Why losing the House matters

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1) The American people did not decide last week to give us most of government and let the pugs have one little part. The American people gave the pugs as much of the government as was available that day. We retained the Senate because only 1/3 of the senate was up for election. Obama is President today only because he was not on the ballot this year. The fact that the Republicans "only" won the House is happenstance.

2) Control of the House of Representatives is more than sufficient to destroy the economy of the United States. All federal spending and revenue raising must originate in the House. And they figure (probably correctly) that if the House destroys the nation then Obama will be a one-termer because people do not do nuance. If the country is in ruins that is bad for the incumbent.

Since the pugs have the power to wreck the nation and a motive to do so I'm guessing they will.

Unlike Clinton post-1994, the economy is probably not poised to shoot up on its own right now. Only massive government effort can turn us around and that is impossible. (If it was impossible before it's sure impossible now.)

So the whole shooting match gets down to BLAME.

Either the people will blame Republicans for what Republicans are going to do or, as has happened so often, they will blame us for being too weak to save them from the Republicans and will thus vote for Republicans.

Fix the BLAME or it's lights out. Our two year project is more political than policy. (All effective policy moves are foreclosed.)

[ProSense]

1. "Since the pugs have the power to wreck the nation and a motive to do so I'm guessing they will."

I don't see how this leads to a Republican win. They are in the hot seat.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. For the presidency?

Nope. Presidential re-election campaigns are about the current health of the nation.

It can be in relative terms (FDR '36, Reagan '84) or absolute terms (Clinton '96) but one way or another, if the nation is a smoking ruin for whatever reason in 2012 it will not redound the the incumbent president's benefit.

Gingrich's plan for taking the House in the 1990s was to make the House something nobody but him would want. Ginning up the (wholly bogus) Congressional Banking scandal hit a lot of Republicans. It wasn't a narrow attack on Dems, it was an attack on the institution of Congress. Run down the value and then snap it up at the sheriff auction.

That's how these people think.

Will that kind of thinking work today? We will see. I hope it does not.

[ProSense]

6. "Presidential re-election campaigns are about the current health of the nation."

You seem to think Republican can successfully destroy the economy and pin it on Democrats.

That is what GOP noise amounts to. They couldn't do it in 1994 and it will not succeed now.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Look at unemployment, S&P 500 and GDP growth 1994-1996

What exactly was there to pin on us in 1996?

[ProSense]

11. Losing the House

is a set back for Democrat. Being unable to win the Senate is a huge set back for Republicans.

[paulk]

3. you really should do better than linking to one of your own posts

that links to an opinion piece from some anomymous poster on Daily Kos.

[dkf]

4. Looks like Cantor is threatening a government shutdown if Obama doesn't extend all the bush tax cuts

Your faith in Republicans leaves me skeptical.

[ProSense]

7. Let him.

Your confidence in Cantor's strategy is telling.

[dkf]

13. I don't have faith in Cantors strategy...I lack faith that he has interest in governing.

Republicans want what they want with no thought other than ideology.

[ProSense]

18. This is simply more doom and gloom,

claiming that Republicans with their new power in the House can destroy the economy and win.

Imagine, out of power they can destroy the economy and win. With power, they can destroy the economy and win.

The doom formula = Republicans are never accountable and all powerful.

Yet they were held accountable in 2006 and 2008.

It's not all that clear that Republican can do much about the economy. The notion that they can stop additional stimulus, which couldn't pass anyway, is not going to impact anything. The notion that they can shut down the government indefinitely and not pay a political price is ludicrous.

Also, the President still has options in terms of stimulating the economy, and the policies he put in place are going to begin paying dividends.

Republican Governors are also on the hot seat. What are they going to do?

[dkf]

20. Yeah thinking about the Republicans being responsible for prudently governing makes me incredulous.

They didn't do that when they were in charge. Why would they change now?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

26. "out of power they can destroy the economy and win"

Power is power, not titles.

The Republicans were, in concert with effectively Republican Dems, able to hamstring our attempts to have the sort of economic recovery that could have lessened the low of the 2010 election.

To whatever degree the Republican agenda/worldview shaped policy that was the exercise of power.

Did the conservative world view harm our economy in 2009-2010 by deforming policy? Yes.

Did it redound to the benefit of the villains in the election of 2010? Yes.

[Lasher]

5. "We retained the Senate because only 1/3 of the senate was up for election."

The American people could have given Republicans control of the Senate. They didn't.

[ProSense]

9. That is a

key point.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Do you believe that we would have retained control if all 100 were up?

[ProSense]

15. When is that ever the case?

The Republicans thought they had a lock on Delaware and Nevada. In fact, Nevada looks like the media played up Reid's negatives.

[dkf]

12. They could have elected the nutsos. We are just lucky the tea party is crazy.

We were saved by Sarah Palin.

[Ozymanithrax]

14. And the new hosue continues to threaten to shut down the government...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=513177&mesg_id=513177

They don't want to turn us around. Politics is war fought for power, and they want the power, then they will throw us poor folk a bone.

[glitch]

16. An abused child favors the abuser and despises the enabler.

It's a twisted logic but it makes sense from a purely survival standpoint, by favoring the abuser they hope to prevent more abuse and survive long enough to reach an escape or rescue point, they know the enabler won't actually kill them but the abuser might. So they favor the abuser and wait. Mostly unconscious.

[scarletwoman]

17. K&R - great post.

"Our two year project is more political than policy. (All effective policy moves are foreclosed.)" (my bold)

Dead on!

[bigtree]

19. the President would have survived ANY of the republicans who ran against him in the last election

. . . and I don't think any of the new bucks have anything over the President either. It's easy to discount his popularity in the abstract, but in an election, he smears the opposition. This time he has the elevation of office working for him personally, even if that influence had fallen short in helping others in this past election.

[BeFree]

21. well

First, the American people did not decide... it was about 11% of the people who voted for the republicans. 11 percent. A minority. A measly minority.

So.... how'd they do that?
Because 78% of Americans decided to pay no attention. Tuned off and dropped out.

Does anyone here think that if 100% of the people voted that any gawd less republican would ever be elected again?

Anyway.... looking for someone to BLAME.... blame the assholes that don't pay attention.
I mean, that's politics 101.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. I do not foresee political success in blaming 78% of the populace.

Valid and deserved? Yes.

But probably not good politics.

[BeFree]

28. the idea is

That we get the other 78% to pay attention and then vote.
What we are doing now is blaming ourselves for being a minority.

The answer to the end of the republicans is better turnout at the polls. P 101.

[Doctor_J]

23. Hard to fix the blame when the criminals own & run the media

the scenario you've outlined is completely hopeless.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

24. Yes and no.

The powers that be support Republicans to the degree there is money in it. They don't want total collapse.

If the pugs prove too disruptive to business as usual then there will be a shift away from them in the media-driven zeitgeist.

We are left hoping they will over-reach. Fortunately, they usually do.

[BrklynLiberal]

25. and the redistricting that the the House will be doing will more or less guarantee a repuke House

majority for quite a while.

See: Tom DeLay, Texas redistricting, for the blueprint of what they hope to do.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. The redistricting is done in the States, but same general idea

The pugs made big gains on the State legislature level nationally, so it works out the same.

[BrklynLiberal]

29. They did get a lot of governorships.....