More candidates should have stood with him and crowed proudly about all of the great things he has done, instead of being craven about whether they support him or whether they voted for him. If more Dems spoke like Elizabeth Warren instead of being mealy mouthed, they would have done better. Of course, being mid-terms, it’s usually difficult for the party in the executive branch to do well, and the gerrymandering done by the GOP after the 2010 election has made it nearly impossible for the dems to do well in 2014.
It’s hilarious that you have the GOP, which has made obstruction of anything Obama wants suddenly make calls for bipartisanship. Having Ted Cruz even say the word “bipartisan” pegs my irony meter so hard into the red, I’ll need it recalibrated.
Please list these “more moderate” Democrats currently serving in congress that are not already putting as much distance between themselves and Obama as they can.
Most of the Dems left in congress represent strongly liberal areas where Obama is still popular and running from him would be ill-advised.
Elections are all about swing voters. There’s no point in Democrats trying to go after committed Republican voters. (And the same is true for Republicans and committed Democratic voters.) There will be Republican candidates in 2016 and that’s who Republican voters are going to vote for. Nothing a Democrat in office can do in the next two years will win over these voters. They’ve already decided how they will vote in 2016.
So what will Democrats gain by turning against Obama? The Republicans will approve of this but they won’t change their votes.
As I said, the election will be decided by swing voters - the voters who honestly will vote for candidates of either party. These are the voters both parties need to win. And the Democrats aren’t going to win them over by acting like imitation Republicans - all that will do is cause voters to choose real Republicans. If the Democrats want to win in 2016 they need to emphasize how they are different from the Republicans and present themselves as a preferable alternative.
The problem is the responsible people just lost the election. The irresponsible people showed that blind partisan opposition can work.
Obviously now that they’ve used blind partisan opposition to get into power, these people want to drop it. They now want the kind of bipartisan support they never offered when they were out of power.
Because they realize the most effective thing the Democrats can do is try to turn the 2016 election into a repeat of 2014 - by spending the next two years offering nothing but blind partisan opposition. Do that for two years and the Democrats will make the country as ungovernable as the Republicans have been doing. Only this time it will the Republicans who will blamed for their failure to get things done.
Well that, and because since at least Bush II’s presidency they’ve defined terms like bipartisan and cooperation as “give us everything we want in return for us calling you scum”. That’s what the Republicans actually want; for the Democrats to cave in to every demand they make, while they continue to spit on and vilify the Democrats.
The Democrats recently lost many seats in Congress so you insult the voters? :smack: You can certainly blame the voters, and the non-voters, for changing the balance of power in Congress but insulting the voters only annoys the voters and makes them less likely to vote according to your needs. just sayin’
Good government still requires compromise and cooperation. Obama can participate in the process or he can issue more Executive Memorandums and ignore Congress. Either way, Obama will be gone in a few years and Congress can get back to doing the people’s business. The question is, will it be in 2015 or 2017?
No, that’s not going to work on me. I know I didn’t insult the voters. So I can see your accusation is nothing but a pathetic attempt to divert attention away from what I did say. I’m going to assume you did it because you realized you don’t have a good response to what I said.
I think this little exchange illustrates the point that the conservative policy of addressing any valid criticism by just making something up and trying to shift the blame has pretty much run out of momentum. Now is the time when conservatives have to figure out what they’re actually in favor of rather than just complaining about what they’re against.
I fully agree. So now is when conservatives have to show they are capable of compromise and cooperation and, by extension, good government. Conservatives have shown they can get elected. Now they have to show if they can run the country. The next two years will be a referendum on the Republican majority in Congress.
Hmmm, low unemployment, high Dow, cheap gas, wars being drawn down. Yeah right, Obama’s done a real bad job :rolleyes:
Chalk this year’s win for the GOP up to low voter interest in a mid-term and GOP voter suppression campaigns. We’ll get them back in 2016 when Hillary is elected
That’s what every side wants.
To Democrats, a “reasonable” Republican is a Republican who is more in tune with the left than most Republicans.
To Republicans, a “reasonable” Democrat is a Democrat who is more in tune with the right than most Democrats.
Aceplace47: you don’t seem to realize that in the last few years Republicans have gone totally crazy. There simply isn’t anything that Republicans want to do that Democrats would consider positive: What Republicans want to do are things like:
Gut the safety net including health insurance for the poor and uninsurable
Cut taxes for the rich
Start another trillion dollar war in the Middle East
Irresponsible people showed blind partisan opposition works.
It’s my position that responsible people voted and irresponsible people did not vote. Maybe you see it differently?
Some people will vote in as many elections as possible, some people never vote. Those in the middle need a reason to vote. The people who did vote changed the make up of Congress. The rest of the country will have to live with the result. It’s now up to all members of Congress to make the legislative process work.
Why? When the Republicans were the minority they refused to make the legislative process work. They were quite public about it. Remember the meeting that was held on the night of the 2008 election where they agreed to oppose every legisilative move of the Democrats?
Now you expect the Democrats to compromise with the Republican majority? Again, why?
I’m shocked at the cognitive dissonance shown in the OP and among some of the other posters. They have convinced themselves that Obama doesn’t work well with Congress, when it is public knowledge that Congressional Republicans refuse to cooperate with the President on anything. They even oppose things that they originally suggested if the President gets on board with it.
Which part of “all members of Congress” did you overlook?
You ask “why”. The elected members of Congress do not have to work together. There’s no rule that says elected representatives have to work with members of the other parties or even with members of their own party. Good government is possible if the elected representatives can find a way to work together. Government is possible even if Congress is broken.
Voters, those who actually vote, have the option of making more adjustments in 2016. The question is, what, if any, will be the primary issues of 2016 and will those issues motivate potential voters to vote?
In the 1990s, Congressional Dems ran away from Bill Clinton. In the past few elections, they’ve run away from Barack Obama.
What the Dems did both times, by this approach, was let the GOP define their President for them, and by extension, define the Democratic Party for them.
Which is really pretty stupid. Because the other guys are going to define your party to be evil incarnate, and there you are apologizing for being associated with it. Not exactly high-quality pushback, is it? Who are you going to convince that your party is the right one to support?
And when you keep on doing this for literally decades, it’s going to take a lot of undoing to convince people that your party’s any good. People who vote for Dem initiatives aren’t going to vote for Democrats because they’ve been sold a bill of goods about the Dems, and the Dems themselves haven’t bothered to set the record straight.
Bill Clinton had Republicans in Congress who were anxious to prove that, after 40 years out of power, they could actually govern. Do you see anyone like that on the GOP side of the aisle in this Congress? Have you been paying fucking attention to how the GOP’s been blocking everything they could since January 2010? What makes you think the GOP is open to ‘reaching out’? Obama’s been reaching out to them from the beginning. Remember the ‘gang of six’ on health care reform? The GOP was given every chance to be involved in the shaping of the ACA, and threw it all away; finally Obama accepted that the only way to get it through the Senate was to take advantage of the brief (~14 week) period when the Dems had 60 votes.
Find me an issue where the Dems can get something a Dem would reasonably want at a not-intolerable cost by ‘joining with Republicans.’
I call bullshit on the whole idea.
Why should the Dems want Keystone? The benefits: a number of temporary jobs that would be a blip in the monthly jobs report. (I won’t get into the costs here, to avoid sidetracking the thread.) Yeah, you could ‘get something done’ but if it’s not something you want, why get it done?
