2010 situation grows more difficult for Democrats

[thundley4]

TomCADem   (1000+ posts)           Sat Jan-02-10 06:24 PM
Original message
2010 situation grows more difficult for Democrats   
   

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON – An already difficult situation for Democrats in Congress is worsening as the 2010 political season opens.

To minimize expected losses in next fall's election, President Barack Obama's party is testing a line of attack that resurrects George W. Bush as a boogeyman and castigates Republicans as cozy with Wall Street.

Four House Democrats from swing districts have recently chosen not to seek re-election, bringing to 11 the number of retirements that could leave Democratic-held seats vulnerable to Republicans. More Democratic retirements are expected.

Over the holiday break, another Democrat, freshman Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama, defected to the GOP. "I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt," said Griffith, who voted against Democrats' three biggest initiatives in 2009: health care, financial regulation and reducing global warming.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_democrats2010

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4208151

Wait, who gave the banks and Wallstreet the big bailout in 2009? Who got big donations from the banks and Wallstreet during the primaries and General election?  Oh wait, I know. It Barack 0bama.  Do the DimRats really want to go there?

tridim   (1000+ posts)             Sat Jan-02-10 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't give a crap what the media says..
   
The Repukes aren't going to win jack-squat in 2010. They have a 17% approval rating.

Where, on DU?  Got a link for that 17%? Generic head to head ballot.

Date 12-27-09
Dem 38%
GOP 43%

Rassmussen

asjr   (1000+ posts)           Sat Jan-02-10 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. The media plays up stuff like Griffith. He
   
is a non-entity. He was a Republican at heart anyway and just wants to get his 15 mins. of fame. We are being warned by the media on a daily basis that "things are not looking good for Democrats in 2010." Well, things are not looking good for the media either. We have caught on to their game and they know it.

I've known for a long time that they are liberal at heart.  The MSM is failing because people are sick of their slanted view.

PADemD   (727 posts)         Sat Jan-02-10 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
36. The Republicans won our local county races in 2009
   
because only 10 per cent of Democrats showed up to vote.

Pretty sad when even the Dem voters think the DimRats suck.

timeforpeace (1000+ posts)           Sat Jan-02-10 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Seems lame, and implies there won't be anything positive to show the voters.

It isn't positive, but Lord Zero does have bragging rights to the highest deficit spending ever, and very high unemployment. Hey, he bought a car company , too.

izquierdista (1000+ posts)             Sun Jan-03-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
53. Well, at this rate.....
   
Can't dress the Repubs as in bed with Wall Street when the Dems are wearing a pink teddy and crotchless panties.

Divine Discontent   (1000+ posts)             Sat Jan-02-10 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. again, the only reason we lose anything in 2010 is because of the majority & WH doing the bidding
   
too often, of the corporations - that is the only way we lose.

TomCADem   (1000+ posts)           Sat Jan-02-10 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. The Irony Is That A 2010 Republican Victory Is A Mandate To Be More Corporate!   
   
Because Republicans are not campaigning to increase regulation of corporations, but they are campaigning against big government! Thus, the mandate of the 2010 Republicans victories is to be even more pro-business. Climate change? The people have spoken, and have elected the party of climate change denial. Elections matter.

Davis_X_Machina   (1000+ posts)           Sat Jan-02-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. No it isn't. It's just heightening the contradictions...
   
...inherent in the present system, leading to an inevitable Kucinich presidency in 2016.

I can't go on, that takes the cake.


^{broken quote tag - Chris}

[GOBUCKS]

leading to an inevitable Kucinich presidency in 2016.

Only if he can persuade Howdy Doody to join him on the ticket.

[kenth]

Can't dress the Repubs as in bed with Wall Street when the Dems are wearing a pink teddy and crotchless panties.

 

Then again, Wall Street, Main Street, Fifth Avenue, 156th... anywhere you find a dem, they'll be dressed that way, figuratively and literally.

[dandi]

To minimize expected losses in next fall's election, President Barack Obama's party is testing a line of attack that resurrects George W. Bush as a boogeyman and castigates Republicans as cozy with Wall Street.

LOL Yeah, like that's going to work.

By next Fall the Obamessiah will be nearly halfway through his term and Bush has rightly stayed low-key. In doing so not only has W revived the old (and honorable) tradition of former presidents keeping their mouth shut about following presidents, he's taken away any fresh ammunition from the MSM. Only hardcore moonbats are going to still care about the "sins" of the Bush era.

As far as Wall Street types go, Obama has surrounded himself with them from Day One.

Barring any sparkling economic news or the creation of private sector jobs, which ain't gonna happen under the current crop of Socialists, The Dims are going to be sucking pondwater in '10.

[GOBUCKS]

Barring any sparkling economic news or the creation of private sector jobs, which ain't gonna happen under the current crop of Socialists, The Dims are going to be sucking pondwater in '10.

Well, private sector jobs may be a problem, but I think we can expect all kinds of sparkling economic news to be reported by the leftist media in the runup to the 2010 election.

These are the same people who discovered the worst economy of the 20th century a couple of months prior to the 1992 election, to help Clinton/Perot to defeat President Bush. But that was the last election where the MSM was pretty much unopposed in shaping public opinion, so it will be more difficult this time.

[Lacarnut]

Well, private sector jobs may be a problem, but I think we can expect all kinds of sparkling economic news to be reported by the leftist media in the runup to the 2010 election.

That may be a possibility cause the O has around 500 billion of the stimulus money that will be spread around this year. Also, the Tarp money paid back from the Banks will become a slush fund for the Magic Negro. Plus, these jackasses are talking about a second stimulus. 

[USA4ME]

Davis_X_Machina


.... leading to an inevitable Kucinich presidency in 2016.

No one with a Moe Stooge haircut will ever be elected president.

.

[AllosaursRus]

Close your eye's, put your fingers in your ears, and repeat after me, DUmmies, La la la la la la la la la la.....there, it's all takin' care of for you whittle, wonderin', woosies!

[GOBUCKS]

No one with a Moe Stooge haircut will ever be elected president.

Nor someone with a wife forty years his junior and two feet his superior.

[delilahmused]

The very best part of their inability to see the reality right in front of them is how delicious their deeply depressed stunned confusion will be on election night.

Cindie

[Lacarnut]

The very best part of their inability to see the reality right in front of them is how delicious their deeply depressed stunned confusion will be on election night.

Cindie

They will see it; they will be in denial with more of their lies that they are just misunderstood, and that the big bad right wingers did them in. On second thought, blame it on Bush. 

[Karin]

And, there will be the inevitable "we didn't lurch left hard or soon enough!!"  This talking point will be graciously supplied by DailyKos, and will proceed to rattle around their empty gourds for years.