nimh
 
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 08:45 am
Remember how gleeful some Dems were that the Republican Teabaggers, in their inscrutinable wisdom, elected no-hope, unsympathetic radicals like Rand Paul, Sharon Angle, Buck, LePage, Labrador, Christine O'Donnell and Joe Miller in their primaries? Thank you, GOP, the number-crunching Dems wrote - you just made our task of salvaging these elections so much easier! Now, of all of those, only O'Donnell seems a safe loss for them.

I think it was about two, maybe three weeks ago, it didn't seem unfeasible to think the Dems could limit their losses in the House to something in the low 40s - they would lose the majority, but only just. It could well be more, it seemed, but a limited loss like that seemed possible, and anything over 50 would be Real Bad.

Just a week or so ago, the House seemed to be slipping further away and the estimates started alarmingly putting Dem losses at over 50, but the party's Senate candidates seemed to be enjoying a late-break rebound after a month or two of bad news. Murray seemed safe; Sestak and Reid seemed close to catching up and establishing a small lead, respectively; and then encouraging news came from up north that Joe Miller's support was collapsing.

But now... just ugh. For the Senate, Washington appears a toss-up again. Sestak and Reid seem gone, systematicaly behind 3-5 points. It seems optimistic to even think one of either Gianni-how-d-you-spell-it in Illinois or Bennett in Colorado will pull through. According to PPP, Miller has unexpectedly resurged into a lead in Alaska. Most likely, the Dems will end up with just 51 Senators, and that's including Lieberman and Nelson.

In the House, a loss in the low 40s seems a pipe dream. 50-60 is the new consensus for a safe bet. But it could be much worse still. Nate Silver laid out a worst-case scenario in which the Dems lose 78 seats. Gallup's final generic poll has the GOP ahead by 15 - something which, according to Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com, would mean the Republicans winning 80 seats, and the Senate too.

It seems like the motherfuckin' bottom just fell out.

Meanwhile, at Kos apparently it's all sunshine and roses, because don't you know, All. The. Polls. Are. Wrong.

Ugh - just ugh.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 22 • Views: 6,545 • Replies: 120

 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 08:48 am
@nimh,
I agree, but at least we can stop guessing after tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 08:54 am
Obama democrats reap the whirlwind.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 09:37 am
@H2O MAN,
Perhaps a storm, waterman, not a whirlwind. In any case, with republicans in power they will actually have to have solutions other than to attempt to repeal what has been done in the last 2 years. It seems like to me whoever is currently in power soon becomes unpopular in our country. More than likely nothing will be done for the next two years. I don't know who the American people will blame, Obama or the republicans.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 11:28 am
@revelette,
Cat 5 whirlwind revette, widespread catastrophic Obama democrat destruction.

It's crystal clear that Americans do not care for Obama or his democrats.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 11:36 am
@nimh,
I doubt that Sharon Angle or Joe Miller will be able to do much more damage than, say, Tom Coburn has done in his time in the senate, and he hasn't done much. Granted, the house of representatives is better at containing crazies, but a single senator still constitutes only 1% of that august body, so the risks are minimal. Besides, the Democrats haven't shown that they can do much when they're in the majority, so maybe it's time to let the Republicans put on the big floppy shoes and drive the clown car for a while.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 11:40 am
@nimh,
Quote:

Meanwhile, at Kos apparently it's all sunshine and roses, because don't you know, All. The. Polls. Are. Wrong.


Just out of curiosity, what do you want from Kos? If you were at Kos, what would you be saying? It seems to me they have been pretty balanced there between realism and hope. You see focus on individual races, but a overall understanding that the Democrats are probably going to lose the House.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 12:10 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Granted, the house of representatives is better at containing crazies, but a single senator still constitutes only 1% of that august body, so the risks are minimal.

Except that any single Senator can place an anonymous "hold" on legislation and appointments.

Some Republicans have already been doing this to an unprecedented extent, to drag on the process of confirming any Obama appointee for many months, and block legislation that enjoys cross-partisan support but which they don't like (random example of the latter). But I predict that the practice will soar in the next two years if people like Angle get in. Remember, her opposition to even the most bipartisan of legislation in the NV legislature led to the common phrase of a "41 to Angle" vote.

Quote:
Besides, the Democrats haven't shown that they can do much when they're in the majority, so maybe it's time to let the Republicans put on the big floppy shoes and drive the clown car for a while.

I think it's a mistake to be so lacksadaisical [sp?], though of course it's true that, hell, nothing much we can do about it anymore anyway. The Clintons didn't get much done in their first two years either, but that didnt mean things couldnt get much worse, as the impeachment insanity with Gingrich's Congress showcased. Plus, Obama's been a disappointment, for sure, but the glass is at least half full or empty, with the health care legislation, the stimulus and a host of 'smaller' legislation like a minimum wage increase passing through.

What was that joke again? The pessimist thinks that things can not possibly get worse. The optimist knows that, really - things can get a LOT worse still. (Or the other way around, I forget.)
Irishk
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 12:28 pm
Quote:
Perhaps a storm, waterman, not a whirlwind.


NBC's latest headline is calling it a hurricane.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 12:32 pm
@Irishk,
A Conservative Category 5 Hurricane.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 12:34 pm
@H2O MAN,
They're always Cat 5's in the middle of the ocean. Once they hit land, they tend to dwindle. We'll see.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 12:53 pm
@Irishk,
Fine, this conservative ascension is comparable to an F5 Tornado.

No matter what name you want to give it, this conservative ascension is a referendum on Obama and his democrats.
America is sick and tired of Obama and his democrats.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 01:09 pm
Call your broker: it is a buy. Wall Street loves gridlock.

http://www.slate.com/id/2272780?wpisrc=newsletter
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 01:25 pm
@nimh,
Were you enjoying the liberal application of tea baggage when you conjured up this drivel?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 01:27 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:
Except that any single Senator can place an anonymous "hold" on legislation and appointments.

Some Republicans have already been doing this to an unprecedented extent, to drag on the process of confirming any Obama appointee for many months, and block legislation that enjoys cross-partisan support but which they don't like (random example of the latter). But I predict that the practice will soar in the next two years if people like Angle get in.

The blame for lack of movement on judicial appointments is shared between the parties -- the Republicans have delayed and the Democrats have acquiesced in the delay. But the lack of judicial appointments themselves is all Obama's fault.

nimh wrote:
I think it's a mistake to be so lacksadaisical [sp?], though of course it's true that, hell, nothing much we can do about it anymore anyway. The Clintons didn't get much done in their first two years either, but that didnt mean things couldnt get much worse, as the impeachment insanity with Gingrich's Congress showcased. Plus, Obama's been a disappointment, for sure, but the glass is at least half full or empty, with the health care legislation, the stimulus and a host of 'smaller' legislation like a minimum wage increase passing through.

I, for one, prefer honest, bipartisan gridlock to the timid, meek, pandering, accommodationist, self-imposed gridlock of the Democrats.
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 02:03 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
The blame for lack of movement on judicial appointments is shared between the parties -- the Republicans have delayed and the Democrats have acquiesced in the delay. But the lack of judicial appointments themselves is all Obama's fault.

I wasn't even thinking of judicial appointments, to be honest. Just Obama's appointments to government positions which would, in earlier times, have been uncontroversial, but which were held up by GOP Senators placing anonymous holds for months or even years on end.

A quick Google comes up with this article from May 2010 (!) about appointments still being held up. (It's not a very good one but it'll have to do.)

Ah, here's a better (i.e. more concrete) article - and this was in June 2010, more than a year after Obama acceded to the Presidency:

Quote:
As of Memorial Day weekend, 120 of President Barack Obama’s nominees to office have been idling in the Senate. Nearly all are victims of anonymous holds placed by Republican senators.

As NPR reported Thursday, there are crucial vacancies in the Homeland Security, Defense and Justice departments, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, among others, because of the holds. As well, there are five ambassadors and 29 judges who have yet to be confirmed.

This obstructionism follows the Republicans’ two infamous blanket holds on all of Obama’s nominees placed earlier this year by Sens. Richard Shelby of Alabama and Jim Bunning of Kentucky.


Here's how the Democrats in the Senate described the problem back in February (still over a year into Obama's term). There's a lot of fiercely rhetorical stuff there, but let's try and isolate the examples:

Quote:
“When a young Nigerian terrorist boarded an airplane bound for America on Christmas Day, there was no permanent boss at the TSA – the agency created after 9/11 specifically to keep air travel safe.

“When he tried to blow up that plane, the top positions at both of the intelligence agencies within the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security were similarly empty.

“Why? Because Republican Senators refuse to let this body hold a vote on the highly capable people the President has asked to serve in those roles. [..]

“Too many of the President’s nominees await Senate confirmation. Today I want to talk about four of those positions Republicans refuse to fill:

One, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, which is the number-three job at the Pentagon.

Two, the Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, the head of the State Department’s intelligence department.

Three, the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, the head of DHS’s intelligence arm.

And four, the U.S. Representative to the Conference on Disarmament, whose job it is to work with other nations to keep our own safe from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

“The President has chosen exceptionally qualified men and women for these critical national security posts. But without a Senate vote confirming them, they cannot do their jobs.


I guess my point is -- if things were that bad the last two years, a Senate that includes "41 against Angle" will probably grind the entire government to a complete halt.

(And no, while things were bad the last two years, obviously there's been no complete halt. To a Euro-lefty like me, Obama's signature stimulus and healthcare bills may have seemed milquetoast, but they alone amounted to more than Clinton managed in his first two years; and if you include all the other, "smaller" bills passed, it was actually a legislation-heavy two years. )
wandeljw
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 02:30 pm
@nimh,
O'Donnell may be the only safe loss, but Rand Paul and Joe Miller are not as far ahead as they were earlier. Sharon Angle has never been much more than even with Harry Reid (a non-teabagger Republican would probably be ahead of Reid in the polls).
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 03:00 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:
I wasn't even thinking of judicial appointments, to be honest.

I was, which is why I misread your post.

nimh wrote:
I guess my point is -- if things were that bad the last two years, a Senate that includes "41 against Angle" will probably grind the entire government to a complete halt.

The Democrats have been working hard at grinding the entire government to a complete halt for two years now. It's time to give the Republicans a chance to share the burden.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 04:25 pm
BM

[so I have the opportunity to read H2oman's comments.]
msolga
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2010 04:36 pm
@nimh,
Bookmarking.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ugh. Just ugh.
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/27/2020 at 12:12:06