Nov 07 2010

Liberal Democrats Now The Bitter Clingers

Published by at 9:10 am under All General Discussions

Update: The WaPo has one of the first salvos from the Democrats against the White House:

But a broad sample of Democratic officeholders and strategists said in interviews that the disconnect goes far deeper than that.

“There doesn’t seem to be anybody in the White House who’s got any idea what it’s like to lie awake at night worried about money and worried about things slipping away,” said retiring Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen (D). “They’re all intellectually smart. They’ve got their numbers. But they don’t feel any of it, and I think people sense that.”

Bredesen had voiced such reservations long before the election, but more Democrats are saying the same thing after Tuesday’s defeats – although few are willing to cross the White House by doing so publicly.

The Democrats will not take Obama out by moaning about him to the press. That won’t be nearly enough to neutralize the administration. – end update

Life is full of delicious irony – especially in politics. Think of Alan Grayson and Christine O’Donnell for example: two people with grand illusions of superiority and endless victim-hood. So lofty in their own minds, such dismal examples of humanity in real life.

Irony is best served with a hefty dose of denial.

I think the prize for biggest denial this election cycle goes to Obama and the snobby DC liberals who refuse to understand the message sent by the voters. Jay Cost said it best yesterday:

None of this is much of a surprise, except to those who refused to believe the rebuke was coming. Pollsters Scott Rasmussen, Pat Caddell, and Doug Schoen have been warning Democrats for some time that the midterms would be calamitous for them. Liberals ignored them during the campaign, and many will continue to do so, preferring to see the results as a consequence of the irrational wrath of voters who wrongly punished the Democrats for the failures of the Bush administration. The “Democratic” label has become an ironic appellation, as this “bitter/cling” explanation for voter opposition has taken hold on the left.

President Obama continues to deny the election results were a repudiation of his liberal, big government policies. He continues to tell himself it was simply that the American people did not understand how great he was, and he will have to do a better job explaining how great he is to us poor rubes:

Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”

Knock yourself out examining Mr. President. it will do you know good because, once again, you are missing the point and not listening. I feared Obama would wise up like Clinton did and start wrapping himself in some different brand of politician. But I see our young inexperienced President is inflexible and incapable of considering himself fallible. Which is the biggest fallacy of humanity there is. Arrogant ignorance – a dangerous combination.

This will lead to a rift in the Democrat Party as the far left turns bitter and clings to their delusions that liberal policies work and that liberals are faultless and superior to all others. We now have the Bitter/Clinger-in-Chief.

Some on the left are already assessing where the party may have gone wrong, setting the stage to dump Obama after one term:

As I sat in the East Room last week watching a forlorn President Obama account for his shellacking, I listened with concern as he described the presidency as a “growth process” and suggested that the midterm setback was somehow inevitable. “You know, this is something that I think every president needs to go through,” he said.

It brought to mind Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone-call ad from the 2008 campaign, and her withering criticism of Obama: “When there is a crisis . . . there’s no time for speeches or on-the-job training.” I wondered whether Democrats would be in the fix they’re in if they had chosen a different standard-bearer.

If Obama is losing the liberal media, the bottom has fallen out. He will become the youngest lame duck in history. But he holds immense power and the bully pulpit. Given how stubborn he still is about the first two years of his term, I doubt he will back down much. It is highly likely he will become petulant and stubborn. He will also become isolated behind a wall of like minded minions. And he may begin to truly wield that power to finish what he started.

After all, he has the angels of history on his side (at least in his own mind).

Later today or tomorrow I will be releasing a long post assessing one of the more interesting pre-election rumors about a movement within the Democrat power structure to dethrone Obama. Given how the election is playing out in the minds of the liberals, I can understand why some may want to stop the damage to the party before it becomes fatal.

16 responses so far

16 Responses to “Liberal Democrats Now The Bitter Clingers”

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Free To Prosper, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: Liberal Democrats Now The Bitter Clingers […]

  2. The title you gave to one of the links ( the American people did not understand how great he was,) is probably exactly how this Ayatollah wannabe ( A Legend in his own mind) sees things.

    The post on my blog that gets the most hits is “…and the sharks will come.”

    I think they are on the way.

  3. Wilbur Post says:

    Obama keeps on ‘splainin’ stuff to us rubes, but fewer and fewer of us are even listening as time goes on. The sad joke is that he will be the last one to notice (if he ever notices) that he is talking to the wall.

  4. WWS says:

    The Jay Cost article you give a link to is very good (I’d hazard to say a must-read) and echoes some of the conclusions that I’ve been able to draw from this election – important conclusions because they point the way toward future strategy.

    As Cost points out, there is now a decided geographical distribution to the parties, and this is going to determine how the next Presidential race plays out. The Republican party is now a party of the “new south”, as Cost puts it, plus the mountain west, and after this last election we can safely say the Midwest plus Pennsylvania. Those are the states where the GOP needs to build an electoral college majority, and yes, the numbers are there for a win. This means that the most important swing states are going to be the 50/50 states in this group – Nevada, Colorado, and the entire midwest, since they are the newest additions to the coalition. (Illinois is a special case, since it has a huge and unbreakable Dem enclave in Chicago but the rest of the state is Republican) For that reason I now think the best possible nominee is either Mitch Daniels or someone very like him – the next nominee *Has* to be someone who can pull the enthusiastic support of the Midwest. That is absolutely crucial, and that is the path to victory. Southern candidates such as Haley Barbour, Huckabee, and longshots like Gingrich still are seen as too regional to win midwestern support, while the South can be counted on to vote Republican for a midwestern candidate. So, a midwesterner it *must* be.

    There is another corollary to this conclusion that will sound harsh, but is just as important to think about – as far as general elections go, there are areas that Republicans simply Will Not Win no matter how good a candidate or how compelling the message. California is lost, as is Oregon and Washington, and so is New England. (at least as far as Presidential politics is concerned, and I note N.H. may be an exception to the general rule)

    This means that there is *No* point to spending much time, money, or effort in these places – the GOP wasted a vast amount of money this last election in California for no results, money that could have been better spent almost anywhere else. That is a mistake that should not be repeated. Also, that means Candidates from these areas should be rejected, because they will probably not even bring their home states on board, and certainly will not bring their regions. Giuliani – forget it, New York goes Dem no matter what. Romney – same thing, he may make a very good cabinet member in the next administration, but he should not get the nomination no matter how good his ideology. He will not pull his region with him, so he would be a mistake.

    This is the surest plan to the presidency – the coalition I’ve pointed out has the potential to pull in about 350 electoral votes even while writing off the coastal west and New England plus New York. Go for everything else – forget those areas and any candidates from them.

    Btw, I love Sarah Palin but she scares the midwest and comes from a state that only has 3 electoral votes. Not a good pick.

  5. dbostan says:

    Ulsterman from the NewsFlavor has inside stories for two month already showing how small and really stupid Zero is.
    The desmsheviks will knife him in the back prior to the 2012 such that he won’t complete the party destruction that it takes place.
    Too late, they can not delete the last three years from our memory…
    He/they lied and misrepresented his background and qualifications and character only for him to be anointed as Saviour in chief.
    They got caught with those lies, and we will not forget.

  6. Toes192 says:

    Hay Daddyo… How come you are not promoting Valour IT this year… ?
    Here’s a good link…
    And… for all those who only wish they had joined the USMC earlier in their lives… The Marine team will not refuse your $$ … Might even award an official USMC attaboy if you go over so we can beat the Army …
    And… as usual… I always like to thank the Navy for their assistance to Marines worldwide…

  7. […] more… NFL Week 9 open thread – 11/07/2010 Comeback. more… Liberal Democrats Now The Bitter Clingers – 11/07/2010 Life is full of delicious irony – especially in […]

  8. AJStrata says:

    So Whippet, think you will be able to comment here much longer???

    Take a hike and I won’t delete all your other crap. Hang around and all your comments go into the bit bucket.

    Your only warning.

    Later – much

  9. AJStrata says:


    I do support the Marines – our son is now a Marine Corporal.

  10. Toes192 says:

    Relay an Alaskan Semper Fi …

  11. mvymvy says:

    By 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The bill preserves the Electoral College, while assuring that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election.

    Every vote, everywhere would be equal and counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

    Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored — 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.


  12. WWS says:

    The “national popular vote” bill is an unconstitutional disaster. It is designed to remove the electoral college advantage that small states and rural areas now have (an advantage intentionally built into the consitution as part of the Great Compromise of 1787) and instead transfer all electoral power to the large urban areas – in other words, to the Democrats.

    Republicans, because of their increasing popularity in rural areas and small states, have a built in congressional advantage that is going to last a long time as long as the system isn’t fiddled with. The ONLY people who could possibly be in favor of this idea are LIBERAL DEMOCRATS who see it as their only way left of rigging the system in their favor.

    So, take your “national popular vote” bill and stuff it where the sun don’t shine!!!!

  13. BarbaraS says:

    This national popular vote would have to be ratified by a majority of states after passing throuh congress and signed by the president to amend the Constitution. This would never pass when small states are involved. That would be cutting their own throats. The dims have a majority in California and New York. There would be no need to campaign anywhere else, therefore California (Los Angeles)and New York (NYC) would decide every election. Their track record for governing is not so great. Would you want them to decide the direction the country is going? They can’t even keep their own states or cities solvent. The dims bring this up every time they lose elections but never when they win. This is the first I have heard of this.
    I have no idea why this is even discussed since the dims lost so badly popularwise and otherwise in this last election. Or is this part of the dims’ ongoing plan to either ignore or change the Constitution?

  14. mvymvy says:

    State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.

    The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.

    In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.

    The winner-take-all rule is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.

    As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district — a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

    The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

  15. mvymvy says:

    Under National Popular Vote, when every vote counts, successful candidates will continue to find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support It would no longer matter who won a state.

    Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.

    Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 smallest states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. Nine state legislative chambers in the smallest states have passed the bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia and Hawaii.

    Of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections– NH(4), NM (5), and NV (5). These three states contain only 14 of the 22 (8%) states’ total 166 electoral votes.

    The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

    With National Popular Vote, big states that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates’ attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split — five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). Among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
    8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659). The 11 southern states provided Bush with a bigger margin (4,653,558) than the 6 states with the largest Kerry vote margins (4,428,268) in 2004.

    With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down in name recognition as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004. A “big city” only campaign would not win.

    For example, in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.

    If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.