Opinion of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[Beet]

Excellent chair.

[Beet]

Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

[Beet]

Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.

[Beet]

Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.

Romney lost the Presidency because he's Mitt Romney, not because DWS is some type of genius.

By that logic, Democratic Senatorial candidates lost because they were running in an unfavorable year, not because DWS is some kind of secret Republican.

[Beet]

Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.

Romney lost the Presidency because he's Mitt Romney, not because DWS is some type of genius.

By that logic, Democratic Senatorial candidates lost because they were running in an unfavorable year, not because DWS is some kind of secret Republican.

The year was unfavorable due to DWS's incompetence. Who here seriously believes DWS is a secret Republican? She's just another idiot party chair.

The year was unfavorable because the president had a 41 percent approval rating. Who here said she was a genius? She's just a great party chair.

[Beet]

Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.

Romney lost the Presidency because he's Mitt Romney, not because DWS is some type of genius.

By that logic, Democratic Senatorial candidates lost because they were running in an unfavorable year, not because DWS is some kind of secret Republican.

The year was unfavorable due to DWS's incompetence. Who here seriously believes DWS is a secret Republican? She's just another idiot party chair.

The year was unfavorable because the president had a 41 percent approval rating. Who here said she was a genius? She's just a great party chair.

And why was the President's approval rating that low? Shouldn't the party have worked to gin those numbers up a bit? It's not like Congress had better approval ratings....

The president's approval ratings are his own responsibility. The party chair can't control them. The president is the boss.

[Beet]

Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.

Romney lost the Presidency because he's Mitt Romney, not because DWS is some type of genius.

By that logic, Democratic Senatorial candidates lost because they were running in an unfavorable year, not because DWS is some kind of secret Republican.

The year was unfavorable due to DWS's incompetence. Who here seriously believes DWS is a secret Republican? She's just another idiot party chair.

The year was unfavorable because the president had a 41 percent approval rating. Who here said she was a genius? She's just a great party chair.

And why was the President's approval rating that low? Shouldn't the party have worked to gin those numbers up a bit? It's not like Congress had better approval ratings....

The president's approval ratings are his own responsibility. The party chair can't control them. The president is the boss.

In my view, the DNC Chair (and the RNC Chair, when a Republican is President) has two responsibilities: get Democrats elected, and defend the President. So far, DWS has failed at both of those. Don't try and steal Romney's credit for defeating himself away from him.

Well, according to your standards, she has gotten the most important Democrat elected, and if the latest ABC-Washington Post poll is to be believed, his approval rating today is higher than when she was announced as chair. She has succeeded at both. One can't pin all the blame on Romney's defeat on him- after all, the Democrats ran a good campaign too.

In any case, I believe IceSpear is correct.

Also, didnt you already lose a debate to me over DWS? Back looking for more, I see

[Beet]

The fact that people think Debbie Wasserman Schultz has any impact, much less a big impact, on which party does well in elections is amusing. The vast majority of voters have no idea who she is, and those that do are likely to be political junkies who are already on a particular team.

Considering the posts like these:

Shrill b**ch

To quote my once and future Congressman: Unladylike.

and the demographics of this forum.....well, draw your own conclusions.

Goodness gracious, ChairmanSanchez isn't even worth debating anymore. In any case, ^^ duly noted.

[Beet]

DWS has two cycles under her belt: 2012 was a highly successful cycle, seeing not only the Democrats reelect the president, but gains in the House and Senate. In the 2014 cycle, Democrats lost 13 seats in the House and 9 seats in the Senate.

As far as the House result, I don't see how anyone can say that it was exceptionally bad. After all, in the sixth year of the George W. Bush presidency, his party lost over 30 seats. Granted, the Republicans were starting from a high base, but a 13 seat change in the House is not huge by any measure.

As far as the Senate result, a 9 seat loss sounds like a lot, but the Democrats were starting from the absurdly high class of 2008 (a similar loss occurred for the 1986 Senate Republicans; no one ever talks about that election as a wave/disaster). Almost all of the major Senate races were in Romney states; they only lost two Senate races in Obama states (Colorado and Iowa). And of the two, Colorado was exceedingly close, with the GOP having nominated a strong candidate in Cory Gardner. In Iowa, the Democratic candidate committed about the worst gaffe imaginable. This is the only area where the party can be said to have screwed up on recruitment. However, this was mainly the fault of the candidate himself, and of the DSCC secondly, and only thirdly of the DNC.

So she has one unambiguously good presidential cycle and one meh off-year cycle in the sixth year of an unpopular president.

Hardly the stuff of the "worst" DNC chair some people are saying. I mean compare that to Tim Kaine. When he took office, the Democrats were the majority of every branch of government. Within two years they'd suffered not only a 7 seat Senate loss but the biggest losses since the Depression in the House, a 63 seat wipeout, in a critical year that allowed them to be outmaneuvered by redistricting. Most losses at the state level came in 2010, as well. By any measure, Kaine's record is far worse than DWS, if we are judging DNC chairs by electoral performance.