That's not really an incentive, particularly to people who are not political junkie, high information voting types.

"It could be worse" should not be a campaign slogan but that's what it's come down to in most races.

It's like a boyfriend or girlfriend telling you that you can't really do any better so even though they suck, you have no choice but to stay with them.

I for one will be holding on for a wild and scary ride.

In a choice between two evils, you chose the more evil?

I chose the spineless, ineffective cowards who can't even articulate a simple reason why people should vote FOR them and not simply against the other guys.

But I'm a high information political junkie, and I have a job/life situation that allows me to wade deep into the weeds for details. Getting us to just suck it up and pull the lever for dems isn't enough. They need to reach out and give those lower information voters reasons to vote FOR them.

It's hard to motivate people into voting for the business as usual that's killing them.

The party is finding out what happens when they abandon labor, the base.

They'll vote Republican because god, guns, gays, which is more than Democrats are offering.

They suggested the party split between "FDR democrats" and "socialist, progressive Democrats".

I don't get that. FDR was one of the heroes to the party, he was certainly progressive and Republicans called him socialist. Gave us Social Security and a minimum wage.

but I do have to admit that the liberalism that heavily regulated capitalism, raised the wage floor, and taxed extreme wealth to pay for everything was the only economic system to work in practice and over a long period of time. I've seen socialist economies destroyed mostly by nepotism, government becoming an inheritable family business in economies without them.

FDR managed to save capitalism, although the get-rich-quick crowd despised his methods for doing so, as did the far left fringe. He's a hero because he finally realized what would work to end the Depression and put it into practice. His tragedy was being stuck with fiscal conservatives in both parties who forced a balanced budget in 1936, ending those programs prematurely, and ushering in the Great Recession of 1937, something that took a world war to end.

We could do a lot worse than FDR Democrats and have. It's time to bring them back if the party has any illusions about being in power again.

corruption. Period. I don't care what philosophical underpinnings there are. Unless there is a social contract by the leaders and citizens to prevent and punish corrupt practices, all systems will arrive back at the same point--misery and collapse.

This isn't something people are making up. It's historical fact.

Good ones, that have lasted. I look at results when I think about what a President's worth was. Obama's legacy will probably be the ACA if it isn't destroyed, and letting gays serve openly in the Armed Forces. Two things that I agree were good, even if I wanted single payer.

And if he was so "deplored", he still managed to get elected for four terms. I think that's pretty impressive, too.

... and British Fabians. Yes, great ideas. But the applications of them are questionable.

He cut deals with white segregationists, promising not to pursue civil rights policies if they backed his New Deal. The New Deal pretty much ignored African Americans? The social security act, for example, didn't cover domestic or agriculture workers - the bulk of which were filled by African Americans.

He cut deals to help ensure his re-elections. For example, he refused to sign anti-lynching laws, saying that doing so might cause him to lose re-election.

I think he was a great president but certainly not the demi-god people on the left describe him as today. I guess the good point is our children and grandchildren will lionize Clinton and Obama the same way. All the bad points will be forgotten or denied.

to work. My own grandmother hated him because he played by the rich guy's playbook for the first year or so, trying to bring prices up by creating shortages, the classic "too many dollars chasing too few goods" scenario that was supposed to bring prices up every time. It only later dawned on him that prices were so low because no dollars were around to chase them. Meanwhile, my mother and grandmother were eating oatmeal three times a day and counting themselves lucky because they had something to eat.

You're right, he was no demigod. He was reviled by the far left precisely because he was saving capitalism, a system they felt could never work. The far right hated him for destroying the get-rich-quick capitalism that had led to booms and busts.

I just hope one just like him comes around again some day.

in the 36 elections a strong Republican could have done some real damage. Business went sour on him and then there was the new Union Party, of Fr. Coughlan and Francis Townsend & Gerald Smith. They too had a populist message, share the wealth, old age pensions They had Huey Long lined up until he was killed and then some other Democrats to challenge FDR. Fortunately things didn't work out.

People need to study up a little more on FDR. He got lucky sometimes but even from within he was attacked on many fronts.

TR might have done better, but he was dead.

Exactly!!!

Your response hits the nail on the head. And in four sentences, you have explained it in a manner that cannot be improved upon. Thank you for that!

At least, that's been what I've observed.

Your an Indepedent..

and I certainly haven't changed.

Oh wait. You can't.

that you don't support them and want off the list. Those lists aren't perfect. They are constantly being revised.

They're only 40% of the electorate, but 75% of 40% is still a lot. We either ignore them or treat them with contempt. Our electoral coalition draws heavily on identity politics, and those groups appear to universally despise white men. Absent some over arching vision, it's small wonder they don't vote for us.

Because we as progressives want to be inclusive of others? Other races, other genders?

I don't see why true progressive policies wouldn't be good for them as well. It's not a zero-sum game.

Nobody despises white guys. That's bullshit right there and indicative of your true agenda.

...white flight?

Reagan Democrats cemented the deal. The Democratic political message today seems, to large numbers of white, male voters, to be aimed solely at satisfying the demands of various identity groups, and at their expense. I don't endorse that attitude, but it exists. And these guys are viewed as the enemy, by important Democratic constituencies. They're a dangerous enemy to have. They have money. They know how to organize and get things done, and once you piss them off they know how to hold a grudge. That said, they aren't a monolithic group. Most of them want what's best for the country. and many are susceptible to a reasonable approach. There are gun owners who vote for Democrats. Dr. Dean's 50 state push was an attempt to broaden the Democratic message and reach beyond urban, identity politics. Rahm couldn't see it and I'm not sure the President does either.

why you think white, male voters overwhelmingly for Republicans (that seems to be your premise)?

It's what the pollsters are telling us. In a Presidential election, where we get a big turnout among our urban voters, it matters less if 60-odd percent of white guys vote Republican. But this year we got killed in places like Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin; even Illinois because of it. Some of these guys could be persuaded by our message, if we had one; but not if we insist on treating them like the enemy. We preach tolerance for everyone but rednecks. Our working model is that they're just going to fade away, so we don't even need to treat them as an interest group. That's not working out so well.

to a group of people (Republicans) that want to turn your rights on their head, strip you of them, and make you the amoral bad person for standing up for your own humanity?

"Hi, I'm thrilled you want to shut down abortion clinics and put women back in the place you think they should be - the kitchen, because they have to fend for the children they were forced to bear, and if they die in childbirth, they weren't very hearty stock, so better that they die."

"Hi I'm glad you don't think my marriage is valid because I was able to get a marriage license in 33 states that says my spouse and I are together, but our existence offends you. I'll just move back into the back alleys with the amoral women that want abortions, because anyone that seeks to marry a person of the same sex deserves to be in the back alleys along with the harlots that won't concede to bear children."

"Hi, I'm sorry that you poor, white males have been alienated. Everyone should have already realized your intelligence, prowess and innate goodness while you stomp all over women that don't cater to you, minorities that point out your flawed reasoning - because every single one of you is better than every single one of everyone else."

If that made you angry and made you feel singled out, GOOD. That's what everyone else besides you feels.

But step back and look at what just happened to us in a larger context. For years we've been telling ourselves that demographics will change everything. Paraphrasing Dave Van Ronk; they tell me it will happen but they don't say when. Gay marriage not withstanding, for the last 30 years thing have deteriorated steadily in terms of wealth distribution, middle class security, corporate domination of every aspect of our lives, climate change, environmental degradation and the overall resilience of Western Civ.

But it IS about many other people that aren't going to give up their rights just so that it feels more palatable to those that are learning that they have to share.

there won't be much left worth sharing. All we hear any more is me, me, me, from all sides. No one speaks for the common good.

Last edited Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)

On a national scale the US and US citizens ultimately are the ones that decide in our elections. (And if you realized that I caught that you are neither in the US or a US citizen, good). Your opinion is noted.

... is running crappy, spineless Republican Lite candidates and expecting us to hold our nose and vote for them.

Not. Ever. Going. To. Happen. Again.

It seems that's what I'm expected to do every election cycle. No more.

No more straight Dem ballots for me. After 20 years of that, I'm through. And that includes the esteemed Secretary of State Clinton as well.

the Republicans in his home state? The guy who won every district?

That socialist?

than the one that works hard to stand for nothing other than maybe wanting to work with the other guys as much as they will tolerate?

20-25 years of muddying the waters as a lame political tactic is just coming home to roost.

If it wasn't so scary and sad it would be hilarious that the same folks that have aggressively pushed blurring the lines are the most offended when they get feedback that their multi - decade messaging campaign worked and many see no or little difference between the parties.

Why are you mad? That is what you've been pushing for years, dumbasses. Of course it isn't true so why shove the lie down the throat of the American people for years your own fool selves and why put so much fucking effort into making it true as you could?

For example, in '38 Dems lost 81 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, and 13 governorships.

Maybe if they spent more time representing their constituents instead of Wall Street people would be less inclined to stay home.

Disclaimer: I not condoning sitting out elections in any case, I have voted in every election since turning 18.

almost nothing that these loyal Democrats joined the party for.

The RW economic ideology and policies of the Third Way has turned off the populist base of the party.

the mushy middle sees that as being LOSERS! The mushy middle votes for whom they perceive are winning. If we are also bashing from the Left....we are not looking like winners.

United We Stand...Divided we Fall. (hint...that is HOW we got Barack Obama elected in the first place)

and the few Democrats who did well were largely in the more liberals States. So that makes your assertion seem very unlikely.

They are not voting for issues when they vote candidates.....they are voting for whom they perceive as winning. This last election we looked like a bunch of losers....and so we lost.

All they want is our money & then tell us to shut up if they win or blame us if they lose. Great strategy.

will stop telling the truth Third Way.

Democrats didn't vote because they don't see enough difference between Third Way neo-liberal corporatist centrist policy and republican party policy.

did you believe in the 50 State Strategy or not?

When the Democratic leadership abandoned labor, minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, etc., those who often vote Democratic didn't see any reason to do so.

If you are not Party loyal....you are a left-leaning Independent.....

We DO have a Democratic platform.....you don't have to like that fact.

What do you have against a Democratic election anyways? That's what we do.....we don't allow Europeans to vote in our elections either.....because they are NOT members of our "club". Elections and Primaries are held for a reason....you don't always get what YOU want. Anc accepting that fact is the Democratic way....
In a Democracy you don't always get YOUR way.....

My grandparents voted for FDR and voted Democrat all their lives....THEY were party loyalists too!

I don't take it as an insult at all......

But I don't support a twice-elected Democratic President putting chained CPI on the table, no. Do you?

I seem to recall this has been said for 6 yrs and counting....

Let me let this guy say it for me....

and I don't have the same party loyalties that so many do.

I AM a Democrat, but I expect the Democrats I elect to represent me. When Democrats don't represent me, I don't support them. When the party is wrong, I don't have any compunctions about saying so, with my voice or my vote.

In other words, I'm simply not someone who follows others' directions, accepts being patronized or bullied, or is motivated by team/tribe/clan/klan/gang/club membership. I never have been.

I'm a Lone Wolf for a reason. I'm an independent thinker who makes her own decisions about things. The over-riding factor in deciding my vote is always issue...never personality or party. The vast majority of strategies/talking points intended to herd me into line not only don't work, they're counter-productive. They piss me off because I view them as disrespectful and intrusive, and I'm often fighting my own instant back-lash response when I cast a vote for a Democrat DESPITE the way campaigners talked down to me.

I show up at every election. Every election. I show up and I vote for the best candidates on my ballot. When I can't find a candidate I can stomach casting a vote for, I write one in. I still vote.

I would suggest that, if Democrats can no longer depend on a loyal base to show up at every election, they ought to do the work necessary to re-energize and grow that base, to regain the confidence of that base. That's done, not by the inexorable hammer blows about how the Republicans are always worse, or some other mantra that everyone has already heard ad nausem. Many of us are tired of that bully/fear/lesser evil card. Regaining the confidence of that lost base will happen when elected Democrats serve the people who are that base, rather than throwing them under the bus. That's done when Democrats stand for the people, not the corporation, and when they are representing all those exploited by the power mongers at the top of the economic and political chains.

I have urged people who do not like either candidate (or who have only a Republican candidate for a given office) to vote third party or write-in instead of staying home.

This way, their discontent is counted.

There is one Democratic office holder from Minnesota who is a typical waffling Third Way type who never says anything of substance if possible, which is an effective way of getting Republican votes but not of getting anything done. The last time that person ran, I voted Green for that position. If more people did that, maybe this smug, unflappable person with a rude and dismissive staff would have to start listening to constituents.

Racism knows no party lines, and neither does sexism or homophobia, for that matter.

and these "people" are disgusting. I am literally sickened by my fellow citizens.

let the hungry eat blue links" and "you OWE us your votes, American swine: everything that's gone wrong is your fault because we pro-corporate Dems would out-FDR FDR if the masses weren't holding us back"

When will they ever learn...

That is, to my mind, the more pertinent question.

Turnout in Kentucky was higher than 38 other states.

In fact there were reports of high turnout at KY precincts. So let's say she got a plurality of votes, but lost anyway, which wouldn't surprise me. What would that tell us?

That Dems are as loyal as they ever were, but their votes aren't getting counted. As for Grimes' decision to run away from the party, that was probably unnecessary, and given that she was running against McConnell, she might have figured that she'd need more than votes to win, and going teabag wasn't a good idea in the long term. Now she gets to own it forever.

It seems to be the conventional wisdom. No use in arguing it further.

We both know that, and we both know who's purchasing it.

As long as they can beat Democrats over the head with that "War on Coal" shit, they'll all be doomed to fail.

Every action has an opposite and equal reaction.

The ones who are still 'loyalists' don't think politicians should actually be expected to offer voters anything in exchange for the votes. And they can call non-'loyalists' as many names as they want - 'childish', 'entitled', 'lazy', whatever other insults they can think up, but it doesn't change the fact that most people actually believe that politicians are still hired on to work for us, and that we actually should expect them to do so. And if they don't want to, most people simply won't bother to vote for them. Simply 'not being Republicans' doesn't cut it any more. If they want voters to get off their asses and vote, they have to likewise get off their asses and work for the voters. Paying them $175k+ a year to sit around and do squat to help people and whining about how evil Republicans are doesn't cut it.

if the left doesn't show up to vote.

Maybe they were the only ones that showed up??

and that in the more 'moderate' areas most of the Democrats lost suggests that the left showed up while the center took the afternoon at a day spa in lieu of voting.

and lost only a few rural and suburban state legislators over the topic of gay marriage.

Oregon kept all its national and statewide Dems and increased its hold on the state legislature.

The majority of Dems in Washington and California were re-elected, too.

Maybe the Pacific Coast and Minnesota should petition to join Canada.

They voted by the millions in 2008 then realized that they had been lied to by candidate Obama. As long as you and the rest of the dinos refuse to represent or care about the left, debacles like 2010 and 2014 will be the norm.

A failure in party loyalty would result in a changed party allegiance. THere is no evidence such a thing has happened.

A failure of motivation onthe otherhand would simply require the unmotivated to not move to do something...like get to the polls and vote. There IS evidence that some democratic voters were poorly motivated

States do better than others is worthwhile and 'well those are Blue States' is not really looking at it. Blue CA, home of Arnie, Prop 8, Ronald Reagan, Pete Wilson. That Blue is earned in CA and in Oregon which was pretty damn conservative in the past. We're not the only ones.
The biggest difference in our turnout is vote by mail. The difference in our winners might have to do with the candidates sounding like Democrats and then behaving as representatives.

were kind of demoralized. They have been ignored and ridiculed. This time enough was enough. The Third Wayers gotta go and they seem to be the ones who lost, not that they will learn. People can talk about areas being conservative etc. but when Bernie did his southern swing he was totally accepted. All areas want someone who will stand up for something and for them. Too afraid to do that and their thought goes how can (s)he help us if he is too scared to be honest with them.

i guess he didn't give them anything to vote for

Big turnout in WI in off-year elections has favored the teahad for a long time.

The DEM GOTV in WI has shown consistent growth in elections for national office since 2000.

But it hasn't kept pace with tea-party turnout.

10 days ago, WI had a 56% turnout, 2nd best in the nation by state, iirc.

We got soundly defeated for the governors race, while all the incumbents were re-elected. Districts here are gerrymandered into safe seats.

There is a new pattern ... seen in 2010, the recall, and 2014... big turnout is not ALWAYS good for Dems, the teajad is a very highly motivated group of voters

progressive, liberal, 3rd-way all the same the available numbers don't break down the way you want.

In general, in off-year elections WI Dems don't turn out in as large numbers as in presidential years.

By counties the big numbers of the failure come from urban areas in SE WI, but if you over the entire state it's clear that dems in non urban areas also tend to not turnout in off-years.

These numbers have been improving, but they haven't kept up within in greater growth in turnout among WI teaparty

other than "Well, we suck less than the other guys", you aren't inspiring voters other than those who were going to vote anyway.

It's like the folks that are all rah rah about Hilary. I'll vote for her if she ends up being the nominee, but if you expect anything further, like a donation of time or money, it's not going to happen.

On the other hand, for a GOOD candidate like Warren, Sanders or O'Malley, I would be glad to help campaign and donate.

The enthusiasm deficit doesn't just affect votes - it affects what happens among people that are going to vote anyway and how encouraging they are for OTHER people to vote. You can't fake enthusiastic support for a candidate you don't enthusiastically support.

How do you generate enthusiastic support? Act like DEMOCRATS, not slightly less deranged Republicans and corporate toadies.

At least here in Nevada. No ground organization, no need for volunteers, not even phone calls to GOTV. Just a bunch of emails asking for money. Some TV commercials (that we were outspent on).

I voted, as did everyone I know, but in general the base seemed apathetic and our candidates seemed lethargic.

All that money just buries us in cynicism.

Goes back to the Cold War days, really. There were a fair number of Goldwater Democrats (particularly in the Deep South), a lot more Nixon and Wallace Democrats, and even more Reagan Democrats.

The current base of the Democratic Party is-I would argue-much more progressive than the old base. The problem is that the base of the Democratic Party can't win elections on its own anymore, especially in states where the demographics of the electorate do not favor Democrats. Which is what we saw in this last election.

I had missed that.

Maddening.

We're not a democracy anymore. We're an oligarchy.

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study
http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024819356

Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.
Handing the internet to corporations? Both parties support it.
Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.
Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.
Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.
Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.
Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.
Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.
Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.
Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.
TISA corporate overlord agreement? Both parties support it.
Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.
Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks? Both parties support it.
Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.
GMO's? Both parties support it.
Privatization of the TVA? Both parties support it.
Immunity for telecoms? Both parties support it.
"Looking forward" and letting war criminals off the hook? Both parties support it.
Deciding torturers are patriots? Both parties support it.
Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.
Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.
Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.
Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.
Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.
Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.
Trillion dollar increase in nuclear weapons? Both parties support it.
New war in Iraq. Both parties support it.
New war in Syria. Both parties support it.
Carpet bombing of captive population in Gaza. Both parties support it.

In another OP of yours I said that while I personally had deep, ethical objections to the Keystone XL pipeline, I still considered Democrats who believed otherwise worth supporting over a Republican.

Woo me wrote a harsh, mocking reply, essentially saying that the Democratic Party sucked ass, and I was nothing more than an empty headed shill for "pathetic Third Way corporate talking points". You thanked him for putting me in my place.

Where did all the loyal Democrats go? You've gotta be kidding. A lot of them have left DU, that's for sure. This is no place for loyal Democrats.

I vote. Every time but one. The second for ronnie raygunz.

place. The messaging by the democratic party is deplorable and far too many democrats want to be just like republicans. I'm fed up with the democratic party, but I still vote. I could never sit home on my ass and not vote for democrats.

And we just had an election where some democratic candidates turned their back on the president that was elected twice. What a total bunch of stupid wastes. Even the opposition will respect one if they have the guts to stand up for their party values, but IMO many democratic candidates lack that capability and run with their tails tucked between their legs when facing republican opposition.

It's getting damn hard if one is a loyal democratic IMO to figure out what the hell they are loyal too!

when the republiCONs own all the venues for them to communicate through. For the most part our newspapers, radio stations and tv stations are controlled by the pukes

I shoulda' figured that one out

starting a year ago. Our Dem governor was re-elected handily which was a huge surprise to lots of folks. Going in, we were worried sick so we started joining the organizing in our local ward, street to street, crowding in to "meet and greets" with Gov. Malloy and phone banking. My husband who has some mobility problems, got lists and phoned from home and on Election Day did GOTV from our local Dem hq. The effort was huge and PAID OFF.

Organize, organize, organize...

It's stupid to stay on the wagon when you see it is headed off a cliff.