Posted on 11/07/2010 1:12:35 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
1994 was much worse. Much. So was 1980, but of course, that was also a presidential election. Within days, there were makeshift unemployment offices in all the congressional office buildings.
Actually, to be a little Pollyanna-ish here, what's striking is that for Democrats, it could have been so much worse. California and New York were, for starters, exempt. Also Massachusetts. A whole slew of people who could very well have lost — from Harry Reid in Nevada to Chris Coons in Delaware — didn't. The Senate remained Democratic. People were much more into throwing the bums out when it came to House races than gubernatorial races.
For all the talk about the tea party movement generating enthusiasm, that enthusiasm came at a price, for which Christine O'Donnell will always be the poster girl. You nominated her for a Senate seat you would have otherwise won? Are you crazy? People were still asking these questions on election night.
This is what Republicans have to "manage" for the next two years, along with the fact that their best-known and most magnetic star, Sarah Palin, also has the highest negatives. I'd take Barack Obama's political problems over hers any day. And so, I think, would any professional.
No one speaks for "the American people" — notwithstanding the many who claimed to on Tuesday night. At best, candidates who won really "big" could claim to speak for about 60 percent of the 50-some percent of us who even bothered to vote. Most people, it bears remembering, didn't say anything at all on Tuesday, one way or the other.
But the message that comes out of the results is not revolutionary at all. The Republicans got the keys, but they didn't get the car.
Cynics will tell you that paralysis is the most likely result, and they're probably right. Still, among all the "voter" interviews I've heard in the past 24 hours, it is hard to remember anyone saying they were voting so that Washington could become even more divided and partisan and unproductive than it already is. Voters, we should not be shocked to hear, are a whole lot less partisan than the leaders of partisan politics. If paralysis cometh, he or she who is seen as being responsible for it will pay.
The other possibility is some balance. At least some Republicans were sounding a more practical theme. They recognize that they have to do some things that actually pass and become law. They can't spend the next two years solely focused on making sure that Obama doesn't get re-elected, or they will assure that he does. That was 1996. Whatever the talking heads say, once they get to D.C., even the biggest tea drinkers will discover that a revolutionary who comes home empty-handed isn't going to be welcomed.
The best thing about midterms is that they provide an occasion for midterm corrections. I don't think America rejected Obama's presidency last night. But they rejected the experience they've had of it in the first two years: unemployment; huge bills being passed that most people don't yet understand; bailouts for those too big to fail but not for those too small to matter; a president who is without question smart, but whose ability to "feel our pain" much less motivate his base has yet to be established.
It's how you play your hand that matters in the end. The president has been dealt a new hand — not the one he wanted, certainly, and not the easiest hand to play, but it has possibilities. If politics works at all like it's supposed to, in the playing of it, he'll show himself.
In before the big mouthed bass photo.
“I don’t think America rejected Obama’s presidency last night. But they rejected the experience they’ve had of it in the first two years: unemployment; huge bills being passed that most people don’t yet understand; bailouts for those too big to fail but not for those too small to matter”
in other words, basically everything about Obama’s presidency.
When you start here, where can you go? I'll skip the rest if this is Estrich's level of acceptance of reality.
Susan, you lost Russ Feingold. Russ Feingold! If that doesn’t tell you something, I don’t know what will.
The amazing Commies push and push, don’t they? Hundreds of millions dead and displaced, and they still want Stalin or Mao to be their leader.
Dukakis, The Clintons, Obama, Kerry, Mondale, Edwards, Gore...they are all the same, Communists who want a USSR with their buddies ruling over us all, then uniting with Soros to be ruled by the UN.
Bush I vs. Dukakis - 1988
Electoral votes - 426 - Bush, 111 - Dukakais
Now, that was an ass-kicking, why didn’t you mention that?
I guess you could say a prostitute is a professional.
The American people are beginning to see that these people are just making things up. They so want to believe in socialism, despite all the evidence that it doesn't work.
She's really not stupid enough to believe that but she sure hopes her readers are. That Reid "could very well have lost ..." is nothing short of amazing given the fact he was not only a big wheel in on the Hill, but both democrat and republican pundits classified his and a slew of others as "safe seats" where the incumbent never faced a serious challenge and according to the pundits never would.
It's sure nice to see people like Estrich grasping at straws, really nice. Regards
Susan isn’t alone in her delusions, but at least these were written long BEFORE the election:
As we head toward 2010, history suggests that Republicans would be expecting to make gains — though whether any gain, if it materializes, is a modest one of 10 seats or less, a moderate one of 10 to 20 seats, or a major gain of 20 or more, remains to be seen. For those looking for comparisons to 1994, however, there are limits to the similarities – at least in the way the current House is set up.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5335263-503544.html
“[e]ven if Obama and Democrats are just as popular next November as they were last November, they might stand to lose five to ten seats in the House based on the altered composition of the midterm electorate alone.”
That’s bad, but it’s certainly not political reversal on the scale of 1994. Unlike Bill Clinton at the same time in his presidency, Obama’s approval ratings seem to have recently stabilized in the low-fifties; not great, but not that bad in a polarized country, either. And as both Abramowitz and Ron Brownstein have pointed out, in group after group of the electorate, he remains as popular as he was when he was elected. A cyclical turnover of ten House seats, which seems to be the most likely scenario in 2010, would not a revolution make.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/some-revolution
ROFL!
Rubio deserved to win but O’Donnell and Angle deserved to lose. Rubio’s a rising star while the others would have been the butt of jokes for the next 2 years, killing all chances for more pickups in 2012.
As opposed to getting getting two self serving anuses one of whom proved he had zero loyalty to party?
I would have taken the chance and we would have two more definite conservatives on our side.
Same with Joe Miller of Alaska.
Same with Sharon Angle of Nevada.
Same with Ruth McClung of Arizona. I mean who doesn’t find a Rocket Scientist sexy?
I get your point but disagree.
Bottom line is our guys, well supposedly our guys, worked against the expressed will of the voter to knee cap our choices.
“The Dude” does not abide with back stabbers.
The progressive spin: The 2010 mid-term elections saved dozens of Democrat jobs in Congress.
Miller seemed to be a solid guy but he lost it with the east germany comment.
These people must be outed as communists. The don’t ask don’t tell censorship of their politics has got to stop.
I saw Estrich on Greta or some show the other day. Man, either they used a soft filter on the camera lens, or she’s had some major work done. She had more wrinkles in 1988!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.