Huge Losses for Dems in the South; GOP Surges in Midwest

Pajamas Media ^ | November 3, 2010 | Rich Baehr

[nhwingut]

Obama had such huge majorities in the House and Senate and across state houses that he thought he could do anything... and live to tell about it.

Wrong. Payback is a beetch.

[oilfieldtrash]

Maybe better this way. If things hit the skids, the GOP wont be totally responsible.

[Jvette]

Idiots.

They ignore the fact that there were far more Republican seats up than Democratic. The Republicans did not lose a single seat while the Dems lost at least 6. The seats the Dems held onto are in deep blue places excluding the one in Nevada where Reid managed to win due to the immigrant and union influence in the south where the bulk of the populace resides.

[Major Matt Mason]

I think taking back the White House in 2012 is a real possibility. The bloom is off the rose as far as Obama goes. He will not get the support of independent voters again, and they are the ones that put him over the top.

[grumpygresh]

“After an Obama sweep of the Midwest in 2008 (Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (they are in the Big Ten after all)”

We can form the Republican Football Conference from the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12. We might have to kick out CO though.

[RetiredArmy]

HELLO, HELLO, HELLO!! Have I got your attention there Rick? ALABAMA smashed the dims right out of existence. The republicans TOOK OVER THE STATE LEGISLATURE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 136 YEARS!! Forget NC’s puny 100 years. We kept the republican governor's chair. Took AWAY the Lt Gov chair from the former gov and two time Lt Gov, Jim Folsom. They control the House and Senate by a good margin. We have the Atty Gen, Sec of State, chairs also. Both US senators are republicans. Republicans now dominate our congressional critters. I think it is 7 of 9 are now republicans. Hey, the MOST CONSERVATIVE state in this country, JUST WENT MORE CONSERVATIVE!!! My local house and senate guys are republicans also. The former speaker of the state house, a dim, went down in flames! Don't ignore the conservative leader there Rick (author of the article).

[stefanbatory]

The major piece of info here in the article that has so far been largely ignored - aside from the state legislature massacres for the dems - is the fact that 24 dem senate seats are up in 2012.

[Kaslin]

You said it

[Jvette]

Yes. The next two years will be interesting.

[Liz]

Obama won with huge majorities in the Congress----with Dems controlling statehouses----that he thought he could do anything........

My all-time fave post-Nov 2 comment: "Freshmen Congressmen who got into office through the calculated machinations of Rahm Emanuel are ALL GONE."

ROTFL.

As nhwingut wrote: PAYBACK IS A BEETCH This sucker Rahm duped the voters over and over---on Nov 2 they told him they were onto him.

It's a good thing Rahm was kicked out of the WH before Nov 2.

2012 OHAHA IS NEXT TO FEEL THE LASH OF THE VOTERS Rahm had 2008 Marxist candidate Ohaha saying things like, "I want to be another Reagan."

And voters bought it......then.

[Liz]

Dems have to be kicking themselves. Their worst night since 1928. They had it all. And blew it........thanks to Obama's "bitter clinging" to his healthcare debacle.

Democrats' suffered dramatic defeats at every level of government, in Washington, and beyond. Sweeping setbacks on Capitol Hill and the loss of multi-state governorships even in left-leaning states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania. They even lost Illinois, a Dem bastion (home to Ohaha and his WH crew).

Repubs flipped at least 14 chambers, and have unified control of 25 state legislatures Fifty five state chambers are controlled by Repubs with a win of 500 Republican legislators.....100 in NH alone. In Maine, the Repubs have a trifecta---they control the governorship and both houses.

" Holy Allah. Illinois? Gone? That little twerp Rahm.
Him and his permanent Democrat majority."

[ModelBreaker]

“The GOP can not afford to squander winnable Senate seats in defense of ideological purity.”

Nor can the GOP nominate folks like Christ and Graham, who will vote with the rats on issues like repealing obamacare and cap and trade and reducing the deficit and filibustering judges.

Power without the ability to do anything useful is meaningless. Actually, worse than meaningless. R defectors are used by the old media to trumpet the bipartisanship of socialist measures.

[ModelBreaker]

“...sensible, balanced immigration plan...”

In other words, vote for amnesty in return for a promise of border security and enforcement, which promise will be broken the way it has always been broken. Nope. I will not support amnesty republicans. Period.

Build the fence, enforce the border. Call me in twenty years when the ruling class has demonstrated that it will actually do these things on a sustained basis.

Dress that up in all the ribbons and nice-nice bows you want.

One suggestion. Most conservatives I know are not angry at illegals. They are angry at our ruling class for deliberately not enforcing the border and deliberately ignoring enforcement of existing laws for decades. Put the dialog and anger where it belongs—on democrats and amnesty republicans. Illegals are just doing what the dems and amnesty republicans want them to do—cross the border.

I think Angle’s add that focused on illegals was a mistake. It should have focused on the lack of a fence, on the lack of enforcement and the bad choices our rulers have made in that regard.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” 2012 OHAHA IS NEXT TO FEEL THE LASH OF THE VOTERS Rahm had 2008 Marxist candidate Ohaha saying things like, “I want to be another Reagan.”

And voters bought it......then. “

Well, the voters just wholesaled Obama for $1.75 ;-)

[mrsmel]

Exactly. What do they think conservatives vote for Republicans for, to go enact rat policy? I know we have to smooth the corners a bit in general elections, but I sure get tired of some Republicans acting like we want Republicans in the majority just for the sake of having Republicans there, and not for a reason.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Unfortunately, the inability to take the Senate means that chamber can kill whatever good the House proposes to do.

[tickles]

I know people who have come in a illegals and who actually straightened out their papers and eventually gained citizenship. I do understand the problems in their home countries that make them come here to improve their lives. But even my friends who are now citizens wonder why no ID is required to vote? as they say, that’s just not right.

Ending the illegal problem will take time but it can be done, not by stuffing them all in buses or planes and returning them en mass but by enforcing the border, FINING their employers (especially the big ones, Hormel comes to mind) and not giving them any assistance for housing and health care. Does that mean they’ll all leave? Nope, cause many of them have what many of our young people and many of our older adults don’t, they have the willingness to work their butts off to earn the money that they do. It’s one reason that processing companies hire them. Our poor are to used to the gubermint giving them stuff, Mexican’s really aren’t.

So I guess I’m saying there will be no easy quick fix, but enforce our border laws and crack down on employers as a start. There may be enough unemployed workers who really do want to work now that they will take those nasty jobs.

[Aetius]

Mexicans may not come here thinking about the govt goodies they will get, but who is going to look a gift horse in the mouth? It’s the same with racial preferences; they may not come here thinking about that at all, but I’m sure they would be thrilled if their children got a preference over white kids when competing for college.

And as long as mass immigration continues (legal included), then the customer base for things conservatives abhor (like expanding govt and racial preferences) will grow, and therefore the political power of those pushing such things will grow, thus making it all the more difficult to get rid of such things.

[Aetius]

Not the Tancredo approach, and not amnesty you say. Well, either illegals will go home (through a combination of deportation, attrition through enforcement, or other factors), or they will stay. If they stay, they will most likely get a path to citizenship (who knows, maybe Sotomayor and Kagan will give it to them), and that is amnesty.

And for all the demonization of Tancredo as an extremist (sadly echoed by many Republicans suffering from the delusion that the GOP can win the Hispanic vote if only we got rid of the ‘bigots’ in the party...that they are accepting the Left’s definition of a bigot never seems to dawn on them), it would be interesting to take his positions on immigration and poll the American people on them.

Tancredo supports reducing legal immigration (something rarely discussed but necessary if the GOP is to avoid demographic destruction). Guess what? Americans have consistently expressed majority or plurality support for the same. Sometimes support for maintaining current levels takes the top spot, but support for reducing legal immigration is always higher than support for increasing legal immigration. Support for increase is far and away the most fringe position. Yet incredibly many powerful Republicans favor increasing legal immigration, which sadly is the same thing as increasing the pace of the party’s march to the grave.

Tancredo supports a combination of deportation and attrition through enforcement to deal with illegals currently here, and much tougher border security and sanctions against employers to stop future illegal immigration. Well, the public overwhelmingly agrees about border security and interior enforcement, while the question of how to deal with present illegals is trickier to gauge public opinion. How the question is asked greatly influences the outcome, but the attrition strategy is a very mainstream position.

So Tancredo’s conservative views on immigration are actually very mainstream, and often majority views in America. The question is whether or not an agenda of conservative immigration reform and those leading it could avoid being demonized as anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, racist xenophobes?

The answer to that is no, and that is a sad commentary on the state of public discourse.