A question about the Obama win

[blackhawk]

First I'm not taking anything away from the Obama win not griping complaining or questioning it my question about it is this was it based more on support of his policies or his own personal popularity? I asked this because there was no major shift in the House for the Democrats and only a slight shift for them in the Senate basically the balance of power is right where it was after the 2010 midterms it seems to me if there was major support for Obama's policies you would have seen more off a shift in the Democrats favor in the House and Senate.

 

[Moonglow]

that remains to be seen in the 2014 House elections.

 

[Charles_Main]

that remains to be seen in the 2014 House elections.

lol, so this time don't count?

The American people just very Clearly voted for the Status Quo.

Which was, Nothing at all getting done by either side.

It's insane, but that is what they voted for.

 

[Wiseacre]

First I'm not taking anything away from the Obama win not griping complaining or questioning it my question about it is this was it based more on support of his policies or his own personal popularity? I asked this because there was no major shift in the House for the Democrats and only a slight shift for them in the Senate basically the balance of power is right where it was after the 2010 midterms it seems to me if there was major support for Obama's policies you would have seen more off a shift in the Democrats favor in the House and Senate.

I agree with that. I think Obama won because he did a good job demagoguing Romney, and Romney didn't respond well enough to it. I think Romney played it too safe, no sizzle at the end, only fizzle. And the GOP totally misplayed the Hispanic vote IMHO. And one more thing - Obama won because he's African American; with that record I don't think a white guy would've made it.

 

[AmyNation]

Playing the race card ,is getting old. Seriously, get over it.

He ran a better campaign than Romney, and in the end voters said they felt Obama was their candidate, and Romney was for the rich. I don't think actual policy had a lot to do with the decision.

 

[blackhawk]

that remains to be seen in the 2014 House elections.

lol, so this time don't count?

The American people just very Clearly voted for the Status Quo.

Which was, Nothing at all getting done by either side.

It's insane, but that is what they voted for.

That is the part that surprised me the most the House and Senate basically staying the same I don't know maybe people figure Government doing nothing is the best thing that could happen.

 

[Seawytch]

But the Tea Party influence got chipped away a bit more...increasing the possibility of reasonableness and compromise.

 

[oldfart]

First I'm not taking anything away from the Obama win not griping complaining or questioning it my question about it is this was it based more on support of his policies or his own personal popularity? I asked this because there was no major shift in the House for the Democrats and only a slight shift for them in the Senate basically the balance of power is right where it was after the 2010 midterms it seems to me if there was major support for Obama's policies you would have seen more off a shift in the Democrats favor in the House and Senate.

OK, I'll try to give a straight answer. The House resultsd are driven by the fact that republicans controlled an unusually large number of state legislators following the 2010 election and thus controlled redistricting. Any political scientist worth his salt predicted a Republican shift of 30--35 seats based on redistricting. By a quirk of numbers this turned out to be almost exactly the same magnitude as the Democratic advantage based on changed demographics between 2008 and 2012 and the better Democratic campaign performance. Also a few seats were lost by Republicans because of overreaching on a radical agenda (although this was more apparent in the Senate races in Indiana and Missouri). In Florida for example, Alan West lost his seat and Alan Grayson regained his.

Not many people have noticed yet that the Democratic Senate has lost most of the "conservative" Democrats while some of the newly elected senators are younger, more progressive, and far more combative than the senators they replace (Heitkamp, Warren, Murphy, and Baldwin come to mind). The big winner of the night was Patty Murray the DSCC chair who essentially did the impossible by almost running the table, defending l 23 Democrat senate seats at risk, including seats of seven retiring senators, and only losing Nebraska. So the Senate shifted sigificantly leftward, but mostly at the expense of conservative Democrats.

So Democratic politicos feel pretty good right now abut 2014 and 2016. There seems to be no indication that the conservative movement intends to re-evaluate its course of self-destruction. It goes out of its way to alienate Hispanics, blacks, Asians, women, and the LGBTQ community and everyone who does not buy into their movement. Demographics run against the Republican Party if it can't adapt. But they are taking the sure road to extinction; doubling down on dumb.

Keep it up Tea Party. Keep insulting and antagonizing the people you need to win elections rather than trying to persuade them. No need to change when you have such a winning formula. Trash Nate Silver and pillory the pollsters. All they did was tell the truth about what their numbers were saying. Blame everyone else. Remember God is on your side in a Holy War. Never forget; God, guns, and gays. Keep it up.

And when you see me smiling, remember the dictum of Sun Tzu, "Never interfere with an enemy in the process of destroying himself."

 

[Votto]

But the Tea Party influence got chipped away a bit more...increasing the possibility of reasonableness and compromise.

In Washingtom extremism is not just wanting to pass budget, which they are required to do by law, it is wanting to balance a budget or two.

 

[blackhawk]

There has been no compromise for four years now Obama and the left showed no interest in it for the first two years of his term that was one of the main reasons for the rise of the tea party ther was no comprise by either side after the midterms and I really don't see anything changing.

 

[Photonic]

There has been no compromise for four years now Obama and the left showed no interest in it for the first two years of his term that was one of the main reasons for the rise of the tea party ther was no comprise by either side after the midterms and I really don't see anything changing.

Ironic.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

First I'm not taking anything away from the Obama win not griping complaining or questioning it my question about it is this was it based more on support of his policies or his own personal popularity? I asked this because there was no major shift in the House for the Democrats and only a slight shift for them in the Senate basically the balance of power is right where it was after the 2010 midterms it seems to me if there was major support for Obama's policies you would have seen more off a shift in the Democrats favor in the House and Senate.

Your major premises are straight out of the mouths of the talking heads of the media.

If ALL the US House and US Senate seats had been up for a vote, what do you, blackhawk, think would have been the result?

The President, and many of the Democrats who beat incumbents, ran on Obama's record of accomplishments. When the hysteria and partisan attacks are taken out of the equation, President Obama has accomplished a few great things. Like it or not, Obamacare and the financial reforms are great in the sense they change the landscape

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

that remains to be seen in the 2014 House elections.

lol, so this time don't count?

The American people just very Clearly voted for the Status Quo.

I don't buy the premise

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

First I'm not taking anything away from the Obama win not griping complaining or questioning it my question about it is this was it based more on support of his policies or his own personal popularity? I asked this because there was no major shift in the House for the Democrats and only a slight shift for them in the Senate basically the balance of power is right where it was after the 2010 midterms it seems to me if there was major support for Obama's policies you would have seen more off a shift in the Democrats favor in the House and Senate.

I agree with that. I think Obama won because he did a good job demagoguing Romney, and Romney didn't respond well enough to it. I think Romney played it too safe, no sizzle at the end, only fizzle. And the GOP totally misplayed the Hispanic vote IMHO. And one more thing - Obama won because he's African American; with that record I don't think a white guy would've made it.

The Following User Says Thank You to Wiseacre For This Useful Post:
blackhawk (Today)

----------------

and teh above is an example of you guys just not getting it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

that remains to be seen in the 2014 House elections.

lol, so this time don't count?

The American people just very Clearly voted for the Status Quo.

Which was, Nothing at all getting done by either side.

It's insane, but that is what they voted for.

That is the part that surprised me the most the House and Senate basically staying the same I don't know maybe people figure Government doing nothing is the best thing that could happen.

Voters were not asked to vote on keeping gridlock or 'things the same'

Obama and the 'new' Democrats won on their messages... same with Republicans who won, but do not belittle the fact that no one was voting on keeping the government the way it is.

 

[OKTexas]

First I'm not taking anything away from the Obama win not griping complaining or questioning it my question about it is this was it based more on support of his policies or his own personal popularity? I asked this because there was no major shift in the House for the Democrats and only a slight shift for them in the Senate basically the balance of power is right where it was after the 2010 midterms it seems to me if there was major support for Obama's policies you would have seen more off a shift in the Democrats favor in the House and Senate.

Your major premises are straight out of the mouths of the talking heads of the media.

If ALL the US House and US Senate seats had been up for a vote, what do you, blackhawk, think would have been the result?

The President, and many of the Democrats who beat incumbents, ran on Obama's record of accomplishments. When the hysteria and partisan attacks are taken out of the equation, President Obama has accomplished a few great things. Like it or not, Obamacare and the financial reforms are great in the sense they change the landscape

Poor dainty boy, ALL the US House seats ARE up for a vote every 2 years. Did you fail your civics class in Jr. High?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

First I'm not taking anything away from the Obama win not griping complaining or questioning it my question about it is this was it based more on support of his policies or his own personal popularity? I asked this because there was no major shift in the House for the Democrats and only a slight shift for them in the Senate basically the balance of power is right where it was after the 2010 midterms it seems to me if there was major support for Obama's policies you would have seen more off a shift in the Democrats favor in the House and Senate.

Your major premises are straight out of the mouths of the talking heads of the media.

If ALL the US House and US Senate seats had been up for a vote, what do you, blackhawk, think would have been the result?

The President, and many of the Democrats who beat incumbents, ran on Obama's record of accomplishments. When the hysteria and partisan attacks are taken out of the equation, President Obama has accomplished a few great things. Like it or not, Obamacare and the financial reforms are great in the sense they change the landscape

Poor dainty boy, ALL the US House seats ARE up for a vote every 2 years. Did you fail your civics class in Jr. High?

still struggling with Reading and Comprehension 101?

"If ALL the US House and US Senate seats had been up for a vote..."

clue: there is no comma after the 5th word commas are used to separate list items. you are FOX Newsing and hearing "If ALL the US House, and US Senate seats..."

 

[Barb]

that remains to be seen in the 2014 House elections.

lol, so this time don't count?

The American people just very Clearly voted for the Status Quo.

Which was, Nothing at all getting done by either side.

It's insane, but that is what they voted for.

I disagree. The loudest, most divisive, and those with the most virulent rhetoric of the tea party republicans who were up for reelection - save Bachmann (and her "win" was a squeaker) - were voted out of office.

 

[auditor0007]

First I'm not taking anything away from the Obama win not griping complaining or questioning it my question about it is this was it based more on support of his policies or his own personal popularity? I asked this because there was no major shift in the House for the Democrats and only a slight shift for them in the Senate basically the balance of power is right where it was after the 2010 midterms it seems to me if there was major support for Obama's policies you would have seen more off a shift in the Democrats favor in the House and Senate.

Interesting; the slight shift in the Senate was actually quite big considering Dems were defending all but 10 of the 33 seats. In the House, getting a big shift would take a really big change of direction for voters, because most of the districts have been gerrymandered to the point of being non-competitive. I really don't have an answer, but personally, I voted Democrat for the first time ever because I became fed up with the far right controlling the Republican Party. I don't agree with their social agenda, and I also don't agree with cutting taxes further when we already have a huge deficit. I actually do support some small tax increases. That doesn't mean I'm a flaming liberal looking to spend taxpayer money, but I do believe we need a responsible plan to reduce the debt that includes both spending cuts and revenue increases. I don't believe the Republicans were offering any substantive plan to address those issues.

 

[auditor0007]

that remains to be seen in the 2014 House elections.

lol, so this time don't count?

The American people just very Clearly voted for the Status Quo.

Which was, Nothing at all getting done by either side.

It's insane, but that is what they voted for.

I don't believe voters want the status quo. While they chose to stick with Obama, I do believe most voters, including Democrats, want to see some spending cuts along with some small tax increases, and yes, tax increases on the wealthy. I imagine if the fighting between Dems and Republicans continues to keep us at a standstill ,then Republicans may feel a very harsh backlash in House elections in 2014.

Now, personally, I don't think that is going to happen. I have a theory that says Boehner is going to start playing ball with the Dems. I think he's going to tell the tea party nutjobs to play ball too. The reason I see this happening is that I think Boehner is going to see a big opportunity open up for himself, if he plays his cards right. You see, if he plays his cards right, he could very easily become our next president. On the other hand, if he continues to play obstructionist, he could find himself no longer being Speaker of the House.