I could be wrong, but... ALL INCUMBENTS could be in DEEP TROUBLE with an Angry Public...

[Blackhatjack]

When the personal circumstances of struggling families 'bottom out' like we are seeing today, and there does not appear to be any help on the way, we may just see an unusual occurence ... those struggling to survive may turn out in mass at the polls to vote all the incumbents of every stripe out of office.

And the ground may be set for third party candidates to not only run competitively, but to win... and most will appeal directly to those who feel disenfranchised from their own government in such a time of need.

Democrats would be wise to pay attention ... a revolt may be rising beneath them that they cannot survive unless there is immediate action that counters the interests of the richest corporations and 1%ers.

[OHdem10]

1. Some serious political commentators and a couple of Pollsters

have said the same.

[KingFlorez]

2. That's a valid point

I really don't see either party getting a resounding mandate this year.

[LakeSamish706]

3. I actually think you might be right... People are fed up with "Change you can believe in" that

hasn't happened. I really think that we need a President/VP that have never served the people in any way at this point. Don't care if they are raw, they can learn and hopefully use common sense to lead. What we have seen to date, sucks big time. Gotta tell ya, I had such high hopes for Barack Obama, but he just is not cutting it. If he is not a member of DLC, I sure as hell don't understand why not.

[BeatleBoot]

6. 368 days after taking office

They are fed up...

:rofl:

America needs their high fructose corn syrup -- NOW!!!

McDonald's Quarter Pounders with Cheese just do not cut it anymore!

We need sugar in our bread, NOW!

I want it and I want it NOW!


:rofl:





:rofl:

[LakeSamish706]

12. And your point is? Don't beat around the bush, tell us what you really think!

I think that Obama has many problems with his Administration;

1. I am not sure what his role is with the DLC.

2. He seems to have aligned himself with many members of DLC but has not declared that he is a member.

3. Many of his appointments in the first months of his Administration seem to fit with "Change we can believe in"

4. The fact that he has not held the previous (Bush) Administration accountable for their conduct is disheartening.

And I could go on and on.

[Confusious]

18. It doesn't have to be now, it doesn't have to be tomorrow

Hell it doesn't even have to be next month.

But it does have to be STARTED RIGHT NOW. they can take the slow boat to china, but they need to at least START.

AND THEY HAVE NOT STARTED ANYTHING.

[Mojorabbit]

27. This isn't normal times

This is a depression" on the ground.
and as Bob Herbert's article states "In 2008, a startling 91.6 million people — more than 30 percent of the entire U.S. population — fell below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, which is a meager $21,834 for a family of four.

People are losing their jobs and their homes, prospects are not looking up, and they can't wait till DC gets their shit together.

[northernlights]

39. close but no cigar

Tell that to the homeless, jobless people who've lost everything and whom Obama told need to be "patient" for about 2 years. How the fuck do you expect people to live on handouts, under a bridge or in a cardboard box, or in a tent, for 2 years?

This administration needs to take some steps in the correct direction NOW.

Obama came out of the election moving in the correct direction.

Inexplicably, within a few months, really shortly after he got Sotomayor in, Obama veered hard right and has been headed that way ever since.

Bush was voted out because, at long last and about 8 years too late, the majority of Americans recognized that we've been herded in the wrong direction for 8 hellish years.

Obama has been embracing Bush's policies on war, terror, civil rights, the environment, etc. for months...it's terrifying.

Obama's HCR started as a compromise, ended as a compromise of a compromise and now is dead in the water.

The *only* good news is that Brown's win may -- just *may* serve as a wake-up call to the democrats in the administration. With their elections coming fast and their backs against a wall...their *own* career survival at stake (never mind the ordinary people who's very lives are at stake) maybe, just maybe they will actually start to fight to accomplish what they were sent there for to begin with.

[pscot]

21. I don't think that's such a hot idea

Barak Obama was probably too green for the job. His schtick about bipartisanship is hopolessly naive, and has proved to be completely unworkable. But if you want a newbie, Barak Obama is about as good as it gets. He's smart. He's dedicated. He means well. But he fell in with the wrong crowd. The bankers got next to him and led him down the garden path. I think his greatest weakness is that he's too nice a guy. He thinks other people can be moved by reason. That's not the way things work. When Lyndon Johnson said "Come let us reason together" he mede sure he had the other guys pecker in his pocket first. I really believe it takes a hardass to run the U.S government. If the President wants somebody to do something he has to be willing to squeeze their balls until they wimper. If there are no consequences for bad behavior you end up knee deep in assholes, and the country suffers.

[earth mom]

40. Obama spent years in politics when you count his time in Chicago. He's not naive.

I think he chooses to play the game the way he's playing it.

Hell, he pushed the hope & change shit for all it was worth and then promptly kissed the banksters a$$es, just like *.

That doesn't strike me as naive, but rather ruthless and cunning.

[pscot]

50. I'm holding out for naive

Did you see the talk he gave in Ohio at that town meeting? I thought he looked shaken. Like a man really needing some kind of affirmation from the crowd. Community organizers and college professors are not subject to the same kind of mauling that politicians deal with as a matter of routine nowadays. He's never taken a hit. Just look at the reaction around here. In less than 10 months he's gone from Golden Boy to Quasimodo. It's got to be like waking up and finding a horses head in bed with him. I think there's still hope, but he has to develope a some chutzpa. Ruthless and cunning would be a huge improvement. I'm keeping my fingrs crossed.

[verges]

47. LBJ also had larger majorities in both houses. nt

[pscot]

51. And the southern Democrats fought him

every step of the way on civil rights. People knew that if they crossed Lyndon there would be a price to pay. Don't misunderstnd me. I despised Lyndon Johnson for Vietnam and for what he did to Hubert. But he played the Congress like a fiddle.

[JDPriestly]

28. I think a lot of Republicans will also face fierce challenges.

Many of them will be voted out too. People are just completely sick of Congress's inability to either compromise or really fight it out. Democrats need to show some spine and let the Republicans filibuster. Republicans need to shut up and admit that they caused this mess that we are in.

[verges]

48. No doubt. This will not be a normal

election year. Anything can happen.

[browntyphoon]

4. I agree

Professional politicians aren't getting anything done meanwhile the country is stagnating.

I'd like to see the incumbents in my state hit the unemployment lines.

[emilyg]

8. In my state I plan to vote

against most incumbents.

[browntyphoon]

14. Me too

Me too.

2012 I may have to too. Obama has been a disappointment.I hope he get's into gear or we get someone who does more than talk well about his plans with so little follow through

[JDPriestly]

29. Is your representative a Democrat or a Republican?

My representative is a liberal Democrat and a wonderful person and I plan to support him every way that I can.

[MrsCorleone]

49. I sincerely hope that you're not going to just blindly vote out an incumbent liberal candidate

If that is the case, you will have fallen hard for the RW strategy. The RNC thanks you for falling in line.

[emilyg]

52. So nice of you to

assume I'm not studying and following my candidates.

[customerserviceguy]

5. You're absolutely right about the angry public

In most any election, there are about 40% of the voters for the conservative candidate, 40% for the progressive candidate, and a mushy middle of 20% who ultimately decide the outcome. These are people without a fixed ideology, who simply vote for the candidate who scares them the least. In the last election, the Rethugs were the scariest party, and the soothing voice of Barack Obama made them feel better. Now that he's in power, the Repukes have learned to demonize Democratic elected officials.

I do disagree with your assessment of the viability of third party candidates, they only succeed in the rarest of situations. What they usually do is either hurt the party that is most like them ideologically, or they are simply completely ineffectual.

[LakeSamish706]

15. Strangely enough, I think Obama has managed to demonize himself.

He has not done what most of his supporters have expected him to do! It is now very clear to me, why the Senate has been struggling, even with a Democratic majority. I now see that Barack Obama was part of the problem, and not the solution with a Harry Reid at the helm. I seriously see a third party taking control, and I certainly hope that it is one that will finally represent the people, and not corporations.

[customerserviceguy]

54. Third parties have an extremely difficult time getting results

On the Presidential election level, the last third party candidate to get any electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968. I suppose it it possible for some corporations to fund a third party, but why do that when you already own the existing two?

[TxRider]

7. Good point

The anger from independents is really aiming at incumbents, not either party.

[Warpy]

9. I've been saying this since last spring

There was a bloodbath in Congress in 1994 when a strong "throw the bums out" movement got going the last time they wimped out on healthcare. The dopes didn't even let it out of committee in 1993 and the voters remembered. That ushered in a disastrous 12 years of GOP domination of Congress.

If incumbents got tossed out on their asses in every single election until we got healthcare, we might get it a damned sight faster, but people always wait to see what the new bunch is going to do for them and don't follow up.

I think the Democrats are in big trouble and if they don't wake up soon, the conservatives are going to have all of them collecting unemployment checks in 2011.

Angry and frightened people don't think logically. They'll vote against their own interests just as they did in 1994, figuring a party that does the wrong things is better than a party that talks about the right things and does nothing.

[Guilded Lilly]

10. I don't think you are wrong or even *could be*

As much as the braying Republicans want to cheer and spew about their new-found "impetus"...their asses are in serious trouble, period. Challenged from within by varying degrees of conservatism, just like Democratic party is challenged in theirs, they have a much farther way to climb out of the bottom of the cesspool they fell into during the wretched previous administration.

But the Republicans know the success of refusing to clean one's own house while screaming and pontificating about the possible dust bunnies floating around the other party's house!

Third party will hurt both parties.

Republicans like to make you think otherwise and we know how it goes around the media world~ if Republicans lie long enough and shrill enough, it must be true!

[Blackhatjack]

11. There is one theory that might explain this phenomenon....

The most effective use of 'money' in political campaigns is to appeal to potential voters with promises of benefits to come if the candidate is elected(to persuade with the 'carrot'). And voters are more likely to be 'persuaded' if things are relatively survivable, and the promises are beneficial but not desperately needed.

When desperation sets in regarding one's circumstances, the old 'carrot' approach just does not work. The promises are not enough, there has to be action --and failure to deliver in the past tends to make the candidate intolerable. Anyone new holds at least some promise.

[LakeSamish706]

13. And most especially after the past 8 years of incompetence that we have lived through.

The Bush ERA will most certainly go down in history as the worst time/President in history.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blackhatjack]

17. What should really concern incumbents is another 'double dip recession' BEFORE 2012...

This is going to be one heck of a mess if the economy takes another severe hit, the stockmarket drops, housing prices drop another 20%, and unemployment stays high.

[global1]

19. Time To Line Up Some Really Progressive Progressives To Replace Those Incumbents.......

I don't mind throwing the incumbents out - if we can replace them with Progressives. What I'm worried about is that the Repugs will get back in and that would be fatal.

[Blackhatjack]

20. That's always the risk when the public sees no difference between Repubs and Dems

Repubs are always deceptive enough to pull in unsuspecting voters.

[madrchsod]

22. this is the end of january and unemployment is going up...

people still are being foreclosed. people with good credit are waiting months for fha loans. unless obama changes course and sides with the people instead of the third way democrats advising him he`ll lose the house and what ever political power he has left.

[Blackhatjack]

23. foreclosures are still going strong as well....

I don't think most struggling families are warmed by the thoughts that the stock market is up.

[RainDog]

24. the 2006 midterms were the beginning of this. the 2008 election was about this

...and, while Obama may have talked about bipartisanship, those who are living in the trenches knew that was about as likely as Sarah Palin passing up the op to make a quick buck on people's anger.

the Democrats have seriously misread the public. people were serious when they were disgusted with the way Bush and Cheney and Yoo made the U.S. into a nation of torturers.

people were serious when they didn't want telecoms invading ppl's privacy w/o proper warrants - not just for themselves, but to keep the politic process a little less nasty.

people were serious when they heard the words "Change." Because it is so badly needed now, as it was throughout the last decade.

why is our political culture unable to make the changes necessary to mediate the abuses of the powerful - after 30 years of this, the results are devastating to the middle class.

Democrats have had four years to hear the anger - Congress, not simply Obama.

[Blackhatjack]

25. I think Congress is tone deaf when it comes to the public's rising anger...

It's like expecting things to return to normal after a disaster has already struck.

Sometimes things don't return to normal, and a new way is required...

[salguine]

26. Oh please. We have a 98% incumbent return rate. Know why? Because voters don't

determine the outcome of elections. Money and connections do. When you're the incumbent, you have all the money and connections. While it's not unheard of for a challenger to unseat an incumbent, it's pretty damn rare—incumbents lose in 2% of cases.

That being said, I wish you were right. I can think of about a dozen people out of 535 in both houses of Congress I'd keep, and the rest can go to Hell.

[Edweird]

42. 1994. n/t

[TexasObserver]

30. Doesn't take ALL. If 15% of congressional Dems are in trouble ....

The gains we achieved in 2006 and 2008 could be erased.

[cali]

31. you are not wrong.

[BR_Parkway]

32. It's long overdue - both sides are angry with their "representatives"

who go to DC and represent all these special interest groups ahead of the people that put them there. The whole "left vs right" thing has been played for the past 30 plus years to keep all us little guys fighting with each other enough to be distracted to what Congress was doing up there in selling us out. Time and Time again. Think about how we celebrate the tiniest victories - when those should be the bare minimum requirement for the folks in DC to keep their jobs.

And time after time, we always blame a generic Congress, but return so many incumbents from our own districts. And they continue to sell us out, and continue to have Cheney-esque approval ratings.

I'd be willing to lose the handful that are actually good and on our side if it meant we could replace all the rest. Even now, after MA - they still don't get it. They get on TV and yammer on and on about a hundred other possible reasons rather than the very simplest one - if they want to keep their jobs, then they need to go fight for what the People want, not the corporations. I think the whole healthcare health insurance reform dog and pony show peeled the scales off the eyes of even most of the loudest supporters to where even they can't deny it any more

[Edweird]

33. One party broke it's word, and the other did what it said it would do.

I imagine the party with the deceptive marketing has more to worry about than the party with the upfront assholes.

[cali]

34. the repubs piss off their base all the time.

what do you think much of the tea party crap is about? Their base is furious. However, the party in power always has more to worry about in a mid-term election particularly with a poor economy.

history. it's what should be for breakfast- along with a cup of reality.

[Edweird]

35. 'Tea party' = astro turf.

[cali]

36. astro-turf kicked it off, but it has broad support now

and it's ridiculous not to acknowledge reality.

[Edweird]

37. Speaking of history.... remember 1994?

[cali]

38. certainly. I take it you're referring to the "Contract on America"

[Edweird]

41. If he doesn't recognize the error of his ways and get on the ball, it's gonna be

"deja-vu all over again".

If, at this point, you elect to deny that people are pissed, then your talk of 'reality' needs to be aimed at yourself.

[KharmaTrain]

43. It's A Fluid Electorate Out There...

What the corporate media doesn't tell you is no matter how pissed voters are with the Democrats, they aren't too crazy about rushpublicans either. Their poll numbers still range in the 20s...and the party "establishment" has its own uprising on its hands. NO incumbent should feel safe this year...look for the teabaggers to turn some of their primaries into mudfights.

As far as a third party...on a selective basis, it always is a viable alternative, but on a national level, no one party has ever been able to consolidate (not Libertarians or Greens) the campaings and/or financing and thus have problems breaking through even on a state and local level. While some blame goes to the established parties who will try to squash any serious outside challenger, it also is the inability for these parties to focus on winning elections that are winnable, holding onto seats and expanding. One can't build a party overnight...it takes several elections and a constant presence in front of the voters...not just around the primaries and elections.

[Nay]

44. This is why I wanted the Pubs in office of Prez this time around. It's

the ONLY time I have ever wanted those bastards in office, and guess what? They got the gift of a lifetime -- a black Democrat in office, one whose every move can be savaged, and on whom every ill can be blamed. The country needed to fall into the abyss with REPUBLICANS in office -- otherwise, the dopes out there can spew their normal lines -- "it's all the libruls' fault!"

[Blackhatjack]

45. Obama wouldn't be the first to perish entering the RW Repub Wasteland looking for bipartisanship

The search for bipartisanship with Republicans is OVER. To continue to seek the Mirage of bipartisanship will just lead Obama deeper into the desert where all possibilities for change will die.

It is time for Obama to use the power of the President's Office to get things done that need to be done, and suffer the faux criticism that he is not including the Repubs. Hello? Repubs removed themselves from any role in getting needed legislation through when they voted unanimously NO on everything Democrats proposed, and have used the filibuster a historic 102 times in the past year.

Mr. President, you don't lose much rolling over Repubs in this environment.

Take your paper majority with Democrats, squeeze them to act like Democrats, and get things done.

And look at it this way, unless you are successful in getting them to unify to passed needed legislation, they are going to be voted out of office anyway. You will be saving them from their own selves.

Bipartisanship is dead. Get over it. Be the hammer... not the anvil.

[spanone]

46. yep, and we could end up in a lot deeper shit than we're in now.

between the media and the rethugs this will be an ugly year

[davsand]

53. "There are two parties in this country: The guys in office, and the guys who WANNA BE in office."

That came out of the mouth of one of my co-workers the other day. Can't say I disagree with him too much, either...

The only thing that might save us is the inertia that incumbency adds to the game. A lot of people will say they are sick unto death of the status quo, but they are ok with ___(Whoever is currently in office)______ because his office calls them back. It is kind of a game where "all elected officials suck except mine."

I think you will see it in local races all the way up the food chain.

The smart party Will recruit the candidates that have never held office before, and can say "we are sick and tired of the crap and the inaction and we are here for one term to clean up the mess."



Laura