I’m quite surprised there hasn’t been more backlash by Democrats against Obama. He’s cost them a lot in the past two elections. Just in Arkansas we lost both of our Democrat Senators in the last two elections. People in secure seats that I admired and supported. The same results are reflected in nearly all the states.
The easiest and most successful way to unseat a Democrat is to tie them to Obama. It certainly worked in my state’s election. Even the candidate for my state’s State Attorney General vowed to use the powers of that office to fight the evil Obama policies. It worked and she’ll take office in January.
We had threads after the election contrasting Bill Clinton’s strategy after a stinging Democrat defeat. He reached out to the Republican Congress and found a way to get a lot of important work done. Placing the need to govern above politics. There was a faint hope that Obama would take a page from that book. Then we get his latest Executive Orders. :smack: That’s pretty much sets the tone for the new Congress before its even sworn in. The Democrats have to act or the next two years will be more of the same.
I’ve come to realize the Democrats will have to join with Republicans on key issues and find a way to govern without Obama. They can still hold firm on key principles but the gridlock in Congress has to be broken. Otherwise the results of the 2014 election will continue into 2016.
Can the more moderate Democrats work with the Rep majority and get bipartisan bills passed? For example the Keystone Pipeline bill was bipartisan and almost passed. Thats a good start. I don’t think Obama would veto bipartisan bills that reach his desk. At least I’d hope he wouldn’t.
Keystone came within one vote of passing. Regardless of how you feel about the bill’s merits. It was an encouraging bipartisan effort.
I still think there are some in Congress (from both parties) that will recognize the need to govern over politics. There’s really no choice. We cannot sustain gridlock forever. The damage to our country and the erosion of confidence that voters have in our system is reaching a critical point.
Lets hope there are some responsible people left in Washington.
The OP’s argument assumes that most Dems are to the right of Obama. This isn’t true. Many Dems are to the left of Obama, and they’re frustrated with Obama for not being left wing enough.
Obama was elected, twice, with fairly impressive margins of victory. The Dems will not turn their backs on that, nor should they.
Both incumbent and candidate Democrats have been avoiding being publically associated with Obama for some time now. And the yellow dog Democrats didn’t bother to turn out to vote, even though Obama said his policies were on the line in the last election. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool people all of the time.
Clinton understands successful politics. He worked with the Congress that the voters has elected. OTOH, Obama came from Chicago politics where there is no longer a multi-party political system. Obama’s closest advisors in the WH were also Chicago politicians. You do not learn the art of compromise from Chicago Democrats.
Obama spent four years in Congress running for President. He should have spent that time learning how Congress actually works and learning the art of dealmaking. Oh well, Obama will be gone soon.
Babs “XL means extra lethal” Boxer was Landrieu’s main opposition to passage of the Keystone XL pipeline bill.
The Democrats and Republicans have shown signs of trying to get along. The XL pipeline and the end of the Benghazi investigation. That’s a start. I hope.
To paraphrase the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers - Congress can get along without Obama better than Obama can get along without Congress.
The size of the turnout in 2016 will depend on what the major issues of 2016 will be. People aren’t going to vote in 2016 simply because they voted in 2012 or 2008 or 2000. I vote in every election because there are always new reasons to vote.
I am for some reason shocked at how profoundly ignorant people are about both midterms and about favorable vs. unfavorable maps. It isn’t like every election is a 50/50 referendum on every possible political thing.
Oh, please. Obama doesn’t have magical powers and can’t make a deal with people who refuse to do so. His problem with Congress has been his long running refusal to admit to the implacable hostility of the Republicans and keep trying to make deals with people who want to see him fail no matter the cost.
The only thing he could do that would make them happy is turn white and join the Republican party.
I envision you holding a sign to this effect, punctuated with “MORAN!”
Clearly, running from him didn’t work. So, using your brain, you might see the alternatives for Democratic candidates as running even harder and faster from him, or as standing steadfast. Which does your brain suggest to you would be more appealing to an average voter?
It depends. Democrats in a state or district that is generally liberal should should stand up for the man, back his stuff, or maybe complain he’s not liberal enough. Democrats in a state or a district that is generally conservative should assert their independence. I don’t think you can generalize, but the politician should take a stance generally in line with their constituents.