Get it? Appealing DODT ruling did not get you votes. Dismissing progressives does not get you votes.

Expanding slave-trade agreements like NAFTA & GATT does not get you votes.

Continued outsourcing does not get you votes.

Not breaking up the banks and media monopolies does not get you votes.

Crapsurance HCR does not get you votes.

Not taxing the ultra-rich, does not get you votes.

Saying you'll prosecute pot smokers in Cali even if it's legalized, does not get you votes.

Expanding the wars does not get you votes.

Not closing Gitmo does not get you votes.

Ignoring EFCA does not get you votes.

Allowing poverty and hunger to increase does not get you votes.

Not prosecuting for war crimes does not get you votes.

Allowing coporate personhood does not get you votes.


BASICALLY, CAUCUSING WITH THE REPUBLICAN AGENDA WILL NOT GET YOU VOTES!


We are better than this!

Just a little peeved today, so I'll let the language stand.

:hi:

misleading information got the anti-Obama anti-Democratic votes. The pubs are mean and wily, it's what they do. We could have passed single payer and closed the banks and this outcome would be the same. It has nothing to do with real policy, it has to do with hate.

Instead we delivered more war and no real HCR.

I think all elections have everything to do with real policy.

I think that it s precisly because we forgot this that we suffered the worst defeat in 100 years.

I wish us progressives could get the rest of the party to understand this.

they probably would have secured the majority in Congress for the next 20 yrs. I agree that if they would have been a lot more aggressive fighting for progressive issues then the Dem base would've been fired up and we wouldn't have lost control of the House.

Unfortunately I don't think the Dems will get the message though. This loss will probably just make them think they have to move even further to the right.

Anyone you have to sell out; fine by you.

Not dismissing the TeePeers right from the start was a mistake. Not challenging their lies was a mistake.
Not talking about so-called accomplishments in simple phrases was a mistake.
Not having effective communications or messaging is always a Democratic mistake.
Acting defensively, not offensively was a mistake. Wasting time with those who just say no is a mistake.
Not taking some immediate stances on what the base wanted was a mistake.

The TeePeers will get more of what they deserve and unfortunately the rest of us will suffer because of their ignorance.

If riding out the next two years without having to do some real work was the intention of ObamaRahm, then
those who held him to a higher standard were mistaken.

If a lot of people are saying the same thing...the record stands.

That was evidenced by his "I need to compromise more" speech today. The guy is a political moron.

nothin yet!!!!:rofl: :rofl:

spending your time actually governing, working to create a functional government from the ashes left by the scorched earth of the previous administration, instead of running a full time PR machine isn't the way to win mid-term elections in a rough economy.

I'd like to point out that the House was where some of the most progressive legislation in decades came from. the House passed a public option. the House passed serious financial reform. the House passed Cap-and-Trade. and the House got freaking shellacked. The House was blamed for the inaction of the Senate Republican Caucus, and lost big time. Nancy Pelosi's reward for the most progressive House session in decades? retirement. think about that for a second. All these things we say we believe in, and we let them get punished for voting for them. WE did. you can't blame them, we said over and over, "well, that's not good enough, I'm staying home" and we did. We didn't fight for them (collectively) because it wasn't good enough. we demand perfection, and were wiling to lose to teach them a lesson.

well guess what, kids? for the foreseeable future, there will be no climate change legislation. there will be no serious investment in green energy. there will be no continued overhaul of the inept bureaucracy left them by the Bush administration. there will be endless investigations in minutia. it won't matter that the Dems have even a small majority in the Senate, because nothing reasonable is going to come out of the House for two years. that's two years of not even incremental progress on a progressive agenda. oops.

Realizing that it would cost you votes?

Was it political naivete?

Foolishness?

Not thinking it through?

What?

:eyes:

Truman said if you give people the choice between Republican Lite and Republicans, people will pick the Republicans. That truth never sank into Rahm's head.

Voting for a good number of dems today, feels like voting for my grandfather's republicans. WTF? The dem party continues to shift further & further to the right, because we continue to vote for right-leaning 'dems' to keep the whackos out of office. It's ruined our party.


Nov. 2: The Death Knell of Corporate Liberalism
by Matthew Rothschild

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/03-4

snip...

Obama was given a mandate for change, and he squandered it.

He never mobilized the base to take on the vested interests.

It may have gotten us votes, just not enough.

those fucking sell-outs! :sarcasm:

is Rove's plan:

First, go after the Progressive Dems, the centrist Dems will not stand up for them.

Next go after the Centrists, the center-right Dems will not stand up for them.

Then go after the center-right Dems, the far right Dems will not stand up for them.

Then enact the full Republican agenda, privatizing all Govt' services, outsourcing jobs, destroying the last of the unions, and perpetual war for profit.

Or:

"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

- Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

fifty percent of the blue dogs went down in flames

Five point two of progressives (with a lot of money against them mind you) went down.

piss on someone for his loss piss on them.

is a frankly bizarre analysis, and one that doesn't even stand up to the simplest logical test.

"CBS News is reporting that the youth vote--18-29-year-olds--that was so critical to President Obama's election made up only nine percent of voters in 2010, down from 19 percent in 2008. Fifty-eight percent of the youth vote favors the Democrats.

Despite an intense campaign push in the waning weeks before the elections, early exit polls indicate Democrats did not have a good turn-out: 39 percent of voters voted Democrat, while 56 voted Republican. Independents made up 28 percent of voters in the early exit polls.

Black voter turnout was also down in 2010, with 10 percent of blacks voting compared to 13 percent in 2008. Eight percent of voters were Hispanic, with 66 voting Democrat."

Most people just aren't that goddamned politically aware.

doesn't get you a movement either. Got that?

:yourock:

Or do you concede my argument?

with your points, an assumption made frequently here by self-styled progressives who have felt free to mock and sneer at those ON THE SAME SIDE who may not agree on process.

votes in the midterm?

:sarcasm:

Well said :yourock:

Yup. That makes sense.

This election was all about turn-out. Conservatives were energized and showed up, liberals weren't and didn't.

You don't energize your base by continually selling out.

That's not exactly better.

If someone doesn't vote, they should expect not to have their complaints taken seriously.

keep the base happy.

At the very least, don't tell them to fuck off, in so many words, or even in any words.

Look, I support Obama. I support our party. I would have gnawed a leg trap off my ankle yesterday, it wouldn't have stopped me from voting for the Democrats.

But would it have been so hard to toss our people- our dedicated, core, hope-n-change people, an occasional bone now and then? To fight -REALLY fight- for the public option as promised? To play by the rules set down in the original FISA, instead of extending, and seeking retroactive justification for, extralegal mass surveillance? To stop enforcing DADT, to make a morally courageous stand for our LGBT brothers and sisters on marriage equality? To admit that the drug war is a failure, and at least that the people of California have a right to say "enough, it's not the government's business if I want to smoke a relatively benign plant in my own house"?

There were calculations made. Calculations that somehow there were "moderate" voters who would be swayed by the Administration NOT doing those things. That appeasing the insurance industry by secretly dealing away the public option at the outset was somehow the smarter tack. That the "values voters" and red state birther crazies could somehow be appeased if Obama just appeared moderate enough.. (As far as the crazies are concerned, Obama passed a socialized medicine bill... never mind the facts. He could have actually passed one, they wouldn't have been any more angry.)

...and conversely, that the concerns of the people who worked tirelessly to put Obama in office could be brushed aside because, "where else are they gonna go".

It didn't work. They were BAD calculations.

Rove was right about keeping the base happy. You take their complaints seriously because, as a leader and a politician, that's your job- it's not THEIR job to convince you that you need to listen to them. They are the gas you put in your electoral tank. No gas, no go. Simple as that.

his candidate lost in 2000 (and only got installed because of the Supreme Court), and barely won in 2004.

This is about CONGRESS. Not Obama. The base overwhelmingly supports Obama. By a huge margin. Obama is in better shape for reelection than Reagan was in 1982 (per polls then and now), and Reagan won 49 states. The fact is, the party in power in Congress loses seats almost every single midterm. Period. You can spin this as being all on Obama as much as you want, but that isn't reality, it's delusion. You can spin this as Obama not placating the base, it's just factually incorrect.

When you say "our people" what you really mean is, "people on DU" - people on DU are not the entirety of the Democratic base. If DU had its way, Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson would be president and vice president. But look how they do in the real world. Kucinich never won a single state in the 2004 or 2008 primaries - and that's with only Democrats voting!

People who stayed home don't get to have a say. Sorry, but they don't. If someone can't be bothered to drag their ass out and vote, even if it's not for the Democrat and it's for a more liberal third party candidate, they should not expect to be taken seriously.

What was gained by not taking them? Not a whole hell of a lot.

Using the bully pulpit and the moral authority of the presidency to be not just where the electorate is, but sometimes ahead of them- like, say, on marriage equality- not only is the right thing to do, not only is the historic thing to do, but also, that's what LEADERS do. They LEAD. And sadly, we haven't seen enough of that from Obama. You don't have to be Dennis Kucinich, but you can put forth the fight you promised for the Public Option, for instance- and not horse trade it away secretly in the early stages of the process.

And again, what was gained by NOT doing those things? I mean, maybe you honestly think that the insurance bill is perfect as is, or that GLBT Americans shouldn't be legally able to get married, or that FISA with its retroactive rubber stamp warrants was too much of a pain in the ass and that mass warrantless surveillance is a good idea, or that spending $40 Billion a year to throw pot smokers in prison is a great idea. In that case, Obama did exactly the right thing, each time. But if you don't agree with those, then the calculation is that somehow by adopting a so-called 'moderate' tack on issues as the above gained Obama votes. It didn't.

Obama's in good shape, obviously we were going to lose seats~ but there is always room for improvement. I don't know who you're ranting at about 'people who stayed home', but it's not me. I've voted in every single election, even the off year ones, since 1988. So if people who don't vote don't get to be taken seriously, conversely, maybe you're obligated to take me seriously. And I'm dead fucking serious, as a lifelong Democrat, when I say that our party needs to do a better job of selling itself to THE BASE than just "we're not the Republicans, who are clearly (and they are) batshit nuts". You need to give people something to vote FOR. That's what happened in 2008, and they came out of the woodwork.

I'm sorry if any less-than-rosy assessment will cause you to file me off in the crazy leprechaun UFO locker with Dennis K, but those are the facts.

stands is a whole other story. Unless you only listen to what the media tells you, the "Obama hasn't done anything" or "Obama hasn't spoken up" or "Obama is weak" memes are obvious bullshit.

No, Obama has been fighting like HELL despite the constant negativity and whining from both the right AND the left. Actually, not even the left - because the left supports Obama by incredible margins, despite the very small minority on this website claiming otherwise. And so does the rest of the Democratic party for that matter.

Obama cannot and should not carry everything on his shoulders. You ask where were Obama'a stands? I ask where were the Democrats in Congress? Why did we not get rid of the filibuster? Why were the bluffs of the Republicans called? The Republicans have spent 2 years doing nothing but stalling and saying no to everything. They've used every parliamentry trick in the book to try to stop any progress at all. What would you like Obama to do? At some point, other Democrats have to step up. This constant infighting is what is killing us. You ask Obama to take on something like DADT? I ask the Democrats in Congress to back him up on it. Where were they? Where were they? Obama is ONE person. He has a bully pulpit yes, but ultimately that means very little if the rest of the party does not have his back. Where Obama has gotten things done is where the party backed him up and stood behind him.

I don't know who you're ranting at about 'people who stayed home', but it's not me.

I was talking about the people who stayed home...clearly. Since that's what we were talking about...people who were supposedly unenthusiastic and didn't vote.

And I'm dead fucking serious, as a lifelong Democrat, when I say that our party needs to do a better job of selling itself to THE BASE than just "we're not the Republicans, who are clearly (and they are) batshit nuts"

Yeah that's all well and good. The problem is, EVERYONE in the party considers themselves "the base" - from the conservadems right through to the Marxists. The Republicans don't have that problem because their party is about 90% white Christian males. So when you talk about how well the Republicans pander to their base, think about that.

a fairly decent job given the circumstances.

But -c'mon, be honest- you don't see any area where there could have been a bit more LEADERSHIP? Like on something like DADT? He's the executive. Harry Truman desegregated the Military by executive order. He said, this is the right thing to do, and did it.

We should have gotten rid of the filibuster. No one in our party should have thought the GOP wouldn't spend the last 2 years obstructing. I knew that's what they were going to do. Unfortunately, the rules of the senate are such that, AFAIUI, those modifications can only be made by a simple majority at the beginning of the session.

The party should back Obama up, yes, there is room for more backbone across the board. But it's interesting that you bring up Grayson- for every Grayson that lost, there were 20 blue dogs who got their butts whooped in this election. You also seem to be saying that the base supports Obama, so he's doing everything right, i.e. he doesn't need to listen to them.... yet if the base doesn't support Obama, they don't deserve to be listened to, either.

what, exactly, does the base need to do, then, to get Obama to listen to them? or even admit that some things could be done differently?

Apparently, it's impossible either way.

And this isn't about one particular constituency or issue: Yes, for instance, full marriage equality is a MORAL imperative and sometimes you need to do the morally right thing, regardless of where the polls are. But a majority of Americans CLEARLY supported the Public Option. So where was the logic in ditching that?

Then why did the GOP lose in 2006 and 2008?

there is nothing progressive about them. they are stupid ignorant asses who care nothing about the issues or want a conservative agenda.

I'm not saying the presidency has been perfect, but don't fall into the teabagger trap of saying "nothing has been done" when you mean "some things I'd prefer haven't been done."

Most people's complaints with this administration have more to do with the direction of its movement than the speed.

while the GOP not only encourages their base, they actually push it farther right...

Just think of some of the insane, over-the-top violent/racist/classist/misogynist/hateful comments uttered by RW candidates this season...You NEVER hear some GOP party hack apologize for the candidate in front of the media, or even distance the party from that candidate's views...

Now think about how many times Dem leadership has gone on TV or the op-ed to rein in the 'out-of-control' left...Any wonder why there is an 'enthusiasm gap?'

When the center-left majority emerged despite the best efforts in the corporatocracy to delegitimate all they call "liberal" and amplify everything on the right.

And then where would we be?

:kick: