Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Was the Democrats losing the House a savvy political move?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26829points) November 2nd, 2010

For the Democrats to let go of the House was it more a savvy political move? When you think about it, if going forward Obama’s change is stagnant or stalled still the Democrats can point their fingers and say it was the House that stalled things. As it was the Democrats owned everything so any failure to get stuff done could not be placed on anyone’s head but their own. With them losing the House don’t that now give the Democrats a convenient scapegoat to take the heat when policies and programs fail?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

36 Answers

Rarebear's avatar

They’re not that smart.

YARNLADY's avatar

I guess we’ll find out, won’t we.

Tuesdays_Child's avatar

I don’t think you could call what they did “letting go” of the House. The gift-wrapped the House and handed it over. I saw no pre-thought out strategy in their political form of suicide by election. Have no fear, though, both the establishment Republicans and Democrats will all be pointing fingers and crying foul in the morning.

BarnacleBill's avatar

How exactly could they “choose” to let it go? I didn’t see any races where the Dems failed to field a candidate… The elections reflect the mood of the country… I keep thinking of Germany in the 1930’s.

JustmeAman's avatar

Frankly a message was sent to Obama and I hope he listens. The country wants things to change and the way it was being handled is not acceptable. Hopefully we can start to come together and put the Constitution back as the guide for us to follow.

wundayatta's avatar

You can never count on that kind of thing. I was convinced that electing Bush II was a good idea because the economy would go south and we could elect a good Democrat, then. Then 9/11 intervened, and we’ve been stagnant ever since.

You have no idea what’s going to happen in history. The lesson I learned is that it is always better to be in power than not. Public opinion is unpredictable, and events are certainly unforeseeable. Republicans might get the blame for a stagnant economy, but Democrats hold the Presidency and the Senate, so they might equally well get blamed.

Then again, the economy might finally start improving, and who would get the credit? Republicans? Just for being in office even if they didn’t do anything constructive?

I’m afraid the answer to your question is no. Losing is never a savvy move, even if it has, on occasion, turned out to be a good thing.

tedd's avatar

No I highly doubt they planned it, and they can point fingers all they want, the Republicans will find ways to pin it on them.

If the Democrats had a downfall it was their own disorganization. For example the healthcare bill… its arguably (and in my opinion is) the best piece of legislation passed in this country in about 20–30 years. It will help Americans and our country as a whole immensely. But they let the Republicans paint it as some kind of government take over/evil plot to kill grandma almost uncontested. Then, they watered down the legislation so much trying to get Republican votes, that they disheartened so much of their own base. The result was a bill that sure is good, but they let the opposition paint it as evil, and turned their own base off to the idea. How are you supposed to get people excited to vote for you about that?

What I’d like to see happen, is the same thing that happened in 1994. Clinton found a way to work with the Republicans, and while nothing groundbreaking like healthcare or social security was passed… our country grew, by leaps and bounds. Our economy thrived, and we saw the best decade since the 50’s.

Unfortunately I fear the Republicans have eradicated too much of their own moderate half to make compromises with Obama and company on anything. If Obama wanted to pass a bill outlawing the eating of babies I suspect you would have at least some Republicans saying the government is trying to tell you what you can and can’t eat.

Ron_C's avatar

While I believe that the Republicans purposely lost the presidential race, I don’t believe that the Democrats are smart enough to use the same strategy to shed House control.

Alternately, I submit that this election showed the gullibility of the American electorate. They are now sufficiently stupid to believe corporate lies told by political shills. They are now ignorant enough to vote against their own welfare and health so that the oligarchy that runs this country can further their hold on this country. I predict we will see a further decline in public education, a further reductions of regulations that protect us, and faster decline in the average income. It is possible that, in time, we will get some of the jobs back from China and the third world because wages and working conditions, in this country, will become competitive with other third world countries.

Ironically the political organizations like the Tea Party that claim to be pro-American and pro-Constitution are leading the decline of both. The deceptively named U.S. Chamber of Commerce has become a leading distributor of propaganda and money provided by foreign corporations and governments.

We are now on the fast track in our race to the bottom and well on our way to becoming a feudal state. The only thing that can save us is a revolution and considering the deteriorating health and education of the populace, that is very unlikely.

janbb's avatar

It may work to their advanatage in the long run but I don’t think it was planned.

CaptainHarley's avatar

LMAO! Yeah, they planned to have the voters revolt. Dems have to have SOMEONE to blame, Lord knows they’ve been blaming Bush for everything ever since Obama was elected.

tedd's avatar

@CaptainHarley Credit where credit is due for the most part.

CaptainHarley's avatar

Would that they would mingle their “credit” with a bit of honesty.

tedd's avatar

@CaptainHarley Ehh, most of us do. Only the far lefties are blaming EVERYTHING on Bush. But whether he was directly responsible or not, the economy went south on his watch. And for that matter he only made 3.5 million jobs before the economy crashed (Clinton made 23.1 million in 8 years). The wars didn’t help his reputation or our budget. I was all for going into Iraq, but we shoulda been where we are now as far as that war, back in 2006/2005, not to mention Afghanistan shoulda been solved long ago, or at least more focus paid to it. And for all the talk of balancing budgets and stuff, he gave us 1.2 trillion in tax cuts that went straight into the deficit. I like my money as much as the next person, but if you’re going to make such a huge cut in taxes, how about taking something off the spending end too?

He did some things I like, some I hate. Overall though, the situation we found ourselves in 2 years ago, and even today with the economy… is largely his fault.

CaptainHarley's avatar

Don’t put me in the position of being a Bush defender, or of making excuses for the Republicans. I have little love for either of the major parties.

josie's avatar

Whatever you think motivates politicians at the federal level, the only one that is ever guaranteed to be true is their greed for power, prestige, and perks.
What ever “strategy” you imagine that they dream up, it is only to those ends that they do it.
No politician is going to give those things up as part of some grand strategy, unless they know they will get more power, prestige and perks by leaving office.
Go back to the drawing board.

CaptainHarley's avatar

We need to make The Philosopher King required reading for all politicians.This is one reason I lean toward putting former military in office: they understand the meaning of “servoce.”

woodcutter's avatar

@CaptainHarley I would have liked Westley Clark or Powell. They would have done well, I think.GA

CaptainHarley's avatar

@woodcutter

I wrote General Powell and all but begged him to run. He sent me a really nice letter thanking me, but saying that he had to place his family in first position now after so many years of their having been secondary to his career. I would have worked myself to death for that man. : ((

woodcutter's avatar

@CaptainHarley being the prez is hard on people for sure just look how much Obama has aged in 2 years. Oh well.

ETpro's avatar

The Republicans have been quietly diiung everything they could in the senate to ensure the economy stayed in the tank. The correctly calculated that most voters wouldn’t understand or care about their filibusters and procedural tricks to prevent votes on over 150 pieces of legislation the House passed, mush of it aimed at getting Americans back to work. Now they own the economy as much as Obama does. If they aren’t able or willing to get job growth jump started, the love affair with the right will be short lived.

But no, I don’t think the Dems were smart enough to see that.

Nullo's avatar

@ETpro I think that you’re grossly misunderstanding the intention and capabilities of the Republicans. Just because a person has differing political, social, and economic views than you doesn’t mean that they’re evil.

CaptainHarley's avatar

@Nullo

But some people have GOT to feel as though their opponents are the very embodiment of evil! It’s the only way they can justify a hard style of opposition.

ETpro's avatar

@Nullo & @CaptainHarley I never said they were evil. I said they made a correct political calculation in a recession that by playing obstructionist they could win in this election cycle. That is not partisan bitterness. It is demonstrable truth. The Republican leadership even said as much.

Ron_C's avatar

@Nullo @ETpro The Republicans are known for their ability to manipulate public opinion, their strong party discipline, and their fierce desire for power. The Democrats have the ability to debate from both the left and right within their own party. They have proved that there is no need for an opposition to defeat their agenda. They don’t get much done but at least they are democratic.

My problem with the Republicans is their authoritarian streak. They want to take power from the government and give it to large corporations. Despite this tendency they still want to use the government to control your personal life especially when it comes to sex, drugs, and a woman’s right to choose.

I am uncomfortable with both. I would like to see real liberal and conservative parties instead of ones simply dedicated to accumulating power and money.

ETpro's avatar

@Ron_C How true. The most laughable thing is the Blue Dog wing of the Democratic Party thinking they can win by being Republican clones. Not a chance. When Blue Dog Rep Parker Griffith of Alabama switched to the Republican Party, the leaders were elated. Then they turned on him and threw his sorry butt on the trash heap to replace him with one of theirs. It seems pretty obvious that if voters want a Republican, they’ll just vote for a Republican, not a Democrat who claims s/he’s more Republican than real Republicans.

CaptainHarley's avatar

@Ron_C

OMG! And the Dems AREN’T power mad?? GIVE ME A BREAK!

Ron_C's avatar

@CaptainHarley Democrats certainly want power but I notice that the progressive ones are willing to vote on a bill that may harm them in the long run. Not a trait found in the Republican and probably the Tea Party. It appears the more right, the more they march in lock-step with their leaders. Nobody can accuse the Democrats of that.

CaptainHarley's avatar

@Ron_C

Son, the Democrats are willing to vote on bills that may harm EVERYONE in the long run! This is not to say that you are wrong about Republicans, but I’ve never met a Democrate who had the best interests of the American people at heart either. I wouldn’t give you two cents for ALL of them!

ETpro's avatar

@CaptainHarley The harm of progressive legislation is your personal opinion, but it does nothing to defuse @Ron_C‘s correct statement that Democrats fight internally over what to do and not do. Will Rogers put it like this, “I don’t belong to an organized political party, I’m a Democrat.”

Republicans almost entirely play follow the leader. Right-wingers in American politics tend to be either authoritarian followers of authoritarian leaders. Their party bosses in the house are perfectly willing to threaten members with loss of committee posts and retaliation of all sorts if they do not vote on straight party lines.

CaptainHarley's avatar

@Ron_C

The Dems in charge of Congress these past two years have passed bills over the objections of the rest of Congress and of the people, they have legislated behind closed doors, and even overridden clear negative votes, and this from a party which promised “transparency in government.” You need to take a closer look at the shennanigins they have pulled, and will continue to pull as a lame-duck session.

Both parties have a bunch of lying, cheating hyppocites running them and the American people should toss the whole lot out and start over from scratch!

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@CaptainHarley Maybe American needs to wise up and flock to the Greens, Libertarians, and the Independent party and bulk them up.

CaptainHarley's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central

Perhaps so. “A little revolution, now and then, is a good thing, don’t you think?” : D

ETpro's avatar

@CaptainHarley If I had any hope they would win, I would vote third party for any candidate that put forward a reasonable platform of policies.

CaptainHarley's avatar

Rome wasn’t built in a day.

ETpro's avatar

@CaptainHarley No, but I would like to see one or two buildings go up in the first 100 years of construction.

CaptainHarley's avatar

@ETpro

LMAO! Ohhh-kayyy! LOL!

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther