There's A Theory Going Around, That It Was Liberal Negativism That Cost Us The House

[WillyT]

Poll question: There's A Theory Going Around, That It Was Liberal Negativism That Cost Us The House

Do you agree, or disagree?

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Liberals are positive, not negative

We believe in doing what's been proven to work. We believe in the 97%, not in the 3%.

[donco6]

2. Yeah, but with good reason.

It didn't just spring from nothing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. That's dumb

Where's the theory being promulgated?

[WillyT]

5. Close By...

:shrug:

[emulatorloo]

7. Which makes it dumber.

[WillyT]

10. LOL !!! - Shhh...

:hide::hi::hide:

[msongs]

4. with a few exceptions it was the republican wannabees that got voted out nt

[emulatorloo]

6. ABSOLUTELY. Liberal caucus in the house is big and strong.

[Windy]

8. Its a combination of things but the fact that many liberal commentators

talk radio personalities etc said that the president was doing enough....not doing things fast enough, etc... (without acknowledging that fact that all good legisltation went to the senate and was never brought to the floor for a vote because we never had a true majority in the Senate) caused people who don't know better and dont understand civics to sit on their hands and not vote. People can be led on both sides of the spectrum...

[Hello_Kitty]

37. Because it's the duty of liberal commentators to be propagandists, apparently. eom

[Uzybone]

9. Of course not

[Naturyl]

11. It was democracy that cost us the House.

People voted for what they wanted, and now they will have to deal with it - and so will we. Shitty, but them's the breaks.

If they voted in a way we don't like (and they sure as hell did), then maybe we failed to get our message out. I generally despise the "personal responsibility" slogan, but this is one instance where it may fit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Yup. It was the stunning lack of pom-poms instead of half-assed compromises and bipartisanship.

They just needed bigger megaphones for people to shout "Go Team" instead of actually standing firm on the issues.

[WillyT]

14. ...

:spray:

:hi:

[Bluebear]

15. --------

:spray:

[bvar22]

36. ***

:spray:

Me too.

[BlueIris]

13. Ludicrous.

I wonder if they'll blame us for what happens next? Probably. And good luck with that, fuck-oes.

[gulliver]

16. I blame the economy and communication mostly.

I think the negativity probably cost us something, but not enough to take away the House.

[fadedrose]

17. Yes and No

Yes, if dissatisfaction is the reason that the negative liberals didn't show up to vote.

No, if anyone thinks they had any influence on conservative voters..

[BeFree]

19. Yep

And the fact that they got more conservative voters to go vote.

Do progressives have power to make people go vote? Haven't seen much evidence of that.

Did big money have the power to get people to go vote? Yep, lots of evidence there.

[Upton]

18. The economy is the main culprit..

but apparently pointing fingers is much more fun...

[pa28]

20. Wow. That sounds like a really flaky theory with no facts to back it up.

You must have been trolling around in one of the dungeons to find something that absurd.

[WillyT]

23. Um... That Little Red Line Up Top With The 30% Next To It...

Says that so far in this poll, 30% of DUers agree with that flaky theory.

I ain't one of them, but... just sayin.

:shrug:

[pa28]

29. Sometimes the angry fringe votes first.

I'll be interested to see how your poll turns out but I'm guessing anybody who actually believes that lives in a pretty dark corner.

:dem:

[WillyT]

32. Oh You'd Be Surprised...

:shrug:

:hi:

[Plantaganet]

21. Ah - back to Agnew/Safire, then.

"Nattering nabobs of negativism..."

Waaaaaaaay too Republican for me.

[WillyT]

28. LOL !!! - Welcome To DU, Plantaganet !!!

:toast::bounce::toast:

Glad ta have ya aboard !!!

:hi:

[Plantaganet]

35. Thanks!

:fistbump:

[Winterblues]

22. What could Liberals possibly have to be negative about?

Obama and Democrats did every progressive thing in the world.....D'Oh

[timtom]

24. Of course. That's it!

It couldn't possibly that we are still engaged in a hostile military economy. And the so-called health care fiasco couldn't possibly be a factor (I'm down with the Kucinich plan). And the fact that the Department of Homeland Security wasn't immediately dismantled must not be the culprit. It couldn't be about the Patriot Acts I and II not having been rescinded.

Every infamy perpetrated by the Bush administration should have been summarily reversed, including all of the execrable "signing statements."

Charges of treason should have been laid upon many of the Bush administration. Dov Zackheim, for example, should be forced to account for -- what?-- 2. something trillion dollars?

Bah! Liberal Negativism, indeed!!! I'll give them hell and call it Liberal Negativism!

[fascisthunter]

25. what a repugnant claim to make... after what we on the left have endured

being right and then chastised for it, is pretty infuriating. The very people who are destroying this party are the ones making that very claim. Unprincipled, corrupt minds that settle for less because in reality, they live pretty well, while the rest of us struggle everyday to makes ends meet.

[erpowers]

26. Bad Communication Strategy

The reason the Democrats lost the House was a bad communication strategy on the part of President Obama and the Democratic Party. President Obama and the Democratic Party did not do enough to explain to people the things that had been done and the results of those actions. Also, the administration did not push back against the notion that the TARP bailout was started under President Obama. According to one poll 40+% of the population thinks the TARP bailout started under the Obama Admininstration, not the Bush Administration. Also, President Obama did not defend the American car industry bailout. By the time the elections came around a number of the individuals who had opposed the car industry bailout stated that they now support the car bailout and that Obama made the right decision by bailing out the industry. The Economist magazine actually apologized the President Obama for opposing the car industry bailout. However, I do not think anyone from President Obama's staff pointed that out.

http://www.economist.com/node/16846494/comments%20Health%20care%20holding%20down%20costs:%20http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf

[Individualist]

27. That's not a theory; it's a DLC meme.

[WillyT]

30. Nuff Said, Eh ???

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

:hi:

[FreeState]

31. It's the economy n/t

[gort]

33. The Grumpy Old Man vote was energized

And the DCCC abandoned Dean's 50 state strategy. That's why we lost, but I have faith in the end the truth will win.

We need more fighters. Not compromisers.

[walldude]

34. LMFAO... Yeah.. learning about personal responsibility

from the Republicans I see. So far I have seen the gays blamed, I have seen the "whiners" blamed, I have seen everyone blamed but the FUCKING DEMOCRATS WHO'S ENTIRE ELECTION STRATEGY WAS: "WE DON'T SUCK AS BAD AS THEY DO".

Then the day after the loss I see Republicans in the press yelling about how many subpoena's they are going to lay out, how their top priority is to get rid of Obama, how they are willing to work with Democrats as long as Democrats see fit to cave in to Republican demands.

And I see Obama talking about working together with the Republicans.

I'm starting to wonder if he isn't a complete moron. Or maybe it's battered wife syndrome. Whatever it is he better pull his head out of his ass and start toughening up.

[Odin2005]

38. Who revived Spiro Agnew and Bill Safire?

[WillyT]

39. Can't Say...

Might be deemed a call-out.

:hide::scared::hide:

:hi:

[WillyT]

40. Kick !!!

:kick:

[Edweird]

41. It's the RW 'dems' spreading it, so consider the source.