Was it Inevitable?

[Sbane]

I actually think the Stimulus was the main reason for all this anger. A trillion dollars gone and where are the jobs? Where are the big construction projects? The problem was that the money didn't go just for infrastructure projects, something America sorely needs, but rather to a medley of causes. And a lot of that money is still unspent. The point was to spend it as soon as possible. The other issue was the tax cuts. That money was almost entirely saved. I am all for including Republican ideas, but that doesn't mean you include stupid Republican ideas. In a time of uncertainty, of course no one was going to spend money you gave them unless you somehow forced them to.

Healthcare was another big reason for voter anger, but that was due to a perception that Washington just didn't get the real problems out there. I disagree with that notion, since one of the most important things you lose when you lose your job is your healthcare (if they were nice enough to provide you with it to begin with). Losing your house is tough, but in reality it's not a big deal if you at least have enough money to get a small apartment. But losing your healthcare could be deadly. You won't starve in America due to food stamps, and you can find something part time in a service industry if money is really tight but you won't get any healthcare. Not until HCR was passed. That being said the congress spent way too much time on it. Instead of moving the country from an employer based system to an individual system (with assistance from the government as needed) with a national insurance exchange, they just reinforced the current system. No wonder people are pissed.

[Sbane]

Several had made good points and I wont repeat all of them. Globalizer is the closest to where I am. I would just say that one of the things that hurt President Dude the most is that he was so partisan from the get - go. He won such an overwhelming victory and there are so many squishes in the GOP who were so scared of him, if he had tried he could have got a lot of support for smaller bills and even on the stimulus he could have got some GOP support if he had reached across the aisle and tossed a few goodies their way.  The go it alone strategy backfired big time.

The problem is once he started down that road, it quickly became too late as circumstances began to turn against him.

Actually one of the problems was that he threw the Republicans too many bones to get support for the stimulus. Not like the Democrats had perfect plans (too man pet projects) but the tax cuts were really a waste.

I don't know what other Republican ideas were out there that could have been adopted, but cutting taxes isn't going to stimulate spending in the depths of a recession.

[Sbane]

I wonder how much focusing on getting something with the words health care reform through to the detriment of it actually being a good bill, or other important things like the economy was? Obviously some brain-dead strategists were convinced that this would prevent a repeat of 1994. Well, tomorrow could be worse than 1994 for House Democrats.

I wonder if it wouldn't have been better for the Democrats as a party if Obama had lost to McCain in 2008.  Remember, in the Senate this was supposed to be a year for Democratic gains in a neutral environment.  If McCain were president, they would probably be pushing 300 in the House and 70 in the Senate after tomorrow.  If the Tea Party had come about in this scenario, it would be salivating to primary McCain out of office for compromising on something or another.  If a Dem were to beat him in 2012, they would have the majorities to pass stuff like single payer, EFCA, and a carbon tax at will.     

That what I was saying in September 2008.

If the pattern holds, you might see us looking at GOP gains like the ones we'll probably see today, in 2012, with a Republican president.

The scent or re-alignment is in the air, and this might look like 1930-36 for the Republicans.

Unpopular parties usually aren't the beneficiaries of re-alignments. Case in point, Democrats in 2008. They weren't an unpopular party either, just had a lot of lukewarm support in that year. It's similar for Republicans this year, except people aren't even bothering to say they like the Republicans even a tiny bit. A Republican might be elected in 2012 with a big majority in the house, especially if the economy is still stagnating. That does not mean we have had a realignment though. If the Republicans hold their majorities in 2014, then maybe.

[Sbane]

It's a sign of realignment when a party that is more unpopular than the other party, wins solely due to a vote against incumbency?

[Sbane]

It's a sign of realignment when a party that is more unpopular than the other party, wins solely due to a vote against incumbency?

How many incumbent Republicans will lose?

Hint: (somewhere between 0 and 2 - and both of those 2 are freshmen elected in flukes)

How many incumbent Democrats lost in 2008? Was that a realignment? You guys are starting to sound just as silly as all the Democrats who were declaring that Republicans were dead for a generation.