• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did Harry Reid Hurt the Democrats?

Did Harry Reid Hurt the Democrats in the Midterm Election?

  • Total voters
    38
Redress said:
No, they only show who people voted for.
Click to expand...

The polls did show that people thought this country was on the wrong track by a vast margin, and with Reid and Obama running the train there the ones who get the blame. Reid I think is known more than people think, I mean at each of these news conferences that I saw, his name was at least brought up a handful of times.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
You honestly think the way the polls were showing that even if they showed up, it of made a difference?
Click to expand...

Well if he was the one who convinced em to show, i'm guessing they'd vote for his party.

As if winning an election with 10% turnout bestows some kind of immense legitimacy. If anything it makes it seem like democracy has failed.
 
X Factor said:
To add to the ever expanding list of threads about yesterday's elections, I was watching MSNBC last night (what can I say? It's fun watching Chris Matthews on a night like that) and one of the commentators said that Harry Reid's leadership in the Senate actually hurt Dems running for office by not even letting legislation he didn't like come to a vote, no Democrat could really show their independence from Obama and/or the Democrat party. I thought that made some sense.

Do you agree that Reid did more damage to his party than good.

Give me a sec to attach the poll.
Click to expand...

Reid was only a minor problem for Dems, IMHO. BHO's lack of leadership compelled Reid to focus on protecting his slim Senate majority. That led him to essentially close the Senate so his vulnerable colleagues would not have to take tough votes. That delayed, but could not prevent last night's reckoning.
 
chromium said:
Well if he was the one who convinced em to show, i'm guessing they'd vote for his party.

As if winning an election with 10% turnout bestows some kind of immense legitimacy. If anything it makes it seem like democracy has failed.
Click to expand...

I heard the turnout was a third... from the president. Which historically it's been between 30-40% during the midterms. But in some states they actually had record turnout. Wisconsin was one. Largest turnout for a midterm election in fifty years. Wisconsin Governor Walker holds seat amid record high voter turnout
 
Hamster Buddha said:
The polls did show that people thought this country was on the wrong track by a vast margin, and with Reid and Obama running the train there the ones who get the blame. Reid I think is known more than people think, I mean at each of these news conferences that I saw, his name was at least brought up a handful of times.
Click to expand...

So the polls did not mention Reid? Then everything you are saying is assumption, and not a particularly good assumption. I do not think you will find the average voter spends alot of time watching what the senate majority leader does.
 
Redress said:
So the polls did not mention Reid? Then everything you are saying is assumption, and not a particularly good assumption. I do not think you will find the average voter spends alot of time watching what the senate majority leader does.
Click to expand...

You know how much money was spent on ads this year? You really think they weren't bombarded with the names of Reid and Obama incessantly?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
You know how much money was spent on ads this year? You really think they weren't bombarded with the names of Reid and Obama incessantly?
Click to expand...

I do not know how effective those adds where. Remember, democrats spent insane amounts of money too...how effective was that?
 
Redress said:
I do not know how effective those adds where. Remember, democrats spent insane amounts of money too...how effective was that?
Click to expand...

Not arguing about the effectiveness but in recognition of the names (which is where ads can really work in my opinion). Hell, I see McDonald's ads so much, I go to sleep humming the tune. Don't mean I'm running out to grab a Big Mac. Ultimately, people were tired with a Democrat run government and you can't hide the fact that Reid is a big part of that. Hell, Roberts used the name 20 times in one of his debates with Orman. It was the same way back in 2010 with everyone using Pelosi's name.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Not enough to make a difference. Too much voter apathy this year.

Like most midterms, this was the time for cranky old white Americans to show that they don't like that uppity Obama or the taste of their Metamucil.
Click to expand...

"cranky old white people"? Racist much?
 
chromium said:
Well then which is 10% usually, the primaries?

Still, 1/3 is quite lousy
Click to expand...

Oh it must be the primaries cause who gives a **** about them... and the important thing to know is that people are going to vote when they feel like it really matters. Two thirds of the senate isn't up for election in the mid term, so you don't have those seats in play to add into things. Also keep in mind that of those 33 or so seats in play, only about ten were actually competitive. When elections are perceived to be a landslide, they aren't going out to the polls. Finally, and most importantly, the President isn't up for election which drives out the least motivated people to vote (young people especially)
 
The real question is what shouldn't the government get out of? I don't mean to be coy but really, when you talk to someone like me who is what I refer to as a "moderate libertarian". What I mean is that, I'll make no bones of it, the private sector would do whatever government does, but better and more efficient. We've seen this many times now with services like highway management, sewage, water treatment, and all these basic functions handled beautifully. There's many cases of neighborhoods that can't rely on police having to higher private security to handle to job. The reason is very simple after all, if an outfit doesn't perform up to snuff, then fire them. You can't really fire the government, specifically the bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I really agree that private sector does those things "better". They are utilities, a kw of electricity is a kw of electricity. My utilities are city run and I've never had any issue. The issue I have with private companies running utility functions is they are monopolies....a company isn't going to built a water treatment plant unless they have a long term exclusive contract. What makes markets work is competition and there's really not much competition in what government provides. You can't have 5 water treatment operations competing in price. It's just not feasible.

One of the main reasons I prefer government runs those things though comes down to corruption. The state I live in has a very large number of privately run prisons. They also give heavily to politicians races and who knows what else they do behind the scenes. Not to mention, they tend to spend a lot of money against things like the legalization of marijuana because incarcerating people is big business.

For the most part, I prefer a market option, when it comes to utility and basic functions like running a highway I prefer government due to the reason I listed.

However, I do believe there are some things that while the government wouldn't do it as efficiently, I'm fine with government doing it. For instance, I'm not for privatizing social security, not because I don't think it can't be done (money wise it's the best move) but because I accept that is something people just can't accept. But more importantly, and I think similarly with the Military, there are somethings that ultimately we want full control as the people, and by extension the government. Though I will say with the Military, we need to rethink our role in the world, at least so far as our military budget which is greater than the next I think eight or nine nations combined depending on when the number is counted.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, I just expand on it a bit to include things like basic education and highways.

A lot of what I would get rid of is the extraneous fat around the government and refocus. I'd phase out the Education department since it's clear it's not helping, I'd re focus the EPA to handling clean water and clear air and get them off of this Green crap being two that I can think of off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

This is where I do disagree strongly. I think Education does a lot of good. Pell Grants etc really help people attend college that otherwise wouldn't of. Education gives money to states like Texas that have very large populations of Spanish speakers to help them conduct English classes. Dept of Education spends a lot to help states pay for educating students with disabilities. I think in some states these population would fall to the wayside if the funding was entirely dependent on local governments and state governments. I agree with the idea that state and local governments should be able to do a majority of what they want but not at the detriment of special populations.

As far as EPA, to me they are one of the fewest Agencies that isn't ran based on what special interest groups want. That's why they constantly get attacked, they pass stuff to protect citizens and the people it sometimes costs very moneyed interest a lot of money. I think they get a bad wrap because they don't have billions to spend on propaganda.
 
chromium said:
so why would they vote for republicans then, who can't even agree to allow educational debt refinancing?
Click to expand...
it's more then one issue?
I get student loans, though I am more concerned about fiscal solvency of Medicare at my age - but the point is the Senate is broken.
Reid's desk was a black hole where legislation was swallowed up, so Dem's didn't have to take "tough votes"

The Repubs have the Insane Tea party to deal with - Cruz won't even commit to McConnell ( &look for the obligatory "repeal of Obamacare").

Still any legislation at this point is better then perpetual gridlock,,so we'll see..
 
StillBallin75 said:
I don't know. And at the end of the day I don't think it will make much of a difference. Saying that Harry Reid and President Obama "hurt the Democrats" is like saying Mike Shanahan killed the Redskins and therefore firing him solves all ills. My prediction is that going forward Congress will be just as unproductive as it's always been the last eight or so years, and in 2015-2016 people will still be pissed but will still vote for the same people, or different people who do the same things.

At the end of the day it's the system that's the problem, not any individual or even any select group of individuals.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with your conclusion. Yes, the system is the problem, but the system is made up of people and some people contribute more to the problem than others.
 
I said yes, a lot, simply because he's among the most visible of a party leadership group that has grown quite stale.
 
iliveonramen said:
I don't think so. I really doubt that moderate Democrats would win those elections by voting on specific legislation. It's not as if these elections were really about specifics. It was about demonizing the other party and mud slinging.
Click to expand...


Yes, the Democrats did everything they could to pull focus away from the issues that threatened their re-election chances. Obama's policies.

Including allot of negative attack adds based on old stale talking points.

it didn't work.
 
America's "beef" is with Obama not Reid and the rest of the democrats
 
Jack Hays said:
And why do you think that?
Click to expand...

For the ones who stay red no matter what? it's the fact antisemitism
still runs deep in their veins

for the ones who went blue during the 2012 election and now went
red this time around? I'd say it's a combination of idiots listening to
other idiots or just being miss informed on the facts
 
X Factor said:
To add to the ever expanding list of threads about yesterday's elections, I was watching MSNBC last night (what can I say? It's fun watching Chris Matthews on a night like that) and one of the commentators said that Harry Reid's leadership in the Senate actually hurt Dems running for office by not even letting legislation he didn't like come to a vote, no Democrat could really show their independence from Obama and/or the Democrat party. I thought that made some sense.

Do you agree that Reid did more damage to his party than good.

Give me a sec to attach the poll.
Click to expand...

Probably not. I know that Begich, Landrieu, Pryor and a couple of others wanted Reid to have a vote on the Keystone Pipeline prior to the election and he refused them. Reid knew it would pass, all it needed was additional Democratic votes and I just mentioned three. Throw in Manchin and Hagan that is five.

But when these senators fall in lock step with President Obama and vote the party line although the people and the states they supposedly represent differ in their views on many of the issues and votes they cast. One vote on the pipeline wouldn't have made much of a difference. They couldn't hide from their past.

No, this election was not on Reid, it was more on the president with his very low approval rating.
 
1ToughSOB said:
For the ones who stay red no matter what? it's the fact antisemitism
still runs deep in their veins

for the ones who went blue during the 2012 election and now went
red this time around? I'd say it's a combination of idiots listening to
other idiots or just being miss informed on the facts
Click to expand...

What does anti-semitism have to do with it?
 
X Factor said:
To add to the ever expanding list of threads about yesterday's elections, I was watching MSNBC last night (what can I say? It's fun watching Chris Matthews on a night like that) and one of the commentators said that Harry Reid's leadership in the Senate actually hurt Dems running for office by not even letting legislation he didn't like come to a vote, no Democrat could really show their independence from Obama and/or the Democrat party. I thought that made some sense.

Do you agree that Reid did more damage to his party than good.

Give me a sec to attach the poll.
Click to expand...

hmmm interesting question

i can only answer for me

no ONE person can hurt a "party"

i would never judge the democrats based off of harry reid any more than i would judge republicans from nut cases like palin. Its simply not fair and illogical.

now having said that i do think a person or squeaky wheels can influence sheep but they are sheep for a reason.
 
AGENT J said:
hmmm interesting question

i can only answer for me

no ONE person can hurt a "party"

i would never judge the democrats based off of harry reid any more than i would judge republicans from nut cases like palin. Its simply not fair and illogical.

now having said that i do think a person or squeaky wheels can influence sheep but they are sheep for a reason.
Click to expand...

Well when they all vote one way because they're in the same party...

Yeah i think it's fair to judge them all based on their weakest link. They're all "united" after all
 
chromium said:
Well when they all vote one way because they're in the same party...

Yeah i think it's fair to judge them all based on their weakest link. They're all "united" after all
Click to expand...

but thier not united in real life.

yes since the system is so broken and they are so retarded and fearful "they" (reps and dems) may vote alike in one of the houses but again i dont judge all reps and dems based on them.

while i get what you are saying the dem or rep on the street shouldnt be judged based on them or even all the people in those houses

to judge the right by palin and rush or the left by weiner and moore is sillly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom