Obama will leave the Democratic Party in its worst shape since the 1920s

Here's an opinion that claims Obama has actually done more harm for the Democrat Party than good.

Sounds possible since Democrats in office nationwide has fallen dramatically.

If the trend continues, even a Democrat President in 2017 will have a hard time convincing the majority of citizens about any traditional Democrat legislation at Federal levels.

The facts seem to show Democrats are in fact losing ground.

And with the current Hillary scandal ongoing, the power base could easily weaken with the 2016 elections.


Obama will leave the Democratic Party in its worst shape since the 1920s

When President Obama was elected in 2008, Democrats were riding high.

Not only did he make history by becoming the first black president, he was also a new young face for their aging party and he helped usher in a wave of support across the country.

That didn’t last long. His legacy for the Democratic Party is abysmal.

When Obama leaves office, he is set to leave his party at the state and national level in the worst shape it has been in since 1929.

Politico recently took a deep-dive into Obama’s effect on these elections.

Democrats have "lost more than 900 state legislators" since Barack Obama has been president.

a reply to: xuenchen

Well in the other hand I fear the Republicans more due to these incidents:





Now as much as I disagree with Democrats, there is no way I'm accepting these nutjobs.

a reply to: starwarsisreal

A radio host and a candidate's dad? That's what you base your opinion on?

Weak... very weak.

The radio host was saying the signs would make everyone leave. Anyone who took him literally is a moron.

The out going party almost always leaves with a change in the national pendulum. In this case however Obama is going to hand the White House over to another democrat, the Senate is polling to return to the DNC and the GOP is going loose ground in the House. Whatever bad shape the DNC may be in the GOP is even worse shape. Such bad shape in fact that is going to be fighting to keep power in the House. Instead of taking the White House. Local and state level politics rarely reflect the parties at the national level. The way things are going. unless the GOP rights it ship it will be nothing more than a local party losing relevance at the national level.

a reply to: Answer

You do know that the radio host is a King Maker right? In fact right after that fiasco Ted Cruz and other GOP candidates came in. How long will it take before these GOP Candidates decided that nutjob's idea is a good idea?

Plus Ted Cruz is very much influenced by his father. And here's another video of Ted Cruz calling atheists "Taliban" simply because the atheists are trying to keep religion out of the government:



Another thing, Ted Cruz and many other GOP candidates are opposed to LBGT rights.

a reply to: MrSpad

If I recall correctly, you made the same prediction before the last mid-terms.

What you omit in your calculations is the bottom line to that middle-class voter. His pocket book. That legacy cannot be spun as a Republican faux pas. The buck rests entirely with the sitting president.

Having said that, the right could screw this up....it's still a toss up.

Ok... Here is a crazy thought...

Since we have switched between the two parties off and on for decades... And look where we are at....

So my crazy idea... STOP VOTING FOR THOSE TWO PARTIES, people whine and complain but every election the majority still punch the ticket of an R or a D...

There are options... 7 million votes in a presidential election makes them an offical party that gets federal dollars going forward.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Here's an opinion that claims Obama has actually done more harm for the Democrat Party than good.

Sounds possible since Democrats in office nationwide has fallen dramatically.

If the trend continues, even a Democrat President in 2017 will have a hard time convincing the majority of citizens about any traditional Democrat legislation at Federal levels.

The facts seem to show Democrats are in fact losing ground.

And with the current Hillary scandal ongoing, the power base could easily weaken with the 2016 elections.


Obama will leave the Democratic Party in its worst shape since the 1920s

When President Obama was elected in 2008, Democrats were riding high.

Not only did he make history by becoming the first black president, he was also a new young face for their aging party and he helped usher in a wave of support across the country.

That didn’t last long. His legacy for the Democratic Party is abysmal.

When Obama leaves office, he is set to leave his party at the state and national level in the worst shape it has been in since 1929.

Politico recently took a deep-dive into Obama’s effect on these elections.

Democrats have "lost more than 900 state legislators" since Barack Obama has been president.

edit on Aug-25-2015 by xuenchen because: [9876...]321

While this is true - he's still gonna blame someone else. He's never taken responsibility for anything he's damaged. Even though 'the buck stops here'.

I think the amount of truth that has escaped his lips thus far, could be written on the back of a fortune cookie paper. That's not saying other politicians weren't full of @#$!% as well, but this dude is 99.5% pure crap.

Don't get your hopes up. Everyone wants to declare a new political age, but hardly a damn thing has changed in America since the fall of Nixon- he was the last rat off the ship.

Things have been done differently ever since then- I'd love the hesitant greedy gall and unapologetic pettiness and cowardice of a rat president at this point. The new breed isn't stealing just for themselves and isn't afraid just of us- they're more like... Well actually nothing in nature is quite that dishonorable. Maybe the closest analogy would be the runt of a wolf pack or the first piss-ant to a puddle.

But the truth is we don't have a two party system- we have a one party system. Half of them pretend to be nationalists and half of them pretend to be socialists, but no matter who we elect invariably a gang of some number crosses the aisle and a national socialist style policy gets pursued. They won't drop the yin or the yang- the left or the right-it's a a cycle- a reciprocating engine to pump money and power from one place to another- and both sides of it rev and idle in cooperation to keep it running smoothly instead of banging away lop sided and shaking itself apart.

Who was the last president who made government smaller?

a reply to: starwarsisreal

As opposed to the left calling the right terrorists? I have no problem with keeping religion out of gov't.
I DO have a problem with gov't keeping religion from the people in everyday life....

originally posted by: MrSpad
The out going party almost always leaves with a change in the national pendulum. In this case however Obama is going to hand the White House over to another democrat, the Senate is polling to return to the DNC and the GOP is going loose ground in the House. Whatever bad shape the DNC may be in the GOP is even worse shape. Such bad shape in fact that is going to be fighting to keep power in the House. Instead of taking the White House. Local and state level politics rarely reflect the parties at the national level. The way things are going. unless the GOP rights it ship it will be nothing more than a local party losing relevance at the national level.

That's exactly how I see it and I'm speculating that in some states, such as California, that's already happened. Wasn't Reagan the last Republican Governor of California? So except for a few State Reps and perhaps Senators, Cali is near all Democrat at this point. That's sort of the way I think the Reubs will go after 2016.

Question is.....in a system seemingly designed for a Two Party system......what happens when the Repubs decline into near obscurity? I don't see any replacement and nature abhors a vacuum.

originally posted by: The Vagabond
Don't get your hopes up. Everyone wants to declare a new political age, but hardly a damn thing has changed in America since the fall of Nixon- he was the last rat off the ship.

Things have been done differently ever since then- I'd love the hesitant greedy gall and unapologetic pettiness and cowardice of a rat president at this point. The new breed isn't stealing just for themselves and isn't afraid just of us- they're more like... Well actually nothing in nature is quite that dishonorable. Maybe the closest analogy would be the runt of a wolf pack or the first piss-ant to a puddle.

But the truth is we don't have a two party system- we have a one party system. Half of them pretend to be nationalists and half of them pretend to be socialists, but no matter who we elect invariably a gang of some number crosses the aisle and a national socialist style policy gets pursued. They won't drop the yin or the yang- the left or the right-it's a a cycle- a reciprocating engine to pump money and power from one place to another- and both sides of it rev and idle in cooperation to keep it running smoothly instead of banging away lop sided and shaking itself apart.

At least someone in here is showing some common sense.

a reply to: TonyS

Maybe some people that actually want to improve our country will get into office. High hopes though.

a reply to: beezzer

Bill Clinton?

originally posted by: beezzer

Who was the last president who made government smaller?

William Henry Harrison

originally posted by: amicktd
a reply to: TonyS

Maybe some people that actually want to improve our country will get into office. High hopes though.

Uh, well......it isn't for me to rain on anyone's hopes. It is a nice thought.

I don't believe it matter what sort of shape Obama leaves the party in, we are still witnessing a general movement Left in the US.

Many people have become sick and tired of the rhetoric and propaganda from the Right that claims to espouse conservatism, but in fact they spend like the liberals. The difference is, they want to spend it on war and scratching the backs of big-business.

The Left does this as well, but there are many on the Left that would like to have that money spent here in the US on things like healthcare, worker initiatives and other things that benefit the people.

If we are going to be taxed, we might as well get something out of it, right?

That is a mantra I hear all the time from my discussions with people. They want to get something out of their tax dollars and the Republicans don't have anyone that is talking about what they will do for the people. All you hear from them is how bad the Left is, and how we need to spend money to protect our asses from people thousands of miles away.

a reply to: xuenchen

The naive blinded political cheerleaders will vote for their party no matter what. As a matter of fact that is one of the biggest problem in politics.

If individual Republicans only worried about exposing their own parties corruption instead of the Democrats problems , than maybe republicans could actually get some real republican candidates from the GOP. The same goes for the Democrats.

The question is how many people are waking up from the fact that voting democrat or republican gives you the same thing.

1. Bigger gov't
2. More taxes/fees
3. Less personal rights
4. More CORPORATE friendly laws.

As long as republicans AND democrats don't hold their OWN party accountable we are going to continue getting the same Cr@p we are getting from both sides.

a reply to: TonyS

There have been changings of the guard before, but never since ballot access became an issue. Since the secret ballot was introduced, Republicans and Democrats are grand-fathered in and can continue to participate nation wide with roughly 1/10 the money and voters that are required to be on the ballot as a third party or independent. This means that the existing structures will probably pass through multiple owners rather than being discarded and replaced.

For example, if the Republican party was on the brink of losing ballot access, any independent could instruct his supporters to register Republican, get to the general election cheaper and easier that way than as an independent.

There was discussion of liberals invading George Wallace's party and forcing him into a primary against his polar opposite, thus changing the split of a three way election and holding a Democratic win hostage on the heels of humiliating the conservatives on their own turf- a very potent kind of insurgency that becomes possible if the powers that be fail to control both pieces of political real estate.

That being the case, I expect that it will always be arranged for a party to bounce back.

Take Reagan- he ran two near-electoral-shutouts on the democrats. Then his home state became notoriously blue even though they elected Pete Wilson twice in the 90s then recalled Grey Davis over a 200 dollar tax increase and replaced him with Arnold Schwarzenegger, then almost elected Megan Harsh (who brilliantly ran under the name white man, against Brown, which I thought was sure to work).
If it weren't for Perot we would have had back a president and his vice president serve two terms back to back- a block of white house control not seen since FDR- but lo and behold the democrats bounced back, just for one president. Then Bush got his chance and blew it and everyone thought this had to be the breaking point- but the democrats deferred to him while controlling the senate and ran some monotone Masshole with a questionable war record rather than stop him. And the Republicans ran the exact same mind of straw man candidate to give Obama election.

They're cooperating! The game is rigged!