Max

On 11/8/2018 at 8:38 PM, DRW50 said:

Krysten Sinnema is currently leading in the very close Arizona Senate race. Her opponent, Congresswoman Martha McSally (who had Gabby Giffords' old seat), is yet another media darling, one they've been gushing over for most of the decade. She let the mask slip on who she really is when she was practically doing handstands over the thought of repealing Obamacara. 

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/18075478/midterm-elections-arizona-vote-count-mcsally-sinema

 

It's still too early to tell what will happen here, but if they do win in Arizona, and somehow manage to win in Florida, that would mean the Republicans only got a 1-seat pickup in a year that was absolutely perfect for them.  It also, ideally, means even more pressure on phony moderates like Susan Collins, making it more likely she will retire to wingnut welfare.

 

Now that Chuck Todd and friends (who were gleeful over the possibility of Republicans romping) didn't get their cookie, expect focus on Mitt Romney and how Mitt Romney is going to be a moderating voice in the Senate and blah blah his father blah blah blah. It's all BS, as is anything involving Mitt Romney, but they also spent a lot of time and money hyping him for a decade - can't let that go to waste.

If I lived in AZ,  I wouldn't have been able to vote for McSally simply because (1) she cozied up to Trump too much and (2) few instances would actually merit me voting for a Republican member of Congress so long as Trump as POTUS. (I would only have voted for a Republican Congressional candidate this cycle if the Democratic candidate were corrupt--e.g., Bob Menendez--or if the Republican candidate had a long track record of criticizing Trump.) That said, there's no way I could have ever voted for Sinema either. Her background is incredibly disturbing and is full of associations with far-left groups (even working with an anarchist group):

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/politics/kfile-kyrsten-sinema-activist-past/index.html

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/kyrsten-sinema-in-2002-itd-be-inappropriate-to-condemn-destruction-of-property-by-anarchists

She also made an incredibly repugnant comment in which she basically stated that Arizona was the crazy state:

https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/arizona/new-recording-of-sinema-implying-arizona-produces-crazy/75-603482130

I know that Sinema has very cleverly branded herself has a moderate and has a center-left record as a Congresswoman. But I highly suspect that she did all this out of political necessity. (Back when Kristen Gillibrand represented a conservative Congressional District in Upstate NY, she also portrayed herself as a moderate. Of course, now that she's a U.S. Senator with presidential aspirations, she is a staunch liberal.) As Arizona continues to trend leftward--IMO, it's likely to become a Democratic state like Nevada and Colorado in the very near future, and it's also the state that Republicans are in most danger of losing in 2020--I fully expect Sinema to be far more liberal as a Senator than she was as a Congresswoman.

22 hours ago, sivad40 said:

You know (maybe you do now) I don't care what Newt says but at least 40% of the country cares and they get their talking points from him and the rest of the conservative media like Fox News and talk radio. I go back and forth with conservatives on another board and that's the talking points that they are using.  The GOP would see it as a victory if it was a 50/50 split in the Senate with Pence being the tie breaking vote. The more Democrats in the Senate will give Senators like Susan Collins less of a cover when it comes to voting anti GOP legislation.  

 

I know the Democrats being in control of House makes a big difference , and the GOP does too despite whatever the media says. It's the reason why he fired Sessions (and to change the narrative of the GOP losing the House), removing Rosenstein from overseeing the Mueller investigation and is making these moves to derail the Mueller investigation during this lame duck session of Congress before the  the Democrats take over the House. 

 

Rosenstein, with the confidence of a Dem house behind him, could have felt comfortable releasing very damning Mueller related info that would have spilled over into congressional investigations.

 

If the GOP won the House, none of this happens and the GOP Congress can continue to erode the investigation from the inside out.

To echo something that you mentioned in the first paragraph of your post, John Ziegler (who's an anti-Trump conservative) recently tweeted that Trump's whole 2020 strategy is to appeal to 40% of the country and have their zealous support no matter what happens. And unfortunately, Ziegler also added that it's actually a very good strategy, given how polarized the country is.

Obviously, winning 40% percent of the vote won't be enough for Trump to win re-election. So in order to bring that number up to 46% (which would result in another popular vote loss but would be enough to prevail in the Electoral College), I fully expect Trump to run an even nastier campaign than he ran in 2016. He'll do whatever it takes to drive up the negative perceptions of the 2020 Democratic nominee, and he'll scare people who dislike him personally by presenting himself as the last line of defense for red state America.

I've got a couple of unrelated thoughts:

*I will gladly vote Democratic in my House race. (I live in a district that currently has a GOP member of Congress but is favored to be a Democratic pickup.) I would like to be able to vote Democratic in the Senate race, but I just cannot do it (and will most likely vote Republican). If Bob Menendez loses, the ultimate blame does not rest with independents and anti-Trump conservatives. Rather, the ultimate blame lies with the NJ Democratic Party (and the national Democratic Party, to a lesser extent) for making the morally reprehensible and politically brain-dead decision to rally around Menendez in spite of his history of corruption. Even if Menendez wins (which seems likely, given that he has always been ahead in the polls and given that NJ last elected a Republican to the Senate in 1972), the NJ Democrats' decision to support Menendez was political malpractice; that's because NJ is such an expense state in which to run, and the money that the Democrats have had to spend to defend this race could have been put to much better use elsewhere.

*I personally think that this election is extremely hard to predict. While it seemed obvious to me that 1994, 2006, 2010, & 2014 were going to be wave years for the party that was out of power, I would not be surprised if the Republicans maintain control of the House, nor would I be surprised if there is a massive Democratic wave. Part of the difficultly in predicting this election stems from just how flawed the pollsters and the pundits were in recent election cycles.

*If the polls are to be believed (though as I indicated above, the polling industry has had a lot of problems in recent years), one of the most surprising and underreported developments of this election cycle is how much GOP candidates have been struggling in the Rust Belt. The Rust Belt was the crucial region of the 2016 election, since it was where the biggest swing from Obama to Trump occurred. Additionally, the Rust Belt is more demographically favorable to the GOP than the country as a whole. But despite all that, the Senate races in PA, OH, and WI have never been competitive, and the same holds true with the PA governor's race. Democrats also hold comfortable leads in MI's Senate and gubernatorial races. In the dark red states of IN and MO, the Senate races are toss-ups. And Democrats are favored to win the governor's races in IA, OH, and WI.

*In the previous bullet point I mentioned that Democrats are favored to defeat Scott Walker in WI. Watching Scott Walker's fortunes decline has been one of the more interesting developments in recent political history. When the 2016 election cycle began, I actually expected him to be the GOP nominee and was extremely surprised that his presidential bid fizzled. (As of matter of fact, he was only the second GOP candidate to drop out of the race in the entire field of seventeen.) I think it's quite possible that Trump's entry into the race hurt Walker more than any other GOP candidate, since the two politicians appeal to many of the same types of voters. Trump sucked all the oxygen out of the room, and Walker's blandness became a political liability that he couldn't overcome.

On 10/25/2018 at 10:17 PM, JaneAusten said:

This is the woman who is the GOP's great hope. God help us all.

 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/nikki-haley-almost-started-a-nuclear-war/

It really baffles me why so many NeverTrumpers like Nikki Haley. During the primaries, she was very critical of Trump, and she could have shown true leadership by refusing to have anything to do with him. Instead, she frequently came to his defense over the past two years.

It's important for me to add that I don't begrudge anybody for joining Trump's Cabinet if their primary motivation was to curb Trump's worst instincts for the good of the country. In fact, I think that American people owe a big debt of gratitude to individuals who joined the Cabinet for that reason. To give you some examples of current or former members of the Trump Cabinet who would fall into this category, I would cite James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, and even Rex Tillerson. (Granted, Tillerson was a very odd choice for Secretary of State. However, I do think he tried his best during his tenure and recognized what a global threat Trump posed.) However, I believe that Haley joined Trump's Cabinet primarily as a way to further her naked ambition to one day become POTUS (and her frequent pubic defenses of Trump, which I mentioned earlier, reinforce this belief).

Conversely, I never understood why so many liberals believe that anti-Trump Republican members of Congress such as Ben Sasse and Jeff Flake deserve criticism because they vote for the Trump agenda a large portion of the time.  The way I see it is as follows: if Trump proposes a bill that pretty much any Republican POTUS would propose, why wouldn't Sasse, Flake, et al. support that bill? (After all, there was a reason why these people became Republicans in the first place.) Sasse and Flake have both gone on record opposing the policies of Trump's agenda--such as tariffs--that are deviations from what the GOP as a whole believed in prior to the Trump Era. IMO, Sasse and Flake don't have to vote like Chuck Schumer, or even like Heidi Heitkamp, in order to be genuine in their opposition to Trump.

As a bit of an aside, I do think that the left has a valid criticism of Sasse and Flake when it comes to their support of Kavanaugh. Out of all the votes that they cast, this is the one instance in which I had a hard time understanding why they voted as they did. My guess is that they (and Susan Collins as well) supported Kavanaugh because they wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and also felt that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that Kavanaugh was guilty of the accusations against him. However, that one vote doesn't change my belief that Sasse and Flake are good men who try their best to do what is right. And for those who knock Sasse and Flake for being "all talk and no action," keep in mind that it takes a lot of courage for any Republican to publicly criticize Trump to the extent that Sasse and Flake have. Because of his "talk," Flake will be out of a job come January. And I don't see how Sasse can possibly win re-election in 2020, either.

In short, I think there's a huge difference between Republicans like Nikki Haley and Republicans like Ben Sasse, Jeff Flake, and John Kasich. Those in the former group are total cowards who have put aside their one-time opposition to Trump in order to further their own ambitions, while those in the latter group have continued to criticize Trump at a tremendous cost to their political careers.

On 10/20/2018 at 6:06 PM, JaneAusten said:

Max it’s good to see you back here. A conservative who can speak to policy versus hyperbole

 

i will challenge you on Maine. I’d call it more independent than republican. And it’s been that way. Olympia Snowe was a Republican Senator from this state, very popular, who was regularly vnamed one of the top 5 senators in congress because she was known for reaching across the aisle. She decided not to run in 2012 because she had gotten disgusted with the overly partisan Washington and particularly her party. As you can see Susan Collins is no Olympia Snowe or Margaret Chase Smith, another admirable GOP Senator from MAine.  And LePage both times with around 38 percent of the vote, both elections with an independent spoiler. And by the way Angus King the other Senator is an independent not a republican.

Jane, thank you so much for your kind words.

Regarding Maine, I should have been clearer in stating that I also think it is not a Republican state. The point that I meant to convey was that (based on recent election results) it seems to be trending to the GOP. Because of this rightward trend, Maine can no longer be seen as the liberal stronghold that it was perceived to be even as recently as five or so years ago. Rather, I consider Maine to be a state that's only slightly more Democratic than the country as a whole.

Digging a little deeper, while Maine as a whole is a light blue state, its two Congressional districts are very different in their politics. Maine's 1st Congressional District, located in the southeastern coastal portion of the state, is still a liberal stronghold (similar to many other places in New England). Obama won the district by 21.39% in 2012 and Hillary won it by 14.81% in 2016. But in recent years, Maine's 2nd Congressional District--which covers the vast geographic area of the rest of the state--has become undoubtedly the most conservative area of New England. It's big shift to the right is very reminiscent of what has recently occurred in Iowa (which is similar demographically to Maine's 2nd Congressional District). In 2012, Obama won the district by 8.56%, yet Trump carried the district by 10.29% four years later. (For reference, the numerical shift in Iowa was as follows: Obama won the state by 5.81% in 2012 while Trump won it by 9.41% in 2016.) Since the two Congressional districts have roughly equal population, the net result is that Maine has recently moved from being a dark blue state (giving Obama a 15.29% statewide victory in 2016) to one that is light blue (as HRC won a statewide victory of only 2.96% in 2016).

On 10/14/2018 at 12:01 PM, I Am A Swede said:

 

I totally agree with that. It was one of my favourite threads.  

 

 

That would be wonderful.

I Am A Swede, thank you so much!

On 10/13/2018 at 10:56 PM, Juliajms said:

As for Bill Clinton I did love him at the time, but I was still a teenager when he was elected. I wouldn't vote for him now and I do believe his victims.  It's really too bad he didn't step aside because nothing would have been lost. In fact, I wonder if we might have avoided Iraq, if Gore had been the incumbent when he faced W.  I also agree that Ted Kennedy should have gone to prison for whatever that's worth now that he's dead. I don't think either of them would have gotten away with what they did in 2018, but we'll never know.

Juliajms, it's really commendable for you to have said this. Back in the 1990s, I thought that the GOP supported Clinton's impeachment because they honestly cared about morals and character. But Trump's rise shows that Republicans (save for a few exceptions) really don't care about these matters. Instead, their desire for impeachment was motivated by politics.

On 10/13/2018 at 8:42 PM, DramatistDreamer said:

Yes, I agree that Hillary was the Democratic establishment's preferred candidate, part of that is because of Bernie's political affiliation but I also think that Bernie had some genuine problems reaching the many Democrats of color.  Sanders definitely failed to strike the right tone with black voters and black women, in particular, who are not only a vital part of the Democratic voting base but the most consistently reliable in terms of voting.  And we weren't voting for Bernie.

Consequently, I can see Michael Bloomberg having some of the same issues, if not worse than Bernie, due to Bloomberg's shift back and forth between political party affiliations, among other issues.  People in NYC regretted that third term pretty early on after he won re-election and national politics is often less forgiving than the local political scene where, perhaps pragmatism is overlooked, if not rewarded.

DramatistDreamer, I think that part of Bernie's problem with reaching minorities was because he had little experience dealing with them during his many decades of being active in Vermont politics. Vermont's a funny state politically, since it's pretty much the only state that is nearly all-white and all-rural, but also very liberal. (A lot of people seem to think that Maine is similar to Vermont politically, but that certainly is no longer the case. Although coastal Maine is still a liberal stronghold, the state has a whole has moved considerably to the right in recent years. This movement is evidenced not only by the fact that Paul LePage was elected governor twice, but also by the fact that Trump lost the state by only 2.96% in 2016.)

While I wasn't surprised that Bernie had trouble with minorities, I was surprised that the bitterness of the 2008 primary went away and that Hillary didn't have any trouble winning the minority vote in the Democratic primaries. I suspect (though I could definitely be wrong) that a lot of minorities appreciated the way that Hillary worked for Obama and were willing to let bygones be bygones. But--and this is only my opinion--I always thought that the Obama/Hillary alliance was a very uneasy one, and was formed primarily for their mutual political benefit. For Hillary, being loyal to Obama had the obvious benefit of her inheriting the Obama coalition when she ran for POTUS again in 2016. But Obama benefited as well: had Hillary stayed in the Senate, she may have been a persistent Democratic critic of the former president (with an eye on challenging President Obama in the 2012 Democratic primary). Also, I thought that offering Hillary the Secretary of State position (as opposed to some other high-profile position that seemed to be a better fit, such as Attorney General) was puzzling, since their differences over the Iraq War was the # 1 reason why Obama defeated Hillary in 2008.

Regarding Michael Bloomberg, if he wants to run for president, his best option would be to run as an independent. He became very unpopular among liberals during this third term as mayor, and unlike John Kasich (who likely will launch an independent bid in 2020 and form a "fusion" ticket with John Hickenlooper), Bloomberg is wealthy enough to be competitive with the two major parties.

I Am A Swede, DramatistDreamer, and Carl, thank you so much for your kind words.

Carl, I'm really glad that you enjoyed my # 1 Billboard hits thread, and I would like to revive it someday. Regarding the voting behavior of Latinos, one of the biggest surprises of the 2016 election was that Trump received a slightly higher percentage of the Latino vote than did Romney. (I was honestly expecting Trump to receive less than 20% of the Latino vote.) To me, this fact suggests that there's a ceiling on Democratic support among Latinos. I know that there's a spirited debate in the Democratic Party over whether their best path to victory in 2020 is to get minorities much more enthused or if Democrats have a better pathway to the White House by trying to win over the white-working class voters who voted for Trump but also voted for Obama twice. To be honest, I'm really not sure which option is better for the Democrats. (Conventional wisdom would suggest that Democrats should try to regain ground among working class whites, but in the aftermath of the 2012 election, conventional wisdom also suggested that Republicans needed to expand their appeal among minorities. Instead, Trump ran on a racist / white nationalist platform and managed to win the presidency.)

DramatistDreamer, you brought up a lot of interesting points in your post. I certainly believe that Democratic leaders such as Chuck Schumer and (even) Nancy Pelosi are not as liberal as the party's base. The disaffection with the Democratic leadership seemed apparent when a large portion of the base wanted Keith Ellison to become chair of the DNC and when Joe Crowley lost his primary to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I also agree with your suggestion that the Democratic base's move to the left is party a reaction to Trump (and to the Tea Party movement that proceeded him). Liberals know that the GOP was rewarded (at least in the short-term) by embracing the Tea Party and Trumpism, and they are justified to be angry over that fact. In my opinion, there seems to be an attitude among many Democrats that they need to fight fire with fire (and perhaps they're correct in that assessment), which explains why the the energy and the momentum is currently with the party's most liberal members.

To address some other topics in your post, liberals have long been dissatisfied with many of the aspects of Bill Clinton's presidency. (This is a bit off-topic, but I actually think that the policy positions that characterized the Democratic Party during the 1990s were quite appealing, although I'm a bit more to the right than where the Democratic Party was during the Clinton years. My objections to the Democratic Party of the 1990s were largely due to Bill Clinton's ethical flaws and to the way in which so many Democrats seemed to be OK with those flaws.) When Hillary Clinton ran in 2016, it's notable that she ran as a third term of Obama (who granted isn't as liberal as folks like Elizabeth Warren, but is definitely to the left of WJC) as opposed to a third term of her husband. During the 2016 primaries, she clearly distanced herself from aspects of Bill's record that were unpopular with the base (such as the 1994 crime bill) and even attacked Bernie Sanders as not being sufficiently progressive on racial issues.

If there's one area where we most disagree, it probably is your suggestion that HRC's victory over Sanders shows the limits of how much influence the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party current has (or did have in 2016). (Before I continue, I sincerely apologize if I am misrepresenting or misinterpreting what you said, as that certainly is not my intention.) Apart from issues related to race, Bernie was obviously much further to the left than Hillary. However, I believe that Hillary was able to defeat Bernie largely due to the overwhelming institutional support she had from the Democratic establishment. Of course, Trump won the GOP nomination in spite of having zero establishment support, but I also believe that the GOP establishment was in much weaker shape in 2016 than was the Democratic establishment. (Additionally, the GOP establishment made the horrendous mistake of backing Jeb Bush. Had they chosen another candidate, Trump would have had a harder time winning the nomination.) Hillary also benefitted from the fact that apart from Bernie, she had no real serious challengers for the nomination, which is in stark contrast to the 17 candidates who sought the GOP nomination. This is merely speculation on my part, but I suspect that tremendous pressure was placed on Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren not to run in 2016. While I don't think Biden had a realistic chance of winning the nomination, he would have taken a disproportionate number of votes away from Hillary, and that in turn would have boosted Bernie's chances. And I honestly believe that Elizabeth Warren would have won the nomination had she run. In fact, Bernie's campaign likely would have fizzled had Warren been in the race. Although Warren and Bernie appealed to many of the same voters, Warren had broader appeal and was far more well-known than Bernie was when the 2016 campaign season started.

I'm sorry for writing such a long post, but you folks have given me a lot to think about. Thanks again for your kindness and for being so welcoming.

This isn't meant to upset anyone, but I just wanted to share some thoughts about the current political situation. I apologize if anybody is offended by what I have to say.

I'm someone who was a lifelong Republican before the Trump Era. Though I find Trump to be an utterly racist, corrupt, and despicable human being, I'm more disgusted over (1) how GOP establishment politicians (who should know better) have enabled him and (2) how most of the GOP base has devolved into a cult that is blindly devoted to Trump. (This is a bit off-topic, but many members of the Trump cult either were vehemently against Trump during the 2016 primary or at least reluctant to support him initially. In my opinion, watching those once opposed to Trump become zealous supporters of his is the most bizarre thing in American political history.)

Before anybody proclaims "FALSE EQUIVALENCE," I'm not suggesting that both parties are equally bad at the moment, since the GOP is undeniably worse than the Democrats. However, as somebody on the center-right of the political spectrum, I am very disinclined to ever become a Democrat. (Although I don't ever envision becoming a Democrat, I plan on voting for one in my local House race because Congressional oversight of Trump is absolutely necessary; furthermore, I'm only voting Republican in my Senate race because I live in NJ and I want the corrupt Bob Menendez to be defeated.) Part of the reason for my reluctance is that today's Democratic Party is much more liberal than the Democratic Party of 20 years ago. (I would guess that most people here would disagree with my assessment that Democrats have become too liberal, and probably also believe that the Democratic Party of 20 years ago wasn't sufficiently progressive. However, it's pretty hard to dispute the fact that Democratic Party has moved to the left relative to where it was 20 years ago.) But an even bigger reason for my reluctance to become a Democrat is my disgust over how they behaved when it came to the Clintons and the Kennedys. Nobody likes whataboutism, but Bill Clinton should have resigned for perjuring himself and having an affair with a subordinate who was nearly half his age. And Ted Kennedy should not only have been expelled from the Senate, he should have also gone to prison for what happened at Chappaquiddick. But instead of disowning both men, the liberal base of the Democratic Party zealously defended Bill Clinton during the impeachment saga and adores Ted Kennedy, believing that he was "The Lion of the Senate."

Look, I personally hope that the GOP becomes extinct the way the Whig Party did back in the 1850s. But I also very much want to see a viable centerist party emerge (composed of Republicans disgusted with Trump as well as moderate Democrats who feel out of place in their party) to challenge the Democrats. And I'm certainly hoping that somebody (preferably John Kasich) wages a third-party presidential bid in 2020, although I recognize that such an effort is very likely to fail.

On 4/3/2017 at 7:59 PM, rhinohide said:

There's an argument that it will make things worse. They're going to exercise the "nuclear" option. 

 

Gorsuch was conservative. But more center compared to Scalia. Confirming him would not have changed the composition of SCOTUS. NOT confirming him has changed the rules of law for the Senate. Which will live forever. 

From a Democratic perspective, Neil Gorsuch is probably the best choice one could hope for from a Republican POTUS. And as you correctly mentioned, confirming him will not change the composition of the SCOTUS. I do think that Democrats are making a mistake by protesting as much as they have been; it would have been wiser to have saved their firepower for a nominee who will change the composition of the SCOTUS.

And I get that the Democratic base is upset about what happened with Merrick Garland. But there is no hypocrisy coming from me; in fact, I really wanted the GOP Senate to confirm Garland because I was convinced that HRC was going to easily win, and I also thought that Democrats would retake control of the Senate. (I knew that Garland was the best choice a Republican could realistically hope for from a Democratic POTUS. Had HRC won, Garland's nomination could very well have been withdrawn, and he could have been replaced by somebody much younger and more liberal.)

I'm an anti-Trump conservative whose is appalled by the direction the GOP has taken. I deeply opposed the Obama presidency and I can't stand the Clintons, and truly feel like a political orphan at the moment (especially as the Democrats have drifted further and further to the left). This past November, I wrote in John Kasich's name as a protest vote.

I used to post here quite often, but I took a long break from this forum because I felt that there were some people who were very rude to me simply because I held differing political views than just about everyone else here. (What was particularly hurtful was that one poster said I opposed President Obama because of his skin color. But in fairness, some other folks--who are very liberal--always treated me very nicely.) While I don't miss the political arguments that we used to have, I really did miss the insightful soap opera discussions that are a hallmark of Soap Opera Network.

I personally think that the country is long overdue for a viable third party that consists of people who are tired of being ostracized as "RINOs" or "Corporate Democrats" by the extremists who have come to dominate both parties. However, I have serious doubts about a viable third party ever developing.

This is why you can't be taken seriously. There's plenty of criticism of Obama in this forum but it doesn't take the exact form you want - which I suspect is one where we all finally "admit" that the Republicans were right all along and how could we ever have been so blind?! - so of course it doesn't exist.

Or perhaps you have half the posters in this forum on ignore. That's the only other reason I can see where you would post something easily refuted by simply reading a few pages back.

But here you go, Obama IS responsible for a lot of this country's malaise and the reason is he wasted too much time, effort and resources trying to get the GOP to stop acting like sociopaths. He thought that deep down they would do what was best for the country. That was never going to happen and he was a fool for thinking it would especially when they publicly stated that their number one goal was to make him a failure. He kept trying to compromise and find middle ground but there is no middle ground with people who only want your destruction. Hopefully he's learned his lesson. Although I'm not sure he has.

I would never in a million years expect liberals here to think that the GOP was right all along. I will give you credit for at least admitting that Obama holds responsibility for the country's malaise. This is honestly the first time that I have read such a harsh criticism of him on your part. Yes, you have criticized him for not being liberal enough, but all people in the MSNBC wing of the party seem to do that, only to sing his praises and be his biggest cheerleaders whenever he needs his base the most. (Obama's already been our most liberal president since LBJ, and I have little doubt that he would govern further to the left if it were realistically possible. Given the makeup of even the Democrats in Congress, not even a President Liz Warren could deliver single-payer health care, a guaranteed $15/hour minimum wage, and all the other items found on the progressive wish list.)

There are certainly some Republicans who have wanted to see Obama fail from the beginning, but every president has always had to deal with such enemies. This type of spin that Obama has reached out and bent over backwards to accommodate the GOP has been constantly repeated (not just by Democrats, but by the media as well), but even a liberal Republican Senator like Olympia Snowe has refuted this:

If there were ever a Republican for President Obama to work with, it was Maine Senator Olympia Snowe. She was one of just three Republicans in the entire Congress to vote for his economic stimulus plan in 2009 and even tried to work with him on health care, but in an interview with ABC's Senior Political Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Snowe makes a remarkable revelation: She hasn't had a face-to-face meeting with President Obama in nearly two years.

Snowe said that if she had to grade the President on his willingness to work with Republicans, he would "be close to failing on that point." In fact, Snowe, who was first elected to Congress in 1978, claims that her meetings with President Obama have been less frequent than with any other President.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/frustrated-senator-olympia-snowe-gives-obama-f-101657433.html

You (along one other poster who has not posted in a while), in particular, have been gushing with praise for President Obama and his policies such as the ACA. That's why I'm surprised that your post seemed to give the impression that you have been disenchanted with him for quite some time (notwithstanding your criticisms made from time to time that he isn't liberal enough or that he is "too nice" when dealing with the Republicans). If anything, however, I see the fact that you are less than enthused with the president as progress, even if it is for the usual reasons the people at the left-wing blogs give.

(And just for the record, I don't hold Obama single-handedly responsible for the country's condition. But I do feel, that as the most powerful official in the land for the past six years, he deserves more blame than anyone else. And I would say that it's only fair for people hold him to a much higher standard than your typical president, because of the superhuman hype that accompanied his 2008 campaign.)

Under Obama we've had 56 months of private sector job growth, the unemployment rate is down to 5.6%, we've had record stock market growth, the deficit is reduced by more than half and the uninsured rate has dropped to new lows and yet Max is waiting for someone here to blame Obama for our "current malaise."

I actually gave you credit when you admitted Obama does have some of the blame for the malaise (albeit not for the reasons on which we would agree). But now you revert back into your zealous, "Obama is so wonderful" mode.

Additionally, your hypocrisy is truly amazing, Marceline! You just attacked me for not reading others' posts carefully enough, yet if you went back a few pages you would have already seen my response to these so called awesome accomplishments on the president's part:

It's really sad that despite being president for six years, there is no admission by anyone here that Obama has any responsibility for the county's current malaise.

First, note that while the "deficit" may have been cut in half, the debt has gone up 99.8% during Obama's presidency:

For those who like to brag about the unemployment numbers, you also might want to keep in mind the fact that participation in the labor market is at it's lowest level since the Carter Administration. And many of those who have found new jobs have had to settle for less pay than what they had in their old ones.

Not everything about ObamaCare is bad, but the public hated being lied to by the president when he promised that people could keep their plans if they wanted to. They also despised the fact that a leader as cold as Nancy Pelosi made a statement to the effect that health care reform legislation had to be passed as soon as possible, so there was no time to read the bill or debate it until after ObamaCare became law.

While I am glad that some new people are getting health insurance, a lot of people--myself included--are now paying a lot more for health care than before. And some of those who enrolled in ObamaCare exchanges have only done so because their companies (such as Wal-Mart or Home Depot) dropped coverage for certain employees.

Yes, we are not in a depression, but this has been such a painfully slow recovery in terms of the things that really matter (despite the fact that the Obama machine and their media allies have been breathless spinning the "Recovery Summer" bullshit ever since 2010). In terms of the idiotic pie-in-the-sky hype that tens of millions of Americans (and billions worldwide) were duped into believing back in 2008, Mr. Obama falls far short of his own standards for presidential greatness.

(Just to clarify, I don't think that everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 was duped into drinking the Kool-Aid, as obviously a lot of his support was the result of loyal Democrats--including Hillary supporters--voting the party line or the result of swing voters wanting to repudiate Bush and the Republicans or the result of swing voters not wanting to put McCain and particularly Palin in power. But I don't think that I exaggerated when I stated that tens of millions of Americans--and billions of people all around the world--bought into the incredibly absurd hype that Obama would be some sort of savior. While I understand the pride and historical importance involved in electing the first African-American president, I will personally never understand how anyone could think that the election of any one person, particularly somebody as inexperienced as Obama, was going to be the answer to our problems.)

Congratulations, Max, on the election. I had to return here to see the comments... interesting, to say the least. I applaud your ability to hang on in a forum that is largely liberal and I applaud those who tolerate your presence even more.

B

Thank you so much, Brian! It was a great election night, but winning in 2016 is absolutely imperative.

It's such a pleasure to see you on this forum! I am always so interested in anything that you have to say.

I too am really grateful there are some liberal folks--such as DRW, Qfan, and Prince--that tolerate my presence here. That is such a testament to their maturity. I enjoy healthy debate, and always look forward to what these particular posters say.

While I applaud Andrew Cuomo for being one of the few center-left Democrats remaining, it's pathetic that he's blaming his entire limp re-election performance on Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/nyregion/cuomo-blames-frustration-with-obama-for-new-york-democrats-poor-performance.html?_r=0

In many states, it is indeed true that Obama was a huge albatross around the Democrats' necks. But NY is as liberal as it gets. Obama deserves some of the blame, but Cuomo completely took it for granted that he was going to win by a near-historic margin. He totally discounted the fact that his party's base despises him, and appeared not to appreciate the benefit he received from a little known opponent who was publicly written off by Chris Christie. (In another case of typical Christie opportunism, the NJ Governor said that he wouldn't help the GOP candidate in NY because he had no chance of winning. While that was obviously true, Christie spent resources on behalf of Republican candidates in CA and PA, even though they too had zero chance. The real reason why Christie didn't come to help Cuomo's opponent was because of the good working relationship he enjoys with Cuomo.)

Thank you for clarifying that. Personally, I can't even imagine Bo and Viki as a couple. But it is kind of ironic that they never even had a one night stand or anything in the 30-odd years they were in Llanview at the same time!! LOL

Amy, I can totally imagine Bo and Viki together, but I too am shocked that the two of them never had any romantic relationship.

Had Alex and Bo started a long-term relationship (years after Alex returned from the nuthouse), I honestly think that Bo could have turned Alex into somebody good. AW's Rachel and Felicia were evil at first, but love saved them.

I'm really baffled on how some can think that modern day Democrats are Michael Dukakis-type pussies. (Perhaps this is true in the select case of Jon Stewart, as I rarely watch.) Over the past several years, I have seen extraordinary nastiness on the part of Democrats, including these examples:

*As mentioned earlier, race-bating signs placed in black neighborhoods that say things like "Prevent Another Ferguson in Their Future"

*Harry Reid's endless ranting on how the Koch Brothers are responsible for every bit of government dysfunction

*An ad suggesting that Mitt Romney was responsible for a woman's death from cancer

*Accusations from Harry Reid and David Letterman that Mitt Romney is a tax felon

*Ads that show a Paul Ryan likeness throwing granny over the cliff

*Personally holding the entire GOP responsible for "pro-rape" comments made by Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock

It's one thing to employ these vicious campaign tactics, but it's quite another to say with a straight face that Democrats are pussies. I would hate to see what Democrats are like when they are nasty.

I'm not sure how quickly Scott Walker's people will forget Christine backstabbing him.

I saw a Politico article from someone who worked for W during his time in office, and he said this worked out well for Hillary, because nobody cares about whether or not she's a successful campaign surrogate, that an all-GOP Congress gives her a bogeyman to run against.

DRW, I read that Politico article as well. I was a bit perplexed at the article's assertion that Hillary never before had a bogeyman to run against, because Obama, the Democrats, and the mainstream media had been demonizing Congress for the past for years despite the fact that the GOP only controlled the House. (I believe that these attacks were effective because many ignorant people were under the impression that the GOP controlled all of Congress.) Additionally, she also had another bogeyman with the Tea Party. I know you'll disagree, but I have long believed Politico to have a left-wing bias; plus, not all former Bush staffers (e.g., Nicole Wallace) are supporters of the modern day Republican Party.

The Scott Walker thing is a very good point; yet, I still feel that Christie was the biggest winner of the night even when you take that into account. A lot of Republicans--including myself--abhor the part of Christie that is so self-serving, but giving token support to Walker (because he is competition in the GOP primary) is hardly the first time Christie has thrown another member of his own party under the bus when it suits him. He did it when he gave the 2012 Keynote Address at the RNC (when he made the speech all about him and barely mentioned Romney), and most famously did it when he hugged and gave over-the-top praise to Obama regarding Sandy one week before the 2012 election. But since he's not a crook, and because his policies are in the GOP mainstream, a lot of people will support him in the primaries because Republicans are so desperate for a winner. It would be great if a nice guy could be elected president, but it unfortunately seems necessary to nominate a ruthless SOB to successfully fight against the Axelrod/Clinton tactics that the Democrats use.

Obviously, Christie will have a difficult time winning the nomination because the establishment will be split among four strong candidates: in addition to Christie, there will be Bush, Walker, and Kasich. Walker was also a big winner on Tuesday, and unlike the other men I just mentioned, he has appeal among the far right as well. Because John Kasich's monster win was expected, he hasn't been talked about much, but he has been one of the year's brightest political stars. Yes, it's true that he ran against a candidate who ran the worst race of anybody in 2014, but Kasich was going to handily win regardless; that's why serious Democrats like Ted Strickland and Betty Sutton were too afraid to run against him.

This isn't going to be a popular thing to say, but Chris Christie was the biggest winner on Tuesday night:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-big-winner-is-christie/article/2555835

He managed the GOP's enormously successful efforts in the gubernatorial races. And in sharp contrast to what took place in the Senate, the competitive governor's races took place mostly on blue turf.

I am most definitely not his biggest fan, but I can't help but admire his political brilliance. And almost everybody seems to "misunderestimate" (to use my favorite "Bushism") him; for instance, just remember how all the "experts" said that Christie was politically dead after those now discredited Bridgegate charges first came out. If he gets the nomination, I honestly believe that he will defeat Hillary (despite how pessimistic I otherwise feel about 2016).

And speaking about the Clintons, they had an awful night, because almost all of the candidates they stumped for lost badly. To be fair, the major reason why those candidates lost had nothing to do with the Clintons. (They lost because of Obama's miserable approval rating.) But Tuesday's results do show that any supposed "greatness" that the Clintons have as campaign surrogates is long gone.

Did Republicans do better than you expected or about what you expected?

They did about as well in the Senate as I thought they would. However, after initially thinking that Nunn would defeat Purdue, my final prediction was that the race wouldn't be decided until a runoff. Although Tillis' small margin of victory was expected, he should have won by a much larger margin given the fact that NC was the only purple state Romney won. (Given the lackluster campaign he ran, I am guessing that he will be a one-term Senator.) And while I never once doubted that McConnell and Cotton would win, I have no idea why the polls failed so miserably when it came to predicting their landslide margins of victory. But the biggest shock of any Senate race was the extremely poor showing on the part of Mark Warner. No serious political analyst of which I am aware seemed to think he would be in any danger against a GOP hack such as Ed Gillespie.

I think that the House and gubernatorial results took everybody, myself included, by surprise. It appears that the GOP will have its biggest House majority since the first two years of the Hoover presidency. After "fangate," I thought that Rick Scott would lose for sure (but I give you a lot of credit for correctly predicting that he would win). While the Maine gubernatorial race was always competitive, Paul LePage was seldom, if ever, ahead in the polls. Scott Walker seemed to be in serious trouble for the past six months, but I thought he would squeak by in the end. Given the fact that Wisconsin is a lot more blue than purple, I have no idea how he managed to win so handily. As I mentioned earlier, I got my prediction for CT wrong. I was almost wrong about MA as well, and was surprised that Martha Coakley did better than most though she would. I felt Illinois was my riskiest prediction; I thought that Bruce Rauner would win despite being behind in most polls simply because Pat Quinn was so unpopular. Finally, I was shocked that Wendy Davis tanked so badly in Texas. Although that race's outcome was never in doubt, she received such glowing national media attention back in 2013, and Texas is also a state (I believe) in which non-Hispanic whites are in the minority. Thus, there really is no excuse for her horrendous performance.

I would be most interested to know which results surprised you the most.

More about Maryland.

http://www.baltimore...1105-story.html

That's a great article. At least Martha Coakley can take comfort in knowing that she wasn't the worst politician of the year.

I am still surprised that Dan Malloy won in CT. Although it's one of the country's most Democratic states, I have no idea why Tom Foley couldn't pull out a win in this climate.

Plus I want a reasonable republican, maybe Max, explain to me why we continue to give tax benefits to corporations who outsource jobs and move facilities out of this county and also why the "trickle down" aspect hasn't worked and why corporations are still cash heavy from all the tax breaks that are allegedly intended to incent big corporations to create more jobs. They continue to stuff their wallets with fat bonuses while the majority of increases in new jobs is still coming from small businesses.

Jane, the United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates of any country in the industrialized world (so they are still paying a lot in taxes even with those tax breaks to which alluded). Unlike with individuals, you really can't penalize a corporation with a high tax bill, since they are better equipped to save money elsewhere. Given the selfishness of corporations (which is a liberal belief I actually concur with), it should be no surprise that they will try to regain the money they lose through taxation by outsourcing, by raising prices on consumers, or perhaps by doing something as extreme as what Burger King did, which was to acquire Tim Hortons and relocate its corporate headquarters to Canada.

I personally don't believe that supply-side economics is a panacea, and we recently have seen some Republicans (such as Jeb Bush) who have been willing to fight this Grover Norquist type of mentality. On the other hand, President Obama--in a lame attempt to appear bi-partisan--appointed the well-respected Simpson-Bowles Commission, which recommended revenue increases along with cuts in entitlements as the necessary solution to balance the budget. Yet either because he wanted to appease the far-left or because that advice went against his own rigid ideological beliefs, the president refused to go along with the commission's recommendations regarding entitlement reforms.

Well frankly I have no idea why the democrats were running away from Obama. Now I am not a fan these days but he's not really all bad and look what's happened under him.

1. Our deficit has been cut in half. Does anyone remember how that fiscal conservate George Bush inherited a surplus and ran up record deficits(funny how democrats are the spendthrifts when Reagan and Bush have both run up huge deficits). For all the bitching about the stimulus program and how this country could not pay for it, Rand Paul is the only fricking Republican talking about how he have no business increasing defense spending as we did under Bush in this economic climate. And exactly how now did that stimulus program hurt us?

2. Have any of the genius's who talk about how bad things are looked at the unemployment rate recently?

3. I have had more people I know praise the Affordable Care act than not but these people I guess don't vote. How about talk about the majority of the people like my neighbor who couldn't afford the 700/month she would have to pay who now has a plan that she can pay for.

4. Did we go into a depression by the way? I know the people who really hurt the most under the recession were not the wealthy people who saw tax cuts and corporations who did nothing with the cash surplus they built up, but the stimulus package did help get some people working who had not seen a paycheck for years. And for the record programs like the WPA didn't turn the economy around during the depression. What it did was give people incentive and hope. But that is lost on this generation of selfishness and greed.

It's really sad that despite being president for six years, there is no admission by anyone here that Obama has any responsibility for the county's current malaise.

First, note that while the "deficit" may have been cut in half, the debt has gone up 99.8% during Obama's presidency:

The president is fond of saying he’s cut the federal deficit in half. That’s true as far as it goes. But it’s also a fact that the federal debt has just about exactly doubled since he took office.

The deficit — the yearly difference between federal spending and revenue — was $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009, was down to $680 billion in the fiscal year that ended last Sept. 30, and is projected to be $514 billion when the current fiscal year ends several months from now, according to figures released Feb. 4 by the CBO. But that’s still high by historical standards — equal to 3 percent of the nation’s projected economic output. It’s nearly double the 1.6 percent average deficit between World War II and fiscal 2009.

As a result of all this deficit spending, the total debt that the federal government owes to the public has gone up 99.8 percent since the day Obama entered office, rising to $12.6 trillion.

The total debt — counting money the government owes to itself through the Social Security and other trust funds — has now reached $17.6 trillion, an increase of 65 percent. But it’s the debt owed to the public that economists consider more relevant.

The debt figures alarm budget experts. The CBO’s most recent budget outlook estimated the debt owed to the public would equal 74 percent of GDP by the end of the current fiscal year, and will rise to 79 percent in 2024 under current spending and tax laws. “Such large and growing federal debt could have serious negative consequences,” CBO stated. The continuing deficits and high interest payments could slow down economic growth and even increase the risk of another economic crisis, CBO said.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/obamas-numbers-april-2014-update/

For those who like to brag about the unemployment numbers, you also might want to keep in mind the fact that participation in the labor market is at it's lowest level since the Carter Administration. And many of those who have found new jobs have had to settle for less pay than what they had in their old ones.

Not everything about ObamaCare is bad, but the public hated being lied to by the president when he promised that people could keep their plans if they wanted to. They also despised the fact that a leader as cold as Nancy Pelosi made a statement to the effect that health care reform legislation had to be passed as soon as possible, so there was no time to read the bill or debate it until after ObamaCare became law.

While I am glad that some new people are getting health insurance, a lot of people--myself included--are now paying a lot more for health care than before. And some of those who enrolled in ObamaCare exchanges have only done so because their companies (such as Wal-Mart or Home Depot) dropped coverage for certain employees.

Yes, we are not in a depression, but this has been such a painfully slow recovery in terms of the things that really matter (despite the fact that the Obama machine and their media allies have been breathless spinning the "Recovery Summer" bullshit ever since 2010). In terms of the idiotic pie-in-the-sky hype that tens of millions of Americans (and billions worldwide) were duped into believing back in 2008, Mr. Obama falls far short of his own standards for presidential greatness.

(Just to clarify, I don't think that everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 was duped into drinking the Kool-Aid, as obviously a lot of his support was the result of loyal Democrats--including Hillary supporters--voting the party line or the result of swing voters wanting to repudiate Bush and the Republicans or the result of swing voters not wanting to put McCain and particularly Palin in power. But I don't think that I exaggerated when I stated that tens of millions of Americans--and billions of people all around the world--bought into the incredibly absurd hype that Obama would be some sort of savior. While I understand the pride and historical importance involved in electing the first African-American president, I will personally never understand how anyone could think that the election of any one person, particularly somebody as inexperienced as Obama, was going to be the answer to our problems.)

Scott Brown did lose, thankfully. That's about it though...

Given that the GOP did so much better than anyone predicted, Brown's narrow defeat was still incredibly embarrassing.

Yet, as the only Republican incumbent (of which I am aware) to be defeated, Tom Corbett must feel like the biggest loser. However, in a sign of just how badly the polls understated GOP support, Corbett lost by "only" ten points (when I believe that he was behind by as much as twice that amount at certain points in the campaign). Also, Corbett may be the only governor of Pennsylvania to ever lose re-election.

MARYLAND of all places elects some random republican as governor (O'Malley can kiss his presidential ambitions good bye).

Prince, the result in the MD governor's race ranks right up there with Eric Cantor's primary defeat when it comes to being the biggest upset of the year. But as for O'Malley, he never even had a minute chance of winning the presidency to begin with.

Considering that the nearly dead NY State GOP fielded a total unknown for an opponent, Andrew Cuomo's performance leaved much to be desired. With 98% percent reporting, he wins 53.9% to 40.6%. I guess so many liberals in his party who hate him just chose not to vote.

I honestly don't see why they field as their nominee. The only serious thinker they have is Rand Paul, who honestly has views and takes them seriously, but his views are radical and no one will vote for him except the true believers.

The GOP lacks any clear front-runner for the nomination, and there's no spinning the fact that the GOP primary will be murky free-for-all. But the Democrats are in a weaker position for 2016 than most of them are willing to admit. Much has already been discussed about Hillary's problems (including her tendency for gaffes and the fact that many in the far left do not trust her). But if the Democrats are supposedly so strong when it comes to presidential elections, then why is Hillary the only Democrat with any chance of winning in two years? The logical thing to conclude is that it is because everybody knows that a Biden, Warren, or O'Malley nomination would be disastrous for the party, even with their much envied demographic advantage.

Nobody likes a sore winner--which, IMO, is far worse than a sore loser--and I'll never forget all the nasty, obnoxious gloating some on the left chose to engage in back when they emerged victorious in previous elections. Politics is always cyclical.

On a scale of one to ten, this only means a four in terms of importance to me. While it's great that that the reprehensible Harry Reid is no longer Majority Leader, I am tired of the GOP always doing so well in midterms, only to fall short two years later (see 1994 and 2010; this problem even happened all the way back after the GOP triumphed in the 1946 election). But I do think that the Democrats are underestimating just how much of a liability President Obama could be on Secretary Clinton's presidential chances in 2016. Hillary needs to be far more skillful at separating herself from the president--without alienating the progressive base in the process--than the Democrats were this year.

I am going to take back my earlier prediction of the GA Senate race (in which I predicted a Nunn victory); with that race, the only thing I feel I can predict at this point is that a runoff will occur. All my other Senate predictions remain unchanged. (If I didn't state earlier, the GOP will win in LA, though I believe that race will also go to a runoff.)

A race-by-race analysis for the House is impossible, but my best guess is that the Republicans will have at least 240 seats, though less than the post-1930 peak of 246 seats achieved after the 1946 election. I also believe that GOP House candidates will win more votes than Democratic House candidates.

The gubernatorial races are very hard to predict, but I believe that the following states will experience changes:

*AK will have an Independent governor.

*Democrats will gain governorships in FL, ME, and PA.

*Republicans will gain governorships in AR, CT, IL, and MA.

In a surprise move, The Boston Globe has endorsed Charlie Baker for governor.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/10/26/charlie-baker-for-governor/r4Yymw55jVr20D53EhUIkK/story.html#comments

I can only imagine they are doing this because they have concluded that Martha Coakley has almost no chance of winning. I am no fan of her politics, but one would have to be heartless not to feel a bit sorry for her given the humiliation of being a Democrat who loses two statewide races in Massachusetts.