• 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

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,606
Reaction score
32,215
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 
Short answer - yes.

Long answer - hell yes.

However, we have our version of Reid, in the form of Ted Cruz, who is rumored to be eying a leadership position. That scares me.
 
yep, yep.. voters want something besides permanent gridlock..
 
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.
 
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.

I voted that he hurt, but only a little. So much of politics is reactionary so I think this wave was coming with or without Reid being a factor. He didn't hurt the GOP though.
 
Harry Reid was (ab?)using rules that congress critters allowed him to (ab?)use. The structure of congress is what sucks - bills are no longer written, read, openly debated and amended as was intended. They are now tightly controlled (edited?) by "leadership" (including many committees/sub-commiitttes) such that "deals" must be made before they can even get to the floor.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

I agree. Harry Reid is merely a symptom of the disease but not the cause of the disease.
 
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.

Which both sides do. What I find interesting is how often Republican voters and conservatives are told we cannot win unless we put up our more "moderate" or less conservative candidates, yet, even after last night, nobody really calls on Democrats to be more "moderate" or less liberal. That's not any kind of criticism, it's just something I noticed.
 
Reid is the face of the democrat congress, and it's a role he's willingly embraced.
 
Which both sides do. What I find interesting is how often Republican voters and conservatives are told we cannot win unless we put up our more "moderate" or less conservative candidates, yet, even after last night, nobody really calls on Democrats to be more "moderate" or less liberal. That's not any kind of criticism, it's just something I noticed.

I think that is a criticism when it comes to a more national race, like the President. I don't think it matters as much how extreme you are when you have so very few split districts, the vast majority of districts are demographically majority red or blue anyway.
 
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.
 
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.

I don't think the average voter gives a rats furry behind about Harry Reid unless they are a Fox addict or Limbaugh loonie.
 
Yes badly. Being that obvious as the reason congress did nothing was bad and a gift that will continue to give.

if donkeys have any sense at all they boot Reid Pelisi Wasserman Cummings Murray immediatly and sprint back to the center.

but donkeys dont have much sense.
 
Which both sides do.

I agree. I was just stating the obvious.

What I find interesting is how often Republican voters and conservatives are told we cannot win unless we put up our more "moderate" or less conservative candidates, yet, even after last night, nobody really calls on Democrats to be more "moderate" or less liberal. That's not any kind of criticism, it's just something I noticed.

The majority of Dems defeated where the moderate Dems in purple and red states that typically took positions against the national party.
Also...there's really no need to tell Dems to moderate. When it comes to social issues most Dem positions are very popular. When it comes to economic issues...how far different are Dems than Republicans?
 
I may be a contrarian here - it is "debate" politics after all - but I think Harry Reid helped Democrats rather than hurt them. There's no question that most if not all on the right have a particularly visceral almost hatred of Harry Reid and his leadership style, but I think Democrats in the Senate fully supported Reid's handling of the legislative agenda and his refusal to bring matters to the floor for a vote unless a strong majority of Democrat Senators supported them. Reid protected both Democrat Senators and the President by not forcing them to go on record as opposed to the President or opposed to initiatives their constituents may have supported. He provided them cover and took all the heat himself.
 
Spinelessness from within and racism from without hurt the Democrats.
 
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.

The election was about how bad the country is, and getting out the party in power. Really, you could of had Jesus as leader of the Democrats in the Senate, and they still would of lost...
 
I agree. I was just stating the obvious.



The majority of Dems defeated where the moderate Dems in purple and red states that typically took positions against the national party.
Also...there's really no need to tell Dems to moderate. When it comes to social issues most Dem positions are very popular.

Ah, I see, there's just no such thing as an extreme liberal. :mrgreen:

When it comes to economic issues...how far different are Dems than Republicans?

Judging by your sig, I'd say pretty different. I mean that sincerely. We no doubt view capitalism very differently.
 
I don't think the average voter gives a rats furry behind about Harry Reid unless they are a Fox addict or Limbaugh loonie.

While they may not know the name, I think Reid's agenda did hurt the country. To use a sport analogy, he was playing not to lose in the Senate.
 
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.

Considering the fact that besides the republican gains and the fact that no senate republicans lost their seats and only one in the house of reps did...ofcourse Obama and Reid hurt the democrats. Obamacare is still massively unpopular and Reid's tabling over 300 bills with bipartisan support because he did not like them was a big drag on the democrats. It was as if any representation in congress of people in red states or moderates in blue states was declared null and void. If Obama or Reid did not support the bill, it was going nowhere.
 
I think Obama hurt the democrats with things like the following.
“The bottom line is though, these are all folks who vote with me; they have supported my agenda in Congress;"
“These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me, and I tell them, I said, ‘You know what, you do what you need to do to win. I will be responsible for making sure our voters turn out.’ ”
I read that as voting for anyone with a ( D ) after their name was like voating for Obama.
 
The majority of Dems defeated where the moderate Dems in purple and red states that typically took positions against the national party.
Also...there's really no need to tell Dems to moderate. When it comes to social issues most Dem positions are very popular. When it comes to economic issues...how far different are Dems than Republicans?

Very much. Bottom line I would bet that you think the government can be more help than the private sector to the economy. Exit polls show this divide clearly where only 20% of Dems think "Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals" whereas 20% of Reps believe "Government should do more to solve problems".
 
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.

The only reason that would happen at this point is that Obama just Vetoes everything that comes his way and ignores the phone when the Reps call. For the past four years we've had a Congress divided, where bills were passed by one and ignored by the other. At least with one party in control of both houses, you have the possibility of actually passing legislation and moving things along. In truth, Democrats should be just as ecstatic about this election. If you are thinking about what is best for the country, one party in control of congress guarantees we won't have the same gridlock as we have (maybe a new type will develop I suppose...) and You still have the White House so it's not like anything you are radically against is going to get passed. Win Win guys.
 
I think Obama hurt the democrats with things like the following. (snip)

I read that as voting for anyone with a ( D ) after their name was like voating for Obama.

All presidents want the public to believe that their fellow party members in Congress support their agenda. (Often they do, but not always.)
 
Back
Top Bottom