In 2006 and 2008 Republicans were hammered in the polls

[Bandit]

They took the message that they did not go far enough with their Ultra Conservative Agenda. They doubled and tripled down on that belief in 2009 and most of 2010 and the voters rewarded them "Big Time". Do you believe that was the message the voters were sending in 2006 and 2008 and if not what the Hell happened in 2010? If they are correct in the belief that the great majority of Americans want our Social Fabric ripped asunder and Government Destroyed, where does that leave us? If they are not correct what indication is there of that? :shrug:

[Horse with no Name]

1. I think that wasn't the message at all

after all...the selling point was "Hope and Change".

I think when neither of those were delivered and we "stayed the course", the independents said fuck it and stayed at home.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. When people jumped from the World Trade Center on 9/11 instead

of burning to death, what message were they sending? That's the same message that voters were sending in 2010.

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. Simple...

In 2010 65+ voters actually voted, and went +19 Republican...and everyone else -- as they always do in a mid-term -- stayed home.

Old people in the '06 mid-term hated Bush -- he was going to privatize their SS, and no amount of bribery via Medicare part D could disguise that. They turned out then. But they were still +0 R in House voting.

It is also worth noting that in 2008, the 65+ vote was +10 R -- the first time in at least 40 years the +65 vote didn't go to the ultimate winner of the presidential election.

So, what was different about the 2008 ultimate winner of the presidential election, do you think?

Who votes matters as much as how they vote. The answer to the question "who votes" differs between presidential-year and mid-term elections.

[DJ13]

4. Voters like strength from their party

The GOP has become nearly single minded in their defense of the wealthy, which voters believe shows strength of character.

The Democratic party showed that near single minded strength in being determined to prevent another Republican from winning the WH in 08, but since then they have proven themselves to be too weak to maintain that kind of unity, and the voters saw them as weak.

[Johonny]

5. most of what they are doing they didn't run on 2010

If the election was jobs, jobs, jobs in 2010 the GOP hasn't done anything to create jobs. One could argue after voters let them back in they simply have continued with their previous agenda even though they ran in most part without telling people about that. As many union workers and the such realize now the Republican agenda didn't change at all, if anything it got more aggressive, but their campaign style sure changed. You had the rebranded teaparty that fooled many voters that voted that they were voting for a return to the Clinton era economic policies that many 65+ saw as soaring their 401Ks. Only now are they seeing a return to the massively unpopular neoconservative Bush policies. Policies that mostly conservatives didn't run on. While Democrats in 2010 were largely afraid to run on their 2008 version of the future and what they did to help get American on that path, Republicans also have been afraid to run on their 2004 version of the future. What will happen in 2012? Seems like the cats out of the bag Republicanwise and hiding behind teaparty rebranding isn't helping much worse their top spot seems likely to be a very confrontational policy conservative. As for Obama? If he can't run on his first 4 years then what can he run on? Thus he will run on his first 4 years and that he thinks he can do to pull America more towards his 2008 election ideas.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. In a weak economy, incumbants are usually at a disadvantage.

In 2006 and 2008, republicans sat at the head of the table - they got slammed. In 2010 Dems domniated legislature and the whitehouse... and with the continuing recession dems took a beating in the polls.

Look at wallstreet and the current economy. I wouldn't be surprised to see more dems take a flogging this upcoming election season as well. The sackings won't be as lopsided as the recent past because the republicans make up a little more of congress... but I'll be surprised if more dems don't lose seats rather than republicans overall.

[ItNerd4life]

7. Bush was a spending whore

and when Republicans had control of congress they kept spending like whores. People voted Democrat for change.

In 2010 Democrats had control of congress and the presidency and went on a bigger spending binge than Bush. Democrats lost in 2010 and will lose even more seats in 2012 if they don't change. (which they haven't)

People want a fiscally responsible government and the only time that was supplied was when we had Clinton as president and Republicans controlling congress.

Heck, I've even heard Republicans say they long for Clinton because he at least was fiscally responsible.

People don't believe the fiscally responsible part, but it's why the Tea Party has come about. Tea Party people are tired of both parties being fiscally irresponsible, they side with Republicans because
they believe they have a chance of making them responsible.

[hfojvt]

8. completely sold on Republican talking points, are ya?

Ah well, I guess Keynesian economics is beyond the average American.

[blm]

9. How do you figure Obama spent more than Bush when GOPs successfully blocked every significant policy

from Obama and the Dems for the last 3 years?

This nation has been living under Bush's economic policies STILL because of the GOP/TeaParty's success in blocking any significant policy changes.

Funny how the lazyminded newsmedia hasn't made that point. Neither have weak-kneed Dems.