Bad news Democrats - 2012 could be worse than 2010

[Denny Crane]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101109/D9JCSAI80.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Last week's election was bad for Democrats. The next one could be worse. Senate Democrats running in 2012 will be trying to hold their jobs in states where Republicans just scored major congressional and gubernatorial victories - Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Virginia.

The Democrats' problems don't end with senators.

President Barack Obama carried those states in 2008, and he will need most of them to win re-election in two years. But this time they all will have Republican governors. These GOP governors can try to inhibit the president's policies and campaign operations. They also can help steer next year's once-a-decade House redistricting process in the GOP's favor.

Moreover, Democrats must defend Senate seats in hotly contested Missouri, and in four states that Obama has little chance of winning, assuming he even tries: North Dakota, Nebraska, West Virginia and Montana.

...

The 2012 Senate map is much kinder to Republicans, who must defend 10 seats to the Democrats' 23. Except for Republican Sen. Scott Brown, who will fight an uphill re-election battle in Massachusetts, the GOP probably will be favored to keep the Senate seats it now holds.

 

[Denny Crane]

I predict... Democrats get destroyed in 2012 and the MSNBC folks will be saying what a victory it was for Democrats because they won the senate seat in Massachusetts.

But seriously, I think a lot can change between now and 2012. A lot depends on Obama's success. If he's a wildly popular candidate again in 2012, he'll bring out voters who'll vote down the ballot for other Democrats. A lot depends on Republicans' success. If they don't get much done and the economy is sucking still, they'll have to be the lesser of the two evils or else lose a lot of elections.

I wrote about the benefits of Governorships and redistricting in another thread. These things will certainly help the republicans in 2012.

 

[Paxil]

But you forget... I get to vote in 2012.

 

[mook]

I dunno. When I've heard Republicans talk about employment (which is all voters talk about right now) everything is about extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone. Well, we've had those tax cuts for the past 10 years, so it's hard for the electorate to get excited about a "new" jobs program that is the exact same thing we've always had.

I fully appreciate why Democrats lost this round. Jobs jobs jobs. Plus all the kids who voted for Obama didn't show up (as usual) for midterms. But if Republicans continue to have little new to offer and squander their opportunity with going after Obamacare, well, I don't see how they pull off another sweeping election year.

I also think that after this election it's going to be incredibly likely Republicans put forth a real Barry Goldwater-like presidential candidate as a sop to the Tea Party. Which will be a really tough thing to try to sell in a general election.

 

[hasoos]

I disagree. I think we will see 2 years of gridlock with a republican controlled house and in the end, people will be pissed at both parties equally. I am just so sick of the political parties putting their interest in front of the peoples. Fuck em all.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Just make sure the republicans stop running women.

Christine O'Donnel
Carly Fiorina
Linda McMahon
Meg Whitman
blah blah blah

 

[boatsandstars]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101109/D9JCSAI80.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Last week's election was bad for Democrats. The next one could be worse. Senate Democrats running in 2012 will be trying to hold their jobs in states where Republicans just scored major congressional and gubernatorial victories - Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Virginia.

The Democrats' problems don't end with senators.

President Barack Obama carried those states in 2008, and he will need most of them to win re-election in two years. But this time they all will have Republican governors. These GOP governors can try to inhibit the president's policies and campaign operations. They also can help steer next year's once-a-decade House redistricting process in the GOP's favor.

Moreover, Democrats must defend Senate seats in hotly contested Missouri, and in four states that Obama has little chance of winning, assuming he even tries: North Dakota, Nebraska, West Virginia and Montana.

...

The 2012 Senate map is much kinder to Republicans, who must defend 10 seats to the Democrats' 23. Except for Republican Sen. Scott Brown, who will fight an uphill re-election battle in Massachusetts, the GOP probably will be favored to keep the Senate seats it now holds.

HHAHAHAHAH I GET IT

*WINK*

 

[maxiep]

How 2012 turns out is up to the Republicans, and more specificially, the House Republicans. If they give two years of solid, sober, judicious legislation, forwarding the idea of limited government living within its means, then I think they can take the Senate.

If they just look to score points in a party pissing match, then it will be a pox on both their houses.

 

[barfo]

How 2012 turns out is up to the Republicans, and more specificially, the House Republicans. If they give two years of solid, sober, judicious legislation, forwarding the idea of limited government living within its means, then I think they can take the Senate.

Luckily for them, there are other, far more plausible routes to taking the Senate.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Luckily for all of us, 40 Libertarian types were elected to house and senate seats this election cycle. Imagine that!

 

[44Thrilla]

talking about this now is so ridiculous. talk to me in october of 2012.

 

[Denny Crane]

talking about this now is so ridiculous. talk to me in october of 2012.

Talking about the Celtics in the first 47 minutes of a game is so ridiculous, talk to me when it's the last minute.

 

[44Thrilla]

Talking about the Celtics in the first 47 minutes of a game is so ridiculous, talk to me when it's the last minute.

Sure. If they are playing the Bulls, and the Bulls go up 6-0 in the first minute, I'm not going to predict that the Bulls will win that game.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sure. If they are playing the Bulls, and the Bulls go up 6-0 in the first minute, I'm not going to predict that the Bulls will win that game.

But you might talk about how their 2nd unit is likely to do when they come in the game.

 

[barfo]

But you might talk about how their 2nd unit is likely to do when they come in the game.

They are the 2nd unit for a reason.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

They are the 2nd unit for a reason.

barfo

Well, in 2010, the people called in the first team.

 

[MARIS61]

Judging by the teabagger morons who got elected to "republican" seats, I see a landslide back to the dems in 2012 as people find out, again, the right wing is mentally incompetent, morally sadistic, and really just a bunch of sad, stupid narcissists who like to hear themselves tell lies.

 

[44Thrilla]

there is no first team in politics. they're all a bunch of scrubs.

 

[MARIS61]

Just make sure the republicans stop running women.

Christine O'Donnel
Carly Fiorina
Linda McMahon
Meg Whitman
blah blah blah

Calling those dolts women could give a man the wrong idea about women.

 

[MARIS61]

How 2012 turns out is up to the Republicans, and more specificially, the House Republicans. If they give two years of solid, sober, judicious legislation, forwarding the idea of limited government living within its means....

maxiep, if you actually believe they're capable of that kind of massive policy reversal, pm me about some oceanfront property in Christmas Valley I have listed.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think some people don't get it. The house just got 40+ republicans who are not going to toe the party line if it means compromises that end up increasing spending or the debt or taxes. The republican leadership is in no better position than Pelosi was with her blue dog democrats. In fact, the new republicans have the equivalent of a veto over anything passing the House, as long as they stick to their principles. For this reason alone, there is HOPE.

Not the kind of hope that was sold to us as a bill of goods in 2008.

 

[barfo]

I think some people don't get it. The house just got 40+ republicans who are not going to toe the party line if it means compromises that end up increasing spending or the debt or taxes. The republican leadership is in no better position than Pelosi was with her blue dog democrats. In fact, the new republicans have the equivalent of a veto over anything passing the House, as long as they stick to their principles. For this reason alone, there is HOPE.

Not the kind of hope that was sold to us as a bill of goods in 2008.

You might HOPE for gridlock and lack of progress - in any direction - but that isn't my idea of a good outcome.

barfo

 

[mook]

My hope is that Republicans take a cold hard look at the facts and realize that blocking everything for two years isn't going to fly. No matter how much you "stick to your principles," we need to make some progress on a wide variety of issues.

I hope they take a page from the Republicans of the mid-90's and go after a major program that's really due for an overhaul much like welfare was back then. The obvious one is tax law. There are lots and lots of ways to simplify our existing tax code that are completely revenue neutral and don't drastically alter upper, middle and lower classes overall tax obligations.

As a small business owner, I spend thousands of dollars every year and way too many hours of my time trying to comply with tax law. Not to mention the nightmare of my personal taxes. It's such a massive drain on our economy.

I just want to see both parties not make some Big Ideological Stand about supply side economics or income redistribution or whatever, and just fucking simplify it. Or go with a sales tax and close up much of the IRS. Or whatever. Just make it so I pay right about what I do now in taxes, but only fill out 3 pages of forms (that I can do myself) instead of 100 that I have to hire accountants to organize for me.

 

[barfo]

My hope is that Republicans take a cold hard look at the facts and realize that blocking everything for two years isn't going to fly. No matter how much you "stick to your principles," we need to make some progress on a wide variety of issues.

I hope they take a page from the Republicans of the mid-90's and go after a major program that's really due for an overhaul much like welfare was back then. The obvious one is tax law. There are lots and lots of ways to simplify our existing tax code that are completely revenue neutral and don't drastically alter upper, middle and lower classes overall tax obligations.

As a small business owner, I spend thousands of dollars every year and way too many hours of my time trying to comply with tax law. Not to mention the nightmare of my personal taxes. It's such a massive drain on our economy.

I just want to see both parties not make some Big Ideological Stand about supply side economics or income redistribution or whatever, and just fucking simplify it. Or go with a sales tax and close up much of the IRS. Or whatever. Just make it so I pay right about what I do now in taxes, but only fill out 3 pages of forms (that I can do myself) instead of 100 that I have to hire accountants to organize for me.

Yes. Of course, the tax accountants have lobbyists too, so that won't happen. But I'd love to see it. I'd happily pay to the IRS the tens of thousands of dollars that I pay for tax advice now if they would make it simpler and thus cheaper to file tax returns. My corporate tax returns are a stack of paper about 18" tall now. Who knows what's in there, no one has time or patience to actually read them (including the IRS, I'd guess).

barfo

 

[mook]

Damn. 18 inches of paper. I thought I had it bad, but mine's "only" about 2 or 3 inches. Still more than I care to even try to understand.

I bet if I took my records to three different accountants they'd come up with three drastically different numbers that I owe/will get in return. And all of them would be technically correct. Just enrages me.

I'm actually so fed up over this that I'd probably vote for a Republican president if he/she wasn't a Sarah Palin-esque airhead and could deliver on drastically simplifying the tax code.

 

[barfo]

Damn. 18 inches of paper. I thought I had it bad, but mine's "only" about 2 or 3 inches. Still more than I care to even try to understand.

I bet if I took my records to three different accountants they'd come up with three drastically different numbers that I owe/will get in return. And all of them would be technically correct. Just enrages me.

I'm actually so fed up over this that I'd probably vote for a Republican president if he/she wasn't a Sarah Palin-esque airhead and could deliver on drastically simplifying the tax code.

I don't know that tax simplification is necessarily a Republican issue - although if they made it one I agree I'd be more favorably inclined towards them.

barfo

 

[BGrantFan]

My hope is that Republicans take a cold hard look at the facts and realize that blocking everything for two years isn't going to fly. No matter how much you "stick to your principles," we need to make some progress on a wide variety of issues.

.

What if the GOP House passs legislation, and the Dems in the Senate block it? Or what if the GOP House passes legislation, the Dem Senate passes it because they fear another asskicking in 2012, and then Obama vetoes it?

Then who is blocking legislation? There is no GOP "blocking" in the House once the new House is sworn into leadership. That excuse is over.

 

[mook]

I don't think it's really an issue for either party. They are both so entrenched in ruts about supply side economics and tax breaks for every pet project that neither sees the forest for the trees.

Not everything has to be a battle to the death. Sometimes there are things that everybody can agree on, so we should just fucking do them. Practically every American thinks our tax code could be drastically simplified. So get on with it.

To me it seems a more natural platform for the Republican party than the Democrats. They could easily peddle tax simplification as a stimulus program, because it truly would be. It'd free a lot of Americans to go out and spend their time and money on doing things of real value for our economy. And if done properly it wouldn't add a penny to our deficit. In fact it could decrease it by simplifying the regulation and enforcement of tax law.

 

[mook]

What if the GOP House passs legislation, and the Dems in the Senate block it? Or what if the GOP House passes legislation, the Dem Senate passes it because they fear another asskicking in 2012, and then Obama vetoes it?

Then who is blocking legislation? There is no GOP "blocking" in the House once the new House is sworn into leadership. That excuse is over.

That's a valid point. I should've phrased it differently. My hope is that Republicans and Democrats both take a cold hard look at the facts and realize that coming up with a bunch of shit that'll never pass for two years isn't going to fly.

There are just too many fucked up things with this country to consider gridlock "victory."

 

[barfo]

That's a valid point. I should've phrased it differently. My hope is that Republicans and Democrats both take a cold hard look at the facts and realize that coming up with a bunch of shit that'll never pass for two years isn't going to fly.

There are just too many fucked up things with this country to consider gridlock "victory."

Agreed, but a good chunk of those just elected, as Denny will tell you, consider gridlock orgasmic.

barfo