PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Howard Dean: "It's Going To Be A Hard November For Democrats..."


RINGLEADER
01-16-2010, 09:43 AM
So Howard Dean says the Dem base is "demoralized". But, like most of the other Dem strategists and commentators, they refuse to believe that the reason they have lost so much support is because they've tacked so far left. Sure, there are some liberals who are disappointed that Obama hasn't taken us further to the left faster, but the losses in recent elections, the terrible poll numbers, and the fact that MA is so close has much more to do with the Dem attempts to "fundamentally change the United States of America". The fact that they're so tone deaf about why people no longer support them is actually a good thing though -- the longer they're in denial about public support of their plans the more likely it is they'll be out of power around this time next year...

--- From the New York Times ---

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The ill winds of an angry electorate are blowing against Democrats, the warning signs clear in a closer-than-expected Massachusetts Senate race that may doom President Barack Obama's health care agenda and foreshadow the party's midterm election prospects.

Anti-incumbent, antiestablishment sentiment is rampant. Independents are leaving Obama. Republicans are energized. Democrats are subdued. And none of that bodes well for the party in power.

''It's going to be a hard November for Democrats,'' Howard Dean, the Democratic Party chairman in 2006 and 2008 elections when the party took control of the White House and Congress, told The Associated Press in an interview. ''Our base is demoralized.''

While he praised Obama as a good president, Dean said the Democrat hasn't turned out to be the ''change agent'' the party thought it elected, and voters who supported Democrats in back-to-back elections now are turned off. Said Dean: ''They really thought the revolution was at hand but it wasn't, and now they're getting the back of the hand.''

Just how much voters have soured since Obama took office -- and took over a country in chaos -- is reflected in the president's late-game decision to rush to Massachusetts on Sunday to try to stave off an extraordinary Republican upset in the race for a Senate seat Democrats have held for more than half a century.

Obama faced a no-win situation as he weighed whether to campaign with Democrat Martha Coakley. Had he decided against going, he would have enraged the base and been blamed if she lost. But a Coakley defeat following a presidential visit would be embarrassing, raising questions about Obama's popularity and political muscle.

Once heavily favored to cruise to victory, Coakley is locked in a tight fight with Republican Scott Brown, a little-known state senator, for the race to fill the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's seat.

The stakes are enormous.

Losing the race would cost the Democrats their 60-vote coalition in the Senate. The president has been relying on that supermajority to stop Republican filibusters and pass not only his health care overhaul but also the rest of his legislative agenda heading into his first midterm elections.

A Suffolk University poll released late Thursday showed Brown with 50 percent of the vote and Coakley with 46 percent. The survey indicated that Brown's supporters -- a mix of disaffected Democrats, a large number of Republicans and a majority of independents -- are far more enthusiastic than Coakley's backers.

Voters are down on Washington. They are deeply divided over the health care plan in Congress. And a majority think the country is on the wrong track. Nearly all remain anxious about the prolonged recession even though there are signs of recovery. And only about half approve of Obama's job performance. Excessive spending and big government irk them. And they have lost faith in institutions.

It was that same brew that helped Republican Chris Christie topple Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine in New Jersey, and Republican Bob McDonnell overtake Democrat Creigh Deeds in Virginia. Those victories coupled with the tight race for Kennedy's seat have Republicans and Democrats alike predicting a good GOP year in 2010 and a tough one for Democrats who control the White House and Congress.

''Washington is just not in touch,'' Dean said. And now, he said, the tables have turned: ''Republicans are unified against Democrats the way we were against them when Bush was president.''

In the country at large, a new Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor survey found that the public's yearslong shift against institutions is in overdrive, fueling antiestablishment sentiment. It also showed that Obama has lost his luster -- his job performance rating is at 47 percent -- amid a belief that his administration's response to the recession has favored the wealthy and powerful over the middle class and average families.

The survey also showed that people have little trust in any institution; they gave bottom-barrel ratings to government, major corporations, and financial entities. And, many Americans say the country is heading the wrong way, levels similar to those during the George W. Bush years.

All that adds up to a warning for Democratic candidates running for House, Senate or gubernatorial seats this fall, and for politicians of any stripes for that matter.

Such an environment also portends troubles for Obama's long-term agenda: Passing his legislative priorities would become much more difficult with fewer seats. And if Coakley does poorly but still ekes out a victory, moderate Democrats in Congress may think twice about falling in lockstep behind the White House on its priority legislation.

The public's mood also could scare off establishment Democrats considering entering races, like Beau Biden for Delaware's open Senate seat, or prompt vulnerable Democratic incumbents, like Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, to retire.

Brown, a little-known Republican state senator with a limited record who had never before run statewide, shed his party markings and downplayed his conservative credentials throughout the monthlong campaign. He spent weeks campaigning not just against Coakley but against Capitol Hill.

''If you want someone who's going to lower your taxes and bring common sense back to Washington, then join with me,'' he says.

Coakley, the state's popular Democratic attorney general, comes right out of the establishment and has embraced her stature within the party. She has run a Rose Garden inevitability strategy, largely shunned retail politics, and dashed to Washington for an oh-so-insider fundraiser.

Now, with the race tight in its final days, Coakley's trying to appeal to an anti-Washington, pro-populism electorate by seizing the fight-for-the-little-guy mantle in hopes of thwarting a Republican victory. The White House and Coakley are hammering Brown for opposing Obama's just-announced plan to tax large Wall Street firms.

''I'm standing with Main Street on this one. Scott Brown stands with Wall Street,'' Coakley charged.

''There's only one candidate in this race who's a tax cutter -- and it's not Martha Coakley,'' countered Brown, unwilling to cede his advantage among the angry electorate.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/16/us/politics/AP-US-Angry-America-Analysis.html?_r=2

HonestChieffan
01-16-2010, 09:53 AM
Didn't another Dem announce he would retire in Arkansas yesterday?

SNR
01-16-2010, 12:12 PM
Wow. That was one short pendulum swing

BucEyedPea
01-16-2010, 04:53 PM
So Howard Dean says the Dem base is "demoralized". But, like most of the other Dem strategists and commentators, they refuse to believe that the reason they have lost so much support is because they've tacked so far left. Sure, there are some liberals who are disappointed that Obama hasn't taken us further to the left faster, but the losses in recent elections, the terrible poll numbers, and the fact that MA is so close has much more to do with the Dem attempts to "fundamentally change the United States of America". The fact that they're so tone deaf about why people no longer support them is actually a good thing though -- the longer they're in denial about public support of their plans the more likely it is they'll be out of power around this time next year...

--- From the New York Times ---

Well, THAT ( bold) and they deny they're socialists or implementing socialism. THAT is what Obama meant by "change" obviously, but that's not the same thing many voters wanted ( exempting the hard left). That's the point they haven't clicked on. They thought it meant make America socialist/fascist aka fascialist. Hence the legislation they're trying to pass. They took advantage of the desire for change from the Republicans but gave us something else....or actually more of Bush to the tenth power. Meanwhile, no real change on the FP front.

Cannibal
01-16-2010, 04:58 PM
Wow. That was one short pendulum swing

They should have stuck to the economy and debt and tackled healthcare later. IMO, Healthcare would be more palatable to the general public if we had less than 5% unemployment.

morphius
01-16-2010, 05:23 PM
Wow. That was one short pendulum swing
Yup, they were just trumpeting the end of the republican party, and then by concentrating on all the wrong things have brought them back quicker than expected.

RINGLEADER
01-16-2010, 08:32 PM
They should have stuck to the economy and debt and tackled healthcare later. IMO, Healthcare would be more palatable to the general public if we had less than 5% unemployment.

Their stupidity is several-fold...

They thought that just because Obama won it meant that America supported what he ran on. They didn't and the Dems (as evidenced by Axelrod in Politico this morning saying that no matter what happens this year it won't be a referrendum on the administration...yeah, right) just can't seem to reconcile the current reaction with Obama's election as a liberal.

Secondly, they could have passed a much more potent version of health care reform back in August if Obama had included Republicans early in the process and advocated those elements of reform that the GOP either supports or couldn't politically refuse. Instead they got caught up in the possibility of controlling the whole system and now they're so pregnant they've long since seen the point of no return fade in their rear-view mirrors.

Absent a substantial turn-around in the economy, which NONE of Obama's policies seem designed to help, the Dems are going to be whistling the "it's not our agenda that people don't like" tune all the way to a landslide in November. We can only hope the extent of the damage they do between now and then is kept to a minimum.

The Mad Crapper
01-16-2010, 08:39 PM
Their stupidity is several-fold...

They thought that just because Obama won it meant that America supported what he ran on. They didn't and the Dems (as evidenced by Axelrod in Politico this morning saying that no matter what happens this year it won't be a referrendum on the administration...yeah, right) just can't seem to reconcile the current reaction with Obama's election as a liberal.

Secondly, they could have passed a much more potent version of health care reform back in August if Obama had included Republicans early in the process and advocated those elements of reform that the GOP either supports or couldn't politically refuse. Instead they got caught up in the possibility of controlling the whole system and now they're so pregnant they've long since seen the point of no return fade in their rear-view mirrors.

Absent a substantial turn-around in the economy, which NONE of Obama's policies seem designed to help, the Dems are going to be whistling the "it's not our agenda that people don't like" tune all the way to a landslide in November. We can only hope the extent of the damage they do between now and then is kept to a minimum.

And just as important the R's who replace the D's are CONSERVATIVES.

RedDread
01-16-2010, 09:41 PM
My disillusion with the democrats comes from the lack of unity within the party. When the health care debate ramped up, all of a sudden we started seeing these different factions within the party start to separate. That gave an opportunity for the republicans to drive a wedge between them. Universal heath care is something that should be a no-brainer for a country as rich as we are. However, that being said: I agree with Cannibal that it wasn't the most pressing issue. BO campaigned on it but by the time he took office a much bigger problem had presented itself. It also sickened me (but did not surprise me) how much influence the health care industry had over many key members of congress. That came to light and I hope it comes back to bite them in the ass when they are up for re-election.

notorious
01-17-2010, 07:14 AM
Universal heath care is something that should be a no-brainer for a country as rich as we are.


Rich has nothing to do with it.

The government has NEVER ran anything correctly. What makes you think that they can run a National Health Care system?

The Democrats are going about the process in a dirty, back-alley way. Payoffs to certain states to buy votes, going against what the people want, lying to our face, and acting like they know what is better for us then we do is killing them.

They think we are too stupid or misinformed to realize what they are doing due to having the media in their back pocket.

They are wrong.

Screw all of them, including the Republicans. Why can't we just get people in there that run the country the way it was meant to be run by our founding fathers?

Bwana
01-17-2010, 07:38 AM
Screw all of them, including the Republicans. Why can't we just get people in there that run the country the way it was meant to be run by our founding fathers?

Bingo.

Our political system has turned into a complete cluster. When your average politician gets in there, they have one goal, to make as much money as they can for themselves, before they get out.

Most of these clowns don't give a damn about "the people back home." :shake: It's mind-blowing how out of touch these people seem to be with their constituents.

As I have stated before, they all need to be rounded up and run through a wood chipper and we need to start over, because this isn't cutting it. (no pun intended)

notorious
01-17-2010, 07:47 AM
Bingo.

Our political system has turned into a complete cluster. When your average politician gets in there, they have one goal, to make as much money as they can for themselves, before they get out.

Most of these clowns don't give a damn about "the people back home." :shake: It's mind-blowing how out of touch these people seem to be with their constituents.

As I have stated before, they all need to be rounded up and run through a wood chipper and we need to start over, because this isn't cutting it. (no pun intended)

I think the problem is that most if not all of the politicians in office have been groomed since birth for the job. The have no idea what a real american does/thinks/believes.

We need people that have worked their whole life, who have lived in the real world, and knows how things really work. We need people that believe that the government should protect the people, but stay out of our way after that.

We do not need people that grew up in a sheltered life with one goal in mind:Political Gain and Power.

It blows my mind that they can inject "side-deals" that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual bill trying to be passed.

They think that they are superior, smarter, and know how to run our lives better then we do.

Bwana
01-17-2010, 08:07 AM
I think the problem is that most if not all of the politicians in office have been groomed since birth for the job. The have no idea what a real american does/thinks/believes.

We need people that have worked their whole life, who have lived in the real world, and knows how things really work. We need people that believe that the government should protect the people, but stay out of our way after that.

We do not need people that grew up in a sheltered life with one goal in mind:Political Gain and Power.

It blows my mind that they can inject "side-deals" that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual bill trying to be passed.

They think that they are superior, smarter, and know how to run our lives better then we do.

I agree with the pork as well. "Yeah, you can have my vote, but I'm going to need a bridge that goes to nowhere in order for that to happen." That kind of BS is wrong on so many levels. If the bill can't stand on its own merit, it should be tossed out. Once again, it goes back to the attitude and arrogance of the common politician. They are completely out of touch with the average citizen.

petegz28
01-17-2010, 10:59 AM
Bingo.

Our political system has turned into a complete cluster. When your average politician gets in there, they have one goal, to make as much money as they can for themselves, before they get out.

Most of these clowns don't give a damn about "the people back home." :shake: It's mind-blowing how out of touch these people seem to be with their constituents.

As I have stated before, they all need to be rounded up and run through a wood chipper and we need to start over, because this isn't cutting it. (no pun intended)

Hey, the Taliban is out of Afghanistan. Martha Coakley told me so.

RINGLEADER
01-17-2010, 12:52 PM
My disillusion with the democrats comes from the lack of unity within the party. When the health care debate ramped up, all of a sudden we started seeing these different factions within the party start to separate. That gave an opportunity for the republicans to drive a wedge between them. Universal heath care is something that should be a no-brainer for a country as rich as we are. However, that being said: I agree with Cannibal that it wasn't the most pressing issue. BO campaigned on it but by the time he took office a much bigger problem had presented itself. It also sickened me (but did not surprise me) how much influence the health care industry had over many key members of congress. That came to light and I hope it comes back to bite them in the ass when they are up for re-election.


Two thoughts:

1. I thought the civil war was inside the Republican Party. Remember just a year ago how all the pundits and "moderate" Republicans were telling us how the Party of Reagan was dead. I guess the reports of that death were a bit premature.

2. A country as rich as we are? Seriously?

I will concede (as I highlighted early on in the process) that you shouldn't let politicians run wars or determine what's good health care. They're motivated by the wrong things. That's how you end up with a byzantine health care bill that treats certain groups differently from others and is so watered down as to ineffectively accomplish little of what was originally proposed. I don't agree with most of what they were trying to do at the start of the process but the politicians, as you point out, managed to end up in a place where they spend a lot more money to accomplish a whole lot less that they could have otherwise.

RINGLEADER
01-17-2010, 12:54 PM
Hey, the Taliban is out of Afghanistan. Martha Coakley told me so.

Everybody acts so surprised that Brown is in that race. If you look at how piss-poor Coakley has run they should really be surprised that she's even in the race.