Running from Obama is it working? Well republicans are at 68% to retake senate at 538.

[fromderinside]

I've never held that running from your leader when coattails of that one is responsible for may of your jobs is a good thing. Yet here democrats are, particularly this year, running as fast as they less than 5 days from election reinforcing the Republican manufactured images of them as weak. Yeah, its a good idea to turn toward leadership and shoot, or alternatively run as fast as you can, with everyone watching.

Here're the updates for starters.

"Running from Obama" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/u...=Search&mabReward=relbias:w,{"1":"RI:5"}&_r=0

and "State of Senate Races" http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-with-4-days-left-heres-the-state-of-the-race/

OK so democrats look like scaredy cats, but they still have the presidency and their membership will be more united behind what they've done when they get back. the problem is they look and act like scaredy cats.

What do you think this means for those who are progressive over the next two years?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I've never held that running from your leader when coattails of that one is responsible for may of your jobs is a good thing. Yet here democrats are, particularly this year, running as fast as they less than 5 days from election reinforcing the Republican manufactured images of them as weak. Yeah, its a good idea to turn toward leadership and shoot, or alternatively run as fast as you can, with everyone watching.

Here're the updates for starters.

"Running from Obama" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/u...=Search&mabReward=relbias:w,{"1":"RI:5"}&_r=0

and "State of Senate Races" http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-with-4-days-left-heres-the-state-of-the-race/

OK so democrats look like scaredy cats, but they still have the presidency and their membership will be more united behind what they've done when they get back. the problem is they look and act like scaredy cats.

What do you think this means for those who are progressive over the next two years?

It will give them fuel. They can point and blame everything on the Republicans who are very vulnerable as the initial 2010 Tea Party Senators face re-election in moderate states. Also, without a strong Republican candidate they are poised to win the presidency.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Apparently the Democrats lost their spine.

 

[dismal]

The time for running from Obama was back when they were voting on laws their constituents did not support.

This is just the bill coming due. The piper being paid.

I'm sure progressives will continue to be progressive in states where progressives can win elections and progressives will pretend to love guns and coal when election time comes around in states where they can't.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The time for running from Obama was back when they were voting on laws their constituents did not support.

So the ACA.

This is just the bill coming due. The piper being paid.

If the piper was being paid, a third party would be rising to power in 2014.

 

[dismal]

So the ACA.

This is just the bill coming due. The piper being paid.

If the piper was being paid, a third party would be rising to power in 2014.

You seem to be talking in terms of cosmic justice when I'm really just pointing out that practically many of these senators won elections in republican leaning states (due to variety of factors that no longer apply) and then generally ignored the wishes of their constituents.

They really have no rebuttal to this "you voted with Obama 97% of the time" attack because it's true.

It would frankly be much more difficult to have faith in the basic premise of democracy if some of these people aren't voted out.

 

[fromderinside]

So the ACA.

This is just the bill coming due. The piper being paid.

If the piper was being paid, a third party would be rising to power in 2014.

Great.

Point missed all around.

ACA was demonized by Republicans. A plurality want ACA 38%, Against any ACA as a step too far 35%, against ACA for not going far enough 16%, I dunno 6%, what? 2%. So its clear the public wants medical coverage. End of not doing the people's business.

Don't want a black in the WH? Now that's probably enough to get gun loving white males all riled up.

Congress is going to go back into session with Republicans on record as opposing anything the president wants and they will have the votes to do that. They will continue to do that. Those things republicans want. Veto. So it'll come down to is it better to have gridlock by veto or by congressional constipation. Problem for republicans is they've already showed us what gridlock looks like. People don't like it.

Will there be third party? Not unless Tea party and Fuckwallsrtreet join at the hip.

My hope is for some sort of republican aha about their prospects for winning presidency with out significant Latino support. My fear is that gellyfish democrats might give too much and there will be no path to citizenship.

 

[fromderinside]

.... I'm really just pointing out that practically many of these senators won elections in republican leaning states (due to variety of factors that no longer apply) and then generally ignored the wishes of their constituents.

They really have no rebuttal to this "you voted with Obama 97% of the time" attack because it's true.

It would frankly be much more difficult to have faith in the basic premise of democracy if some of these people aren't voted out.

I'm thinking you're giving to much credit to citizens when its very likely decent folk really want to give women their complete set of freedoms but are code worded to death by that fucking citizen name cash.

 

[dismal]

.... I'm really just pointing out that practically many of these senators won elections in republican leaning states (due to variety of factors that no longer apply) and then generally ignored the wishes of their constituents.

They really have no rebuttal to this "you voted with Obama 97% of the time" attack because it's true.

It would frankly be much more difficult to have faith in the basic premise of democracy if some of these people aren't voted out.

I'm thinking you're giving to much credit to citizens when its very likely decent folk really want to give women their complete set of freedoms but are code worded to death by that fucking citizen name cash.

Well, the Democrats are spending a lot of money on this election but I don't see what it has to do with my point.

 

[fromderinside]

Well, the Democrats are spending a lot of money on this election but I don't see what it has to do with my point.

Its always been my view that when one doesn't see something they either need glasses or they are purposely missing the point.

In this case it's clear that although democrats have joined the fray with money this cycle, the cycle to which I was referring was the 2010 cycle when money became speech, where the republicans demonized death panels and such while rejecting the plan they had fostered and implemented in Massachusetts. No political stuff there. Just real rejection of government health care (don't touch my Medicare). I charge you with purposeful point missing.

Once code words are in place or a government program is in place things aren't gonna change. Tough for both of us.

The real question is will republicans get past their Obama hatred to get things done and demonstrate they can actually govern. I'm betting on hell no.

the other thing I'm interested in exploring is whether or how democrats can show balls now that they've shown they probably don't have any.

Sure sits well now with being saddled with chicken because of Vietnam back in '69. How about "hey, how about a citizen army that demands sacrifice for all of us if we choose to go to war". Talk about cowardice of those favoring Military Industrial Complex.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That seems kind of dumb. Obama is the face of the Democratic party and trying to distance themselves from his platforms just makes you look kind of lame. Just like many people who are against the crazy that affects the GOP wouldn't vote for a Republican even if their own candidate is normal, people passionately against Obama because of the ACA aren't likely going to vote for a Democrat.

They're alienating their base in order to try and scrounge up some slim pickings amongst a group that really wants nothing to do with them. It's good that these people will be leaving the Democratic party and can be replaced with someone who won't run away from the party's platform.

 

[fromderinside]

That seems kind of dumb. Obama is the face of the Democratic party and trying to distance themselves from his platforms just makes you look kind of lame. Just like many people who are against the crazy that affects the GOP wouldn't vote for a Republican even if their own candidate is normal, people passionately against Obama because of the ACA aren't likely going to vote for a Democrat.

They're alienating their base in order to try and scrounge up some slim pickings amongst a group that really wants nothing to do with them. It's good that these people will be leaving the Democratic party and can be replaced with someone who won't run away from the party's platform.

So true.

However democrats have a reputation that I just mentioned that they've reinforced. Its a shame that one who reflects and considers options without jumping out of the gate prematurely is considered weak donchano. Its this that I feel hurts democrats by this running away.

 

[maxparrish]

I've never held that running from your leader when coattails of that one is responsible for may of your jobs is a good thing. Yet here democrats are, particularly this year, running as fast as they less than 5 days from election reinforcing the Republican manufactured images of them as weak. Yeah, its a good idea to turn toward leadership and shoot, or alternatively run as fast as you can, with everyone watching.

Here're the updates for starters.

"Running from Obama" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/u...=Search&mabReward=relbias:w,{"1":"RI:5"}&_r=0

and "State of Senate Races" http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-with-4-days-left-heres-the-state-of-the-race/

OK so democrats look like scaredy cats, but they still have the presidency and their membership will be more united behind what they've done when they get back. the problem is they look and act like scaredy cats.

What do you think this means for those who are progressive over the next two years?

First, after his spot on predictions for 2012 it is hard for me to disagree with Nate Silver - but I do. There are factors that he seems to under appreciate, mainly the likely loss of Kansas, Georgia, and maybe South Dakota. Nunn has been hooting about the hobgoblin of "outsourcing" as if it were an evil character flaw of the dollar store founder. Eric Holder's FBI, contrary to standard procedure, went ahead to "announce" yesterday that they were "investigating" (actually reopening a closed State investigation) of the GOP candidate for SD (Holder's "October surprise). The announcement seemed rather hurried, the FBI spokesperson saying they won't be prepared to give details for another week and refused to answer questions. (Convenient, eh?).

Perdue will come in second in Georgia, so he is fighting to get to a runoff (which is more likely than not).

Additionally, any races within a percent or so will go to the Democrat, if only because of non-citizen and felon voting.

Second, the Democrats are not 'acting like scaredy cats'. Every Senate candidate has their own pollster and access to party pollsters. Positions and messaging has been vetted through focus groups. They know they are more likely to lose votes, than gain votes, by touting the glories of Obama, Obamacare, or the stimulus that left a bad taste in the public's mouth. They also know that supporting Obama's handling of ISIS and other foreign policy crisis won't do anything other than harm their campaign.

The could, of course, brag about the massive expansion of food stamps, new taxes, and suspension of welfare work requirements - but I suspect that would also backfire.

So they are relying on faux issues, and hiding or obscuring their actual political beliefs. Naturally, part of this is to inflame the always volatile black community, try to pick at the "war on women" non-issue, and smear the backgrounds of their opposition.

They are not cowards, they are simply amoral. Lies, smears, and obfuscation is their friend, and they chose that route.

 

[dismal]

Well, the Democrats are spending a lot of money on this election but I don't see what it has to do with my point.

Its always been my view that when one doesn't see something they either need glasses or they are purposely missing the point.

I think maybe you missed my point. Both sides spend money. Money spending isn't the issue here.

You seem to be completely unaware of the fact that there are people among us who prefer republicans to democrats.

Democrats who must run for election in republican leaning states are not unaware of this.

Oh, and as far as I am concerned if you elect democrats they will suck at governing. And if you elect republicans they will also suck a governing. The state does not appear to me as a shimmery unicorn ready to solve all our problems if we can just find the right person to ride it.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

guns and coal

Ah yes, the only issues conservatives focus on.

 

[fromderinside]

I've never held that running from your leader when coattails of that one is responsible for may of your jobs is a good thing. Yet here democrats are, particularly this year, running as fast as they less than 5 days from election reinforcing the Republican manufactured images of them as weak. Yeah, its a good idea to turn toward leadership and shoot, or alternatively run as fast as you can, with everyone watching.

Here're the updates for starters.

"Running from Obama" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/u...=Search&mabReward=relbias:w,{"1":"RI:5"}&_r=0

and "State of Senate Races" http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-with-4-days-left-heres-the-state-of-the-race/

OK so democrats look like scaredy cats, but they still have the presidency and their membership will be more united behind what they've done when they get back. the problem is they look and act like scaredy cats.

What do you think this means for those who are progressive over the next two years?

1.First, after his spot on predictions for 2012 it is hard for me to disagree with Nate Silver - but I do. There are factors that he seems to under appreciate, mainly the likely loss of Kansas, Georgia, and maybe South Dakota. 5. Additionally, any races within a percent or so will go to the Democrat, if only because of non-citizen and felon voting.

2. Nunn has been hooting about the hobgoblin of "outsourcing" as if it were an evil character flaw of the dollar store founder. 4. Perdue will come in second in Georgia, so he is fighting to get to a runoff (which is more likely than not).

3. Eric Holder's FBI, contrary to standard procedure, went ahead to "announce" yesterday that they were "investigating" (actually reopening a closed State investigation) of the GOP candidate for SD (Holder's "October surprise). The announcement seemed rather hurried, the FBI spokesperson saying they won't be prepared to give details for another week and refused to answer questions. (Convenient, eh?).

6. Second, the Democrats are not 'acting like scaredy cats'. Every Senate candidate has their own pollster and access to party pollsters. Positions and messaging has been vetted through focus groups. They know they are more likely to lose votes, than gain votes, by touting the glories of Obama, Obamacare, or the stimulus that left a bad taste in the public's mouth. They also know that supporting Obama's handling of ISIS and other foreign policy crisis won't do anything other than harm their campaign.

7. The could, of course, brag about the massive expansion of food stamps, new taxes, and suspension of welfare work requirements - but I suspect that would also backfire.

8. So they are relying on faux issues, and hiding or obscuring their actual political beliefs. Naturally, part of this is to inflame the always volatile black community, try to pick at the "war on women" non-issue, and smear the backgrounds of their opposition.

9. They are not cowards, they are simply amoral. Lies, smears, and obfuscation is their friend, and they chose that route.

1 and 5. Nate Silver does takes these factors into account and his projections will be spot-on on Monday afternoon. His analysis predicts a runoff in Georgia which republicans will win.

3. FBI hasn't ended its investigation. Its just they weren't updating what they were doing after they first announced their intent to investigate. The 'closed case is that of the SD board of regents which is trying to say is closed although they refused reimbursement California arbitrator. The two cases are only related by being relative to EB-5. That the FBI is still active in a case opened a year and a half ago isn't an 'October surprise". Just Rounds people's political spin. Not even a good try.

6. Candidates respond to that which they think threaten them. Jelly fish is not a good description for one who is running for support from voters. Running the calculus doesn't free democrats from reinforcing public perceptions that democrats are not brave. Doubling down on a perception by candidates on a president who is already labeled, justly or not, just reinforces that perception of their leader which rubs off on the candidates. Bad, bad, idea.

7-9 are just republican talking points which is a lot like political vaporware.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I've never held that running from your leader when coattails of that one is responsible for may of your jobs is a good thing. Yet here democrats are, particularly this year, running as fast as they less than 5 days from election reinforcing the Republican manufactured images of them as weak. Yeah, its a good idea to turn toward leadership and shoot, or alternatively run as fast as you can, with everyone watching.

Here're the updates for starters.

"Running from Obama" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/u...=Search&mabReward=relbias:w,{"1":"RI:5"}&_r=0

and "State of Senate Races" http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-with-4-days-left-heres-the-state-of-the-race/

OK so democrats look like scaredy cats, but they still have the presidency and their membership will be more united behind what they've done when they get back. the problem is they look and act like scaredy cats.

What do you think this means for those who are progressive over the next two years?

How racist of them, they don't want to be seen near a black man.

 

[fromderinside]

The state does not appear to me as a shimmery unicorn ready to solve all our problems if we can just find the right person to ride it.

From both perspective I agree. Those things of national import are cobbled over time into weak law which ,overtime, is somewhat bettered. Poliarizing by state seems a real bad way to go since the real divide is between how to govern at rural and small town level to how to govern at urban and suburban level.

Economies of size degrade when sizes get very large while economics if small degrade when sizes become too small. Its my intuition these 'truths' lie at the base of small and big governance. In real large population centers the calculus about trust changes, reduces to self, diminishing effectiveness of family cohesion and socializing utility requiring greater systems for order and process (health care, education, social services, child care, etc). On the other hand the gains of social collaboration are reduced in small populations resulting in much slower development with risk of falling too far behind. Similar contrasts can be seen with order, communication, wealth, diversity, etc.

I'm sure you haven't intended to open these wounds, but, there they are.