Was it Inevitable?

[BillyW]

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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

Seriously, I'll grant people, some of the more sensible criticisms of Obama... but hyper-partisan from the get-go is not one of them. There was no clear attempt from the Republicans to really work with the president, and were pretty much obstructionist from the get-go. And they did get a severely compromised stimulus package (with 40% tax cuts instead of direct investment) and a healthcare package that ended up being almost a carbon copy of the 1995 Dole healthcare plan.

Also, keep in mind this record of the Republicans

"in the past 3 years, the Republicans have been responsible for 18% of all filibusters recorded in the past 90 years".

So, the practical responsibility for this doesn't lie entirely with the Democrats, but since they're in power... thems the breaks.

[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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

In times of economic trouble, people save tax cuts, because, for most people they are minor increases to regular pay-packets.

The reason why direct payments and infrastructure spending works is that is provides a significant injection of funds into the economy rather than an... IV?

[Frodo]

Looking back to early 2009, was there anything that Obama could have done differently, short of fundamentally changing his ideology (i.e. not being a liberal) to avoid a Republican wave this year?  Was there any plausible path that would have led to a 1934 repeat for him and his party?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1934

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1934

Abandoning Health Care Reform after Scott Brown's win might have saved 10 or 20 House seats and a couple of Senate seats, but it would still have been a big GOP win. 

Maybe if instead of the stimulus, they had passed a bill in early 2009 providing funds for the federal and/or state governments to immediately hire the first 10 million+ people who apply for jobs?  The cost would be similar, and if you are a true Keynesian, which Obama probably is, then it shouldn't even matter what you are hiring them to do, but infrastructure improvements would have been ideal.  That's about the only scenario I can come up with, and I doubt it would have passed congress.

 

The stimulus did work in ending the economic contraction and stabilizing the economy.  It just wasn't big enough or structured well enough in actually stimulating palpable growth that ordinary Americans on Main Street could actually feel.  

I would have preferred that he do the following:

Force through at gunpoint (figuratively speaking) a $2 trillion stimulus package overwhelmingly focused on infrastructure projects (highways, transit, sewer lines, bridges, etc.) and aid to state and local governments along with unemployment benefits, as well as a temporary three-year cut in the payroll tax.  He had a relatively pliant Democratic Congress along with an ongoing crisis -he should have used that opportunity on being as uncompromising as possible in order to get the economy jumpstarted again as well as finally drawing much-needed attention on the need for reinvestment in our nation's crumbling infrastructure.  

Then put his attention on financial regulatory reform.  

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course not. Actually, the current administration has one of the strongest reform records since decades, and had Obama been a bit more proud and convincing instead of playing the useless moderate hero, 2010 could have been a fairly good year for democrats.

[memphis]

Midterms happen to all presidents. If the Dems had not run away from every one of their accomplishments, they may be in a better position today. With hindsight, it's pretty clear that the GOP has no interest in compromising on anything. They will fight hard and dirty to deny the Dems any political victory whatsoever. That said, we passed healthcare and financial reform. It was well worth a temporary political setback. You don't win an election to be all meek and get nothing done.

[Vepres]

Midterms happen to all presidents. If the Dems had not run away from every one of their accomplishments, they may be in a better position today. With hindsight, it's pretty clear that the GOP has no interest in compromising on anything. They will fight hard and dirty to deny the Dems any political victory whatsoever. That said, we passed healthcare and financial reform. It was well worth a temporary political setback. You don't win an election to be all meek and get nothing done.

That would have been be a big gamble, for they could have also ended up far worse off because of that.

[Skill and Chance]

Maybe the better question then is why 2006 was only D+31 as opposed to D+65?  Bush had significantly lower approval than Obama's on election eve.

[tpfkaw]

Maybe the better question then is why 2006 was only D+31 as opposed to D+65?  Bush had significantly lower approval than Obama's on election eve.

Because the result in an "average" year is a small Republican house majority.

[Skill and Chance]

Maybe the better question then is why 2006 was only D+31 as opposed to D+65?  Bush had significantly lower approval than Obama's on election eve.

Because the result in an "average" year is a small Republican house majority.

Yes, but it's like 22X to 21Y R-D in an "average" year.  That alone is not enough of a deviation to explain a doubling of seat gains in a more "favorable" year for Dems than 2006 was for the GOP

Edit: Okay, it makes sense now.  In 2006 we started from "average" and ended up about 25 seats from average.  In 2010 we are starting from about 35 seats from average and ending up right about average.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, my signature applies to the 2010 election.

[Vepres]

Maybe the better question then is why 2006 was only D+31 as opposed to D+65?  Bush had significantly lower approval than Obama's on election eve.

Because the result in an "average" year is a small Republican house majority.

Yes, but it's like 22X to 21Y R-D in an "average" year.  That alone is not enough of a deviation to explain a doubling of seat gains in a more "favorable" year for Dems than 2006 was for the GOP

2006 was more about Iraq, but the economy was better than it is now (not great, though). The economy is closer to home.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The party in Power (ie the President's party) just about always takes it on the chin in the first midterm.

The only even semi-recent exceptions are Post 9-11 George Bush (2002) and Post/Intra depression FDR (1934) as I recall. - Neither of which was a remotely "typical" scenario. EDIT, and post Kennedy Assasinatiion in 1962

I think if Obama had made his stimulus more direct in it's job creation that would have helped.

The "stimulus" bill had a surprisingly small percentage of money that actually went to directly create jobs - it was basically a "Christmas tree" that the Dems hung every pet project they had been trying to fund for the last 20 years upon.

Some of these programs had legitimate merit, but they were not "stimulus" in the sense of getting folks back to work "now".

Given the depth of the recession and the fairly modest impact the stimulus bill actually had, I think the cake got baked pretty early on this one.

What did that guy from Arkansas keep saying "It's the economy stupid...?"

Kennedy was still alive for the yawner of an election that they had in 1962. Some other boring ones were 1970 and 1978. 1990, if you're counting the first midterm of a new President.

[J. J.]

The party in Power (ie the President's party) just about always takes it on the chin in the first midterm.

The only even semi-recent exceptions are Post 9-11 George Bush (2002) and Post/Intra depression FDR (1934) as I recall. - Neither of which was a remotely "typical" scenario. EDIT, and post Kennedy Assasinatiion in 1962

I think if Obama had made his stimulus more direct in it's job creation that would have helped.

The "stimulus" bill had a surprisingly small percentage of money that actually went to directly create jobs - it was basically a "Christmas tree" that the Dems hung every pet project they had been trying to fund for the last 20 years upon.

Some of these programs had legitimate merit, but they were not "stimulus" in the sense of getting folks back to work "now".

Given the depth of the recession and the fairly modest impact the stimulus bill actually had, I think the cake got baked pretty early on this one.

What did that guy from Arkansas keep saying "It's the economy stupid...?"

Kennedy was still alive for the yawner of an election that they had in 1962. Some other boring ones were 1970 and 1978. 1990, if you're counting the first midterm of a new President.

Actually, it didn't happen in 1934, 1962 and 2002, but the last two were after redistricting.

I looked at this late last year, and expected a "standard" loss to be about 28-29 seats, just a natural bounce back.  If it 15+ more, it is something more than natural.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Midterms happen to all presidents. If the Dems had not run away from every one of their accomplishments, they may be in a better position today. With hindsight, it's pretty clear that the GOP has no interest in compromising on anything. They will fight hard and dirty to deny the Dems any political victory whatsoever. That said, we passed healthcare and financial reform. It was well worth a temporary political setback. You don't win an election to be all meek and get nothing done.

That would have been be a big gamble, for they could have also ended up far worse off because of that.

IE Feingold.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[Skill and Chance]

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.     

[J. J.]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

The Republican party is less popular than the Democratic party, so any Republican victories are from Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[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.

[Skill and Chance]

I'll believe there has been a realignment when an incumbent president wins at least 40 states in his/her re-election attempt.  Alternatively, a tighter presidential re-election with massive congressional gains for the same party may signal a realignment (think 1948)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Indeed, Jfern's signature sums it up pretty well.

[Alcon]

[alan abramowitz]

[J. J.]

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.

The Republican party is less popular than the Democratic party, so any Republican victories are from Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

And yet they will probably take the House.

That is actually a sign of a re-alignment.  The old party allegiances break down and a new group comes in.

You saw this in the 1930's with Al Smith.  The Smith-types represented the pre-1930 Democratic Party.

Sbane, the only thing that can be said is that 2008 was not a re-alignment.