A Vote Against Dems, Not for the GOP

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

5 posts / 0 new

From Scott Rasmussen: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703708404575586063725870380.html


But none of this means that Republicans are winning. The reality is that voters in 2010 are doing the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: They are voting against the party in power.

This is the continuation of a trend that began nearly 20 years ago. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president and his party had control of Congress. Before he left office, his party lost control. Then, in 2000, George W. Bush came to power, and his party controlled Congress. But like Mr. Clinton before him, Mr. Bush saw his party lose control.

That's never happened before in back-to-back administrations. The Obama administration appears poised to make it three in a row. This reflects a fundamental rejection of both political parties.

More precisely, it is a rejection of a bipartisan political elite that's lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve. Based on our polling, 51% now see Democrats as the party of big government and nearly as many see Republicans as the party of big business. That leaves no party left to represent the American people.

Voters today want hope and change every bit as much as in 2008. But most have come to recognize that if we have to rely on politicians for the change, there is no hope. At the same time, Americans instinctively understand that if we can unleash the collective wisdom and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, there are no limits to what we can accomplish.

In this environment, it would be wise for all Republicans to remember that their team didn't win, the other team lost. Heading into 2012, voters will remain ready to vote against the party in power unless they are given a reason not to do so.

Elected politicians also should leave their ideological baggage behind because voters don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves.

Coalage's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm


I see his point. The Democrats made a huge mistake when they assumed the 2006 and 2008 elections gave the left a mandate. Nothing could be further from the truth. People were just really, really mad at the Republicans. Why? They went on a Deomocrat style spending spree. Oddly, when the Democrats got in power, they put the spending spree in overdrive.

When the Republicans take control of the House, one wonders if they will have learned the lesson and behave or give further proof why they are known as the "stupid party"?

Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

OMG, so much punditry and so little comprehension. No, the Dems did not go on a spending spree. No, they did not get full of themselves and think they could push a bunch of stuff through. GOP lies claim that Obama increased the debt when he put the hidden Bush war budgets into the real budget. He just exposed what had been hidden. But we will keep on hearing this bs.

Second. Not spending to repair the extensive damage done would have made the real economy in the real world with real people much worse. Sometimes you have to choose people over money, although that is a GOP heresy. There, money is people, like in corporations.

I could agree with practicality over ideology, but the idea that the American people want reality instead of their favorite myths defies observable reality. What most Americans would like as a painless way out of this mess.

If people are really looking for practical, non-ideological politics, why does money buy votes so easily? Sure, everybody wants clean government and sound policies, but what does that mean to them? I find a lot of wishful thinking about "better" people instead of a willingness to look objectively at the system and why it does not work for democracy. It sure does work for the elites, at least in the short-term.

DRC's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

First paragraph, the money was not spent, then in the second paragraph, money had to be spent. Entertaining logic at the very least. It will take me a while to obsorb it.

I fear that many Americans have already stumbled onto the "painless way out of this mess". Its called putting the burden on future generations.

Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Paleo wrote: I fear that many Americans have already stumbled onto the "painless way out of this mess". Its called putting the burden on future generations.

poly relies: Well, also a burden on the present generation.. Unless stimulous is utilized in a way to increase future tax revenues as in the Eisenhower Inter-state Highway program,, stimulous doesn't pay for itself.

Of course, since we have a monetary system requiring the national government to borrow money into existence rather than just spending it into existence, we run up a lot of debt. Banksters and financiers thrive with a large national deficit.

There won't be a painless way out of the mess. The middle class and the poor will pay for it with lower wages, a reduction or dismantling of the remaining social safety net, and more foreclosures.

Poverty amidst potential plenty will be the order of the day.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Conservatives supposedly hate freeloading. So why are they trying to legalize it?

Conservatives supposedly hate freeloaders.

So why do they support right to work laws - which literally legalize freeloading?

Our nation's nine unelected monarchs on the Supreme Court are poised to deal yet another blow to organized labor.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system