Really, that's the only conclusion I can come to when I see so many Americans trusting Repubs on much of anything, much less the economy, healthcare, and foreign policy. Let's face it, those are three areas that Republicans have been driving the country into the ground every chance they get. It might be anti-democracy, but I just wish people who can't be bothered to pay attention to anything wouldn't vote if they're simply going to vote on sound bites from repub candidates lying constantly.

Let there be a real bottoming out and then people will finally get it.

but then I also think that if people didn't 'get it' after 8 years of Bush, nothing will ever make them 'get it'.

will believe the propaganda until the end.

Democrats are simply to passive. They need to realize just being correct in an intellectual argument isn't enough. They need to go for the jugular. Republicans declared war on us a long time ago

...to corporate donors.

It's not that the party is more passive; it's that the party is working for different goals than it used to. These days, when the Republicans attack, most Democrats filter it through their corporate-donor-filter and then respond in measured terms -- lest they offend their handlers.

The reason they come off as wishy-washy in their support of various policies that would help the majority of Americans, is that they ARE wishy-washy on those issues!

Seems kind of important

We'll pick up a couple gubernatorial seats in areas that will help in 2016, but there aren't enough seats in play in the House to make much difference.

But there are a dozen or so races in the Senate that will determine what the next two years looks like.

but the Senate is still a very good possibility and that is the focus. Of course if we won the House that would be incredible. Believe me, democratic voters are going to do everything in their power to get their family and friends to the voting booths in November.

All I want is to hold the Senate. 'Majority Leader McConnell' would probably give me terminal heartburn. I SOOOO hope Lundgren-Grimes takes his seat. With Cantor getting the boot, that would be the perfect combo.

polls this early out mean nothing. Most people don't start to think about the elections until after Labor Day, DU notwithstanding.

Momentum has it that the person in the lead, tends to stay in the lead. The polls will firm up, but we have to take this election seriously. Two hundred replies on posts about if Hillary is really as inevitable as the rising on the sun in 2016 is not focusing on the danger right in front of us.

Articles about Hillary now from the political press and taking up the news cycle is hurting us. We have to be beating the drums, every Democrat who is interviewed must be talking about these vital races, and calling on people to support Hagen, Udall, and the rest of the Dems in close fights. We can make a difference, but we have to focus, and be determined.

Right now, from what I can see, our plan to hold those seats is the hope the Rethugs screw up. Divine intervention might as well be the name of that technique.

Here is the PPP poll on Wendy Davis. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_TX_415.pdf

Abbot by 14 points.

That by the way is more than the average of the others, they tend to show 12 point lead for Abbot. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/governor/tx/texas_governor_abbott_vs_davis-3596.html

PPP Has Hagen up by four in North Carolina. But it's interesting to note that the four point lead still has her at 42%. That leaves a lot of undecided. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/nc/north_carolina_senate_tillis_vs_hagan-3497.html

Shall I continue? PPP has within a point or two the same results as the other polls. So the best we can say about North Carolina is that it's going to be astonishingly close. Udall in Colorado? In the lead, 42 to 40 according to PPP. That leaves 18% undecided, in other words, a fight to the finish. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/co/colorado_senate_gardner_vs_udall-3845.html

The House is probably going to see Rethugs pick up a couple seats. The question on the Senate is not if the Rethugs will pick up seats, but if they'll pick up six and take the majority. Downplaying the danger now is a little silly.

assure the Thugs pickup at least 1 seat in the Senate. That is not new information. The goal is keep them from getting 6.
Grimes and Nunn are doing their best not let that happen.

Democrats hold the presidency and one house of Congress. So we're identified as being in charge, but things keep getting worse for the 99%.

If elected Democrats fought as hard for the 99% as they do for the 1%, those polls would be much different.

The Democrats are so terrified of the republicans attacking them for "class warfare", that they don't do much fighting for the 99%. That and many Democrats get their funding from big business so they won't bite the hand that feeds them--even if it feeds the republicans 3 times as much.

After that, nothing got done. Of course, as you note, the President, his administration, and Democrats get the blame.

I agree. In those 39 days in which the Democrats were the majority, amazing stuff should have happened. It didn't. Obama, could have, for the first time in history, dissolved the Congress. But no, he was an uber-bipartisan candidate. Whose goal was to be reelected.

Who do you think he is (or should be)? Emperor Palpatine?

held both houses of Congress, eh?

How does he dissolve Congress?

That sounds like one of those far-right fantasies that the President was ushering in a new communist regime (though the National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order IIRC)

Adjournment doesn't mean dissolution.

You forget why that was written:

I wasn't being literal.

The constitution mandates some sessions... plus there would be a real government shutdown since no budget could be passed. The executive only has limited additional powers during a recess... he can't run the government on his own.

Nor can I think of a single democrat that would vote for such nonsense... since we would quickly lose the white house and Senate

given how Obama did in those states these numbers are actually not all that bad. The individual Senators are holding up fairly well and the House actually has worse numbers than the Senate in the same poll.

of Obama on foreign policy need to get their rear ends over to the Ukraine and Iraq.

Like North Carolina? Kentucky? President Obama and Dems are not adored in those states to begin with. Show me a poll in Vermont or Massachusetts or California like this and, yeah, ok I'm extremely worried

there were only a couple accurate ones in 2012, we will vote and then we will see. I dont believe the gop are finished screwing themselves yet.

Pray to some deity that the Rethugs implode? By any chance, is your retirement plan centered on selecting certain numbers on specific days of the week?

But that being said, we're only at the beginning of the election season (for the mid-term).

Republicans tell the public how terrible the Democrats are.
They have their own propaganda channel in order to do this.

I do think the GOP will win big this fall because their idiocy is always treated with respect by the media.
The derision that most of their follies deserve is only apparent on sites specifically geared to liberals so the public never hears about it.

"Democrats" tell Democrats how terrible Democrats are.

I don't get the hatred but if you watch nothing but Fox you'd probably think a whole lot of weird things about him, particularly in regards to BENGHAZI!

"In the 12 states with competitive Senate races this fall, only 38 percent of likely voters said they approved of the way the president is handling his job. An index of all national polls shows the president's approval rating about 4 percentage points higher nationwide.

But as NPR's National Political Correspondent Mara Liasson notes, the slightly lower approval is not surprising, considering that eight of the 12 states voted for Mitt Romney over Obama in 2012."

Right this minute, the Rethugs have 45 seats in the Senate. If they pick up six, they are the majority party. Six seats. The polling indicates that today, there are 46 probable Rethug seats, and 46 probable Democratic seats. That leaves eight that are the deciding factor. If we win four, we keep control of the Senate with Biden as a tie breaker.

Those eight battleground states are where we have to fight, and win. We don't get to pick the fight elsewhere, if we lose there, we lose the Senate. It may not be the most friendly of ground to us, but we've won there before. Senators like Hagen, Udall (CO), and Landrieu. They already hold the seats, and if we bust our butts, we can win them again in November.

Dismissing them as states that Romney won, means giving up the Senate my friend. If we'd had our Druthers in WW II. We would not have fought in Guadalcanal. But that was where the enemy was, and that is where we had to defeat them or risk Australia. Those states are our Guadalcanal, we can hold nothing back, and we must risk everything to win there.

We have 46 seats pretty much locked up. The Rethugs have 46 seats pretty much locked up. So we're down to eight toss up seats.

Those eight are. Georgia. North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, and Kentucky.

Georgia is Michelle Nunn. Fair chance, but not great. Depending on who wins the Republican Primary, either she's going against Former Governor Purdue, or Congressman Kingston. Kingston is the king of pork in Georgia. He has funneled a lot of cash to the south eastern districts. Purdue is the former two term Governor. Fair, but not good chance to beat either of them. At best we can consider it to be a coin toss. As I live in Georgia, I want Nunn to win, but I doubt that we can overturn decades of Georgia being Red this time. Perhaps with Presidential Coat tails, but otherwise, I just have a feeling that it's not going to happen. Wishes were fishes and all that.

North Carolina. Hagen is fighting hard, but she's well below 50% despite having a 2 point advantage. Again, best case, coin toss.

Louisiana. Apparently they hold the primary on election day. If that is the case, then we may pull out a victory, but only if we get fifty percent of the vote. Otherwise it goes to a runoff, and then it's a coin toss at best. My feeling is that we lose the runoff, but not by much.

Arkansas. Pryor is in the fight of his life, and right now, best case, coin toss. Cotton is a vet who may get enough votes to win it. Even money on who wins.

Alaska. The Presumptive nominee for the Rethugs is Sullivan, polling thus far shows it to be a tie. So another coin toss. Place your bets, take your chances.

Colorado. Udall is in a slight lead, but not enough to call it a definite win. All the polling by all the firms show it to be well within the margin of error. Barely probable that we'll win that one. Slightly better than even money.

Iowa. Braley by .8% as the average of all the polls. Again too close to call, but a chance, not as good as Colorado, but a chance to win that one.

Kentucky. McConnell by 1.8 averaged among the polls. Alison Lundergan Grimes has a chance, but I think that the money of the Rethugs will really be poured into this race to prevent another Cantor situation. It would be very embarrassing for the Rethugs to lose both of their leadership people in both houses. Expect lots of money to be at play here, and that makes this a barely probable win for the Rethugs.

These are the eight contested battlegrounds. These are the ones where we have to win four to get 50 and the majority with the VP tie breaker. Or five and have a clear majority of 51. Some look a little better than others. Colorado is our best chance to win for example. Some look worse than others, Georgia and Louisiana. But these are where we must fight. Because here is where the control of the Senate will be decided. I can wish that we would decide it in California, or New Jersey. But the decisions here, will affect everything.

Five of them for the clear majority. In that case, the Rethugs pick up four seats in the Senate which is a huge publicity win. Then the pressure on the Democrats to acquiesce to the Rethugs will be pretty strong. If we lose the Senate, and we object to anything they want to do, we'll be labeled as obstructionist. That puts us in a bad place for 2016. Can you imagine the questions that the Nominee will be getting for the campaign season? I can. "Will you work with the Republicans or continue to obstruct the will of a majority of the people like Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate have?" If the nominee says yes, they'll work with the Rethugs, then we'll lose the base. If the nominee says no, then we lose the moderates.

We have to win the Senate, we have to. We can't afford to lose, and those eight races are where control will be lost, or saved.

For example:

I'm saying it's a tough fight, and we can't assume it's a given. I'm saying we should not approach this election with anything other than determination to give everything we have, hold nothing back.

In another response, I said that this election was our Guadalcanal. That is more appropriate than many people understand. The Americans were not prepared to go on the offensive yet. The First Marine Division was on route to Australia to finalize training and preparations for a destination to be decided later.

Then we got word, the Japanese were building an airstrip on Guadalcanal. If they got bombers flying from that strip, they would threaten the sea lanes to Australia. Our ships would have to divert so far south to avoid those bombers that they would enter the Antarctic weather regions, which meant a greater risk of losing the ships to severe storms. We had to go on the attack, despite the First Marine Division being ill prepared. The cargo ships were loaded for maximum storage, not combat loaded. In other words, things like food and ammunition were down low in the holds, and every nook and cranny was filled with cargo. Beans bullets and medical supplies should have been first out but as it was, hardly any made it ashore.

We could not afford to lose Guadalcanal. If we did, the Japanese would threaten our lines of communication to Australia, placing that entire nation/continent at risk of loss. We had no choice, but to fight, holding nothing back. A loss meant extending the war by months, or years. It meant retaking Guadalcanal later, against a much more able enemy.

This election, the Senate is our Guadalcanal. If we lose the Senate, the Presidency is surrounded by those hostile to our principles. We may not lose the Presidency, but it is certainly far more threatened in 2016 than now. The agenda of the Democratic Party for the last two years will be simply stated, Veto. In popular culture and media, we will become the party of obstruction. We must hold the Senate, we can't afford to lose.

We must view each of those eight races as the most important races in our lives. We must work to GOTV, of course, but moreover we must talk to neighbors, friends, and tell them that these candidates need our help to save the Senate.

As an analogy, the battle of Guadalcanal is a good one. The election of 2012 was important, vitally important. But this one is just as important, and it is shrugged off as a mere midterm. The 2012 would be Midway in this analogy, we hurt the other side, but have not diminished their ability to strike back at us. We saved the Oval Office, but have not taken the House back. Now, we risk losing the Senate. We must hold the Senate. Without that, the Oval Office will be nearly untenable given the hostility of the RW.

I hope you understand my meaning now. I hope I have been clear enough. Far from considering those eight races already lost, I consider them all winnable, some more than others. Georgia is the most iffy IMO. While as a Georgian, I'd love to see Nunn win it, I am realistic enough to know it is an uphill battle to say the least. Doable, but very difficult.

We can't win one and declare victory. We can't win three and give high fives and say we kicked ass. We must win four, and we really need to win five of those eight. If we win Alaska, North Carolina, and Colorado, but lose the rest, we still lose the Senate. President Obama is then on defense, and the Democratic Party faces an uphill battle to take the White House in 2016.

We've got to work extra hard between now and November. We are in trouble. While the Republicans crap doesn't hold up to even the weakest evaluation, many people don't do even that.

The dems are likely to make some progress back in September and October as they are able to get their message out more consistently but the God Damn Koch brothers have bought the fucking electorate. It is maddening to say the least. We'll be out spent 3 to 1 and still hold just about even as many people can smell the pure shit the Republicans are selling but some can't. The problem is that "just about even" won't be good enough given the Republicans Gerrymandering and the precarious situation in the Senate.

Here in Michigan the Koch adds run 3 to 1 over the democratic ones. Many people in the state are savvy enough to get it but it is going to be very close on election day here. The Republican governor is well enough liked here and rich enough that his coattails will be a problem. The senate seat is pivotal as it is Senator Levin's old seat.

NPR has been taken over by the right.

Polls can be skewed to say whatever the pollster or his/her client wants it to say — just ask Cantor or Romney.

Let's get real here and toss some grains of salt over the shoulder before accepting this stuff.

Besides, I guess Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid doesn't sound too bad right?

going after the Koch brothers and that ol' racist Cliven Bundy.

What's the sarcasm gif for, you'd rather he not go after wingers like he's doing?

You do know he's the Majority leader right now, and will remain Majority leader as long as the Democrats are in the Majority.

you sound curiously anti-Harry Ried — hinting that he may not be the majority leader for long.

Is that wishful thinking?

Are you sure you're on the right site?

1. The purpose of the OP was that the Democrats could lose control of the Senate.

2. I posted links in the OP that show this is a recurring theme of mine, warning of the danger that exists in this election. The danger of losing control of the Senate.

3. You denounced the threat by declaring that NPR was a RW poll. But there are no polls that show Democrats holding the Senate by a wide margin. Much less holding the Senate by anything but the barest of margins. Right now, under the best case scenario we will be lucky to hold the Senate by one vote. Median case, is that we hold a 50 vote spread, and hold the majority thanks to the Vice President.

4. I responded to your downplaying of the danger by pointing out that Senator Harry Reid would have such much more power as Minority leader, I coupled that with a sarcasm tag to make it painfully obvious to even the most obtuse that I did not want this to happen.

5. You question if I am on the right side of this, and then claim I want Harry Reid to be the Minority leader.

Now, since the obvious gesture to the most obtuse was not obvious enough, has the highlight above shown what my intention was and is? Because if I really want the Republicans to take control of the Senate, and I am some sort of clever RW plant, wouldn't I be adamant that we throw every dollar, every potential man hour into some situation where we don't have a prayer of winning? You know, something like Wendy Davis. A cause celeb that is hopeless. As I've said before, we could pour $50 million into that race and cut the lead in half, and still lose by six points. I've been castigated before on account of my position that Wendy is facing a hopeless fight to win Texas.

But for some reason, despite my many warnings that we could lose the Senate if we don't focus on this vital battle now. Somehow, some way, I am secretly working to accomplish the goal of losing the Senate by warning that we will lose the Senate. Now, if you believe that, I must be so clever as to make Machiavelli look like a Grade School rumor monger. I see my effort to let the obtuse know I was being sarcastic was far too subtle with the Sarcastic tag. Next time I'll add a long explanation that I was just kidding and I've dedicated a goodly number of hours on this site alone warning of the approaching danger and already donated money to candidates. But since that is exactly what someone who puts Machiavelli to shame would say, I doubt that those who utterly miss the sarcasm tag's actual meaning would believe me.

as your responses to my posts weren't the essence of clarity.

Glad to know we're on the same side.

but it is a recovery http://www.discussionist.com/101575659

The 2 worst crashes in US history, yet they are more trustworthy with the economy?

Weak minds will believe anything their overlords tell them, apparently.

I'm sure if Republicans gain full control they won't do anything about something like this happening again:

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your point, but it's a favorite ploy of fox news to move the x-axis way up on any graph they present where they want to make Democrats look bad.

In this case, a loss of 400,000 jobs between 2000 and 2010 is bad enough but it looks really terrible when the base of the chart is 600k.

I think we should do more of this. It works really well with "low information" Americans (fox viewers).

have nothing to worry about now.

If Obama had appointed labor union supporting liberals to the major economic posts in his government and gone to Wisconsin to support the protestors in the capitol in a more prominent and quicker way, we would have nothing to worry about now.

If Obama had announced that he would never cut Social Security or Medicare benefits no matter what, we would have far less to worry about now.

Unfortunately . . . .

Obama has done a number of wonderful things, but it is the things that he did not do that are causing our party problems now.

Still, we may yet win in November. It's too soon to say.

Nader, too.

their candidate H. Clinton-Sachs.

....one could possibly be forgiven for thinking that the US is headed toward Lost Cause.

How is this result even POSSIBLE???

are more trustworthy? BULLSHIT POLL!

Remember the Rethugs opposing the Job Killing minimum wage hike? Or the Job Killing Obamacare? They put the label Job Killing in front of everything. They would put Job Killing in front of Daylight Savings Time if they thought they could get away with it. So what do the people hear? They hear the estimate from the CBO that half a million jobs will be lost if the Minimum Wage is raised. The Rethugs run to the cameras and microphones and promise to fight the Job Killing minimum wage. What do the Democrats do?

President Obama said that he didn't believe the estimate, and even if that estimate was true, those half a million people would be better off unemployed. That is a little tone deaf when you consider that there are over 90 million people not in the workforce right now. Truthfully, those people would be better off on unemployment and other assistance programs. But it doesn't sound good when you're saying that to the people who are supposed to be supporting you.

So on that issue, President Obama and the Democrats seemed unconcerned about unemployment, while the Rethugs were on camera promising to fight the Job Killing Minimum Wage hike. Now you have an idea of why nearly half the people think that the Rethugs care more about the middle class, and are willing to listen to the Rethugs on the economy.

The Democratic Party has no propaganda mechanism at their disposal. Most every channel parrots the Fox "News" meme.

people underestimate the fox effect at their own peril. Studies show everyone thinks they are immune to advertising, but studies also show that advertising works on nearly everyone. Democrats have to get a marketing strategy, republicans are steamrolling them in this regard.

Have you ever heard President Obama even mention this plan? I fail to understand why he doesn't promote it EVERY FUCKING DAY!

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/better-off-budget/

No so much for Main Street.

and the Democratic party is so very pathetically weak.

I can't imagine a scenario that works in.

Republican House and Senate send legislation cutting the mandate for coverage of Birth Control for those with religious objections from the ACA. President Obama vetos, and the Congress sends a piece of legislation calling on massive deployments of National Guard to the border to protect against the influx of undocumented workers. President Obama vetos it.

Then the press runs to the various candidates running for the nomination and ask if they would continue the obstruction or if they will work with the Republicans. If the Candidates say they will work with the Republicans, they lose the base, and the nomination. If they say they won't work with the Rethugs, then they lose the moderate voters, and the election.

Poll: Half of Americans dont care which party controls Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024988821

The record shows aggressive, proactive pursuit of a corporate agenda.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3202395


America, these are your parties on corporate cash.