Talk Elections

For me, the moment I realized the Republicans were back was in the aftermath of Joe Wilson's yelling "You lie!" at the health care speech. I discounted stories from his spokesman about a spike online fundraising twice what the Dem was pulling in because that was something Democrats excelled at, not Republicans other than Ron Paul. But then it turned out to be true.

I don't think they are back.....the party is in the worst shape it's ever been in and they have the worst leaders in McConnell, Boehner, Cantor and that jackass Steele.

I think the Dems just shot themselves in the foot with a bazooka....

If they are "back", it's because of the shameful heath care debacle.

I doubt that the "worm has turned."  It might be tunneling downward.

On this board, I'd say about half the Democrats got it the weekend before Brown's MA victory.

About half of the others got it just after that.

About half of those remaining might have gotten it from Nate Silver.

About half of those remaining will get it in November.

The remainder will get it, when they put down the pipe.

When Brown won the special election.

Republicans aren't "back,"  Democrats are "out."  There's a difference.  Obviously as the only other major party Republicans stand to gain quite a bit from Democratic misfortunes.  However, the Republican "resurgence" will be short lived.  Even if they retake Congress, any attempts to deliver on the "Tea Party agenda" and the inevitable failure of these attempts will send them further into the hole come 2012.  Republicans are still running on the Reagan coalition + 1994!  They need a new message if they want to hold onto power.  If you strip away the politics and propaganda, Democratic ideas are more popular than Republican ideas.  The Democrats have just done a piss-poor job of standing up for themselves as usual.

When Obama won the 2008 election. 

I don't think the Dems were in bad shape in 2009 when they presented themselves as the anti incumbant party which voters took their frustration out on them in the 3 special election. Their agenda was distracted due to the high unemployment as well as the terrorist attack and insurgency in Afghanistan.

Now, that the incumbants who were bound to be defeated at the polls and the heavy job losses have been lifted, with eight months left in the campaign season, Dems can reposition themselves to offset those losses and develop a message to the voters.

Scott Brown.

Last Summer, when Deeds and Corzine were losing by landslides.

Precisely!  When I saw that black president parading about on the television, I knew we were in for a backlash of histrionic proportions.

The worm hasn't turned yet, really.  It could well turn, as most of the requirements are there for it to occur, but we're not there yet.

That being said, the worm turning that began in 2005, commenced in 2006 and held until mid-2009 has likely been reversed and will probably not continue.

This has been my thinking. The only reason Republicans are doing well is because they're not Democrats, not on their own party's virtues.

I don't think the worm has turned all that much here, the states that were in play during the last election cycles are still very much in play, but the Dems will have fewer seats due to the anti incumbancy environment rather than anti democratic environment and Dems can very much minimize their losses here than they started out when they lost the 3 specials.

While I agree there's an anti-incumbency theme to all of this, the Dems are going to face the brunt of this much more than the GOP due to the nature, and execution, of the healthcare bill.  Old school (god, war, and pork) GOP candidates will be vulnerable, but I think incumbent fiscal conservatives will do very, very well.

I knew things were going to get ugly on November 4, 2008.

Obama wasn't going to magically make things better, contrary to popular belief within the American populace it seems.  If he didn't make immediate results, it was obvious that the tide would begin to turn.

Still, the moment I realized just how bad it is was when Obama's approval dropped below 50%.

Once again we are where we are at before the 2004 campaign a 50/50 nation and the map may very well play out in a very similar fashion as it did in 2004 with a few exceptions.

Personally, I'm expecting the news to be worse for the Dems in 2010 than it was in 2004.  You can see that in the numbers in CA, IL, PA and from the recent results in NJ, MA, and VA, all of which are substantially to the right of 2004.

It may cool down between now and November, but it looks ugly for the Dems today.

Yes, the tea party is having an effect on the party in power.  But as you can see there are republican moderates running in those states that those youj quote, are having an affect on as well.  The Dems on the ballots may be better off with a split vote.

I agree, but this looks more like a "big tent" voting pattern than a simple rebound to pre-"Bush is teh antichrist" days.

Frankly, it's the same pattern that gave Dems such a big voting bloc in the last two elections, which they've pissed away on far left policy initiatives.

lol wut

The worm has turned when you thought that the Dems was going to net gain seats, but it hasn't turned in terms of Dems retaining both majorities in the Congress.  And that was what I was referring to.

When Obama was awarded the Democratic nomination.

Make no mistake about it, while I'm still glad I voted for Obama over McSame and Failin, I still hold onto the belief that Hillary would have been better.

And, had she won, we wouldn't have to worry about these teabaggers since she's white and all.

They still would of found a way to go after her on Health care, they felt that this 2010 was a GOP regardless and that they can use that as a political weapon against any democratic president like they did in 1994.

The lesson learned in all of this -- whatever you do, don't win.  It's so much easier and more politically expedient to visciously oppose things than to govern responsibly.

I suppose domestic terrorism under Clinton was also because he was black?

lol. Most of the Teabaggers are not racist. They're just against Democrats trying to establish "big government." Since many Republicans called Hillary Clinton "the closest thing to a European socialist" back in 2007, I'm pretty sure we would have still had a Tea Party movement if Hillary would have won. And to be honest, I don't think Hillary would have handled domestic policy much differently than Obama. Maybe Hillary would have pushed through a public option for healthcare reform if she had enough Democrats in Congress (which would have made the Teabaggers even angrier than they are now), but other than that I don't see Hillary doing anything differently when it comes to domestic policy. And the economy would still have been about the same, so Hillary would have been just as unpopular as Obama is right now.

This sounds about right.  Instead of running to the center, the GOP has gone batsh**t even worse than Bush.  Sure they will pickup seats despite that this year, but it won't be as bad as 1994.  I could actually see the GOP nominating Palin(POTUS)/Quayle's son or Steele/Jindal (VP) giving the Democrats even more states this time than in 2008.  Bush actually had his head out of his ass with Hispanic voters.  This GOP wants to isolate them and they will pay in the end for it.

The GOP wants to block unemployment extensions and give tax cuts to millionaires that's what they want in 2010 and what Sarah Palin wants to do in 2012 and Mitt Romney, I dont think people want to go back.