Thank the utter suckitude of the Democrat Party (sic) for the Republican Senate
Check this out…
The New Hampshire Senate race … is closer than you might think. The three most recent nonpartisan polls — by New England College, SurveyUSA and WMUR — put Shaheen up by an average of 3 points. Her lead, which has tightened since the summer, is steady but it’s narrow, and most polls have her below the 50 percent threshold. That’s hardly safe territory.
She is running against a total douche bag in Scott Brown. And yet…
…Cook Political Report shifted its rating of the race from “lean Democratic” to “tossup,” deeming it one of 10 contests poised to determine Senate control.
How could that be?
According to TPM…
Four factors stand out. One is that voters have tuned in late…The second is that President Obama’s popularity is underwater by 8 to 13 points in the state…The third is that New Hampshire is “especially sensitive” to the national political environment, which has been harder on Democrats lately. The fourth is that the Granite State is suited in some ways to Brown’s retail-oriented style.
The fifth, unnoticed by TPM’s Sahil Kapur, is that the Democratic Party SUCKS ASS. It has no coherent message and frankly doesn’t give a flying fuck. There is no national sense of a “Democratic Brand” and nothing for anybody to run on other than being “not quite as terrible as the Republican.”
I can’t believe that we are having to endure another election in which Republicans whack-job, but coherent political branding will utterly destroy the Democrats. I can’t believe that we are having to endure another election in which the Democrats incoherent political branding will leave the beltway gurus wondering why Democratic voters “sit out” mid-term elections. I’m a die hard Democrat but the way our party conducts itself is frankly nauseating.
I don’t get the “running away from Obama” thing. I can totally empathize with being lukewarm about Obama, but except for the out-and-out wackjobs and racists, why run away from him? What would you run to? It reminds me of Al Gore running away from Bill Clinton, which sealed his fate. Normally a president’s popularity is determined by the economy, which, while not great, is a hell of a lot better than it has been in a long long time, which is clearly Obama’s doing, once Obama pulled his head out of his ass and let the Bush tax cuts expire.
And the alternative to the Obama economy is to throw ourselves into the arms of the Republicans who got us into the economic hole?
And now anything bad that happens in the world is more reason to hate on Obama, right? Ebola, ISIS, feh. I say Obama has done a fine job managing these crises while avoiding drama, but I guess the nation isn’t ready for calm maturity.
DC based Democrat Party campaign consultants watch Fox News. I wish I was kidding.
idiots think “avoiding drama” is a bad thing.
Mr Puck wrote:
Well, at least in Kentucky, Alison Grimes is “running away from Obama” because Mitt Romney trounced President Obama by 33 percentage points in the Bluegrass State. I guess that Mrs Grimes, who has won a statewide race before, doesn’t think that any attachment to Mr Obama would help her.
If the Republicans were gone today, I would expend all my political energy working against Democrats
An argument can be made that President Obama is a lackluster leader of the Democrat Party (sic) but that is a symptom, not the disease. The Party was a rotten, festering directionless clusterfuck before Mr. Obama took the reigns.
President Clinton deserves the blame for the shit mess we see today.
In the slave states they’re running from a black Muslim from Kenya who hates America..
Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.
John F. Kennedy
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/topics/topic_politics.html#UG1ZcU4uE1ypMhGA.99
Mr 330 wrote:
In his first two months in office, he pushed through the stimulus plan that the Democrats claimed would save the economy; after only 1½ years in office, he pushed through his health care reform act. Perhaps those two pieces of legislation didn’t go far enough in your opinion, but he got all that he could get. As wrongheaded as those two pieces of legislation were, it’s kind of odd to say that the President was a “lackluster leader.”
The problem is that the legislation, especially the health care plan, had opposition, and the voters didn’t like them . . . and responded by cutting the Democrats’ Senate majority, and giving control of the House back to the GOP.
Mr 330 wrote:
Mr Clinton left office with sky-high approval ratings; the public basically liked him and what he did in office. Where do you see him as having left such a mess?
jason’s point would go to Clinton’s “cult of personality” at the expense of party organization–sort of what a lot of people think Mike Castle did to the GOP in Delaware. Both were inordinately successful as individuals, but built no bench. In Clinton’s case this is evident by the rise of Howard Dean to prominence in the party a few years after his term, and by the often chilly reception Bill himself got on the campaign trail for Hillary in places in 2008. Under Clinton there was no “Democratic brand,” there was only Clinton. Which makes the point that when Al Gore ran from Clinton in 2000 there literally was no place to run to.
@Dana: He destroyed the traditional Democratic Party. That perhaps needed doing, as organized labor played an outsized role from the ’70s to the ’90s, but by opening the Democrats up to corporate donations, he left the working people without representation.
Guys like you often say they want their country back. We just want our party back.
@Steve: Intimates say the Clintons’ ambition has always been, “Eight years of Bill, eight of Hill.” This is why we need a Constitutional amendment barring the spouse of a president from running for the office: It’s an end-run around the 22nd amendment.
She will be another in the parade of pro-empire, pro-corporate Democrats who throw crumbs of social policy to their voters.
Mr Geezer wrote:
Well, the labor unions still seem to be strongly supportive of Democratic candidates.
But businesses are nothing without labor, and labor is nothing without business; they have to work together for businesses to make money and stay in business, and for workers to have jobs to go to the next morning. The relationship shouldn’t be strictly adversarial.
Bob –
Obama had flashes of that speech in his “red states and blue states” speech. Funny how you never hear that rhetoric coming from the other side of the aisle.
Mr Geezer wrote:
Somehow, I doubt that, if she ever becomes President, Hillary Clinton is going to follow the Lurleen Wallace model.
DNC Chair DWS is on record saying there would be no national campaign. That’s what you get when you have an elected official as the Party Chair; myopic thinking. This shows that the tail (elected officials) wagging the dog (the party) simply has democracy inverted and the result, Un-Democracy. We need Howard Dean type leadership which we’ve not had since…Howard Dean. And locally elected DNC members seem to be voiceless for the grassroots, kicking ass and raising hell to get rid of the beltway focused consultants and their sponsors in the Party leadership. These DNC members seem to view their positions as some kind of reward, not a job to be done.
Yet Howard Dean had been an elected official previously, as well as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
In a way, your complaint is the same that conservatives have about the GOP: that it is too “establishment” oriented. The TEA Party put up some real primary opposition candidates to established Republican officeholders, and a few of them actually won. How often do elected Democrats face primary challenges from the left?
“In a way, your complaint is the same that conservatives have about the GOP: that it is too “establishment” oriented.”
Bingo! We have a winner!
“How often do elected Democrats face primary challenges from the left?”
Rarely, and they don’t get media coverage when they do. The left lags behind the right in this dynamic.
Sadly, the real fight is between insiders and outsiders, and the insiders win because there’s such a wide ideological gap between the two groups of outsiders.
Sorry Dana. You are too stupid to be commenting here. Your comments in this thread (with one fluke exception) take the cake. Utter stupidity wrapped in ignorance.
PS. I’m not sorry.
For example…
“President Clinton deserves the blame for the shit mess we see today.”
You respond:
Mr Clinton left office with sky-high approval ratings; the public basically liked him and what he did in office. Where do you see him as having left such a mess?
Idiot – I’m talking about the Democrat Party. That was pretty fucking obvious. You are so fucking stupid. How do you live?
Which Clinton will really be running??