Why when 3 major political editors were asked "How bad the environment was for

S

Susiepolls2008

New member
Dems" all said it would be bad? Nathan Gonzalez is political editor of the Rothenberg Political Report and a contributing writer for Roll Call:
"I think it's going to be a classic midterm where the in-party is going to face losses; we just don't know how heavy the losses will be on the Democratic side."
http://salon.com/news/feature/2010/01/12/salon_roundtable/index.html

Amy Walter is the editor in chief of the Hotline, Washington's premier daily briefing on American politics, and she writes her "On the Trail" column for the National Journal:
"The political environment is bad for Democrats. I don't expect it to get better. I think it is very difficult to believe that over the next eight months we're suddenly going to see a significant uptick in the economic climate or a significant downward movement in terms of the unemployment numbers. I think the election is a referendum on both of those things."

Isaac Wood is associate communications director for University of Virginia Center for American Politics, where he specializes in U.S. House race analysis:
"It's going to be a tough year for Democrats especially on healthcare and the economy, the two most important issues. Both issues are almost completely out of the Democrats' control right now. There's going to be a lot of "wait-and-see."
 
You know, this couldn't be better news for me, but there's still a part of the former old-style Democrat in me that wants to scream "You idiots! You blew it! You had it all handed to you on a plate, and you blew it!"

These people calling themselves "Democrats" are more like religious fanatics than politicians. They could have taken it slow, fixed one or two things at a time, actually LISTENED to what the voters were saying in those town hall meetings. If Obama, after bailing out the banks, had given the rest of that bailout money to the people, or called a moratorium on foreclosures, income tax and credit card debt, his popularity would be through the roof right now. Even conservatives would be cutting him some slack as the economy got a shot of cash in the right direction. The Dems would have owned Capitol Hill for decades. But they have no patience, all they want is to please the loudest screamers. Now it's too late, nobody but a few diehards trust them. And the screamers are still screaming. Morons.
 
Unfortunately Americans have to be reminded every 30 years or so why Democrats are bad for America

Then spend the next 4 Presidential terms voting in Republicans to undo the mess Dems created
 
Certainly it's going to be a hard fought election, everyone knows that. But three editors is not a significant sample. Wherever you read this, could it be that someone asked 50 editors, then picked the 3 that said what the person wanted?

The Republicans really have nothing going for them in '10 except peoples' general dissatisfaction with how things are. Other than bashing and blaming the Democrats for everything from earthquakes to heat rash, they have no real alternatives to suggest. A goodly majority of Americans blame the failures of GW Bush for our economic troubles. And Bush's TARP program was not really all that different from what Obama is doing.

It's especially funny now to hear Republicans suddenly being budget hawks after acting for 30 years as if deficits simply didn't matter. Or charging, over and over, that Obama's deficits are 'the biggest in history'. I think it kind of shows how desperate the party is. The Tea Party in the US now has bigger numbers and more popularity than the Republican Party.
 
Well.....I suppose they said those things because they think Democrats will lose seats in Congress in the 2010 election. Did you have a point, or was your question really that simple?
 
Back
Top