Despite sweeping Democratic successes in the past two national elections, continuing job losses and President Barack Obama’s slipping support could lead to double-digit losses for the party in next year’s congressional races and may even threaten their House control.
Fifty-four new Democrats were swept into the House in 2006 and 2008, helping the party claim a decisive majority as voters soured on a Republican president and embraced Obama’s message of hope and change. Many of the new Democrats are in districts carried by Republican John McCain in last year’s presidential contest; others are in traditional swing districts that have proved tough for either party to hold.
From New Hampshire to Nevada, House Democrats also will be forced to defend votes on Obama’s $787 billion economic recovery package and on energy legislation viewed by many as a job killer in an already weak economy.
This has been one of the most even handed group of comments that I have read. It seems that pretty much everyone acknowledges investor driven politics aka lobbyists don’t benefit the country’s long term growth. We seem to only know one fix and that is to give more money to the greediest.
Alfred1 occasionally made sense and then he said that he would vote for Palin. His medication must have wore off.
Appreciation to Hmeyers who said:
This economy is a bi-partisan “hogs at the trough” and “horse wearing blinders” problem and one party is Tweedle-Dum and the other party is Tweedle-Dee and frankly I’m NOT impressed.
Should the Republicans win congress majority next year, expect to hear each and every conservative radio/tv talk show host to deem the Obama administration as the “Do nothing president.” While conveniently omitting the fact that it’s the Republican run congress the one who literally is stopping any proposals coming from president Obama.
It doesn’t matter how bad the other party is. If people hate the incumbent party, they express that at the ballot box.
Reid announced Friday that the Senate would hold no votes after 3 p.m. Tuesday. His office later said that the scheduling decision was meant to accommodate a long-planned fundraiser that President Obama is headlining in Philadelphia to benefit Specter’s campaign.
14 + 26 AlfredETerrorist
Palin would follow Reagans track into what? The largest government spending increases for a President? Bill Clinton was a model of fiscal conservatism if you look at the details. Take a look.
You can’t separate the myth from the facts: hence why you claimed earlier to be ready to martyr yourself for your god. A classic terrorist. And Palin is the perfect pagan goddess for you to worship. Built of hyperbole and political gamesmanship, she also busted wide open the spending and debt of the small butt-fuck town of Wasilia… which is also the meth capital of Alaska. Real frontier type people there…
But, it’s good to see you’ve taken your drugs. It’s really mellowed you out. You’re still a budding terrorist… a martyr as you yourself has said.
Everyone, remember… Alfred1 is a budding terrorist. Keep the FBI number handy for when he drops a hint that he’s now in motion…
Every year I hope and prey every single incumbent member of congress losses regaurdless of party affiliation. The longer incumbents are in office the more corrupt the system, case in point, California. It’s a great example of how a one party system fails.
#45–ok Breetai, its been at least a week:
VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!
If America wakes up, the Dems lose big. Problem is that current Reps are no better. One certainty: we’re all screwed no matter what.
It Just Doesn’t Matter
Actually we are set up pretty well right now the Right can’t do any thing but whine. So we are safe from there get big government out of our lives except we need government in our bedrooms our uteruses our phone and Internet connections ect. We are safe from the Left they are to varied to get together on much anyway, if they ever can come to a consensus on any thing it was probably not such a bad plan . The satus quo will keep the NEO-CONs away from unfettered access to the Commander and Chief desk.
I’m pretty happy, much better than the last 8 years.
A rewrite of Uncle Dave’s question will give him the answer:
Do voters really want the same party back in power that gave us record unemployment, speeches with bold-face lies about transparency, promises to save trillions in health care costs, higher taxes, crippling deficits, hyper inflation, mismanaged hires and non-existant vetting process for his staff, naive understanding of economics, Porkulus, ACORN and all the rest?
The problem the Democrats have is they portrayed Obama as the messiah and now that he’s obviously not going to solve any problems, at least not quickly, they’re in a pickle. They said Obama would bring change, but apparently it only meant a change from partisan Republican politics to partisan Democrat politics, Obama doesn’t want to actually solve any problems, he just wants to wallpaper over them just like Bush did.
We need to get both sides out of office and get politicians who actually want to serve the public rather than a political ideology.
OT
Pedro – I would watch out about making plays on other peoples usenames, specially if they are not very creative (you called me ‘Asleep’ instead of Awake… ha ha ha… how creative)
Form the urban dictionary, the definition of Pedro.
=============
Pedro:
otherwise known as the “pedrophile.” A homo mexican whose hobbies include : whining, bitching, emo underage boys, and thriftyness.
This character has a pale complexion due to being online so many hours looking up boys.
1. What a PEDRO! (Noun) = what a whiny bitch
2. Hey, the PEDROPHILE down the street is on cops!
=========
Now back to the main topic… how the Republican party is self destructing because it is being represented by Pedro and Alfie.
What part of the lesser of two evils do people not understand?
Both parties have been exposed time and again as utter frauds and the current session is no exception.
The obvious solution is to DELETE both parties and go back to a single constitutional party.
Quite simply, any party or entity that seeks to divide the people is perfectly wrong.
Divide and Conquer, -the oldest game in the book. We have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker.
—-
Lastly (my semi-usual esoteric comment..)
I have come to the conclusion [after digging through much ancient history) that we we have been taught (and live in) a mirror image of true reality.
-an almost exact opposite in many cases of what the truth is. 180 degrees out of phase, if you will.
Expect a lot of “opposite” discoveries very soon..especially where prior accepted knowledge was a mystery or “theory as fact”
I call it The Mirror Image Rule.
-s
Yea==last week I heard MSM criticize the Repugs for not have a criticism of whatever Obama said. THEN they said “The opposition party is being quiet on this one.”
Are the party’s really supposed to be in opposition? Can the MSM really be so crude and not affect the valid philosophical underpinnings of our two parties?
“Politics” is bad enough without the MSM getting completely stupid about it.
Ahhh, Philosophy. The lost foundation of politics. I guess that is what happens when corporate greed is ruling the roost. “The Opposition Party”–listen for it. Its UnAmerican and totally corrupt.
#51–Asleep==YOU LIE!!!!
I just looked, and from the first two pages of Urban Dictionary, I’d say Pedro would be a stretch goal for Pee Drool.
Sure you didn’t misspell Pedro and wind up looking at Pedo?
Name games are fun. Asleep is especially clever. Making up BS that is easy to check is Chicken Strips.
Ron Paul’s name always floats to the top of the political discussions on this blog, and for good reason. He is the lone Republican (actually a fiscal conservative) who best serves the interest of the average American and is a champion of the constitution. For these reasons he is the most qualified, and I dare say necessary, person to be President in 2012 if we are to avert serious problems facing our country beyond 2012.
By the way, through the Campaign For Liberty movement we have political outsiders Peter Schiff (not 100% confirmed) and Rand Paul (I think 100% confirmed) running for the Senate in Connecticut and Kentucky. If anyone roaming this blog lives in these states give these guys your support.
Obama’s vague promises pulled together a coalition of mutually contradictory causes in time for the election. Now, the coalition is pulling apart as Obama has to indicate where he really stands on all issues.
The only chance Obama has is to declare an emergency and suspend elections next year.
bobbo…
Are you another republican that does not know how to read? Or do
YOU LIE
about not finding the definition?
#55–Carcarius===seems to me a year or so ago I looked up Ron Paul and formed a first impression he was too much an ideological zealot. I took you at face value and googled again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
My quick read allows me to disagree here and there, specifically his anti-abortion position which can be argued within libertarianism, but by and large, yea==strong candidate. So, he won’t pander to the religious right meaning he will never be the Republican Candidate and he does’t have enough personality to win as a third party.
Ron Paul–my mind was changed today.
#57–ASSLEEP==speaking of reading, I posted I read the first two pages. Definitions past that are minor ones of little substance. In fact, you read all four pages in your pathetic attempt to denigrate Pedro of the Massive Pants Load. How sad. In fact, being the 23rd of 24 definitions, I wouldn’t be surprised if in your blind hatred of all things tamale, you didn’t add that entry yourself===hence my two page rule.
Its true Pedro’s best work is in explaining South American Politics, and at his worse in going Mano-a-mano against other retards on this blog, but all in all, a valuable contributor.
Don’t we all relish ((extra cilantro please)) the diversity?
Alfred….as mentioned elsewhere if you remove the corporate purchasing of congressmen the need for term limits decreases. You don’t treat ebola with a tube of ointment.
#55 – That’s why Paul failed so miserably in the 2008 election, right? He’s been running for years and has never gotten anywhere, that’s because the vast majority of American voters, even when he runs in a major party, don’t agree with his platform.
That’s not changing any time soon.
I think that the ones who don’t pass the Corporate Welfare programs stand a better chance of getting in next year.
Republicans have historically been for Corporate Welfare, and Democrats, on occasion as well.
The Democratic Party has strong leadership now, unlike the Republican Party, who only has the likes of Joe the (unemployed)(not really a)Plumber, and Sarah (I quit) Palin.
It really depends on the economy. If it gets better, you will see people voting for their best interests, and more Democrats will get elected. If things get worse, people will once again vote for people who say that government can do no good. (Personally, I don’t know why anyone would vote for someone who said that the government can do no good. Why would I vote for someone to prove this, rather than someone who knows that the government can do some good, and have people who want to make things that government does better.)
Obviously this isn’t about putting the Republicans back in power. This is about having one party in power. It was bad when it was the Republicans, it’s bad now that it’s the Democrats. I’m all for a split government that has to compromise to get anything done.
My fairly liberal co-worker said it best. “America is at it’s best when we have a Democrat in the White House, and a Republican Congress. The president won’t go to war, and the Congress won’t spend any money.”
Sure. We’ll see how far a Palin/Limbaugh or Beck/Gingrich or that weird Indian version of Mr Rogers guy will go.
I’m actually OK, as long as they drop the Christian Taliban albatross the party seemingly wants to hang on to.
“… On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?”
#52, What part of the lesser of two evils
do people not understand?
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
RON PAUL
#63 – ’tis true, he has not gotten the support he needed when he ran for President in the past. Let’s face it, when times are good the average American sticks with the status quo and picks one of the two parties, thereby perpetuating the problem until we hit a serious economic lapse, the likes of which we are currently in the throes of.
I think Paul is gaining momentum now. Will it be enough? Time will tell. I support his platform primarily on the basis of economic and foreign policies. Not everyone agrees. I think we can all agree that “more of the same” isn’t helping us now, nor will it beyond 2012.
#71–Loser==”The lesser of two evils is still evil.
RON PAUL” /// Demonstrating exactly what? In context, that he misses the point completely. All subtlety is past him. That happens when you stop thinking and start spouting DOGMA!!!
#72–Carcarius==”I think Paul is gaining momentum now.” /// Yea, just like Ralph Nader is. Fantasy Politics: Nader vs Paul. Who would win, whats the spread?
#73–Pedro==thank you for noticing I’m a raving liberdrool. But you know, say one thing conservative sounding, or as in my case, mock a conservative, and people think you’ve been sucking dick your whole life. I’d have given you credit for your excellent studies of Chavez but I couldn’t remember your nickname for him, so I skipped it.
The question will be:
For the Democrates they can say:
Do you want to vote for the party that brought you the Wall Street Crash and massive layoffs or the party the rescued the country from BUSHNIK economics (privatize gains but socialized loss)?
For the Republicans they can say:
1.) Do you want to vote for the party that brought you Guantanamo torture chambers, torture, unlawful detentions ….
2.) Do you want to vote for the party that brought you tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the rest of you.
3.) Do you want to vote for the party that brought IRAQ, let Bin Laden escape …..
4.) Do you want to vote for the party that reamed the Patriot Act down you throat based on lies?
I guess most people on here approve of our current government. How sad.