as if the "seniors" in 1968 or 1972 or 1980 are the very same seniors that we had in 2008 & will have in 2012

as if the bloc called "seniors" doesn't already include a large & growing contingent of voters who are now & always have been far to the left of Obama & Obama acolytes like you

as if it's smart politics to blame the voters & scream "Teh seniors! Teh seniors!" when liberal voters reject Obama for running as a liberal Democrat but being a sellout who governs like a Blue Dog (& that's on a good day)

& as usual the OFB mouthpieces ignore the one salient issue that would make sense of the voting patterns they want to pummel "the seniors" with: the whole icky eeeww issue of socioeconomic class (apart from the Democratic Party's betrayal of its traditional base in the lower middle class & the working class, though i realize it's just too disgusting to even mention those people)

If Anne and others could muster up the same zeal that they show here in their comments and convince Senior Citizens groups not to vote for Republicans who keep moving the country to the right, we may be able to fix our politics quite easily

It is the job of the leader of the Democratic Party.

If I'm going to urge people not to vote one way, don't you think I ought to be able to have a convincing argument for the alternative that's got more to it than "because the Dems are marginally better?"

Also, did you read the article you cite?

Al Gore and Clinton won seniors.  Kerry lost them.  Your article goes on to say:

Al Gore maintained Clinton's four-point advantage among seniors in the 2000 campaign, in which prescription drug benefits and Social Security (the "lockbox") weighed heavily. In fact, in a postelection survey conducted for Democracy Corps, the number one reason voters gave to support Al Gore, cited by 33 percent, was that he would protect Social Security and add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

In 2004, by contrast, neither campaign highlighted Social Security, Medicare, or prescription drugs. In Democracy Corps's postelection survey, only 16 percent of voters named Social Security and prescription drugs as one of the best reasons to support John Kerry.

In the absence of a campaign focus on Social Security, Medicare, and prescription drugs, the socially conservative side of seniors prevailed. National security issues certainly played a role, but in many ways it was a lost opportunity for Democrats, as many seniors saw Bush's focus on Iraq as neglect for America and our problems at home. In fact, seniors were the most likely age group to feel that the Iraq War made America less rather than more secure, as evidenced by a Democracy Corps survey conducted in the days after the election in which 50 percent of seniors said the Iraq War made America less secure, while only 40 percent said it made America more secure. And seniors were no more likely than other voters in the Democracy Corps survey to "worry that Kerry would not be resolute enough before the terrorist threat."

When no one offers a clear message on safety net programs, no one hears a clear message on safety net programs...and they vote on other issues.

In the future, when people claim that his every move is designed to win the next election, it will be helpful to remember this time.

Folks simultaneously think that his every move is politically motivated and believe that he is not trying to win the next election because he's a closet conservative.

Next is a small amount of discretionary program cuts.

Add the two together then "project" future savings on debt interest to reach the magic $2.7T number.

As I surmised, the $2.7 in spending cuts would include what amounts to an accounting gimmick, scoring a drawdown from Iraq and Afghanistan in such a way that it saves $1 trillion over ten years. While that still leaves $50 billion a year to be used on those operations, I actually think it's a good thing to put Congress on the record limiting funds.

So where would the other $1.7 trillion come from? As the New York Times reports, not from Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. So the likely scenario is that they come from $1-$1.2 trillion of agreed-to cuts in discretionary spending, a by-product of the Biden talks; perhaps $200 billion or so from mandatory non-health spending, perhaps Ag subsidies or federal employee pensions; and the rest from foregone interest payments. There is no indication that the Reid deal would include a Catfood Commission II to deal with entitlements or tax reform.
...
Plus, it could get worse still - word is that Boehner and Obama are still holding indirect back-channel negotiations on a grand bargain, even after Boehner walked out on Obama twice.

That's what the situation is and any arguments that the dems could have taken a different tactic and wound up with a complete win (or even a moderate win) is delusional about the impact of an illogical and unreasonable negotiator.

Right.  So I guess now Lawrence O'Donnell is completely delusional in your opinion for thinking that Obama's master plan was a clean debt ceiling bill.

The GOP was willing to tank the economy in December...

The December Deal/Lame Duck bill had zero to do with any budgeting appropriations.  The only item close to "threatening" was the extension of UI payments.

111th Congress:

• House: 256(D) 178 (R)
  
• Senate: 57(D)*, 41(R), 2(I)

• 58(D) in July 2009 when Senate was at 100 seated.

Clean debt limit increase bill fails the one and only time it gets a vote - and that's the last time we hear about it?  Wow, talk about principled leadership - I am in awe.

He's kind of choosy about which issues he wants to be tenacious about, isn't he?  And which possible solutions to resolve this completely manufactured crisis are worth pounding the bully pulpit over?

Jay Carney, speaking for the president:

The President has been advocating a balanced plan that would reduce our deficit by $4 trillion by making large cuts in domestic and Pentagon spending, reforming entitlement programs, and closing tax loopholes for corporations, millionaires and billionaires. This sort of approach won support from Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, but the House Republicans walked away after insisting that the budget be balanced on the backs of seniors and the middle class.

Now, faced with the "my way or the highway," short-term approach of the House Republicans, Senator Reid has put forward a responsible compromise that cuts spending in a way that protects critical investments and does not harm the economic recovery. All the cuts put forward in this approach were previously agreed to by both parties through the process led by the Vice President. Senator Reid's plan also reduces the deficit more than enough to meet the contrived dollar-for-dollar criteria called for by House Republicans, and, most importantly, it removes the cloud of a possible default from our economy through 2012. The plan would make a meaningful down payment in addressing our fiscal challenge, and we could continue to work together to build on it with a balanced approach to deficit reduction that includes additional spending reforms and closing tax loopholes for corporations, millionaires and billionaires.

Senator Reid's plan is a reasonable approach that should receive the support of both parties, and we hope the House Republicans will agree to this plan so that America can avoid defaulting on our obligations for the first time in our history. The ball is in their court.

Whle thought to be nearly indistinguishable from the Boehner plan, there are a few differences:

UPDATE: Now that I'm seeing the Boehner plan, there are some additional differences:

1. The Boehner plan requires another doomed vote on a balanced budget amendment;

2. The Boehner version of the Catfood Commission II has a defined target of $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction;

3. The Boehner plan includes a spending cap with automatic across-the-board cuts if the cap is breached.

Obviously a spending cap is a terrible idea. But it's a sop to his base, a chip to be traded. Take it away and you have the same basic plan as Reid's.

In my opinion, this has been all about getting a commission that would be able to ram through some really bad policy - as soon as it showed up in the Reid plan, Obama jumped on the bandwagon.  

I hear you and the experts...doomsday, same as TARP time.  I'm not smart enough to understand it, but I can say it sure feels and smells like another shakedown...steal from the poor to keep the rich fat and getting fatter.  Undo the working man's 20th century gains with doomsday threats.

the other guy sucks more