Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

fiorello

(182 posts)
Sat Jan 7, 2017, 11:38 PM Jan 2017

Why, WHY, did the Dems never run against the Do-nothing Republican Congress?

Am I wrong? Since 2008 the Republicans first filibustered, and then, since 2010, straight-out blocked every Obama initiative to strengthen the economy, especially to provide jobs. And the Democrats have said about this-zilch. Not Obama, not any swing state candidate for house or senate, and not (most important) Hillary Clinton.

Look, the average American doesn't even know what Congress does, and certainly not which party controls Congress. It's up to us to tell them. (The media? Forget it.).

Instead, this election became all about the "status quo" (us) versus "change" (Trump).

The real change would have been Hillary Clinton with a Democratic congress. Then you might see an infrastructure program run by someone like Ohio's Sherood Brown, who could steer projects towards rural and rust belt counties.

But no one ever talked about that.

In 1948 Harry S Truman won re-election by placing emphasis on the Do Nothing Republican Confress.

In 2012 Joe Biden summarized things in 9 words: Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.

And in 2016? It seems to me that the Republicans Congress got a free pass. Even though they were pretty open about their intention to wreck the economy if it would make Obama look like a failure and help elect a ARepublican in 2016. And it worked... in part because we kept it secret.

Am I wrong?

Look, this is no rant against Hillary, the problem goes back many years in different forms. But it is definitely a rant. It has really been bugging me. I wish I was wrong.

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why, WHY, did the Dems never run against the Do-nothing Republican Congress? (Original Post) fiorello Jan 2017 OP
because congressional races need to be seen within those individual districts and most congress JI7 Jan 2017 #1
Democrats did not get more votes in the House races in 2016 SFnomad Jan 2017 #3
They complain it costs money! elleng Jan 2017 #2
Exactly... Docreed2003 Jan 2017 #4
YES!!! elleng Jan 2017 #5
I'm In Total Agreement With You And I Posted This Back On Nov 27th..... global1 Jan 2017 #6
What global1 said hedda_foil Jan 2017 #7

JI7

(90,653 posts)
1. because congressional races need to be seen within those individual districts and most congress
Sat Jan 7, 2017, 11:42 PM
Jan 2017

members are popular in their district.

Democrats did get more votes overall but because of gerrymandering and just how things are set up dem areas tend to have less representation.

 

SFnomad

(3,473 posts)
3. Democrats did not get more votes in the House races in 2016
Sat Jan 7, 2017, 11:52 PM
Jan 2017

The only time that Democrats have gotten more votes, but stayed in the minority was 2012. The other years that the Republicans won the majority, they also had the most votes in House races. Also, House districts in individual states are supposed to have about equal population ... at least that's what supposed to happen during redistricting, which happens every 10 years, the year after the census. Because of changes in population within districts during that 10 year period, the districts do get out of balance.

elleng

(136,386 posts)
2. They complain it costs money!
Sat Jan 7, 2017, 11:43 PM
Jan 2017

No sh*t, sherlock! Think if they'd have let us know, in a broad, loud way, that to do this important thing, they needed our financial help, we'd have done it?

Docreed2003

(17,821 posts)
4. Exactly...
Sun Jan 8, 2017, 12:28 AM
Jan 2017

And it didn't help that we learned after the election that some reps/senate candidates were begging the DNC for money and exposure and didn't receive it. Some of those, like Russ Fiengold, were canaries in the coal mine.

global1

(25,930 posts)
6. I'm In Total Agreement With You And I Posted This Back On Nov 27th.....
Sun Jan 8, 2017, 12:59 AM
Jan 2017

Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2017, 01:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Then when Hillary won the nomination she should have directed her campaign against the Repugs instead of directing her campaign against Trump.

I believe it was a tactical mistake by her campaign not to take after the Repugs. They thought if they would take on Trump they would capture the votes of those anti-Trump Repugs and they didn't want to piss them off associating these anti-Trumpers with the Repugs.

The Dems in general - including the Obama's, Biden and even Bill - went after Trump when the real enemy was the Repug Party.

The Repug Clown Car lost their primary to Trump because they did the same thing - they made it about Trump.

Hillary's campaign should have realized and seen that going after Trump was a losing proposition. They didn't.

So it's a nice try to blame this on Bernie - but it was Hillary, her campaign and the Dems that didn't attack the real enemy - The Repug Party - that from the day Obama was inaugurated - vowed to make him a one term President and did everything in their power to gridlock this country and stonewall every logical and right thing to bring this country back from the brink of the disaster that BushCo left us with.

Obama and the Dems could have made America Great Again - but The Repugs stonewalled them every step of the way.

And guess what - America rewarded them and gave them the trifecta. We blew the best chance we've had in 2016 to right this country and now we wonder if we'll ever recover.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why, WHY, did the Dems ne...