Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
That's a fallacy. The president retained the hammer called veto and was not afraid to use it. The Democrats were only able to affect change once the presidency was wrestled from control of the Republicans.
What hurt Democrats this election was that Obama was not liberal enough. He disenfranchised his base and they stayed away from the polls in droves. Nate Silver did another fine job explaining it and hitting projections out of the park. As well, young voters stayed away from the polls, they key demographic that took Obama to office.
If you don't think that the problem was liberal displeasure, look at the Democrats that got ousted. The vast majority of them were blue dog Democrats. The liberal Democrats retained their seats while the conservative Democrats lost theirs. If it were a backlash at liberalism you would have seen the liberal Democrats crushed, which they were not. |
Actually, I think it has nothing to do with 'liberal', 'conservative'...or political leanings. I think it has to do with sheer frustration by the American people for a variety of reasons, i.e. economy, jobs, deficit, debt, etc,etc, and them still being naive enough to believe that voting a bunch of candidates out, and replacing them with what were largely morons will actually accomplish something.
Don't get me wrong, I think a Republican house with Obama as President will actually be effective, but I also think both parties lack people with the vision to actually sit down and start fixing these problems. One party screams more government regulation, and 'more fed, more fed'...while the other screams less government regulation, and 'less fed, less fed.'
IMO, the whole bailout was just a corrupt scheme by Wall Street and a bunch of politicians to steal all the money they could and run off with it.