What It All Means – Nationally – Republican snakes on a plane!!
While we celebrate here in Delaware, nationally, Democrats of all stripes (blue dogs, progressives, moderates, liberals, conservatives, decades-long incumbents, freshmen) lost. And lost big. To quote Melanie over at Progressive Delmarva:
[T]he election was a Republican tidal wave nationally. Maybe it was a tsunami! Maybe it was a . . . what’s worse than a tsunami? Uh . . . it was a Republican snakes on a plane!?
Yeah, there is no sugarcoating a loss of 60 seats in the House. We can explain it: the economy has been slow to recover, and what recovery there has been is not being felt by the voter, just like in 1994. And while Democrats have down a ton of great things in the Congress over the last two years, in cleaning up the Republican mess, they were incompetently bad in delivering the message of what they had done and why it is good to the voters. Couple that with an Republican Party that has no problem, and actually prefers, to fearmonger and play on our bigotries to win, and it was the perfect recipe for a defeat of this size.
Now, what the GOP will claim is a mandate. They will soon discover that that mandate is paper thin. Speaker-elect…. God help us…. Boehner has already said that if President Obama wants to compromise he will do everything the Republicans want. Someone get the orange man with eyeliner a dictionary to help him learn what “compromise” means.
So, you can see where this is going. The House GOP will overreach in fantastic terms. They will gut Social Security and Medicare in their budget, and they will altogether eliminate the Departments of Energy, Education and Veteran’s Affairs. They will open impeachment investigations of President Obama and god knows who else. They will repeal the Affordable Care Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, CHIP, Financial Reform, and Credit Card Reform. They will gut Veteran’s services. All the while providing more giveaways to billionaires and corporations, and leaving the middle class out in the rain.
Let them. They are only tying an anvil to their ankles. Each piece of legislation will die in the Senate or be vetoed by the President. Yet each piece of legislation reveals their agenda. And don’t fool yourself. Boehner and the GOP have to do all of the above. They cannot just sit back and do nothing for the next two years, because the Teabaggers that just elected them will not show up in 2012 to reelect them if they do nothing. And the Independents who voted GOP this time will not be pleased with no action (and yet conversely will be horrified by the actions they see the GOP will take to please the Teabaggers).
The GOP is in a no-win situation now. They have to pass a radical agenda in the House to keep the teabaggers happy, and that radical agenda will only lose them the Independents while helping the Democrats and Obama and will This script has been written before. I just really did not want to see this movie again.
Yeah, there is no sugarcoating a loss of 60 seats in the House.
“We’ll fix it later.”
Any chance of listing a quick list of those 60 lost seats and names? You may have wanted to unload a few of those folks anyway.
*steps back from the ledge….
thanks, DD.
Joanne,
30 of the 60 were Blue Dogs who voted against HCR, so no loss there except, of course, the loss of a majority. The progressives losses hurt though.
Each piece of legislation will die in the Senate or be vetoed by the President.
Democrats will pass the Bush tax cuts for the rich and Obama will sign them. Worse, Democrats will tell us they are doing it because trickle-down is good for us (“Now is not the time to raise taxes blah blah…”)
Failing to let them expire is like throwing a ball at the ground and missing. There were damn few ways to screw this up but by God we found one.
What that means as that from now on when we try to reduce the deficit, revenue options are off the table – just the way Republicans want it. Good luck getting anything realistic done with the economy on those terms. We are now on the first downward spiral arm of “starve the beast.”
Nancy Pelosi punched her own exit ticket when she voted to send the House home without a vote on the tax cut extension.
Looking for a silver lining?
Also, Rand Paul and Co. are going to drive the Republicans nuts. Yes, we’ll be nuts, as well. However, the GOP now has to govern. No more sitting on the sidelines chirping that Dems control both houses.
That was also why Dems had such a problem with messaging. Any negative message would ultimately target another Dem (blue dog).
It’s going to interesting to watch Boehner and McConnell try and control the new recruits.
30 of the 60 were Blue Dogs who voted against HCR
Silver lining.
And Blanche Lincoln, who helped kill the public option, will not be missed.
So see that–it’s one step back, to clear some of your dead wood–and come out w/ a new, improved, more relative version. Pruning my boy, pruning. So chin up!!
Yeah, I couldn’t sleep last night, tossing and turning until 3:30, but after some coffee, I feel better.
“In a fell swoop, the once-powerful Blue Dog caucus of conservative House Democrats was reduced from 54 members to 26 in Tuesday’s midterm election.”
Fewer and better Democrats!
Damn shame about Harry Reid.
Having Reid as Majority Leader is like having five extra Republicans in the Senate.
No, Joanne is right. A lot of deadwood and dead weight was cut out yesterday, with some unfortunate collateral damage (Patrick Murphy PA-08). We can build on this.
Now, what the GOP will claim is a mandate.
One of our jobs is going to be to remind people that this new House does not have a mandate. They are STILL more unpopular than House Dems — meaning that they were the beneficiaries of voters sending a message. And, ironically, that message may include noises about less government, but they were motivated by the fact that they think that the government did not do enough to fix the economy.
ps. Fewer Blue Dogs is a good thing, really. I hope that last night sends a message to anyone who may consider caucusing with them (this means you John Carney) that being a Blue Dog is just toxic.
Now they have to try to govern according to their magical promises. If I were President Obama, I’d throw them an anvil and spend the next two years holding them accountable to that anvil.
I don’t think anyone has to throw them an anvil, they’ll pick it up on their own. 🙂
Why should we want Obomba for another 4 years? Outside of the margins, what has he done for progressives?
Liberal SC Justices? Nope.
Close GITMO? Nope?
Ended War Crimes? Nope.
Prosecution of war crimes? Nope.
Restored Civil Liberties? Nope.
End of DADT? Nope.
Real Healthcare Reform? Nope.
Addressed Global Warming? Nope.
Full withdrawal from Iraq? Nope.
Withdrawal from Afghanistan? Nope.
Restructure Bush Tax cuts? Nope
Election reform? Nope.
Lowered unemployment? Nope
And that doesn’t even address his fundamental dishonesty and incompetent leadership, which is exactly what caused last night. And make no mistake: last night was a huge set-back for progressives directly caused by Obomba and his hand-picked political and economic leaders.
I guess if all one wants is “better than Mcinsane/Palin” or “not as bad as Bush/Cheney,” than you’re happy. Otherwise, we need a better Dem in 2012.
One of our jobs is going to be to remind people that this new House does not have a mandate. They are STILL more unpopular than House Dems
It will be hard to overcome the gleeful tone of the MSM as they report the Republican wins.
Why should we want Obomba for another 4 years?
When I voted for Obama the only two things I expected were to let the tax cuts for the rich expire, and to make a real attempt at public health care.
If the tax cuts don’t expire as promised, I would have no reason to support Obama over “generic Democrat.” So yes, I’d be sending my money to credible primary challengers.
Outside of the margins, what has he done for progressives?
If you like what he’s done for Democrats you will LOVE what he is doing for progressives.
No doubt. The normalization of GOP narratives in the MSM is a real problem and frankly one of the genuine surprises that the Obama Team has not been competent at countering.
Anonone, what other Democrat besides Hillary Clinton (who is more conservative than Obama, by the way, and more war hawkish) would you like to challenge Obama?
There is no one. And if somehow someone challenges Obama and wins the nomination, he or she will lose the Presidency easily.
I agree vehemently with this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/opinion/03wed-1.html?ref=opinion
I want to see Obama (correct spelling) learn from this and do the above. You want to see him primaried already. Grow up. You are having a childish purist reaction.
Even with the Blue Dogs, Pelosi was able to pass over 400 bills, most of which died in the Senate. She was a good progressive speaker and it is a shame that her efforts and tenure were mostly wasted by the Senate and President.
If any progressive organization to which I belong dares even discussing a primary challenge to Obama, I will leave said organization.
I am looking at you, Progressive Democrats of Delaware.
If any progressive organization to which I belong dares even discussing a primary challenge to Obama, I will leave said organization.
So you are comfortable with revenue options off the table, and nobody held accountable for it?
Pelosi was held accountable for it. Obama was not held accountable, only because he was not running yesterday.
The time to hold him accountable would be the next election. Better to be held accountable by friends rather than the opposition.
I see last night as a victory for partisanship over bipartisanship but the people who lost were mostly ones that tried to play to the middle.
I heard them on the radio this morning trying to back away from the government shutdown rhetoric but do the Republicans really think they can control the crazies (like DeMint, Coburn, etc.) in their own party?
The people who are happy are the complainers, because they’ll have a lot to complain about. We’re going to look back as these last 2 years as the golden years I think.
Agreed, UI.
Presidential Primary is out. Acting like Democrats and forcing Republicans into impossible votes is IN! There is no upside for Obama to pretend that the Teabag Congress has the country’s best interest at heart.
BTW I suggest banning A1 now instead of later.
Acting like Democrats and forcing Republicans into impossible votes is IN!
That would have been a good idea back when we controlled the House.
Now they will be forcing us to vote on a steady stream of flag burning bans, Pledge Of Allegiance laws, and gay marriage amendments. Fear is IN!
Republicans know how to use a legislature FTW.
Anon, I want my “friends” to have my back, not stab me in it.
Can I state again how much I hate purists. They are just like teabaggers. Logic and rational thought are alien to them.
Jason, there is no basis for banning Anonone. He is an idiot in his purist opinions and pronouncements, but he deserves to have those views aired. And I much enjoy engaging in the purist v. pragmatic debate again.
That would have been a good idea back when we controlled the House.
I have trouble seeing how this would happen. For the last two years Republicans didn’t have to do a thing because Dems were fighting Dems. And that hurt.
Anon, I want my “friends” to have my back, not stab me in it.
Funny, that’s pretty much what I said to Chris Coons when he flipped on tax cuts two weeks before the election. And Joe Biden, when he trial-ballooned an Obama flip on a news dump a few Fridays ago.
I’m a little sad about the loss of Alan Grayson. He played the Republicans game right back at them (ie SLAMMING the crap out of them) and while that may not have been the best for polite political discourse it gave me some satisfaction to see that we don’t have to just roll over and take it from the Rs. When someone is a liar I kind of appreciate it when a Dem just comes out and says it. Instead of that “well that not exactly true” waffling. a liar is a liar. Maybe next time Alan.
You want to “see Obama (correct spelling) learn from this?” So far, he has shown himself incapable of learning. Did he learn anything from the election of Scott Brown in MA?
Sure, I’d like to see him grow a spine, start telling the truth, and living up to his promises. But there is no indication so far that he is at all capable of doing that. And as long as the Democrats are going to let him get away with it, then that is what he is going to do.
And if you think that Obama and Clinton are the only two people capable of winning the Presidency, then you have just admitted that the national Democratic party is in deep, deep trouble.
I’d ban him on the grounds of being boring. Anyhow, with Rahm out – I think the reveal is IN! We all agree that Obama is a smart guy, right?
the election of scott brown in MA proved teabaggers arent even loyal to teabaggers. Brown has been the closest thing to a progressive republican yet…. also Obama didnt lose that race, a weak, aloof, democrat did.
“And if you think that Obama and Clinton are the only two people capable of winning the Presidency, then you have just admitted that the national Democratic party is in deep, deep trouble.”
so please a1, bestow upon us huddled massed your wisdom and insight… who should be the one that “Ted Kennedys” Obama’s Carter?
Obama is not responsible for electing Scott Brown.
Obama is responsible for delaying HCR until Brown was elected, thereby insuring a more Republican bill.
The lesson was clearly not learned, as proven by the failure to act on the most important item on Obama’s agenda, the middle class tax cut extension (and expiration for the rich).
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
“Obama is responsible for delaying HCR until Brown was elected, thereby insuring a more Republican bill.”
by taking the form of a republican senator and threatening to fillibuster?
I am not alone:
“Among Democrats, 47 percent say Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination and 51 percent say he should not be opposed.”
And that was before last night.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101031/ap_on_el_pr/us_ap_poll_obama
and yet you STILL havent old us which progressive savior will deliver us from the Evil One. (pst… because you dont have a clue)
For the last time, what other Democrat do you want challenging Obama.
A name.
Put up or shut up.
I believe that would be Hillary. I’m guessing the vast majority of that 47 percent have her in mind.
And here we go. A great conversation that has now been derailed off into the A1 rabbit hole. A rabbit hole that has been litigated just forever and once again this asshole gets to just hijack it all.
Jason is right about this asshole. It isn’t as though Delaware Liberal is the last blog on earth.
“Among Democrats, 47 percent say Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination and 51 percent say he should not be opposed.”
We really don’t know how to keep winning. This nonsense began within a week of the inauguration. Sometimes I think Dems/Progressives don’t understand constructive criticism. It’s always the sky is falling or the sky’s the limit. Talk about manic depressive.
Personally, I tend to ignore both extremes. Neither is productive and doesn’t have a thing to do with governing. Talk of a primary against Obama is not only silly, it’s the surest way to lose.
Give anonone a break, for god’s sakes. It’s the day after the election.
It’s possible for a savior to arise.
Someone out there we are ALL unaware of.
Look at Palin.
She came from the frozen tundra of the smallest state in population[I think] to lead the Teabaggers and has a legitimate shot at being the Presidential candidate for the Rethuglicans.
Oops! You are right, Cassandra. It’s just so hard to ignore the stupid. Sorry.
No I will not leave him alone, Skippertree, because he does not leave us alone.
And Geezer, if Anonone thinks Hillary is some progressive champion who is more liberal and pacifist than Obama, boy is he in for a rude rude awakening.
Yes, it seems every time Democrats have a true governing majority we spend the time squabbling and attacking each other. I hope we all enjoy the House minority because it’s what we deserve.
The future of the Democratic party nationally is certainly relevant to a post entitled “What It All Means.”
My point is not to debate a specific person. My point is that the national Democratic party has been on a downward spiral nationally for the last year, it is getting worse, and the current political leadership does not appear capable of stopping it. The fact that 47% of Democrats say Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination is kind of important, don’t you think?
Thinking and hoping that the republicans are going to self-destruct and therefore save Obama and the Dems in 2012 is purely wishful thinking.
skip, Palin was plucked from obscurity by the right wing noise machine…. and TRUST me.. the R’s see her as anything BUT a savior. If oyu are asking for a democratic Palin, you are horribly misinformed. unless you want things to get worse.
A1 doesn’t have a name because he doesn’t need to give you one. he just has to yell loud enough and we will say “oh you are totally right, despite any proof or alternative, but LAND-SAKES you sure you yell your position loudly.
.
Also, i base my hypothosis that teh Rs are goiong to self destruct on the FACT that they always do, and they are starting already.
you base your notions on…… im assuming some Peeps you ate that had developed fly agaric.
I am skippertee, not skippertree, nor the dying tree.
The dying tree was the only green spot in an oasis of misery in the internment camp holding the soldiers abandoned by Mac Arthur.
When these brave men felt the end was near they crawled there to die.
Their comrades wished to help, but were powerless.They had nothing to give or sustain them.The Bushido code was cruel to an extreme.
It’s only occasions such as these where a thought can be allowed to replace a deed.
Let our thought’s be positive and our deeds worthwhile.
Sorry SkipperTEE. Everytime I saw your name I always saw SkippertRee. Time to get my eyes checked.
“Let our thought’s be positive and our deeds worthwhile.”
you mean like yelling profanity in front of kids, getting kicked out of a rally, and making your cause look like it is backed by crazy people?
Personally, I tend to ignore both extremes.
The problem is, the extreme stuff keeps drifting into the center, and Republicans keep building out to the right. Don’t forget to put a stake down in the ground so you remember where the center used to be. My stake in the ground (for where the right begins) is tax cuts for the rich, what’s yours? Social Security cuts perhaps?
God bless you a.price and all you love.
I will put money in the collection plate as soon as you give me the total number of expletives I used, dear friend.
1 dollar for every expletive.
Please get back to me ASAP.
Do you mind if I ask UI to confirm?
“Everytime I saw your name I always saw SkippertRee.”
I visualize something completely different.
“you mean like yelling profanity in front of kids, getting kicked out of a rally, and making your cause look like it is backed by crazy people?”
Lower the IQ, add a lot of alcohol/pharmaceuticals, a little more attitude, and there goes most of those here. Myself included.
oddly enough that mixture is why a lot of the Teabags didnt win.
and just because i dont feel like taking the time to look…. is Delware the only state that got BLUER?
DD: You’re right about Hillary, but that’s the name I keep hearing from demoralized Democrats. Even people who didn’t support her in 2008 are of the opinion that she would at least fight.
Massachusetts, California both all got bluer, if that were possible.
Geezer, she is not going to run in a primary. She is way too smart for that. She knows that if she does, she will alienate Obama supporters (like myself) who have forgotten the primary, embraced her as a part of the Administration, and will support her in 2016. She cannot win the presidency in 2012 without them. And if Obama loses in 2012, she is there with a unified party in 2016.
So explain to me how she primaries Obama in 2012 knowing all that. You see, purists don’t think ahead, or strategically.
Well… in primary fantasy land she could run against Obama and win, and then after her inauguration people could immediately start saying that she isn’t a progressive. 😉
DD: Again, you’re right. But I’m speaking to what 47% of Democrats say they want, not what’s going to happen in the real world. Y’all asked for a name. That’s the name I keep hearing.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I am going to put up a series of posts about 1994. Music videos, TV and news clips, what we were doing then in our personal lives. Because I swear to God, we are watching a rerun, on both sides of the aisle.
BSG: This has all happened before, and it will happen again.
Geezer, I wasn’t directing my comments to you per se, but to those 47%. And you are right, Hillary is the name.
“You see, purists don’t think ahead, or strategically.”
dd, you could have left off “ahead, or strategically”
alse geezer, im not demanding a name from YOU. i want to hear A1’a choice…. oh wait he has an idea, not a name.
“a1’s feverish dreams 2012!!!”
a.price-I’m waiting.Anxiously.
I’m willing to pay my penance.
am i confused or was it you who was bragging about your behavior at teh rally?
You were there and continue to call me out on expletives.
Now,how many must I pay for?
And,BTW, don’t go putting words in my mouth.Bragging, I think not.
Because I swear to God, we are watching a rerun, on both sides of the aisle.
In 1993 Dems had the foresight to enact their economic plan while they still controlled Congress. They didn’t wait until they lost.
Delaware Dem wrote “You see, purists don’t think ahead, or strategically.”
Great point! You should probably stop commenting now after such a succint and accurate point. Regardless of whatever side of the ailse your on this is the key issue in governing. I doubt the supporters of the Delaware Tea Party will ever see the error of their ways, but I guess that’s okay. My only hope is that the far left fringe stay marginalized and continue to vote for Dennis Kucinich every primary season.
The point is not Hillary or some other name. The point is that the national Democratic leadership has failed spectacularly, the party is splintered and many Democrats are very disappointed. If that number continues to grow (and I think it will), anything can happen, i.e. think President Johnson in 1968.
Like nature, politics abhors a vacuum. Don’t be surprised if some national Dems sense an opportunity and start quietly visiting Iowa in the next few months.
Congratulations, nemski. Your strategy of Democrats resuscitating the republican party worked out well last night. You must be thrilled.
If the main policy initiatives have failed, what reason do I have to support Obama over “generic Democrat?”
I will certainly take a look at credible primary challengers to Obama.
We need an executive, not another damn Senator please (unless improbably it is Feingold).
Don’t we have any kickass progressive Governors on the bench?
Actually, the point is that there is simply no one better than Dems at the we are doomed! Doooooomed! scenario.
I lived through the Carter, Clinton, (and now Obama) hysteria. There’s a definite pattern here. Is this really our nature?
Just ban that douche bag.
Along with no fore-thought, the far-left has no hindsight as well.
pandora, look at the bloodbath last night. The prophets of doom from last year were correct. Of course, we’re called purists and “the professional left” and whatever else, but the fact remains that the Democratic Leadership failed. And they will doom us to more failure if they don’t change or are not replaced.
They also don’t have the numbers, nemski. If the far left did have the numbers Kucinich would be a viable candidate. Look, I wish most Americans agreed with my positions, but they don’t. Progressives can’t win an election on their own. That’s reality. Sad, but true.
Yes, ban the person who wants to drown the republican party and keep the person who wants to revive it. That makes perfect sense.
Agreed pandora, just by being an adamant progressive does not win elections. Never has, never will.
…just by being an adamant progressive does not win elections. Never has, never will.
Then how do you explain FDR?
The centrists have foresight and hindsight but apparently no sense of where they are right now, and how far right they have drifted – only that they are still in the “center” and congratulating themselves about not being extreme.
Except that they are parked right where extreme used to be.
The Juan Williams escapade reminds us not to turn boors into martyrs, but I suggest an unmistakable yellow card to A1. One more violation yields ejection. I enjoy byplay with the different-minded but posts like this one of last evening should not be allowed to repeat with impunity:
http://delawareliberal.net//2010/11/02/election-night-open-thread/#comment-212997
Anon,
FDR was no wide eyed far left liberal. He was a pragmatist. A favorite story about FDR is this:
A group of progressive reformers met with President Roosevelt with a list of demands not unlike today’s list of demands from progressive reformers. He said to them,”I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”
The quote indicates he was no progressive champion jumping into the breach.
We voted for a progressive agenda in 2008 and won. Only the winner was lying to us. Just go down the list I posted @9:51.
He said to them,”I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”
And then he did it.
At least FDR didn’t tell the guy he needed to be drug tested. With Obama, we are struggling to get to the part where he says “I want to do it.”
The story is almost certainly apocryphal. Which doesn’t necessarily detract from the point of the story.
FDR is the greatest example of a Democratic progressive we have. Anyone further to the left would be unknown because he would not be successful.
I guess you were happy with last night, belinsky. Some of us were angry.
FDR as this beacon of light for the far-left is laughable.
FDR as this beacon of light for the far-left is laughable.
Agreed. The far left is of little use in American politics. I can’t think of any who are even Democrats.
Progressivism however goes hand in hand with pragmatism.
Part of pragmatism is recognizing that you are President (or Senate Majority Leader) and have a hell of a lot of power if you choose to use it.
I am not assuming that Obama will want to run for a second term. On at least two occasions that I know of, he has said that he would rather be a good 1st-term President than a mediocre 2-term President.
I wish he would govern and interact with the American people as if he really meant that. If he had up to this point, I don’t think that the GOP gains would have been nearly as large as they were yesterday. The American people respond well to an articulate person of firm conviction, one who doesn’t coddle his detractors but is willing to fight them rhetorically and politically. I think that Obama’s ability to articulate his positions is spectacular, but he lacks firmness of conviction and a willingness to fight.
But the reason I think that Obama might only want to run for one term is because now (as a result of yesterday), he might find it nearly impossible to govern. Let’s face the facts. The Republicans on the whole, by their very political nature, are incapable of compromise. The only thing that can be done with them is to marginalize them and make them irrelevant. But, as of yesterday, that is now impossible. I see the government shutting down (except for minimal and necessary services) at some extended point within the next 2 years precisely because the Republicans will insist on a budget of their own design, not a compromise budget. That might cause Obama not to seek a 2nd term.
Obama is signaling something by his talk about being only a one-term President.
Fun fact to know and tell: 95% of the members of the “Progressive Caucus” won re-election last night as opposed to less than 50% of the “Blue Dogs.”
ruff ruff.