General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmerica: Our* electoral apathy from 2010 has just come home to roost.
Last edited Tue Oct 1, 2013, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)
People wondered what would happen if the Tea Party got control of things.
And now we see it first hand.
Remember this the next mid-term election.
*On edit, when I use the word "our," it's more in the sense of the Royal We in terms of all Americans, not just the active left. I understood that many on the left did turn out at the polls in 2010. Unfortunately, many moderate Democrats and independents who did not agree with the Tea Party did not.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,219 posts)Thankfully, Allen West and Joe Walsh are gone, soon to be followed by Michelle Bachmann.
But there are still too many Tea Partiers left remaining in Congress for our own good.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)GOP state legislatures, Governors and gerrymandered districts; an entire GOP/Teabagger propaganda machine or, have you forgotten that?
Liberalynn
(7,549 posts)Gerrymandering. I was upset in 2010 with the leadership but I still voted and I still voted Democrat.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I'm thinking any numbskull should know that by now. You shoot yourself in the face when voting Republican, period!
-p
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Or are being deliberately obtuse.
The congressional districts were already gerrymandered by the time the 2012 elections were held, but nice try at obfuscating.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)has come home to roost.
"Vote for us, the Republicans suck more" is therir rallying cry.
If they actually fought for the 99% instead of suckling at Wall Street's teat, they'd win.
Paulie
(8,462 posts)stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)us in the Democratic Party.
Elected Democrats have steadfastly refused to fight for the economic interests of those who voted them in to office consistently over the past few decades (with very few exceptions).
Please know I'm talking about building momentum, awareness, and belief amongst the people of America that they truly want to pass legislation that their voters want them to pass. If they would do that (and most of us know why they won't), they would hold a majority in Congress for decades (again).
Phlem
(6,323 posts)and the 2 FTA's prior?
-p
CrispyQ
(36,540 posts)They'd not only win, they wouldn't need all that fucking corporate cash. The grassroots would have them covered. I've always wondered why the dems don't go after the unregistered voters, instead of the undecided voters. The undecideds, IMO, are a lot about attention. The unregistered's often don't feel anyone represents them. Oh, I know the problem - it's that too many dems are on the corporate gravy train & they don't want to represent the people if it means they have to give up a cushy lobbyist position after their time in office.
Love of money & all that shit.
tblue37
(65,495 posts)register unregistered voters, there could be a lot of grateful, newly insured Dem voters for next year's election.
GreenPartyVoter
(72,382 posts)mountain grammy
(26,658 posts)Besides the fact that it might work, until we finally have single payer.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....and they've been suckered by the DC Villagers into believing money is more important than votes.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Sure, They were sucking something at Wall Street, but it wasn't a teat.
lastlib
(23,322 posts)...in case children were present....
tridim
(45,358 posts)Like most Democrats, I vote for Democrats because I like Democrats, and unlike you I don't think our party "sucks".
Heckuva job Manny.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They claim they stayed home to punish the "centrists" or whatever. Who are they really punishing if that were true and effective? Themselves.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)The OP was about voter apathy. I was addressing that.
The shutdown's on the Republicans.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Just another day for you I know.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And I clearly was not.
The Republicans are responsible for this insane shutdown.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)which caused voters to stay home..
Where many of those bleating "They're all the same!" weren't on the Left at all, they were astroturfers fooling people, just like you.
Any one I know that says or believes that "They're all the same!" votes Republican, every god damn time.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)But I've certainly said that most elected Democrats are not trying to do the job they've pledged to do.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)but not actually a player on the team.
Gotcha.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)A specific example or two would help.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)liberals and progressives and it did not work out too well.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Quislings.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)again. Independents stayed home because they were disappointed in the Dem Party and did not want to vote for Republicans.
Sad how often this has to be corrected. If Dems had stayed home most of the Progressive Dems who held their seats would have lost.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)legislation that is ideologically pure enough for you. So, here's what happens:
The base is demoralized and stays at home.
Because they stay at home, more right-wingers get elected to office.
When right-wingers get elected to office...surprise! They enact a right-wing agenda.
We complain when the president or the Democrats are then forced to compromise further because in order to get anything done we have to.
My question: What do you expect? When we don't support Democrats, we don't get remotely progressive outcomes. When we sit on our laurels, thus allowing more wingnuts to influence the policy process, we're going to get policy outcomes that reflect wingnut ideals...like the government shutdown.
I'd rather get centrist policies now, then work to improve those policies by electing more progressives in subsequent elections than throwing a tantrum because I didn't get my way when I wanted it, thus allowing for extreme right wing nuts to give me extremist right wing policies that I may never get rid of.
Do you see the point?
No, Obamacare isn't single payer. No, we didn't get the public option.
However, we may be able to improve the law if we can elect more progressives in 2014.
But, if you're going to always have this attitude that Obama sucks because he's not progressive enough for me, and therefore, I'm going to take my ball and go home, then nothing will ever change.
Change is a slow process. It doesn't occur overnight. It takes time.
Look, I work for the federal government. I am a researcher. A policy analyst. I know how the policy process works. It's deliberately slow. That occurs for a reason. And believe me, it's fucking frustrating having to deal with Congress. We have just completed working on a budget for fiscal year 2015. That's right! Fiscal year 2015! Congress has not passed a clean, standing budget--not a CR--in nearly 3 years!! You must know how frustrating that is. And to have people, even those here on DU, blaming the president when it is his federal government agencies that have been working our collective asses off on these budget recommendations, all to have them rejected for CRs. It's ridiculous!!
You have to come to this place with a more rational attitude. We all want more progressive outcomes but that's going to take some time.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Teabaggers want Purity, too.
See what it gets?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is not even logic. It's letting emotions take over.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)security, unlimited banker bailouts, a White House staffed with bankers and Republicans, ...
Wow.
SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)Your logic sucks.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Sorry, it might not apply to you, but it does with others.
SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)any elected official not performing up to my standards would keep me from going to vote. How do you get rid of officials who aren't performing the way you think they should if you don't go vote (if that's your beef)?
This poster is saying that the performance of Dems in office is why we have the situation we have now and I counter that no, the people who voted (or didn't in this case) are the reason we have this situation. Also that pesky Campaign Reform issue hasn't been resolved, and other issues that created the perfect ****storm.
I think it comes down to how you respond to a bad situation, lay down and act like an infant (very similar to the Tea Party now cause they didn't get their way) or are you going to keep working to make a difference? I saw it personally; people who had stuck together and made waves in '08 couldn't be bothered in '10. 1/4 of the effort of '08 in that non-presidential year would have made quite the difference.
In other news, I'm glad they took care of Servicemembers pay before last night, now concerned of news that the VA might night have disability benefits to pay at the end of this month if the Shutdown lasts longer than a couple weeks. Have you heard anything different?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)To upper income, with a solid civics education. Mobilizing you is not the issue, to use classic political analysis.
Most voters are not where you are, and for starters most of the electorate shows up in presidential elections. Activating voters for a midterm is hard. Activating disillusioned voters is twice as hard. Some of those become non voters for life.
So when the party delivers in a few promises, whether that is reality or not, combined with a midterm, is a perfect storm.
It is complicated, but not that complicated. It's not just the voter you should blame. And for the record, Republicans are indeed better at activating voters in midterms and special elections. Why is that?
SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)and regular high school education. I thought my DoD days were superior to the rest until I saw how little I knew as I grew older. I became active in '04 because I envisioned a country I'd despise if I did nothing. That is where my civics education began.
What I lack in education I have an overabundance of attitude that is the opposite of defeatist.
Republicans are better at activating voters in midterms and special elections because they stay focused on the task at hand which is getting out to vote. They are messed up, dunderheaded, and many times bad for everything political, but they stay determined to get their job done.
My experience was that we got distracted by many pet projects and forgot the big picture.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Tells me you are highly unusual, and I congratulate you by the way. Most folks in your position, even republicans, don't vote. The base that remains engaged is not the lower to mid strata.
Progressive dog
(6,921 posts)your side can't win.
The non voters in 2010 allowed the Rethugs to gerrymander and now it will require a landslide victory to just barely win the house back.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)exactly what you wanted exactly when you wanted it and you expect me to give a shit when you stay home and don't vote? Everyone who stayed home in 2010 in just as guilty as Cruz and his pals.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)It continues to this day. While the 1% grow wealthier by the day.
I guess that was too much to ask for. I suck.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and I don't have a plummeting income. Occupy was a good idea with horrendous messengers (if you don't want to admit that, I don't blame you). Income inequality is an important issue - perhaps Democrats can learn to discuss it without demonizing the rich.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Your anecdote aside, income for the 99% is indeed plummeting while that of the 1% continues to soar.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Income inequality is an important issue. Do you think demonizing the rich is the way to go?
Hydra
(14,459 posts)And if you want to defend them, go ahead.
The 1% are thieves. Minimum buy in is 100 Million in assets, and they absorbed almost all of the gains from the "recovery."
And what do the want now? No taxes for them. They're just too important to pay for the services they use.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Do you really think there are no 1%ers that are Democrats? Are you really that foolishly naive? And no, they are not all thieves but great job with the broad brush there. I'm sure Warren Buffet really appreciates your thoughts.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Unless you count him as a "New" Democrat.
He simply realizes that he can steal more when conditions are stable. He understands it's in his interest to invest in his world. The Bushco 1% want to kill the goose.
Like I said, continue to defend them, but don't make the mistake of thinking they care about us or are supporting equality. The 1%er I know loved Clinton because he was able to offshore his manufacturing. That sort of "support" we don't need.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)doesn't pass your purity test. I doubt I do either. Toodles.
Response to leftynyc (Reply #103)
Hydra This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)But you floated a weak argument in defense of people who are basically untouchable.
The president agreed with Stephanopoulos.
"The folks in the middle and at the bottom haven't seen wage or income growth, not just over the last three, four years, but over the last 15 years," the president said.
In fact, other data also show that America's median household income has dropped by more than $4,000 since 2000, after adjusting for inflation.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/15/news/economy/income-inequality-obama/index.html
Congratulations if you got some of that 5% leftovers. Or are you by chance working for one of those 1% 95%ers?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I answered the same post (must have duplicated) and it told me you had self deleted the other one. Anyway - I work for a mid-size manufacturer of soft home goods (bedding, window treatments, bath accessories). But I do know people in the 1% - hardworking, decent people who vote Democratic IN EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. They are raising amazing kids who are told just about daily how incredibly lucky they are. These kids don't spend their spring break in Europe or on an island (although they could well afford it) - they have spent that time building houses in New Orleans and Joplin. They've traveled to Tanzania to help build hospital and before that trip spent months raising money and athletic equipment for the kids there. These are some of my best friends and they're the reason I wont tolerate a broad brush about the 1%.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Please be specific.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)just above you calling them all thieves. The occupy folks did the same. That you are sane is to your credit.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Now, how to get that sight out of my mind? It's too early to get a drink.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)The Democrats have been doing this for decades now, and Obama's own sins in this department are well known--beginning with how he sent all his supporters home as soon as he got elected in 2008. (Personally, I'd start with Rick Warren at his inauguration, but I don't want to be overly pedantic.)
We may be catching a break because the Republicans have so grossly overplayed their hand; I'm also happy about Obama finally standing up to the right-wing extremists.
But man, the Democrats have practically begged their base to stay home!
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)Why would we want that as a rallying cry for our party anyway?
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Who, exactly, do you remember using that slogan?
ananda
(28,885 posts).. I will never understand how so much extreme gerrymandering
is at all legal.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,219 posts)I live in Florida, which we all know is as purple as a state you can find, and yet we are saddled with an uber Red super majority State Legislature that never ceases to embarrass us.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The state of California know does it by an initiative driven citizen commission. It's less extreme, still Susan Davis (D) district is (from memory mind you) +15 D, and Darryl Issa's (R) is +17. Peters ((D) was the compromise, ergo +1 D, therefore a swing district
tblue37
(65,495 posts)SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)and millions of people did NOT take to the streets..
The GOP saw that they could pretty much get away with ANYTHING..and they have been perfecting their methods ever since..
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)Today's GOP gets REWARDED for their nonsense
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)*It's ok if a republican does it
tblue37
(65,495 posts)just as it failed to show the millions in the street in the US and around the world protesting against the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq.
There were protests, but like the tree that falls in the forest with no one to hear, they went unnoticed, unremarked.
benld74
(9,911 posts)Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)the "third way" crowd says the liberals have nowhere to go.
If Rahm and the rest of Obama's first term team hadn't decided to govern like Republicans for their first two years we wouldn't be in this mess.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)Obama's first 100 days should have included :
Immediate end to the Bush tax cuts
A national grid-set up for redistricting
A uniform national-office elections ballot & voter rules (for DC-bound office winners)
Single payer health insurance (Medicare for all)
His popularity was sky-high then and the GOP was flat on their backs..
The administration wasted too much time "reaching out" for the cooperation that would never come..no matter what..
A squandered opportunity. So much positive energy directed his way, from the entire world (!) & he squandered it on bipartisanship with the repubs.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Let's not forget that one.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)They have no problem shutting the government down because they hate it anyways.
If corporations try to control their lives, though, they're totally fine with that.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So when you address 'America' like that I have to point out the low turn out was regional and associated with regions that insist on running 'Blue Dog Moderate Centrists' and that sort of thing, nearly Republican candidates who lose to the actual Republican.
California did not have the problems you ascribe to America as a whole, nor did the NE nor did Washington State.
It would behoove the States that fail to elect Democrats to look to those who do and as 'why'.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)It wasn't Democrats that stayed home in 2010. The tea baggers weren't entrenched until the gerrymandering before the 2012 elections took place.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,219 posts)That the Teabaggers elected into Congress somehow represented a mandate of conservative policies by American voters.
And that's just not true.
You can attribute it to apathy or you can attribute it to gerrymandering, but either way, the jokers elected to Congress in 2010 was not a sign of mass movement of the people to the far right. It was a fringe that found an opportunity to weasel its way into power.
And now we're feeling the effects of it.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)That is the RW talking point I was referring to. The nationwide one is also a RW talking point.
I agree we are feeling the effects of it.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)swung 15 points from the Democrats to the Republicans in 2010.
If Obama hadn't alienated LGBT voters in his first two years, we might not have lost the House.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of anyone in the community voting for a teabagger.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)blame all of us for what some States did, does and will no doubt continue to do.....
jeff47
(26,549 posts)1) Democrats stayed at home in 2010 - exit polling shows much lower turnout among Democrats. Caused by a combination of disillusionment and poor organizing. We had just won big, so some expected large changes and were disappointed when they didn't happen. And we had just won big, so the votes will just fall into place, no need for massive organization.
2) Republicans, especially teabaggers, voted at a rate similar to a presidential year - they were motivated by fighting the Kenyan usurper who was, you know, (whispered) black.
That won state legislative majorities in many purple states, allowing them to gerrymander, which allowed them to hold the House in 2012 despite the "normal" Democratic turnout.
Now, the real problem is the collision of #1 and #2. But neither one by itself is the cause of the problem.
CrispyQ
(36,540 posts)when democrats backed away from the word liberal when a two bit actor poked fun at it. Soon they backed away from liberal policies, as well. Now, a good share of the party are on the corporate gravy train, playing good cop against the repubs bad cop.
gopiscrap
(23,765 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)was all about whining about the unfair Congressional seats.
Look. It is not complicated. Yes, the GOP has been very successful at manipulating districts. And how did they do that? Because we didn't challenge them in the Governorships and state legislatures. Blaming this ion Republican tricks is lame. it is defeatism.
And the math isn't complicated either. It is mathematically impossible to create enough "safe" GOP districts if Democrats would get off their complaining asses and go out to vote in the mid-term elections.
Every time somebody bitches about "Woe is us. Those Republicans are big meanies." I want to throw a brick through the screen.
17 seats. That is all we are talking. 17 seats in the whole damn country. That is all we have to pick up to end all this teabagging nonsense.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Due to that gerrymandering.
It's a problem. It's not insurmountable, but it's going to be hard to get that margin of victory.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)It means getting people off their keyboards and into their checkbooks. It means not conceding the damned thing.
Look, the arithmetic is simple. We have a structural majority. The GOP tries to offset that by creating districts that are 75% Dem. It is pretty hard to get districts that are much more lopsided than that.
That means, if they are going to win a MAJORITY of districts while still having 1.5 MILLION FEWER VOTES, the GOP's so-called "safe seats" can only be about a 55-45% spread. If they try to load them up any more than that, the arithmetic just doesn't work.
So the bottom line is that the GOP's so-called "safe seats" aren't all that. There are at least 50 districts out there where we have a good shot if we will just not concede it.
We need to stop whining and get to work.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The 7% national benchmark is a way to illustrate the scale of the overall problem.
Before yesterday's activities, that was looking insurmountable. They'd lose seats, but not enough to lose the majority.
Today? Looking far easier.
If this goes on 3 weeks like last time? Going to be very easy.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Has absolutely nothing to do with some arbitrary national 7% number. All politics is local.
When you throw out numbers like that, it makes it sound impossible, but it is perfectly doable. We just have to stop with the defeatism.
And we have to remind the demographic segments that only seem to vote when Obama is on the ballot that they need to vote EVERY TIME.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Like all summaries it covers over important details. But it's still helpful when discussing the issue.
treestar
(82,383 posts)When you put it that way, it does not even sound hard
Iggo
(47,577 posts)lastlib
(23,322 posts)NEVER FORGET what these Pukes have done to the American people!
And it's only the beginning! They won't stop until we're all in a bare-knuckles fight for mere survival. I am convinced of it.
ffr
(22,674 posts)2010 & 2012.
It's all those middle-of-the-road voters & undecideds we can be thanking.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)People couldn't just say "speak for yourself" or whatever.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)when they should have been shutting them down and shutting them off, and making them nothing but history.
Republicans had lost and the game and it would have been over, but Democrats handed the ball in gestures of bipartisan love to republicans on their own 5 yd line and let them run for touchdowns 10 times in the 4th quarter, allowing republicans to win the 2010 Stupid Bowl.
If you don't do what people elected you to do, a lot of them won't show up at the next elections. If you suck, nobody is going to come to your show.
Simply being better than republicans won't cut it. You gotta be a star and put on a great performance, like FDR did.
Democrats blew it between 2008 and 2011; if they had crushed republicans when they had large majorities in both Houses and a Dem Prez, the republican party would already be dead and buried, instead of being able to shut down the government today.
An Opportunity Not Taken Is An Opportunity Wasted. No Second Chances.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)See? It's easy?
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Both parties are exactly the same! Earn my vote! Tools of the 1%! Not falling for the "lesser of the evils"! Independent thinker! No lockstep! Third party! etc etc etc whaargarble...
I am one unrepentant Democrat who will remember this at the midterms, at any rate. I wish I were more hopeful about the common sense of the rest of the party.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)And using a meme that has been disproven?
It's almost like its, oh I don't know, coordinated or something...
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,219 posts)A Cliffnotes of my footnote:
I'm not blaming liberals for 2010.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Blaming liberals for 2010 is exactly what is going on here
Rex
(65,616 posts)All this self-righteous crap and I bet none of you even voted. Sooo predictable by a handful of people here...do you guys do anything but stir the shit?
NOBODY on DU stayed home that night or any other night...well maybe your group did.
Shit stirring makes DU suck.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,219 posts)I'm. Not. Bashing. Liberals.