Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This just feels much different than 1994, doesn't it?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:33 PM
Original message
This just feels much different than 1994, doesn't it?

in '94, the people were actually voting FOR the Republican Party. The GOP presented the "Contract With America", and while we knew it was all bullshit... at least they were running ON something other than anti-Clintonism.

I remember being despondent the morning after that election. That the people of the country were accepting right-wing mantra as truth and that it was going to be a long time before Democrats got congress back.



I don't have that feeling today. I don't get the same vibe that the people were voting FOR Republicanism. Indeed, exit polls show that the populace has no more confidence in the GOP than they have in the Democrats and Rasmussen even has a poll showing that nearly 60% of the voters expect to be disappointed by the Republicans in congress by 2012.


Yesterday was simply... utterly.... ONLY about 9.6% unemployment. No party can survive that kind of economic number.

We did well... given that backdrop... to hold onto one chamber of congress.



This Republican win wasn't a "wave" like in 1994. In 1994, the American people decided to try Republicanism after 40 years of not seeing it in action.

I get the distinct impression that the American people have the GOP on a much shorter leash than they ever had any party before.

If they decide to spend two years obstructing and not dealing with the economic problems we're facing, I think they're back out on their collective ears.

As it stands, we'll need about 25 gains in the House to take it back in '12. If this GOP congress acts like they are indicating they are going to, 25 seats will be a piece of cake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yesterday was also about vast amounts of corporate money spent on Republican
candidates. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. I agree and I pointed this out yesterday
we still control the senate and a few governor mansions.

But some folks think it is.

I expect another wave election, cannot predict for what, in 2012.

Why?

The system is highly unstable...

Oh and their majority is not strong and they have a bad case of the tea.

People think Blue dogs are bad... wait until you see the bad case of the tea.

One new man to watch though is Rand Paul... he has a better chance to do a LOT of damage in the US Senate... (Debt increase limit) than the whole of the US Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. back then, the Republicans didn't have Fox to tell the "liberally biased media" what the
latest "outrage" was to be ... they just had Rush Limbaugh (saying "Day nnn of 'America held hostage'), and conservatives had to wait until the noon (EST) hour to find out what to think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. Actually, Fox was around in 1994, but not nearly as potent as it is now
Back then, Fox seemed to at least pretend it was middle-of-the-road, and not the 24/7 propaganda outlet it is today. In 1994, Bill O'Reilly was host of the entertainment show Inside Edition, and Sean Hannity was a small-time radio jock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. Nope, they were voting against what they've been getting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. Seems quite different to me, but I'm also in California, so...
No one should simply say though that people were simply voting "no" to Democrats. They did, objectively, cast votes for right-wing candidates. "Would-be Democratic voters" do not count for anything in terms of political power. THAT said, I think this is more of a super-sized 1982 than a 1994, if an analogy must be made. People weren't suddenly sliding to the left in 1982, but they were scared, and Democrats mightily benefited in the house and gubernatorial races. Reagan, of course, won in a landslide two years later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I agree with this... and I said so last night....

2010 is to Obama was 1982 was to Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gaedel Donating Member (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. 2010 versus 1982
In 1982, the reaction was against Reagan

In 2010 the reaction was against Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Obviously, it wasn't against Reid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gaedel Donating Member (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. They ran against him in more places than Nevada
They were running against Pelosi everywhere as well.

Unless you regard six senate seas lost as nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. 1982 was against Reagan, Falwell, Edwin Meese, and James Watt
Works for both sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MidwestTransplant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. I agree and I was thinking the SAME thing just a second before seeing your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grace0418 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
8. I've been saying this for awhile. Whoever was in power after the 2008 election
was going to be fucked. All the results of Bush's 8 disastrous years in office were coming to fruition right at the end of his term, but all anyone would remember at the polls was that 2009 and 2010 sucked and somebody was going to pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I remember you saying it
So we can't blame this completely upon the DLC. Or Rahm Emmanuel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grace0418 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. The Dems didn't do themselves any favors. They should have acted more
Edited on Thu Nov-04-10 09:26 AM by grace0418
decisively in those two years, stopped trying to cater to the damn nutjob Republicans so much. If I knew I was going to lose no matter what, I'd choose to go down fighting.

I think that may have been their only chance. If they'd acted more decisively and done more with those two years (and I know that Pres. O did get a lot done, I'm not disputing that), progressives would have been more eager to fight for them. And independents too, probably. As it was I voted while holding my nose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gaedel Donating Member (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Yes
in 2008, the presidency was a "poisoned chalice".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grace0418 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #12
21. As excited as we all were, I think we knew that going in.
Sigh...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. And the President has known this from day one. Rachel was correct about this
the other night: he spent his first two years concentrating on policy, not politics. He served the country more than his own political interests. That's not something many present-day Republicans would do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grace0418 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. Of course no present day Republican would do that. They don't care about anything
but themselves and their bank accounts. Of course they're too stupid to realize that if they keep fucking the country over, and the planet over, it's going to affect them eventually too and no amount of money in the world will help them at that point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
11. Tens of billions of dollars from anonymous donors coming up say it's going to be worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
16. Well.... There was no DU, nor much in the way of the internets.
Edited on Wed Nov-03-10 06:13 PM by madinmaryland
Also there was no FOX or 24-hour news other than CNN. Also, MTV actually was "Music TV" with "Music Videos".

I think a lot more people fell in behind Clinton than are falling in behind Obama. That could change, but we will see.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC