April 16, 2010

"[D]espite lofty predictions that a broad-based Democratic constituency would be activated by the bill's passage, the bill has been an incontrovertible disaster."

Says a Washington Post column — by pollsters Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell — titled "How the Democrats can avoid a November bloodbath."

19 comments:

Pogo said...

"President Barack Obama said Thursday he's amused by the anti-tax tea party protests that have been taking place around Tax Day. Obama told a fundraiser in Miami that he's cut taxes, contrary to the claims of protesters.

"You would think they'd be saying thank you," he said.
"

LarsPorsena said...

@Pogo:
"You would think they'd be saying thank you"..the video of this is going to be in a lot of campaign commercials...none of them Democratic.

Kev said...

(the other kev)

"Vote for us, you ingrates." Hey, I like it!

SteveR said...

No matter what happens between now and November, the Kerryesque image seered in my mind and millions of others will be Nancy with that arrogant grin strolling around with that huge gavel.

The fact that they even considered a political benefit into the motivation for cramming it through should provide even more evidence that they need to be humbled.

Happened to the republicans in '06and '08, stupidity should be punished.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

"Obama told a fundraiser in Miami that he's cut taxes, contrary to the claims of protesters.
"You would think they'd be saying thank you," he said.""

Once again, I'm forced to ask: Is he stupid, or does he think that we are that stupid (which would also be pretty stupid)?

Even if that is true, does he think that America cannot possibly see anything outside of this specific moment in time? This whole issue is about fearing for the future.
- Lyssa

campy said...

How will Democrats avoid a bloodbath? I'm guessing they're going to go heavy on racism charges against all who oppose them.

Big Mike said...

Somewhere along the line Democrats have to learn that the way to address unemployment is to make it cost-effective for firms of all sizes to hire more people. Instead, they made it cost effective to lay people off for businesses larger than 50 employees, and made it risky to hire under any circumstances.

Not bright.

Kirstin said...

Why is Pat Caddell still trying to help the Democrats? He frequently appears on conservative talk radio shows and pretty much acknowledges that Obama and the Democratic Party don't represent him.

sunsong said...

I think divided government would serve us at this time. The dems and the pubbies aren't going to work together unless they have to.

Arrogance seems to be nearly a guaranteed side effect of total power.

PatCA said...

Kirstin,
I was just going to say that...he, like Kaus, just seems to hang on to the Democratic tag. For what? But I guess that's why I now call myself an Independent rather than a Republican. I just can't believe how far and irretrievably down the Dem party has fallen.

former law student said...

"I've always said in the years I've been polling, tell me the results you want and I'll write the questions for you" -- Patrick H. Caddell

edutcher said...

The verdict of the polls is not confined to anyone Alpha or Montagne would call Republican. Gallup and the rest are saying the same and, sometimes, worse.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

"Obama told a fundraiser in Miami that he's cut taxes, contrary to the claims of protesters.
"You would think they'd be saying thank you," he said.""

Once again, I'm forced to ask: Is he stupid, or does he think that we are that stupid (which would also be pretty stupid)?


The word is arrogant.

How dare the peasants think for themselves! That's why their betters are here!!

Kirstin said...

Why is Pat Caddell still trying to help the Democrats?

He and Kaus would like to save it, if they can. Right now, the only way the Demos win is lies (yes, I know) and vote fraud. The Democrat Party is the oldest political party in the history of the human race and what few liberals still exist take pride in some of its accomplishments.

Frankly, you can have the New Deal and they are, of course, the party of slavery, welfare, and Jim Crow, but they are also the party of labor (when labor was needed in this country) and civil rights. Kaus and Caddell think that legacy is worth saving.

gk1 said...

Its interesting that obama and Pelosi have mentioned a few times it was worth passing health care even if it meant a one term presidency or a "temporary" loss of the house. I think we'll get to see if they still believe this in November. A testable hypothesis if ever there was one.

cokaygne said...

It's about the composition of the parties.

The Republicans are an uneasy coalition of business, yahoos and a more or less libertarian elite. The business wing asks what is best for our bottom line. Generally, low taxes and less regulation fill the bill, but specific business groups can be and often are bought off by the Democrats. The yahoos want more government regulation of private life to keep "them" in their place. The yahoos are not prosperous and can be bought off by the Democrats if things get bad enough.

The Democrats are a coalition of labor unions, ethnic and race hustlers, and a more or less socialistic elite. The unions own the Democratic party and the Democratic party owns the hustlers. The problems the Democrats have is that the unions and the hustlers are very selfish and have no wider vision of government. The Democrats can broaden their appeal only when the republicans commit suicide, as they do often, by letting the yahoos or the business elites dictate policies that screw everyone else. Another way the Democrats can broaden their appeal is by appearing to relieve the pain when people, such as the yahoos, are suffering at the hands of the business elites.

The Democrats' problem this year is that the HCR process has been one of naked panderingby actions such as picking off business groups such as PHARMA, the insurance companies (despite the populist rhetoric against them, they know that the mandate and subsidies will add billions to their bottom lines), and exempting unions from taxes on health insurance without regard to the pain voters are suffering in this economy.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

This is what happens when liberals put their fingers in their ears and go ....."la la la la I can't hear you".

The refused to listen to the people at town hall meetings, ignore the Tea Party protesters, dismiss the rational pollsters and frog marched the Blue Dogs off the cliff.

Just because Obama and Pelosi are delusional ideologues, you would have thought that a few Democrats would have been able to get their heads out of their collective asses.

Ha. Schadenfreude...sometimes it just feels so good.

Just Lurking said...

@pogo's first comment:

It reveals how out of touch he is to the fears of average Americans; the fear that the record deficits will bring crippling taxation.

Their fear amuses him. He uses it as a punch line to entertain his supporters.

That's Obama's "Let them eat cake" moment. Epic fail.

Kirk Parker said...

"How the Democrats can avoid a November bloodbath."

Run and hide? That's Stupak's solution, isn't it? And he's not alone...

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Pat Caddell "has worked for Democratic presidential candidates George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gary Hart in 1984, Joe Biden in 1988, and Jerry Brown in 1992."

But if his opinion helps you feel better in the predictions you hope are accurate, I say GO FOR IT.

Almost Ali said...

The one constant is Obama's obliviousness; his is reparations by any means, writ large. And he's succeeded. Big time.

Pelosi was/is about control, power by any means. Real power, power over people's lives, the power to correct and punish - and the perfect setup for Obama; let her create the monster of redistribution, then simply sign it into law.

Harry Reid, Nevada's contribution to the Peter Principle - and the ideal foil to energize and enrage the Corrector, Pelosi.

Form and manner matter little to Obama. And now with reparations firmly in place, one term is plenty, a gift worthy of Shakespeare.