why are democrats so arrogant?

[WalterMitty]

obama is a lock for reelection,  you know.

[Scam of God]

Does it make you feel better to pretend that the meek will inherit the Earth? I would think it just makes you meek.

[Keystone Phil]

Eh, you try warning them not to be cocky like some Republicans were after 2004 but they don't care. It's not worth your time anymore, Walter. Every side gets smacked back down to Earth after awhile. They'll learn.

[Rob]

why are democrats so arrogant?

Because payback is a bitch.

[Keystone Phil]

why are democrats so arrogant?

Because payback is a bitch.

And then we say the same in a few years and then you again and then us again...

Ah, politics. 

[Mint]

Eh, you try warning them not to be cocky like some Republicans were after 2004 but they don't care. It's not worth your time anymore, Walter. Every side gets smacked back down to Earth after awhile. They'll learn.

I think the situation at the moment is more comparable to 2002 actually, except in reverse. But yes painful lessons will be learned in time...

[Lief 🗽]

Okay, in defense of Democrats, statistically and historically, Obama is the favorite to win the 2012 election. I don't know how you could disagree with that. Does that make him a lock? No. But, of all the possibilities, his re-election victory is the most likely.

[CultureKing]

why are democrats so arrogant?

Because payback is a bitch.

And then we say the same in a few years and then you again and then us again...

Ah, politics. 

Agreed. The Pendulum is always swinging. That is what makes politics barable. Throughout the Bush presidency I just kept telling myself that the country would eventually recover from insanity and it did! But of course it will swing back to the republicans again (I personally just hope it is someone better than Bush, I like a number of republicans, its just that you managed to get one of the worst into the presidency).

[Torie]

why are democrats so arrogant?

Because payback is a bitch.

And then we say the same in a few years and then you again and then us again...

Ah, politics. 

Ya. We need to remember Tom Delay.   We live in a house with too much glass to be lecturing anyone at the moment I would think.   And when are we going to get around to admitting some of our mistakes I wonder?

[Lunar]

why are democrats so arrogant?

it's the LSD

[Torie]

why are democrats so arrogant?

it's the LSD

Pelosi continually appears to me to be on something. I am not sure what. She acts more stoned sometimes than I have ever managed to effect personally.

[Lunar]

see her on stewart last night?  it was like a botox + THC special olympics

[Torie]

see her on stewart last night?  it was like a botox + THC special olympics

Ya, I saw a bit of it. That is what reminded me of my little perception.

[Devilman88]

Okay, in defense of Democrats, statistically and historically, Obama is the favorite to win the 2012 election. I don't know how you could disagree with that. Does that make him a lock? No. But, of all the possibilities, his re-election victory is the most likely.

How so? Last both the Democratic Party and Republican Party had back to back 8 year presidents the Democratic Party won the next election and got killed in the next election.

1961-1969(Democratic Party had the Oval Office), 1969-1977(Republicans had Oval office), 1977-1981(Carter held office) and the 1980 election Republicans won in landslide.

Kinda look like something?
1993-2001(Bill Clinton), 2001-2009(George Bush, Jr), 2009-2013(Obama), 2012 election landslide for Republicans.

It fits.

[WalterMitty]

why are democrats so arrogant?

Because payback is a bitch.

And then we say the same in a few years and then you again and then us again...

Ah, politics. 

Ya. We need to remember Tom Delay.   We live in a house with too much glass to be lecturing anyone at the moment I would think.   And when are we going to get around to admitting some of our mistakes I wonder?

i got so fed up with the gop that i left the party.  not only that, i voted a straight democrat ticket in 08.

i kind of like being an indy though.  it is refreshing.

[Lief 🗽]

Okay, in defense of Democrats, statistically and historically, Obama is the favorite to win the 2012 election. I don't know how you could disagree with that. Does that make him a lock? No. But, of all the possibilities, his re-election victory is the most likely.

How so? Last both the Democratic Party and Republican Party had back to back 8 year presidents the Democratic Party won the next election and got killed in the next election.

1961-1969(Democratic Party had the Oval Office), 1969-1977(Republicans had Oval office), 1977-1981(Carter held office) and the 1980 election Republicans won in landslide.

Kinda look like something?
1993-2001(Bill Clinton), 2001-2009(George Bush, Jr), 2009-2013(Obama), 2012 election landslide for Republicans.

It fits.

Most Presidents win re-election if they run for it. Losing re-election is rare, as the power of incumbency is very strong.

[Brittain33]

obama is a lock for reelection,  you know.

It's because all of the current Republican possibilities look like losers and it's hard to see that changing. However, who knows who will emerge in the next couple of years who wasn't picked over in 2008 to their detriment like Romney and Palin.

[Smid]

Okay, in defense of Democrats, statistically and historically, Obama is the favorite to win the 2012 election. I don't know how you could disagree with that. Does that make him a lock? No. But, of all the possibilities, his re-election victory is the most likely.

How so? Last both the Democratic Party and Republican Party had back to back 8 year presidents the Democratic Party won the next election and got killed in the next election.

1961-1969(Democratic Party had the Oval Office), 1969-1977(Republicans had Oval office), 1977-1981(Carter held office) and the 1980 election Republicans won in landslide.

Kinda look like something?
1993-2001(Bill Clinton), 2001-2009(George Bush, Jr), 2009-2013(Obama), 2012 election landslide for Republicans.

It fits.

Most Presidents win re-election if they run for it. Losing re-election is rare, as the power of incumbency is very strong.

Since it doesn't happen often, it's difficult to give a precise scenario for when an incumbent fails at re-election. I think it takes a pretty spectacularly unpopular president to accomplish that.

[Lief 🗽]

Well, in the 20th century, the following lost re-election:

Taft: Third party challenge split the vote, though he was also somewhat unpopular.
Hoover: Worst economic crisis in our nation's history occurred.
Ford: Doesn't really count, as he had never been elected.
Carter: Poor economy, foreign affairs failures, Reagan was a much better campaigner.
Bush: Poor economy, third party splitting the vote, Clinton was a much better campaigner.

So, I think for Obama to lose, the economy would have to stay very bad, and I just don't think that's likely. It may still be going poorly by the 2010 midterms, but by 2012 it'll have been five years since the recession started. Things should at least have started to get better by then.

[Sam Spade]

Winning elections constantly and a seeming inability to lose them tends to make one arrogant.

Personally, I see no reason to make predictions about re-election at this time.  God knows what can happen foreign-policy wise in the near future (especially since Obama has portrayed weakness in his early actions).  And I think you already know my opinions about the economy and the feeding of a government finance bubble in the attempt to keep it from complete collapse.

As I have said before, I believe that we are in the middle of a major paradigm shift in this country, if not in the world.  We may think that we know which way it is going, but it may end up going off in a completely different direction than we think.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Well, in the 20th century, the following lost re-election:

Taft: Third party challenge split the vote, though he was also somewhat unpopular.
Hoover: Worst economic crisis in our nation's history occurred.
Ford: Doesn't really count, as he had never been elected.
Carter: Poor economy, foreign affairs failures, Reagan was a much better campaigner.
Bush: Poor economy, third party splitting the vote, Clinton was a much better campaigner.

Yeah, but Truman and LBJ also tried to run for reelection, before losing in the primaries.

[minionofmidas]

Post one answers the question.

[Brittain33]

Winning elections constantly and a seeming inability to lose them tends to make one arrogant.

I'm surprised that people feel Democrats have reached the level of arrogance Republicans only reached after 8-10 years of power in Congress and they believed that the 55-45 red state/blue state thing was a long-term lock. There are always going to be some individuals who don't get election data patterns and will draw conclusions from ignorance, but that seems to be different from what people are claiming.

If your side wins elections in spite of having screwed up or proven itself corrupt, that's when arrogance enters. It comes in on the back of contempt for the voters.

I also think that predictions of Democratic hegemony stretching into the future are no more muddled by wishful thinking than predictions that Democrats have entered decadence already.

[TomC]

i dunno, ask chris dodd

[Smid]

Well, in the 20th century, the following lost re-election:

Taft: Third party challenge split the vote, though he was also somewhat unpopular.
Hoover: Worst economic crisis in our nation's history occurred.
Ford: Doesn't really count, as he had never been elected.
Carter: Poor economy, foreign affairs failures, Reagan was a much better campaigner.
Bush: Poor economy, third party splitting the vote, Clinton was a much better campaigner.

So, I think for Obama to lose, the economy would have to stay very bad, and I just don't think that's likely. It may still be going poorly by the 2010 midterms, but by 2012 it'll have been five years since the recession started. Things should at least have started to get better by then.

Those conditions were pretty much the ones I was thinking that would cause Obama to lose, although I won't start guessing where things will be at the next election. I think you can add to Ford the whole Watergate thing had blown up since the previous election and probably tarnished the Republican brand, additionally, pardoning Nixon may have translated to failure in the eyes of the electorate. In the case of both Bush and Ford, they followed a two-term president of the same party... the party's fourth consecutive win is hard, regardless of the benefits of incumbency and even though it hasn't been the same president consistently throughout the terms.