The Senate seats we need to hold are in Red States; the House seats we need to pick up are in the reddest of red gerrymandered districts.

...and they're not the type of districts that will respond to working class progressive positions. Trust me....I get briefings from Steve Israel at DCCC and I research the races thoroughly to decide where to put my money.

or, for some, came close to voting for Obama. So they are already responding to something.

And sorry, but I am not taking anything from the DCCC on faith. The establishment always likes establishment candidates and establishment positions.

Which those professionals assure us will "win".

Just like they did in 2010.

 those districts already voted for Obama in 2012

They also voted for the republican incumbent.

Thus... as the OP suggests... we need an issue with traction to overcome the inherent off-year challenges combined with an environment that is currently less attractive.

(or so a number of people here say)

In fact, it's unprecendeted in at least the last 104 years for the party in the White House to win that many Congressional seats in a mid-term election, let alone take back the House of Representatives.

... are obstructing that, then possibly.


If they get the grossly insufficient $10.10 raise through by end of summer, it will be forgotten by November.

We will be very, very fortunate to hold the Senate this fall.

"If they get the grossly insufficient $10.10 raise through by end of summer, it will be forgotten by November."

...that is the proposal being pushed by Senator's Harkin, Sanders and Warren.

A loser?

We need the votes to put it on the state ballots to get out the vote

submit a new jobs bill every month if it's voted down by repubs
submit a minimum wage hike repeatedly as needed
student loan relief
immigration reform
secure social security w/out hedging
even fix obamacare

Remember how so many people came out and voted for Obama's change?

Do it again, only this time advertise it as the "Last Chance for Change".

Obama needs to do everything you say Pro Sense.
Ya think he hears you? You think he'd listen to you?

this news (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024511737), it's definitely a winner, one with transformational potential.

then why haven't we used it already?

Too attached to trickle-down maybe?

A blast from the past, that you are sure to love

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/164

"if we actually had a plan that would create two million jobs then why haven't we used it already?"

There was one.

you know those -"The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income"

The trickle down economics part of it DID pass. The accursed payroll tax cut was extended (but fortunately NOT expanded as Obama proposed).

"Except" nothing. The OP is about creating 2 million jobs. That was the purpose of the entire bill. You want to discuss the payroll tax cut...start your own thread.

"The trickle down economics part of it DID pass. "

...you clearly don't know what that means. A payroll tax cut that affects income up to $110,000 is not "trickle down economics." That's a complete distortion of the concept. This is "trickle down economics":

Trickle down economics is where most of the benefits go to the TOP and benefits are (in theory) supposed to trickle down to those below.

You know, like the accursed payroll tax cut

which gave

$32 billion to the TOP 10%
$55 billion to the top 20%
and only $14.5 billion to the bottom FORTY percent.

But you are right, it's not AS bad as full Reaganomics. More like trickle-down-lite.

The sort of thing you'd expect from politicians who are Republican-lite.

The attempt to spin nonsense seems an act of desperation. Seriously.

claiming that $55 billion is bigger than $14.5 billion is nothing but spin.

I don't know why I expected people to fall for that kind of spin.

"I guess you are right"

...I'm right because claiming that a payroll tax cut, which is stimulative, is the same as "Reaganomics" is beyond ludicrous.

Reagan's "across the board tax cuts" are stimulative too.

You know what "spin" is. That's when you have policies that favor rich people - like the accursed payroll tax cut. And you find some way to sell them to the public.

Claiming that the payroll tax cut benefits the rich more than the poor is simple math. $55 billion simply IS bigger than $14.5 billion. But ooh, let's spin it as a "stimulus".

It's just a happy accident that this "stimulus" helps the rich more than the poor.

"according to your graph there Reagan's 'across the board tax cuts' are stimulative too. "

...according to my "graph," is this "stimulative":

and he ran on his program of Reaganomics in 1980, which was, according to your graph, the economic stimulus of "across the board tax cuts"

I am NOT the one trying to portray Reaganomics as progressive - that would be YOU. It's progressive, you say, if tax cuts that favor the rich come from Obama, because you can spin them as an economic stimulus.

MY claim, is that, using the very same spin that YOU are using, then Reaganomics was also stimulative. You know, the tax cuts known as ERTA, which were passed in 1981 and cut the top rate from 70% to 50% and the bottom rate from 15% to 11%.

What an economic stimulus.

In fact, that is exactly how that piece of excrement was sold. ERTA stands for Economic Recovery and Tax Act.

See, I think Reagan and Reaganites are full of crap when they claim that their policies which favor the rich are about economic stimulus. I demand economic stimulus which does NOT increase inequality.

And I don't change that just because a Democrat is in the White House.

Foolish consistency, eh?

according to my "graph," is this "stimulative":

"Claiming that the payroll tax cut benefits the rich more than the poor is simple math. $55 billion simply IS bigger than $14.5 billion. But ooh, let's spin it as a 'stimulus'."

...to counter that nonsense.



http://www.ctj.org/pdf/payrolltaxholiday.pdf

did you miss this part?

Average payroll tax cut for various groups

Lowest 60% $ –150
Top 5% $ –1,297

Compared with the making work pay credit

Lowest 60% $-394
Top 5% $-63

Yeah, that payroll tax cut totally favors the bottom and leaves the top out in the cold.

What's on the ballot makes a difference in off years. Any minimum wage initiatives? Marijuana legalizations?

"What's on the ballot makes a difference in off years. Any minimum wage initiatives? Marijuana legalizations?"

...follow Colorado and Washington.

Proven winner that increases turnout.

Democrats are at standing up for a minimum wage increase: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024522318

We should be clobbering the Republicans with their shutdown of the government and with the success of the ACA. We should clobber them on George W. Bush, the classic symbol of Republicanism. The Great Recession was their fault, and we should remind people of that. Todd Akin. Sarah Palin. The Tea Party. Killing immigration reform.

Raising the minimum wage is fine, but I don't think the voters are informed enough to see through the Republican fog machine when it comes to jobs plans. I think ACA success is going to be crystal clear by November and we need to go full speed on offense with it.