Election 2014

Democrats Turn on the Real Enemy: Each Other

|

Thoughtful Obama
White House

Even before the Democratic Party's…drubbing (that seems to be the favored term this time around) in yesterday's elections, the White House was already blaming its supposed allies for the defeats that were (correctly) anticipated once voters trooped to the polls.

"Ultimately, you know, it's the quality of these candidates that's going to be the driver of their success in this election," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday in what just might be taken as a slap at political hopefuls who were frantically distancing themselves from the aura of electoral leprosy surrounding President Obama.

Oh no you don't, legislative Democrats responded. It's the albatross tie in the Oval Office who sealed our doom.

"The president's approval rating is barely 40 percent," said David Krone, chief of staff to (soon to be former) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "What else more is there to say? .?.?. He wasn't going to play well in North Carolina or Iowa or New Hampshire. I'm sorry. It doesn't mean that the message was bad, but sometimes the messenger isn't good."

After most of the votes were counted and the extent of the Republican wave—or Democratic washout—was clear, Dems lined up to swing a bit more at the presidential piñata. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) openly blamed Obama's energy policies, while other's essentially referred to him as a boat anchor on anybody with a "D" next to their names.

There's nothing unique about this round of fingerpointing. Political parties should reasses themselves after they take a drubbing/shellacking/whatever to consider whether they're advocating policies or behaving in ways that the electorate finds especially stupid or offensive. Republicans have done this in the past, including after their disappointing performance in 2012. It's a big part of the reason the party ran far fewer overt loons for office this year.

Now it's the Democrats' turn. With an unpopular president carrying their party's standard and despised policies in health, climate, and energy to their name, they need to take a hard look at the fundamentals.

And for those of us who have to live with what elected officials hath wrought, it's finally time to grab the popcorn and get some entertainment out of the latest round of fingerpointing.

NEXT: Republican Governors Fought Labor Unions and Lived to Tell the Tale

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. shivers

    2. Moar! MOAR! MOAR sweet and salty Tears of Despair and Sorrow!!

  1. There were some analysts last night suggesting that Dems were HURT by distancing themselves from Obama.

    1. Based on two sets of midterms now, the Obama electoral magic does not extend to other Democrats.

      Regardless of how incompetent the Republican party is, it looks like electoral parity is here to stay, while the presidency will continue going to the best personality who bluffs his way into office regardless of whether he’s run so much as a McDonalds in his life.

      1. Regardless of how incompetent the Republican party is, it looks like electoral parity is here to stay,

        Electoral parity is a consequence of incompetence parity.

        1. Its worse than that. Its like a reverse Darwinism. Whenever one party reaches a new low, and appears to have sealed its fate. The other party rushes to its aid, lobotomizing itself even further, thus sparing the other its well deserved extinction.

    2. Some analysts are delusional partisans who will continue to believe completely obvious falsehoods in order to not have their minds destroyed by how utterly wrong they always are.

    3. Jay Carney, for one, whose entire career rests on lying for Obama. And some other lady on CNN who appeared to also be notable for being a toady of the Obamas.

  2. “It’s a big part of the reason the party ran far fewer overt loons for office this year.”

    I find discrimination against loons offensive and am surprised you would endorse it Tuccille.

    ;P

    1. I have a couple of loonies somewhere. What are those worth in American money now? Or is Canada on the Euro now?

      1. As goes the price of oil, so goes the loonie. Near 7 year lows around US$0.87.

    2. The majestic loon is our state bird here in Sunny Minnesoda. Who dares impugn it?

      1. That would make a terrific bumper sticker.

        “Don’t Impugn the Loon”

  3. Favorite indoor outdoor sport of the next two years; trolling Democrats who criticize Obama by calling them racists who just won’t stand by a black Democratic President unless it is easy.

  4. Oh no you don’t, legislative Democrats responded. It’s the albatross tie in the Oval Office who sealed our doom.

    Live by the Cult of the Presidency, die by the Cult of the Presidency.

    1. Pretty much. Maybe if Democrats had stood up to Obama and forced him to be more accommodating to Republicans or been more honest about Obama’s scandals, a few more of them might have stayed in office last night.

      1. Genetically impossible…

  5. I don’t get how the Democrats went so quickly from Howard Dean, the best DNC chair in memory, to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, their worst, and remained completely insufferable and oblivious to any reasonable concerns, throwing so much good money after bad for such terrible candidates as Wendy Davis.

    1. The fact that Wasserman-Schultz is viewed as even remotely a good idea for leadership shows just how fucked up the Democrats are.

      1. How did they not get rid of Pelosi as minority leader after 2010 or at least 2012? When the speaker fucks up and loses the majority, they are supposed to lose their jobs and a new person voted in as minority leader.

        1. Because Pelosi controls some sizable pots of party money, that’s why.

      2. Especially since the Obamites hate her and have gone out of their way to fuck her over.

      3. “The fact that Wasserman-Schultz is viewed as even remotely a good idea for leadership shows just how fucked up the Democrats are.”

        The woman has been caught in at least two out right lies on camera and confronted with them during interviews, yet still she remains chairman of the DNC.

        And this from Anderson Cooper:

        ” Even though video of the platform amendment vote shows a chaotic scene, many people booing and hollering in protest, Wasserman Schultz argued that “there wasn’t any discord” during the vote.

        After watching the interview from the CNN studio, the always fair Cooper said: “I mean, that’s an alternate universe.“”

        http://www.theblaze.com/storie…..rm-change/

  6. Mickey Kaus runs down the wages of supporting immigration reform.

    Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas voted for the Gang of 8 bill. He’s GONE.

    Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina voted for the Gang of 8 bill. GONE.

    Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado voted for the Gang of 8 bill. GONE

    Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska voted for the Gang of 8 bill. Almost certainly GONE

    Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana voted for the Gang of 8 bill. She will probably be GONE after a January runoff.

    Alison Grimes supported the Gang of 8 bill in Kentucky. DEFEATED

    Michelle Nunn supported the Gang of 8 bill in Georgia. DEFEATED

    Greg Orman supported the Gangof 8 bill in Kansas. DEFEATED

    Bruce Braley supoorted the Gang of 8 bill in Iowa. DEFEATED

    Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Mark Warner of Virginia voted for the Gang of 8 bill and BARELY SURVIVED against longshot challengers.

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/11…..r-wrought/

    1. I don’t think that’s as damaging as the fact that 28 senators who voted for Obamacare and won’t be part of the new Senate.

      http://www.washingtonexaminer……_click=rss

      1. I think its just as damaging. The immigration reform bill was nearly as damaging as anything from PPACA.

        The problem (IMO) isn’t that they were tackling immigration reform, the problem is that they had the hubris to think they could iron out all the issues in one mega-bill. No matter what your views on immigration, that was going to do nothing but produce some horrible, broken shit.

        The Republicans (and Democrats and every other party) should take from this that they should stay away from huge, complicated pieces of legislation that cover huge areas.

        1. I think I recall from history that the interstate highway bill was all of 32 pages, and even though Ike tacked on the words “national defense” to get it passed, everyone could take a few minutes and read the whole thing.

      2. But PB insisted that Obamacare isn’t even an issue in elections anymore.

        1. I think buttplug is howling, in a straight jacket. Taking a tabasco sauce enema right now to get his mind off the pain of last night.

    2. I believe you are correct that – next to the steady economic weakness, rising healthcare costs, and hollow ‘anti-corporate’ message of the left – that Immigration is the strongest single issue that motivates people.

      I still think its second in line though next to the broader economic situation. Probably more powerful than any more-narrowly defined topic other than ’employment’. And they are connected. Xenophobia has a strong inverse correlation to economic well-being. I dont mean to say that every opponent of immigration reform is opposed *because* of xenophobia, but the idea that ‘the economy is shit, and they want to add to the labor problem by legalizing loads of poor mexicans?’ is pretty widespread.

      The problem of immigration-reform supporters (and i am more or less one) is that they are utterly unable to convince anyone that it – if done correctly – would be an economic boon, and not an anchor.

      But even i have zero confidence that it would be done correctly, and it would in fact be a complete fucking mess no matter who takes control of the issue.

      1. Immigration and the economy go hand in hand. In a weak economy, working class people are more threatened by immigrant labor.

        IMO, if you want to get immigration reform done, you need to fix the economy FIRST. And then, when unemployment is low, THEN you introduce the immigration reform legislation.

        1. That and have it involve something besides giving amnesty to illegals.

          1. Well, it should actually do something about the underlying problem – the fact that there is no viable legal path to immigration for anyone who doesn’t have a college degree or immediate family in the US.

            1. Unless you can figure out how to get yourself tortured by your own government.

            2. This. Talk to anyone who has ever dealt with INS/ICE and you will find someone who hates those agencies with a burning passion.

              I met my wife (who is from Korea) in college and the process for getting her citizenship was fucking incredibly painful. At one point we were fined for following the advice of INS.

              Yes, I am for any immigration reform that burns those agencies to the ground and starts over.

            3. “Well, it should actually do something about the underlying problem – the fact that there is no viable legal path to immigration for anyone who doesn’t have a college degree or immediate family in the US.”

              I don’t see any viable path for low skilled immigration in a generous welfare economy. At least not without a substantial rise in the size of government transfer payments (as a percentage of GDP).

              If you keep the generous welfare payments, you incentivize millions to come to the US to obtain the payments, if you restrict immigrants from the welfare system, you create a two tier system where natives are in a privileged class.

              No one ever really addresses that conundrum. At best they hand wave it away, assuming that immigrants would never come just for the welfare benefits.

        2. People who want to build a wall to restrict illegal immigration are treating a symptom. Reform the FedGov’s welfare/warfare system, and a lot of the problems associated with illegal immigration will also have been solved.

          1. You mean no moar free shit? Blasphemy!

            1. Most people who come here don’t come for the free shit, (though they’re happy to take it once they get here.) They come here to escape the unbearable shitholes their own countries have become. Unfortunately, they often bring many of the attitudes and values that are the root causes of those shitholes with them.

    3. John, would you call Scott Brown a longshot candidate?

      Forgive me, but are we forgetting that, in addition to Comrade Shaheen, Rhode Island Democrat, Jack Reid, won re-election with nearly 75% of the vote?

      How about Cuomo in NY winning?

      How about Massachusetts? Ed Markey wins his Senate race by a 62-38 margin.

      The Massachusetts AG’s race was won by a Democrat, in a landslide.

      All of the Bay State’s congressional contingent remains bluer the blue.

      New Hampshire’s governor trounces her GOP opponent, big time.

      New England, New York and New Jersey remain bluer than blue.

      1. I think he was. Brown only moved to the state to run against Sheheen. He was a new guy running against an incumbent. Sheheen should have won easily. The fact that Brown got so close is a reflection of her unpopularity and not much else.

      2. most of the upstate congress pukes are red at this point. the city is indigo

        1. New Jersey also splits its delegation pretty evenly and I’m not sure there’s a swing seat left. I believe that it’ll get more Democratic as it loses population share, however.

  7. This seems like the perfect mirror of the Republican infighting after the 2012 election.

    1. How so? The Republicans didn’t lose nearly this bad. They held the House and held their own in the Senate. They mostly blamed Romney for not being aggressive enough.

    2. That was more about running some loser candidate who actually annoyed enough independents and Republicans into staying home.

      I’m interested to see how the party views Her Royal Clintonness after this defeat. Is she the right candidate for them when the GOP will almost certainly control at least the House after 2016? Her husband triangulated all right. . .right to the right. He was mostly doing Republican things after 1994, which every Democrat alive seems to have forgotten.

      1. She went all over America campaigning for Democrats who nearly all lost. I can’t see how this is a good thing for her.

        1. I still think she’ll run, of course, but I stand by my prediction that she won’t even be nominated.

          One thing in her favor is that some potential candidates may not run, figuring the House is totally stuck on Republican for at least another election.

  8. We’ll see. The Political class, as a whole, has real trouble with the concept that the opinions of the Common Folks (Don’t you just LOVE them; they’re so cute!) matter. Sometimes one gang of goons or another “gets” it long enough to win an election cycle or two, but it doesn’t stick. I’m tempted to say that the Progressive Left is particularly bad about this, but the Republican Establishment isn’t a whole lot better, and to date the Tea Part Conservatives and the Libertarians haven’t figured out how to not scare the voters.

    Of course it would help if 90% of the media wasn’t Lefty Moonbat. That’s a Conservative/Libertarian failing; we somehow never get beyond the useless outrage and just start buying our own frigging media.

  9. It doesn’t mean that the message was bad, but sometimes the messenger isn’t good.”

    (cue adam savage ‘mythbusters’ mechanic-voice)

    “Well, there’s your problem right there”

    No, Mr Krone, your ‘message’ is still shit, and i heartily encourage you to try and find a better messenger to sell the country on the idea of perpetual ‘gender and class warfare’ as a means to achieve political control of the country. Seriously, just try harder with the same dumb shit. See how popular it makes you. I have a guy here by the name of “Buttplug” who’d love to be your strategist. Apparently you can win arguments by claiming everyone except you is a SoCon Bushpig Christfag. Who knew?! Best of luck in your new career in Academia.

    1. This right here is how you do it, people!

  10. Now our problem is going to be worrying about getting a Republican President in the next election.

    Remember how bad things were during Obama’s first two yeas with the D’s holding H&S?

    1. It might not be too horrible if Paul were to win. Or maybe even Cruz, though I’m not at all comfortable with him.

    2. Yes. And I remember how W squandered his opportunities for entitlement reform when he had the trifecta.

      1. How did he do that? I suppose you could blame him for not playing dirty and doing it via reconciliation or something over a Democratic filibuster. But other than that I don’t see how he could have gotten the Democrats to agree to anything.

      2. There was never any opportunity for entitlement reform. When a party has both houses and the executive, the ratchet only gets tighter.

        I’d say reform happens more under a united Congress and an opposite party president than it ever has under a trifecta.

        1. I suppose it might happen if there were a supermajority in both houses. But both parties are just too full of people dependent on handing out goodies.

          So you have the opposition opposing you because you’re doing it and they don’t want you to get credit and half your own party undermining you because your proposal cuts at their own power base.

  11. So it appears that Obama has a press conference scheduled for this afternoon.

    He’s going to end up saying some very stupid things today unless there’s some sort of adult supervision going on in the whitehouse.

    1. Go long on popcorn…

    2. That should be a real shitshow. I won’t watch it, but I’m sure the highlights will be a hoot. There’s no way a petulant whiny shit like Obama will be able to resist swiping at people childishly. No way. There’s no adult supervision at the White House anyway as we have seen time and time again.

      1. What I’m going to enjoy is him insisting doggedly that none of this was a rejection of his policies. You know, the same policies that he confidently assured voters were on each and every ballot.

        It makes me feel dirty to feel happy about the Reps winning, but goddamn it I love nothing more than Donk tears.

      2. The Democrats have a real problem. Obama just doesn’t care if his actions or unpopular or hurt the Democratic Party. So he is going to do everything he wants to do for the next two years and if they don’t like it too fucking bad. What are they going to do, impeach him?

        You tell me what they can do because I don’t see a good answer.

        1. Impeach him? He has a foolproof insurance policy: Joe Biden.

          1. I think you meant to say he as a fool for an insurance policy.

          2. Impeach him? He has a foolproof insurance policy: Joe Biden.

            He’s got a better one than that: if Republicans are “racist” enough to dare attempt impeachment of the first black president, they can just kiss 2016 election aspirations goodbye.

            1. Would be interesting to see if the Dems do not draw up the articles of impeachment just to save themselves from the sniveling little weasel dick in the whitehouse.

              Would be great to then see TEAM stupid go along and then get blamed

        2. If he’s as much of a petulant little shit as he has seemed to be without fail for the past 6 years, there’s not a fucking thing they can do. He just isn’t the type to take one for the TEAM, not after reaching this level of power. He got his; he’s set for life and has held the position of most powerful man in the US and possibly the world. There’s no way he’s going to sacrifice one iota of that for anyone else.

          1. sound slike hed make a great libertarian

            1. I like this new sockpuppet. Way better than the shitshow of our current crappy sockpuppets. Keep it up.

              1. I especially like “slike.” I read that as a combination of the words “slake” and “like.”

                1. “Wow… slaking.” — Radar O’Reilly

                  1. Someone get a Pokeball.

            2. Nah. He make sa great progressive.

              1. yous eem to be using too much punctuation cant decipher

            3. B+ Trolling. Would read again.

              1. I’d give it a D+.

                Punctuation trolling doesn’t even require any effort.

                P.S. Isn’t it generally safe to assume that punctuation trolls don’t have smartphones or tablets?

        3. Well, after this election, if Obama doubles down on the open corruption, unpopular moves, and incompetence, don’t be surprised if Democrats in Congress decide to oppose him. . .up to and maybe including (though I’d still be shocked to see this) repealing Obamacare. I mean, they want to stay in office more than they want to support an unpopular law in the face of obviously voter antipathy. They’ve been slapped twice now.

          1. The more time passes the more I realize that justice demanded that Obama win reelection. Romney winning would have saved there people from the full consequences of foisting this asshole on America. They got what they wanted and he is destroying the Democratic Party for a generation and there is nothing they can do to stop him.

            1. Unfortunately they’ve also managed to economically damage this country so badly that it will take two generations to recover. Maybe longer.

        4. Impeachment didn’t work too well against Bill “Blowjob” Clinton. Suggest they avoid doing that again.

    3. “Sometimes, someone … usually dad … leaves the workplace to vote Republican. That’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”

  12. I’m waiting for the articles to come out explaining how the Democrats are now a “rump” party containing only crazy extremists, which can be safely dismissed.

    1. Eh. That was payback for Karl Rove’s “permanent majority” ideas back in 2004.

    2. Yeah. Is it completely pointless to mention how the media seems pretty low-key and really depressed? Next up will be articles about how the presidency really is a job too big for any one man and others on how the founders really messed up in structuring us as a republic. Yada, yada, yada.

      Excuse making, denial, and avoidance to follow – all supported and regurgitated by the media.

      1. Well, that’s what they did in 2010:

        http://www.newsweek.com/presid…..-job-70121

  13. I guess the Community Organizer can’t even organize his own party effectively.

    1. Great point.

  14. The NYT remains consistent:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11…..inion&_r=0

    1. Even if they are right, it Obama’s Presidency has been such a failure it now threatens the entire party. I am not sure how they are seeing that as some kind of consolation to their readers.

      1. I think their point is that it’s NOT a failure, but the Republicans have made it LOOK like a failure.

        1. Perception is reality.

          1. Communist!

  15. If Obama’s smart he’ll make some intelligent compromises now. He should approve the Key Stone pipeline and sign-off on corporate tax reform to get the ball rolling. He should also compromise on a simple immigration bill (oxymoron, I know).

    So, now I get to see if he’s as much of petulant shit as I think he is.

    1. He is not smart. He won’t compromise or move one inch. Instead he is going to do executive amnesty which is akin to George Bush deciding to unilaterally invade Syria after the 06 elections.

    2. I’m afraid they’ll have some goddamn Christmas Tree that does all of that PLUS approves all of Obama’s appointments PLUS whatever it takes to get ten Dems to sign on.

    3. He will veto Keystone out of pure spite. Again. He already did it once, the first time Congress tried to force him to approve Keystone.

    4. Obama is smart, and he’s been planning to move forward on his own agenda without the Senate, rather, in anticipation of losing the Senate in the midterms–since at least a couple of months ago.

      Here’s The Hill from two months ago:

      “President Obama is working to create a new international climate change accord that would get other nations to reduce their carbon emissions, but in a way that would not require the deal to be ratified by the Senate.

      Obama’s climate team is putting together a “politically binding” deal to “name and shame” nations to cut their emissions, according to The New York Times.

      The administration’s hope is to get the deal signed by a United Nations summit next year in Paris.

      Because the Senate would be unlikely to ratify a treaty on global warming, the administration is seeking to mix fresh voluntary pledges with legally binding 1992 treaty conditions.

      Such a deal, according to officials quoted by the Times, would represent an updated version of an existing deal and would not require ratification by the Senate.”

      http://thehill.com/policy/ener…..ate-action

      Obama is smart.

      Obama sees you.

      Obama sees through you.

      1. So Obama is going to continue to do unpopular things no matter what. I am not seeing how that works out well for the Democrats.

      2. And Ken, it doesn’t take any brains to just ignore the law and do whatever the hell you want. It just takes a complete lack of shame or morality. I am not seeing why you think this idiot is smart.

        1. I think he’s incompetent. I think he’s an ignoramus.

          But if he’s been planning for this for months in advance, we shouldn’t say he’s stupid.

          It’s like accusing Hitler of paranoia–hundreds of millions of people all over the world were conspiring to kill him! How can we call him paranoid?

          We think Obama’s stupid, why, because he sold his own party down the river? Because he doesn’t care about them–and never did? That’s not why Obama is stupid; that’s why Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are stupid!

          Pelosi said we have to pass it to see what’s in it–how stupid was that?!

          How stupid were the Democrats on the backbench to believe in Obama? How stupid were the Democrat politicians? How stupid was the Democrat media? They’re the ones who should be proclaiming that Obama was stupid…

          Otherwise, people will figure out the truth! And the truth is–it was the Democratic Party that was stupid for following this hateful bastard for so long. Obama played them all like a fiddle! Why does that make Obama stupid?

          1. “That’s why Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are stupid!”

            Incidentally, I’d expect to hear Harry Reid announce his retirement, soon, if he hasn’t already.

            Pelosi probably doesn’t have the support she used to enjoy either.

            The Democrats would be smart to get rid of Pelosi and Reid and try to rebrand themselves. …they’d be smarter than the Republicans for holding onto John Boehner, that’s for sure.

          2. This is basically right.

            Obama sees HIMSELF as the “Lightworker”. He’s not going to let petty political considerations stop him from saving the planet.

            The Oceans are going to recede, god damn it.

        2. it doesn’t take any brains to just ignore the law and do whatever the hell you want. It just takes a complete lack of shame or morality.

          No, not really.

          That’s really the modus operandi of most pols around the world, and it’s what their citizens expect. When people gain control of the guns, they use them to “do good”.

          The rule of law prejudice in the Anglosphere is the exception, not the rule.

      3. “Obama’s climate team is putting together a “politically binding” deal to “name and shame” nations to cut their emissions, according to The New York Times.”

        Of the economies that count, the US is near the top for the most carbon intensive per capita.

        How is an egregious “offender” going to shame others?

  16. Aren’t we supposed to be blaming citizens united? I thought that was the whole point, right? See? The dirty money bought the election.

    1. “Aren’t we supposed to be blaming citizens united?”

      In Post-midtermistan, Democrats don’t blame citizens united–citizens united blames you!

    2. My liberal friends are blaming Citizens United and the Kochs.

      Some are comparing Citizens United to Plessy v Ferguson?

      1. Now, all i can think of is this:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvVJTaRw6aQ

        “[Citizens United] is our Dred Scott!”

  17. ” It doesn’t mean that the message was bad, but sometimes the messenger isn’t good.”

    Or the messenger is good, but didn’t communicate properly. Or enough. Or there is a vast right wing conspiracy. Or the dog ate my hard drive. Oh wait, not that last one.

  18. sometimes the messenger isn’t good.

    Kind of sad, given that the messenger in question’s only talent is speechifying…

    -jcr

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.