Thread: Why the massacre?

How about we try for an explanation, instead of an excuse? I know that´s not very popular amongst the über-partisans on both sides, but rational debate is sometimes feasible, even on this forum.

My explanation is simple enough. The guys in power are always the fall guy. Had it been a Republican congress and the same challenges facing society, the Democrats would have won big last night. Unemployment is high, the economy isn´t exactly doing that great, so it´s only natural that people look for other guys, usually the one promising the most.

Again, has it been the other way round, the Democrats would have been the ones out there promising easy fixes. The nature of politics, I guess.

However, on another note, having a shift in Congress might not be a bad thing for Obama. Now the Republicans will have to share the burden in 2012, they cannot say "Well, we got no influence". Now they have to start coming up with results, so it´s not all bad, seen from a Presidential perspective.

Just my two cents.

It was a desire to get rid of incumbents. If the economy doesn't improve by 2012, we can expect another "masacre".

Some of you probably won't want to hear this, but people actually want that "change" that Obabma promised. The "change" hasn't happened yet, so we will keep throwing the assholes out until it happens.

Originally Posted by Maddox

My explanation is simple enough. The guys in power are always the fall guy. Had it been a Republican congress and the same challenges facing society, the Democrats would have won big last night. Unemployment is high, the economy isn´t exactly doing that great, so it´s only natural that people look for other guys, usually the one promising the most.

Exactly.

It's the economy. And what do you expect the economy to do when the government is gridlocked?
It can stay in the toilet, and Obama can blame the GOP house for that, like Truman did, or it can recover, and Obama gets the credit, like Clinton did.
At this point in his presidency Reagan was a lame duck, he began raising taxes, and the economy recovered enough to make him popular. The most consistent predictor of elections is the state of the economy five months before the election.
So the 2012 races hinge on the summer of 2012 economy. If it's good, then the incumbents do well, if it's bad, incumbents suffer. If it does do well, you might see the GOP hold the house, and Obama get re-elected, if it sucks, you might see anti incumbent fever sweep out Obama with the latest freshman class of GOP house members.

This might also have been an object lesson for Obama, that his behind the scenes efforts don't work with the public, that he needs to be out in the public eye, with more press conferences, making more contact with the public.
Well, he doesn't have anyone to work behind the scenes with now, so he needs to make the battle public.

Back when I took Inorganic Chemistry I learned, Le Chatelier's Principle, that when one thing changes, everything changes in response. It's a new ballgame for the next two years, with totally different dynamics, that's the only thing you know for sure right now.

Originally Posted by Jefe

It was a desire to get rid of incumbents. If the economy doesn't improve by 2012, we can expect another "masacre".

Some of you probably won't want to hear this, but people actually want that "change" that Obabma promised. The "change" hasn't happened yet, so we will keep throwing the assholes out until it happens.

Yes Obama got elected because he promised change. During the campaign he even addressed health care reform, and we know the results of that election.

We did not get enough of the "change" AND the economy really saw no improvement, i.e. jobs. The Bob Dole model for health care reform that was used, did not go far enough, for the folks that voted in Obama. The transpariency Obama promised was also a joke. He could not change the way gov't operates, as no one seems to be able to. He promised a lot, yet did not deliver what he promised, which isn't his fault exclusively.

If the economy does not improve, which I think it won't, the Republicans will share some of the blame, the question is how much? This will be important in the 2012 elections. It's the economy, and its also an anti incumbent movement, along with the failed promises.

For the same reason the Reps were booted out in 2006 and 2008, people weren't pleased with where the country was going and wanted to give the other party a stab at it. Except now we just have the same party we booted out first back at trying things, it's madness.

It'd be like trying to solve a problem in this manner:

"Hmm...let's try option A. Nope, doesn't look like option A is working out well, so let's try option B. Nope...doesn't look like option B is working out, either, so let's try option A...."

If the American voter used the same problem solving skills in every day life that they use when they go to the polls, we'd all be living in mud huts and starving to death with no electricity or running water.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

For the same reason the Reps were booted out in 2006 and 2008, people weren't pleased with where the country was going and wanted to give the other party a stab at it. Except now we just have the same party we booted out first back at trying things, it's madness.

It'd be like trying to solve a problem in this manner:

"Hmm...let's try option A. Nope, doesn't look like option A is working out well, so let's try option B. Nope...doesn't look like option B is working out, either, so let's try option A...."

If the American voter used the same problem solving skills in every day life that they use when they go to the polls, we'd all be living in mud huts and starving to death with no electricity or running water.

Yup.

It's like hitting oneself in the groin with a hammer. "Damn, that hurt!"
Then hitting oneself in the groin with a bat. "Damn, that hurt! Lemme try the hammer again."
Then hitting oneself in the groin with a hammer. "Damn, that hurt! Where'd I put that bat?"

and so on....

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

For the same reason the Reps were booted out in 2006 and 2008, people weren't pleased with where the country was going and wanted to give the other party a stab at it. Except now we just have the same party we booted out first back at trying things, it's madness.

It'd be like trying to solve a problem in this manner:

"Hmm...let's try option A. Nope, doesn't look like option A is working out well, so let's try option B. Nope...doesn't look like option B is working out, either, so let's try option A...."

I view it a little differently. "option A" and "option B" are actually people, and we can force those people to change the way they do business. It's very simple, they either change, or they get booted come next election. Lather, rinse, and repeat until they get the message that "gee, maybe we'd better listen to our constituents!".

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

For the same reason the Reps were booted out in 2006 and 2008, people weren't pleased with where the country was going and wanted to give the other party a stab at it. Except now we just have the same party we booted out first back at trying things, it's madness.

It'd be like trying to solve a problem in this manner:

"Hmm...let's try option A. Nope, doesn't look like option A is working out well, so let's try option B. Nope...doesn't look like option B is working out, either, so let's try option A...."

If the American voter used the same problem solving skills in every day life that they use when they go to the polls, we'd all be living in mud huts and starving to death with no electricity or running water.

You nailed it, Speak.

Originally Posted by goober

It's the economy.

How could it have been the economy, we just had the "summer of recovery"!

This might also have been an object lesson for Obama, that his behind the scenes efforts don't work with the public, that he needs to be out in the public eye, with more press conferences, making more contact with the public.

He needs to be a leader of the entire nation and stop running for office as head Democrat.

Originally Posted by Jefe

I view it a little differently. "option A" and "option B" are actually people, and we can force those people to change the way they do business. It's very simple, they either change, or they get booted come next election. Lather, rinse, and repeat until they get the message that "gee, maybe we'd better listen to our constituents!".

On the flip side, the vast majority of the voting public are just as clueless as those they vote for. Its a no win situation.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Yup.

It's like hitting oneself in the groin with a hammer. "Damn, that hurt!"
Then hitting oneself in the groin with a bat. "Damn, that hurt! Lemme try the hammer again."
Then hitting oneself in the groin with a hammer. "Damn, that hurt! Where'd I put that bat?"

and so on....

The electorate doesn't seem to stop hitting itself unless someone takes the bat away. We aren't there yet.

Originally Posted by Jefe

I view it a little differently. "option A" and "option B" are actually people, and we can force those people to change the way they do business. It's very simple, they either change, or they get booted come next election. Lather, rinse, and repeat until they get the message that "gee, maybe we'd better listen to our constituents!".

I have to agree. What America has said is "Let's try option 1a." Moderate Republicans were shown the door and in many cases, far left Democrats were replaced by center/right Republicans. Congress is OP majority. I see a strong possibility that the trend will continue in 2012.