Democrats Find 'Operation Chicken-' Falls Well Short

     Give it to Jon Stewart-he nails this one on the nose:

      "So how did the Democrats manage to lose so badly in Tuesday's midterm election? With a strategy that Jon Stewart succinctly described as the "chickenshit gambit."

       "It's named, of course, for Sen. Dickless H. Chickenshit, who, when he was asked whether he supported the Emancipation Proclamation, famously said, ‘Huh? What? Huh?’ and then had to pretend to be hard of hearing for the rest of his life," Stewart said on Thursday night's "Daily Show."

     "Stewart said red-state Democrats got President Barack Obama to delay action on major issues, such as immigration and the Keystone XL pipeline. The Democrats then wouldn't have to take an unpopular stand that might cost them votes, or in some cases, could even score points by criticizing the president for delaying action."

    "So how'd those red-state Democrats do?:

    "Four of the five senators lost, and the fifth is about to lose in a runoff, Stewart said."

    "It’s like Democrats came up with this plan to produce 'Springtime for Hitler,'" Stewart said, referring to the play in the "The Producers" used to scam investors. "But only because they really thought it was a good fucking play.”

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/07/jon-stewart-democrats_n_6119480.html

     Yes, their campaign was about as good as Springtime for Hitler. As Chris Hayes pointed out their strategy of 'You think Obama is the anti Christ? Well so do I, so go ahead and elect me so I can go to Washington as part of his party' really didn't work. 

     What's the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats? The Repubs are chickenhawks, the Dems are just plain chickenshit. Brilliant job again., Allison Grimes. If you had admitted voting for Obama, you'd have lost by 17 points easy. Oh wait...

      If there is any reason for hope-and there is-it starts with just how out of touch with reality the GOP really is. 

     "NRSC chief Greg Walden has announced that the GOP may have built itself “a hundred-year majority” in the House, which is in no way an insane bit of overconfidence. Steve Benen has a good recap of some of the other times Republicans have responded to victories by saying that they would never lose again."

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/11/06/happy-hour-roundup-477/

      Look I think optimism is a good thing but these guys are just totally out of touch with reality. I was glad to hear from longtime Diary reader Greg again, who had this to say. 

      "Some really good political analysis and commentary in your last few posts. I think you are spot on."

      "I hate that the repubs have so much to gloat over but there is no doubt that liberal ideas are winning (more to the point... extreme conservative ideas are losing) , even in red states. These guys are just like those dancing DBs who get a meaningless interception in the 4th after being torched 3 times. Every election is a wave, the beginning of a new permanent conservative majority or some such thing."

       http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/11/what-washington-post-wants-from-obama.html

       I appreciate that he likes my recent political commentary. I guess I just feel that there's a vacuum for some decent analysis right now. I guess I feel my fellow Dems out there need someone to feel their pain where everywhere in the mainstream press there's this schadenfreude 'See, I told you Obama has failed to lead!'

      I think there is more than a few reasons for hope in 2016 but it has to start with the crazy lack of proportion of Republicans. I've noted that in previous posts-whenever they win, they-and large swaths of the lamestream press-think they'll never lose again. It's as if the very force of gravity, all Newton's Laws have been suspended permanently for the GOP alone. 

       I like it that my enemy is that overconfident. Don't get me wrong, if anything, I personally tend to towards the optimistic side and if I'm wrong it's usually from being too optimistic rather than too pessimistic. Generally, I'd even argue that as a vice you're better off being somewhat too optimistic than somewhat too pessimistic. After all, in the long run market bulls do better than market bears. 

       Still optimism is one thing, just plain old grandiose delusion is another. To be that overly optimistic has to be a bad thing. Look at the big picture that goes back to 1968, the year the FDR-LBJ New Deal liberal coalition was eclipsed with Nixon's win. 

        Judging by how Americans have voted since then, they seem to want divided government. Maybe they feel that such government would be more honest with more checks and balances. Unfortunately what we've  gotten is more and more gridlock which has long since reached chronic levels. 

        There is some talk now that the time of centrists and moderates is passing as we have a more and more partisan Washington. That may be a good thing if people vote a clear choice. In reality if you want anything done, you should want one party in all 3 branches-either all Rs or all Ds. 

         Republicans lack all sense of history to think that they've now cinched things for the next 100 years. This has been claimed by them too many times to count since Nixon first won. The trouble goes back to what Keynes said as far as making predictions. Basically, we're all congenitally conditioned to think the future will be too much like the present or the recent past. 

         So every election is a 'wave' and there is now a 'permanent Republican majority' after one election, then a 'permanent Democratic majority' after the next. In reality the parties just swap the legislative and executive branches. The one area that one side has gotten a foothold in his the SJC alas, where the GOP has dominated since Reagan. 

         This bias for the present is just like in the NFL. Every year, if you look back at what the prognosticators were saying before the year started, it was that the team that won the Super Bowl last year will win it again. Most seemed to believe the Seahawks were poised to win it this year. Now, however, they're barely over .500 and not even a lock for the playoffs. 

         In fact, you could go as far as saying that if you were to bet on what team will win the SB this year, you'd be best off, ruling out first and foremost the team that won last year. 

         So it's very unlikely that the GOP achived some dramatic seismic shift Tuesday. In fact, the long term looks very bad for them on demographics alone which hasn't suddenly disappeared because of Tuesday. The red states that voted don't have too many Latinos but in 2016 of course it will be very different. I think Obama should do his execcutive order for immigration as soon as possible. 

        http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obama-gop-battle-immigration-executive-action

        UPDATE: Here's one Republican who is right. 

       "During a post-election briefing, Rob Collins, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Senate Democrats hurt themselves during this year’s midterm elections by not using President Obama more on the campaign trail."

       “They sidelined their best messenger,” he said. The irony, of course, is that Republicans used the hugely unpopular Obama against Democrats in almost every crucial contest.

       http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-republicans-openly-gloat-about-their-midterm-election-wins/2014/11/06/7957d0be-65f4-11e4-9fdc-d43b053ecb4d_story.html?hpid=z5

       Again, he is not hugely unpopular. A 41% approval rating isn't hugely unpoular. It's not hugely popular-it's not hugely anything. I agree with Portman. By hiding from Obama they made the GOP attacks on him self-fulfilling.