The Obama Agenda And the Midterm Wave

http://www.newyorker.com/online/b...graph.html


One of the most striking features of the midterm results is how indiscriminate this wave was. At least in House races, there was almost nothing a Democratic member in a vulnerable district could do to avoid defeat.
At least superficially, this suggests that actually voting for or against specific parts of the Obama agenda didn’t really matter. Whether you were a down-the-line Obama-Pelosi Democrat—supporting the stimulus, health-care reform, and cap and trade—or whether you voted against all three, if you represented a certain kind of district, you lost. Gene Taylor, who since 1990 has survived as a Democrat in a very conservative Mississippi district, voted against the three pillars of Obamaism, promised to vote against Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, and, in the final leg of the campaign, revealed that he voted against Obama himself (and for McCain) in 2008. Yet Taylor was swept away just as surely as Tom Perriello, the Virginia Democrat who voted for all three pieces of legislation and invited Obama to campaign for him in the last week, arguing his votes were acts of political bravery his constituents should reward.




Really great article and picture of the toxicity of the Pelosi/Obama agenda.

Quote from Krazen1211 : http://www.newyorker.com/online/b...graph.html One of the most striking features of the midterm results is how indiscriminate this wave was. At least in House races, there was almost nothing a Democratic member in a vulnerable district could do to avoid defeat. At least superficially, this suggests that actually voting for or against specific parts of the Obama agenda didn’t really matter. Whether you were a down-the-line Obama-Pelosi Democrat—supporting the stimulus, health-care reform, and cap and trade—or whether you voted against all three, if you represented a certain kind of district, you lost. Gene Taylor, who since 1990 has survived as a Democrat in a very conservative Mississippi district, voted against the three pillars of Obamaism, promised to vote against Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, and, in the final leg of the campaign, revealed that he voted against Obama himself (and for McCain) in 2008. Yet Taylor was swept away just as surely as Tom Perriello, the Virginia Democrat who voted for all three pieces of legislation and invited Obama to campaign for him in the last week, arguing his votes were acts of political bravery his constituents should reward. Really great article and picture of the toxicity of the Pelosi/Obama agenda.

I agree for the most part, but there were exceptions. My district (CA-1) is somewhat conservative due to the rural population, but has some left leaning cities (popl ~60,000) in it, and the Blue Dog incumbent went in a landslide.

Consult the tea leaves, or entrails of a goat, if that's how you roll.
I would just stop looking for an acceptable explanation and chalk it up to voter rage at the current party in power, irrespective of which label is in front of the name.
It's not like, historically, the same thing hasn't happened over and over to those in charge - regardless of the party labels.

It's not about agenda or dissatisfaction with a particular ideology, it's about dissatisfaction with their lives - PERIOD.

After a particularly bad recession, and the resultant high unemployment, they are equally as heightened in their outrage.
It's a pretty direct correlation, the worse things got the more pissed off people got, and not a whole lot of it was the result of the party in power's making.
They didn't control anything while the Wall St. gurus were fleecing the country with derivative gambling sprees.
They didn't make a lot of suspect loans to make a quick buck on an over-inflated housing market.
They didn't out-lend their asset base to make a quadrillion dollars by leveraging assets too far out.

Politicians may have failed to regulate those practices, but then WHICH party should have done the regulating?
Democrats?
Good luck trying to pass ANTI-BUSINESS legislation as a liberal and better luck yet getting re-elected as a republican with that kind of regulatory attitude.

Quote from Anonymouse : Consult the tea leaves, or entrails of a goat, if that's how you roll. I would just stop looking for an acceptable explanation and chalk it up to voter rage at the current party in power, irrespective of which label is in front of the name. It's not like, historically, the same thing hasn't happened over and over to those in charge - regardless of the party labels. It's not about agenda or dissatisfaction with a particular ideology, it's about dissatisfaction with their lives - PERIOD. After a particularly bad recession, and the resultant high unemployment, they are equally as heightened in their outrage. It's a pretty direct correlation, the worse things got the more pissed off people got, and not a whole lot of it was the result of the party in power's making. They didn't control anything while the Wall St. gurus were fleecing the country with derivative gambling sprees. They didn't make a lot of suspect loans to make a quick buck on an over-inflated housing market. They didn't out-lend their asset base to make a quadrillion dollars by leveraging assets too far out. Politicians may have failed to regulate those practices, but then WHICH party should have done the regulating? Democrats? Good luck trying to pass ANTI-BUSINESS legislation as a liberal and better luck yet getting re-elected as a republican with that kind of regulatory attitude.

this is a total fail. usually you have your facts in order even if I dont agree with your final opinion. saying democrats have ZERO culpabillity in the current financial down turn is flat out wrong. Clinton has no culpability? the senate and house, when controlled by dems has no culpability? unbelievable.