| Media Search: |
Why Didn #39;t Democrats Blast Budget Plan in Midterms?
Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Republicans plan to go after Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid, and discretionary spending in the new Congress. (Source: Bloomberg)
By: Bloomberg News
View post:
Why Didn't Democrats Blast Budget Plan in Midterms? - Video
CBS: Democrats "Embarrassed" By Gruber #39;s ObamaCare Comments
CBS: Democrats "Embarrassed" By Gruber #39;s ObamaCare Comments.
By: GOPICYMI
Read this article:
CBS: Democrats "Embarrassed" By Gruber's ObamaCare Comments - Video
Democrats Respond To Obamacare Architect Calling Voters Dumb On The Record
Democrats Respond To Obamacare Architect Calling Voters Dumb - On The Record =========================================== **Please Click Below to SUBSCRIBE for More "NSTP" ...
By: NSTP - Wake The Hell Up America!
More:
Democrats Respond To Obamacare Architect Calling Voters Dumb On The Record - Video
After every battle,you have winners, you have losers, and you have the losers who try very hard to find asilver lining.
In the 2014 election, Republicans claimed victory, Democrats lost the Senate majority andthe Democrats in charge of trying to 300 a midtermcycle where they didn't have much to work withare trying to find a bit of treasure in all the debris.
As House Democratic campaign chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.)told the Hill, it turns out that all the House races that have been called since Election Day have been Democratic victories. Thatdoessound like a silver lining ... if you ignore the context of those wins. All of the races featured Democratic incumbents, and many of themwere expected to have easy paths to re-election.
Last Friday, Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) declared victory in Maryland's 6th district. Cook Political Report said it was a race Democrats were expected to easily win. Delaney was ahead by less than 2,000 votes when his opponent conceded. In New York's 25th district, meanwhile, Rep. Louise Slaughter(D-N.Y.)barely won. The race was also expected to be an easy win. In California's 24th district, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) had a narrow victory in a race ... well, you get the idea.
If anything, these hard-to-call wins reinforce the storyline that Democrats are trying to re-imagine. Because of the inclement environment Democrats faced this year, victories that should have been announced immediately en masse needed tobe doled out one-by-one after a careful vote count.
Other House victories, made long after the narrative of a Republican mass-smushing had solidified, were in races that had been considered toss-ups all along. However, when you look at these wins along with the rest of the toss-ups, the Democrats' post-election success rate of 100 percent looks less stunning.
Out of the 22 House races rated toss-ups by Cook Political Report, Democrats have won seven of them. Two races -- Arizona's 2nd district and California's 7th -- remain unresolved and very close. One that Democrats were expected to win easily -- Rep. Jim Costa's (D-Calif.) seat -- is still too close to call. He is in the lead, but only by about 100 votes.
Republicans also won three seats that Democrats were expected to win narrowly. So that kind of undercuts the Democrats' toss-up winning percentage.
As for the GOP, it hasn't lost a non-toss-up. Two House races in Louisiana that Republicans were expected to easily win are headed to a runoff. One of the races might sound vaguely familiar -- former governor Edwin Edwards (D) is running -- but Republicans are expected to win both. The GOPcandidates in both races also have big fundraising advantages.
All of this said, it is true that this late accumulation of wins by House Democrats makes theirtrack record looka lotbetter than it did on election night. Despite the close margins in some races that looked like sure-wins, Democrats mostly won where they were supposed to in House races, and the party could keep its losses in the low-teens. With all those toss-up races -- and the tendency for toss-ups to all fall in one direction -- Democrats were facing losses potentially bigger than they had already bracedthemselves for. When that didn't happen, they were entitled to at least stop holding their breathin fear, even if they weren't allowed a victory dance.
Read the rest here:
The Fix: Democrats search for an elusive silver lining in the House
We keep hearing from pundits, and Republicans and Democrats alike that last weeks electoral outcome shows that the American people just want the parties to work together and make government function again.
But this isnt quite right. Yes, a lot of Americans want more generic compromise. Democrats and independents want compromise. But Republican voters in particular dont want compromise.
A new Allstate/National Journal/Heartland Monitor poll finds that surprisingly few Americans who identify with either party think unified government under their own party would make their lives better. Instead, a majority of Americans thinks they would benefit more from Democrats and Republicans compromising more to solve problems in Washington.
But look at the breakdown, provided by Ron Brownstein:
The belief that more cooperation could produce greater benefits united groups that often diverge on political questions, including 53 percent of whites, 58 percent of non-whites, 66 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of independents. The big exception: just 42 percent of Republican partisans said they thought they would benefit much from more compromise a reflection both of the resistance to Obama and the demands for ideological purity among many GOP activists.
This also popped up in a recent Pew poll. It found sizable majorities of Americans think Republicans should try to work with President Obama and that Obama should work with them. But here again, theres a stark partisan difference. 52 percent of Democrats and Dem-leaning independents think Obama should find common ground with Republicans, even if it disappoints them. But only 32 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaners say the same on their side, while 66 percent of Republicans say their leaders should stand up to Obama even if less gets done.
Theres an ideological imbalance here, too. Pew found that by 57-39, Republicans say their leaders should move in a more conservative, rather than a more moderate, direction. But Democrats say by 52-41 that their leaders should move in a more moderate, rather than more liberal, direction.
Its true that bipartisan compromise as a goal unto itself is often over-hyped as something the public supposedly wants. Still, this imbalance could have ramifications for the next two years as Congressional Democrats try to figure out the proper opposition posture to strike in the minority. As Brian Beutler explains, Democrats face
structural difficulties that make it harder for Democrats than Republicans to be a united, rejectionist opposition party. Their coalition includes many moderates; isnt overwhelmed by ideological liberals; is in hock to big business; and, unlike Republicans, is invested in the idea that government should function well.
All the above polling suggests the same. And as Beutler notes, this could make it more likely that Democrats, particularly in the Senate, fracture when faced with Republican proposals. On things like the Keystone pipeline, tax reform that lowers rates but doesnt produce any new revenue, or the inevitable GOP effort to roll back Obamas coming executive action shielding millions from deportation, you could see some Democrats peeling off and voting with Republicans. All of which means the presidential veto may become more and more important in guarding liberal priorities.
Originally posted here:
Sargent: Morning Plum: Democrats want compromise. Republicans dont. Thats bad for Democrats.