Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Please. I keep hearing liberals say that, to soften the blow. If what you said was true (it was anti-incumbency, not anti-liberalism, that took place) then the % of incumbent Dems that lost would be the same as the % of incumbent Republicans that lost. That's NOT what happened.
|
No, not when the Dems are the party holding the Whitehouse, the House of Representatives and US Senate. The 2006 mid-term election had some of the same substance. Ideology put aside, the people didn't feel the government in charge was responding to the will of the electorate.
You can't say 2006 and 2008 was a mandate for Liberalism, and 2010 was a mandate against it. That makes no sense. Face it, we're at the end of an economic cycle with massive deleveraging that has sucked a lot of life from the economy. The party in power will always get hit...
Quote:
|
Let's talk with some intellectual honesty. The public essentially gave Obama an "F" for his first 2 years. Given the 8 years before that, they have good reasons to doubt that the GOP is any better, but that doesn't mean they didn't reject liberalism.
|
In both cases the people were rejecting a government that couldn't defend it's actions.
I know some really hardcore liberals who feel it's an imperative to keep their checkbook balanced. Out of control spending isn't a liberal trait, many liberals would just want to raise taxes to keep things square.
On spending, Bush was just about as bad as Obama...it's the appearance of reckless behavior that ticked the electorate off, in both 2006 and 2010.
-spence