I'm fed up of reading posts that Dems will lose in 2010

[malaise]

from people who said we would lose in 2006 and 2008.
That is all.

[closetliberal]

1. Me too

What if we do lose? Whats gonna happen? Will we lose our new health care? I need this new health care bad.

[old mark]

2. I don't believe it. I do think there will be a lot of surprised

republicans looking for work, if Democrats will get off their asses and vote, instead of giving up because of the "republicans will win - what's the use" mentality, which the GOP is really counting on.

mark

[malaise]

3. Not just counting on

Pushing via their hacks and goons at M$Greedia.

[old mark]

16. In the just past election a regional GOP head said the following:

"Republicans ALWAYS get out and vote, and ALWAYS vote a straight Party ticket. Democrats usually don't vote in large numbers, and many of them split the ticket, giving more votes to GOP candidates. It's always been like that." (GOP won big in his county in PA.)

I have had people here give me shit when I suggested Dems should vote straight party, because they said the GOP candidate was "better qualified", or some such - the GOP does not care about trivial things like that - they want the MAXIMUM number of republicans elected, no matter what, no matter how.

We MUST start convincing Democrats to vote Democratic - we can all complain bitterly after we win.

BUT WE HAVE TO WIN!!!!

mark

[malaise]

17. Agreed 100%

You're not a Dem if you vote split ticket - you're independent.

[bluestateguy]

4. They are the same people who propounded voting machine conspiracies

right up to election day in 2006 and election day in 2008.

We will lose seats either with or without a health care bill, but lose more if the latter comes to fruition. Even a flawed bill is better politics than no bill. You might as well lose seats by standing for something, rather than losing seats fartknocking around and cowering before the teabaggers everytime they get mad. They've made up their mind who they are voting for, and it's not us. Write them off.

[malaise]

37. Excellent post

:hi:

[still_one]

5. The only way they will lose is if Democrats don't show up to vote

Some independents may sit out the elections, but those independents that voted for Obama, no way will they vote for what the republican party has become

All the republicans had to do was move to the center, instead they moved to the extreme right, and that will lose them the independent vote again

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

14. ^^^best answer^^^

The majority of you... meh. Group think.

[ronsii]

69. What about the 'Invisibleists'

You know the Invisibleists are the voters that don't really exist that vote 99.9% democrat.... you know the voters that ACORN brought to the polls. ;)

[spanone]

6. k&r

[madokie]

7. Me too Malaise

All I see is the pukes showing their posteriors and I believe the American people are well aware of where the problem lies with most every problem we face and I see them voting to show their displeasure with the likes of boner, chinless, blunt, shelby, sessions, the whole lot of them. We'll pick up seats in both houses this next election. President Obama will be our Greatest President ever. In fact it'll take some doing to out do the man ever.

It's not obvious that I like the President is it???:-) :hi:

Peace and nothing less is what I'm working for

[malaise]

18. I don't know if he'll be the greatest

but he was sure given a load of crap to fix after eight years of the worst president ever. :hi:

[elocs]

8. Whether you are fed up or not, that is what usually happens in off-year elections,

that the party in power loses seats. Outside of staying exactly the same, either they will or they won't.

Is there an example in recent political history where one party gained seats in 3 consecutive election cycles?

[malaise]

28. recent political history ?

Recent since when? Off- year elections since when? Tradition since when? Dems controlled both houses for over 40 years. That's the tradition when they deliver the policies which were demanded by voters.

I'll never buy a 14 year happening to a tradition that's over 40 years.
For the record the election two weeks ago was in an off year and Dems won the only two house seats in the race.

Go Dems - ignore the propaganda and spin!! The tradition is Dems win over and over when we deliver on promises. Rethugs try to block progress because they know the population prefers Democrats.

By the way Gore won in 2000.

[elocs]

46. How about recent history being one in which someone alive now actually voted? Check this:

http://hnn.us/articles/1094.html

Since the Civil War and Reconstruction, three presidents have scored off-year victories in Congress: FDR, Bill Clinton and now George W. Bush. FDR's victory was the greatest. It was particularly impressive because it followed on the heels of his landslide victory in 1932, which was accompanied by the gain of 90 seats in the House and 13 in the Senate. One would have expected many of these members, swept in on Roosevelt's coattails, to be vulnerable the next election, as usually occurs. Yet this did not happen. The freshmen elected in 1932 kept their jobs and a new class of Democratic freshmen joined them.

1934 (FDR)

House:
Democrats Gain
9 Seats

Senate:
Democrats Gain
9 Seats




1998 (Clinton)

House:
Democrats Gain
5 Seats

Senate:
Democrats Gain
0 Seats




2002 (Bush)

House:
Republicans Gain
4 Seats

Senate:
Republicans Gain
2 Seats

So there it is, since FDR the party that holds the White House has gained seats in a traditional midterm election 3 times. This is about gaining or losing seats in an off year election so how many years a party has controlled Congress is immaterial. Next year the Democrats will either gain seats, lose seats, or it will remain the same, but even if they lose seats it is likely they will still control Congress.

[malaise]

57. Thanks for this

They key part is '...even if they lose seats it is likely they will still control COngress'.

[Fire1]

45. It certainly does. It happened to Clinton. n/t

[elocs]

47. Hence the word "usually". n/t

[lonestarnot]

9. It's part of the scare n pay tactic. People fall for anything these days.

[jpak]

10. Shut your mouth - Obama and the Dems MUST lose!!!111 DOOOOOM is the new black!!11

You will be properly flamed for your impudent post!

:evilgrin:

[malaise]

19. LOL

:rofl:

[jpak]

23. I'm glad you think this is so funny - it is not, DOOM and GLOOM is our business

our only business

amen

:evilgrin:

[malaise]

25. Where's the wink

smilie? :D

[jpak]

27. I am quite series and cast asparagus at all that do not spread the DOOM message

:evilgrin:

[malaise]

29. Then I am doomed

:evilgrin:

[jpak]

31. Your malaise can only be cured by bashing Dems and Obama and banging the DOOM Drum

amen

:hi:

[malaise]

32. Waaaaaaaaaaah hahahahahahahaha

You're cracking me up here :rofl:
My malaise will disappear when the real Palin scandal hits the airways. :evilgrin:

[BlooInBloo]

74. :)

[Octafish]

11. The pukes are the ones who should worry.

All we need for a landslide is to work like Democrats.

[malaise]

20. +1

:hi:

[NYC_SKP]

12. Me too. It must be devastating to lack the capacity to feel joy.

Must be unbearable company in real life.

:donut:

K&R

[malaise]

22. Excellent interpretation

:hi:

[jonnyblitz]

78. IGNORANCE is bliss!! nt

[rosesaylavee]

13. Yes.

Very tired of it too.

[salguine]

15. And I'm just as sick of posts that laugh it off like it can't happen. It's always

the cocksure that fall the hardest.

[freddie mertz]

39. Agreed. Wearing a blindfold is not the best way to avoid falling in a ditch.

Hubris and a sense of entitlement can lead to some pretty big falls.

Just ask the Republicans (the ones who will admit it, that is...)

[malaise]

43. Could you list the accomplishments of the Dems

since January 2008.

[freddie mertz]

50. No. I will not. There are plenty of these "lists" around...

And some have a tendency to be a bit padded, as it were.

Besides, what is your point

[jpak]

52. There are no Dem accomplishments - only Dem failure - and DOOM!!!11

and more DOOM!!111

:evilgrin:

[freddie mertz]

67. WTF are you trying to say?

I know it takes a minute or two to frame a coherent sentence, and they don;y teach that in school anymore.

As it is, I can't make any sense out of your posts.

[Froward69]

21. I ask to use their time machine...

I then ask why they came back? If they are so sure the future has such favorable election results.

[malaise]

24. Good response

I'll try it. :D

[Naturyl]

26. I just wish I could believe it makes a difference.

I'm skeptical of that these days.

[treestar]

41. Oh come on

this one makes me sicker than any of the others.

If you really think it would be no different if Palin were Veep you need to just get out of politics and hide under a rock somewhere - this country will never be good enough for you.

[Naturyl]

44. Some difference, yes.

Enough? No, not so far.

We elected Democrats in 2006 and 2008 to give us real health care and end these wars. Instead we are getting watered-down health care and a debate over whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, and no end in Iraq.

Tell me how McCain's plans for health care *or* the wars would have differed *significantly* from what we are getting, please.

[Kitsune]

51. This, this, a thousand times this.

We have elected a Republican in Democratic clothing. Again. Slightly more moderate than the loony-bin candidates, for all the good it's done us.

[malaise]

54. There would have been no health care reform whatsoever

under McCain. Obama's Iraq test is next year and yes I'm anti-war.

[Naturyl]

65. I disagree.

Polls consistently show that a *majority* of Americans want reform, so coming up with something would have been in McCain's best interest. I think McCain would have pushed for a bill that posed as "reform" but was actually a big giveaway to insurance companies, just like Bush's prescription drug bill that was actually a big giveaway to drug companies.

Now, I'd like to hear how that hypothetical McCain health care bill would be different from the one Obama is giving us...

[freddie mertz]

30. I just wish the Democrats could deliver sound governance RIGHT NOW...

If they could, I am pretty sure they could actually GAIN in the next election.

So far, I have not been impressed.

[malaise]

34. Well imagine if Gramps and Palin were in charge

and then get back to me.

[jpak]

36. Ok - now you can REALLY shut your mouth!!!!

:scared:

[freddie mertz]

38. I didn't say anything abut supporting Republicans

My remarks were a more general observation regarding the spectacle of the present-day Democrats and the possible electoral consequences.

[malaise]

42. Every Dem needs to think about that long and hard

then get out and ensure that Rethugs are where they deserve to be - in the minority in every branch of government.

[freddie mertz]

49. Sure. But that is not what I am discussing here

I'm commenting on the responsibility of our public servants to govern effectively and in the best interests of the American people.

A perception that they have failed will have consequences, perhaps catastrophic ones (by which I mean, consequences that could benefit the Repukes).

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[malaise]

35. Hey GrovelBot

Kindly respond to the OP or get off this thread :evilgrin:

[L0oniX]

40. The Dems that lose will be replaced by other Dems.

[LWolf]

48. I'm fed up with people who treat politics

like a team sport, valuing winning over issues.

[malaise]

53. I thought the mere idea of posting at Democratic Underground

was because we identified with one team. I am way left of the DNC but I'll back them over any Rethug.

[LWolf]

59. No.

There are Democrats, and they aren't one team. Democrats include blue dogs, centrists, corporatists, dlcers, "new" dems, liberals, and leftists. Their goals and povs are widely different, but they believe in the whole "them vs us" mentality.

Then there are the "other progressives." They include Greens, independents, and leftists of all sorts, as well as some center-right independents and 3rd party members.

Since the board carries conflicting self-identification and goals, claiming to be a "left-wing message board" and to support the Democratic Party (which is in no way "left wing,") You aren't going to find a unified "team" identification.


The "them vs us" team thing is simply false. Nobody has to support EITHER of the two major teams. Here at DU, there has to be some common goals with the Democratic Party, and campaigning for a non-democrat is forbidden.

There is no required lock-step partisan group-think, though.

[malaise]

61. Can't argue with most of that

but we are still part of team Democratic Party and until there's a viable third option it is 'them vs us'. The good news is 'them' has been thoroughly discredited as a result of the Patriot Act, war crimes and trashing the constitution. Now Obama et al have to correct those policies and I fully support that kind of change.

[freddie mertz]

68. Maybe you should pass your insights on to the DEM LEADERSHIP and the WH...

THEY are the ones who need to hear it, not us.

[question everything]

55. You can be fed up - and I have not posted any on this topic -

but burying one's head in the sand is counter productive. This is what the Republicans did in 2006 and in 2008. It has nothing to do with Obama or with Congress; traditionally, the party that is in power loses in mid term elections. The only exception that I can remember was 2002 as a result of 9/11 and the IWR.

With the economy still in the tank, with "mavens" saying that even the stock market is going to drop again, with no new jobs, with so many voters "unhappy with big government" yet want government to help them, the chances of losing seats are quite real.

We, Democrats, better realize this and understand some of the actions that come from both Congress and the White House. The way I see it - safe Democratic seats will remain so, even if the health care reform is far from what most voters and liberal law makers want. So perhaps we need to guard the other, blue dog seats coming from districts that were carried by McCain and that could be lost.

I don't know. I am speculating aloud.

[Kansas Wyatt]

56. I thought the Dems should have won more in this decade.

But based on the Obama & Democrats, Inc. performance of placing the American People OVER Corporate America, the Dems will lose in 2010. Because the Democrats stand with Corporate America, not the American People.

Yes, the Democrats will lose.

Not because they went too far left, but because they are only continuing the right turn into a circle that leads us nowhere.

The American People voted to CANCEL the Republican Corporate Government, so why in the Hell are the Democrats giving concessions to them? That is what really pisses the American People off and makes them think the Demorats & Republicans are no different. The Democrats have shown the American People what they are all about, and it isn't the Democratic Party of the last Century that gave Working Americans so much.

Don't fucking tell me that it could be worse. I'm sick of the Good Cop, Bad Cop routine, and I have to face people that I told they had to vote Democrat, because there was a big difference, and the Democrats would take the government back from Corporate America.

[malaise]

64. You raise valid concerns

but people voted against Rethugs for way more than taking government back from the Corporate thieves.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. All The Polls And Indices Indicated 06 And 08 Would Be Great Democratic Years

`

[malaise]

62. All did not support the Dems

but despite the majority showing that there were still people here and on M$Greedia who said Rethugs would win and never forget Obama wasn't given a chance by M$Greedia to win the primaries let alone the elections.

[Odin2005]

60. The GOP has gone so far off the deep end that the real battle is WITHIN the Democratic Party.

Between us Liberals and the Blue Dog Conservatives.

[hfojvt]

63. unfortunately we did lose in 2008

at least in my district, and I was not expecting it.

[malaise]

70. Where is that? n/t

[hfojvt]

73. KS-02

I really underestimated the Republicanness of my district which we won in 2006.

[malaise]

76. Thanks n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. So quit reading them.

[notesdev]

71. I said we'd win big in 2008

Go back and check.

And I think we are going to lose big in 2010.

It all comes down to the same thing. People are fed up and will NOT re-elect a politician that takes marching orders from corporate donors.

[malaise]

72. I agree with you that people are fed up

Until there's a change in campaign financing, the corporate lobbyists will continue buying politicians.

[notesdev]

75. But how to make that change?

It was just a few years ago we had the big "Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act", allegedly intended to solve this very problem!

Who is going to vote for real reform when almost all the people doing the voting on the legislation have their seats by virtue of the fucked-upness of the current system?

Almost by definition these people are the beneficiaries of the system. When they last changed it, they did the usual bait-and-switch, leaving them even more entrenched and able to suck in even more corporate cash. Now the whole system runs on overt bribery - corps bribing politicians, politicians bribing each other, all with our money.

People are going to start voting from the rooftops if something doesn't change soon. A society cannot hold together with the social compact destroyed.

[malaise]

77. It won't change until citizens

want it changed and that time is coming. When the men and women in the House and Senate are as scared of citizens as the French politicians are of their citizens you'll know change is coming.