Cenk Uygur @ HuffPo: Why Are Democrats Going To Lose When They Are More Popular?

[Hissyspit]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-are-democrats-going-t_b_777808.html

Why Are Democrats Going To Lose When They Are More Popular?

Cenk Uygur
Host of The Young Turks
Posted: November 2, 2010 03:24 PM

There is a fascinating disparity in these 2010 elections. When asked which party will cope better with the issues facing this country over the next couple of years, Democrats win 42-38%. When asked who will handle the economy better, Democrats win 44-37%. When asked which party you approve of more in Congress, Democrats win 36-30%. Yet, they're about to get wiped out.

Why? Obviously, it has nothing to do with the Republicans because they are the only thing that has lower approval ratings than the Democrats. A gigantic 67% of the country disapproves of the Republicans on Congress (a Congress they're about to hand them). Nearly every poll shows general disdain for the Republican Party.

So, if it's not that the voters like the Republican Party or find their answers to our problems particularly appealing (they lose on almost every issue in the polls), what is causing this possibly enormous electoral shift? I think the answer is two-fold.

The first is obvious -- voters are throwing the bums out. The Democrats are the party in power and they are paying the price when the country is in bad shape. This is Politics 101. People don't like what's happening, they vote out whoever is in office. That's democracy and it also makes some intrinsic sense generally (though in this case, it makes no sense since they are putting back in power the people who caused the problems in the first place).

Secondly, it's because the Democrats didn't deliver. They said there was going to be big change and that they were going to take care of the middle class. And they didn't. I'm not saying that because I disagree with the size of the stimulus, or gays in the military or whether we had the public option or not. This is not about whether we had sufficient change on specific issues (that's a good debate for another time).

- snip -

The system is broken. No one represents us. The special interests and the corporate interests have bought all of the politicians. So, when the American people throw the bums out, they are right. Unfortunately, this time around they are going to replace them with far, far worse bums. But they are going to learn that lesson the hard way. And next time, they'll throw them out again. And they'll keep doing that until one of the parties gets it through their heads that the Washington establishment does not represent the American people. They represent the powerful. And the more you cater to them the more the American people will hate you. And vote you out of office.

MORE

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Quite the Nostradamus.

[Drale]

2. So?

if republicans do take over and the debt is not 0 in 2 years is everyone gonna vote democrat again? I doubt it, like I posted early when your told you suck 24/7 your eventually going to believe it yourself. Screw the "main stream media".

[kenny blankenship]

3. Maybe people will give the bums one last chance?

That's what I did. Could be lots of others will too.

[jgraz]

4. Do we even have to ask the question?

Clearly, they're going to lose because people like Cenk Uygur and Jane Hamsher ALWAYS HATED THE PRESIDENT!!!11!!!11ELEVENTYONE!!!




(Yes, :sarcasm:)

[USArmyParatrooper]

6. Actually the Dems will lose seats because of factors out of anyone's control.

The economic catastrophe was avoided but we still have high unemployment.

Congressional elections are always tougher for the party who holds the executive branch.

The Republicans' lie machine and obstruct everything tactics were very effective.

That certain people were cheering for the Democrats to lose so they can make a 'point' on the internet is of no consequence.

[CherylK]

7. Did you read the OP??

Cenk's first point was, quote------The Democrats are the party in power and they are paying the price when the country is in bad shape. This is Politics 101. People don't like what's happening, they vote out whoever is in office. That's democracy and it also makes some intrinsic sense generally (though in this case, it makes no sense since they are putting back in power the people who caused the problems in the first place).

He is right about that and his other points too!

:hi:

[USArmyParatrooper]

8. I wasn't responding to the OP

:hi:

[ihavenobias]

11. I think a lot of people just read the headline and maybe the first sentence or so.

That would explain a lot.

[suzie]

10. +1,000

[jgraz]

17. Wrong.

The economic catastrophe was avoided but we still have high unemployment.

A more progressive, economically sound stimulus package would have almost certainly have helped here. Barring that, just handling the politics of the compromise would have allowed Obama to blame the GOP for the unemployment figures. He did neither, and the GOP hung the jobless rate around his neck.


Congressional elections are always tougher for the party who holds the executive branch.

But they're usually not catastrophic. Just a little follow-through on promises to the base would have gone a long way toward reducing the electoral disaster we experienced tonight.


The Republicans' lie machine and obstruct everything tactics were very effective.

If only Obama had access to some media outlets where he could have responded to those lies. :eyes:


That certain people were cheering for the Democrats to lose so they can make a 'point' on the internet is of no consequence.

Really? Maybe you should link to a few of those posts so we can see if you actually know what you're talking about. Hmmm?

[20score]

5. K&R

[Hissyspit]

9. .

[Hissyspit]

12. kick nt

[FrenchieCat]

13. Because when the Media, left and right, get together to criticize only Democrats,

it makes republicans look good.

[Radical Activist]

14. Our left pundits failed us.

What else did they think would happen after two years of ignoring every accomplishment and hyperventilating over every compromise? Was that supposed to help a progressive President get a progressive agenda through the Senate?

Thanks for nothing, Cenk.

[FrenchieCat]

15. They will deny it.

As far as they are concerned, piling on doesn't turn a molehill into a mountain.
Plus, ain't nothing like the smell of feet burning early in the morning.

[jgraz]

18. So... you're saying the President's electoral agenda hinged on the support of Cenk Uygur?

Wow... who came up with THAT brilliant strategy?

:crazy:

[WillyT]

21. LOL !!!

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

:rofl:

:hi:

[EFerrari]

23. . . .

:rofl:

[Hannah Bell]

16. If pubs are so unpopular, but they won most races, it's either there's

a divergence between who's polled in the popularity poll & who's voting, or some fraud. i'd think. "throw the bums out" only goes so far if most people believe the other bums are worse.

[Recursion]

22. I'm not sure how useful generic party polls are

People don't vote for a generic party, they vote for a particular candidate. Sort of like how people want to throw the bums out but will still vote for their pork-ladling incumbent (Congress this year looks like it will still have a higher incumbent retention rating than the USSR's politburo did).

[Recursion]

19. OTOH Reid's margin exceeded his favorable ratings

Polls are weird sometimes.

[WillyT]

20. K & R !!!

:kick:

[upi402]

24. Disenfranchised, no party to represent us

Who am I to run around supporting -donating money to? The evil fanatical freaks, or the backstabbing prostitutes and betrayers?


pass