RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Cillizza writes: "The Senate playing field has shifted in Republicans' favor over the last several weeks thanks to recruiting successes in Colorado and New Hampshire, as well as a national political environment that looks increasingly treacherous for Democrats."

Scott Brown's entrance into the New Hampshire Senate race has increased the Republican odds of taking the US Senate. (photo: AP)
Scott Brown's entrance into the New Hampshire Senate race has increased the Republican odds of taking the US Senate. (photo: AP)


Republicans Seize Edge in the Fight for the Senate Majority

By Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post

18 March 14

 

he Senate playing field has shifted in Republicans' favor over the last several weeks thanks to recruiting successes in Colorado and New Hampshire, as well as a national political environment that looks increasingly treacherous for Democrats.

That shifting has led to rising confidence among Republican strategists about the party's chances of retaking the six seats the party needs to regain the Senate majority in 2014.

“After the last two Senate elections, this will be the year Charlie Brown finally gets to kick the football," predicted prominent Republican pollster Glen Bolger. "Republicans have more opportunities than they have in the past, the terrible candidates are not catching the better general-election candidates napping like they did in cases like Christine O’Donnell and Richard Mourdock, and the [National Republican Senatorial Committee] is doing a good job ensuring candidates have a stronger digital presence than GOPers have had in the past. And yes, in this analogy, Harry Reid is Lucy, crabby as ever.”

Even Democrats have begun to acknowledge the problems in the fight for the Senate -- albeit privately.

"There is no doubt that the Senate outlook has deteriorated significantly in the past six weeks," admitted a prominent Democratic strategist. "Between the map and the [Affordable Care Act's] unpopularity in the states on the map, it has gone from being a jump ball to advantage Republicans."

Viewed broadly, there are now 11 Democratic-held seats in varying levels of peril -- and 12 if you consider the Virginia seat held by Sen. Mark Warner. (Republicans argue Democratic-held seats in Oregon and Minnesota belong on that list as well.) That is a significant expansion of the playing field from even a few months ago -- thanks largely to decisions by Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and former U.S. senator Scott Brown (R-Mass.) to run in Colorado and New Hampshire, respectively. In each case, races that were not considered competitive immediately became so thanks to Republican recruits. (Something similar happened in Virginia, where former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie's candidacy gives Republicans a credible and serious candidate -- although, unlike in New Hampshire and Colorado, there is almost no sign that Warner is in any trouble as of yet.)

That broader playing field matters for two big reasons. First, it gives Republicans a wider margin for error. They need a six-seat pickup and you'd much rather try to win six out of 12 than six out of six or seven. (Trying to run that sort of inside straight to the majority is where Republicans found themselves in 2012 -- and they wound up losing rather than gaining seats.) That means that even if Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) wins in New Hampshire -- and most polling shows her with a comfortable edge over Brown -- Republicans have lots of other pathways to the majority. Second, a broader playing field -- particularly in expensive media markets like Boston's, which covers the southern half of New Hampshire, Denver and, possibly, Washington, D.C. -- means that Senate Democrats and their corresponding outside groups will have their dollars stretched as they attempt to retain the majority. Remember that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's prime mission is to reelect its incumbents; so, if the committee has to spend money in New Hampshire, Virginia and Colorado, that means less money for, say, the open seat in Georgia or Alison Lundergan Grimes's challenge to Sen. Mitch McConnell in Kentucky.

And, it's not simply that there are more Republican opportunities on the board. It's that a closer look at the 11/12 competitive seats suggests that where and how the races are playing out makes the GOP's hand even stronger. In three states -- Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia -- independent handicappers like Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg rate Republicans as favorites to take over. If you accept that premise -- and we do, although Montana has the potential to be more competitive than the other two -- that means Republicans must win three out the following eight states to win back the majority: Arkansas, Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire and North Carolina.

Of those eight states, Mitt Romney carried four of them -- Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana and North Carolina -- in his unsuccessful bid for president in 2012. He won 45 percent in Michigan in 2012 and 46 percent in Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire. In short, none of this octet of states are solidly Democratic. And, if Republicans were only to win the states that Romney carried in 2012 -- a reasonable prospect given the national political environment (more on that below) -- they will be in the majority come 2015.

Step back from that granular look at the states and you see a national picture dominated, at the moment, by two things: The unpopularity of President Obama and the unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act.

The Real Clear Politics polling average puts Obama's job approval at 42.9 percent, a dangerously low spot for his party if history is any guide. Ben Highton, writing on the indispensable Monkey Cage blog, notes that:

Presidential approval is strongly correlated with midterm congressional election outcomes. Gallup has polled Americans on presidential approval during every midterm election cycle since 1954. Across the 16 midterm election cycles from 1954 through 2012, the average level of presidential approval during the first quarter (January to March) of the election year is about 58 percent. Over the available Gallup presidential approval polls for the first quarter of this year, Obama’s approval is significantly below the average, about 42 percent, worse than every other year except 2006 and 1974.

Here's that data in chart form.

Obama's unpopularity is matched by the continued unpopularity of his signature health-care law. In a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal national poll, just 35 percent of those surveyed said the Affordable Care Act was a good idea, while 49 percent said it was a bad one. Dig deeper and the Democrats' political problem with the law becomes clearer. Twenty-six percent of people felt strongly that Obamacare was a good law, while 42 percent felt strongly that it was not.

And, it's not just polling data where Democrats' problems are becoming apparent. In the House special election in Florida's 13th District last Tuesday, Republican candidate David Jolly -- and a panoply of outside groups that came in to support him -- ran on a message focused relentlessly on the Affordable Care Act.

Jolly's victory over Democrat Alex Sink in a district that Obama won twice and that Sink herself carried when she was the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in 2010 has made Democrats even more skittish about the political peril present for them in the midterms, and increased Republicans' confidence about their chances of solidifying their House majority and retaking the Senate.

Add it all up and you have a shift in the battle for the Senate majority. What began as a toss-up has now tilted in favor of Republicans taking the Senate majority this November.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+17 # reiverpacific 2014-03-18 09:47
Are the American people really that far down the path to an "Idiotocracy", state to state after all the recent concentrated and aggressive attacks on everything from Social Security, ACA, Unemployment, Food Stamps, anti-Job creation and continuation of corporate welfare even in this 1.5-party system????????
The article certainly addresses the nuts (especially Tea-thug wingnuts) and bolts of the two dominant party strategies from a kind of insider political point of view.
But surely the grassroots who are, in the end, most immediately affected by the ongoing strategies, increasingly arrogantly demonstrated, top-down, slave and king-maker, do-nothing power-plays by those who deny them true representation, are at least seeing and feeling SOMETHING wrong ("There is something rotten in the state"!) in the stagnation of opportunity, ever-diminishin g means of redress, plutocratic abundance at their expense and corruption in the millionaire's club called government.
But I suppose I'm obliged to return to the soporific effect of the US "everything's fine, just keep shopping -and now here's the weather" owner-media to induce their huge audience to snooze through the mid-term elections which are notorious for low voter turnout, even as they continue to bitch about the price of fast food and "stuff", while the nation and world sinks into a sea of apathy (and rising tides) at home, sustained by corporately-dri ven conflict and invasion beyond.
The GOP should be adrift at sea by now!
 
 
+5 # Rain17 2014-03-18 12:19
This is a six year itch election. Historically, in the sixth year of a President's term, the opposition party gains a significant number of seats. So to that end I do think that the GOP will gain seats in the Senate due to where the Democrats are defending open seats and vulnerable incumbents.

But I suspect that the numbers in the House will only move slightly. That's because the GOP had such as successful 2010, used redistricting to lock their gains, and took all the "low-hanging fruit". There's little left for them to really take besides perhaps NC-7, UT-4, and WV-3, all of whom have Democrats who either retired or are very vulnerable.

I suspect that this midterm election will be like 1999 or 1998. But I could be wrong.
 
 
+4 # lorenbliss 2014-03-18 15:46
What is fueling the Republican triumph is not the popularity of their unabashedly fascist policies but rather the electorate's anger.

The voters are profoundly bitter at the president's transformation from Obama the Orator to Barack the Betrayer, and they're boiling with throw-the-basta rds-out fury at the Democrats in general.

A key element in this equation of political dysfunction is the fact – proven by the contrast between the slogan “change we can believe in” and Obama's post-2008 opposition to nearly everything he claimed to support – the Democrats are now identified as the party of the Big Lie.

I hear it repeatedly: “At least the Republicans are honest about what they stand for.”

“Yeah,” I reply. “They stand for killing all of us who are poor and disabled. They stand for slashing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. They stand for ending food stamps and unemployment compensation.”

“The Democrats wanna do the same thing,” comes the inevitable rejoinder. “Only difference is the Democrats hide their intentions with lies”

If the Republicans take the Senate -- and I'm sure they will -- they'll take the White House in 2016. That will complete the USian shift to unapologetic fascism, with genocidal abandonment – or worse – as the "final solution" to the problems of poverty and unemployment.

And it's all the fault of Barack the Betrayer, the biggest Big Liar ever to hold the presidency.
 
 
+1 # Rain17 2014-03-18 19:42
I'm sorry but it's comments like this that anger me. I know that Obama falls short of the purity standards that most RSN readers have. He isn't a far left Democrat and nothing short of that will ever satisfy some people here. No Democrat who could actually win an election would satisfy all too many RSN posters.

I fee;l for President Obama because, no matter what he does, on the one hand, he has those on the right who savage him at every opportunity. To them he is a "Kenyan, Marxist, Muslim, Anti-American Socialist who hates America!" He is a "socialist tyrant who wants to eliminate free enterprise".

Then you have those on the far left who equate him with the Republicans who hate him with a passion. The man got healthcare reform passed, the first time in history that any universal healthcare bill of any kind passed Congress. The man stopped defending DOMA and got Congress to get rid of the ban on gays in the military. Osama Bin Laden is dead and US troops are out of Iraq. He reformed student loans and did get some funding for transit projects in this country.

Yet some here on the far left act like he has achieved nothing. And I guess that it's easy to rant like that from a privilege. But millions of Americans now have access to healthcare. Yet that doesn't matter topeople here because I guess that, if you already live in privilege, you can afford the luxury to demand the politically impossible and not appreciate Obama has achieved in spite cf the GOP opposition.
 
 
+2 # lorenbliss 2014-03-18 22:13
If you knew anything about the Affordable Care Act, you would understand what a monumental betrayal it is.

What it does is create the ILLUSION of "access to healthcare."

In truth it is structured so that actual care remains unaffordable for most of the (ever-more-poor ly paid) 99 Percent.

The function ACA thus serves is truly diabolical.

When a person is forced to choose between food and shelter or health care, chooses the former and dies as a result, it enables the Ruling Class to blame the victim: "s/he chose to eat and avoid homelessness rather than to get treatment; hence s/he chose to die."

ACA's huge unpopularity is not just because of Republican propaganda -- it's because so many of us are now forced to pay our insurance-compa ny slavemasters thousands of dollars a year for policies the staggering deductibles and co-pays prohibit us from ever using.

Such is “American democracy” – the only industrialized nation on earth wherein health care remains a privilege of wealth rather than a civil right.
 
 
+1 # Rain17 2014-03-18 22:45
Loren--I'm sorry that you maintain such a negative opinion about the ACA, but I lost a relative who didn't see the doctor until it was too late to treat her cancer and she died because she lacked health insurance. Had the ACA been around at the time it would have arguably saved her life. At the very least it would have given her a fighting chance because she almost certainly would have been able to afford coverage.

People like you would have joined in with the Tea Party chanting "kill the bill!", albeit for much different reasons. Your ideological purity would have sentenced millions of Americans to bankruptcy, financial ruination, or even death. The ACA was a matter of life and death for many in this country.

I agree that the ACA is not the public option or single-payer, but it is saving lives. And without it people almost certainly would have DIED. It curtails some of the worst abuses of the healthcare system.

But I guess that you must have great health insurance because otherwise you wouldn't talk down the ACA and not even admit that it is helping people. It may be a "betrayal" to you because, as with all too many people at RSN, the perfect must be the enemy of the good; but, for others, it is a lifesaver.

And by voting third party you are supporting those who would take away and deny care to those people.
 
 
-2 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2014-03-19 11:39
lorenbliss, your last sentence cancels any credibility I MIGHT have given you. It's irresponsible and unfounded and represents an uninformed, reactionary, petulant thought process.

No, even though informed Democrats know the ACA didn't go far enough, they won't be voting Republican en masse out of a hissy fit of spite. The BIG LIE commercials the Republicans are running are not aimed at anyone who knows anything about the ACA, they're aimed at the ignorant masses whose lives haven't even been negatively affected by the ACA, yet want another reason — whether true or false — to be outraged at government and that black man in the White House.

The worst thing the Democrats can do now is to back away from the ACA like the cowards they are. Their messaging needs to go on offense and assert that the anti-ACA Republicans are in the pockets of the very insurance companies that have been and still are screwing us at every opportunity. Any vote for any Republican is a vote for higher insurance premiums.
 
 
-2 # lorenbliss 2014-03-19 12:27
And any vote for any Democrat is a vote for a closet Republican.
 
 
-1 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2014-03-19 16:07
Yet again, that's an uninformed, reactionary, petulant statement. You evidently don't know very many Democrats. I'll vote Democrat and you can vote — what? Surrender? Will your last great act of defiance be your wasted no-chance third-party vote?
 
 
0 # lorenbliss 2014-03-20 00:59
Calling me names does not change the ugly truth, one example of which is here:

"The White House and the CIA are currently engaged in an unrelenting battle to cover up the George W. Bush administration’ s torture program and to maintain a system of impunity for what are obvious war crimes." ( http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/22660-the-cia-torture-impunity-challenge )

Nor does it change the equally damning fact the economic policies of the two parties can be summed up in one word: "austerity" -- which we all know is but a clever euphemism for the deliberate imposition of genocidal poverty.

Such are the limits of political relevance in this New Dark Age of capitalist savagery.

Once we admit to ourselves we are victims of capitalism, those two issues -- foreign policy (global conquest) and domestic economic policy (maximum impoverishment for the 99 Percent) -- are the only issues that matter.

Unless of course one is part of the petit bourgeoisie -- still comfortable, still deluded by the charade of “democracy,” still comforted by the Big Lie of “progress,” still therefore like all the other true reactionaries making common cause with the oppressor -- and thereby in your case most assuredly living up to the implicit promise of your screen name.
 
 
0 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2014-03-20 11:02
What name did I call you? I did not call you any names.

We share the same idealism, but not the same realism. Many true Democrats are waging an uphill battle against Republicans YOU would reward by taking votes away from the Dems on a third-party lark. To think that life does not constantly demand lesser-evil choices is Pollyannaish. We have to "take the best and leave the rest" every single day. Nothing has ever been accomplished in politics or government or democracy by insisting that we be given perfect choices. If you think there's no difference in the voting records of Dems and Republicans regarding the 1% versus the rest of us, you haven't been paying attention.
 
 
+4 # lorenbliss 2014-03-18 15:56
In this dread context, the only thing that can save us is the emergence of an overwhelmingly powerful third party -- for example, Seattle City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant's Socialist Alternative, albeit on steroids.

If that doesn't happen, we're doomed to live the remainder of our lives under fascist tyranny.

And it won't be just fascism. It will be fascism combined with fanatical Christian theocracy, enforced by the most formidable surveillance, military and secret-police apparatus our species has ever known.

Again, I'm damn thankful I'm old...
 
 
+1 # RLF 2014-03-18 16:31
Me Too! Your average idiot political analyst will tell you that the Dems need to "move further to the 'center'" when I think you're absolutely right, loren, they need to be progressives and actually stand for something different than the republicans. I won't be fooled again...I'll be voting third party.
 
 
0 # lorenbliss 2014-03-18 17:20
Likewise: Socialist Alternative for me -- all the way if they run national candidates.
 
 
+1 # Rain17 2014-03-18 20:04
And thank you for voting to take away healthcare from people who finally have access to it. And thank you for voting to appoint right-wing judges will take away more of our civil rights. And thank you for voting for people will take away all food stamp and unemployment benefits.
 
 
0 # Rain17 2014-03-18 19:55
Yes let's all vote third party and give everything to the Republicans. That worked so well in 2000. I've said it a million times, but the US system is not proportional. Voting for third party candidates gets you nothing.

And again I contend that this is very much an issue of class, gender, sexual orientation, race, and privilege. Those who are white, straight, in great jobs, and who have great health insurance can afford the luxury of voting third party. They are not going to suffer the consequences because, even if a Republican wins, they'll be fine. It's those least able to who will be paying the price for them "voting their conscience". The ultimate moral bankruptcy of this position stems from the fact that they have no problem inflicting the consequences on those least able to handle them.

The fact is that to the winner goes the judicial appointments. Bush appointed Alito and Roberts, who were crucial votes in cases like Citizen United, Wal-mart v Dukes, Comcast v Behrend, and Shelby, decisions that eliminated civil rights protections and enabled unlimited spending in campaigns.

Continued in next post. . .
 
 
+1 # Rain17 2014-03-18 20:00
Continued from last post. . .

Voting third party means you're actively helping to elect candidates who will take away healthcare from people finally able to get coverage through the ACA. It means you're actually helping people who want to take away all food stamp and unemployment benefits.

Think that the recent Farm Bill that passed was awful? A completely GOP-controlled government would ensure that there would be NO benefits. It would make the recent small cuts look like the New Deal.

Voting third party means helping people who want to restrict abortion and gay rights. It means helping those who want to appoint judges to the courts who want to take civil rights away from both women and gays.

And I would hope that you would have the moral courage to stare someone in the eye and tell him/her that he/she is losing his/hear healthcare because "you had to vote your conscience".

These are the very real life consequences of voting third party. And I guess that, if you are in a job with a great salary and health insurance benefits, it doesn't matter to you because you just are not going to suffer the consequences.

And so there is a "difference" between the two parties. Just because the Democratic Party isn't running to the far left doesn't mean there are differences. But the bottom line is that few, if any Democrats, who could actually win an election would ever satisfy some people here at RSN.
 
 
0 # jmac9 2014-03-18 18:46
Republicans destroyed America.-
8 years of Bush-Cheney-Rep ublican agenda caused the economic collapse.
And Republicans are still keeping the same destructive agenda.
Yet,
Obama campaigned and we wanted the end of all things Bush-Cheney,
then look what Obama did:
He kept Bush-Cheney creeps and brought in old Clinton hacks -
nominated Bush appointee - right wing nut Michele Leonhart as head of the DEA,
did not close torture facility of Guantanamo, did not investigate Bush-Cheney for war crimes, and continually 'compromised' with the fascist Republicans.

We need 54 Senators and over 240 in the House to stick to a mandate that:
throws out the Patriot Act, ends the DEA and the fraudulent 'war on drugs', ends Homeland Security, ends 'war on terror', ends the NSA,
we take back our Constitution and Bill of Rights from corporations, banks, christian whackos, and their Republican-tea bag mouthpieces.
 
 
-1 # lorenbliss 2014-03-18 19:58
Hear, hear! In short, what we need is a revolutionary socialist party, like Socialist Alternative: http://www.socialistalternative.org/
 
 
+2 # Rain17 2014-03-18 20:05
And how do you envision such a party actually getting enough votes to win?
 
 
-1 # lorenbliss 2014-03-18 21:57
We the People have already lost. We lost our freedom when we surrendered to the coup of 22 November 1963. We lost any chance of ever regaining our freedom when we allowed the assassins to murder every other leader who might have saved us from ourselves.

Since then it's never been more than a choice between two fascist evils -- the honestly evil Republicans and the dishonestly evil Democrats.

In this wretched context, the only non-evil choice is to vote my conscience -- and for however many years I have left, that's exactly what I am going to do.

If more of us would do just that, democratic socialism – the only form of governance that's implicitly humanitarian – might yet have a chance.

At the very least it would scare the One Percent into abandoning the Big Lie of USian "democracy" and publicly proclaiming the Nazism in their hearts.

Then at least the One Percenters would no longer be able to hide their malevolent intent -- a zero-tolerance slave-state here at home, conquest of any nation abroad that had somehow managed to remain free of Wall Street's tyrannical shackles.
 
 
0 # Rain17 2014-03-18 22:51
Then why even bother?

"Voting your conscience", given how the US electoral system operates, is "supporting evil". You are voting to take away healthcare and civil rights from people no matter how much you try to claim otherwise. Voting third party is voting to support GOP policies despite your self-serving talk about "voting your conscience".

I'm also gay and you will also enable those to take office who, although there have been strong legal victories the last few years, will take away my civil rights. You will enable those who will put judges on the bench who will take away my civil rights.

You are not on my side. As I said in other posts the ultimate moral bankruptcy of your position is that you would force negative consequences on people who can least afford them.
 
 
+1 # lorenbliss 2014-03-19 01:09
It is undoubtedly true, just as you say, "(I) am not on (your) side."

I am an old (74), crippled, wretchedly impoverished proletarian. Since 2009, my sole income is an (increasingly inadequate) Social Security pension. Like a growing majority of USians, I am a victim of the predatory capitalism obscenely enabled by both major parties.

My “great health insurance” is Medicare. Since 2009, its copays are affordable only with help from Medicaid. And Medicaid is welfare. This means (because my income convicts me of the “crime” of poverty), I am now as much a prisoner of a zero-tolerance bureaucracy as any convict on parole.

By the fact your close relative "almost certainly would have been able to afford coverage," you are most likely petit bourgeoisie, a status seemingly confirmed by your politics.

Thus in truth we are probably enemies.

Since you chose to brandish your sexuality flag, I will wave my own Red Banner. My conscience – the sensibilities you damn as “moral bankruptcy” – drew me into the labor movement when I was only 16. Next it brought me to the Civil Rights Movement, the alternative press, the Anti-Vietnam War Movement, the rural agricultural communes of the Back-to-the-Lan d Movement and finally to Occupy, as one of the first activists of Occupy Tacoma.

What have you done?

How dare you accuse me of “moral bankruptcy”?

Have you ever risked your life for people's liberation, even once?
 
 
-1 # Rain17 2014-03-19 21:40
Yeah I will damn them as "moral bankruptcy" because, by voting third party, "voting your conscience" consigns millions of Americans to damnation. You are enabling the far-right. Given how the US electoral systems you can't rationalize your voting behavior any other way.
 
 
0 # lorenbliss 2014-03-20 02:34
You conveniently forget that when I vote my conscience, I condemn myself to the same "damnation" you claim I would inflict on "millions of Americans."

As to “enabling the far-right,” the history of the Democratic Party since 22 November 1963 -- Vietnam, welfare “reform,” deregulation, “free” trade, total surveillance, other nullifications of the constitution, the forever deaths of the Employee Free Choice Act and of public option health insurance, etc. ad nauseam -- speaks for itself.

Hence, just as conscience compelled me to go to jail and risk death for the Civil Rights Movement (this is not hyperbole; the Ku Klux Klan thrice tried to kill me), so my conscience now compels me to another act of resistance – withholding my vote from politicians who serve only themselves and their capitalist masters.

To paraphrase Gen. Sherman, class war is hell.

That said, to resist oppression is – by your “logic” – to be guilty of "moral bankruptcy” if and when said resistance results in hurt or inconvenience to others.

Thus by the same "logic," one must suppose you would accuse the World War II anti-Nazi resistance of “moral bankruptcy,” since defiance by these inconceivably heroic men and women provoked unspeakable retaliatory atrocities by the Nazis: Google Lidice, or Oradour-sur-Gla ne, or Zina Portnova.

What a wonderfully “moral” rationale you have established for collaboration with an enemy.
 
 
0 # Walter J Smith 2014-03-18 22:05
Howard Dean was leading the Democrats to a very promising and strong base against the absurd GOP, when the Democrats followed Rahm Emmanuel (note his successes recruiting criminals to run for office in Chicago). Emmanuel and Obama kicked Dean out at the DNC, and now the Democrats are pissed their voters want nothing to do with the charade of democracy in which the Emmanuel-led thugs recruit the candidates for office no matter what the citizens themselves want.

So the Democrats could easily reclaim their power base by re-embracing democracy. And that doesn't interest them. So, like the GOP that Dean saw correctly was vulnerable because it was stupified from the top down, the Democrats now are stupified from the top down. The voters correctly see the Democratic Party as morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Meanwhile, the Tea Party insurgency almost breathes life back into the morally and intellectually moribund GOP; almost. Not quite. Two problems. 1) The Tea Party has no intellectual life or moral life. 2) The money people in the GOP establishment still love having a moribund party. Like the Democrats.

Vote for the lessers of two evils so the US Empire will collapse from within.
 
 
0 # RnR 2014-03-19 06:10
I still think Rahm Emmanuel and Obama are making a fortune turning the state of Illinois over to the frackers.
 
 
+1 # Michael Lee Bugg 2014-03-19 15:00
The problems for Democrats include: Obama is only president because in 2008 people hated what Bush and his Republican buddies had done to us, and now people on the right AND the left hate what Obama has done to us! Obama is a "pleaser" who is still trying to get rich people to like him and Republicans to meet him 1/3 of the way from the far right! 2) Obama has let the Republicans keep him from working on unemployment by tying him up with foreign policy crap like Benghazi and Syria and Iran and now Ukraine. It IS the economy, stupid! 90% of Americans don't care who controls Ukraine or Syria. They want a good paying job so they can buy a house and a car! 3) Obama supporters from 2008 are just as unhappy with his health insurance company survival act as the Republicans who dreamed this crap up are! 4) Obama and his fellow Democrats are trying so hard not to displease the rich that they cannot come up with a compelling, coherent message! There are more problems, but it just makes me sick to recall that after the 2012 elections and after some other foolish Republican gaffs we were talking about how the Republican Party was either going to split or implode! Leave it to Obama to throw them a lifeline - repeatedly!!!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN