Opinion of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[Beet]

Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.

Romney lost the Presidency because he's Mitt Romney, not because DWS is some type of genius.

By that logic, Democratic Senatorial candidates lost because they were running in an unfavorable year, not because DWS is some kind of secret Republican.

The year was unfavorable due to DWS's incompetence. Who here seriously believes DWS is a secret Republican? She's just another idiot party chair.

The year was unfavorable because the president had a 41 percent approval rating. Who here said she was a genius? She's just a great party chair.

And why was the President's approval rating that low? Shouldn't the party have worked to gin those numbers up a bit? It's not like Congress had better approval ratings....

The president's approval ratings are his own responsibility. The party chair can't control them. The president is the boss.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.

Romney lost the Presidency because he's Mitt Romney, not because DWS is some type of genius.

By that logic, Democratic Senatorial candidates lost because they were running in an unfavorable year, not because DWS is some kind of secret Republican.

The year was unfavorable due to DWS's incompetence. Who here seriously believes DWS is a secret Republican? She's just another idiot party chair.

The year was unfavorable because the president had a 41 percent approval rating. Who here said she was a genius? She's just a great party chair.

And why was the President's approval rating that low? Shouldn't the party have worked to gin those numbers up a bit? It's not like Congress had better approval ratings....

The president's approval ratings are his own responsibility. The party chair can't control them. The president is the boss.

In my view, the DNC Chair (and the RNC Chair, when a Republican is President) has two responsibilities: get Democrats elected, and defend the President. So far, DWS has failed at both of those. Don't try and steal Romney's credit for defeating himself away from him.

[IceSpear]

Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.

Romney lost the Presidency because he's Mitt Romney, not because DWS is some type of genius.

By that logic, Democratic Senatorial candidates lost because they were running in an unfavorable year, not because DWS is some kind of secret Republican.

The year was unfavorable due to DWS's incompetence. Who here seriously believes DWS is a secret Republican? She's just another idiot party chair.

The year was unfavorable because the president had a 41 percent approval rating. Who here said she was a genius? She's just a great party chair.

And why was the President's approval rating that low? Shouldn't the party have worked to gin those numbers up a bit? It's not like Congress had better approval ratings....

The president's approval ratings are his own responsibility. The party chair can't control them. The president is the boss.

In my view, the DNC Chair (and the RNC Chair, when a Republican is President) has two responsibilities: get Democrats elected, and defend the President. So far, DWS has failed at both of those. Don't try and steal Romney's credit for defeating himself away from him.

The main responsibility of the DNC/RNC chair is fundraising. As long as DWS does that well, her impact on the election results is minimal.

[Beet]

Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.

Romney lost the Presidency because he's Mitt Romney, not because DWS is some type of genius.

By that logic, Democratic Senatorial candidates lost because they were running in an unfavorable year, not because DWS is some kind of secret Republican.

The year was unfavorable due to DWS's incompetence. Who here seriously believes DWS is a secret Republican? She's just another idiot party chair.

The year was unfavorable because the president had a 41 percent approval rating. Who here said she was a genius? She's just a great party chair.

And why was the President's approval rating that low? Shouldn't the party have worked to gin those numbers up a bit? It's not like Congress had better approval ratings....

The president's approval ratings are his own responsibility. The party chair can't control them. The president is the boss.

In my view, the DNC Chair (and the RNC Chair, when a Republican is President) has two responsibilities: get Democrats elected, and defend the President. So far, DWS has failed at both of those. Don't try and steal Romney's credit for defeating himself away from him.

Well, according to your standards, she has gotten the most important Democrat elected, and if the latest ABC-Washington Post poll is to be believed, his approval rating today is higher than when she was announced as chair. She has succeeded at both. One can't pin all the blame on Romney's defeat on him- after all, the Democrats ran a good campaign too.

In any case, I believe IceSpear is correct.

Also, didnt you already lose a debate to me over DWS? Back looking for more, I see

[All Along The Watchtower]

The fact that people think Debbie Wasserman Schultz has any impact, much less a big impact, on which party does well in elections is amusing. The vast majority of voters have no idea who she is, and those that do are likely to be political junkies who are already on a particular team.

Considering the posts like these:

Shrill b**ch

To quote my once and future Congressman: Unladylike.

and the demographics of this forum.....well, draw your own conclusions.

[King]

Annoying

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.

Romney lost the Presidency because he's Mitt Romney, not because DWS is some type of genius.

By that logic, Democratic Senatorial candidates lost because they were running in an unfavorable year, not because DWS is some kind of secret Republican.

The year was unfavorable due to DWS's incompetence. Who here seriously believes DWS is a secret Republican? She's just another idiot party chair.

The year was unfavorable because the president had a 41 percent approval rating. Who here said she was a genius? She's just a great party chair.

And why was the President's approval rating that low? Shouldn't the party have worked to gin those numbers up a bit? It's not like Congress had better approval ratings....

The president's approval ratings are his own responsibility. The party chair can't control them. The president is the boss.

In my view, the DNC Chair (and the RNC Chair, when a Republican is President) has two responsibilities: get Democrats elected, and defend the President. So far, DWS has failed at both of those. Don't try and steal Romney's credit for defeating himself away from him.

Well, according to your standards, she has gotten the most important Democrat elected, and if the latest ABC-Washington Post poll is to be believed, his approval rating today is higher than when she was announced as chair. She has succeeded at both. One can't pin all the blame on Romney's defeat on him- after all, the Democrats ran a good campaign too.

In any case, I believe IceSpear is correct.

Also, didnt you already lose a debate to me over DWS? Back looking for more, I see

No, Obama ran a great campaign. He managed to define Romney as an out of touch elitist and along with Republican gaffes, managed to have a strong down ballot effect. Obama's use of social media and the GOTV effort was superb. Meanwhile, Romney was so confident of victory that he allowed all of this to happen.

As for the DNC as a funraiser, why did they lose the Senate while outpacing the GOP in terms for SuperPAC donations?

Finally, on the bit about losing the debate with you, well, I don't give up. I learn by losing .

[Beet]

The fact that people think Debbie Wasserman Schultz has any impact, much less a big impact, on which party does well in elections is amusing. The vast majority of voters have no idea who she is, and those that do are likely to be political junkies who are already on a particular team.

Considering the posts like these:

Shrill b**ch

To quote my once and future Congressman: Unladylike.

and the demographics of this forum.....well, draw your own conclusions.

Goodness gracious, ChairmanSanchez isn't even worth debating anymore. In any case, ^^ duly noted.

[Türkisblau]

Represents everything that's wrong with today's Democratic Party.

[Flake]

One of the most incompetent chairs I know of, just looking for ways to forward her own career. Awful.

[The_Doctor]

Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.

Actually I'm pretty cool with what happened, as long as no conservatives retire from the Supreme Court in Obama's second term.

[LeBron]

I'm one of the few lone wolves here, but definitely an FF. She's done what her job entails even if there is some controversy involved with the task - defend the party as much as possible and raise money. Simple as that. Plus the two of us share very similar views, FWIW.

No, Obama ran a great campaign. He managed to define Romney as an out of touch elitist and along with Republican gaffes, managed to have a strong down ballot effect. Obama's use of social media and the GOTV effort was superb. Meanwhile, Romney was so confident of victory that he allowed all of this to happen.

As for the DNC as a funraiser, why did they lose the Senate while outpacing the GOP in terms for SuperPAC donations?

Finally, on the bit about losing the debate with you, well, I don't give up. I learn by losing .

Like IceSpear said, DWS's main priority is fundraising and she definitely did that last year by helping House/Senate Democrats outraise the GOP. Money wasn't really the reason why Democrats lost the Senate - it was primarily horrible, horrible turnout, and that's something to take up with the communications department of the DNC.

And then there's other things to like weak candidates who were put up last year, candidates running to the right of the Republicans on some issues which annoyed plenty of liberals, very low turnout of those who are below 30 (though some of that can be contributed to GOP disenfranchisement of young voters in 2014 battlegrounds like NC), and then there was other mistakes made like failure to focus on middle class issues enough, not enough Latino outreach, and sending the wrong messages.

DWS should not be blamed for all of that as much as say other people who work within certain sectors of the DNC.

[Cory]

I want Howard Dean back.

[Fritz]

FC

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I'm one of the few lone wolves here, but definitely an FF. She's done what her job entails even if there is some controversy involved with the task - defend the party as much as possible and raise money. Simple as that. Plus the two of us share very similar views, FWIW.

No, Obama ran a great campaign. He managed to define Romney as an out of touch elitist and along with Republican gaffes, managed to have a strong down ballot effect. Obama's use of social media and the GOTV effort was superb. Meanwhile, Romney was so confident of victory that he allowed all of this to happen.

As for the DNC as a funraiser, why did they lose the Senate while outpacing the GOP in terms for SuperPAC donations?

Finally, on the bit about losing the debate with you, well, I don't give up. I learn by losing .

Like IceSpear said, DWS's main priority is fundraising and she definitely did that last year by helping House/Senate Democrats outraise the GOP. Money wasn't really the reason why Democrats lost the Senate - it was primarily horrible, horrible turnout, and that's something to take up with the communications department of the DNC.

And then there's other things to like weak candidates who were put up last year, candidates running to the right of the Republicans on some issues which annoyed plenty of liberals, very low turnout of those who are below 30 (though some of that can be contributed to GOP disenfranchisement of young voters in 2014 battlegrounds like NC), and then there was other mistakes made like failure to focus on middle class issues enough, not enough Latino outreach, and sending the wrong messages.

DWS should not be blamed for all of that as much as say other people who work within certain sectors of the DNC.

DWS is the head of the DNC. She should have been overseeing those departments and correcting the errors. The DNC also recruits candidates. Why did they recruit such poor candidates? Granted, the year was bad for the Democrats and they might have gotten the best of what they could have gotten, but it definitely seems like they could have done much, much better.

[ElectionsGuy]

She makes a satire of herself.

[Beet]

DWS has two cycles under her belt: 2012 was a highly successful cycle, seeing not only the Democrats reelect the president, but gains in the House and Senate. In the 2014 cycle, Democrats lost 13 seats in the House and 9 seats in the Senate.

As far as the House result, I don't see how anyone can say that it was exceptionally bad. After all, in the sixth year of the George W. Bush presidency, his party lost over 30 seats. Granted, the Republicans were starting from a high base, but a 13 seat change in the House is not huge by any measure.

As far as the Senate result, a 9 seat loss sounds like a lot, but the Democrats were starting from the absurdly high class of 2008 (a similar loss occurred for the 1986 Senate Republicans; no one ever talks about that election as a wave/disaster). Almost all of the major Senate races were in Romney states; they only lost two Senate races in Obama states (Colorado and Iowa). And of the two, Colorado was exceedingly close, with the GOP having nominated a strong candidate in Cory Gardner. In Iowa, the Democratic candidate committed about the worst gaffe imaginable. This is the only area where the party can be said to have screwed up on recruitment. However, this was mainly the fault of the candidate himself, and of the DSCC secondly, and only thirdly of the DNC.

So she has one unambiguously good presidential cycle and one meh off-year cycle in the sixth year of an unpopular president.

Hardly the stuff of the "worst" DNC chair some people are saying. I mean compare that to Tim Kaine. When he took office, the Democrats were the majority of every branch of government. Within two years they'd suffered not only a 7 seat Senate loss but the biggest losses since the Depression in the House, a 63 seat wipeout, in a critical year that allowed them to be outmaneuvered by redistricting. Most losses at the state level came in 2010, as well. By any measure, Kaine's record is far worse than DWS, if we are judging DNC chairs by electoral performance.