I keep seeing people talking about how the dems lost the 2014 mid-terms. People, please. There was no way the dems could have won the 2014 mid-terms. When President Obama won in 2008, he carried with him a number of democratic senators from red states. 6 years later, those states proved they were red states by electing confederates instead of democrats. This is not a one-time event. This happens to every two-term president. He carries several senate seats the first election, then loses some of them six years later, midway through the second term. The seats that the dems lost were not safe seats, they never were. The dems didnt lose seats in blue states, only in red states or swing states. And this isnt a republican mandate, its a mandate of the 18% of the electorate that got off their asses to vote -- the extremists, the fanatics, the teabaggers, etc. The fanatics are a guaranteed turnout. The rest of us have to be energized. Now, coming up in 2016, we have 270 electoral votes in states that the dems either have a lock on or are trending democratic. For a confederate to win the white house, he has to win Ohio, Florida, and Texas. The confederates have not won Ohio or Florida in the last two elections, and their previous wins were suspect. So the dems go in with a strategic advantage while the confederates have to turn several key blue states red. In 2016, the confederates have 23 senate seats that are vulnerable, the dems have only 1. It is possible for the dems to create a filibuster-proof senate. Meanwhile, the crazy wing of the confederate party is ramping up its rhetoric and allowing too many of the lunatics access to the microphones. They have no chance of winning a significant percentage of women, gays, blacks, hispanics, immigrants, and senior citizens on Social Security. Pissing and moaning about how the dems failed to campaign properly in 2014 is to miss the larger picture, the confederates are heading at top speed toward the brick wall of history. What Obama demonstrated two times in a row is that a good ground game and long-term planning will carry the day. He also had the benefit of two Clintons campaigning for him. Whoever gets the nomination in 2016, will have two Clintons campaigning, and President Obamas endorsement, plus a fairly united democratic party. And that brings me to my last point. The dems tend to be better at governing because they are so disunited. Why? Because they are a party of coalitions and action groups. So starting at the local level, dems have to learn how to negotiate, compromise, build consensus, and create dialog. When dems get to congress, they apply those skills to building programs that address multiple issues. Confederates, on the other hand, tend toward a monolithic strategy -- the Hastert rule, for example: every republican has to vote the same way on every bill, theres no room for negotiation or compromise or dialog. While the confederates are going to pat themselves on the back for taking control of the congress, that victory is short-sighted and very likely to be temporary. Unless they can demonstrate real ability to govern, they are not going to make friends among the electorate that will turn out in 2016. Oh, and one more thing, the confederates have a philosophical investment in wanting America to fail. They need to prove that a secular system doesnt work, because if it did work and if it worked well, it would undermine their fanatic conviction that success comes because God rewards the faithful. The idea that success is a product of hard work ... well, unless you pour God over it like ketchup, they dont seem to be interested.
Posted on: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 18:51:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015