How did the Democrats manage to retake congress?

I want to know how the Democrats managed to gain a majority in congress. What happened? Did democratic voters come out in force? Did too many Republicans stay home? If so, why?

I haven't seen any data on this yet.

depends on the state really..

I will only relate to Ohio, where I am from.

Dems won here because the Republicans where deep.. and I mean deep.. in fact you could not get deeper unless the governor himself killed a man on camera.. in scandals. They where corrupt, plain and simple. Now, the real sad thing.. and it breaks my heart honestly.. is that the Dems where deep in scandals as well.. not nearly as bad as the Reps and that is why they won.

On top of that, Ohio's economy was hurt real bad under the Reps.. 22,000 jobs lost this year alone. I can't count how many times big manufacturers left town where I live.. you hear it on the news and think it is no big deal.. but when it is your city you can see the impact. People, often thousands at a time are with out a job, or AK steel they have been striking for a long time now. Every now and then you hear about someone dieing at AK because they have to hire temp workers. No matter, that company is going belly up soon anyways. Along with all of our high tech industry like the flat screen television factory.. went over sees. In fact, the only good news for our economy is Ryendalds and Reynolds won't outsource (they where going to before a private company bought them)

So our economy has been in a tail spin in the past few years, along with the corruption at the state level and the congressional level. I do say Dewine did a damn good job keeping and actually increasing the jobs at Wright Pat airbase.

So, why did the Dems win? .. Hopefully to get a handle on things.. maybe turn them around.. a new change ya know?

I don't think it will work.

The Democrats won both the House and Senate because America was fed up with the war. Plain and simple. The scandals, the fear-mongering, the lip service. Americans have had enough. Do I claim to speak for all Americans? NO! The election results speak for themselves!

I agree with most of the replies here, most people are just plain fed up with the bull.
I personally know people that are my age (43) that voted for the first time because they wanted things to finally change. I hope it works out, but we gotta get the jerks out of the system before it will.

Thanks to everyone who replied to my topic. Please understand, I'm not trying to take a partisan attitude here. I just want to know why the congressional turnover happened, and why people voted the way they did. I voted Republican, but my reasoning was as follows: I felt that it was mostly Republicans who started the Iraq war, and they should be the ones to finish it. They should bear the political responsibility for it's outcome.

That was my reason.

Well, it also has to deal with who the republicans court to. In Tennessee they courted the KKK/Racist people with their racist attack adds and that won them the seat. But other places they were courting the pedophile vote, like in Florida with Foley, and not to many came out and voted.

Also, I have not heard the term NeoCon used so much on Fox News until today. Did you know every senator that lost was a NeoCon and every Senator that won was a good Conservative? Same with the Reps and Rummy? 3 days before Election Fox News was praising Rummy and Pals today they are blasting everyone that lost as a NeoCon. Like wow, flippity floppity...

The dems won because people picked them. It wasn't a matter of 'energizing' their base, and it wasn't a matter of not enough republicans voting. It was a matter of enough people stepping back, taking a look at the situation, and deciding that the democrats were their best bet. Its not like, for example, the previous election where the republicans dodged defeat in part because they were able to get the extreme social conservatives into the booths, it was more like the 1994 Republican Revolution, the bulk of the people simply said 'i don't care what I am registered as, or how I've voted before, these guys are the best bet right now'.

Don't forget the democrats also now have the majority of governorships now too. Similar to not so long ago when the republicans had that.

I just want to know why the congressional turnover happened, and why people voted the way they did.

A fair enough question.

Originally posted by Flatwoods
I want to know how the Democrats managed to gain a majority in congress. What happened?

it seems that the republican base & the democrat base were about equal as in previous midterm elections...
it might have been the independents who decided that the democrat was the better of two choices this time around.

the administration and the GOP had way too much unethical debris built up behind the dam...and all the scandals in the last 2 years was so much that the dam had to bust.

Originally posted by St Udio

it might have been the independents who decided that the democrat was the better of two choices this time around.

I agree with what you said about the Independents coming out an voting on the side of the Democrats. If the Independents did just the opposite, the Democrats could have lost more seats than what they did. I believe that the Independent voters did decide who was the better choice this time. If I'm not mistaken, the Independents even gained a seat in the Senate but lost the one seat they had in the House of Representatives.

Shucks, Bush43 made it pretty easy to lay back and criticize. You could be sure almost anything he touched would muck up the economy, muck up the Middle East of muck up the world. So much for that.

Now, the Dems have to “share” leadership with a champion mucker-upper. Both will be “running” for 2008. Bush43 in order to salvage something of his legacy, and the Dems to re-gain control of the grandest pie in the sky God ever created. A $3 T. budget to divide up every year! God, it does not get better than this.

But alas, back to earth. Global warming, not to mention globalization. It seems we cannot reverse nor solve the consequences of either. Maybe underground shelters will be the “final solution” as Der Fuhrer used to promise? NPT. Non Proliferation Treaty. Looks as if that is another treaty Bush43 has abrogated. Unilaterally. I just hope he is alive when the nukes explode in the US. Say Thank You, George.

Minimum wage? What’s that? Oh, that’s for coolie labor. Not for technocrats. The upper 30% became the upper 20% under Ronnie Reagan and now it’s the upper 10% under Bush43, his successor-in-kind. Between the two of them, they have almost destroyed the government created by FDR, HST and LBJ.

Health care? While the world looks on in wonder and amazement, we are digging a deeper and deeper hole for ourselves, but for the very great benefit of the AMA, AHA, PMA, and HIA - Health Insurance Association. You know the others. Add GOP. Our future is foreboding. There is so much work to be done, and so little time to do it.

OK, tomorrow’s a new day!



[edit on 11/9/2006 by donwhite]

I agree with all of the post and reasons given.

But my personal view of our entire political system is this one.

We only got two evils and the third is not strong enough to make any differences when it comes to votes.

We have now dumb and dumber

That is what is called in our nation [b the democratic choices we are given as per constitutional rights.

Two party elte.

So of the two evils we can only chose the one that at the moment is not screwing the nation to say that we are making a difference.

At the end the truth is . . . that we are deceived by both evils and both of them will do as they seem fit and will serve the same master.

But at least the democratic rights of our country are still prevailing and people get to feel good about having their choice of evil win.

Even me.

But we all know that is nothing than a mockery to the citizens of this nation.

Bu hey we got to vote, HURAAAA

posted by marg6043

I agree with the post . . my personal view of our political system is this. We only got two evils and the third is not strong enough to make any differences.

I think this is the main reason offered by 60% of Americans who do not take time or trouble to vote. That’s why I’m looking forward to voting by e-mail. At the risk of repeating what you already know, America has always been a two party country. Even before 1776. But especially after 1789. I think this is because America had so much free or nearly free land up till about the 1880s. There was no need to compromise, if you did not like your fellows, you could pack it up and go west. As 10s of millions did.

We have now dumb and dumber That is what is called in our nation the democratic choice we are given as per our constitutional rights. Two party elite. So of the two evils we can only chose the one that at the moment is not screwing the nation to say we are making a difference.

That’s what I said when Bill Clinton accepted welfare reform. I’d rather have a Democrat cutting my calories per day than a Republican. Dumb or dumber as you said.

At the end the truth is . . . that we are deceived by both evils and both of them will do as they seem fit and will serve the same master. But at least the democratic rights of our country are still prevailing and people get to feel good about having their choice of evil. Even me. But we all know that is nothing than a mockery to the citizens of this nation. But hey! we got to vote, HURAAAA. [Edited by Don W]

Hitler and Stalin used to poll 99.3% of the vote. One had the gas and the other had Siberia in case you failed to vote”right.” Two times in recent American history the little guy got a break. 1932 and 1936. Maybe add 1964 for three times. But what the hey? It could be worse. How’s that new baby?

The Democrats didn't win the election, the Republicans lost it.

Too many fumbles, too many empty promises, spending like drunken sailors while talking a mean game about limiting government (i.e. hypocrisy), "fat cat" syndrome from too many years in power, not enough leadership, self-imposed gridlock.

Even with Republican control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency, it almost seems as if the Democrats have had control of Congress for the past couple of years.

Oh, and the scandals, of course.

So it seems Americans are indeed ready for a "new direction" -- even if just what that direction might be hasn't been very clearly defined.

I think the Republicans were given a fair shot, but just didn't deliver what Americans are looking for.

Now the Democrats have an opportunity to do their thing with control of both houses of Congress.

With the government divided this way, what happens in the next two years will determine who wins in 2008.

Let's see how things shake out.

posted by Majic

The Democrats didn't win, the Republicans lost. Too many fumbles, too many empty promises, not enough leadership, self-imposed gridlock. Even with Republican control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency, it almost seems as if the Democrats had control of Congress for the past couple of years . . and the scandals of course.

It seems Americans are indeed ready for a "new direction" - even if just what that direction might be hasn't been very clearly defined. I think the Republicans were given a fair shot, but just didn't deliver what Americans are looking for. The Democrats have an opportunity to do their thing with control of both houses of Congress. With the government divided this way, what happens in the next two years will determine who wins in 2008. Let's see how things shake out. [Edited by Don W]

1) As a Liberal Democrat, I can hardly claim 10% of the public as a base. I agree the GOP lost the election, the Dems played it smart and said as little about the future as possible.
2) I’ve always taken the position Dems are smarter than GOPs. Your evaluation may confirm that?
3) it was as if the Great Orchestrator in the Sky was pulling the strings. Each time the Dems needed a boost, there was a new scandal to surface.
4) I’d say, Fiscal Sanity.
5) On the issue that got the Dems into office - Iraq - it is not clear just what the Dems can do. After all, Bush43 is still commander in chief of the armed forces - but not Lord Protector anymore - and by 200+ years of tradition and his control of the State Department, Defense Department and CIA, he is our main man in foreign policy. OTOH, can you imagine 535 people running any unitary policy?
6) Dems cannot override any veto. They may pass a few laws to make Bush43 use the veto, but that will be Campaign 08 stuff.
7) We’ll see who is the smarter, Dems or GOP.



[edit on 11/9/2006 by donwhite]

Rove, why have your forsaken us?!?

Actually, it wasn't about the war as much as some people want to make it out to be. That was a part I am sure, albeit a small part otherwise Lincoln Chaffee would have won and Joe Lieberman would have lost.

Ultimately it came down to the conservative base (me) being fed up with the shenanigans and broken promises of our politicians. A worthless Republican who doesn't keep his promises and is more interested in keeping his position is as bad as a worthless Democrat. We got fed up with it and had to remind those in power how and why we put them there.

2008 is far more important than 2006 and we are hoping that the RNC will learn from this lesson.

Brain Theory

Originally posted by donwhite
2) I’ve always taken the position Dems are smarter than GOPs. Your evaluation may confirm that?

I don't really see an appreciable difference between the two parties in terms of intelligence. :shk:

Just the perception of it.

Political parties don't exist to explore new vistas of human imagination, but to handle the mundane tasks of getting large groups of people to think alike and running the government.

Though good ideas can emerge from political parties, I don't look to them for intellectual inspiration.

I doubt we'll see either party announce a coherent Grand Unified Theory anytime soon -- especially in light of how bitter the partisan divide is.

Rather, I'll just be happy if the noisy, expensive and shockingly inefficient engines of representative democracy drive the U.S. down a path we can live with.

posted by Marid Audran

Actually, it wasn't about the war . . That was a part albeit a small part otherwise Lincoln Chaffee would have won and Joe Lieberman would have lost. [Edited by Don W]

Maybe. But CT is Blue State and the Dems had chastised Lieberman who would be better positioned to send back to DC than Chaffee although he was a GOP I can live with. Eastern establishment Republicans I call them. Not an ideologue.

Ultimately it came down to the conservative base (me) being fed up with the shenanigans and broken promises of our politicians. A worthless Republican who doesn't keep his promises and is more interested in keeping his position is as bad as a worthless Democrat. We got fed up with it and had to remind those in power how and why we put them there.

I cannot deny that you voted for the reasons you stated, but because “bases” are made up of several 10%s I don’t think any one “base” can claim to have won or to have cost any party the election.

2008 is far more important than 2006 and we are hoping that the RNC will learn from this lesson. [Edited by Don W]

I’m sure the RNC (and DNC) will be working 24/7 to win in ‘08.