The Elections are the Beginning of the End of the Democtatic party and Liberals!

[Skeptic]

OK, not really.

The conservatives won a couple of state elections held in an off-year.

Which doesn't stop pundits from claiming what my headline says.

Of course, that's about as accurate as the opposite pundits declaring the end of conservatism and the Republicans a year ago, with Obama elected.

And about as accurate as pundits declaring the death of liberalism after the 2004 elections. And the 1994 (congressional) elections.

And about as accurate as pundits declaring the end of conservatism after Clinton won in 1992 from Reagan's ex-VP, Bush Sr.

Why is it that every time the usual cycle of elections turns a half turn, people start screaming about "the end of" whichever party happened to lose out that time?

[Dancing David]

Doom! Doom I tell you.

[Lurker]

It is amazing the denial of history that party faithful make when they win and claim it signals the end of the opposition. Sure, they may be trying to score political points against a foe that is down but it is so divorced from reality that it is comical. Watching the Dems do it a year back just underscores the danger of underestimating your opponents.

I recall Rush Limbaugh back around 1992 saying that perhaps the best thing would be for Clinton to get elected cause after 4 years of a Dem as president the country would be so sick of him and liberal policies that it would ensure GOP and conservative dominance for a very long time. Laughably, Clinton was elected and went on to be reelected in 1996 yet I never heard Rush discuss his erroneous prediction.

I'll go out on a limb now and say that whatever "disasters" the Dems have encountered this election will be long forgotten by 2010 and that election will hinge on the economy and nothing more. I'll even predict that Obama will be reelected in 2012 unless unemployment is still high. I'm on record so somebody file this away and I'll expect Randi's $1M if I am right.

[leftysergeant]

The election was a plus for the Democrats.

The GOP, in their mindless hissy fit, threw away a seat in the House when they torpedoed the Republican who won the primary in NY23 in favor of a drooling moron rightwimger for reasons of political purity. The Democratic victory in California means only that the GOP is not gaining much support there.

Corzine's political career probably died in the accident that left him with a bunch of broken bones and an image of a bonehead. He was not the brightest bulb in the Democratic array.

Deeds is a moron. He announced that he would opt out of the public option health care plan.

Sorry excuse for a Democrat.

If the GOP wants to make this into some kind of referrendum on Obama, fine with me. Moderate Democrats who did not endorse Obama's policy in a clear and cogent manner lost.

Was it a referrendum on the future of the GOP? I think so. The hard core conservatives, the American Taliban who want a doctrinaire, theocratic party, are a rotting albatross around the necks of Republican candidates.

I hope they run the party in 2010.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

The election was a plus for the Democrats.

The GOP, in their mindless hissy fit, threw away a seat in the House when they torpedoed the Republican who won the primary in NY23

Yep.

Quote:

Corzine's .. not the brightest bulb in the Democratic array.

Yep

Quote:

Deeds is a moron. Sorry excuse for a Democrat.

Yes to the first, and "for a Democrat" not necessary in the second. (Mom and Dad live in Va, as does sis).

Quote:

If the GOP wants to make this into some kind of referrendum on Obama, fine with me. Moderate Democrats who did not endorse Obama's policy in a clear and cogent manner lost.

Had not seen it that way, can you elaborate a bit?

Quote:

Was it a referrendum on the future of the GOP? I think so. The hard core conservatives, the American Taliban who want a doctrinaire, theocratic party, are a rotting albatross around the necks of Republican candidates.

I suspect you are correct, in terms of how 2010 plays out, other than your silly hypberbole and name calling.

As to ruining the GOP in 2010, that's been a work in progress snice 2004. That the GOP failed to recognize their own, internal problem, led to 2006, 2008, and at the rate GOP is going, 2010 will be more of the same.

DR

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

OK, not really.

The conservatives won a couple of state elections held in an off-year.

Which doesn't stop pundits from claiming what my headline says.

...

Why is it that every time the usual cycle of elections turns a half turn, people start screaming about "the end of" whichever party happened to lose out that time?

It fulfills the (belief of the) righteousness of the person's worldview and how, finally, everybody's coming around to see it.



I do sometimes wonder that, had "liberals" gotten their wish and Reagan not won either election, what state we'd be in today given he wasn't there to end chronic stagflation by jamming interest rates way, way up, something Richard "Wage & Price Control" Nixon, Gerald "W.I.N. Whip Inflation Now" Ford, and Jimmy "There's a malaise among the American People" Carter couldn't.

[headscratcher4]

The fate of the Democrats and probably Obama rests, it seems to me, on a couple of factors:

1. The economy -- it is seen to be getting better and unemployment is dropping and the stockmarket is up. If those are occuring and apparent in August/Sept. of next year, it will be hard to beat the incumbents, regardless of how perfidious they are.

2. Acoomplishments, real or claimed -- if they pass a healthcare reform package and can claim the "victory" of making healthcare more affodable -- even if it isn't true or obvious -- it will help dramatically, if only for the sake of being seen to get something done. The thing with healthcare is no matter what they do with it, it won't for good or ill be fully apparent for years what's been done...but I think the public will be very forgiving if the Democrats can claim a healthcare victory...on the other hand, if it stalls, it is a huge impediment to democrat success.

3. Afghanastan -- if things aren't appreciably worse, it will be a wash. If things are much worse, look for the movement to bring the troops home to grow...and to do so even among teabaggers (though not neoCons).

In the end, the most important is the economy. Regardless of everything else, if the Dems. can run on: we saved the economy and are now saving jobs...and people feel it (regardless of the real reasons), than it won't be a bad year. If the economy is seen a sucking, very little will help.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

The conservatives won a couple of state elections held in an off-year.

Which doesn't stop pundits from claiming what my headline says.

Really? Good grief.

When I first sleepily read through your post, I thought it must be a satirical crack about liberals predicting doom for the Republicans 'cos of NY-23.

But ... the wingnuts are using the results to predict the death of the Democrats? Seriously?

Good grief.

Well, hope springs eternal ...

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

In the end, the most important is the economy. Regardless of everything else, if the Dems. can run on: we saved the economy and are now saving jobs...and people feel it (regardless of the real reasons), than it won't be a bad year. If the economy is seen a sucking, very little will help.

This.

Things are trending the right way. Except unemployment, which according to economists always lags behind other signs of recovery. If that trends in the right direction too, then the Democrats are in clover.

[Eyeron]

I suspect because in order to motivate most people is to appeal to their emotions. Most ordinary people go with their emotions rather than reason and logic. When people are saying a lot of words most ordinary people just see blah blah blah and have usually heard it before so it's a lot of ho hum so it takes extreme talk to get people to notice you.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Had not seen it that way, can you elaborate a bit?

Deeds stated that he would want to opt out of the public option should it pass.

Damned spineless Blue Dog. Most Dems are already out of patience with those fools.

I really do not advise any Democrat to run to the right in 2010.

Hello! The center is <----thataway.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

In the end, the most important is the economy.

Probably true. Of course, voting for the president based on the economy is only slightly more reasonable than voting for him based on the weather, but whattaya gonna do.

I wonder if anybody composed a statistic: how many presidents were re-elected in bad economic times and how many in good times? I'll bet it's about a 90% or so predictor of whether the incumbent is reelected is how the economy is doing.

If the economy were doing in great in Carter's tenure, he could have made The International the country's official anthem and he'd get reelected, while if it were great at the end of GWB's term, McCain would have been elected even if he proposed to slaughter every Afghan with his bare hands.

I'm exaggerating.

But not by much.

[Mark6]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

OK, not really.

The conservatives won a couple of state elections held in an off-year.

Which doesn't stop pundits from claiming what my headline says.

...

Why is it that every time the usual cycle of elections turns a half turn, people start screaming about "the end of" whichever party happened to lose out that time?

Because pundits, regardless of their political leanings, do not get much air time for saying "This is just a temporary development, like many before and many in the future."

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

If the economy were doing in great in Carter's tenure, he could have made The International the country's official anthem and he'd get reelected, while if it were great at the end of GWB's term, McCain would have been elected even if he proposed to slaughter every Afghan with his bare hands.

Agreed about McCain. He was the only candidate the Republicans could have put up with even a chance of winning, and he would actually have done it if it wasn't for the economy going down.

Now I think about it, I agree about Carter as well, apart from the bit about The International. He was a good President qua President, but he got hosed by being saddled with economic difficulties that he couldn't have done anything about.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Mark6

Because pundits, regardless of their political leanings, do not get much air time for saying "This is just a temporary development, like many before and many in the future."

Nicely put.

[Brainster]

It's like the business reporter who will dutifully intone that the Dow dropped 20 points today as investors were concerned over the latest inflation report. And the next day the Dow jumped 20 points as investors were heartened by a better than expected jobs number.

And yes, there were a lot of people around here talking about the end of the Republican party only 10 months ago. Funny how that goes.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Lurker

I'll go out on a limb now and say that whatever "disasters" the Dems have encountered this election will be long forgotten by 2010 and that election will hinge on the economy and nothing more. I'll even predict that Obama will be reelected in 2012 unless unemployment is still high. I'm on record so somebody file this away and I'll expect Randi's $1M if I am right.

I'll go out on a limb and say that unemployment will still be high 1212.

Donations welcome.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Deeds stated that he would want to opt out of the public option should it pass.

Damned spineless Blue Dog. Most Dems are already out of patience with those fools.

I really do not advise any Democrat to run to the right in 2010.

Hello! The center is <----thataway.

Lefty, from what you say there, I see you making the same error, politically, that the Rush and the other GOP "no true conservative" crowd are making for the GOP.

If you look back at Bill Clinton's formula for success, working the middle is an advantage, and excluding it isn't.

See also Ronald Reagan.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I'll go out on a limb and say that unemployment will still be high 1212.

That's not going out on a limb. Then again, what is "high" for you in re unemployment?

OT: is that meatcake in your avatar pic?

[dudalb]

That these elections are being blown out of proportion is a typical result of the 24 hour news cycle. The talking head have got to have something to talk about,and they end up devoting more time to something like these off year elections then they merit.

I agree the Lefty is making the same damn mistake that the GOP made during the Bush Adminstration.
That he dismisses the Blue Dog Democrats shows that he is totally out of touch with reality. If the Blue Dogs go down, the Dems lose their majority.
Lefty is a textbook example of ideology winning out over reality.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Lefty, from what you say there, I see you making the same error, politically, that the Rush and the other GOP "no true conservative" crowd are making for the GOP.

If you look back at Bill Clinton's formula for success, working the middle is an advantage, and excluding it isn't.

See also Ronald Reagan.

Yeah, well look where that got us.

Not everybody in this counyty is unable to learn the lessons of history.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Yeah, well look where that got us.

Not everybody in this counyty is unable to learn the lessons of history.

How long until Lefty gives up on democracy and starts spouting the classic Leninist "Revolutionary Vanguard" theory?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Why is it that every time the usual cycle of elections turns a half turn, people start screaming about "the end of" whichever party happened to lose out that time?

Because the pundits love to hear themselves talk. I like Jon Stewart's take on this

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...008-and-beyond

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Brainster

It's like the business reporter who will dutifully intone that the Dow dropped 20 points today as investors were concerned over the latest inflation report. And the next day the Dow jumped 20 points as investors were heartened by a better than expected jobs number.

And yes, there were a lot of people around here talking about the end of the Republican party only 10 months ago. Funny how that goes.

Brainster, the GOP is in trouble. The fact that these Tea Party nuts keep pushing the Republican party to abandon moderates and only put up "True Conservatives^TM" is going to be very problematic for you guys in 2010. Especially in 2012 for the presidential election.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Deeds stated that he would want to opt out of the public option should it pass.

Damned spineless Blue Dog. Most Dems are already out of patience with those fools.

I really do not advise any Democrat to run to the right in 2010.

Hello! The center is <----thataway.

Lefty, I disagree. Deeds lost because he was a lousy candidate who ran a lousy campaign. The only reason why McDonnell won is because he didn't suck quite as badly as Deeds.

A Blue Dog is precisely the kind of Democrat who is going to win in the South. Sorry, but that's the reality, Lefty.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

That's not going out on a limb. Then again, what is "high" for you in re unemployment?

Unemployment in 1982 was considerably higher then it was in 1980. In fact unemployment was higher in 1984 then it was in 1980 and when the 1984 election campaign kicked off unemployment was higher then it is today. Despite this Reagan successfully campaigned on his record of improving the economy.

The absolute number don’t mean much it’s the direction that shape peoples views. Unemployment numbers high but dropping month over month mean a constant flow of good economic news.

[Neally]

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

2. Acoomplishments, real or claimed -- if they pass a healthcare reform package and can claim the "victory" of making healthcare more affodable -- even if it isn't true or obvious -- it will help dramatically, if only for the sake of being seen to get something done.

I see it playing out differently. Unless there is real, measurable improvement for a lot of people soon after passage, the right will focus on the effort as a waste of time and resources, and further government encroachment. I really don't see people perceiving it as a plus just because it passed if there are no true benefits seen.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Brainster

It's like the business reporter who will dutifully intone that the Dow dropped 20 points today as investors were concerned over the latest inflation report. And the next day the Dow jumped 20 points as investors were heartened by a better than expected jobs number.

That's the one problem with capitalism, the people who actually do it are idiots.

(That's not a crack at capitalism, the same problem applies to everything else.)

Quote:

And yes, there were a lot of people around here talking about the end of the Republican party only 10 months ago.

"A lot"? "Around here"? Then you'd have no problem quoting half-a-dozen.

[daredelvis]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Probably true. Of course, voting for the president based on the economy is only slightly more reasonable than voting for him based on the weather, but whattaya gonna do.

I wonder if anybody composed a statistic: how many presidents were re-elected in bad economic times and how many in good times? I'll bet it's about a 90% or so predictor of whether the incumbent is reelected is how the economy is doing.

If the economy were doing in great in Carter's tenure, he could have made The International the country's official anthem and he'd get reelected, while if it were great at the end of GWB's term, McCain would have been elected even if he proposed to slaughter every Afghan with his bare hands.

I'm exaggerating.

But not by much.

You may have a point, but I think you are underestimating the Palin factor in McCain's loss.

Daredelvis

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Because the pundits love to hear themselves talk. I like Jon Stewart's take on this

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...008-and-beyond

ANd you are getting a damn good example of this with right now with the talking heads trying to "analize" the Fort Hood Shootings with few real facts to analize.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Lefty, I disagree. Deeds lost because he was a lousy candidate who ran a lousy campaign. The only reason why McDonnell won is because he didn't suck quite as badly as Deeds.

A Blue Dog is precisely the kind of Democrat who is going to win in the South. Sorry, but that's the reality, Lefty.

Exactly. A lot of Democratic strategists, even before the election, were shaking their heads at Deeds campaign tactics, which made sense only to Deeds.
Lefty seems to have left (no pun intended) reality behind a long time ago. He is a bizarro version of those in the GOP who think that Palin is the future of the party:A classic example of the "when reality conflicts with ideology, reality must be disposed of".

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by dudalb

ANd you are getting a damn good example of this with right now with the talking heads trying to "analize" the Fort Hood Shootings with few real facts to analize.

Yes, it's despicable

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Deeds stated that he would want to opt out of the public option should it pass.

Damned spineless Blue Dog. Most Dems are already out of patience with those fools.

I really do not advise any Democrat to run to the right in 2010.

Hello! The center is <----thataway.

Ouch, some of us like blue dogs. Big tent don't you know, the esteemed Sen. Durbin is 'red' dog Democrat.

That is what they used to call them.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by dudalb

How long until Lefty gives up on democracy and starts spouting the classic Leninist "Revolutionary Vanguard" theory?

He already did. He is on record in favor of shutting down more or less all republican-leaning newspapers or news channels for "inciting violence", declaring conservatives "mentally ill" (like political opponents were in Stalinist Russia), and many similar things.

It's clear that what Lefty wants is a one-party state, so that the utopia of the worker's paradise, free from exploitation by the evil capitalists, can be achieved. Now, where did we hear that one before?

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by dudalb

ANd you are getting a damn good example of this with right now with the talking heads trying to "analize" the Fort Hood Shootings with few real facts to analize.

Oh, they're analizing, all right.

They're just not analyzing.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

He already did. He is on record in favor of shutting down more or less all republican-leaning newspapers or news channels for "inciting violence", declaring conservatives "mentally ill" (like political opponents were in Stalinist Russia), and many similar things.

Peopple who think Palin and the Coulter critter or Malkin and Beck are rational thinkers cannot possibly have all their headbolts torqued right.

Quote:

It's clear that what Lefty wants is a one-party state, so that the utopia of the worker's paradise, free from exploitation by the evil capitalists, can be achieved. Now, where did we hear that one before?

No, I would actually like a multi-party system, with a fascist and a libertarian party replacing the GOP.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Yeah, well look where that got us.

Not everybody in this counyty is unable to learn the lessons of history.

Neither the Reagan era nor the Clinton era were particularly bad for America, unless you are a rabid trade union advocate, agitator, or member.

However, I'll partly agree with you since I was none too keen on privatising power companies, nor on the neglect for infrastructure the nineties saw.

Quote:

No, I would actually like a multi-party system, with a fascist and a libertarian party replacing the GOP.

You could form a nice fascist party from the far left of the Democrats and the Greens.

Get to organizing, and you'll be on your way to fulfilling your dream.

DR

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Brainster, the GOP is in trouble. The fact that these Tea Party nuts keep pushing the Republican party to abandon moderates and only put up "True Conservatives^TM" is going to be very problematic for you guys in 2010. Especially in 2012 for the presidential election.

NY-23 is not a template for next year, and those Tea Party folks (and Democrats) who think it is are fooling themselves. First, the establishment Republican candidate was very liberal; arguably more liberal than the Democrat. Second, you have the oddball situation of many parties on the ballot, giving Hoffman ballot access. That only happens in New York and (IIRC) Minnesota. If Hoffman had run as an write-in candidate without the endorsement of the Conservative Party, nobody would have heard of him. Third, independents are peeling away from the Democrats in startling numbers. The economy is not going to rebound substantially enough in 2010 to get them back.

The Democrats are going to try very hard to sell this meme that the Republicans are scary Tea Party folks. But that is not going to succeed. The "we're not like those other guys" argument works only for the party out of power.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Brainster

NY-23 is not a template for next year, and those Tea Party folks (and Democrats) who think it is are fooling themselves. First, the establishment Republican candidate was very liberal; arguably more liberal than the Democrat. Second, you have the oddball situation of many parties on the ballot, giving Hoffman ballot access. That only happens in New York and (IIRC) Minnesota. If Hoffman had run as an write-in candidate without the endorsement of the Conservative Party, nobody would have heard of him. Third, independents are peeling away from the Democrats in startling numbers. The economy is not going to rebound substantially enough in 2010 to get them back.

The Democrats are going to try very hard to sell this meme that the Republicans are scary Tea Party folks. But that is not going to succeed. The "we're not like those other guys" argument works only for the party out of power.

Really? Then explain why it is the Tea Party nutters are going after the Republicans in a number of high-profile GOP primaries next year...

Uncivil War: Conservatives to challenge a dozen GOP candidates

[Praktik]

I think the OP is both right and wrong.. There certainly is a tendency in MSM to exaggerate and hearing that "the end is coming" for party X is indeed a longstanding tradition. I guess they figure thats what gets ratings and sells newspapers. The op is certainly right that these elections don't mean the "end" of the dems, but I do think that those seeing an end of sorts for a particular type of Republican politics are on the mark.

I think that pendulum analogies fit political history very well, and I think we are seeing the pendulum of a certain brand of Republican politics begin to swing the other way.

Will it be the end of the Republican party?

By no means, but the Dubya years perhaps signify the turning point where the Republican party began turning against some of the major thinking and strategies that dominated in the previous decades.

The very obvious swing towards party purification on behalf of the True Believers typified by the likes of Bachmann is just one sign that this is happening - a natural reaction on their part to changing electoral fortunes and one that ironically enough is likely to bring about more misfortune, giving other strands of conservatism within the party the chance to regain the wheel.