Forum Thread

Here's Why Democrats Win Even if They Lose Tonight

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 34 1 2 3 Next
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    We all know the media has already declared that the Democrats will lose the Senate tonight and, as much as I'd like to think otherwise, I don't disagree. It will unfortunately spell the end of any meaningful legislation getting passed in the next couple of years, but who actually thinks that anything would have been done had we retained control of the Senate? The Republicans will control the House no matter what and that means nothing of substance was going to get done anyway. But here's the kicker--if the Republicans win the Senate then the spotlight will be on them to actually govern. That may prove much more difficult than any of your Republican friends may think. Here's why:

    A Republican win will cast a spotlight on the divide between establishment Republicans and the radial Tea Party: McConnell has had no problem keeping his 'party of no' caucus in line because it's easy to say no to everything when you are in the minority. If the Republicans capture the Senate tonight then these divisions will be front and center. Will McConnell pander to the Tea Party and guarantee that nothing will get done these next two years or will he actually work to build consensus with moderate Republicans and centrist Democrats to pass legislation? I'm banking on the former and not the latter. That will be good for Democrats going into 2016.

    The map is far more favorable for Democrats in 2016: This has every potential to be an extremely short lived majority. The map is largely in the Democrats favor in 2016 and it always helps that it's a Presidential election year. Whether we like it or not, Democrats tend to vote far more in Presidential elections and not in the midterms. It drives me crazy, but my personal feelings don't really matter here. A lot of blue state Republicans who rode into office in the Tea Party wave of 2010 will be up for reelection. That does not bode well for them.

    The filibuster changes allowed President Obama to push through the highest number of federal judges in a generation: The downside to a loss tonight would be the screeching halt of federal judges being confirmed. I foresee a big push during the lame duck session to confirm as many vacancies as possible before the next session of Congress begins. Judges appointed by Democratic Presidents now outnumber those appointed by Republican Presidents. This little talked about shift in the judiciary will be Obama's lasting legacy.

    President Obama still has his veto pen: Don't forget that Obama will be able to block any and all crazy legislation that makes it to his desk. That won't happen often anyway because no one thinks that the Republicans will have a filibuster proof majority. Their tactics of filibustering everything under the sun will now come back to bite them where the sun don't shine.

    When was the last time anything actually happened during a Presidents final two years in office, anyway?: Think back to every recent President's final two years in office. Can anyone tell me of any major legislation that was passed during those two years? It just doesn't happen. So now we can sit back, pop the popcorn, and watch the Republican Party implode before our very eyes. Instead of being able to blame the Democrats for everything, Republicans will actually have to govern. I promise you it will be some high quality entertainment!

    Does anyone remember how things went the last time we put Republicans in charge? Sometimes we just need to be reminded of how crazy a party is before we cast them aside for eternity. It happened to the Whig party and it will eventually happen to the modern Republican Party. The party of no looks like they may be in the driver seat again. I wish them nothing but the best...pun intended.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Definitely true that a division in the GOP will rear its ugly head the moment if and when they take control of the Senate. Make no mistake, Republicans are not a unified party. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out on a bigger stage. Not that I'm looking forward to it, but there is a slight silver lining at least: exposure.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Excellent points but I really hope the Dems don't become the "party of no" and actually work with other Congressmen to try and improve the state of the country. The GOP has looked pretty ridiculous screaming "la la la" with their fingertips in their ears for the last 6 years. It may be wishful thinking but hopefully the GOP will finally open up to some discussion.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    FL got the "criminal" back in charge; again this guy "bought" his way in; you still call this a democratic civil country? One big corrupt mess!! As long as "money" runs an election process, then you know the results; one big circus; I guess we are still a third world country; which is run by money alone; elections should be about qualified persons without "money" involved; it is called "elections" as a cover up. No term limits either. So now we get an Kentucky (backwards State anyway) majority leader who barely can talk without a drool and makes you fall asleep when he talks.
    A very progressive country indeed. Not really!!
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You guys certainly see the glass as half full. I just see the losses. I hope there's a benefit down the road but what I currently see is that Republicans raise funds better, vote more faithfully, and spread their message quite well. Even though they are evil people (and very narrow minded) their candidates know how to keep a job.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote: You guys certainly see the glass as half full. I just see the losses. I hope there's a benefit down the road but what I currently see is that Republicans raise funds better, vote more faithfully, and spread their message quite well. Even though they are evil people (and very narrow minded) their candidates know how to keep a job.
    I see the glass as half full for a variety of reasons:

    *The Senate races were overwhelmingly in states that Obama lost in 2012. The 2014 map is far, far more favorable to Democrats.

    *The red state Democrats who lost last night only voted with the party half of the time. They also ran as far away from Obama as possible during this election, to their peril. I say good riddance to them.

    *Nothing was going to get done these next couple of years, anyway. Now Republicans will share the blame for that.

    *We will be able to sit back and enjoy watching a civil war for the heart and soul for the Republican Party. I promise you it will be one hell of a show.

    *McConnell can no longer just say 'no' to everything. He will be forced to lead, which is much more difficult.

    *Republicans don't have a super majority, so nothing will happen anyway. Anything that does actually pass will have to be bipartisan or Obama will veto it. Sure, they can pass budgetary items through reconciliation, but Obama will still be able to veto any spending measures he doesn't like.

    So the only thing that happened last night was now Democrats will filibuster all of the crazy legislation Republicans try to push through and Republicans can complain that Democrats are being obstructionist. Basically it'll be more of the same.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Piqua, OH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Why can't we move President's Day to the first Tuesday in November! That way we can have an election day that will look like the fourth of July! No longer will people be under the gun to vote after work and there will be plenty of volunteers to man the polls. This might take away some of the advantage of rich Republicans who can take the day off or vote early if they feel like it. The working man might have to work 5, 6, or even 7 days a week! There's plenty that is not fair about elections anyway, maybe this will help.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Mike Eproht Wrote: Why can't we move President's Day to the first Tuesday in November!
    I completely agree. It is a shame that election day is not a national holiday in this country. The majority of voting age individuals either have to wake up hours before their shift starts and hope they can cast their vote then or wait in line for hours at the end of their long work day. Is it of any surprise that the vast majority of voters in midterm elections are senior citizens who no longer have to worry about that?

    We are one of the few democracies in this world that doesn't have election day as a national holiday. The prospect of this terrifies Republicans though. They know that they lose elections when more people vote. That has been the case since 1980 and will continue to be the case moving forward. So don't expect any movement at the Federal Level to make election days a national holiday anytime soon.

    Other changes we can push for is to get more states to switch to mail-in voting. Here in Oregon we are sent a thick flyer a month and a half before the election that breaks down every person and resolution we will be voting on. They provide pro's and con's for each person and resolution without stating how we should vote. Then we are mailed our ballots and can either mail them back to the election office or drop them off at one of hundreds of drop boxes throughout the state. Is it of any surprise that we have a much higher average of voter participation compared to other states? It was just announced that 70 percent of eligible Oregon voters participated in this election. That is compared to the 36 percent average in the rest of the country. That is just appalling.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Jared --I agree that mail-in ballots help, but in Colorado it only improved voter turnout from 51.7% in 2010 to 52.4% in 2014. Part of the problem may have been that many voters were ignorant of the new system and didn't mail-in ballots until it was too late. Or they couldn't find a drop-off box or a Voter Polling and Service Station...or they were too cheap to pay for a 70 cent stamp. We are getting better but it will take time.

    However, that compares with 67.6% in 2012. That drop-off between the presidential and midterm election is largely due to young people not voting, especially single young women, but also Latinos. Democrats cannot blame it on voter suppression or money. Yes there were huge amounts of money spent by both sides, but in my view it reaches a saturation point and people tune out. There were no obstacles to prevent young people or Latinos from voting in Colorado...they just just weren't interested as much as they were when Obama was on the ballot. I think this applies to other states as well.

    Mark Udall lost to Cory Garder I believe because of the type of campaign he ran. Not very appealing TV ads. On the other hand, in the Governor's race, Democratic Governor Hickenlooper won garnering 913,000 votes (48%) for a small win over radical Beauprez, while Udall attracted 855,000 votes in his loss to Tea Party favorite Gardner. Udall should have won on the issues, but the important issues were largely absent from his TV ads.

    Mark Udall's campaign ran away from the Obama agenda even running ads stating where he opposed Obama. That was a mistake in my opinion.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Jared --I agree that mail-in ballots help, but in Colorado it only improved voter turnout from 51.7% in 2010 to 52.4% in 2014. Part of the problem may have been that many voters were ignorant of the new system and didn't mail-in ballots until it was too late. Or they couldn't find a drop-off box or a Voter Polling and Service Station...or they were too cheap to pay for a 70 cent stamp. We are getting better but it will take time.
    I am a firm proponent making sure the instructions for mail-in voting are perfectly clear and not confusing whatsoever. I'm not entirely sure how it is in Colorado, but it was very easy to do so here in Oregon. They advertise where every drop-off location is and make perfectly clear when you need to mail your ballot in by if that's the route you decide to take. I'd guess that the vast majority of people drop them off at the boxes, but it would just be a guess. Regardless, we Oregonians tend to vote a far higher percentage than other states. I hope Colorado made it as easily understood as that.

    I also believe we need to begin having a conversation about having a unified Federal ballot that is separate from state ballots. They would list the candidates for the U.S. House and Senate in each individual state and then add the Presidential candidates every four years. That way there can be absolutely zero confusion nationwide, at least when it comes to our Federal offices. I think we're a long way from that, but it is something I wish to see happen in my lifetime.

    Schmidt Wrote:However, that compares with 67.6% in 2012. That drop-off between the presidential and midterm election is largely due to young people not voting, especially single young women, but also Latinos. Democrats cannot blame it on voter suppression or money. Yes there were huge amounts of money spent by both sides, but in my view it reaches a saturation point and people tune out. There were no obstacles to prevent young people or Latinos from voting in Colorado...they just just weren't interested as much as they were when Obama was on the ballot. I think this applies to other states as well.
    I definitely agree with you. There is the very real possibility that many Colorado's, and democrats across the nation, purposely stayed home in a protest. The only bright side of that sad fact is that it wasn't another census year! 2010 hurt us far more in the long run than 2014 will.

    Schmidt Wrote:Mark Udall lost to Cory Garder I believe because of the type of campaign he ran. Not very appealing TV ads. On the other hand, in the Governor's race, Democratic Governor Hickenlooper won garnering 913,000 votes (48%) for a small win over radical Beauprez, while Udall attracted 855,000 votes in his loss to Tea Party favorite Gardner. Udall should have won on the issues, but the important issues were largely absent from his TV ads.

    Mark Udall's campaign ran away from the Obama agenda even running ads stating where he opposed Obama. That was a mistake in my opinion.
    I have only heard about how poor of a campaign Udall ran, but it would be nice to hear about it from someone who lives in Colorado.

    I totally agree that some Democrats badly miscalculated their campaigns. The liberal base brings out far more votes in the midterms, so I honestly don't understand why Democrats running for reelection during then go further left and not away from it. The Republicans have mastered this aspect of campaigning and we just keep doing the exact opposite. I long for the day when liberals actually start standing up for the positive things they've done. Wishful thinking, I know.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I have been a proud long time supporter of Senator Udall based on his stand and voting record on the issues that are important to me. He has been a strong supporter of the environment and Climate Change initiatives, budgets and fairer taxation, public education, gun safety initiatives (he's rated 'F' by the NRA), the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and Medicaid, civil liberties (gay rights, abortion, contraception), proposed job programs, and more.

    For many of these issues, Cory Gardner has taken exact opposite positions, or is flip flopping to get elected. His environmental score card is near zero. He believes in privatizing just about everything. The Koch brothers love him. The Tea Party has endorsed him.

    Udall's campaign was heavy on Cory Gardner's "personhood" support with hardly anything at all on the "Obama accomplishments". Republicans attacked him for siding too often with Obama, so Udall went on the defense and put out ads where he opposed Obama on government secrecy and spying...hardly issues that resonated with voters, but made Udall look more like an "Obama weak".

    I have personally met Senator Udall and can say he is a very good man for Colorado. He is on the right side of all the issues that Coloadoans should care about. If Cory Gardner is true to voting form, Coloradoans will turn against him.

    I was disappointed in Udall's campaign. He should have run on his record (which is indeed close to Obama's record), but he instead succumbed to the Republican criticism that he was just another Obama surrogate.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I should add that I was also very disappointed in the Denver Post editorial staff's endorsement of Gardner based on a sit down interview with him. It's like they totally ignored the past voting records of both candidates and assumed everyone was starting from a clean slate. They should be ashamed. They got conned.
  • Independent
    Campbellsport, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Jared,

    I was most interested to read your opinion about Tony's conetnsion. "These are evil people"... great insight into your heart is gained knowing you didn't chastise Tony for that comment.

    Chad
  • Independent
    Campbellsport, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    UserSTOP"> I see the glass as half full for a variety of reasons:

    *The Senate races were overwhelmingly in states that Obama lost in 2012. The 2014 map is far, far more favorable to Democrats.

    *The red state Democrats who lost last night only voted with the party half of the time. They also ran as far away from Obama as possible during this election, to their peril. I say good riddance to them.

    *Nothing was going to get done these next couple of years, anyway. Now Republicans will share the blame for that.

    *We will be able to sit back and enjoy watching a civil war for the heart and soul for the Republican Party. I promise you it will be one hell of a show.

    *McConnell can no longer just say 'no' to everything. He will be forced to lead, which is much more difficult.

    *Republicans don't have a super majority, so nothing will happen anyway. Anything that does actually pass will have to be bipartisan or Obama will veto it. Sure, they can pass budgetary items through reconciliation, but Obama will still be able to veto any spending measures he doesn't like.

    So the only thing that happened last night was now Democrats will filibuster all of the crazy legislation Republicans try to push through and Republicans can complain that Democrats are being obstructionist. Basically it'll be more of the same.

    Jared,

    I was most interested to read your opinion about Tony's conetnsion. "These are evil people"... great insight into your heart is gained knowing you didn't chastise Tony for that comment.

    Chad
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chad,
    I said they were evil people because in the past Republicans have closed most mental health facilities to save money but it's a huge problem currently which only favors the insurance companies (always follow the money). They are against programs that feed the hungry, old or poor, give medical coverage to the old or poor, give any assistance to illegal aliens. In my opinion, republicans often have big money and a very firm grip on it. So much for helping those in need. They say those are the lazy people stealing from the government.

    Last night David Letterman said: The republicans won the popular vote............. The democrats won the unpopular vote.