Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama blames voters, election for loss

The Times:

“This is probably the worst possible group of states for Democrats since Dwight Eisenhower,” Mr. Obama said. “There are a lot of states that are being contested where they just tend to tilt Republican, and Democrats are competitive, but they tend to tilt that way.”

Par for the course. As it were.

Democrats never accept blame or responsibility for anything. Guess we'll have to wait another few cycles for those demographics to kick in, eh?

0
No votes yet
Updated: 

Comments

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

Well, any loss certainly couldn't be Obama's fault. He was always The Greatest Whatevah Evah, right? And voters are hopeless. You throw them under the bus and then they don't even have the get up and go to pick themselves up and vote for you. What is the world coming to?

McDee's picture
Submitted by McDee on

The Republicans didn't deserve to win, of course, but the Democrats certainly did deserve to lose. Therein lies the dilemma. We, as a nation, can't seem to grasp that there are other possibilities. The duopoly has things pretty much sewed up. We bounce back and forth between D's and R's and things just keep getting worse....except for the 1%.
I read somewhere today there are twice as many Billionaires (with a B) today than there were in 2009.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

okay, I'm gonna look at the silver lining here.

For the next two years, the GOP is going to do what they always do when they control congress -- overreach like crazy. Obama will veto everything that comes down from the hill, of course -- and in two years, he's gone, the nation is completely disgusted with the GOP, and there is a slim possibility that a decent democrat will be in the white house in 2017.

albrt's picture
Submitted by albrt on

Admittedly there are no decent Democrats. That is a problem for the Democrats.

An equally bad problem for the Democrats is that Obama is going to shit the bed on a daily basis between now and November of 2016.

Fortunately for me I am not a Democrat any more. I am hopeful that this brings the useless, worthless Democratic party closer to oblivion and something else will take its place. I am not confident it will be something good, but we have been seeing the same worthless crap from the Democrats since 2006 and it is time for something different.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

albrt,

I think that you may be right that this could open the door to a 'third party' challenge (viable).

It is hard for me not to think that we just saw was the Democratic Party imploding.

At least some of the more toxic conservadems were voted out. (Remember the video that I posted of Mark Pryor holding a Bible in a campaign ad? In one way, I'm not surprised that Dems would refuse to vote for someone who went that far to eradicate the line between church and state.)

What I'm shocked about is that "No Labeler"--and former Board Member of Americans Elect--Greg Orman (KS) didn't make it. (not that he should have--he'd be even more toxic, considering that he's have decades to serve, and ol' Roberts will probably stay at home after this election). BTW, Larry Lessig's new PAC threw money his way the last week or two--so much for their 'liberal' credentials.

I said several months ago that the midterms 'would be interesting'--what an understatement!

;-)

wanderindiana's picture
Submitted by wanderindiana on

Obama will not veto everything.

And he was gone the day after he took his first oath of office, in terms of abandoning those who elected him.

Rank and file capitalist tools need to realize the swiftest way to meaningful change is to help it all go to hell, collapse, and arise from the ashes.

We are slaves to the money and pretending any of this election crap matters prolongs the day of rebellion.

Barmitt O'Bamney's picture
Submitted by Barmitt O'Bamney on

We may hope Obama will veto everything that rolls down the Hill in the next two years, but he is more likely to change.

The big question is whether Republicans are more interested in throwing a lynching party for two years, or in working with Obama to destroy what's left of the New Deal - Great Society legacy. I'm pretty sure Obama would be happy to work with them in the second case.

Submitted by lambert on

Exactly what Dick Gephardt said of the Republicans during the Clinton impeachment saga, and he was right!

That said, one of the things McConnnell and all did was suppress the TPers, so they didn't have any lunatic misogynists running this year, so they may keep a lid on the crazies.

(Not, again, to say that all TPers are loons, though some of them are; we wouldn't have stopped the East West Highway up here without help from the right.)

I also think "no decent Democrats" overstates. I don't hate Grayson, for example. There are probably others. The issue is, can they get together now, when the party leadership is on the ground, and give them a good kick right in the stones? Best thing that can be done for the party: Purge it.

Cujo359's picture
Submitted by Cujo359 on

I hope so, but I'm not optimistic. That certainly didn't happen in 2010, after they lost the House.

The deteriorating economy that most of us live in isn't a place where people are looking for leaders who will give us more of the same. From my vantage point far away, there doesn't seem to be anything the Democrats are really interested in doing. I can tell you what the Republicans want to do, because they've been passing legislation the last four years that explains it. Sometimes, sucking less isn't enough. Sometimes, you have to give people a reason to vote for you.

When the Democrats and their hangers-on realize that, perhaps there will be some stones kicking. In my mercifully limited reading of what such folks are writing and saying right now, I don't see any signs of that understanding.

Cujo359's picture
Submitted by Cujo359 on

Yes,there's clearly little motivation for Democratic politicians and their consultants to change at the moment. They are continuing to profit from the status quo.

My opinion is similar to Kevin Gasztola's - I don't have any reaction to Republican victories. In a sense, they just affirm what's already happening.

Submitted by lambert on

FDL:

I had no tribal or partisan reaction to the Republican victories. And it was liberating.

Yep.

Rangoon78's picture
Submitted by Rangoon78 on

Republicans put together their strategy as a referendum on the competence of government, embodied by Mr. Obama.

Obamission accomplished. Tarnish the very idea that government can effectively deal with real wold problems.

zapster's picture
Submitted by zapster on

There's a real elephant in the room that we've been ignoring since at least 2000, and that's the monumental voter disenfranchisement. This Crosscheck monstrosity that Palast just uncovered had a million voters crossed off in a single state, and there are 11 of them. Coupled with things like Texas turning away voters with parking tickets, there is no possible way that the races in those states are even remotely the will of the voters.

We've been witnessing a slow-motion coup since Bush stole both elections, and yet there's almost no excitement about it. Sure, there will be a huge backlash after 2 more years of Repug policies--but will it matter by then? We may not get to vote on it.

BruceMcF's picture
Submitted by BruceMcF on

... the Senate at present is now entirely elected with President Obama as the sitting President ... being in Minority is not "losing seats because they happened to be in Republican States", unless the majority of states are "Republican States".

So on the whole, "Don't go with principles, go with pragmatism" argument ... it continues to be the case that I don't think that word means what the people saying that think that it means. Its not pragmatic to fight and lose when there are better issues to run on available.

Just to take the one that even President Obama could pick up, since its favored by the Goldman Sachs branch of the Corporate Party that he represents ... taking pro-Latino immigration action. The administration bet against the Latino vote being necessary to win the pivotal states in this Senate election ...

... and the pivotal state ended up being Colorado.

So in the end, both bad policy and massively unpragmatic policy.