Should Dems copy the 2009/2010 GOP stategy?

[IceSpear]

In 2009, the GOP was in even worse shape than the Dems were right now. After losing the presidency and getting destroyed in the Senate and House, they recovered later on, scoring two landslide wins in 2010 and 2014. How did they do it? Simply obstructing every single thing. The voters rewarded their obstruction. Therefore, I think Democrats should do the same. Simply filibuster everything. Get absolutely NOTHING done in the next two years. Make the 113th Congress look productive by comparison. The voters are too dumb to place the blame on the minority (see 2010), they'll just blame the GOP.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

No, because voters still perceive Obama as being in charge.

[New_Conservative]

Agreed, that will show everyone who the real "party of no" is.

[Lief 🗽]

I'm not sure that strategy works with a Democratic president. And if the Republicans win the White House in 2016, their very first act will be getting rid of the filibuster entirely so that Democrats can't obstruct.

[Mehmentum]

I'm not sure if that's the answer.

Republicans only prove their point when the government doesn't work.  The Democrats need to prove that government can work.

Not only that, but disillusionment with the political system leads to apathy and therefore decreased turnout.  That only helps the Republicans.

IF (and it is a very big if) the Republicans are willing to negotiate in good faith, willing make fair concessions in exchange for fair concessions, then the Democrats should take them up on that.  If on the other hand, the GOP's idea of negotiation is 'We get everything we want and you get a token concession' like it has in the past, Democrats should definitely shut them down with the filibuster.

[IceSpear]

Agreed, that will show everyone who the real "party of no" is.

Again, because the GOP being the party of no hurt them so badly in 2010...

[Boston Bread]

Democrats will become the party of no, but not voluntarily. Obama will have no choice but to shut down the GOP agenda if they don't meet in the middle. Now I wouldn't mind a bipartisan agenda. However I don't expect one.

[pbrower2a]

Democrats are incompetent at manipulating fear and mythologizing history.

Democrats need to appeal to social justice lest they find themselves with a further consolidation of GOP power in 2016

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If Republicans are smart, they'd abolish the filibuster...don't get me wrong, that is totally hypocritical, but politics is politics and you do what you need to do.

[Mister Mets]

They have a tougher time doing so.

A big part of it is political philosophies.

Democrats fight for things that require government intervention (spending, social change.)

Meanwhile, a good chunk of the Republican base is happy to gut spending.

As long as this is the case, Democrats have more to lose from being obstructionists.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats will become the party of no, but not voluntarily. Obama will have no choice but to shut down the GOP agenda if they don't meet in the middle. Now I wouldn't mind a bipartisan agenda. However I don't expect one.

"Bipartisanship" is a one way street.

[tik 🪀✨]

In 2009, the GOP was in even worse shape than the Dems were right now. After losing the presidency and getting destroyed in the Senate and House, they recovered later on, scoring two landslide wins in 2010 and 2014. How did they do it? Simply obstructing every single thing. The voters rewarded their obstruction. Therefore, I think Democrats should do the same. Simply filibuster everything. Get absolutely NOTHING done in the next two years. Make the 113th Congress look productive by comparison. The voters are too dumb to place the blame on the minority (see 2010), they'll just blame the GOP.

The voters didn't reward them. The voters are idiots and will hate Congress but reelect the incumbent. Or they'll blame the President and vote for the other party because of things the President has no control over. Or they'll whine but be complacent and not show up. Pack of assholes.

Seriously, has anyone ever said they like how Congress has been run since 2010? Only imbeciles who think it proves their point that government is always (always) inefficient or who think the president should fail at enacting an agenda.

Anyway, the Democrats don't need to filibuster. We have the veto pen.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Democrats will become the party of no, but not voluntarily. Obama will have no choice but to shut down the GOP agenda if they don't meet in the middle. Now I wouldn't mind a bipartisan agenda. However I don't expect one.

"Bipartisanship" is a one way street.

Nope. If it's true compromise, in the recognition that both parties control levers of power, then that's fine. But Republicans will very likely settle for nothing less than everything, and they know from the outset that Obama won't give them everything.

[Stranger in a strange land]

If Republicans are smart, they'd abolish the filibuster...don't get me wrong, that is totally hypocritical, but politics is politics and you do what you need to do.

Problem is, Democrats are going to win back the Senate at some point, whether in 2 years or 20 years. I don't completely support abolishing the Filibuster, but they should actually force them to read the phone book at 2 AM.

[Person Man]

If Republicans are smart, they'd abolish the filibuster...don't get me wrong, that is totally hypocritical, but politics is politics and you do what you need to do.

Problem is, Democrats are going to win back the Senate at some point, whether in 2 years or 20 years. I don't completely support abolishing the Filibuster, but they should actually force them to read the phone book at 2 AM.

I'd rather read Steven Colbert or John Stewart.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If Republicans are smart, they'd abolish the filibuster...don't get me wrong, that is totally hypocritical, but politics is politics and you do what you need to do.

Problem is, Democrats are going to win back the Senate at some point, whether in 2 years or 20 years. I don't completely support abolishing the Filibuster, but they should actually force them to read the phone book at 2 AM.

That is my personal favorite option, but I suspect full blown repeal is what they will seek. But maybe they will keep it through 2017 just in case.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats should try resurrecting the FDR and Truman strategies.

"I welcome their hatred" - FDR

"I'll tell the truth about them and they'll .think it's hell." -Truman

The Clinton / Obama strategies have totally failed. The only midterm during a Democratic President that wasn't a total disaster in a third of a century was when there was backlash about Clinton being impeached. 

[krazen1211]

Didn't they try that in 2011 after Scott Walker won and busted the unions? The fleabaggers were eventually rounded up, all those smelly people eventually left the capitol, Scott Walker won 2 more times, the GOP expanded its legislative majorities, and Glen Grothman just won the open 6th district by 17 points.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What big agenda did the Democrats have in 2009/2010 that they couldn't enact because there were 40/41 Republican Senators?

I'm not sure that strategy works with a Democratic president. And if the Republicans win the White House in 2016, their very first act will be getting rid of the filibuster entirely so that Democrats can't obstruct.

To get rid of the filibuster requires 67 votes. It's a matter of changing Senate rules. The White House has nothing to do with this.

[Boston Bread]

No, we don't need more near-death experiences that only serve to damage the US economy, people, government, and faith in government.

Having the negative emotions subside, I agree now that it's better to focus on positivity and not obstruction. Still, whether that can happen depends on whether or not the GOP lets them, not democrats. My fear is that Republicans will continue to refuse to comprise and continue to point the blame on Obama. After all, this is what they've been doing since 2010. Even if that is what it comes down to, democrats should pass truly bipartisan ideas and should never sound obstructionist. But if Obama/Democrats genuinely are unable to accept the bills put forward then filibuster/veto ahead.