Which is actually rather to their credit, at their age. 
Polls are showing the races are tightening. Don’t count your Repub chickens before they vote.
The early votes have been very large. If that is a precursor to a big turnout, the Repubs wont like it.
I haven’t read the thread yet, just wanted to pop in here and say how pissed I am at the fire department…
Kidding!
I actually wanted to ask why the hell Nancy Pelosi still has a job, and if I could volunteer her’s to be the first head to roll.
Seriously, is there a defense of her job over the past how ever many years?
I predict the Dems will hang on to the Senate, but barely.
As to the House- it’s very close. Right now, it’s looking like they might lose it by a few votes.
There will be no Big Loss, I predict.
IMHO, Nancy Pelosi has been incredibly effective as Speaker. It’s not clear to me why you would think otherwise…care to elaborate?
She’s a strong woman politician who isn’t hot like Palin, and O’Donnell, and she also has a D next to her name. What more proof do you need?
The Speaker of the House is elected with every new congress, so that’s every two years. It always is a member of the majority party.
It is a very politically-charged role, so it doesn’t much matter how her job appears to people outside D.C. It only matters how she looks to Democratic congresspeople . (Assuming the Democrates retain the majority. If they don’t, she definitely won’t be Speaker anymore.)
Well, the weird thing here is that IIRC emacknight is neither unreasonable nor Republican. I’d expect Pelosi demonization from Right-tards or Tea Baggers* exactly BECAUSE she’s been so effective. That’s simply politics…but I’m curious to hear actual reasons for thinking ill of Pelosi’s leadership.
- Yes, I use “Right-tard” and “Tea Bagger” in this case exactly BECAUSE they’re derogatory. The terms signify exactly the type of people who demonize someone else solely because that someone is “on the other side”.
The problem Pelosi has is that because she has been so effective as a speaker, she is highly identified with the current state of government, which is not all that popular right now.
People didn’t get so worked up about guys like Dennis Hastert, because he wasn’t perceived or portrayed as this all-powerfull controlling figure. Which is probably because he wasn’t. Guys like Tom DeLay took more of the hit back then.
Yes. Well, almost…IMO, it has little to do with “the current state of government” (which is just an excuse), but is mostly due to her effectiveness. And everything to do with standard, modern-day Republican politics that concentrates not on gaining support through positive policy (non-zero sum game), but simply on gaining power by destroying the “other side” (purely zero-sum).
I recently read a piece (perhaps from salon.com?) on “the Right’s” current (mostly) hands-off treatment of Bill Clinton. At the moment, they can do this (and shift their demonization to Obama, Pelosi, etc.) exactly because he’s not in the middle of the sausage-making, despite his successes. I’d expect to see a resurgence of all things Clinton-hating if Hilary were to run for office again.
IOW, you personally like what Pelosi et al are doing.
IOW, they are focused on those who are currently relevant to public policy. It seems that you disagree with this approach.
What? Even if I do, that’s not what I said.
What? I gave what I see as a valid explanation of political strategy. Such does not have to carry any value judgment with it.
ISTM that what you did say boils down to that. Because it’s based on your dismissal of opposition to the current state of affairs as “just an excuse”.
Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted you here.
ISTM that the notion of focusing on those who are currently in power is elementary and universal, and not worthy of comment or cites to Salon articles. The fact that you did these things suggested that you viewed it otherwise.
Dismissing “opposition to the current state of affairs” as an excuse (a political tactic) is separate from “the state of affairs” itself (making a value judgment on “Pelosi, et al”). You’re conflating levels of analysis.
Yes, you have misinterpreted me. Formulate a question about, rather than present your own interpretations of, my position, and I’d (very likely) be happy to expound.
They’re technically separate, but one follows from the other.
My apologies.
Often one follows from the other, yes, but not necessarily. In fact, I’d say that the best (i.e., least partisan, most rational) analyses work very hard to make sure that one does NOT automatically follow from the other.
No worries.
I vote for Pelosi and Reid also. They let these incredibly bloated over 2000 page bills come to floor vote with tons of last minutes amendments, that made it impossible for the members or their staff to read and understand what they were voting on. This is not exactly a way to inspire confidence in the legislative process.
Funny thing. Been looking at Electoral-Vote.com today. Right now, if you include Rasmussen polls, the Republicans might take the Senate… if they take NV, and they’re not going to take the house.
If you take out Rasmussen as being too biased… the Democrats keep the House and the Senate.
I was surprised. I thought the House was lost. I think maybe the Republicans peaked too soon.
People on this board have been claiming that the Republicans have peaked, but this is not what the evidence and analysis shows. Check out Nate Silver’s blog, the RCP poll numbers, and the Intrade gamblers. All show the Republicans continuing to gain ground.
See also the NYT from today about the widening Republican attack and Democratic retrenchment.
[And FWIW, the sleazy Democratic/Obama attacks on the Chamber of Commerce smack of desperation, IMO. See e.g. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chamber-foreign-money-20101012,0,5879844.story.]
Conventional wisdom right now has the Republicans are favored to pick up 45-50 House seats and 7-10 Senate seats. (The 3 real toss-up seats at this time are in NV, WA & IL.)
Of course, this could all change between now and the election. But to this point, there has not been any evidence of overall Democratic chances improving.
All things considered, the Pubs/Tea Party not taking Congress this year might be an even more frightening prospect than if they do. I mean, how will they react to the disappointment?