Why didnt the DNC focus on state legislative and governor's races in 2010?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:49:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Why didnt the DNC focus on state legislative and governor's races in 2010?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why didnt the DNC focus on state legislative and governor's races in 2010?  (Read 395 times)
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 17, 2012, 11:03:08 AM »

This is what continues to drive me crazy.  There are three obvious examples where the DNC could have made the difference and helped give Democrats a likely 8-10 more House seats. 

One is New York.  Had Democrats kept full control in New York, they could have drawn Republicans down to just two House seats, one on Long Island(Peter King) and one upstate(a district that swallows up the most Republican parts of Western New York and voted around 55% McCain).  This was all lost because a Democrat lost a 77% Obama district in the state Senate in Buffalo and a strongly Dem seat on Long Island by a combined 1,000 votes.  Had the DNC been monitoring this situation, both of these seats would have been saved.

Another is Michigan.  Had Democrats kept the Michigan state House, they would have been able to block a GOP gerrymander and set up a fair fight district between Gary Peters and Thad McCottter(who would have retired anyway).  Democrats had a 67-43 advantage in the state House and should have been able to hold their losses to single digits there.  However, they allowed Republicans to pick up a bunch of Dem leaning seats and get a majority there without a fight. 

The final place where the DNC could have helped was Ohio where Ted Strickland lost by just a hair.  A bigger Dem turnout and a higher percentage in Cuyahoga would have saved him and blocked a GOP gerrymander there.  It would have kept OH-01 increasingly nearly  unwinnable for Chabot(who only won in 2010 because the GOP wave).  It would have also kept OH-12 and OH-15 Dem trending and increasingly Democratic.

Since Obama, the DNC has turned into the ONC(The Obama National Committee) and the Democrats have paid dearly for it.  Of course, all of the same idiots on Daily Kos who said redistricting doesnt matter cause "them did it in 2001 and that didnt stop a Dem majority in 2006" are now complaining that Democrats cant win a majority because of redisticting.

Now the Republicans have a locked in House majority that can never be thrown out no matter what.   
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,776
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2012, 11:40:48 AM »

Because just like Arlen Specter and Claire McCaskill didn't attend any town hall events after the health care reform debacle. Dems were increasingly nervous around the events the tea party were staging around the country and didn't want increased scrutiny surrounding their health care reform efforts. Instead, of losing 25 seats and 2-3 seats in the senate, they lost 70 seats and nearly lost the senate had it not been for the the flawed candidates in DEL, CO, and NV. Now, the tea party has worn out its welcome and the fundraising is done on Obama's coattails they can keep the senate and compete for the majority in the house.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2012, 05:10:13 PM »

Shut up.  You've been bitching for 2 years; enough is enough.
Logged
Spanish Moss
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2012, 06:05:35 AM »

My question is - with a majority, and therefore the ability to get a ton done, why did the Democrats do virtually nothing meaningful or progressive between 2008 - 2010?
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2012, 06:08:50 AM »

My question is - with a majority, and therefore the ability to get a ton done, why did the Democrats do virtually nothing meaningful or progressive between 2008 - 2010?

Democrats have no such thing as party discipline (and the stupid supermajority requirement).
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2012, 06:29:03 AM »

My question is - with a majority, and therefore the ability to get a ton done, why did the Democrats do virtually nothing meaningful or progressive between 2008 - 2010?
Filibuster.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2012, 08:37:30 AM »

My question is - with a majority, and therefore the ability to get a ton done, why did the Democrats do virtually nothing meaningful or progressive between 2008 - 2010?

Other than passing Obamacare and ending DADT?
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2012, 12:54:34 AM »

Because their disagreement with Republicans isn't that fundamental. They're more complicit than spineless.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.225 seconds with 12 queries.