2010 vs 2006

[karynnj]

In 2006, we gained 7 Senate seats - winning control of the Senate with 51 Senators
In 2010, they gained 6 (assuming that WA is ours) - ending up with 47 Senators

In 2006, we gained 32 seats - ending up at 233
In 2010, they gained 60 seats - ending up at 239

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/

Looked at objectively, our 2006 victory was not that much less impressive than theirs. We actually ended up in a more commanding position. Do you remember the same calls from the media saying the REPUBLICANS had to compromise. I really don't.

[Democrats_win]

1. What counts is will they accomplish as much as our 2006 "victors" did.

The 2006 election was about ending bush's imperial wars. The tools and the precedent was there: the Vietnam war was ended by congress refusing to fund the war. This did not happen after 2006. Maybe that's why a lot of independent voters refused to vote Democrat: they were fooled into voting for them once but after not ending bush's failed wars, they stayed home.

Now, we watch the Republican party and I bet they WILL have some major victories as they use their budget power to get some terrible things done. BTW, bush's imperial wars will STILL not end.

[karynnj]

2. The Vietnam war was not ended by cutting the funding

The funding was cut after the US troops were out. The fact is they did get over 50 votes for a resolution that would have required a timeline, but Bush vetoed it. They were not going to defund the troops.

What is true in what you wrote is that that is what some partisans thought possible - and they were disappointed. The same will happen as the more extreme goals they speak of don't happen.