Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The Republicans took over the House by huge margins, diminished the Democratic majority in the Senate, and achieved historic advances in Gubernatorial and state legislature races. However the Democrat bloodbath that painted the electoral map red also had some interesting bylines: 

Losers seek compromise: It is a time honored tradition that the losing side always interprets election results as a message to work together and compromise. Keeping with that trend, the Obama White House and the Democrats in Congress have suddenly realized the value of compromise and ‘working together for the benefit of the American people’. Never mind that for the past two years they have been doing the exact opposite. However, now that they can’t ram unwanted legislation down people’s throats, the Democrats want to compromise with the enemy seated in the back seat of President Obama’s imaginary car.

Nancy Pelosi, Propaganda Minister: Nancy Pelosi continued her best impression of Al-Sahhaf, the delusional Iraqi propaganda minister under Saddam. Al-Sahhaf is best known for his statements describing how American troops were committing suicide by the hundreds, while American tanks were outside the gates of his ministry.

Ms. Pelosi consistently proclaimed that the Democrats would hold the house (even on Tuesday). She also claimed pride about the ‘achievements’ of her majority while the same majority was being rewarded (i.e. massacred) for their achievements.

Angry, rational electorate: The voters severely rebuked the Democratic agenda in every corner of the country and yet they were rational enough to not send just any Republican to DC. Intellectually stunted weaklings in Nevada and Delaware lost big and all signs point to a Murkowski victory in Alaska. Joe Miller, although intelligent and accomplished, came across as brutish and unlikeable. Voters rejected all three even in the GOP tsunami that was Tuesday. In addition, Tom Tancredo, the bordering-on-xenophobic ex-congressman, also lost the Colorado governor’s race in spite of being a Tea Partier. Looks like facts and arguments did win the day; except in California.

America’s Greece: California once again proved why it is in dire straits and may become the first failed state of the Union. Despite past records of non achievement, voters chose to reelect a sneering ideologue (Barbara Boxer) and an ancient relic as governor (Jerry Brown). In fact, the real surprise in California was the defeat of Prop 19. Maybe the collective ‘glaucoma’ of the supporters was acting up and they decided to peace out on the couch.

Holding on to the Harry tree: The victory by Reid in Nevada was the only ‘good news’ for the Democrats on Tuesday. Expect them to cling to that notion like people caught in a tornado would grab the only tree that hasn’t been uprooted. Look for Democrats to tie in the Nevada race into any answer about Tuesday’s disaster. It will be conveniently ignored that Reid, in spite of doing the ‘people’s work’, needed millions of dollars and practically every Washington insider, union group, former President, the current President, the Vice President, and even the First Lady to save his seat from a terrible GOP candidate.

On another note, Chuck Schumer was probably disappointed as the GOP when Harry Reid was declared the winner.

GOP the progressive party: You won’t hear it from the NAACP, Hispanic groups, or NOW, but Republicans now have a female Indian American governor (first ever) and a black congressman from South Carolina (first since reconstruction), a Hispanic Governor (again first ever) in New Mexico, and a Cuban American Senator from Florida. Those ignorant, angry hicks sure like to elect women and minorities.

Thrill no more: MSNBC’s coverage of the results consisted of a roundtable of ultra liberal ‘pundits’ openly smirking at every GOP win and at Republicans who were foolish enough to appear on that network. The ‘analysis’ included condescending comments, outright insults and bizarre questions to Rep. Eric Cantor about whether Rand Paul would filibuster the debt ceiling increase. Apparently if a GOP Representative from Virginia doesn’t know what an eye surgeon from Kentucky is thinking, who does?

Even when you discount the fact that it was a terrible night to be a left wing nut, this was still a pathetic display of ‘journalism’. Although it is doubtful that any of the fifteen people who watch MSNBC took offense.

W encore: Next week former President George W. Bush will appear on various TV shows to promote his autobiography. I wonder how many people will suffer pangs of nostalgia when they see the Decider again and wish that the roles could somehow be reversed – George Bush back in the Oval office, and President Obama is left to do the only thing he does best; write about Barack Obama.

Powered by

About Krutic

  • Abhijit Mehta

    George Bush can write?

  • Krutic A

    #18: Thanks for the vote of confidence but I’ll pass. Although if I was advising them this year I would have asked Mike Castle to mount an independent bid, reallocate resources from West Virginia to Governor’s races in MA and IL where both Democratic incumbents were highly beatable. Whereas in WV, there is a de facto Republican in the Senate now even though the official GOP candidate lost.

    Further reading (but not a cure for denial):
    Heartland Headache (National Journal)

    An impenitent president (The Economist)

  • I love the fact that your blog carries the tagline “unbiased.” If you have ever written an unbiased sentence, you have hidden it well. Which is fine: just label it correctly — “completely biased.”

    By “awful” I meant all partisan sniping, no real ideas or arguments. Your comments are in the same vein.

    I’ve never once claimed [or wanted] to be an objective observer, not in the comments section on this site at any rate. But I am more interested in a debate than a pissing contest.

    I have given you several rebuttals. Your response has been to make more snide remarks about MSNBC, which I neither mentioned nor quoted.

    But then you have not really answered anyone, and you probably don’t intend to. You seem to place a high value on insulting people rather than engaging with them.

    This has been typical of a few other posters on here, usually young and male and fans of Beck/Limbaugh/Breitbart, thus the “fratboy” epithet.

  • Haha! Says the objective observer who offered this gem as a rebuttal:

    “PS: This article is pretty awful. But no one else has written much about the election yet.”

  • Sigh. Yet another one who thinks an obnoxious wisecrack is better than an actual answer, every time. Too bad. Andrew Breitbart has a lot to answer for.

  • #16: Ah.. My bad.
    Can I at least have a Happy Meal or would you like to decide that for me too?
    Oh wait..

  • Perhaps Krutic should apply for a job in the GOP’s Campaign Central in 2012.

  • Conservative talking points are never cliches. They’re unfulfilled prophecies.

  • Krutic, you are not really in a position to call out people for using talking points considering the number of cliches used in your article

  • The midterm electorate is only 2/3 the size of the presidential electorate — a difference of over 40 million voters. Pretending this is not relevant is like…chattering about frog blizzards?

    And while I have been known on occasion to deal in snark, don’t sell yourself short. The article itself and your comment #14 consist of at least 75% obnoxiously partisan snark, mixed with a very selective 25% ‘facts,’ or, actually half-truths. Half-truths are the best kind to use when whipping up frat-boy style propaganda.

    They are not useful, however, in conducting an actual conversation.

  • #6 I bet you were one of the 8 people who watched MSNBC last night. Parroting the talking points to a tee (including the snarky condescension). Good job. However in your littany of lame excuses about the historic loss on Tuesday, you forgot to attribute it to ‘foreign money’, and swift boats, racism, and of course Bush. Come on man, you’re slipping.

    “The results reflect more enthusiastic participation by conservative voters and a significant number of liberals/moderates staying home — it’s not as simple as ‘unanimous’ disgust for all things Obama and Democratic….

    A younger, less white electorate in 2012 is likely to yield different results.”

    uh.. sure. whatever helps you sleep at night. If gold frogs rained from the sky, Ralph Nader would be President.

    “Especially if unemployment begins to drop in coming months”

    And why would it exactly? Because the White Plans to continue the same successful policies?
    But – I hear you. I mean Obama hasn’t even had 800 days to do something about the economy and jobs. Healthcare and Cap & Trade were the real emergencies.

    I totally get how its not his fault at all. Its just those idiot voters who are scared and not thinking straight. If only they face the facts and realize that how awesome their new healthcare is. Oh wait, that doesn’t happen till 2014. Then maybe the fact that they haven’t had a job for over a year? Yes that’s it -then they might have voted differently.

    #4: If President Obama’s press conference is anything to go by, his ‘compromises’ will include the same condescending attitude, dismissal of GOP ideas and divisive rhetoric like calling them enemies.
    I am actually glad. I highly recommend the Dems continue ‘fighting for the American people’ the way they have been for the past four years. Obama should def not compromise or give in to the will of the electorate. Let the Democrats continue to do ‘the right things’ and in 2012, (just like on Tuesday), the voters will get to do what’s right for them.

    #5: There is a difference in suggesting optimism and claiming a victory with disdain for the questions and the polls. Its delusional.
    Tim Kaine on the other hand, had the worst job last night. But he played it well and I was impressed. I hope he gets some reward for putting on a brave face in the midst of the disaster.

  • Both partisans and the media want to overdramatize and overinterpret the election results. Saying “The American people sent President Obama a strong message that they don’t like his policies” is a half-truth, a distortion. It implies unanimity.

    I realize no one literally said “unanimous,” but I was trying to put things in perspective. 10% of the public changes their favorable opinion, another 10% of the public stay home, and suddenly you have politicians and pundits rhetorically exaggerating the meaning to encompass “the American people.”

  • Baronius

    Handy – Why’d you put “unanimous” in quotes? No one said that. No one even implied that.

  • Pelosi was, as Doc says, just doing what a political leader does before an election — put an optimistic face on things. It was by no means unusual, and I’m sure we could find similar predictions by Republicans in 2006.

    Dan’s description of Obama’s attitudes and actions is just about 100% partisan, paranoid fantasy. He derives it by being extremely selective about which words and actions he cites, and ignoring anything that contradicts his silly narrative.

    And by accusing others [without citing an example] of playing the race card, he comes awfully close to playing the race card himself.

  • Doc,

    Many thanks. The linked BBC article certainly suggests, albeit in subtly coded fashion, that President Obama was distracted from petty electoral realities by heavenly bodies and that his reference to enemies was intended to apply only to space aliens riding comets to vote for Republicans on Earth; he doubtless has figured out ways to deny them the basic human right of amnesty.

    As you study the BBC article further, I am confident that you will agree with my analysis.


  • Dan, if my characterization of the GOP’s attitude towards compromise is true, then we shouldn’t be surprised if your characterization of Obama’s reaction to the GOP gains is.

    However, I got sidetracked in my quest to discover if your characterization was even remotely accurate by something way, way cooler.

  • No one who had been paying attention was surprised Prop 19 lost

  • Doc, I just posted this comment elsewhere but it seems to fit with your Comments ## 4 and 5 above. Specifically as to soon-to-be-former Speaker Pelosi’s rosy predictions, I wonder whether if by claiming — with the same vigor she displayed in predicting that when we got to see the health care reform bill we would like it — that the Democrats would retain a House majority she might have discouraged some of the left from bothering to vote. Oh well.

    President Obama is a very difficult person to understand. Surely, unless he was totally isolated from reality, he at least suspected during the run up to the November elections that there might be substantial Democratic Party losses and that he might have to display at least a wilted olive branch of some sort. Did he merely listen to soon-to-be-former Speaker [Baghdad Bob’s] Pelosi’s rosy predictions?

    Rather than consider those possibilities, he “screwed the pooch” by declaring those of us who don’t like his initiatives “enemies” and by calling upon his friends to punish us and to be rewarded for their support. He and his friends have repeatedly shoved the race card in our faces to the point that the card has fallen apart.

    Now, he growls, “bad puppy, come here for a stale doggy biscuit. Sit, boy, sit. Here is a pretty new muzzle for you to wear.” Can he conceivably believe that we will roll over, let him scratch our tummies and oblige? If so, there may be some diagnosis other than cognitive dissonance or living in a fantasy world, but I don’t know what it might be.


  • It was certainly not a good night for the Dems. But it is worth keeping in mind that 125 million people voted in the presidential race two years ago, and fewer than 85 million voted this year. So comparing exit poll attitudes between the two groups is going to be apples to oranges.

    The results reflect more enthusiastic participation by conservative voters and a significant number of liberals/moderates staying home — it’s not as simple as ‘unanimous’ disgust for all things Obama and Democratic. It is true that at least 10-15% of independents have turned sour on the president. [But not 70 or 80%!]

    A younger, less white electorate in 2012 is likely to yield different results. Especially if unemployment begins to drop in coming months.

    Harry Reid was hardly the ‘only good news’ for Dems on Tuesday. There was California, and Colorado, and Delaware, and Connecticut.

    PS This article is pretty awful. But no one else has written much about the election yet.

  • “Ms. Pelosi consistently proclaimed that the Democrats would hold the house (even on Tuesday).”

    As the leader of the House Democrats, predicting a victory is her job, even if it does lay her open to ridicule in the face of polls which belie her claim. When was the last time you heard a politician say that he or she or their party was going to lose? It would be electoral suicide.

  • Krutic, the Obama White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress have not “suddenly realized the value of compromise”. They’ve been trying to compromise for the last two years, with notable lack of success. The hopelessly muddled and watered-down healthcare legislation is one result. Many on the left are of the opinion that they’ve compromised too much.

    Then again, the prevailing interpretation on the right side of the aisle of the word “compromise” seems to be “Do exactly what we want and only what we want”. No wonder you poor souls feel that the opposition hasn’t been flexible.

  • Baronius

    What strikes me the most about the election results is the regional pattern.

    Two years ago, some people saw the GOP on the verge of becoming a regional party. The party only showed strength in the South and in the less-populated states west of the Mississippi. Now look at the Republican wins on the map: Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia. Add in Chris Christie’s New Jersey, and you’ve got the Rust Belt.

    Now the Dems look like a regional party, with the NYC/Boston corridor and the West Coast. Of course, that generalization is as faulty as the one from two years ago. Either party can win anywhere. But it really is striking to see it on a map.

    That stretch of land from Michigan to New Jersey features some of the most inept state GOP organizations in the country. Ohio and New Jersey, I’m looking at you. In fact the one state that managed to buck the trend in three major statewide races was New York. And they didn’t just go 0-3; they were as bad losses as anyone experienced. The Republican candidates got 33%, 34%, and 37% of the vote. You could wear a Nazi uniform and get 41% of the vote this year. The NY GOP has got to be the worst in the country.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Yeah, the first thing I think when I see an article titled Massacre! is “sanity.”

  • Ruvy

    Nobody wants sane articles here anymore. But you did try….