Comments on: New poll paints ugly 2010 picture

By: andylevinson

andylevinson — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:35:22 +0000

RE::People are losing their jobs and their homes, and all the while they see Washington working tirelessly to protect the bonuses of Wall Street executives who helped tank the economy.People are losing their jobs and their homes, and all the while they see Washington working tirelessly to protect the bonuses of Wall Street executives who helped tank the economy.

Washington is Obama and the democrats……not an abstract place….obama isn’t creating jobs…he is creating billionaires and saving billionaires

By: Michael Peck

Michael Peck — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:37:04 +0000

It’s the economy, stupid. If Obama can turn the unemployment picture around – or at least create the perception that the economy is turning around – the Democrats will win. If, as is likely, the economy continues to sour or there is some other domestic crisis, then the Democrats will lose seats.

Republicans have been masters of distracting the electorate with security issues (Communism, terrorism) that appeal to their base fears. Obama hasn’t found that hot-button issue, and health care isn’t it. Health insurance regulation is more cerebral than visceral.

By: stevelaudig

stevelaudig — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:34:13 +0000

the Senate democrats have allowed the Republicans to break the momentum from the election by showing that democratic elections in the U.S. are a sham when a minority can thwart the public will. Reid should have called the Republican bluff on the first filibuster. The public would have backed him [especially independents who don't like the insider political tricks such as the filibuster]. Reid let the momentum be broken and it was a colossal mistake. Now a form of buyer’s remorse set it. We voted for Democrats for change, there is no change, we quit. Don’t need an Axelrod to understand that.

By: Jon Pessah

Jon Pessah — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:14:33 +0000

Real or imagined, Democrats feel abandoned, as this poll indicates. Many reasons, but here are two that disturb me and other Democrats I know who were expecting things to change:
1. I still don’t know Obama’s position on health care, other than he wants it reformed. For the public option or not? For the Stupak amendment or not? And how in the world does this administration cut a deal with the likes of Billy Tauzin to limit what the drug companies contribute to reform? And then say nothing at all when it’s revealed that the industry has already raised prices to compensate for its “contribution?”
2. This administration’s tin ear on unemployment is astonishing, especially after working so hard to convince us that we were contractually obligated to pay the bonuses of the bankers who took our economy over the edge and then used our tax money to climb back.
At this point, whatever ends up passing for health care reform promises to be so compromised, and the continued inattention to the dreadful job situation so infuriating, that I fear even more Democrats will sit out in 2010 than the above poll shows.

By: cdithaca

cdithaca — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:13:05 +0000

I want to market a new T-shirt that says “I voted for hope and change and all I got was this lousy T-shirt”. On the back the Obama campaign logo will be melting away to show the Walmart happy face. That pretty much sums up how I feel.

I have one of the most progressive representatives in the House, Maurice Hinchey, who just sent out a long email about how single payer wasn’t politically viable and how he was really a great guy for supporting the House version of the Health Insurance Stupaked Profit Engorgement Act of 2009. Sure he’ll pick up a token Republican dirtbag to oppose him and maybe some ex-hippie Green and I’m supposed to be excited about getting out there to vote for him?

I think a lot of us are sick and tired of the Democratic Party. Sure Republicans are repulsive but if you think I’m getting off my ass to go vote for the least repulsive candidate again you’re kidding yourself.

The Democrats have shown their true colors this past year – yellow. They have the White House and both houses of Congress (I’m not buying that 60-vote super-majority bullshit. It’s a fucking rule that can be dropped with a simple majority vote) and they have accomplished exactly squat. In fact, they have made things worse. They don’t care about us so why the hell should we care about them?

By: kurtfawnigat

kurtfawnigat — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:18:17 +0000

The very thing that made Bam-Bam such an attractive candidate has now exposed the Dems for what they are: Empty-suit, millionaire lawyers that care about nothing- save for the expansion of charter schools, son of surge, and keeping kids off drugs. My God we must keep kids off the drugs!
And if you want to engineer a threat to sure up Dem votes in 2010 you’re screwed- the right already used all the poor brown people to sell the post 9/11 world.
Arpaio and Napolitano- once mortal enemies have now joined forces to fight the illegals. All the war on terror stuff with the rapes and children torture is branded “GOP.” I guess we could sell Fear of a Black Planet- meaning the violent criminal menace represented by Black America…
But W. Horton isn’t as scary as he used to be. Unless you’re Mike Huckabee.
Do you people really think the vague promise of green jobs or some other bullshit sells like amorphous fear and loathing?
It’s good fun though for non-sports fans- the whole horse race thing. I think Tour de France is a better analogy but i went to city college.
and why was everyone so quick to start using “climate change?”
Oh yeah, they have way better writers.
Partial birth aborted high-tech lynching and all that.

By: Matt Steinglass

Matt Steinglass — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:59:47 +0000

Michael, what do you think the politics are going to look like 6+ months from now, as the campaigns get going in earnest? Assuming health care is passed and the big bill on the table is climate change, will Democrats be able to mobilize around the GOP threat to the planet? Do voters care? Or is there some other way to mobilize around the kind of anxieties the GOP used in the 2002 midterms, the idea that the other party was a threat to the country?

Also, assuming Democrats lose their 60-vote Senate majority and the GOP can literally block any bill it wants, how will this change the media’s view of who’s responsible for gridlock? Currently we all focus on Democratic efforts to hold their party in line; but with only 57 Democrats, doesn’t that at least force the media to lay the blame for obstruction where it belongs?

By: lynx234

lynx234 — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:38:18 +0000

Democrats are extremely frustrated with not having enough Democrats to vote for. Look at the obstructionists in our own party, smug and secure with their own healthcare/salaries paid for by us and making sure the insurance giants get plenty more laws in their favor and kickbacks I mean lobbyist $$$, and these guys are controlling what the party does (along with the ridiculous situation of Lieberman’s influence) by keeping the party from doing anything. They should be (and are being) targeted. This is a huge problem. We need to get real Democrats to run against the fake Democrats.

By: andylevinson

andylevinson — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:11:30 +0000

Hopefully the republicans will shut down some of those printing presses at the Treasury….but that is probably too muich to hope for

By: Michael Roston

Michael Roston — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:04:32 +0000

Allison, I think you’re right that Democrats have to deliver on issues, but I wouldn’t underestimate the importance of the dull mechanics of successful get out the vote efforts. President Obama won in states like Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia in 2008 because he had a very aggressive and highly effective voter turnout operation underneath him. To see the problem here, consider the youth voter gap in the November 2009 contests in Virginia and New Jersey. If the Dems can’t maximize turn out in the places where they need it, they won’t win close elections in 2010.