PDA

View Full Version : Would a Democratic sweep be good or bad in the long run?


MacNut
Nov 4, 2008, 07:30 PM
If the Democrats take both House and Senate with huge majorities would that be a good thing or would that make the country too lopsided. We do need some form of balance in government. Do the Dems have to be careful not to go over board and risk a revolt. What would be the Republicans best chance at redeeming it self. And how long do you see a tilt in power before things even out.

aethelbert
Nov 4, 2008, 07:36 PM
Control of a single party is always dangerous and it never succeeds. In almost every historical instance, the majority party either divides or dissolves soon after being in total control.

mrkramer
Nov 4, 2008, 07:37 PM
We can see what happened the last time that there was one party in power and that didn't end good, so I doubt the Democrats will do a better job controlling everything.

Bosunsfate
Nov 4, 2008, 07:41 PM
It will be the real test of the Obama Presidency. He has to govern in a way that does not alienate.

I have high expectations as that was the foundation of his campaign.

Though George Bush said that as well. I'm a uniter not a divider.

Tilpots
Nov 4, 2008, 07:44 PM
If the Democrats take both House and Senate with huge majorities would that be a good thing or would that make the country too lopsided. We do need some form of balance in government. Do the Dems have to be careful not to go over board and risk a revolt. What would be the Republicans best chance at redeeming it self. And how long do you see a tilt in power before things even out.

I think this is the revolt. The risk to the Dems is not coming through with their promises. If they have all this power now, they need to wield it while they can for things like Healthcare, Taxes, etc..

MacNut
Nov 4, 2008, 07:46 PM
I think this is the revolt. The risk to the Dems is not coming through with their promises. If they have all this power now, they need to wield it while they can for things like Healthcare, Taxes, etc..People don't like to pay a lot of taxes. The Dems can not go spend happy. The reason the Republicans are getting voted out is because they spent to much money.

Tilpots
Nov 4, 2008, 07:50 PM
People don't like to pay a lot of taxes. The Dems can not go spend happy. The reason the Republicans are getting voted out is because they spent to much money.

That's not the only reason they're getting voted out.

And I don't see the Dems going spend happy because there's not any money to spend. The tax increases on the rich will fund many of these changes, if (and it's a big if) they follow through with their promises.

MacNut
Nov 4, 2008, 07:55 PM
That's not the only reason they're getting voted out.

And I don't see the Dems going spend happy because there's not any money to spend. The tax increases on the rich will fund many of these changes, if (and it's a big if) they follow through with their promises.The American voter is very fickle. They have a sort attention span. If they don't like how things are going no matter how good or bad things might be they will vote for change. The voting we are seeing is not based on common sense but more anger.

flyinmac
Nov 4, 2008, 08:00 PM
Having any party as the majority / total control is bad.

But, that being said, if the Democrats do get this luxury this time, they will reveal their true colors.

Now, keep in mind that I am not affiliated with either party. So, understand that my views on this are based more on history and observation than my preference for one party or the other. And, keep in mind that when I voted this time, there was more Democrats on my ballot than Republicans when I was done voting.

I vote for the individual and what I believe that they will do and whether I believe that they will stand against the particular issues I have with their respective parties.


So, that said, here is what I've seen.

The Democrats have essentially had the power for many years now. And, in that time, they have done very little to improve things. Consider that they like to blame the current economic issues on the Republicans. But, at the same time they have done nothing to prevent it.

The Democrats have enjoyed the ability to push through many laws without any Republican assistance. And, yet they haven't done it. The reason... They don't want to risk having to take the blame.

Consider that the last time I can remember people hurting this much economically, was when Clinton (a Democrat) was in office. I remember being in severe financial situations when Clinton was in office. I remember hundreds of thousands of jobs disappearing each week for nearly a year. Major companies shutting down, or laying off thousands of people. And, it just hit wave after wave after wave. And that was a Democrat in office.

Consider that the situation we face now with the housing market was set up many years ago. And, guess what, the Democrats share the blame there as well.

Consider that Clinton had intelligence on 9/11 prior to his leaving office. But, instead of getting his hands dirty, he rode out his remaining term in office trying to do as little as possible.

Consider that Clinton is the very reason we are paying the high prices for gas. We had a clear path to further American oil fields and drilling. But, Clinton vetoed the legislation that was passed. He was the final word on drilling here. We had everything in line to start, and he shut it down.

The stage we are on was set before Bush came into Office. But, the Democrats feel they can blame him for everything falling apart under his watch. But, they fail to admit that they had a rather large hand in setting up the failures.

It's like if I'm at work, and I set up everything to blow 4 hours after I leave for the night. And, when it does, I blame the guy who was on shift when it happened.

Now, I do have disagreements with Bush on many issues. But, I'm tired of hearing the Democrats holding him solely responsible for the current state of the country.

The Democrats have had the power to act and to push their legislation through. They've had the ability to get things done. But, they won't. The housing situation could have been avoided if either party had cared to intervene. But, neither party acted. You can't blame only the Republicans for the housing situation.

Same with the economic situation right now. The Democrats have had as much opportunity to prevent the current situation as the Republicans. You can't blame only the Republicans.

Keep in mind that Bush is little more than a figure head right now. The Democrats really have been holding all the power. And, yet they blame him for the state of the economy.

Sure, if he were a stronger President, it would help. But, the Democrats hold the power to block him, and they hold the power to get things done. But, they haven't gotten things done in the time they've held the power.

Honestly, if they do take control of the Presidency, they will do as they've done before... They'll show what they are... We'll be where we've been... And, the next Election everyone will shift again to set up a Republican majority and a Republican President.

There are many Democrats I like. But, historically speaking, I've seen the country get worse every time they've held majority power.

You might think I am totally anti-Democrat from what I've said above. But, if you look at the majority of Ballots I've cast over the years, you'd see that is actually far from true.

I vote on the individual, but will speak my observations of the past.

You can watch this time as well. If Obama gets into Office, there will be a trend by the voters in the coming elections to replace seated Democrats with Republicans.

People will see that without Republicans to blame, that the Democrats are more of the same. And, they've proven that every time they've held the power.

In my mind, Republicans and Democrats are very similar once you get them in office. They have a core list of beliefs that the party adheres to. But, when you get them in office, essentially the same thing happens.

Without the give and take and negotiating that happens in a two party system, things get too far out of whack and tip too far to one side.

Right now, we've had a Democratic House and Congress that could act on their own. But, they've held out acting without Republicans because they want to be sure that they cannot be blamed. Kind of like saying.... "well, he did it too".

Once they've got the Democrats holding all power in all branches, we'll see one of two things. Either they will tip the scale and start taking the country into an unbalanced direction - passing things with only their beliefs in mind. Or, they won't act at all if there is any potential controversy (so that they cannot be blamed for doing something).

Essentially, they'll either go wild, or hide as much as they can until they have someone else to blame.

Tilpots
Nov 4, 2008, 08:02 PM
The American voter is very fickle. They have a sort attention span. If they don't like how things are going no matter how good or bad things might be they will vote for change. The voting we are seeing is not based on common sense but more anger.

I think that's a debate for another thread... If the Dems don't get the job done, in 2 yrs. we'll get a chance to vote again.

MacNut
Nov 4, 2008, 08:08 PM
There will be a big spot light on the Democrats the next 2 to 4 years. People want change but they want things to get done. If things don't change the way people want expect another revolt. The Dems will have all the power so they will get the praise or the blame. You can't blame the Republicans anymore because there aren't any.

Tilpots
Nov 4, 2008, 08:09 PM
There will be a big spot light on the Democrats the next 2 to 4 years. People want change but they want things to get done. If things don't change the way people want expect another revolt. The Dems will have all the power so they will get the praise or the blame. You can't blame the Republicans anymore because there aren't any.

I agree wholeheartedly.

it5five
Nov 4, 2008, 08:39 PM
A Democratic sweep? Well, they certainly couldn't do worse than the Republicans have done the last eight years.

MacNut
Nov 4, 2008, 08:43 PM
A Democratic sweep? Well, they certainly couldn't do worse than the Republicans have done the last eight years.Not doing worse does not mean that they will automatically do better.

Cleverboy
Nov 4, 2008, 09:44 PM
People don't like to pay a lot of taxes. The Dems can not go spend happy. The reason the Republicans are getting voted out is because they spent to much money.Many of the new Democrats are very centrist/moderate. If they actually went to the "liberal" end, they'd face a revolt in their constituency. Don't believe the hype. The Democrats who beat out many of the Republican seats didn't do it because Republican territories suddeny went bi-polar. Along with Demographic changes, many of these Democrats are reaching to the center. I think people need to come back to reality and understand what's really happening with the Democratic party, and no read so much GOP propaganda.

~ CB

ktbubster
Nov 4, 2008, 09:48 PM
"after the polls close today, the house, senate and presidency will be controlled by one party, with a man in charge who believes he is god.

The last time this happened, 6 million jews died, and the atom bomb dropped"

I am not conservative or liberal. I am independent, but an independent who'd rather teach a man to fish then give him some. Socialism and someone who hates israel, and half of america. Awesome.

I would have hoped our first black president would have been someone who could make everyone proud.

Flame away if you must, but the dems are going to go overboard, I'm sure of it, and in the long run, our country is going to suffer. period.

god do we need some more parties.

MacNut
Nov 4, 2008, 09:48 PM
You have a lot of moderate Republicans that were voted out, right now it doesn't matter what your views of a person are the Republicans are seen as evil.

aethelbert
Nov 4, 2008, 09:50 PM
"after the polls close today, the house, senate and presidency will be controlled by one party, with a man in charge who believes he is god.

The last time this happened, 6 million jews died, and the atom bomb dropped"

I am not conservative or liberal. I am independent, but an independent who'd rather teach a man to fish then give him some. Socialism and someone who hates israel, and half of america. Awesome.

I would have hoped our first black president would have been someone who could make everyone proud.

Flame away if you must, but the dems are going to go overboard, I'm sure of it, and in the long run, our country is going to suffer. period.

god do we need some more parties.
*bows and agrees*

it5five
Nov 4, 2008, 09:52 PM
So you guys still have nothing but lies:

1) Obama's not a socialist
2) Obama has said before that the US would always be a friend of Israel

But nice Hitler comparison you fit in there. You guys are worse than I thought.

EDIT:

"after the polls close today, the house, senate and presidency will be controlled by one party, with a man in charge who believes he can talk to god.

The last time this happened, our country faced financial ruin and we invaded and destroyed a sovereign country"

Fixed for you Reps. You all had nothing wrong with one party control for the last eight years, and for you to start complaining now is 100% hypocritical.

ktbubster
Nov 4, 2008, 10:11 PM
yeah, except for the fact that the financial ruin was caused by things before the bush reign. It was hugely influenced by a plethora of decisions made in the mid 90's under democrats. I'm not saying bush is great, and republicans know what is up, I was saying we need more parties and more ideals and things to get behind and... well, a much more even spread out train of thought.

The world isn't black and white, this country shouldn't be forced into red and blue.

You can't run a kitchen with all pastry chefs, or all sauce-aes (sorry have no idea how to spell that) you need some of everything.

And ummm, I think you are forgetting that the Democrats have had the house and the senate for quite a while... so no, the republican party did not have complete control like the dems will.

::shakes head:: sigh

PS. I agree with everything flyinmac said, even on my record and who i vote for... add in my comments about needing more parties so people aren't in teh situation to say "well i hate so and so, so it looks like i'm voting for choice B. don' tknow what he does, but i'll take that"

It's going to be an interesting next few years.

KingYaba
Nov 4, 2008, 10:15 PM
A sweep is not a good thing. It was not good when Republicans did, and it's not good thing tonight. Two years, fellas.

flyinmac
Nov 4, 2008, 10:18 PM
yeah, except for the fact that the financial ruin was caused by things before the bush reign. It was hugely influenced by a plethora of decisions made in the mid 90's under democrats. I'm not saying bush is great, and republicans know what is up, I was saying we need more parties and more ideals and things to get behind and... well, a much more even spread out train of thought.

The world isn't black and white, this country shouldn't be forced into red and blue.

You can't run a kitchen with all pastry chefs, or all sauce-aes (sorry have no idea how to spell that) you need some of everything.

And ummm, I think you are forgetting that the Democrats have had the house and the senate for quite a while... so no, the republican party did not have complete control like the dems will.

::shakes head:: sigh

Exactly as I was saying.... But, now apparently McCain has conceded. And, apparently life is now going to get really interesting.

So, here we go. Democrats all the way. Either we'll have a mess as they go through and push a solid Democratic agenda, or they'll do nothing because they won't have anyone to hide behind and blame.

Democrats like to pretend that they had no hand in this mess. They like to cause a mess (or pretend one isn't coming), and then let the Republicans take the blame.

Doesn't anyone remember why we voted for Bush the first time???? Remember it was a revolt against the Democrats. So, now we revolt against the Republicans and are surely only going to be reminded that the Democrats are just as bad.

solvs
Nov 4, 2008, 10:40 PM
Not doing worse does not mean that they will automatically do better.
At this point, most of us would be happy with not worse, because it's better than what we've had.

Look, there's plenty of blame to go around, but there seems to be a lot of historical revisionism going on. Deregulation (bipartisan) caused this. Greed caused this. Mismanagement caused this. And as we've been over so many times already, if one wants to start with CRA, most of the home loans weren't under that guideline, so let's not go there either. Look, the GOP held Congress since '94. I don't know where you get the idea that it was a revolt against Dems. Were you even there? Maybe a revolt against Clenis' bj in '00, but it was fear in '04, and even then it was close. And the Dems barely had a lead in '06, discounting Liberman, they actually didn't have any lead in the Senate. Not to mention the Blue Dog (conservative) Dems. While I don't want to see another Carter admin, nor a Bush admin but in reverse in all the wrong ways, I doubt things are going to be as doom and gloom as some of you seem to think based on... what, to be honest I'm not quite sure. What was that quote about not belonging to an organized party, being a Democrat. They don't have the focus, nor the agendas, the GOP did. Even with their lead, I'm sure there will be infighting, and so little can be done in 2 years as you seem to think for some reason. It'll be adequate I'm sure. Plenty of conservative Dems and Repubs to cockblock things going too far. Plenty of moderates, not the far lefties some of you seem to think they are. If they screw up, we can all complain and vote them out in a couple of years. And they won't even call us unAmerican unpatriotic traitors if we do. :rolleyes:

Nice Hitler reference BTW. Couldn't even make it to post #17 without the Godwinning. Classy.

KingYaba
Nov 4, 2008, 10:54 PM
Nice Hitler reference BTW. Couldn't even make it to post #17 without the Godwinning. Classy.

If only I had a nickle for every Bush & Hitler comparison over the last six years... though, those nickles are being taken away now. ;)

solvs
Nov 4, 2008, 11:25 PM
If only I had a nickle for every Bush & Hitler comparison over the last six years... though, those nickles are being taken away now. ;)

I'm not going to defend all of them, but come on, this would be stretching to Plastic Man. Dems having the WH, the House, and a slight lead in the Senate = Nazi Germany!?! :confused: Really? I mean, come on now. There's plenty to worry about, to legitimately criticize. There's no need to go there. Especially considering the obvious irony.

And please don't start with the tax crap, unless you consider Reagan to be a socialist, because Obama is simply modeling part of his new plan after what Ronnie and Clenis did, and undoing the disastrous Bush tax cuts that are part of our current problems.

lord patton
Nov 5, 2008, 12:23 AM
The Republicans got 6 years of unipolar government. Will the Dems match that? I don't think so. Here are my postulates:

1) The US is still a center-right country.
2) The Dems will have very little restraint pursuing their left (not center-left) agenda.

If I'm right about those two things, they'll lose seats in both houses in 2010, and lose control of at least one house in in 2012. They could easily lose the presidency in four years, as well, although I think that contest will always be too close to call.

We'll see. What a great country. :)

solvs
Nov 5, 2008, 12:46 AM
2 problems. The country is actually more left on a lot of issues than even we seem to realize. And the Dems are barely center. Some are more center right even. Maybe a few center left, and even a socialist, but we're told that we hate liberals so much, we believe it for some reason, even though looking at how we actually feel, we are quite liberal.

Except when it comes to taxes, because we hate taxes.

Beric
Nov 5, 2008, 12:53 AM
Both Republicans and Democrats are big-government. I'm definitely an exception is believing that goverment should protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and do absolutely nothing else. I'd like to see social security, medicare, and the whole lot eliminated. I feel the reason healthcare is failing is that there's too much government involvement in it right now, not that there's not enough. The moral issues are pretty much it that separate the Republicans versus Democrats. A big government is just too convenient for elected officials. Republicans say they don't like big government, but then they get elected and want to stay that way.

solvs
Nov 5, 2008, 01:01 AM
I'd like to see social security, medicare, and the whole lot eliminated.
You must not have read your history then, because prior to us having things like those (like they have in every other modern country, usually better than ours at this point) things weren't great for poor kids, widows, the elderly, the disabled, and most of those who weren't landowning upper class men, especially once the world started to become more modern.

I feel the reason healthcare is failing is that there's too much government involvement in it right now, not that there's not enough.
Then you don't know much about the current healthcare system either, but we've been over this many a time.

lord patton
Nov 5, 2008, 01:02 AM
I'm sure there a few issues that public is reliably left on, but overall I don't think that's the case. I guess we disagree.

I think you're right, however, that there are a lot of democrats that are moderate/centrist. I think that's how they've been winning. Hell, when was the last time a Democrat opposed raising taxes on 95% of the people? On the other side, the Republicans haven't been center-right on much but the social issues. And they've been horribly incompetent.

And that's my point. If the democrats attempt to pursue the agenda that their progressive netroots want them too, and the Republicans offer a conservative opposition, the Americans will be happy to give them a second chance.

Bush's party gained seats in its first mid-term election. That *rarely* happens. Yeah, it was largely due to 9/11, but I'd be shocked if Obama's party managed that feat in 2010.

solvs
Nov 5, 2008, 01:23 AM
Pro-abortion still.
Right to die.
Pro-stem cell.
Moderate gun control.
Support alternative fuels.
Sick of the war(s).
Know the healthcare system is broken.
Support Medicare.
Support Medicaid.
Support gov Social Security.
Support moderate regulation over business (especially now).
Want infrastructure rebuilt.
Better public education.
Fair environmental policies (preferably that don't hurt businesses)

I'm sure there are more, I could go on. But they're lead to believe the GOP is the party of God and guns, despite most liberals not caring what you do with either as long as it's not around them. I admit gay rights seems to be a little different, but while a small majority of voters are against and an even smaller margin are for, most people don't care because they know it doesn't affect them.

As moderate righties we also support a strong military (not military industrial complex mind you), personal responsibility, reduced crime, gov out of our lives, states rights, lower taxes, reduced spending, and overall fiscal conservatism (ie balanced budgets), but few recent major Republican pols are any of those. Actually, to tie it to my point, the center leaning Dems seem more like that. For now. That could change, I will agree with that, but that's what they are now. The GOP went too far to the right (and sometimes to the left in all the wrong ways) and while it worked while we were afraid and making money in the market, once reality and the $10 trillion debt punched in with a total meltdown thanks to over deregulation, the pendulum will swing the other way. For now the Dems are the closest to the middle as we can get. Just because they don't pander to the Moral Majority though, somehow they're still seem as radical far leftists. As I said elsewhere, if you're that far to the right, everything seems to the left. If the Dems do move to hippy stereotypes, and the GOP to the actual middle (not the religious right and calling it moderate because you admit there's global warming) then I'm sure we will move back because we're told that we're more conservative than I think we are (again, more religious maybe, and less taxes, but socially more liberal).

Politics is wacky.