Skip to main content

View Diary: Sadly Democrats to Lose Big and Here's Why (w/Poll) (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the problem (9+ / 0-)

    is that the economy is bad. And people have no obligation to rigorously know policy. As long as TV is in HD and Wal-Mart opens, everyone will be happy, and that's good. Since when did politics have to affect everyone's life, all the time?

    And the losses in the House will not be historic. 35-50 is big, but I can't see it as any worse than 1994.

    Don't act so condescending. It's not the Democratic messaging; it's the economy. If the GOP is so good at messaging, why did they lose in 2006 and 2008?

    People panic too much on this site.

    by thematt523 on Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 06:59:06 PM PDT

    •  FDR had an answer for the bad (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt, Slick2009, erush1345, LadyIsland

      economy.  Any answer for why the modern Democrats don't?

      •  The stimulus package (13+ / 0-)

        when adjusted for inflation, was bigger than the entire New Deal over all of FDR's presidency. Now tell me the Democrats did nothing.

        People panic too much on this site.

        by thematt523 on Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 07:03:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  FDR couldn't stay the course either (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman, adrianrf, flhiii88

        The constant attack from the right wing reached a peak in 1937 and caused him to pull back the policies to put America back to work. Of course, the economy and the country took an immediate dive.

        What took 5 years in the 1930s only takes 2 years in the 2000s.

        We may lose big and also pick up more Bachmanns, but the good news is it will also take much less time to realize that the economy was being helped by unfunded spending, and voting in a new right wing majority was the wrong move. Perhaps the new majority will come around and vote against their mandate, but if they don't we'll see another big swing in 2012.

        The Plan B also remains; find a way for the left and the right to agree on spending boatloads of money we don't have. In 1941, Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor gave us a great way to compromise, and for 4 subsequent years we spent money we didn't have with the full blessing of all involved.

        We also had war powers to force people to work who would, otherwise, be striking, and to ration products and impose price controls which blurs the chasm between the haves and the have nots.

        My biggest fear is that the public will not be smart enough to see this clearly, and the stress on all parties will make the massive waging of war the only outcome that gets everybody on board.

        We're playing a very dangerous game here; we've played it before and it cost us dearly.

        If it were true, they couldn't say it on Fox News. -6.62 -5.90

        by PBCliberal on Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 07:25:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yup bail out the banks... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        support large corporate farmers at the expense of sharecroppers, cut salaries of government workers to lower the deficit...real progressive.../snark

        Obama - Change I still believe in

        by dvogel001 on Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 07:59:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  this just flies in the face (7+ / 0-)

        of reality of what FDR did and did not do.

        You are looking at FDR under his entire terms and not  his first two years. The first two year were marred by fits and starts.

        While he was smacking the banks with one hand he held there hands with the other.

        The WPA wasn't started until 1935 three years into FDR's first term.

        If yo are going to hold up FDR at least actually learn what he did and did not do.

        In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

        by jsfox on Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 08:25:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  FDR is dead (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        you guys sound like the "whst would Reagan do" retards kissing Reagan's ass at every opportunity.

        Yes...some presidents are better leaders than others.  Lincoln was horrible when he started as a leader, but developed into the best.

        The jury is still out on Obama.  It will depend on how he deals with the next hostile congress.  Working together, bipartisanship and singing kumbaya ain't gonna work.

    •  No, what ought to be scary for partisan Democrats (8+ / 0-)

      is that they might lose to the hated GOP less than 21 months after Dick Cheney was President.

      That is a resounding rebuke.

      Remember when Americans elected a black man named Hussein 7 years into the war on terror?

      That also meant something: it meant Americans wanted real, drastic, severe change.

      Obama didn't do that. He was in thrall to the Summers-Reuben-Geithner-Bernanke camp, when he should have listened to folks like Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich, and Bernie Sanders.

      Where is the soul-searching? Where is the humility? Where is the concept of public service?

      Yeah, the insiders, staffers, arch-activists will be fine; but the poor, the desperate, the sick won't be.


      For the elite there are no material problems, only PR problems. Time for a new elite.

      by Paul Goodman on Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 07:45:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (121)
  • Community (57)
  • Memorial Day (29)
  • Culture (21)
  • Environment (20)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Civil Rights (19)
  • Science (18)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Labor (16)
  • Media (15)
  • Elections (15)
  • Education (15)
  • Ireland (14)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (14)
  • Economy (14)
  • Republicans (13)
  • Josh Duggar (13)
  • Racism (11)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site