When even the spaghetti-brained liberals at NPR are sounding alarm bells then it's pretty darn clear what's in store for Obama and the Democratic Party come November.

Guess that "conservatism is dead" theme from 2008 is no longer operative. Wonder what or WHO changed everyone's minds?

I'd call it an anti-progressive backlash. There are Republican progressives and it is very bit as vital to shed ourselves of them. Kudos to Glenn Beck.

Read em' and weep Barry.

I think two factors are at play here.

First, the "Republican years" starting with the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994 and effectively ending with the loss of Congress to the Democrats in 2006 are generally seen as "prosperous." They were an era of lower tax rates, enormous growth of stocks and other equities, low inflation, vast technological improvements, easy credit, and very low unemployment. Try as they might, it will be difficult for Democrats to convince a majority outside the perpetual victim classes that Republicans enacted "failed policies."

Second, as a prominent conservative opinion writer penned a few weeks ago, when you promise government to be the panacea cure for everything, and then government fails spectacularly, you are very likely to be hoist on your own panacea-petard.

The Democrats blamed every problem with government directly on George W. Bush and the Republicans, and promised to fix every problem in addition to magically ending all corruption and miraculously becoming fiscally responsible. They have failed at these grandiose promises in a far more spectacular fashion than anything the Republicans failed to do during their 12 years in power.

Democrats were for prosperity before there was a black president, now not so much.

NPR!
Holy Smoke! The house is on fire and the Kommiecrats are brackwurst!!!

That sounds good in theory Lee but understand Republicans have never had a generic party advantage like these. Even in year like 1994, the Democrats had less of a advantage than normal, but they still were favored. To be this heavily behind, even on a generic ballot, is uncharted territory. To discount it is rather silly but I do hope many Democrats are like you, discount it, and stay home come November.

Additionally I don't think your specific example of NV holds water. As I posted a few days ago, Republicans are behind Angle 88% in NV, which is far more support that Reid gets from Democrats.

Lee lives in a dreamworld.

Hmm ... This may bode badly for Democrats in the mid-terms, but I'd be wary of reading too much into it for the long term. Recall that at this point in his tenure, President Clinton was at a low point, too. And he subsequently managed to outmaneuver the Republican Congress, adopting some parts of their agenda and burnishing his image rather effectively.

But Obama is not going to do what Clinton did. Obama is a zealot not a pragmatist.

The danger of the Tea Party has always been that it would be hijacked by those groups who are otherwise unelectable in their own right, such as libertarians. Losses by such candidates this November may be just the wakeup call voters need to recognize the difference between conservatives and libertarians.

Conservatives know that the real prize is defeating Obama in 2012, and republicans taking the majority of either the house or the senate works against that goal. Yes, I hope republicans gain enough seats in November to put an end to Obama's left wing agenda, but taking control of either chamber lets Obama off the hook in not fixing the economy. Come 2012 Obama will blame republicans for his failures, but such desperate charges will boarder on delusional if democrats have been in control of congress for nearly 6 years.

Republicans campaigning for Harry Reid are working for a clean sweep in 2012, when it really counts.

BTW, there's nothing conservative or right-wing about libertarians and you only need to ask a well informed libertarian to find that out. They have their own political dimension that's neither liberal or conservative and you can take their test to see if you too are from another dimension.

Here Lee Ward let me save you the trouble

Republicans were against generic polls before a black man became president.

"Recall that at this point in his tenure, President Clinton was at a low point, too. And he subsequently managed to outmaneuver the Republican Congress, adopting some parts of their agenda and burnishing his image rather effectively." - James H

I recall and have no quarrel with your point. But as to Obama, is he the same kind of pragmatic politician that W. J. Clinton was/is? I don't think so. I think he's a narcissistic ideologue, incapable of making that kind of change to his behavior and goals.

What do you think?

To paraphrase Shakespeare,

"Lee Ward doth protest too much, methinks."

Hamlet. Act 3, Scene 2

James, I knew Bill Clinton. I've seen Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a president of mine.

Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton.

Oh, and for the record, Lee: this article, based on a poll, was not one of mine. My record of utter apathy towards polls and surveys remains unsullied.

J.

I made the mistake of trying to converse with Lee as his first comments was written using polite language. As I've said many times, I like reading opposing points of view, even if the one in question was more wishful thinking than a strong argument.

That said, I come back to the thread to see comments about racists and other crap that I don't have time to deal with. I'm sorry to those that like to flex their internet forum muscles counteracting such drivel, but those comments have been removed.

Please keep comments on topic as much as possible. If the discussion (in any of my posts) becomes "Rethuglicans! No, libtards!" know that I'm likely to start junking comments wholesale.

Dan

"I made the mistake of trying to converse with Lee as his first comments was written using polite language"

Remember when dealing with Lee, when he runs out of talking points he reverts to accusing people of racism.

"President Clinton was at a low point, too."

Yep, and he veered right. Which saved his ass. Barry can't veer right. He's incapable of any thought beyond those leftist theories inculcated in him since birth. When all you've got is a hammer, every problem is therefore a nail.

As noted above, Obama cannot or will not or won't be allowed to stray from the prog agenda. What worries me is what he and the lame duck Democrat Congress do after the Democrats lose this November. What will they do between the midterms when they lose their seats and when they are actually out of office in January?

.. but Nancy promised to keep the House

NPR said THAT!

aw shucks, maybe ...naaaah, cut 'em off anyway!

libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
[For a light hearted take on our present peril]

Mac Lorry, sorry to disappoint you but the elections to be held this November will see the high water mark for Democrats, and Bluedog Democrats in particular, for decades.

When NPR can put out a poll like that, knowing their slant, you have to wonder what the Democrat's internal polling shows and what they are planning based on that information.

I can tell you right now that all the conservatives that sat on their hands in previous elections will not sit idly by this time. That fact alone dooms most of the Bluedog Democrats, a good number of 'moderate' Republicans and Democrats that will be blindsided by a pissed off electorate.

Case in point, party hopper and self proclaimed moderate Republican Parker Griffin, who I can happily say, got his ass waxed in a 3 way race. Any Bluedog Democrat in a Republican leaning district that has opposition is gone. That's 60 seats...do the math and you can see where this is leading.

On top of that there are races in Democrat districts where the vote may lean slightly in favor of the Democrat, they are history too. 25% of Democrat voters aren't very happy with their party either. Lee would call them Tea Party Democrat traitors, I call them Reagan Republicans.

The electorate has been awakened and they are filled with a terrible resolve to right what they see as wrong. There's a seismic shift in electoral politics coming and its not going to be kind the the party currently running this country off the economic cliff.

Lee Ward

"Will the Democrats lose the majority? Not a chance. The Tea Party has seen to that"

Tell you what Lee, got enough guts for a friendly bet

If the republicans win majorities in both houses then you stop posting here forever.

If the republicans dont win majorities in both houses I will never make another wise crack at one of your posts.

Lee being a lib, is much too much of an abject coward to take that bet.

Lee Ward = delusional. It ain't 2006 or 08 Lee...this time the Dems own it all...and Americans are not happy....and payback is in November...but you just go ahaed and keep your head up your ass...like always.

I will give credit where credit is due. We can now rename the Gulf the Black Sea. Thanks Barry.

Take the bet Lee, Barry's got your back and he is so invested in "BlackWater", you cant lose.

Lee, who's trying to shut you up? I could do it in about three clicks. But I've not only not done so, I've asked my colleagues to not do so. Not out of any kind of principle, because you've earned the reinstatement of your banning umpteen times, but purely as a personal favor.

Add "martyr complex" to your growing list of psychoses. Are you up to page four yet?

J.

Lee ward

"I won the same bets in the 2006 and 2008 elections. "

Then take the bet now. Are you afraid?

Mac Lorry, sorry to disappoint you but the elections to be held this November will see the high water mark for Democrats, and Bluedog Democrats in particular, for decades

Gmac, my prediction is that if republicans take the house and/or the senate this November then Obama has a good chance of winning his second term in 2012 as he will be able to blame republicans for all his failures. It's likely that my disappointment this November will be your disappointment in 2012.

Where a libertarian has hijacked and won the republican primary many conservative will be voting for the democrat. People who think that's strange don't understand what libertarians stand for.

The electorate has been awakened and they are filled with a terrible resolve to right what they see as wrong. There's a seismic shift in electoral politics coming and its not going to be kind the the party currently running this country off the economic cliff.

The rank and file electorate votes their pocketbook whenever they perceive the economy is the number one issue. Anyone who thinks they are winning an ideological war is delusional and in danger of losing the next election cycle. Whichever party is in charge come January 2011 had better start fixing the economy or they won't be in charge by January 2013. Thus, it's best to leave democrats in charge this November unless you are afraid they'll actually fix the economy by fall of 2012.

".. but Nancy promised to keep the House"

She also promised the most ethical Presidency, Congress, Senate evah!

She must have meant "Ethically challenged". Hahahahahahahahahaha In other words she has a big mouth. Nancy, your about to lose broomstick priveledges forever. 'Enjoy the ride while you can you botoxed B....'

"It's likely that my disappointment this November will be your disappointment in 2012."

I don't think so. By 2012 the (P)resident will be the most despised politician to have ever held the office, you said as much with this statement:

"The rank and file electorate votes their pocketbook whenever they perceive the economy is the number one issue."

By then with little improvement in the economy or it cratering prior to and unemployment still around 10% or higher he'll stand the same chance as a snowball in hell, IF he's even the nominee. The next two elections are going to be studied for decades as what not to do as a politician, especially as a Democrat politician.

Lee, the bigots you currently support are about to find out what its like to meet a political tsunami, kinda like what happened to you at Wizbang Blue and with the same effect.

Angle's views are far less radical than Reid's - he prefers nationalized health care, card check, immigration amnesty, a cap-''n'-tax energy policy to make us MORE dependent on foreign oil, and to lose Iraq. Compared to insane crap like that, getting rid of the Department of Education is, well, STILL a good idea.

Latest poll, btw, Angle +11. Reid wins in his imagination and in Lee's masturbatory fantasies only.

By then with little improvement in the economy or it cratering prior to and unemployment still around 10% or higher he'll stand the same chance as a snowball in hell, IF he's even the nominee. The next two elections are going to be studied for decades as what not to do as a politician, especially as a Democrat politician.

You're making lots of statements about the future which you can't possibly know are correct. You're operating on hope and wanting change. I seem to have heard that somewhere before.

If by 2012 the economy is as bad as you predict then whoever is in office will take the blame. If republicans take control of either the house or senate in 2010 then they will share in that blame and we all know Obama is a master at shifting blame away from himself. That's why I won't be disappointed if republicans come up a bit short of taking control of the house or senate in 2010. Then come 2012 there will be no one to blame but democrats and republicans can make a clean sweep taking the house, the senate, and the White house. That's what it will take to repeal healthcare, cap and trade, and other left wing laws. That's the change I'm hoping for.

Mac, you might be right and the political gaming you suggest may also be right my problem is that the country is in serious trouble now. If we let Obama continue with a majority in the congress I fear what he might do. Not sure there will be a long term to plan for. If we end up with a majority of citizens dependent on the state or not paying any share of the cost(already over 40% pay no taxes) amnesty for illegals, etc the democrats may indeed end up with a permanent majority.