Isn't it funny that we have such consistently tight elections all over the country, yet only 40 to 60 % of eligible voters actually vote?
MSNBC spinning; Tillis lead in NC is because of the passage of marriage equality in other states. NC is showing that they are against marriage equality.
This is why I said those pundits who wondered in 2012 whether or not the Republicans were dead and had demographic issues, etc., were being overly dramatic. Anyone who looks at elections should have known how this stuff works and the factors in favor of the Republicans in this mid term. The only thing that really bothers me is that I fear the message here is that you can stomp your feet for 6 years and obstruct as much as possible, taking some flak in the short term, but it will eventually pay off. I hope this isn't a lesson for future situations.
I also see that a number of people are mentioning something I stated in this thread in that Democrats screwed up by running away from Obama. You can't win without a backbone and constantly trying to distance yourself from the obvious leader of the party. Nobody bought it and no Democrat tried to own it and make it work for them.
Or the message is, you can't run far enough away from Obama; we will still get you. Chuck Todd says the blame rest on 2 people; Obama and Reed. It can also be said that the Clintons are leaders of the party again and Dems ran straight into their laps.
Much bigger? Not that much. +6 in 2010 for the opposing party, + 6 in 2006, +8 in 1994. This usually happens. The Republicans did have a pretty good "perfect storm" scenario this time around, though. My first paragraph was the analysis, by the way. The second paragraph was my personal comment. You don't really think that America suddenly became a solid Republican country, just like they didn't suddenly became a solidly Democratic country in 2006-08, do you?
Chuck Todds blame of Reed is because, per Todd, Reed kept much from coming up for a vote so that the Dems who were up for reelection tonight did not have any controversial votes that could be used against them.
People hate them all pretty much equally. It isn't as if the Republicans are garnering much positive support, as they did in '94. Running away from Obama just made the Democrats appear insincere and nobody bought that nonsense. The Republicans were still going to win, but some Democrats could have mitigated some of these losses by not looking like that idiot in Kentucky, who couldn't even show some balls to admit who she voted for.
Which fits in with my assessment of the ball-lessness of the Democrats, although I don't think that Reed's actions had a whole lot to do with the Republican wins, as the GOP was going to do well, regardless.
Exactly. Reid tried to protect the senate seats from having a vote to defend and that didnt work. Obama was gonna have an impact regardless of how hard they tried to run away.
I don't see Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the TV tonight. She was claiming yesterday that the Dems would hold the Senate and Crist would win.
Didn't I see a recent article that said skmething like "President Obama visits such-and-such state to stump for Candidate X - Who drops 9 points in the polls the following day" Democrats aren't abandoning President Obama because they lack a backbone, but because they understand both math and that his is a failed Administration - a veritable late-term Executive Branch abortion - and there is no reasonable means by which they can "make it work for them". When you've plummeted so quickly and deeply as to confound the Dems ability to place a positive spin on it, you've spectacularly failed. And his legacy is about to grow even worse, I'd say in the next few days, when he starts granting permanency for illegal aliens. But we'll see.
President Obama will not be a lame duck President so long as he has access to a single pen. Dems may not like the precedent he's setting, when someone else sits at 1600. Just saying. Enjoy it now.
Every 2 term president since Woodrow Wilson has had at least one mid term election in which they lost at least 5 seats in the Senate. Acting like this is unique to this presidency is foolish and ahistorical. Republicans were going to do well and win the Senate no matter what, but playing the "Yes, I'm a Democrat, but I'm not with Obama" was a losing proposition, just like it was under Bush. As for my opinion, Obama's legacy will be fine. Republicans have done their absolute best to destroy it, but I remember the same tune at the end of Clinton's term. How terrible he was. How he disgraced the office. Etc., etc. That tune is different now.
