The Death of Conservatism

<blockquote>As for the Republicans, they will likely make gains in the next series of elections. I believe Democratic power is at its zenith with this President and Congress. Their majorities are huge, and the large electoral margin is going to give Obama plenty of political clout. Their power will decline from here, but they are very powerful right now. Their majorities are practically unassailable?at least until they screw up. They will not get blamed for the current economic mess any more than Reagan was blamed in 1982. With such overwhelming majorities, the political posturing and compromises in Washington will not be between Democrats and Republicans, it will be between various factions within the Democratic party. The Republicans in the Senate have some power with their weak filibuster margin, but the Republicans in the House don?t even need to show up.



Is any of this permanent? Of course not, but it is my opinion that unless or until the Democrats really screw up, they will be in power for the foreseeable future. Their power will weaken over time, and eventually the Republicans will get another chance. Hopefully, next time they will not blow it.

</blockquote>
IR, I have to disagree with you again on your historical accuracy. Reagan wasn't blamed because there was verifiable progress in the first two years. As I pointed out to you in another thread, the worst part of the inflation and interest rates peaked just as Reagan took office and as a result of Volcker's efforts over the preceding 18 months. Yes, there was a recession but in contrast to the high inflation and interest rates two years prior it was acceptable. Even still, the Democrats gained 27 seats in the House and one in the Senate.



In contrast, blaming the economic mess on Bush is only going to go so far if it is worse in two years than it is now. If there is progress after a sharp downturn, then he can take credit for it. But if there is no improvement in two years, or even four, it will be Obama's recession just as Carter got blamed for an economy he inherited. Obama could be the new Reagan or even Clinton, but he could just as easily end up being the new Carter.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1226056589]<blockquote>As for the Republicans, they will likely make gains in the next series of elections. I believe Democratic power is at its zenith with this President and Congress. Their majorities are huge, and the large electoral margin is going to give Obama plenty of political clout. Their power will decline from here, but they are very powerful right now. Their majorities are practically unassailable?at least until they screw up. They will not get blamed for the current economic mess any more than Reagan was blamed in 1982. With such overwhelming majorities, the political posturing and compromises in Washington will not be between Democrats and Republicans, it will be between various factions within the Democratic party. The Republicans in the Senate have some power with their weak filibuster margin, but the Republicans in the House don?t even need to show up.



Is any of this permanent? Of course not, but it is my opinion that unless or until the Democrats really screw up, they will be in power for the foreseeable future. Their power will weaken over time, and eventually the Republicans will get another chance. Hopefully, next time they will not blow it.

</blockquote>
IR, I have to disagree with you again on your historical accuracy. Reagan wasn't blamed because there was verifiable progress in the first two years. As I pointed out to you in another thread, the worst part of the inflation and interest rates peaked just as Reagan took office and as a result of Volcker's efforts over the preceding 18 months. Yes, there was a recession but in contrast to the high inflation and interest rates two years prior it was acceptable. Even still, the Democrats gained 27 seats in the House and one in the Senate.



In contrast, blaming the economic mess on Bush is only going to go so far if it is worse in two years than it is now. If there is progress after a sharp downturn, then he can take credit for it. But if there is no improvement in two years, or even four, it will be Obama's recession just as Carter got blamed for an economy he inherited. Obama could be the new Reagan or even Clinton, but he could just as easily end up being the new Carter.</blockquote>


What exactly do you think you are correcting? I said the Reagan did not get blamed for the economic mess we were in during the election cycle of 1982. He didn't. Where is the inaccuracy in my statement? I didn't feel the need to rehash the complete political history of the early 1980s to make the point that Obama and the Democrats will lose seats, but that they will not lose their majorities.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1226060413]What exactly do you think you are correcting?</blockquote>


Your assertion that Obama will not be blamed if the economy sucks in two years because Reagan wasn't. Reagan wasn't blamed because the stagflation had been going on for the better part of a decade and was finally subsiding, whereas I don't see things getting better under Obama in the next 24 months. If the economy isn't improving, he WILL be blamed for it, which could easily cause the majority to shift.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1226062823][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1226060413]What exactly do you think you are correcting?</blockquote>


Your assertion that Obama will not be blamed if the economy sucks in two years because Reagan wasn't. Reagan wasn't blamed because the stagflation had been going on for the better part of a decade and was finally subsiding, whereas I don't see things getting better under Obama in the next 24 months. If the economy isn't improving, he WILL be blamed for it, which could easily cause the majority to shift.</blockquote>


He is already involved before Jan 20.



<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Obama-make-economic-mark-before/story.aspx?guid={2D242DF0-2AFE-4167-8CFC-F35BE880315D}">http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Obama-make-economic-mark-before/story.aspx?guid={2D242DF0-2AFE-4167-8CFC-F35BE880315D}</a>



<blockquote>Obama will make economic mark before Jan. 20



By Robert Schroeder, MarketWatch

Last update: 9:51 p.m. EST Nov. 6, 2008Comments: 323WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Democratic lawmakers called Thursday for a new stimulus package worth up to $100 billion while President-elect Barack Obama scheduled a meeting with his new economic transition team to begin addressing the nation's economic troubles well before his Jan. 20 inauguration.

Obama is scheduled to meet on Friday with economic advisers including Warren Buffett, former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Roger Ferguson, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William Donaldson, among others. Obama plans to speak to the media after the meeting.

Obama's economic advisers also include former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and Google Inc. (GOOG:google inc cl a

News, chart, profile, more

Last: 331.22-11.02-3.22%



4:00pm 11/06/2008



Delayed quote dataAdd to portfolio

Analyst

Create alertInsider

Discuss

Financials

Sponsored by:

GOOG 331.22, -11.02, -3.2%) Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, according to a report in the online edition of The Wall Street Journal.

Summers, Volcker and Rubin all are possible candidates to lead the Treasury under Obama, according to the Journal report.

Separately, Democrats plan to convene a lame-duck session of Congress the week of Nov. 17, when Obama and other lawmakers are expected to consider the proposed economic stimulus package. The new Congress is scheduled to take office on Jan. 3.

In February, amid early indications of the economic difficulties to be faced by the U.S., Congress passed an initial, $168 billion stimulus package that was delivered in the form of tax rebates worth up to $600 for most individual taxpayers and $1,200 for familes.

Obama D-Ill., as the first sitting senator to be elected president since John F. Kennedy in 1960, is in a position to influence, as well as vote on, any stimulus package that the current or new Congress, which will have larger Democratic majorities, creates before Inauguration Day.

Obama's running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and his opponent, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also will be able to vote on any stimulus legislation.

While Congress works on a stimulus bill, the Bush administration will be working until the last minute to revive the financial sector and to coordinate its response with the other major economies. Obama's role in those efforts is likely to be indirect at best.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., spoke with Obama on Wednesday morning and indicated she was working closely with his team. Pelosi said the stimulus package could be worth up to $100 billion and should be followed by a "permanent tax cut," according to the Journal report.

"Our priorities have tracked the Obama campaign's priorities for a long time," Pelosi told reporters Thursday.

When he takes the oath on Jan. 20, Obama will inherit a financial crisis and a potentially deep U.S. recession as well as struggling auto and banking sectors.

Obama's team may also have some input on shaping the execution of the plan to buy up bad assets from financial institutions. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson reportedly plans to involve the president-elect's team in decisions about the $700 billion rescue plan. Paulson said in a statement on Thursday that Treasury is "committed to making sure that the incoming team can hit the ground running in January."

"A methodical and orderly transition is in the best interests of the financial markets," Paulson said.

Some Democrats are concerned that banks getting an injection of taxpayer investment under the plan aren't using the money to make loans. Under the rules adopted by Paulson's department, the banks aren't required to make any loans. A similar investment plan in the United Kingdom did include a mandatory level of lending.

Global summit

Meanwhile, a White House spokesman said Bush administration officials are consulting with Obama's advisers and seeking their views and input ahead of the Nov. 14-15 summit of the leaders of 20 leading economies in Washington. The meeting's purpose is to discuss a coordinated response to the global financial crisis.

While the Bush administration is consulting with Obama's team, it's uncertain if the president-elect wants to attend the meeting. Obama spokespeople weren't immediately available for comment.

Obama's ability to make policy is limited until he takes office. But Obama can have psychological effect by making strong appointments for key economic posts or urging Congress to get moving on his priorities, said Stan Collender, a managing director at Qorvis Communications and a columnist for the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call.

"If he got up and said, 'this is what we should do,' I think people in Congress would listen to him," said Collender.

In addition to the Friday meeting with his economic team, Obama also plans to meet with President Bush on Monday. Bush said officials from his administration will brief the Obama team on policy issues including the financial markets and the war in Iraq.

"I look forward to discussing those issues with the president-elect early next week," Bush said on Thursday.

"Michelle and I look forward to meeting with President Bush and the First Lady on Monday to begin the process of a smooth, effective transition," Obama said in a statement.

"I thank him for reaching out in the spirit of bipartisanship that will be required to meet the many challenges we face as a nation," said Obama.

</blockquote>
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1226045235]This betrayal of trust is likely to keep the Republicans in the minority for another generation.</blockquote>


IR, never forget my people's very special quality of shooting themselves in the foot at nearly every opportunity. :-S



The corruption we've seen though, egads, it's like the Assistant US Attorney's Full Employment Act. (And yes, I'm very aware of "Dollar Bill" Jefferson, but that's only one.)
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1226062823][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1226060413]What exactly do you think you are correcting?</blockquote>


Your assertion that Obama will not be blamed if the economy sucks in two years because Reagan wasn't. Reagan wasn't blamed because the stagflation had been going on for the better part of a decade and was finally subsiding, whereas I don't see things getting better under Obama in the next 24 months. If the economy isn't improving, he WILL be blamed for it, which could easily cause the majority to shift.</blockquote>


OK, so let's be clear. You were not correcting a statement of fact, you were interjecting a difference of opinion. There is a big difference between the two, and when you state an opinion as a correction of fact, it rightfully makes me angry.



It is my opinion that Obama will not be blamed for the economy 2 years from now no matter what the state of affairs is. In my opinion, the Democrats will attempt to blame any problems on the Republicans and the past administration, just like the Republicans tried to blame Bill Clinton for subprime and the housing bubble. In my opinion, the Democrats will be successful in blaming the Republicans for these problems because the economic crisis started before the Democrats took power, and I believe the electorate will give them a measure of goodwill that will last more than two years. I could be wrong. Assuming the economy is still very bad two years from now, the Republicans will need to convincingly point to policies of the Democrats that are failing and provide a more viable alternative. That is a tall order, but I suppose it is possible. Even if the Republicans can manage that trick, in my opinion, they are very, very unlikely to regain a majority in either the House or the Senate.



When you see wave elections like 1994, 2006 and 2008 where an inordinately large number of seats change hands, the conditions that lead to those elections were brewing for some time. When the pendulum swings, it has momentum that takes time to reverse and get moving in the other direction. Like I stated in a previous comment, the Democrats should not be in power now. The Republican momentum from 1994 should have carried them through a whole generation. The majorities they had in 2004 at the peak of their power should have taken 12-20 years to unravel. The fact that they were so incompetent that they managed to generate two wave elections one after another is testament to how poorly they performed.



In a previous comment, skek said "And lastly, in an election that you claim signals the death knell of conservatism, in the five battleground states that determined the election, Obama did no better than 51%. Do you think that hatred of George W. Bush and the economic crisis was worth 2% to Obama? Can you guarantee that those headwinds will be blowing again in 2012? " I would offer that it wasn't just the Obama victory that signaled the end of conservatism, it was the dramatic loss of conservative Republican seats in both the House and the Senate that signaled the death knell of conservatism. Two terms ago, the Republicans had 56 Senators. Now they have between 40-44. This is a body that usually shifts by 1 or 2 seats during a typical election cycle. Two consecutive cycles of 6 seat losses is very rare. The numbers are even worse in the House of Representatives.



Is it possible that the Republicans could regain control of either or both Houses of Congress in 2010 or 2012? Sure.



Is it possible Conservative ideals will regain their influence on our key decision makers in 2010 or 2012? Sure.



Is it possible that Conservatives and Republicans would prefer to be in denial about where their ideals and their party really is right now? You tell me...
 
IR, I voted for Obama. I am not even remotely in denial about the state of Conservatism in American politics right now.



My quibble is with your opinion being stated as fact, specifically the reasons Reagan wasn't blamed. You asserted in another thread that <em>"The economy was not in serious trouble when Reagan took office. It was not until he encouraged Paul Volcker to raise interest rates to combat inflation that we had a vicious double-dip recession. He gave everyone hope in our time of trouble, and we had nothing other than our faith in him and his policies to lead us to believe that things would get better"</em> and then carried that same opinion over to this thread. But Obama is not coming into office after a decade that included price controls, massive inflation, double-digit interest rates. Obama is not promising cuts on marginal tax rates, or capital gains, and he isn't proposing deregulation. Reagan's optimism was in direct contrast to a country that was measuring itself by an economic misery index, while Obama's is based on "change" in a country that is just now reaching 6% unemployment with interest and inflation rates that aren't even a third of what they were in 1980.



And yet you compared the two as if they faced identical problems, stating your opinion of the situation in 1982 as fact. But the worst days of the economy are clearly ahead of us this time, not behind us as in 1980. Reagan's economic policies were blamed for the recession but because inflation and interest rates were falling, he was seen as succeeding relative to the recent past. Obama will get no such break because all people will remember of Bush's economy in two years is a booming stock market, higher home prices, and low interest rates. If Obama is to be accurately compared to any other incoming President, the situation most appropriate would be Carter, not Reagan.



I'm not trying to make you angry. I'm trying to keep the facts straight. Your opinion, as expressed here, seems to be based on a misperception of history that I know is wrong, have <a href="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/3605/#79541">proven to be wrong</a>, and I am simply trying to correct that. You seem to be hell-bent on declaring the death of my political beliefs as a viable political platform, and you are welcome to argue that, but I am going to defend it and that includes attacking your argument, your facts, and your opinion.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1226099759]IR, I voted for Obama. I am not even remotely in denial about the state of Conservatism in American politics right now.



My quibble is with your opinion being stated as fact, specifically the reasons Reagan wasn't blamed. You asserted in another thread that <em>"The economy was not in serious trouble when Reagan took office. It was not until he encouraged Paul Volcker to raise interest rates to combat inflation that we had a vicious double-dip recession. He gave everyone hope in our time of trouble, and we had nothing other than our faith in him and his policies to lead us to believe that things would get better"</em> and then carried that same opinion over to this thread. But Obama is not coming into office after a decade that included price controls, massive inflation, double-digit interest rates. Obama is not promising cuts on marginal tax rates, or capital gains, and he isn't proposing deregulation. Reagan's optimism was in direct contrast to a country that was measuring itself by an economic misery index, while Obama's is based on "change" in a country that is just now reaching 6% unemployment with interest and inflation rates that aren't even a third of what they were in 1980.



And yet you compared the two as if they faced identical problems, stating your opinion of the situation in 1982 as fact. But the worst days of the economy are clearly ahead of us this time, not behind us as in 1980. Reagan's economic policies were blamed for the recession but because inflation and interest rates were falling, he was seen as succeeding relative to the recent past. Obama will get no such break because all people will remember of Bush's economy in two years is a booming stock market, higher home prices, and low interest rates. If Obama is to be accurately compared to any other incoming President, the situation most appropriate would be Carter, not Reagan.



I'm not trying to make you angry. I'm trying to keep the facts straight. Your opinion, as expressed here, seems to be based on a misperception of history that I know is wrong, have <a href="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/3605/#79541">proven to be wrong</a>, and I am simply trying to correct that. You seem to be hell-bent on declaring the death of my political beliefs as a viable political platform, and you are welcome to argue that, but I am going to defend it and that includes attacking your argument, your facts, and your opinion.</blockquote>


Nude, please look carefully at this graph:



<img src="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/images/uploads/nov2008early/EmployPopRatio.jpg" alt="" />



The recession brought about by Volcker raising interest rates to 20% started in the third quarter of 1981 (six months after Reagan took office), and extended through the fourth quarter of 1982. We were still in recession when Reagan faced mid-term elections. Granted, we were coming out of recession, and the worst of the recession was behind us when this election took place, but we were still in recession. Even when this recession was over, much of 1983 did not see stellar economic growth. The results of Reagan's and Volcker's policies did not start to bear fruit until 1984 when the economy really took off. I do not have a misperception of history. I witnessed it.



Further, I never stated Obama and Reagan faced identical problems. Your assertion that I did is not accurate. The remaining points you make are a straw-man argument. Further, you assertion that Obama is more accurately comparable to Carter based on the economic conditions at the time is not supported by the graph above. Carter won election in 1976, and he took office in January 1977. As you can see from the graph, there was no recession when he ran for office, nor was there one shortly after he took office. We entered recession in 1980, and this probably cost Carter the election (among other things, IMO Carter was not a good president). <strong>The major recession, the one that everyone looks back on as being "the big one" occurred while Ronald Reagan was president.</strong> This is not an opinion, this is a fact.



The argument that I made, the one you seem to believe is factually challenged, is that the economy was bad under the first years of the Reagan presidency, and in that way Obama and Reagan are similar. Further, this did not cause the Republicans to lose a significant number of Congressional seats, and it did not cause them to lose the Senate which they won in Reagan's landslide. Based on the evidence from the economic data, and the experiences of those that remember it, I believe the parallels are accurate.



I appreciate good debate. I have no issue with you disagreeing with me, attacking my arguments and my opinions; however, if you want to attack my facts, you need to be correct. You stated "But the worst days of the economy are clearly ahead of us this time, not behind us as in 1980." This is not factual. Look at the data above. I will grant you that my statement that Reagan encouraged Volcker to raise interest rates is incorrect. Volcker did this before Reagan took office. When you challenged this in the other thread, I did not respond because you were right. Reagan did support Volcker in what he was doing, and the policies of Reagan and Volcker did create the boom which followed.
 
Again, I am not arguing that there wasn't a recession under Reagan. I am arguing that you are wrong in both 1) your reasons that Reagan wasn't blamed and 2) that Obama will not be blamed if things suck in two years. Reagan was blamed for the recession, not for interest rates or inflation, but by the time of the mid-term elections there was signifigant recovery in growth, inflation and interest rates which he was able to claim as evidence of his plan working. You imply he wasn't blamed because the problem started before he was elected when you state "They will not get blamed for the current economic mess any more than Reagan was blamed in 1982" and "Based on the evidence from the economic data, and the experiences of those that remember it, I believe the parallels are accurate". Obama is expected to return us to economic prosperity, as Reagan was, but that is where the parallels end. Reagan ran on a specific economic plan that is the exact opposite of what Obama has proposed. Reagan had years of skyrocketing inflation and stagnant economic growth that was destroying the buying power of the middle class in the administrations preceding him, Obama has a relatively recent crisis that is just now affecting Main Street directly in both unemployment and buying power but both administrations before him presided over a boom in stock prices and personal wealth (real and imagined) spanning more than 16 years.



If, again I stress *if*, the economy is bad or worse in 2 years then Obama will be blamed and will not enjoy the kind of trust and support that Reagan received because the parallels you use are NOT accurate.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1226106633]Again, I am not arguing that there wasn't a recession under Reagan. I am arguing that you are wrong in both 1) your reasons that Reagan wasn't blamed and 2) that Obama will not be blamed if things suck in two years. Reagan was blamed for the recession, not for interest rates or inflation, but by the time of the mid-term elections there was signifigant recovery in growth, inflation and interest rates which he was able to claim as evidence of his plan working. You imply he wasn't blamed because the problem started before he was elected when you state "They will not get blamed for the current economic mess any more than Reagan was blamed in 1982" and "Based on the evidence from the economic data, and the experiences of those that remember it, I believe the parallels are accurate". Obama is expected to return us to economic prosperity, as Reagan was, but that is where the parallels end. Reagan ran on a specific economic plan that is the exact opposite of what Obama has proposed. Reagan had years of skyrocketing inflation and stagnant economic growth that was destroying the buying power of the middle class in the administrations preceding him, Obama has a relatively recent crisis that is just now affecting Main Street directly in both unemployment and buying power but both administrations before him presided over a boom in stock prices and personal wealth (real and imagined) spanning more than 16 years.



If, again I stress *if*, the economy is bad or worse in 2 years then Obama will be blamed and will not enjoy the kind of trust and support that Reagan received because the parallels you use are NOT accurate.</blockquote>


OK, now we are back into the realm of opinion. This is good. We have expressed our differences of opinion, and I am prepared to leave it at that. If we understand one another correctly, I have expressed my opinion that Obama and the Democrats will not face a wave election where they lose significant numbers of either House that might cost them their majority, <em>even if economic conditions are bad</em> because of a combination of voter goodwill and the lingering memory of Republican failures. If the economy is improving significantly by the time the mid-terms roll around, I think we both agree there will be some deterioration in their majorities but nothing significant (correct me if I am wrong about your opinion on this point). If the economy is bad, and if this causes the Democrats to lose their majorities in either house, or a significant buffer in their majorities (something that is open to interpretation), <strong>then I am wrong</strong>. I may be wrong. Now it is up to history to play out over the next two years and see what happens.
 
I think we we finally understand one another. I think once Obama begins taking action he then owns the problem. If the economy is worse than it was when he took office, it will be directly reflected in the mid-terms both because 'the people' have a notably short memory and because Conservatives will be more than happy to offer up an alternative to the decidedly left-leaning Congress that will likely be portrayed as a rubber-stamp for Obama's 'failed' policies. On the other hand, if there is a downturn followed by signifigant progress in the next 23 months then I think the Dems gain seats in both houses or hold at current numbers.



In my opinion, the chances of of the former are better than the latter. If Obama insists on pushing through more entitlement spending like national healthcare or increases in other social programs AND the economy is worse in 2010, I think it is easily possible that the Dems lose their majorities in one or both houses of Congress.
 
<blockquote>Oddly, he may be helped by the fact that, in the end, his victory was slightly disappointing. He won around 52% of the popular vote, more than Mr Bush in 2000 and 2004, but not a remarkable number; this was no Roosevelt or Reagan landslide. And though Mr Obama helped his party cement its grip on Congress, gaining around 20 seats in the House of Representatives and five in the Senate, the haul in the latter chamber falls four short of the 60 needed to break filibusters and pass controversial legislation without Republican support (though recounts may add another seat, or even two). <strong>Given how much more money Mr Obama raised, the destruction of the Republican brand under Mr Bush and the effects of the worst financial crisis for 70 years, the fact that 46% of people voted against the Democrat is a reminder of just what a conservative place America still is</strong>. Mr Obama is the first northern liberal to be elected president since John Kennedy; he must not forget how far from the political centre of the country that puts him.



<strong>Mr Obama?s victory, in fact, is almost identical in scope to that of Bill Clinton in 1992; and it took just two years for the Republicans to sweep back to power in the 1994 Gingrich revolution</strong>. Should President Obama give in to some of the wilder partisans in Congress, it is easy to imagine an ugly time ahead?and not just for the Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections. America could fatally lapse into protectionism, or re-regulate business and finance to the point at which innovation is stifled, or ?spread the wealth? (to quote the next president) to the extent that capital is prudently shifted overseas. </blockquote>


<a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12562373">http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12562373</a>
 
Rove has a nice piece in the WSJ today about the election results. Its pretty clear that the Obama victory was really nothing out of ordinary, and nothing like the sea change election (e.g. Reagan) where the GOP took the presidency accompanied by huge swings in congressional seats at both the federal and state level.



The link was posted on RealClearPolitics.
 
that's rove's spin trying to CYA



the truth is that there was a noticable shift in the educated suburbs to the dems. no less profound than the whole Reagan 80s dems shift.



nice op-ed in the NYT a couple of days back.
 
[quote author="CapitalismWorks" date=1226648284]Rove has a nice piece in the WSJ today about the election results. Its pretty clear that the Obama victory was really nothing out of ordinary, and nothing like the sea change election (e.g. Reagan) where the GOP took the presidency accompanied by huge swings in congressional seats at both the federal and state level.



The link was posted on RealClearPolitics.</blockquote>


This sounds like BS spin to me. The Republicans did lose a large number of Congressional seats, and Obama did get the votes of a portion of the electorate that had not voted Democrat is several cycles.
 
Hah, I see where Rove stole his idea. Bill Kristol said the same thing yesterday in his NYT op-ed piece. It was a crock when he said it too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top