Why the Democrats Will (and Should) Lose Tomorrow

There are all sorts of election analysis occurring now, and much more will occur over the next few days about why the Democratic dominance of government is coming to an end. But despite all the excuses, the reasons for it are actually quite straight forward. There are in fact three main reasons the Democrats are going to lose tomorrow and those reasons correlate directly with three lies of the current administration. They are as follows:

1. They claimed the stimulus bill would keep unemployment from going to 8% – it then went as high as 10% and is now stagnating at 9.5%

2. They claimed that the stimulus would produce ‘shovel ready jobs’, only to have the President later admit to the NYTs that, “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”

3. They claimed that we would be able to keep our health insurance if we liked it – now thousands of people are losing the benefits provided by their companies.

These failed and fallacious claims should alone be enough to oust the Democrats from office – but when you add to that a housing market that continues to decline, a soft stock market, increasing dependence on China, the car industry take over and the failure to motivate either Iran or N. Korea to give up their nuclear ambitions, then there is no reason any Democrat should remain in office come this time Wednesday. Of course, the electorate is rarely that decisive – but they will send a message tomorrow and the Democrats will lose – and it will be up to the Republicans to follow through or face the same fate in two years.

The Secular Left will remain clueless about this election still believing it to be about gays getting married, creationism, and global warming. While I expect most Democrats to wake up on Wednesday, I suspect the hard Left will never get a clue about what is happening.

Of course, they didn’t have a clue what it was all about to begin with.

Advertisements

23 Responses to Why the Democrats Will (and Should) Lose Tomorrow

  1. The reason the Democrats will fare so poorly is that voters react to the party in charge when the economy is bad. It doesn’t matter who has done what.

    You’re old. I shouldn’t have to point this out to you.

  2. Nate says:

    The party in charge of congress on election day in 2008 was the democratic party. I seem to remember them making gains.

    I’m not old and even when your point is pointed out to me I see it as only true a little bit.

    The democrats failure to address these problems they “inherited” in any constructive way (as opposed to using the crisis as an excuse to spend spend spend on boondoggles, yes a favorite word of mine.)

    If they weren’t faced with the possibility of losing 50+ seats I might agree with you. To say that the health care law and a general lack of foreseeing that the market may continue to stagnate given vast continually expanding sovereign debt add up to a lot more than “they are in control and the economy sucks.”

  3. The Dems had only been in charge for a short period and the president was still Republican. Voters reacted to that and went entirely to the other side. Now they’re reacting the other way because things haven’t been fixed over night.

  4. Nate says:

    4 years of a democratic congress and 2 years of a democratic president is overnight? That is one long night my friend.

  5. Bettawrekonize says:

    Great, we’re getting rid of corporate bought politicians only to replace them with more corporate bought politicians. I can hardly wait.

  6. jackhudson says:

    The reason the Democrats will fare so poorly is that voters react to the party in charge when the economy is bad. It doesn’t matter who has done what.

    You’re old. I shouldn’t have to point this out to you.

    Part of the point of this piece is that the Obama administration created these expectations – they were the ones who made the outrageous claims about what they would accomplish, and they did so to gain political advantage. Now that they have failed miserably to deliver it’s come back to bite them in the butt, as it should.

    You’re young and politically naïve, so of course I have to point this out to you.

  7. Nate says:

    betta,if only cynicism were money you would never have to work again.

  8. Justin says:

    Well, betta’s right to some degree. As we saw in the primaries, this was also a referendum on republican-lites – republicans who accept socialist policies while claiming to be conservative.

    And Michael, Obama’s been president for 2 years with a Democrat-controlled Congress to do his bidding. I would hardly call that “over night”.

    Like Clinton said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” People who are normally passive, I think, have finally had enough of the fiddling while Rome’s burning. Unfortunately, Obama’s throwing gas on the fire while he fiddles.

  9. Nate says:

    Fiddling in India for God only knows what reason. 200,000,000 a day for this trip for 10 days.

  10. Bettawrekonize says:

    On a brighter note, it appears Rand Paul won. Yes, I admit the guy has said some dumb things, but hopefully he will be a good senator who stands up for civil liberties and independent rights. We need more libertarians in office.

  11. kenetiks says:

    @Jack

    The Secular Left will remain clueless about this election still believing it to be about gays getting married, creationism, and global warming. While I expect most Democrats to wake up on Wednesday, I suspect the hard Left will never get a clue about what is happening.

    I haven’t heard this from either side.

    Part of the point of this piece is that the Obama administration created these expectations – they were the ones who made the outrageous claims about what they would accomplish, and they did so to gain political advantage. Now that they have failed miserably to deliver it’s come back to bite them in the butt, as it should.

    Because obviously, the democrats has a monopoly on failed promises and should therefor be ousted immediately and replaced with people even more clueless.

    No, the reason the dems are getting outted(not all of them will of course) is simple. They aren’t putting up a shred of fight. Well, so far as the in-your-face campaigns of the republicans and the tea party-goers that is.

    I was listening to the commentary going on the radio. It’s pretty vicious.

    I find it odd though that a good number of the people are raging over things that are simply untrue. They’re voting under a false premise. Also the run of “punishment” voting is completely abhorrent. If you don’t like the candidates, abstain or vote for who will do the better job. Don’t vote for someone else because Glenn Beck said some guy did something somewhere. This entire thing has devolved into the most childish spectacle I’ve ever witnessed.

  12. jackhudson says:

    I am not a big fan of Beck, but the issues I listed are certainly real; how much worse does the economy need to be to motivate change?

  13. kenetiks says:

    No idea over 1 or 2. Although on 1 I’d say no one estimated how much damage had been done. Also with as much fear mongering as was/is going on, self fulfilling prophecy? 3, First I’ve heard of it. Alot of insurance companies went running scared over all(again) the fear mongering over the health care reform bill. I’d much rather have the facts speak for themselves.

  14. jackhudson says:

    I’m not sure how fear mongering can change the effectiveness of the stimulus or the unemployment rate; the fact is the policies failed, and that is a good reason to enact a change.

  15. kenetiks says:

    You’re honestly saying to punish people because they cannot make miracles?

  16. jackhudson says:

    It doesn’t require a miracle not to spend $800 billion dollars to no discernible end, and not to vastly increase the size of government with a healthcare plan when we are so deeply in debt due to the entitlement programs that already exist – it just requires a modicum of common sense.

  17. The Tea Party began organizing a little before Obama’s presidency. It became a strong movement within a month of him being sworn in. It is now the group that is leading the change in leadership. Clearly it did not matter what happened; they expected change over night.

    But let’s all forget that the economy would be worse without the stimulus.

  18. jackhudson says:

    What difference does it make when the Tea Party began? That just proves it had nothing to do with Obama being a black President, another myth you parrot. The reality is if the President hadn’t blown it, the Tea Party would have no influence whatsoever.

    And there is no evidence the economy would be ‘worse’ without the stimulus. All we know for sure is that it is much worse than the Administration claimed it would be with the stimulus. And the Administration has spent all it’s ideas for reviving the economy, so now all we have is more debt, high unemployment, low house sales, and a weaker economy.

    Hopefully the Republicans can at least stem the bleeding caused by this Republican and Congress.

  19. jackhudson says:

    Oh, and congratulations on electing LePage for Governor – your efforts on his behalf paid off.

  20. The Tea Party began gaining momentum immediately after we elected a black president. My point stands; you lose that point. Check.

    The Tea Party began organized protests before Obama’s policies were in place. It became influential during that time. You lose that point.

    Estimates put unemployment at least 2 points higher without the stimulus bill. You lose that point.

    When you say the administration claimed better results, you’re right. Unfortunately, you’re being fundamentally dishonest because you’re ignoring all the evidence that say Obama’s policies prevented things from being worse. You don’t lose on any point, you do need to stop being dishonest. You know what you’re doing. (Maybe you want to connect stimulus funding to Hitler and atheism next?)

    House sales were kept up by the $8,000 new home owners tax credit. You lose on that point. Additionally, fewer people have lost their homes because unemployment payments were kept up (minus a couple purely politically based hiccups thanks to conservatives).

    Again, the economy is not weaker because of Obama’s policies. You’ve already lost this point. Since hearing aids are not a factor in ‘listening’ to what people say on the Internet, you have no excuse for making me repeat myself.

  21. jackhudson says:

    The Tea Party began gaining momentum immediately after we elected a black president. My point stands; you lose that point. Check.

    The Tea Party began organized protests before Obama’s policies were in place. It became influential during that time. You lose that point.

    The factor that spurred the growth of the Tea Party initially Bush’s bank bailout. The main target of the Tea Party thus far has been moderate Republicans, who are mostly old white guys. The ‘black President’ meme was just a Left wing talking point meant to diminish the power of the Tea Party – that strategy failed massively, so you will need a new one. You are going to have to learn something about politics, not just parrot Keith Olberman.

    Estimates put unemployment at least 2 points higher without the stimulus bill. You lose that point.

    The only ‘estimate’ that matters in this case is the one made by the administration that the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%. That is why you lost last night. The sooner you get a clue about that, the sooner you can start living in the real world.

    When you say the administration claimed better results, you’re right. Unfortunately, you’re being fundamentally dishonest because you’re ignoring all the evidence that say Obama’s policies prevented things from being worse. You don’t lose on any point, you do need to stop being dishonest. You know what you’re doing. (Maybe you want to connect stimulus funding to Hitler and atheism next?)

    Michael, the same people who are saying it could have been better are the same people who didn’t see the problem coming to begin with – the sooner you stop believing economists have crystal balls that can predict the future and tell us what the past might have been, the sooner you will start acting with some wisdom. The current reality we must deal with is a 14 trillion dollar debt – no amount of estimating is going to change that reality.

    House sales were kept up by the $8,000 new home owners tax credit. You lose on that point. Additionally, fewer people have lost their homes because unemployment payments were kept up (minus a couple purely politically based hiccups thanks to conservatives).

    No Michael, if you had ever bought or sold a home you would know that all that tax credit did was artificially float home prices and keep them from reaching bottom and it prevented the market from realizing their real worth. It just prolonged the problem – in fact, it made it worse because now there are more people with houses who may not be able to afford them in the future, which is what caused the problem in the first place.

    Again, the economy is not weaker because of Obama’s policies. You’ve already lost this point. Since hearing aids are not a factor in ‘listening’ to what people say on the Internet, you have no excuse for making me repeat myself.

    Keep living in lala land Michael and we will keep winning elections.

  22. Repeating wrong things will not make you right. Round over.

  23. jackhudson says:

    No, the round was over last night Michael, you lost – and still don’t know why.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: