If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Polls show that Democrats are really, really good at getting voters to "trust" them. The only problem is that they really, really suck at winning elections   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 90
    More: Obvious, Democrats, reelection, 34th state  
•       •       •

280 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Mar 2014 at 10:57 AM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-04 09:19:27 AM
Republicans have been really good at winning elections. The sad part is they really really really suck at governing.
 
2014-03-04 09:25:35 AM
That's because Democrats--generally speaking--are about as exciting as a soggy noodle.  As a whole, they have a harder time connecting to their audience and stirring up their emotions.
 
2014-03-04 10:04:33 AM
Democrats do fine, thanks.
 
2014-03-04 10:13:46 AM
That's what happens when you promise rainbows and unicorns and then deliver glitter glued onto construction paper with horse hooves glue.
 
2014-03-04 10:13:56 AM
yeah, they suck so much at winning elections, there's one in the White House right now.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-04 10:34:02 AM
Democrats suck at demagoguery and Republicans don't do much else.
 
2014-03-04 10:46:01 AM
Really?  I thought Democrats won at every level in the last election.
 
2014-03-04 10:58:29 AM
There is something to be said, as well, that one factor in all of these things is that the general electorate is, for the majority, dumber than a bag of hammers.
 
2014-03-04 10:58:46 AM
As opposed to Republicans, who arent trusted by people, so they have to campaign on a platform of "Sooper Sekrit Muslim Socialist", "Death Panels", and other ooga-booga.
 
2014-03-04 10:58:54 AM

Mentat: Really?  I thought Democrats won at every level in the last election.


Yeah other than gerrymandering wtf is all this then?
 
2014-03-04 10:59:49 AM
Maybe they should reflect on what got them the most public acclaim and support in the last few years and keep doing that. Personally, I believe that it rhymes with "blow a swine."
 
2014-03-04 11:01:31 AM
So, the last 8 years didn't happen?
 
2014-03-04 11:03:05 AM

Lucky LaRue: That's what happens when you promise rainbows and unicorns and then deliver glitter glued onto construction paper with horse hooves glue.


I don't know.  Where are all those jobs the GOP promised they'd focus on once they got into office?
 
2014-03-04 11:03:57 AM
Disenfranchisement is easier to accomplish just like blowing up something is easier than building it.
 
2014-03-04 11:05:14 AM

Nadie_AZ: Republicans have been really good at winning stealing elections. The sad part is they really really really suck at governing.


FTFY. Republicans only have any political power whatsoever because of absolutely obscene amounts of gerrymandering. And they're still barely afloat, which is why they're desperately pushing voter suppression measures all over the country.
 
2014-03-04 11:07:01 AM
The Post-ABC survey affirms those projections, showing Republicans in a stronger position than Democrats in the states with Senate races this fall and more than holding their own in the battle for control of the House. In the 34 states with Senate races, 50 percent of voters say they favor Republicans and 42 percent favor Democrats.

So you're saying that, in an election where most states with senate elections are consrvative, the states with senate elections are more conservative than the nation as a whole?  Shocking!
 
2014-03-04 11:08:04 AM

Nadie_AZ: Republicans have been really good at winning elections. The sad part is they really really really suck at governing.


That's not an accident, it's their strategy. Remember, their goal is to reduce government funding as much as possible (in order to lower Taxes for their masters). Their strategy is simply to cause as many problems as possible from the inside of government. Hold up bills, reduce funding without reduces services and all other manner of intentionally poor governance. They then point to said problems as proof that "government just doesn't work," and use it as justification to further cut funding from said programs. Rinse, Wash and Repeat. the most insidious part of this strategy is it only requires them to hold enough of the government to obstruct the will of the majority, they don't even need a majority or the presidency.
 
2014-03-04 11:08:10 AM

ManateeGag: yeah, they suck so much at winning elections, there's one in the White House right now.


EyeballKid: There is something to be said, as well, that one factor in all of these things is that the general electorate is, for the majority, dumber than a bag of hammers.

 
2014-03-04 11:08:54 AM

llortcM_yllort: The Post-ABC survey affirms those projections, showing Republicans in a stronger position than Democrats in the states with Senate races this fall and more than holding their own in the battle for control of the House. In the 34 states with Senate races, 50 percent of voters say they favor Republicans and 42 percent favor Democrats.

So you're saying that, in an election where most states with senate elections are consrvativec conservative, the states with senate elections are more conservative than the nation as a whole?  Shocking!


FTFM

Serious Black: Maybe they should reflect on what got them the most public acclaim and support in the last few years and keep doing that. Personally, I believe that it rhymes with "blow a swine."


Maybe I'm stupid, but I'm trying to figure out what rhymes with "blow a swine."
 
2014-03-04 11:09:22 AM

manbart: Nadie_AZ: Republicans have been really good at winning elections. The sad part is they really really really suck at governing.

That's not an accident, it's their strategy. Remember, their goal is to reduce government funding as much as possible (in order to lower Taxes for their masters). Their strategy is simply to cause as many problems as possible from the inside of government. Hold up bills, reduce funding without reduces services and all other manner of intentionally poor governance. They then point to said problems as proof that "government just doesn't work," and use it as justification to further cut funding from said programs. Rinse, Wash and Repeat. the most insidious part of this strategy is it only requires them to hold enough of the government to obstruct the will of the majority, they don't even need a majority or the presidency.


QFT.
 
2014-03-04 11:10:33 AM
The fact that people will still vote GOP after the display of hatred, obstructionism, and general lack of any basic leadership skills over the past two years depresses the hell out of me.

Feel like just giving up sometimes.
 
2014-03-04 11:11:35 AM

xanadian: That's because Democrats--generally speaking--are about as exciting as a soggy noodle.  As a whole, they have a harder time connecting to their audience and stirring up their emotions.


Maybe because they have too much self respect to pander to people's bigotry?
 
2014-03-04 11:19:29 AM
I think it started some time in the 70s, when "eggheads" were seen as paradoxically less able to run the complicated machinery of government, culminating in the 90s when the GOP killed the study committee (I forget the official name, but it was a nonpartisan group that relied on actual scientific principles to examine bills).

We need more dorks, not more BSDs.
 
2014-03-04 11:23:35 AM
How come I've never been polled for one of these? Is it because I'm not the home-in-the-early-afternoon-to-answer-my-landline crowd?
 
2014-03-04 11:25:04 AM

manbart: Nadie_AZ: Republicans have been really good at winning elections. The sad part is they really really really suck at governing.

That's not an accident, it's their strategy. Remember, their goal is to reduce government funding as much as possible (in order to lower Taxes for their masters). Their strategy is simply to cause as many problems as possible from the inside of government. Hold up bills, reduce funding without reduces services and all other manner of intentionally poor governance. They then point to said problems as proof that "government just doesn't work," and use it as justification to further cut funding from said programs. Rinse, Wash and Repeat. the most insidious part of this strategy is it only requires them to hold enough of the government to obstruct the will of the majority, they don't even need a majority or the presidency.


I would also like to add, THIS.
 
2014-03-04 11:32:22 AM

Dr Dreidel: think it started some time in the 70s, when "eggheads" were seen as paradoxically less able to run the complicated machinery of government, culminating in the 90s when the GOP killed the study committee (I forget the official name, but it was a nonpartisan group that relied on actual scientific principles to examine bills).


www.seattlemet.com
70s, you say? This Democrat, who was seen as too smart for the White House, would like a word with you.
 
2014-03-04 11:33:08 AM
*adopts puzzled expression*

*pulls up results of last presidential election*

*pulls up last round of congressional elections in fully contested states*


... man, if this is sucking at winning elections, what's being good at it?  A complete one-party state?  The GOP is getting  farked the last few years.
 
2014-03-04 11:37:19 AM

EyeballKid: Dr Dreidel: think it started some time in the 70s, when "eggheads" were seen as paradoxically less able to run the complicated machinery of government, culminating in the 90s when the GOP killed the study committee (I forget the official name, but it was a nonpartisan group that relied on actual scientific principles to examine bills).


70s, you say? This Democrat, who was seen as too smart for the White House, would like a word with you.


As a furry.. thats a sexy ass.
 
2014-03-04 11:43:42 AM
Wisconsin's a good example of this.

Walker was a dead man walking...but the establishment Dems picked the very same cardboard cutout that lost to Walker again.  They were too farking worried about their own hides to care about beating Walker.

From what I've heard, the Dems there are going into full insanity deluding themselves that picking one of their own will beat Walker.
 
2014-03-04 11:44:39 AM

Mentat: Really?  I thought Democrats won at every level in the last election.


They gained at every level, wouldn't necessarily say "won" though.
 
2014-03-04 11:49:45 AM

Lucky LaRue: That's what happens when you promise rainbows and unicorns and then deliver glitter glued onto construction paper with horse hooves glue.


it seems the Dems are doing the best they can and at least making glue out of the dead horse that's getting repeatedly beaten by a part of Congress.
 
2014-03-04 11:51:37 AM

EyeballKid: Dr Dreidel: think it started some time in the 70s, when "eggheads" were seen as paradoxically less able to run the complicated machinery of government, culminating in the 90s when the GOP killed the study committee (I forget the official name, but it was a nonpartisan group that relied on actual scientific principles to examine bills).

[www.seattlemet.com image 400x527]
70s, you say? This Democrat, who was seen as too smart for the White House, would like a word with you.


It didn't help that he was running against a well-liked military hero in '52 - according to Bruce Dern* (a family friend of Stevenson's), he knew he lost the election going in - and in '56, it was largely the same deal coupled with the fact that Eisenhower was sort of dorky too, even for a military man.

Anyway, it's no coincidence that the VP in '52 and '56 is the same guy who presided over the beginning of the attack on academics - they formed part of the "liberal alliance" (media-education) that was taking over the country. Also, I'm willing to allow for the fact that there's been a strong "anti-dork" sentiment in the country for 230-odd years, but it's only in the last 40 or so that popular sentiment largely agrees.

*if you watched this past Friday's Real Time, he told the story at the tail end of the show.
 
2014-03-04 11:54:10 AM
No, Subby, they're good at getting voters to trust them COMPARED TO REPUBLICANS.  There is a huge difference.
 
2014-03-04 11:55:33 AM
The winning strategy for democrats seems to be "at least we aren't repugnant assholes". Evidently it is working.
 
2014-03-04 11:56:15 AM

Pincy: xanadian: That's because Democrats--generally speaking--are about as exciting as a soggy noodle.  As a whole, they have a harder time connecting to their audience and stirring up their emotions.

Maybe because they have too much self respect to pander to people's bigotry?


Nope.  No.  It's just they'd have to go off the deep end to beat the republicans at the hateful idiot bigots demographics.  I'm under no delusion that democratic politicians wouldn't shill to the lowest possible denominator if it weren't solidly booked.   And because those that currently vote for them wouldn't if they did.
 
2014-03-04 11:57:32 AM
They all suck. I have proof: reality.
 
2014-03-04 11:59:16 AM

Destructor: They all suck. I have proof: reality.


Sucking is a spectrum.
 
2014-03-04 12:02:51 PM

Destructor: They all suck. I have proof: reality.


Would you care to expand upon this amazingly profound statement?
 
2014-03-04 12:04:02 PM

Rwa2play: Wisconsin's a good example of this.

Walker was a dead man walking...but the establishment Dems picked the very same cardboard cutout that lost to Walker again.  They were too farking worried about their own hides to care about beating Walker.

From what I've heard, the Dems there are going into full insanity deluding themselves that picking one of their own will beat Walker.


The Dems in Wisconsin lost their collective shiat when Russ Feingold said he wasn't going to run for any state-level political seats in 2012.  He was whom the whole party was banking on and they had no-one in the wings when he bowed out.

The problem with Wisconsin is that they feel they need a democrat from either Dane/Milwaukee county to run.  That is the last thing they need since most of the democrats in the north part of the state had "Madison/Milwaukee Liberals."  What they need to do is try and get someone from north of Stevens Point to run for office.  Madison/Milwaukee liberals will still vote for the person, and the northern part of the state will actually vote for the person as well.
 
2014-03-04 12:08:42 PM

Rwa2play: Wisconsin's a good example of this.

Walker was a dead man walking...but the establishment Dems picked the very same cardboard cutout that lost to Walker again.  They were too farking worried about their own hides to care about beating Walker.

From what I've heard, the Dems there are going into full insanity deluding themselves that picking one of their own will beat Walker.


If no one else wants to run, what options do they have?
 
2014-03-04 12:10:03 PM

manbart: Nadie_AZ: Republicans have been really good at winning elections. The sad part is they really really really suck at governing.

That's not an accident, it's their strategy. Remember, their goal is to reduce government funding as much as possible (in order to lower Taxes for their masters). Their strategy is simply to cause as many problems as possible from the inside of government. Hold up bills, reduce funding without reduces services and all other manner of intentionally poor governance. They then point to said problems as proof that "government just doesn't work," and use it as justification to further cut funding from said programs. Rinse, Wash and Repeat. the most insidious part of this strategy is it only requires them to hold enough of the government to obstruct the will of the majority, they don't even need a majority or the presidency.


Look here...there's a button labeled "Smart".  Let's see what happens when I click it.

Um...nothing.  Darned Republican buttons.  :(
 
2014-03-04 12:12:41 PM

APO_Buddha: Rwa2play: Wisconsin's a good example of this.

Walker was a dead man walking...but the establishment Dems picked the very same cardboard cutout that lost to Walker again.  They were too farking worried about their own hides to care about beating Walker.

From what I've heard, the Dems there are going into full insanity deluding themselves that picking one of their own will beat Walker.

The Dems in Wisconsin lost their collective shiat when Russ Feingold said he wasn't going to run for any state-level political seats in 2012.  He was whom the whole party was banking on and they had no-one in the wings when he bowed out.

The problem with Wisconsin is that they feel they need a democrat from either Dane/Milwaukee county to run.  That is the last thing they need since most of the democrats in the north part of the state had "Madison/Milwaukee Liberals."  What they need to do is try and get someone from north of Stevens Point to run for office.  Madison/Milwaukee liberals will still vote for the person, and the northern part of the state will actually vote for the person as well.


See?  Now THAT's a plan I would get behind.

qorkfiend: If no one else wants to run, what options do they have?


Oh, come on~!  You mean no Democrat in the entire farking state wants to run against Walker?  To paraphase the Joker in "The Dark Knight": Did they lose their balls in the last 10 years or something?
 
2014-03-04 12:15:17 PM

qorkfiend: Destructor: They all suck. I have proof: reality.

Would you care to expand upon this amazingly profound statement?


BSABSVR
 
2014-03-04 12:15:19 PM

qorkfiend: Would you care to expand upon this amazingly profound statement?


They both want the same thing: Their particular vision of the United States. They're far more similar then dissimilar in term of competence. And they'll drag the other side, kicking and screaming into the future or Utopia or whatever, whether they like it or not.

Recently, both sides have taken refusal to negotiate to new, dizzying heights, and point accusing fingers of blame at each other as if that means something.

Both are authoritarian, though they both claim not to be; and here we have my biggest gripe. Because there's simply no need for it... That's not what government is designed to do... And there is no interest in resetting that expectation. Do this. Don't do that. You guys can't get married. You can't pray in school. Micro-aggression everywhere. Hey, that pastry looks like a gun... And so on.

And so, every solution in search of a problem becomes a law. This is because there's some unwritten theory that all laws are good. So that there are so many no one human could possibly know them all... until you run into one and get sliced by it.

And most everyone is content to play this little, "No, live in MY world" game... and its totally unnecessary (and expensive)...

/Thanks for an opportunity to rant.
 
2014-03-04 12:16:53 PM

Rwa2play: APO_Buddha: Rwa2play: Wisconsin's a good example of this.

Walker was a dead man walking...but the establishment Dems picked the very same cardboard cutout that lost to Walker again.  They were too farking worried about their own hides to care about beating Walker.

From what I've heard, the Dems there are going into full insanity deluding themselves that picking one of their own will beat Walker.

The Dems in Wisconsin lost their collective shiat when Russ Feingold said he wasn't going to run for any state-level political seats in 2012.  He was whom the whole party was banking on and they had no-one in the wings when he bowed out.

The problem with Wisconsin is that they feel they need a democrat from either Dane/Milwaukee county to run.  That is the last thing they need since most of the democrats in the north part of the state had "Madison/Milwaukee Liberals."  What they need to do is try and get someone from north of Stevens Point to run for office.  Madison/Milwaukee liberals will still vote for the person, and the northern part of the state will actually vote for the person as well.

See?  Now THAT's a plan I would get behind.

qorkfiend: If no one else wants to run, what options do they have?

Oh, come on~!  You mean no Democrat in the entire farking state wants to run against Walker?  To paraphase the Joker in "The Dark Knight": Did they lose their balls in the last 10 years or something?


I didn't say there were zero Democrats who wanted to run against Walker. I said the Democrats' options are strictly limited to the people who want to run.
 
2014-03-04 12:19:27 PM

Destructor: Both are authoritarian, though they both claim not to be; and here we have my biggest gripe. Because there's simply no need for it... That's not what government is designed to do... And there is no interest in resetting that expectation. Do this. Don't do that. You guys can't get married. You can't pray in school. Micro-aggression everywhere. Hey, that pastry looks like a gun... And so on.


What is government designed to do?
 
2014-03-04 12:26:13 PM
Why is "trust" in quotes like that? Is it a euphemism for something sordid?

I do hope so!
 
2014-03-04 12:26:39 PM

Destructor: qorkfiend: Would you care to expand upon this amazingly profound statement?

They both want the same thing: Their particular vision of the United States. They're far more similar then dissimilar in term of competence. And they'll drag the other side, kicking and screaming into the future or Utopia or whatever, whether they like it or not.

Recently, both sides have taken refusal to negotiate to new, dizzying heights, and point accusing fingers of blame at each other as if that means something.

Both are authoritarian, though they both claim not to be; and here we have my biggest gripe. Because there's simply no need for it... That's not what government is designed to do... And there is no interest in resetting that expectation. Do this. Don't do that. You guys can't get married. You can't pray in school. Micro-aggression everywhere. Hey, that pastry looks like a gun... And so on.

And so, every solution in search of a problem becomes a law. This is because there's some unwritten theory that all laws are good. So that there are so many no one human could possibly know them all... until you run into one and get sliced by it.

And most everyone is content to play this little, "No, live in MY world" game... and its totally unnecessary (and expensive)...

/Thanks for an opportunity to rant.


Except your rant is complete BS.  One can pray in school privately; you just can't force people to do it because the school is the government and what the freaking first amendment says about the government establishing a religion (plus that's not even a Democratic point of view).  As for the pastry...are most Democratic politicians actually in favor of that sort of over reaction?  Nope.

As for refusing the negotiate, again, BS.  The Democrats are perfectly willing to negotiate (some say too much).

It's a retarded "both sides are bad so vote Republican" rant.  Stop it.
 
2014-03-04 12:28:32 PM

APO_Buddha: Rwa2play: Wisconsin's a good example of this.

Walker was a dead man walking...but the establishment Dems picked the very same cardboard cutout that lost to Walker again.  They were too farking worried about their own hides to care about beating Walker.

From what I've heard, the Dems there are going into full insanity deluding themselves that picking one of their own will beat Walker.

The Dems in Wisconsin lost their collective shiat when Russ Feingold said he wasn't going to run for any state-level political seats in 2012.  He was whom the whole party was banking on and they had no-one in the wings when he bowed out.

The problem with Wisconsin is that they feel they need a democrat from either Dane/Milwaukee county to run.  That is the last thing they need since most of the democrats in the north part of the state had "Madison/Milwaukee Liberals."  What they need to do is try and get someone from north of Stevens Point to run for office.  Madison/Milwaukee liberals will still vote for the person, and the northern part of the state will actually vote for the person as well.


I'm ready to vote Burke. Barrett was the Kerry equivalent so he couldn't get it done.
 
2014-03-04 12:33:36 PM

Geotpf: Destructor: qorkfiend: Would you care to expand upon this amazingly profound statement?

They both want the same thing: Their particular vision of the United States. They're far more similar then dissimilar in term of competence. And they'll drag the other side, kicking and screaming into the future or Utopia or whatever, whether they like it or not.

Recently, both sides have taken refusal to negotiate to new, dizzying heights, and point accusing fingers of blame at each other as if that means something.

Both are authoritarian, though they both claim not to be; and here we have my biggest gripe. Because there's simply no need for it... That's not what government is designed to do... And there is no interest in resetting that expectation. Do this. Don't do that. You guys can't get married. You can't pray in school. Micro-aggression everywhere. Hey, that pastry looks like a gun... And so on.

And so, every solution in search of a problem becomes a law. This is because there's some unwritten theory that all laws are good. So that there are so many no one human could possibly know them all... until you run into one and get sliced by it.

And most everyone is content to play this little, "No, live in MY world" game... and its totally unnecessary (and expensive)...

/Thanks for an opportunity to rant.

Except your rant is complete BS.  One can pray in school privately; you just can't force people to do it because the school is the government and what the freaking first amendment says about the government establishing a religion (plus that's not even a Democratic point of view).  As for the pastry...are most Democratic politicians actually in favor of that sort of over reaction?  Nope.

As for refusing the negotiate, again, BS.  The Democrats are perfectly willing to negotiate (some say too much).

It's a retarded "both sides are bad so vote Republican" rant.  Stop it.


Way to prove his point.

Things like banning pastry guns - hey, dude, not all Democrats think alike.

Negotiating - Jackass, Democrats are all alike and and are just trying to better America
 
Displayed 50 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report