Do Democrats Have A Future?

[Plasmaball]

yes...

 

[The Rabbi]

you're rationalizations have failed. The GOP didnt just do well They were outstanding. They blew theDems away.

They were supposed to using history as an indicator.

Ann Coulter basically had it right in 2006:

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

A historic victory for Diebold US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't enjoy "your" victory. I'm sure it's nice to win an election and since you're a republican and Perry supporter...you haven't had much luck with that lately. You'll return to being a wholesale loser in 23 months. Get your excuses ready.

The GOP did far better than any of that in this last election. Things that were called close, like KY, were nowhere near. Things where the Dems supposedly had an advantage went GOP anyway. Governors races. State house elections. All of it swung GOP. Who was the last GOP governor of Maryland? Spiro Agnew?

How many Senate seats did the GOP get? Reagan lost 8.

Not very comparable. Reagan had a large number of GOP freshmen up for re-election.
It was a humiliating defeat for the Dems. A used car salesman in WV was deemed more trustworthy than the Dem incumbent.

Well, how many Senate seats did Reagan lose? 8

How many did Obama lose?

Simple question, Shirley....take a Midol and answer the question

Obama didnt lose any.
Democrats lost at least 8 seats, and probably 9 when the Louisiana runoff comes through. So it looks bad for the Dems here.
But the bigger news is the states. How many states now have both a governor and legislature that is GOP? HOw many are Dem?

 

[candycorn]

They were supposed to using history as an indicator.

Ann Coulter basically had it right in 2006:

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

A historic victory for Diebold US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't enjoy "your" victory. I'm sure it's nice to win an election and since you're a republican and Perry supporter...you haven't had much luck with that lately. You'll return to being a wholesale loser in 23 months. Get your excuses ready.

The GOP did far better than any of that in this last election. Things that were called close, like KY, were nowhere near. Things where the Dems supposedly had an advantage went GOP anyway. Governors races. State house elections. All of it swung GOP. Who was the last GOP governor of Maryland? Spiro Agnew?

How many Senate seats did the GOP get? Reagan lost 8.

Not very comparable. Reagan had a large number of GOP freshmen up for re-election.
It was a humiliating defeat for the Dems. A used car salesman in WV was deemed more trustworthy than the Dem incumbent.

Well, how many Senate seats did Reagan lose? 8

How many did Obama lose?

Simple question, Shirley....take a Midol and answer the question

Obama didnt lose any.
Democrats lost at least 8 seats, and probably 9 when the Louisiana runoff comes through. So it looks bad for the Dems here.
But the bigger news is the states. How many states now have both a governor and legislature that is GOP? HOw many are Dem?

So they lost one seat more than Reagan did...the most popular President in modern times? Wow. And if Rockefeller and Harkin had not resigned, they would have lost fewer. Some "far better" barometer you've got there Shirley.

 

[Ava]

After last election's wipeout this is a legitimate question. The Democrat platform of race baiting, woman pandering, and class warfare was shown to be a total failure. So if they can't run on those things, what can they win with? The Democrats increasingly look like a shrinking party, popular only in the inner cities, and on college campuses. Even the non-government unions are sick of them, having gotten royally fucked by Obamacare and other regulatory intitiatives.
A look at their leadership reveals no new faces. Reid is 74. So is Pelosi. Those mentioned as presidential candidates are either retreads, like Clinton, or extreme left wingers who wont attract a following outside the welfare classes.
With the biggest history of failed policies in a generation Democrats seem to be out of ideas. "BOOSH" just doesnt sell like it used to.

That all depends how smart the GOP plays their new leadership roles, the next two years. I don't envy them but I do respect all of them for wanting to be politics in such a lawless time in America. I do know liberals ( educated ) here who aren't even aware of the latest scandals re:Gruber and Immigration politics. They don't want to know, either. They might have to eat that vote that reelected the man who duped America. They don't want to see themselves as losers, either.

Great post, The Rabbi.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

After last election's wipeout this is a legitimate question. The Democrat platform of race baiting, woman pandering, and class warfare was shown to be a total failure. So if they can't run on those things, what can they win with? The Democrats increasingly look like a shrinking party, popular only in the inner cities, and on college campuses. Even the non-government unions are sick of them, having gotten royally fucked by Obamacare and other regulatory intitiatives.
A look at their leadership reveals no new faces. Reid is 74. So is Pelosi. Those mentioned as presidential candidates are either retreads, like Clinton, or extreme left wingers who wont attract a following outside the welfare classes.
With the biggest history of failed policies in a generation Democrats seem to be out of ideas. "BOOSH" just doesnt sell like it used to.

That all depends how smart the GOP plays their new leadership roles, the next two years. I don't envy them but I do respect all of them for wanting to enter politics in such a lawless time in America. I do know liberals ( educated ) here who aren't even aware of the latest scandals re:Gruber and Immigration politics. They don't want to know, either. They might have to eat that vote that reelected the man who duped America. They don't want to see themselves as losers.

Great post, The Rabbi.

Sweetheart, nobody lost anything but an election, which we knew we were going to lose. It's NORMAL. See how that works now?

 

[JoeB131]

Firstly ... I'm not a "you guys" because I renounced my Republican affiliation after a) Bush's failure to secure the border and b) Bush's gigantic power grab with the creation of Department of Homeland Security and c) Bush's trade/treaty agreements with foreign interests. Nonetheless, I did vote for as many Conservatives as I could this last time around (including a number of Republicans at the State and Federal level). When it was possible, I voted for Constitution Party members and/or Republican Tea Party Statesmen.

As for the folks who didn't vote ... there were likely as many Conservatives as there were Liberals who didn't vote. The Conservatives are simply tired of voting for folks who simply don't represent them (or lie to get the vote) and the Liberals are too hungover or stoned to get off of their butts.

Lowest participation rate in 72 years... and 72 years ago, we drafted 10% of the population.

Conservatives are disappointed that in the real world, their batshit crazy ideas don't fly, and politicians have to operate in the real world.

 

[JoeNormal]

After last election's wipeout this is a legitimate question. The Democrat platform of race baiting, woman pandering, and class warfare was shown to be a total failure. So if they can't run on those things, what can they win with? The Democrats increasingly look like a shrinking party, popular only in the inner cities, and on college campuses. Even the non-government unions are sick of them, having gotten royally fucked by Obamacare and other regulatory intitiatives.
A look at their leadership reveals no new faces. Reid is 74. So is Pelosi. Those mentioned as presidential candidates are either retreads, like Clinton, or extreme left wingers who wont attract a following outside the welfare classes.
With the biggest history of failed policies in a generation Democrats seem to be out of ideas. "BOOSH" just doesnt sell like it used to.

It would be nice if they'd take this as a sign that they need to grow some balls and put the republican scumbags in their place. Probably won't happen though.

 

[JoeNormal]

Here's the problem the GOP has.

The Demographic problem they had in 2008 and 2012 still hasnt' been resolved in 2014. It just didn't come into play because of where the contests were held.

Now, I do give the GOP a lot of credit. They avoided nominating any outright crazy teabaggers, none of their canidates felt the need to put an adjective in front of the word "Rape" in order to rationalize their extreme views on abortion. In fact, they avoided talking about abortion at all.

They even talked about wage stagnation and wealth inequality like those were real things.

They even went to the trouble of finding stock photos of people you might like to hang out with and labeled them as republicans.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Do Democrats Have A Future?"

Your complete lack of political acumen is remarkable, and not the least bit surprising.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

After last election's wipeout this is a legitimate question. The Democrat platform of race baiting, woman pandering, and class warfare was shown to be a total failure. So if they can't run on those things, what can they win with? The Democrats increasingly look like a shrinking party, popular only in the inner cities, and on college campuses. Even the non-government unions are sick of them, having gotten royally fucked by Obamacare and other regulatory intitiatives.
A look at their leadership reveals no new faces. Reid is 74. So is Pelosi. Those mentioned as presidential candidates are either retreads, like Clinton, or extreme left wingers who wont attract a following outside the welfare classes.
With the biggest history of failed policies in a generation Democrats seem to be out of ideas. "BOOSH" just doesnt sell like it used to.

Not only that but Democrats always run the risk that they will be seen for what they are: anti-American socialists who oppose eveything that made America great. I mean is more and welfare and soviet regulation really a valid political ideology??

 

[JoeB131]

Not only that but Democrats always run the risk that they will be seen for what they are: anti-American socialists who oppose eveything that made America great. I mean is more and welfare and soviet regulation really a valid political ideology??

Kind of depends, doesn't it? If it benefits more people than it hurts, yeah, then it's an AWESOME political ideology.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Not only that but Democrats always run the risk that they will be seen for what they are: anti-American socialists who oppose eveything that made America great. I mean is more and welfare and soviet regulation really a valid political ideology??

Kind of depends, doesn't it? If it benefits more people than it hurts, yeah, then it's an AWESOME political ideology.

dear the only benefit was that excessive liberalism slowly starved 120 million to death!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Not only that but Democrats always run the risk that they will be seen for what they are: anti-American socialists who oppose eveything that made America great. I mean is more and welfare and soviet regulation really a valid political ideology??

Kind of depends, doesn't it? If it benefits more people than it hurts, yeah, then it's an AWESOME political ideology.

dear the only benefit was that excessive liberalism slowly starved 120 million to death!

That had nothing to do with Liberalism, just humans at work, slaughtering each other.

 

[ninja007]

YES THEY DO; ONLY BECAUSE THE HISPANICS WILL BE IN THE DEMS POCKET AFTER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

YES THEY DO; ONLY BECAUSE THE HISPANICS WILL BE IN THE DEMS POCKET AFTER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

They already were. The Party Of Whitey calls them Freeloading Wetbacks.

 

[JoeB131]

dear the only benefit was that excessive liberalism slowly starved 120 million to death!

Dammit, you went full retard.

NEver go full retard.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear the only benefit was that excessive liberalism slowly starved 120 million to death!

Dammit, you went full retard.

NEver go full retard.

dear, Liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb? Do you know why?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Not only that but Democrats always run the risk that they will be seen for what they are: anti-American socialists who oppose eveything that made America great. I mean is more and welfare and soviet regulation really a valid political ideology??

Kind of depends, doesn't it? If it benefits more people than it hurts, yeah, then it's an AWESOME political ideology.

dear the only benefit was that excessive liberalism slowly starved 120 million to death!

That had nothing to do with Liberalism, just humans at work, slaughtering each other.

then why did liberals spy for Stalin and give him the bomb? So he could slaughter more efficiently?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

YES THEY DO; ONLY BECAUSE THE HISPANICS WILL BE IN THE DEMS POCKET AFTER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

They already were. The Party Of Whitey calls them Freeloading Wetbacks.

yes, its amazing Republicans get any votes since they stand for work while liberals stand for an ever growing welfare state!!

The ‘Welfare Cliff’: How The Benefit Scale Discourages Work
Welfare spending is now the largest item in the budget—and will continue to grow every year. According to data from the Congressional Research Service, total spending on means-tested poverty programs in FY2011 was around $1 trillion, more than was spent on Social Security, Medicare, or defense. CRS data also reveals that spending on these programs is likely to increase by another 30 percent over the next four years.
The dramatic rise in welfare spending has created a “welfare cliff.” As more people have become eligible for increasingly larger benefits, the “penalty” for working—lost benefits due to increased income—has steepened and been described by analysts as the “welfare cliff.” This has been especially true for workers near the poverty line who are eligible for multiple programs (e.g., food stamps, Medicaid, the EITC, TANF, and subsidized public housing), as workers reach a point where every additional dollar earned can result in a more than 50 percent reduction in benefits.
A paper presented at the American Enterprise Institute by the Pennsylvania Secretary of Public Welfare found that because of the stacking of welfare benefits, many individuals receiving welfare stand to lose financially by increasing their income. In one example, the study demonstrated how a single parent with two children earning $29,000 would have a net income, including welfare benefits, of $57,000. Therefore, the individual would need annual earnings to jump from $29,000 to $69,000 (pre-tax) to maintain the same standard of living without welfare benefits.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also recently published a report calculating the amount of increased taxes paid—and federal means-tested benefits lost—as earnings increase for low- and middle-income households. CBO found that, because these households are moving from a situation in which their financial means (welfare benefits) are not taxed to one where their income is, the additional taxation that occurs at the margin is significant.
For example, the CBO study found that households with incomes just above the poverty line—or between $23,000 and $29,000 for a family of four in 2012—stand to lose 60 cents of every additional dollar to either taxes or lost federal benefits. In the face of such a high penalty, many low-income people choose either not to work or, as CBO finds, “put in fewer hours or be less productive.”
Federal policy seeks expanded welfare enrollment as an explicit goal—regardless of need. The federal government has been engaged in active promotional efforts to boost welfare enrollment regardless of need. For instance, in one Spanish-language “radio novela,” an individual insists she has enough money to pay for her own food but is pressured to accept the benefit regardless. USDA provides recruitment workers with material on how to “overcome the word ‘No’” and even gave one worker an award for overcoming “mountain pride” in order to boost registration. USDA claims one of the obstacles
to recruitment is a “sense that benefits are not needed,” and laments that those who choose not to enroll are depriving their community: “Each $5 dollars in new SNAP benefits generates almost twice that amount in economic activity for the community… Everyone wins when eligible people take advantage of benefits to which they are entitled.”
The push for welfare expansion has included targeted outreach to immigrants in spite of legal restrictions. The Departments of State and Homeland Security have effectively waived legal requirements barring entry to immigrants likely to be welfare reliant. DHS even has a web page, WelcomeToUSA.gov, which has a section encouraging newly arrived immigrants to seek out welfare. Meanwhile, USDA has formally acknowledged an official partnership with the government of Mexico to increase food stamp enrollment among foreign nationals.
Eligibility standards have been loosened as benefits have increased. Over the last four years, federal means-tested programs have experienced both a loosening of eligibility standards and an increase in benefit size. For instance, the 2009 stimulus bill removed work requirements for food stamps (which remain suspended) and increased the size of the monthly benefit allotment. Additionally, the number of states that have effectively eliminated the asset test by using broad-based categorical eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has grown from 11 states in 2007 to 42 states in 2011 (including the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands). A GAO report confirmed that categorical eligibility has contributed to the recent increase in food stamp enrollment.
The size of other program benefits is growing far faster than inflation or wages. A paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found that between 2007 and 2009, the value of means-tested benefits available to the average non-elderly unemployed worker grew from $10,000 to $15,000—or 50 percent. Another paper published by NBER calculated that, if spending on federal means-tested programs had increased proportionally to the number of underemployed workers, federal spending on these programs would have been $269 billion less than it otherwise was in 2009.
1996-modeled welfare reform would help those who need it the most. Growing welfare spending has failed in its goal of reducing poverty and improving economic mobility. Compassion necessitates reform to improve the operation of these programs, target resources to those in true need, and help millions of Americans seeking a better future.

 

[JoeB131]

then why did liberals spy for Stalin and give him the bomb? So he could slaughter more efficiently?

That's a good question.

So how many people did Stalin nuke? Oh, wait, the USSR never nuked anyone.

We nuked Japan, twice.