My argument is the Dems see running the government is best when it is collaborative. The Repubs have no such illusions. It is about power and doing things their way. A blanket filibuster is not governance. it is politics. It is about power grabbing. It is a competition that is played to win.
It’s gotta be turnout and excitement that makes the difference…
In 2008, Republicans were coming off a President that was effectively portrayed as an incompetent buffoon and had a boring candidate. The VP pick got them excited for a while until she was portrayed as an idiot.
Republicans couldn’t run on a war and Dems ran against it.
Obama was effectively portrayed as the answer to everything … a clean, articulate candidate to be proud of. The world would love us again!
For some reason, Dems lost their excitement and our side found something to be excited about… stopping the Dems from doing Dem things.
I’m not sure which Dems you’re talking about. I’m sure there are some who reach across the aisle and try to collaborate. But the same is true of some Republicans. Generally speaking, though, I think many politicians, be they Dems or Pubs, want to do things their way, collaboration be damned. To say that Dems are not concerned with a power grab is naive.
Thank you, Martin Hyde - you nailed it, from the opposite side, no less.
Do you get frustrated with the deficit worry & tax cut language that’s being bandied about by the incoming Republicans?
A blanket filibuster with almost nobody crossing the aisles is not collaboration. The Repubs fall in line with the obdurate leadership.
Obama was a naive as you are. He thought he could govern from the middle. The Repubs fought everything on party lines, even though they know health care is busted.
Boehner and McConnell have made it very clear how much negotiation they are willing to do. None.
The problem with relying on statistics over real life experience is that it’s very easy to manipulate statistics to “prove” whatever it is that you’re trying to prove. Defining the terms, controlling the variables etc. etc. And this is extremely commonly done by those who are pushing one agenda or another.
And it can be hard to figure out where the sleight of hand is. You have to have some familiarity with the way statistics tend to be manipulated, have access to the manner of study, and inclination to study it.
It’s true that a person’s experience can be limited, and it’s a mistake to assume that the world is in accordance with it. But it’s also a huge mistake to rely on statistics that is at odds with what you see with your own eyes. (Unless you have some compelling explanation for your experiences being atypical.)
No.
Ok, so you’ve mentioned two Republicans who you claim will not collaborate and ok, so be it. But you originally said:
And maybe some Dems do feel that way. But a blanket statement like that, I can not agree with. Do you think Pelosi is a great collaborator?
This is exactly what I am talking about. I didn’t go into any details of what I think should be done with health care reform. Yet you come up with ‘I don’t care whether your opposition to health care reform is born from evil, from ignorance, from stupidity, or from sheer contrariness’. So, since you believe I disagree with health care reform*, which I don’t by the way, the only thing I can be in your eyes is ignorant, stupid or contrary. That isn’t a debate. It is a straight out attack. Do you know what I think ought to be done? No, because I haven’t posted anything about it. Yet, since I disagree with you I must be ignorant, stupid or evil.
We haven’t even debated any specifics of health care but you automagically know what I believe is wrong. How’d ya end up with that super power?
Guess what? Funding health care is controlling health care. What if, for example, some fundies** get into power and decide not to fund abortion? Or the whomever is in power decides that we have too many doctors and we don’t need to fund more schooling for docs? Or what if the government decides that they are spending too much on MRIs?
I am aware that democrats will use anything in their power to make everyone in this country dependent on the government so that they can control all aspects of the country that they wish. See, wasn’t that easy? It is so much easier to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is just evil rather than actually understand and consider what those people actually think.
Once again, I haven’t said anything specific about health care. I pointed out that if you even try questioning the standard position on this board you get attacked and labeled as evil.
You are making a huge assumption that on an issue that many people have concerns about. You assume that health care reform is going to end up costing less. Some people have serious doubts about that. Yet, if anyone raises that issue you assume you are right and the other person is ignorant. Or stupid. Instead of discussing the issue, you just insult the other person and go on your merry little way convinced that your attack won the debate.
First, I am an atheist. Second I didn’t whine about anything. I made the observation that if you disagree with the liberal groupthink on this board you are instantly attacked. And what do you do? You launch an attack.
This is absolutely brilliant:
Guess what, Buttercup? When you state that the other person holds a belief only ‘from ignorance, from stupidity, or from sheer contrariness’, that is a personal attack. You didn’t indict me on anything. You launched an attack, asked a bunch of questions that had nothing to do with the topic of what I actually posted (here is a hint, health care was the example. I’ll leave it to you, as an exercise in reading for comprehension, to figure out what my topic was. I imagine it that will take a loooong time) And then you act as though *I *am the one who can’t understand the other side.
Slee
- I believe we can do a whole lot to repair the health system. However this isn’t the thread for that discussion.
** Unlikely but stranger things have happened. I sure as hell hope it never does.
Interesting post, Martin Hyde, thank you.
I find myself wishing Obama would grow a spine. But I’m not sure what alternatives he had with respect to the health care bill. He wasn’t going to get a single-payer system through the senate. And while he probably figured this bill would be better than none when it came time to run for re-election (speaking to your point about running for re-election from Day One), he probably also (rightly) figured he wouldn’t get another grab at the ring when it comes to healthcare. Congress could only have veered right with this midterm election. I don’t see any other options–it’s not as though republicans were amenable to some horse-trading on the topic.
Some other general notes: I don’t have time to dig up the numbers, but I heard on the radio that the electorate tended to be a lot older this election than in the last. I think it’s fair to say that Obama has more support than this election suggests–a lot of the same voters from 2008 will go to the polls in 2012, after sitting this one out and seeing the consequences. Similarly, it’s hard to imagine the Republicans maintaining their voter turnout numbers.
Secondly, it’s a little alarming the degree to which the media set the agenda this election. After umpteen months of wall-to-wall, all-economy-all-the-time news coverage, I heard a talking-head comment on the conspicuous lack of discussion about Afghanistan and Iraq this election cycle. Huh, go figure. While times are tough right now, things aren’t that bad. While Obama has ever-so-carefully avoided declaring “mission accomplished” wrt the economy, he clearly needs to distract the media with something shiny every now and again.
Finally, I don’t see this midterm as the unmitigated disaster that a lot of others seem to. It’s fairly evident that Obama wasn’t going to get much through Congress. Now that the Republicans have to stop taking potshots at him from the sidelines, they’ll have to accept some responsibility. I predict we’ll see more progress in the next two years than in the last.
I dunno, I see the GOP controlled House becoming essentially a legislative veto on all of Obama’s major policy initiatives. This could be a good thing politically, I think the American people both on the left, right, and center grow weary when politicians essentially lock government down for purely partisan political purposes.
I don’t think the mid terms are indicative of anything in 2012, one way or another. Two years is an eternity in politics and it’s impossible to predict what will be influencing voters by then. It also really doesn’t matter how popular or unpopular the President is in 2012, even unpopular Presidents have been reelected. The GOP actually has to nominate a strong candidate with broad appeal, so Obama’s first term could be a disaster and he could still get re-elected.
As for the voters being older this year, I’d bet that if you look, every mid term election averages older voters than the immediately prior election. Seniors are famously very die hard voters, and actually believe in voting in all the elections. Young people tend to care more during a Presidential election than an off year.
This election went as perfectly as it could for the GOP, if they are looking to set up victory in 2012.
The GOP will pass bill after bill in the House, only to see them go down to defeat or be stalled in the Senate. And if they get through there, Obama will veto them.
Then the GOP will claim that Obama and the Dems in the Senate (who have to defend a huge number of seats in 2012) are the problem, and they need the power to fix an economy that’s still probably banged up. I’d guess 9% unemployment, many houses still underwater, etc.
And make no mistake - this election was NOT a ‘throw-the-bums-out’ reaction against the economy - if it were, as Gonzo and others have suggested, then it would have been much more evenly divided in throwing out the incumbents.
Instead, the Dems lost 65+ incumbents in the house, the GOP only 3. The GOP gained 670 seats across the state legislatures. There’s no question in my mind that this was the first (second, if you count NJ and Mass and Va) opportunity for the American electorate to say ‘no’ to what could be the most liberal agenda I’ve ever seen. We’ll see if they get the message.
By the way, if you’re a liberal reader of this board and not depressed enough, you really ought to read this. The Governor takeovers by the GOP meant that the redistricting/gerrymandering to come, combined with population growth in red states, will make for an easier playing field for the GOP in 2012.
If this was “the most liberal agenda [you’ve] ever seen” there should be serious questions in your mind about whether it functions.
Most of you are too young to remember when abortion was illegal. There were dangerous back alley abortions for the poor. There were the rich suddenly going abroad for a few weeks and coming back thinner.
But it did not stop abortion. it stopped safe ones. The people suffered. Mostly it was teens and the poor who desperately tried to end a pregnancy they could not afford.
Odd that your discussion is entirely about Presidential elections, then. Districting has nothing whatever to do with that (except in Maine and Nebraska), and neither does control of the Governor’s office (if his brother isn’t the President).
Did you actually take a Civics class in middle school, by any chance?
Um… duh, yeah. :rolleyes:
the bad news for your buddies is twofold - both presidentially (due to the census) and in house races (due to the gerrymandering). That’s why I said, ‘in 2012’.
You may go back and re-read it now. Please try to keep up.
Oh, do tell. Is this the “Permanent Republican Majority” we heard so much about a decade ago? Should we expect every elected official in America to be a Republican by 2012? Or is this just another cog in the cyclical nature of American politics.
Here’s my, just as cogent, analysis: by 2012, the economy is either back on track, or really close, Obama gets the credit and gets re-elected; the Democrats gain seats in the house, but don’t gain majority and the Senate stays a Democratic Majority … and still nothing will really get done.