A Democratic Waterloo

Townhall.com ^ | November 6, 2014 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Kaslin]

The Duke of Wellington said of his close-run victory over Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo that the French "came on in the same old way, and we sent them back in the same old way." Something like that happened to the Democrats in Tuesday's

midterm elections, as they lost the Senate, a few more seats in the House and additional governorships. They came on with the same old strategy, but this time they went down with it.

Obama and the Democrats chose not to defend the administration's record of the last six years. On foreign policy, no Democratic chorus seconded Obama's 2013 claim that this chaotic period in world affairs has been the most stable time in recent memory.

No Democratic senator insisted that Obama's Russian reset had calmed Vladimir Putin.

Democrats did not argue that Obama had rightly distanced the U.S. from Israel.

Could Democratic candidates have pointed to the Middle East -- the Iranian bomb-making efforts, the civil war in Syria, the collapse of post-surge Iraq, the rise of the Islamic State -- to confirm Obama's diagnosis that these were mostly manageable problems?

[Servant of the Cross]

VDH ping ....

[icwhatudo]

[Arm_Bears]

Lest anyone forget, in this era of selective amnesia by the MSM, Obama boldly asserted that his policies were on the ballot (and around the neck of every Democrat candidate), thereby nationalizing House and Senate elections. The Republicans would do well to not lose sight of this fact (or pretend that it never existed), as this is their mandate.

[gusopol3]

Instead, they ran on the same old progressive idea of community organizing to get out the base. Obama was the past master of this strategy: Energize American voters by contending that we have been separated by race, class and gender; claim that conservatives have been waging pitiless war against blacks, Latinos, gays, women and the poor; and then cobble back together the aroused and aggrieved interests to form a majority.

Excellent synopsis of the "same old, same old."

[nathanbedford]

Wellington was also supposed to have said after Waterloo that it "was a damned close run thing" but Tuesday's midterm election was anything but close. It was however a slaughter which left dead Democrats strewn the across the battlefield reminiscent of the carnage at Waterloo.

The point? Obama has sacrificed his party to his ideology as the litany of failures described by Victor Davis Hanson illustrates. An analysis of Obama's character, his ideology and his narcissism (not to mention his belligerent tone in yesterday's press conference) leads one to no other assumption but that he will continue to sacrifice Democrat party electoral chances to advance his radical socialist/communist ideology.

The media will of course side with Obama as he wages war against the Republican Congress and the Republicans, true to form, will no doubt buckle under the slanders. Much of this could have been avoided if in the contest of 2008 John McCain had not rendered it illegitimate to attack Barack Obama in any way. Today the public would automatically associate Obama's failed policies with Obama's radical ideology. Instead his race continues to provide a buffer behind which the media will try to hide Obama. This election shows that the playbook no longer works to get Democrats elected but it leaves the Republican establishment timorous and unwilling to live up to their campaign promises.

2016 need not be a damned close run thing if Republicans will act like conservatives.

[Servant of the Cross]

After three elections, voters finally caught on that Obama's faults were not in the stars, but in himself. They apparently tired of the usual distractions from a dismal presidential record.

[Alberta's Child]

I would make the case that the shifting control of the Senate was nothing more than a normal course of events completely disconnected from any politics. The party in the White House typically does poorly in a midterm election like this, and there was an added GOP advantage simply because the Democrats had to defend far more seats than the Republicans in this particular Senate cycle.

I might also brush off a GOP gain of 15+ seats in the House as a function of similar historical trends.

What can't be overlooked, though, is the shift at the state level. The real indication of a political sea-change is that the incumbent Republican governors were re-elected in eight of the nine states that Obama won twice (which makes the lone exception -- Pennsylvania's Tom Corbett -- a particularly miserable loser). You can add to that the shocking Republican victories in Marxist states like Massachusetts, Maryland, and even Obama's home state of Illinois.

It's obvious to me that the Democrats are in this situation because Barack Hussein Obama is about as popular as Ebola right now.

[QBFimi]

Let’s see how long it takes our buddies - the ‘Pubbies - to f**k it up...

[nathanbedford]

Much of what we think we know about the meaning of an election comes from our time horizon. Like the chart of a stock or a graph of global temperatures purporting to show global warming, the value of the graph depends on the validity of the time axis.

We can regard this election as a change of direction for the electorate or we can extend the time axis and say that we are looking at a hiccup in a jagged chart but whose definable direction over time is perceptively down for Republicans. In other words, demographics is destiny subject only to impermanent accidents or hiccups along the way resulting from the charisma of the candidate or a combination of circumstances.

The real problems of the conservative movement are certainly not solved by this election because they are not caused by elections. Our problem is the culture which starts literally in kindergarten and extends through postgraduate academia, infests the media, and even taints our churches. Until we find a way to cope with a fifth column in our culture, the excrescences of The Frankfurt School, we will continue to slide down the demographic curve.

[SunkenCiv]

...they lost the Senate, a few more seats in the House and additional governorships. They came on with the same old strategy, but this time they went down with it. Obama and the Democrats chose not to defend the administration's record of the last six years. On foreign policy, no Democratic chorus seconded Obama's 2013 claim that this chaotic period in world affairs has been the most stable time in recent memory. No Democratic senator insisted that Obama's Russian reset had calmed Vladimir Putin. Democrats did not argue that Obama had rightly distanced the U.S. from Israel. Could Democratic candidates have pointed to the Middle East -- the Iranian bomb-making efforts, the civil war in Syria, the collapse of post-surge Iraq, the rise of the Islamic State -- to confirm Obama's diagnosis that these were mostly manageable problems?

The ones who didn't run -- John Kerry, Hitlery Clinton, etc -- doubled down, which shows what they plan to do in 2016. Everything that happens because of Obama will be ignored, anything minor, real or imagined (overturned trash can in a national park on up) will be the fault of the Republican Party, the "extreme right wing of the Republican Party", the "extreme right", the "Tea Party Republican extremism", "anti-immigrant racism", "homophobia", etc.

Thanks Kaslin.

[Servant of the Cross]

It's obvious to me that the Democrats are in this situation because Barack Hussein Obama is about as popular as Ebola right now.

While this is true, and it certainly played its part, I think there are dramatically more fundamental reasons at play, as VDH identified. Ignoring all of the scandals and plenty of other reasons to vote the bums out, 0bama and his merry band of Marxists lost because they "chose not to defend the administration's record of the last six years." (i.e. they COULDN’T)

• On foreign policy, no democrat chorus seconded Obama's 2013 claim that this chaotic period in world affairs has been the most stable time in recent memory.
• No democrat senator insisted that Obama's Russian reset had calmed Vladimir Putin.
• democrats did not argue that Obama had rightly distanced the U.S. from Israel.
• No democrats pointed to the Middle East -- the Iranian bomb-making efforts, the civil war in Syria, the collapse of post-surge Iraq, the rise of the Islamic State -- to confirm Obama's diagnosis that these were mostly manageable problems?
• No democrat candidates ran on their own prior overwhelming support for the Affordable Care Act, which passed without a single Republican vote?
• No democRAT stated that at some future date, Obamacare, as promised, really would lower premiums and deductibles, reduce the deficit, expand coverage, and ensure that people could keep existing plans and doctors?
• No democrat made the re-election argument that stimulatory policies of adding $7 trillion in new debt, maintaining continual near zero-interest rates and approving a $1 trillion stimulus had led to a robust recovery after the end of the recession in mid-2009?
• No democrat claimed positive changes in federal agencies and bigger government -- at least those other than the IRS, NSA, ICE, GSA, VA, NASA, the Justice Department and the Secret Service?
• If democrats didn't wish to run on their party's past record, why didn't they promise to fulfill Obama's incomplete agenda that was short-circuited by the loss of the House in 2010? In 2009, the democrat House had voted to pass a cap-and-trade bill under Obama's direction, but it was never passed by the Senate. Why didn't democrat candidates vow that they would see it through in 2015? Or promise to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline for good? Or vow to keep with the Obama agenda of curbing new federal leases for gas and oil exploration?
• Under Obama, an effectively open border, coupled with de facto amnesties, has led to massive new influxes of foreign citizens at the southern border. Why didn't democrat promise to continue Obama's laissez-faire immigration policy?
• Couldn't the democrats have pointed to Obama's handling of the Ebola crisis, lauding his choice of Washington, D.C., fixer Ron Klain as a medically savvy, hands-on Ebola czar? Or to the president's dynamic air war against the Islamic State?

"democrats understandably chose to ignore both what they had voted for in the past and what they were likely to support in the future."

And the voting public, even those educated in government schools, said GET LOST!

[Servant of the Cross]

ping ...

[SunkenCiv]

The point? Obama has sacrificed his party to his ideology as the litany of failures described by Victor Davis Hanson illustrates. An analysis of Obama's character, his ideology and his narcissism (not to mention his belligerent tone in yesterday's press conference) leads one to no other assumption but that he will continue to sacrifice Democrat party electoral chances to advance his radical socialist/communist ideology.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[SunkenCiv]

What can't be overlooked, though, is the shift at the state level. The real indication of a political sea-change is that the incumbent Republican governors were re-elected in eight of the nine states that Obama won twice (which makes the lone exception -- Pennsylvania's Tom Corbett -- a particularly miserable loser). You can add to that the shocking Republican victories in Marxist states like Massachusetts, Maryland, and even Obama's home state of Illinois.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[SunkenCiv]

Lest anyone forget, in this era of selective amnesia by the MSM, Obama boldly asserted that his policies were on the ballot (and around the neck of every Democrat candidate), thereby nationalizing House and Senate elections. The Republicans would do well to not lose sight of this fact (or pretend that it never existed), as this is their mandate.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Impy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj_9CiNkkn4

[xzins]

Obama is already signaling his strategy. It’s going to be: “It’s only poor little me against a Republican establishment. I’ll hold them back the best I can, but you know they are sinister and out to injure America...and me.”

The media will pick it up, of course, and they’ll play it like Martin Luther King, Jr. against The Entire FBI.

Count on it. Republicans desperately need to pick a woman and a minority as Speaker and Majority Leader. NOW.

[bert]

——he will continue to sacrifice Democrat party electoral chances to advance his radical socialist/communist ideology.——

I would argue that the “radical socialist/communist ideology” is the Democrat party, one and the same. Obama was seen as the Messiah precisely because the party wanted to implement the radical socialist/communist ideology

[Sir Napsalot]

Another fine read from VDH:

Losers