Fa chrissake, you want to know why the Democrats lost the House?

[WilliamPitt]

Too much success in the last two cycles, that's why.

In 2006 and 2008, the Dems won seats in parts of the country that traditionally have used Democrats as target practice. In 2008 alone, 44 House seats went to Democrats in districts that voted for McCain. This happened because Bush and the GOP were in total shambles, covered in embarrassing scandals and failing wars.

On Tuesday, those districts went back to being what they've been for years: traditional GOP seats.

So it's not the liberals fault, or the Blue Dogs fault, or God's fault, or your fault, or my fault. The Dems won seats in places they almost never won before, and on Tuesday, the wave rolled back.

You won't hear this in the news, but it's the truth. So maybe we can stop kicking each other over it.

Just a thought.

[cliffordu]

1. OK, but what possible value is DU if we can't blame someone else for

our failure???

[Gaedel]

4. Right on

Those mouth breathing, knuckle draggers that vote keep getting in the way.

[berni_mccoy]

32. LOL!

[still_one]

2. Because Tim Kaine DID NOT DO HIS JOB, and exploit that. /nt

[joeybee12]

28. Yup...he needs to go...nt

[treestar]

47. Always has to be a scapegoat.

If it's not Tim Kaine, it's Obama or Reid or Pelosi or Rahm or Geithner or whoever is affected by current events (Salazar, etc.)

Never the Republicans. Curious, isn't it?

[still_one]

54. No, it was his job. He was asleep when we lost Kennedy's seat, and is asleep now /nt

[subterranean]

3. Good point.

Looking at the districts that flipped from blue to red, a lot of them are in traditionally red states.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/house

[sinkingfeeling]

5. It's the economy's 'fault'. Voters will always lash out at the 'ruling' party in hard times.

[Mimosa]

38. That's the bottom line

Plus the bad influences of demagogues including Beck and Limbaugh. Plus the youth vote stayed home!

I was a poll watcher.

Nobody at D.U. threw this election toward the Repigs.

[DoBotherMe]

6. Yes, Barack's coattails were strong

and his message brought out the best in people and the hidden liberals. Dana ; )

[HereSince1628]

7. Linologists refer to such rocking waves as a "seiche"

One syllable, SAYch, NOT pronounced like saashay.

You might work that into an essay. I bet you'd be the only one.

Lefties love erudition.

[blm]

8. Why did they win those seats then, Will? Because voters distrusted Bush and GOP by then and

exit polls showed #1 concern was corruption.

What did Dems in DC do with their victory to confront corruption concerns?


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

Was Robert Parry proved wrong or right?

[EnlightenedOne]

9. 14 million youth voters did not get out

that didn't help.

[bullwinkle428]

10. Just about to post this - Michael Moore said that 14 million 18-29 year olds

that voted for Obama in 2008, FAILED to vote this year!

[ourbluenation]

16. the youth never come out in midterms. why does this surprise anyone?

[PufPuf23]

41. The loss of the youth vote is serious and isn't just because of

the midterms. The miscalculation by Democratic leaders is likely to last among the youth.

People were sold hope and recovery and many young people bought into the hype and are disappointed for good reasons.

I am an old fart that votes D (and had good candidates in CA that won).

I have always voted but never was never excited except for some CA candidates (Brown every time for one) again after 1968 and the losses by McCarthy and RFK. Since then my voting had been the least of evils until POTUS Obama (and HRC was my last choice).

[BeFree]

13. Exactly

What carried this election is the old farts who have sucked on govs teats all these years,
now rebelling against that same government.

They want all the bennies, but none of the responsibility.
They have said: We got ours and screw you.

They have screwed young people again by voting to halt progress.

[kctim]

17. Don't you like to get what you have paid for?

[DoBotherMe]

24. None of the people on Social Security

paid in as much as they got in their first year alone. We are subsidizing all of them. Dana ; )

[kctim]

33. That has nothing to do with

people expecting what they have paid for. Especially when they did not want to pay for it in the first place.

[DoBotherMe]

36. Who didn't want to pay for it?

The people who are on it?

[kctim]

50. Some of them, yes

There is a reason why its not voluntary and its not because everybody wants to a part of it.

[DoBotherMe]

51. Have the SS recipients been polled?

The only ones who don't want to be part of it are imaginary. Dana ; )

[Brickbat]

11. Not in every seat. Some traditional blue strongholds are looking a lot more purple.

[Cetacea]

12. Homeostasis for the Reagan Revolution.

[Poboy]

14. Just great. More 'rationaization' is what we need. Excuses for not having a

way to consolidate those gains with a forceful agenda to help people (instead of corporations).
Capitulation and letting the opponent define you is why we lost. Face it.

[Roma]

15. That and a certain amount of complacency fostered

and nurtured by an attitude that it was inconceivable for a totally destroyed repub/teaparty, lead by a bunch of scruffy, really stupid people could possibly pull off any victory at all let alone a sweep of this magnitude.

How many time did I read that "we got this in the bag, bank it"? The wingers are just to incompetent and dumb.

Am I wrong?

[WilliamPitt]

22. No. In fact, I said the same thing many times.

I didn't take into account the facts I laid out above. Now I know better, unfortunately.

[DoBotherMe]

26. The tea party is run by the same institutional

machine that runs all US-fascist politics. Yes, the people who voted for this corrupt lot are foolish and have been deceived. Dana ; )

[HughMoran]

18. I agree.

& we knew we would lose many of these Blue Dogs when HCR was passed - there was no secret that we were sacrificing House seats for the betterment of the American people.

[Poboy]

19. You may want to tell yourself that, but there is no honor in passing that HCR

piece of crap. You are half right though. Forcing that corporate health hare protection act down the throats of the American people sure did a number on us.

[HughMoran]

21. You don't have to like that we had 4 conservative Democrats in the Senate who forced our hand

...on several aspects of the bill, but it was one of the greatest accomplishments in a generation, whether you like it or not.

[DoBotherMe]

37. As a small business

the HCR helped us. If it's all the congress could get, it's at least a start.

[LoZoccolo]

20. If I have time this weekend I want to go through the candidates and found out which ones

succeeded Republicans. Of course if I posted it it would sink like a rock anyways but I'm curious and I believe as you believe, that these were difficult districts to begin with.

[WilliamPitt]

23. Go back and look at the districts McCain won

and see how many of them also sent a Dem to Congress. The number, I believe, was 44, and were in places like Virginia and Kentucky, places where we got beat up bad this time.

[kwolf68]

25. Another thought William

You are right that the Dems took traditional seats 2 years ago and those seats switched back, however, didn't the Republicans pick up traditionally Democratic seats this time?

Which is a recipe for things swinging back our way in 2012, although perhaps won't be enough to get majority again.

[Major Hogwash]

27. Plus all that corporate money. Dick Morris' Superpac PAC spent bunches of money here.

Just to get a Blue dawg Dem like Walt Minnick out of office.
I couldn't even bring myself to shed a tear.

Minnick voted with the Republicans more than 9 other Republican Representaives from the NorthWest!!
Gimme a break!
Every time he said he was a Democrat during the debates, I gagged.
Minnick worked in Nixon's White House, for crying out loud!!

[ShamelessHussy]

29. then why have a campaign at all, if it is just a natural cycle?

Just a thought.

[KittyWampus]

30. When you're an ideologue, facts don't matter.

[KamaAina]

31. Well, then, how do we get it back?

Surely you're not resigned to long-term repuke control of the House? (And no, I will not quit calling you Shirley. :P )

Come to think of it, how did we get there to begin with? Could it be that Howard Dean's 50-state strategy worked?

[berni_mccoy]

34. Ah, Mr. Pitt, Logic and Facts are two friends who left this house long ago

Glad you are still in communication with them.

:-)

K&R.

[BeHereNow]

63. agree...

on all counts.
BHN

[kick-ass-bob]

35. It's the economy, stupid. (not you)

The reason we lost the House is because the economy got pinned on Obama/Pelosi/Reed. The other side claimed they spent tons of money and it "didn't work" ... and it stuck, plain and simple.

It wasn't a referendum on Blue Dogs, nor on Progressives. Most districts went more Republican than they did last election.

Bush left a time bomb, leadership didn't frame it right, and we lost a bit more than we normally would have.

I think we need a stronger progressive stance, but we will still need some blue dog types. But instead of having them side with Repubs on the big economic things (HC, stimulus), the Dems have to offer them something they want elsewhere to pass the correct legislation we were pushing for in the first place.

[GeorgeGist]

39. Oh yeh ...

one of those 'victims of our own success stories'. Not much of a thought.

[VMI Dem]

40. Bank it.

:rofl:

[WilliamPitt]

42. Yeah, that worked out well.

*sigh*

[Bucky]

43. Ah, the old "permanent Republican majority" argument. Thanks, Will.

America is basically a conservative country. Well argued, sir!

[WilliamPitt]

45. I didn't say that

But there are districts where Democrats traditionally and historically fare poorly. This is simple fact. We won a bunch of those seats in 2006 and 2008, and on Tuesday we lost a lot of them back.

[Bucky]

55. You're arguing that the elections were a return to equilibrium. If so, we're a GOP country.

I'm not sure I disagree with that, but it does seem to be the inevitable logic of your argument.

[JackRiddler]

58. Shh! Do not apply logic. Just stop arguing, all of you.

[Bucky]

68. My brain hurts!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

44. Congrats for calling this super-obvious thing before the election!

Too funny.

The endless arrogance of people who are perpetually wrong.

[littlewolf]

53. OUCH -that is gonna leave a mark !

[treestar]

46. Right.

Too many are in an echo chamber. They wanted to pretend Republicans had been crushed for all time, and wailed and wailed when it proved not to be so.

[Generic Other]

48. I'm blaming the fact I didn't get a pony

I really really wanted one! :(

[GOTV]

49. That's good. Let's not change our approach then. I'm sure the next election will be fine.

[txaslftist]

52. It's normal.

Happens just about every off year election.

[JackRiddler]

56. From which premise follows that Republican majorities are the natural state of the Congress.

[Gin]

57. Nye got elected with no experience ( & my vote) in the dem tsunami

with Obama....now he lost (& I voted for him)...but this is a red area and his victory was a fluke...IMO

[JackRiddler]

60. I'm sure that's true.

But why was there a "dem tsunami," what was different this time, and what should be different next time? These questions should be asked and debated. "Most of the House districts in the US are Republican" (which is what the OP boils down to) is merely an empirical observation about this year's results, not a useful truism.

[Better Believe It]

59. I don't think it's that simple William. I think other, bigger factors came into play.

A big majority of people either sat out this election and did not register to vote or bother to vote if they were registered.

Around 20 million mainly working class people and youth who voted for Obama and Democrats in 2008 sat this one out, they did not jump into the Republican frying pan.

And why didn't they vote in large numbers this year?

Well, for starters, progressives were not responsible for that. Let's get that false claim out of the way. The labor movement and other mass organizations like Move-on and civil rights organizations devoted enormous resources to get out the vote and I'm sure that just about all DU'ers at least voted.

But, progressives simply could not convince many millions of potential voters that their votes were needed to preserve and defend changes that benefited them. They wondered "what changes?".

Millions were looking for but just couldn't feel and see those changes they had hoped for.

They didn't see any real and meaningful change and improvement in their living conditions for starters. In two years their conditions worsened!

They didn't see any improvement in their health care, however, millions of 2008 Democratic voters did see huge increases in their health insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays and/or cuts in their coverage (if they were lucky enough to still have health insurance coverage). That's not the kind of change they anticipated or voted for.

The unemployed and underemployed didn't see any bold government action to stop the foreclosures and big WPA type public works and infrastructure projects in their communities that they could sign-up for.

As you know, the United States Conference of Mayors detailed “Ready to Go”Jobs and Infrastructure Projects" plan along with Congressman Oberstar's 600 billion dollar infrastructure proposals were essentially rejected by the White House and Democratic leadership in Congress. Those projects would have put "America back to work" and done it real fast!

Who was it that said "It's the economy, stupid!"?

That's been the major issue for two years. And most working people don't think the government has accomplished very much in putting America back to work.

I think the editor of The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild, nailed the primary reason for the low turnout when he wrote:

"I’m tired of the Democratic Party’s excuses, and Barack Obama’s apologists.

Obama didn’t help himself by trying to placate the Republicans and by muddling his messaging.

He didn’t help himself by lowballing the stimulus and by rejecting a moratorium on foreclosures.

He didn’t help himself by playing a Washington insider game, by trying to buy off a couple of Republicans in Congress and by playing footsie with huge industries, like the banks and the pharmaceutical companies.

Obama was given a mandate for change, and he squandered it.

He never mobilized the base to take on the vested interests."

And when Barry Ritholtz wrote:

"• He appointed two of the architects of the crisis to major White House economic positions: Lawrence Summers as CEA Chair, and Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary.

• He made the enormous tactical error of focusing on Health Care Reform, while the banking crisis was still in full flower.

• He failed to marshall adequate resources to respond to the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

The great irony is that the man who ran on the campaign slogan of Change failed to deliver it in any meaningful way — at least, where the public wanted it — in getting the reckless runaway banks under control, and in stimulating the moribund, post-credit crisis economy."

And everyone should take a look at what Glenn Greenwald, Cenk Uygur and Dylan Ratigan had to say on the election results yesterday.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/04/ratigan/index.html

Well, my main point is that this was not a typical mid-term election and that the major reason for Democrats suffering losses in state-wide elections, for the House and the Senate was not simply a case of election districts going back to traditional and expected Republican control.

If that were true, why haven't the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives at least since 1980 during the Reagan election "landslide"? Was the 2008 House election really a highly unusual aberration?

I think the election results, including the low turnout, had a lot more to do with the state of the economy.

[Jennicut]

61. The youth have never come out big in midterms. I know some thought Obama would

permanently change that but he didn't. Maybe he turned them off too but the youth are not a reliable force in midterms and have never been. I am ashamed to admit that my first midterm election was in 2006 and I was already 30. I voted for Clinton, Gore and Kerry but until 2006 I never voted in a midterm.
I think two major things happened here, the economy still sucks and the older voters came out in huge #'s. 23% for 2010 for the 65 and over crowd.

[Better Believe It]

64. The number of people over 65 who voted was smaller in this election ....

compared to 2008. It declined!

But, the percentage of voters over 65 increased in 2010 because of the even bigger decline in the number of under 65'ers who voted this year.

[scheming daemons]

62. 56 seats were won on Tuesday by Republicans in districts that Obama won in '08....

...those are the ones we'll get back in 2012.

[madfloridian]

65. No, it is because too many hurting people stayed home.

Like teachers who are daily insulted by this administration, like gays who resent that DADT still holds sway.

I know so many Democrats here who did not vote.

[HughMoran]

66. I wonder how many here can properly pronounce the first 2 words in the subject of this thread?

It's a very Bostonian thing :D

[hfojvt]

67. I don't buy it.

Didn't we lose Wisconsin and Illinois? We lost Ike Skelton's seat that he has won about 16 times in the past. It is about time for him to retire, but this is hardly a step back to pre-2006. Same with Stephanie's seat in SD. She first won that in about 2000 and has held it through many previous elections when Republicans won. Same with Dennis Moore. Yes, McCain might have won his district, but that was probably true in 2004 as well when Moore won big. Republicans did well in 2002, but Kathleen Seblius won in a Kansas that traditionally votes Republican.

There is no good reason that we should have lost the Missouri Senate race with a name like Carnahan running. Sure they have voted Republican in the last three presidential elections, but they also elected Mel Carnahan in 2000.

Often the President and Congress are two different animals anyway. In 2000, for example the Iowa district that I lived in voted for Gore by about 60 to 40. At the same time it also voted for the incumbent Republican by about 60 to 40. Meaning one of two things, either Republicans were willing to switch over to Gore, or Democrats were willing to switch over to Latham. There is no reason a Democratic incumbent should lose except that it signals that Republicans are becoming less willing to cross over and vote for a Democrat, even a conservative Democrat like Ike or Stephanie.