if it is all obamas fault for not being progressive, why did feingold and grayson lose?

for duers to continually state the reason of 2010 election is ALL obama, ignoring so many other major issues in this election is ridiculous, and less than honest or perceptive. but to insist it is cause of lack of progressive laws passed (which is not true) then explain why our two most progressive people lost.

how much support did either get from the DLC?

battles were lost in 1980, the war was lost before Clinton officially surrendered in 1995. There remains an insurgency that hangs on but with little effect, all but a few will toe the company line. Those few will be a treated as a joke by the MSM and thus their progressive ideas will be marginalized until they give in or give up.

This election didn't matter one bit.

Wisconsin wanted new blood--plus maybe it's just getting redder. Grayson just burned out fast, maybe also was a poor fit for his district. I don't think any sweeping assumptions can be made right now.

It's about people wanting the economy to get better faster.

was conspicuously absent during this election, and, in fact, has been becoming increasingly scarce each November. This election was about keeping government hands off of Medicare. That being the case, there is no way of intelligently blaming anyone or making any sense out of the thing. The "uninformed" quotient is abominable. My plan for the next four years, and I know it's hopeless, but it'll make me feel better, is to politely question people who are "against Obamacare." Since I know no one who even knows what "single payer" is, I will not have to worry about the "it should have gone further" crowd, I have no issue with them, I agree. I picked Obamacare because its provisions are fairly quantifiable and understandable, I don't want an argument on how to solve unemployment. I will ask them specifically what they don't like. If they struggle, I will name some of its provisions and ask for some input on what is wrong. I will try to be sporting about it, taking no cheap shots and making no loud guffaws. I will not point out that they are against something that they don't know anything about. This is my plan.

And could even be helpful in picking up votes.

Myself and most Dems I know are against single-payer and the latest HCR and a polite conversation over the issue would be more than welcomed.

and MANY of them voted for Blunt last night to show just how against they are.

refreshing. i agree. that is how i approach it.

Even though Grayson and Feingold were among those most heavily targeted by Repukes.

an issue this election. hardly to do with obama. everything to do with supreme court ruling.

That's a lot of dishonest ad buys.

posit.

Don't cha??

Until Dems do something to address the vast right wing media hate machine, this will happen again.

Every ad I heard mentioned Obama and Pelosi in the most negative terms..

Ah, no, Alaska. It wasn't pretty in NC last night, but at least that fucker Ilario Pantano lost.

well I don't think he passed much in the way of progressive legislation either. But I don't think that's the point.

I think it's really much simpler. Bad economy and it didn't get better. People vote in protest (which is fruitless because the other side is only going to rob them blind again) - but I think that is really what happened.

make you.

and i agree, people are fiscally afraid and jobs are lost, gone, forever, and that fear is a HUGE part of it.

have a different definition of "progressive".

not true. that is not factual. that is false. so you dont get informed. you dont have the information. you refuse to educate yourself. how is that my problem?


http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Obama has been breaking unions and favoring privatization. See: Arne Duncan & education. Also see: Social Security the next 2 years.

When you marginalize your own members, they are going to lose. By running to the right and favoring the blue dogs, you left the progressive members hanging out there by themselves.

with message for last two years? the fucked up situation bush gave us?

the blue dogs themselves going against obama?

it was all obama?

I was Obama going against his own party in Afghanistan. I was Obama siding with the Blue Dogs. It was Obama preferring Spector and Lincoln. It was Obama going to Ohio to campaign for HCR in Kucinich's district, and never even calling Lieberman. It was Obama siding with Geithner and the bankers, not with the mortgage holders.

No wonder people stopped visiting DU. Too many morons.

I'm reminded of my own comment way back in the early '90s when my company was laying off a whole bunch-o-people. I observed that the layoffs had really cut to the bone and "all the best people were already gone". It's about the time I realized I was still there.

Sorta like Yogi's "No body goes there anymore, it's too crowded".

I seem to recall these two specifically speaking out against the "HUGE influx of corporate money", while the rest of the party embraced it.

the dems continually and often spoke out against it and still are. obama made an unprecedented comment in his state of union address to the court.

...and dictating Dem policies.

These two spoke out against it and were silenced by their own party for having done so.

24/7. IF it was an outcry for more progressive seats, they would have been voted in.

IMO Feingold and Grayson lost because:
(1) The Democratic base was dis-spirited and depressed from the lukewarm performance of the legislative majority.
(2) The drive for bi-partisanship inhibited vigorous rebuttal of the rightwing propaganda from the beginning.
(3) Allowing teabaggers to gain wide acceptance by not challenging their lies and slanders and racism by the DNC was monumental mistake.
(4) Democrats as a whole running away from their (not so liberal) accomplishments made it difficult for the few who gladly embraced them.

My hope is that someone like Grayson be appointed to the chairmanship of the DNC and have him resurrect the 50 state strategy and other Howard Dean's ideas again.

Feingold and Grayson are in red areas, the repugs put up viable candidates this time around.

and the general feeling among dems is that we put them in power and they caved to the big corporations

Sure Obama did a lot of token progressive stuff but the major stuff he failed on

Still fighting hugely expensive oil wars

Caved to BP in the gulf, it's a travesty of record proportions and they are not being prosecuted. The gov aided and abetted them in an ongoing coverup. If you really think BP is going to spend $20 Billion on recovery I've got beach front property to sell you, it will be just like the Exxon Valdez, a farce/fraud/fake.

Caved to the big banks, $Trillion dollar bailouts and no meaningful prosecution. The criminal perpetrators were appointed to positions of power. The financial "reform" is token, all the major problems are still in place for it to happen again.

Caved to health care/health insurance/pharma. Sure token people got new coverage but everyone else their insurance went up. Mine doubled in one year and the coverage went down.

this country and Obama are owned by the corporations, they don't care about the workers, we put dems in power and they really didn't do much for the workers. Other major Obama failures are Acorn, falsely accused by hard right wingers, Obama threw them under the bus in a heartbeat in spite of the fact they were instrumental in putting him in power. The Unions also have been abused, their card check went in the dumper and Obama's appointment to Sec of Educ is anti union and they are trying to bust the teachers union, the last big union in the country.

IF what you are saying is true, then they would be sure to vote these progressives in, to hold obamas feet to fire. not elect people that are going further to the right of obama.

because when they voted last time it didn't make any difference

the politicians didn't do anything for them

case in point, extension of the bush tax cuts for the filthy richers

one of the main reasons for the out of control deficit and debt

FAIL

good luck getting anything done now, Obama will be another one termer, he's failing worse than Carter

Or maybe he's not failing, after all he's doing exactly what the corporations want him to do.

Because key Democratic demographics which came out in large numbers in the 2006 mid-terms, and increased in 2008, did not come out this year. On the other hand, key Republican demographics did come out. The "enthusiasm gap" was very real. That is what the contrast between LV and RV told you. Same with "independents". It was not so much that they "shifted", as that different "independents" voted. Go down a level and look at their demographics.

Where the electorate is split, the change in turnout ("enthusiasm") overwhelms Democrats, "progressive" or otherwise. You can spin up blame any way you like but nobody is entitled to votes...

What is "progressive" is not decided by you or by argument on DU. It is precisely decided in metrics such as electoral turnout.

It was not just Obama. It was also the Democratic Congress. Neither one gave the "progressive base" (by demographic) enough reason to come out and vote in strong numbers. The legislation was not progressive enough and was not perceived to be progressive enough to create the local majority.

Therefore, the administration and congress were NOT progressive, no matter how it "seems" to anyone in particular. The narrative that a progressive agenda which was too subtle for people to understand... that is a literary and not a political concept.

If "progressive" confuses you, try "popular" or "partisan to their interests", or any catch-phrase you like.

lack of information, lack of jobs, forgetting 2 years ago, history had nothing to do with it?

it was all obama?

The people who did not come out were, presumably, the least swayed by "misinformation" or "propaganda", at least according to what I read here. They were the ones who came out for Democratic candidates in 2006 (and 2008, which was not a mid-term).

You have no argument... just a predisposition.

:crazy:

You respond like a 'bot that only understands a few keywords. Syntax matters! :shrug: :hi:

whose biggest mistake was campaigning on voting for that sorry healthcare BS Obama passed.

after seeing that all progressive members of Congress voted for it, you actually think they are the ones that are wrong.

:rofl:

A president leads, Obama did not lead.
Bush led, in the wrong direction, but he led.
Perhaps there were too many problems for him to solve
but at the same time he did not bring in people
to help him or he brought in the wrong people.

and accomplished more for progressive movement yet our own people ignore.

and this is your rational for loss?

You do not lead from starting at the middle.
He made poor choices in choosing the people around him.

True, this country would be in worse shape if he had done nothing.
The stimulus did help. The housing market is in shambles and he
talks about how we have to protect the mortgage companies.
So what if you lose your house to fraud. The banks have massive
profits and bonuses, still the people at the bottom have no jobs
People say the education system does not work, so he goes out and
puts it into private hands and attacks the unions instead of working with them.

Are we better off with him in office than mccain?? Yes
Are we better off than when bush left office?? Maybe

There are all kinds of leaders out there, at different times it takes a
different type of leader. He can talk a good game but I have my doubts whether
he was the correct leader for what laid in front of him. I did not see the Obama
I voted for once he was in office.

much done as he could with the hand he was dealt. The party of NO helped out tremendously. Did you notice Boner saying, "we'll work together?" Funny how that works, now that the pubs run the house but as long as PO was BEGGING to work together they blew him off! Fuck em and fuck this country.

Some would say that we are past that crossroads.

He was dealt a shitty hand, no doubt about it.
He wanted the job. If it was too much for him then he needed to ask for help.
The problem with that is that for a lot of dems were not sure which
direction he was heading. I do not feel he was the type of leader
that this country needed at this time. That is my opinion.

had to be the ones they threw the most RNC/CC money at. The ones who would really help the people and not the corporations - they had to go. Obama doesn't get that.

Too many ads...too many lies and not enough help from Obama . If he'd have stood stronger against the repubs and not tried to get along (a trait which I normally admire - but not with liars like the GOP)....just a lot of bad moves & bad advice along the way....too little to fight back with. Certainly not all Obamas fault but he sure as hell coulda made some better choices. This is MHO.

That's my guess. Also, there's a double standard here... Repubes get nasty and get votes, Dems get nasty and get demonized.

true that. it was also only demographics that seemed to call out disappointment and recall on the incumbents and not all the nation. which we overlook when we pin it all on obama

Grayson and Feingold lost because a shitload of unaccounted money got dumped on their races.

But let's look at a slightly larger picture, hmmm? The Blue Dogs and the Progressives in the House. Meteor Blades at Daily Kos has the preliminary report on the post mortem: Out of 54 Blue Dogs, 23 lost their bid for re-election, four didn't run, and two tried for Senate office (both lost). So that's 29 Blue Dogs in the present Congress who won't be back for the next Congress. The 79 member Progressive caucus saw four losses, including Grayson. Fully 75 Progressives were returned by their constituents, and less than half the Blue Dogs will be going back to Washington.

I don't know if anyone is saying that it is ALL Obama's fault (may I just say that's a dandy straw man you posit), but compromising away so much on health care reform, the too-small stimulus package, and education instead of providing leadership from an unapologetically progressive stand generally hurt Democrats far more - in particular Blue Dogs - than it hurt Progressives. Yes, the loss of Feingold and Grayson hurts, but it appears that the Blue Dogs took a far more substantial hit than the Progressives did. Had they governed and run as Democrats with the support of the White House, they might still be holding their seats.