don't care if 50% of Americans disagree - we're going to ram this through at any cost"

I understand that Dems have strong feelings about issues close to their heart, but so do Pubs - they're just different feelings. In order to make America the most just, we need to listen, respect and debate all of the positions before deciding on what and how to legislate.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Sateryn76

The worst, most frightening part of Pelosi's madhouse was the attitude of "We're in charge here - we don't need to debate, and we don't care if 50% of Americans disagree - we're going to ram this through at any cost"

I understand that Dems have strong feelings about issues close to their heart, but so do Pubs - they're just different feelings. In order to make America the most just, we need to listen, respect and debate all of the positions before deciding on what and how to legislate.

Oh, how I laughed. Most of the left-wing dream of the day the Democrats stop "listening, respecting and debating" the other side and start ramming through the legislation they campaigned on.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Progressivism, that fond rebranding of liberalism, has gasped its last breath. With last night's stunning victories of GOP candidates at the House and Senate levels, to say nothing about the takeover of the nation's statehouses, we can clearly see that the once-beloved donkey is set for a quick and pointless trip to the vet's needle.

Ha! Ha! I slay myself.

Of course, we heard similar sentiments when Obama swept into office directed at the Republicans. And those were as nutty as the paragraph above. The Democrats retain the White House, the Senate, and more importantly a bunch of ideas that still resonate well with the public. (Unfortunate, but blindly denying the obvious doesn't help).

Yeah, it's basically the same thing, just in the opposite direction.

Originally Posted by Bricker

I think Rubio said it best: this election is NOT an embrace of the Republican party. At best, it's a second chance for the Republican Party to do what they claimed to favor all along: limited government. Note to GOP: "limited government" does not mean "spending money like a drunken sailor on payday, but it's okay because we're spending on the military."

Democrats: chin up. You guys have two years to fix your strategy and give it another go. This is just a midterm.... 2012 is the prize.

I don't think it's necessarily embracing the Reps, it's more like punishing the Dems, just like the reverse was probably true in '08.

If the economy is better in 12, then the Dems will probably do better. If not, the slaughter will probably continue.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Oh, how I laughed. Most of the left-wing dream of the day the Democrats stop "listening, respecting and debating" the other side and start ramming through the legislation they campaigned on.

+1

Yes, I agree with this. I think that the Dems actually shot themselves in the foot on this one. If they had just rammed what they wanted through, I think they probably would have done better.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What exactly DOES "limited government" mean, other than abdicating social responsibilities and letting corporations operate lawlessly? Limited government is what caused the recession in the first place, not to mention the oil spill in the gulf.

[Sateryn76]

Originally Posted by Meatros

+1

Yes, I agree with this. I think that the Dems actually shot themselves in the foot on this one. If they had just rammed what they wanted through, I think they probably would have done better.

But you understand that for people on the right, the appearance was that HCR and the like were rammed through. It's not so much whether the bill passed, it's whether the bill was debated.

[DigitalC]

Originally Posted by Sateryn76

But you understand that for people on the right, the appearance was that HCR and the like were rammed through. It's not so much whether the bill passed, it's whether the bill was debated.

The HCR bill was something the republicans would have patted themselves in the back for the next hundred years if it had been put forward by a republican congress and signed into law by a republican president, what is the point of honest debate when one side simply wants the other to fail with absolutely no regard for the good of the country? What things look like to the other side is something the Dems have no control over because their point of view is in no way shape or form based on reality.

[Death of Rats]

Originally Posted by Meatros

If the economy is better in 12, then the Dems will probably do better. If not, the slaughter will probably continue.

I suspect the opposite is true. This wave of Republican wins was solely based on them immediately fixing everything wrong with the economy. If there is not a dramatic gain in the economy before 2012 the Repubs are going to get cock punched for it. They are not going to be able to keep the Tea Party anger going for two more years after being handed a historic win like they were without it coming back to burn them. in 2012, they will be in the same situation that the Dems were yesterday, where no amount of gains will have been enough.

[Martiju]

From an outsider, it looks to me like the Dems want to try and play nice, in my view actually doing the real work of politics which is about diplomacy, negotiation and consensus. The Pubs from the off (and especially through the Tea Party movement) have just attacked the personalities of those in charge, taking every step of negotiation as a sign of weakness and every decision as an example of the bullish socialist wrecking of the country.

With such different approaches and with the media loving the continuous conflicts that causes, it's really no surprise that the Dems lose seats every time.

In other words, what DigitalC said!

[Hampshire]

Originally Posted by Meatros

If the economy is better in 12, then the Dems will probably do better. If not, the slaughter will probably continue.

Meh, who knows? The swing voters are so fickle in thinking that things should improve overnight every time they cast a vote they could just as easily say "Dammit pubs, we gave you the House in 10' and the economy still sucks. time to give it back to the Dems."

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Sateryn76

But you understand that for people on the right, the appearance was that HCR and the like were rammed through. It's not so much whether the bill passed, it's whether the bill was debated.

At the risk of continuing the hijack, the co-ordinated right-wing narrative was that HCR was "rammed down our throats" - I can't tell you how many times I have heard that exact phrasing used, which is often an indicator of manufactured outrage rather than spontaneously-generated objections (see also: "wanting/taking our country back").

As for the extent to which the bill was actually debated and Republican amendments considered, i'm sure there are a few dozen threads here on the subject I don't want to rehash.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Props to ya, Bricker for the OP; now could you talk to the new Speaker and enlighten him?

House Republican Leader John Boehner is claiming a voter mandate to roll back the Obama administration's health care overhaul, calling it a "monstrosity."

The presumptive next speaker of the House told reporters Wednesday morning the Republican takeover of the House and its success in narrowing the Democratic Senate majority was proof that "the Obama-Pelosi agenda" was rejected by the American people.

[Sateryn76]

Originally Posted by DigitalC

The HCR bill was something the republicans would have patted themselves in the back for the next hundred years if it had been put forward by a republican congress and signed into law by a republican president, what is the point of honest debate when one side simply wants the other to fail with absolutely no regard for the good of the country? What things look like to the other side is something the Dems have no control over because their point of view is in no way shape or form based on reality.

And I see that on both sides.

When the HCR "debate" began, I was looking at all of the ideas - and there were not any other ideas, not really. Where was debate on universal catastrophic coverage only? How about debate over the link between employment and insurance? Anything about the very real issues with Medicare/caid funding and qualifications?

No, not really. It was just a giant pissing match, with the Dems versus the Pubs and no intelligent debate in sight. Both sides totally had their head up their ass on this one, and we ended up with a shitty solution that pleases no one, doesn't really solve any problems, and is a weird hybrid of mostly useless bullshit.

The Pubs screwed up by shrieking like idiots, then the Dems responded by shrieking back, and we all lose.

I'm really happy about the split that came into place yesterday, and I'm hoping it will stop that kind of bullshit.

[fluiddruid]

Originally Posted by Martiju

From an outsider, it looks to me like the Dems want to try and play nice, in my view actually doing the real work of politics which is about diplomacy, negotiation and consensus. The Pubs from the off (and especially through the Tea Party movement) have just attacked the personalities of those in charge, taking every step of negotiation as a sign of weakness and every decision as an example of the bullish socialist wrecking of the country.

With such different approaches and with the media loving the continuous conflicts that causes, it's really no surprise that the Dems lose seats every time.[/i]

Except that they don't.

Yes, I know it's quite fashionable to paint the Dems as the party of limp-wristed weakness, but in reality it could have been a literal donkey vs. a literal elephant and people would have voted for whoever isn't the incumbent.

Bad economic times equals swings in power in the US. If the GOP can't live up to their promises (and they won't -- I can't see them getting health care reform repealed without the Senate) then we'll be right back to 2012 with likely a slim Dem majority.

[Sateryn76]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

At the risk of continuing the hijack, the co-ordinated right-wing narrative was that HCR was "rammed down our throats" - I can't tell you how many times I have heard that exact phrasing used, which is often an indicator of manufactured outrage rather than spontaneously-generated objections (see also: "wanting/taking our country back").

As for the extent to which the bill was actually debated and Republican amendments considered, i'm sure there are a few dozen threads here on the subject I don't want to rehash.

Sure thing - I read the talking points daily

[Skammer]

I can't wait to see what these Republicans are actually gonna cut from the budget now that they've sworn not to raise taxes, and to reduce the deficit. Medicare? Social Security? Defense? You can cut all the "pork" and "waste" you can, but if you want to pay for (for example) extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, you're going to have to dig deeper than that and there's not a lot of low-hanging fruit.

[Skammer]

Also, I don't see how the GOP can realistically expect to be able to "roll back HCR." They can pass whatever they want in the House; they still have a minority in the Senate (and remember.. we've learned you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate now). And even passing that hurdle, they'd face a presidential veto. So really, talk about repealing or rolling back HCR is just masturbation.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by Meatros

+1

Yes, I agree with this. I think that the Dems actually shot themselves in the foot on this one. If they had just rammed what they wanted through, I think they probably would have done better.

If they had forced filibuster reform at the start of the 111th congress and rammed through meaningful legislation they would've done better. As it stands the dems were so busy trying to be 'bipartisan' with people who openly said their only goal was obstructionism that they pissed off their opponents and demoralized their base. A common feeling among dem voters seemed to be 'even with supermajorities, the best the dems can do is quasi-plutocratic milquetoast legislation while getting endlessly duped by the GOP, so why work to give them bigger majorities'.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by Sateryn76

But you understand that for people on the right, the appearance was that HCR and the like were rammed through. It's not so much whether the bill passed, it's whether the bill was debated.

I'm not sure how they could have that view - I thought the Reps made it fairly clear that *no matter* what HCR was, they would vote against it.

That's not really 'debate'.

Originally Posted by Death of Rats

I suspect the opposite is true. This wave of Republican wins was solely based on them immediately fixing everything wrong with the economy. If there is not a dramatic gain in the economy before 2012 the Repubs are going to get cock punched for it. They are not going to be able to keep the Tea Party anger going for two more years after being handed a historic win like they were without it coming back to burn them. in 2012, they will be in the same situation that the Dems were yesterday, where no amount of gains will have been enough.

Maybe. I certainly don't know. I tend to think that the Reps will continue with their blockade strategy and I think it might be effective for them, provide the economy sinks.

Originally Posted by Hampshire

Meh, who knows? The swing voters are so fickle in thinking that things should improve overnight every time they cast a vote they could just as easily say "Dammit pubs, we gave you the House in 10' and the economy still sucks. time to give it back to the Dems."

True and I admit I could totally be wrong.

All in all, I hope that by 2012 the economy is better, no matter who gets credit for it.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

If they had forced filibuster reform at the start of the 111th congress and rammed through meaningful legislation they would've done better. As it stands the dems were so busy trying to be 'bipartisan' with people who openly said their only goal was obstructionism that they pissed off their opponents and demoralized their base. A common feeling among dem voters seemed to be 'even with supermajorities, the best the dems can do is quasi-plutocratic milquetoast legislation while getting endlessly duped by the GOP, so why work to give them bigger majorities'.

This is how I feel, although I would not characterize myself as their base - I certainly supported a lot of their 'goals' (especially with regard to healthcare) as they were originally presented.

So, I would say that I lost confidence with the Dems when the public option went off the table.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by Skammer

Also, I don't see how the GOP can realistically expect to be able to "roll back HCR." They can pass whatever they want in the House; they still have a minority in the Senate (and remember.. we've learned you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate now). And even passing that hurdle, they'd face a presidential veto. So really, talk about repealing or rolling back HCR is just masturbation.

A fear I have is the dems will let them because the GOP will hold something hostage. Maybe a budget or a military funding bill. But they will say 'unless you want X passed, repeal HCR'. Which bothers me personally because in 2014 (yay, only 4 years from now) people with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance.

The dems seem to be so easily duped that I honestly don't know if they'll fall for it. But they might.

Ah well. One of hte few things I really envy about the GOP is how competent they are at politics. I disagree with them on the issues and pragmatism, but even with smaller majorities they got stuff done under Bush.

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by Skammer

Also, I don't see how the GOP can realistically expect to be able to "roll back HCR." They can pass whatever they want in the House; they still have a minority in the Senate (and remember.. we've learned you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate now). And even passing that hurdle, they'd face a presidential veto. So really, talk about repealing or rolling back HCR is just masturbation.

They could try shutting down the government. They could say "we refuse to pass any budget until you sign the HCR repeal bill!"

They just might be that desperate. A few years from now, when the HCR takes full effect, people are going to discover that they actually like it and that they were being lied to by the GOP. Since it netted 0 GOP votes, the GOP doesn't get to take any credit for it passing and they'll be villainized for opposing it. The Republicans will pull out all the stops to keep that from happening.

[Chessic Sense]

This election is just another confirmation of selectorate theory. The key point in all of politics is to get reelected. Nothing else is really important on a big enough scale. So we will continue to get behavior geared toward winning over the selectorate and not toward improving the country. Thankfully, those two things often overlap in a democracy. Unfortunately, health care insurance isn't one of those things.

Maybe with a divided government, we can get some good legislation through and limit the bullshit.

[Chessic Sense]

Originally Posted by Blalron

when the HCR takes full effect, people are going to discover that they actually like it

I sincerely doubt that.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Some thoughts:

I don't think people will blame the Republicans if things don't improve. People tend to blame the president, for the most part. Most people are ignorant, and imagine the president to have far more power than he actually has.

That said, IMHO Obama's chances in 2012 have been improved by this election.

One of his big problems to this point was that "the professional left" kept dragging him leftwards (which is where I imagine he wants to be anyway) but while this was tempered with political implications for the 2010 election, there was no real check on his ability to enact his agenda. As a result he got it both ways, with the swing voters unhappy about how far he went (e.g. HCR) and liberals unhappy that he didn't go even further.

But that's all changed now. At this point, he has an excuse to his left flank as to why he can't stay on the left, and even if he tries to stay to the left he will eventually have to compromise to the middle anyway. So everyone will be happier. The left-wingers give him points for trying and the swing voters are happier with the results.

Of course, this assumes that the economy recovers. The good news for him is that all economists assume that it will - the economy goes in cycles - and all he needs to do is catch the economy on the upswing in the Fall of 2012. But even if he doesn't he's better off than he is in 2010. Because he's in a lot worse of a position if there's unhappiness with the results and something concrete to get worked up about than if there's unhappiness with the results and nothing specific to get worked up about.

And as Obama goes, so go the rest of the Democrats. IIRC they may have a structural problem in the Senate, since they will be defending more seats, but otherwise I think they're a lot better positioned for 2012 than they were for 2010.

The flip side of that is that they will be unlikely to retake the House in 2012. Because if things are not going well, Obama will not be especially popular, and if things are going well, it's not likely that 25+ House incumbents will be ousted.

So if I had to bet right now, I would say Obama wins in 2012, the Senate probably stays Democratic and the House stays Republican. IOW, no big changes.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Chessic Sense

Maybe with a divided government, we can get some good legislation through and limit the bullshit.

<spit-take>

[Really Not All That Bright]

Rubio began his speech with what amounted to a sermon, which I found rather odd. Nonetheless, the substantive portion of his address was excellent, and struck exactly the right note.

[joebuck20]

Originally Posted by Skammer

Also, I don't see how the GOP can realistically expect to be able to "roll back HCR." They can pass whatever they want in the House; they still have a minority in the Senate (and remember.. we've learned you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate now). And even passing that hurdle, they'd face a presidential veto. So really, talk about repealing or rolling back HCR is just masturbation.

Yep. As I said in another thread, they're going to treat HCR as they've done a bunch of other issues they've purported to care so much about over the years - abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration. Hell, they might even put forth a few bills calling for its repeal. But in the end they're going to do two things - Jack and Shit, and Jack's nowhere to be found.

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by Chessic Sense

I sincerely doubt that.

Can you point out even one example of a country that has implemented Universal Healthcare that has decided to repeal it?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Blalron

Can you point out even one example of a country that has implemented Universal Healthcare that has decided to repeal it?

The HCR act is not universal healthcare, and most people probably won't be able to difference between the old system and the new one.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

A fear I have is the dems will let them because the GOP will hold something hostage. Maybe a budget or a military funding bill. But they will say 'unless you want X passed, repeal HCR'. Which bothers me personally because in 2014 (yay, only 4 years from now) people with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance.

The dems seem to be so easily duped that I honestly don't know if they'll fall for it. But they might.

The Democrats basically gave up any hope for holding the House by passing the Health Care bill. They knew at least 25 seats were going down based on that vote alone. There is 0% chance they give up that massive victory, won at such a cost.

And without the Senate there is nothing the House can really do anyways, and pin it on Obama. He won't have to veto a damn thing.

The earliest date for repeal is 2012, and the GOP probably wants it that way - it's an issue to run against Obama on. Even then I don't think it's likely they can get over 60 votes in the Senate in 2012. And by 2014 the major provisions will have kicked in, and the push for repeal will likely be gone. Obamacare is here to stay, IMO.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The HCR act is not universal healthcare, and most people probably won't be able to difference between the old system and the new one.

True on the first part (although it will likely make access as an individual better).

The second, however, is a bit dicey - if vast majorities see no difference, and it actually reduces the deficit, how will the fervor still be there for repeal in 2-4 years?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

If HCR is to be repealed, it will likely have to be done soon. Because there's a very good chance that HCR results in the collapse of the employer-based health insurance system, and if it does, then simply repealing HCR will just leave people with no insurance at all. At this point it will be politically unfeasible.

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The HCR act is not universal healthcare, and most people probably won't be able to difference between the old system and the new one.

If they won't be able to tell the difference, then there won't be much desire to repeal it. The 30 million additional people who get health insurance sure will notice the difference though, and that's not chump change. The middle class voters getting subsidies will notice the difference also.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I don't think it will be repealed. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell it will be repealed, in fact. Not because it will reduce the deficit; I don't know if it will, and probably nobody will be able to tell if it does.

I was just pointing out a flaw in Blalron's line of argument.

I agree with your point regarding what Wesley said, too. The Democrats knew the Civil Rights Act was going to lose them the South for generations, and they didn't repeal that either. Not that HCR is the Civil Rights Act, or even close to it, but unless it's a bad law, they're not going to give up on it when so many congresscritters lost their seats by doing the right thing.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Props to ya, Bricker for the OP; now could you talk to the new Speaker and enlighten him?

That's a good example.

There are many people against the "Obamacare," initiative.

But only a fool would pretend that this means monolithic opposition to the idea of universal health care; indeed, most people support that basic idea. (I don't, admittedly, but I recognize I'm in the minority). For the most part, this has been a victory of rhetoric over substance: some people "oppose" the bill because it didn't go far enough; others because they don't actually understand what it does and, if asked about its individual components, claim to favor them.

And of course some people actually understand the bill and don't like it, period.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Bricker, you don't have any political aspirations, do you?

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I agree with your point regarding what Wesley said, too. The Democrats knew the Civil Rights Act was going to lose them the South for generations, and they didn't repeal that either. Not that HCR is the Civil Rights Act, or even close to it, but unless it's a bad law, they're not going to give up on it when so many congresscritters lost their seats by doing the right thing.

I will be one of the 30 million additional people getting health insurance who didn't have it before. I deeply admire those Congressmen who were willing to lose their seats in order to do the right thing. The light of history will shine favorably upon them.

[Sateryn76]

Originally Posted by Blalron

I will be one of the 30 million additional people getting health insurance who didn't have it before. I deeply admire those Congressmen who were willing to lose their seats in order to do the right thing. The light of history will shine favorably upon them.

I will be soundly screwed, and see my healthcare and insurance costs going up by at least $400 per month. I voted straight Pub for the first time in my life, and that's why. I am nowhere near "rich"

It all depends on where you're coming from.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Bricker, you don't have any political aspirations, do you?

Not really. At one time I thought I might try for a local seat on my city's council, but I think I'm cured.

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

Of course, this assumes that the economy recovers. The good news for him is that all economists assume that it will - the economy goes in cycles - and all he needs to do is catch the economy on the upswing in the Fall of 2012.

I would be nice if that were so, but it's not true that economists assume the economy will be roaring back.

Some of us have been saying from the beginning that this not a typical business-cycle recession, and that a Keynesian pump wouldn't work this time, because the Keynesian solution assumes that a stimulus just has to prevent destruction of productive resources until the business cycle reasserts itself. But in this case, the recession was caused by a fiscal collapse due to an asset bubble popping, which exposed the fact that people had been over-consuming for years and were now burdened with debt that was not balanced by assets.

Recessions like this are hard to predict because there haven't been many of them. The prime example is Japan, which flew high in the 80's due to a massive real-estate bubble, then went into economic shock when the bubble popped. It's been more than a decade and a half since that happened, and the Japanese economy has been struggling ever since. This leads a lot of economists to predict a long period of low growth, and permanently high unemployment.

If that's the case, then 2012 will be another interesting election, and will be mostly about who manages to deflect the blame for the next two years of a crappy U.S. economy.

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by Sateryn76

I will be soundly screwed, and see my healthcare and insurance costs going up by at least $400 per month. I voted straight Pub for the first time in my life, and that's why. I am nowhere near "rich"

It all depends on where you're coming from.

Sorry, dude. I wish they passed single payer so we could reduce health care costs from 17% of GDP to something more like 10%, but single payer wasn't even on the table. From my perspective, I don't want to be one of the 45,000 people a year who die because they don't have access to affordable health care. Hope you understand.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Not really. At one time I thought I might try for a local seat on my city's council, but I think I'm cured.

Good, because you'd last a fast five minutes being all reasonable like that.

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

I would be nice if that were so, but it's not true that economists assume the economy will be roaring back.

<snip>

This leads a lot of economists to predict a long period of low growth, and permanently high unemployment.

You are speaking, in the main, of largely the same group of economists who totally failed to foresee the recession in the first place, so fuck 'em.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

I would be nice if that were so, but it's not true that economists assume the economy will be roaring back.

It doesn't have to be "roaring back" for Obama to claim that it's a lot better than it was 4 years ago - and all due to his leadership .

But in this case, the recession was caused by a fiscal collapse due to an asset bubble popping, which exposed the fact that people had been over-consuming for years and were now burdened with debt that was not balanced by assets.
[...]
This leads a lot of economists to predict a long period of low growth, and permanently high unemployment.

Not an economist, but I tend to agree with what seems like the common sense notion that the US has been living beyond its means for years, as evidenced by the budget & trade deficits, and we are doomed to a lower standard of living going forward.

But that doesn't necessarily hurt Obama. "Low" and "high" are relative terms, and if your scenario plays out, then what you call "low growth, and permanently high unemployment" will eventually come to be seen as the new normal, and politicians will be punished or rewarded based on how the economy performs relative to those baselines.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Sateryn76

What I hope is that Dem leaders wake up and realize that the no one has a mandate, that lots of people disagree or want different things than they do, and they work toward the middle in hopes of finding a solution that most people can agree on.

This is either delusional or intellectually dishonest.

Obama entered into office with possibly the most conciliatory and open attitude of any president before him. It was quite a difference from Bush, who entered office claiming a mandate to do whatever he wanted when his opponent had actually gotten more votes.

The mistake that Obama and the Democrats made was to concede so much ground to the Republicans from the start. Every single piece of legislation was moderated. The health care bill was a Republican bill from a prior Congress.

It didn't matter at all what the Democrats were willing to concede, because no matter what, the Republicans would have kept moving the ball. This has been their basic strategy for years. No matter what the Democrats do, the Republicans will label it as radical and excessively liberal and berate them for failing to moderate their positions. But "moderate" is a moving target that the Republicans will never let the Democrats hit, no matter how far to the right they move.

The worst, most frightening part of Pelosi's madhouse was the attitude of "We're in charge here - we don't need to debate, and we don't care if 50% of Americans disagree - we're going to ram this through at any cost"

The debate went on for-freaking-ever. See, this is a perfect example. No matter what Pelosi did, you would have said exactly the same thing. The mistake was letting the debate go on for as long as it did -- all that happened was that whatever bill in question -- whether stimulus, health care, or financial services reform -- got watered down further, and Republicans got more time to play the refs.

I understand that Dems have strong feelings about issues close to their heart, but so do Pubs - they're just different feelings. In order to make America the most just, we need to listen, respect and debate all of the positions before deciding on what and how to legislate.

When you're faced with an opposition who deals with absolutely no good faith, what your advice essentially amounts to is "Just give up and let us run things the way we want them, even when you have a majority of the votes."

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by acsenray

Obama entered into office with possibly the most conciliatory and open attitude of any president before him.

I once saw a great line from Dave Barry, in an article about men & women. He had a bunch about how men and women have all these complaints about each other, and he, the peacemaker, wanted both sides to rise above it. And he ended off with something like "so I'd like to have both sides, men and women, come together and agree, on just how irrational, obstinate and difficult women are".

"Let's all get together and do things my way" is not bipartisan in any meaningful sense.