Today, We Would Control both Houses of Congress and the Presidency if

[Pryderi]

democrats and progressives had been as engaged in 2010 as they were in 2012.

If we don't keep working, the GOP is going to pick up seats in 2014 in both the House and the Senate.

How do we keep people motivated?

Remind them of the voter suppression attempts and long lines?

[Egalitarian Thug]

1. By not pursuing a republican agenda. n/t

[stevenleser]

11. WTF? So the agenda radically changed in the last two years from Obama's first two years?

How do you account for the difference in 2010 vs. 2012. Your statement makes no sense at all.

[Egalitarian Thug]

20. The OP asked "How do we keep people motivated?"

The President lost 2010 by belittling his base (a favorite pastime here as well), and pushing a republican agenda.

The resulting inaction and realization that there was, and still is, a possibility that insane people might actually get total control of the nation gave us this result. If the President and the Democrats continue to pursue the republican agenda we'll likely see little to no movement in 2014 and a republican victory in 2016.

[stevenleser]

30. And this changed in 2012 how? If you are claiming the President did something bad before 2010

then you are either giving him credit for changing something before 2012, or what you said doesnt make sense.

[Egalitarian Thug]

45. Maybe he changed or, and I think this more likely, the clown car candidates scared people out of

their disappointment. I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding where the President stands with most people that don't live on DU, but had the republicans put up a reasonable candidate, President Obama may well have lost.

[bluestate10]

48. The President didn't belittle ANYONE.

He was simply pointing out the reality that change doesn't come in one swoop. You can ignore that there are many blue-dog democrats, but it is a reality that must be dealt with. Do you think the new democrats elected in Florida, except for Grayson, will be screaming liberals? If they are, they are effectively giving the seat to a republican, how in the hell does that help secure a brighter future?

[Egalitarian Thug]

71. I suppose you actually believe that so I'm not going to bother writing a list for you. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

21. Tim Geithner at Treasury. Rahm Emanuel & the Public Option. The escalation of Afghanistan....

By 2010, many in the base felt betrayed and sat out the election.

[stevenleser]

29. And they came back a few days ago because the agenda changed how? nt

[Junkdrawer]

38. Two factors:

1.) Early in 2012, what I call "Election Year Obama" returned with a speech that rekindled hope in the base and marked a perceived switch in his public stance.

As I said, I like "Election Year Obama" and hope he sticks around awhile.

2.) He ran against a pathological liar who scared the shit out of everyone.

Add to this Rahm is gone, the perception that Afghanistan is winding down, that the other issues are, for now, "settled" and it's easy to see why the base returned.

But any "Grand Bargain" with Boner and you can kiss 2014 goodbye.

[stevenleser]

40. You really believe that the additional voters that showed up were thinking that?

The Occam's razor response is that some people just dont get motivated to vote in non-Presidential election years.

And the benefit of the Occam's razor POV is, it works every 8 years.

[Chathamization]

42. Re: Two Factors

1.) I hope that people don't decide whether or not to get involved in politics based on speeches.

2.) 2010 congressional Republican candidates were scarier than Romney.

[LAGC]

39. Because of fearmongering.

Tuesday was all about denying Romney/Ryan and the Republican brand of rape-apologists, not so much endorsing Obama's record of the past 4 years.

Obama got 5 million fewer votes this year than he did in 2008. That should tell us something.

[stevenleser]

41. There is a much simpler explanation. 2008 featured the excitement of the first black President

2010 had no Presidential election and 2012 was a re-election of that same candidate.

As I noted in my above post, this theory doesnt require a whole lot of assumptions on the part of what voters were thinking. In particular, it doesnt require a wishful thinking assumption that tens of millions of Americans think and vote the same way I do.

[bluestate10]

50. Yeah. That worked out well. Now we are in hand to hand combat with a bunch of fucking neanderthals,

who took over state legislatures just before a census then went on to gerrymander in a way that will take us a fucking decade and a half to undo. I want to see liberals always using their fucking heads at all times, never sit home during midterms, in particular if they are the last before a census.

[woo me with science]

26. +1000000 Amen.

This, obviously, is the correct answer.

[sadbear]

2. Were there any House races we should have won and we didn't?

I would say probably no and that gerrymandering has made a lot of republican seats very safe for them, even in 2012.

[Pryderi]

9. Exactly my point. If Dems had been as engaged and passionate in 2010, Repugs would NOT have been

able to gerrymander us into a House minority.

[sadbear]

16. You're right.

Hopefully we won't have to wait til 2020 to undo the damage.

[bluestate10]

51. We need to have a sustained march to take over State Houses and Governor mansions.

We must win in 2014, in 2016 and particularly win in 2020, a census year.

[Art_from_Ark]

25. We should have won at least one House race in Arkansas

Arkansas has long been a Democratic state when it comes to House seats, but yet this year we couldn't even win Little Rock's district. It seems like we had a weak field of Dem candidates, and in the 3rd district, the Democratic candidate actually dropped out before the election

[surrealAmerican]

35. It's all about the gerrymandering.

There was an article yesterday reporting that nationally, there were more Democratic votes for house seats than Republican votes. Had the districts been more evenly drawn, we would be seating a majority.

[liberal N proud]

3. The DLC needs to adopt the Obama campaign model

Its about grassroots.

There was nothing on the ground for the 2010 congressional races. It was all left up to the state and local organizations. There needs to be a concentrated effort on the national level using the model that Obama's campaign used to connect with people and get them out to vote in 2014.

It worked very effectively twice.

[MineralMan]

72. The DLC is defunct, and has been for quite some time.

It's good to keep up. Truly it is.

[Waltons_Mtn]

4. Keep telling the truth!

Expose the lies, racism, and thievery. That is how we keep the pressure on them and the motivation on our side.

[Chathamization]

5. I'd like to see a more active online focus on organizing

I browse the major left-wing blogs from time to time and almost never see them encouraging people to organize, volunteer, make phone calls, etc. Maybe once every month or two there's a post about donating, but the vast majority of the focus is on "look at what the GOP said" and worn out liberal tiffs ("third parties never work!" "we need third parties!&quot . The blogosphere has a huge audience, if they could be motivated to go out and work (I know some do, but too many don't) it'd definitely be a huge help.

I've found Democracy for America to be a decent group for organizing, but it's unfortunately not terribly huge.

[Pryderi]

10. Become a PCP and get involved with your local party. It's easy to do. n/t

[Chathamization]

23. I'm already involved in my local party

But one thing we could always use more of is people and organization, and a national push for more people to get involved could definitely help with that. I also think using the internet to network and organize with people in other areas has its benefits (which I also do through some groups, but again - reaching more people is always better).

[LeftInTX]

62. A national push for more people to get involved could definitely help with that.

Agree

Obama's OFA was great. In Texas, we worked for Florida.
The Dems need to keep the message going too.

In 2010 there was so much push from the right with little push back from the Dems.

No real PACs, PSA or messages from the Dems.
The right got a lot of FREE press too - in the form of Tea Party rallies etc.

[iemitsu]

6. We have to get rid of the electronic voting machines.

All of them. I suspect that republicans have not won a clean election in a dozen years and they probably cheated in any down ticket races they won this time.
Who knows what congress would look like if the choices of the people were occupying the house and senate?
We have been told that democrats did not turn out in 2010 but is that verifiable? We were also told that it was the fault of "young" voters who did not turn out. That evidently is a lie, the young voters did turn out. We were just told they didn't.
As long as Americans vote on electronic machines elections will be suspect.
A couple of clean elections, tallied on paper ballots, will tell us what voters really want. I suspect that bastion of right wing crazies is much smaller than we are led to believe.
When the CIA overthrew the Guatemalan government, in 1956, they repeatedly flew a few planes over the capitol city to create the impression that there were many planes above. They distributed fliers that implied that our armies were nearing the city and that if the president did not resign there would be a bloodbath. He resigned. The army was not there.
We are handled the same way. Psy-war on the American people.

[Pryderi]

13. Turnout numbers ARE verifiable. From 2010:

Young Voter Turnout Fell 60% from 2008 to 2010; Dems Won't Win in 2012 If the Trend Continues
http://www.thenation.com/blog/156470/young-voter-turnout-fell-60-2008-2010-dems-wont-win-2012-if-trend-continues#

[BlueToTheBone]

7. Join your local central committee and club

start recruiting candidates and training them to win. Continue GOTV efforts so that they can be mobilized to vote in 2014. We are the ones that we are waiting for.

[Pryderi]

18. Yep. I've attended trainings at DFA and Camp Wellstone and was a PCP trainer for my county party

[BlueToTheBone]

22. Where do you live?

It'd be great if you were just serendipitously in my NWArkansas neighborhood.

[99Forever]

8. Here we go again.

The Republican Lite crowd pointing at Progressives as being "too Democratic" as an excuse for their own failures, a mere 3 days after the election. Do people like you EVER take responsibility for ANYTHING besides victory?

Not fucking cool, pal.

[stevenleser]

12. Your post is a textbook example of how some folks see what they want to see in a post.

That person did not say what you are suggesting that they said.

[Pryderi]

14. Where the fuck did I say that??? n/t

[99Forever]

19. I dunno, how about here:

"Today, We Would Control both Houses of Congress and the Presidency if
democrats and progressives ..."?

[Chathamization]

24. "...had been as engaged in 2010 as they were in 2012."

How does "not being engaged" = "too democratic"?

[99Forever]

27. It's finger pointing nonsense...

.. and needs to stop, immediately. This is the shit that cuts the legs out from under help ever coming for those of us that ALWAYS get ignored. Just STOP IT!

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.

Have a nice visit.

[Chathamization]

28. It's not nonsense, it's the truth

If people had been as involved in 2010 as in 2012 things wouldn't have ended up as they did. Likewise, going forward people need to focus on 2014, or expect a replay. This isn't semantics; there's nothing in that argument complaining about people being too progressive.

If you want to talk about why you might not get involved in 2014 or what people should do instead, let's have that conversation. But if, for example, you feel ignored and that there aren't enough progressive candidates, the time to change that is _now_, not two months before the primary.

[99Forever]

32. When people start calling their opinion "the truth"...

... I know they aren't worth responding to.

Good bye.

[Chathamization]

34. What part is opinion?

Are you arguing that Democratic turnout wasn't lower in 2010 than in 2012? Or that if turnout was at 2012 levels, we would still have lost the house? We've just come from an election where the right was convinced that facts and statistics were just "opinions." I hope that mindset isn't taking hold on the left.

[TheKentuckian]

17. There are a number of folks that can get behind Democratic personalities but are for TeaPubliKlan

policy.

Seems to me the personality matters little in our lives and toward our future and policy means a whole lot.

Street cred by talking undying love, loyalty, and trust in a person to paper over pursuing the Republican long game set by decades of precedent.

[quinnox]

31. A sharp left turn and embrace of liberal

And progressive policies by the President and the Democratic party. Do that, and we will control all branches of government in time.

[Chathamization]

33. This has to come from somewhere

Getting liberals elected locally and creating liberal blocs in local party organizations is the best way to do it. The leadership isn't going to turn liberal on its own.

[former9thward]

36. Your post does not make sense.

If we were engaged so much why didn't we take the House in 2012? All of the seats were up for grabs.

[Chathamization]

37. Post-2010 Gerrymandering n/t

[former9thward]

43. Doesn't work out that way.

Democrats proudly gerrymandered the districts in Illinois in order to cost the Rs 5 seats this year. It worked. Another five seats were lost by the Rs in CA due to redistricting. Most non-partisan commentators agree that gerrymandering was was a wash in this election with each party gaining and losing a few seats due to redistricting.

[Chathamization]

44. What?

Republicans were responsible for redistricting in more states and were more effective at it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/08/how-redistricting-could-keep-the-house-red-for-a-decade/

I don't think anyone credible claims that it's "a wash."

[former9thward]

46. Your article ignores two things.

1) It ignores CA, the biggest state in the country, where Rs lost 5 seats due to redistricting.

2) It falsely assumes that all voters are single party voters. That is nonsense. Many Dems vote R in some races. Also ignores the role of independents, a major slice of the electorate, who ticket split all over the place.

[Chathamization]

49. Two things

1) It doesn't ignore CA, CA uses a commission to decide redistricting.

2) "But in states that weren't very gerrymandered, like Iowa and Colorado and New Hampshire, you ddin't see a huge divergence between the presidential vote and the House votes."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/11/07/how_ridiculous_gerrymanders_saved_the_house_republican_majority.html

[bluestate10]

55. Your post doesn't make sense.

California and Massachusetts were exceptions in 2010 because those states had organized democratic organizations that adhered to a centrist message. New York state was less organized and ended up with a republican Senate which voters erased on Tuesday. Winning midterm elections matter, in particular if the midterm comes during a census year. What I wrote is the reality, you can spin all types of liberal jibba jabber that you want, it does not change the reality of why we all need to engage in elections and even vote for democrats who we are not 100% aligned with. I am a moderate in Massachusetts, yet I would have never considered not voting for and contributing money to Elizabeth Warren, although I preferred a moderate State Senator from Weston to be the party nominee.

[Jack Sprat]

47. By concentrating more effort in state races.

This is where the dirty tactics of redistricting have taken place. Many times we Democrats have done well nationally, yet taken a beating in local and state elections. State legislatures have been going red in places like Wisconsin and Missouri to name a couple of for instances I noticed in this recent election. Much, much more downticket support needed and we need to organize and support our local Democratic parties better.

[LeftInTX]

52. Totally agree

I think low voter turn out is a big factor.

When turn out is high Democrats win.
When turn out is low Republicans win.

It happens all the time in my swinging congressional district. Every two years we get a different congressman.

2008 Dem
2010 Repub
2012 Dem

[Chathamization]

54. Exactly

There need to be a game plan and we have to get on board. Honestly, though, voting for the lesser of two evils is a good idea. Voting at the national level is often going to be defensive - keep the worst person out. Don't bemoan this fact, there's plenty of opportunity to go on offense and find good leaders, but that involves time and effort. Great progressive leaders don't just pop up out of nowhere.

This doesn't mean that you have to volunteer to help someone that's awful just because they're a Dem. There's more than enough work to be done, and everybody should be able to at least find something that they care about.

[Fumesucker]

60. Welcome to DU!

It would be more circumspect to build up a bit of a post count before you come in to GD and tell people, some of whom have been here a decade, how they're all doing it wrong.

We've heard all this before, you aren't saying anything that hasn't been said at least a thousand times already on DU.

[Chathamization]

61. So you've said it a thousand times before...

...and the conclusion was, "don't bother?" "We've talked about doing things enough, let's go back to complaining about Republicans?" Or what?

[Fumesucker]

65. If you're on DU you're not "doing things", not at the same time anyway.

A lot of us have a rather proprietary attitude toward DU, we've been here a long time and seen a great deal of water pass under the bridge, it's impolite to come into a long established forum and immediately start throwing your weight around and telling everyone how they're doing it all wrong.

Try getting the feel of the place and learning some of the more common traditions here before you start with the finger pointing.

I'm trying to be nice at the moment but I'm quite capable of flaming you to shriveled lump of carbon if I want to and I can do it without getting myself in trouble with a jury.

[Chathamization]

67. In case you didn't notice

the post you were commenting on said "Exactly" in response to the poster above. Which is, last I checked, a sign of agreement. I've agreed with some in this thread, I've disagreed with others. Maybe you think I need to post in more topics laughing at Rove before I'm allowed to express my opinions. Meh.

But please, if flaming me makes you feel better - go right ahead, I don't mind.

[Fumesucker]

69. Eh, I don't really know the poster you were replying to either.

We all think people we agree with are brilliant and the ones we disagree with are cretins.

This place has been polly-want-a-cracker nuts for a while, I'm hoping it will get better soon now that Obama won reelection but I'm not sanguine about it, there's too much division among the nominal Democrats here.

[bluestate10]

57. That is the job of the DNC. Earlier this year I was asked to bid for a delegate spot at the

convention. If I get an offer to become a member of the DNC, I may take it up, even though I have a normally busy life outside of politics. I don't care whether we elect liberal democrats or moderate democrats, I do care that our national organization can't seem to fucking recognize that it has a four year job that does not end after a presidential election. The DNC's job is to plan for every election, starting from the day that the previous election ends. The DNC isn't doing a good job, it shuts down after an election and does not restart until primaries for the next election.

[dogknob]

53. The Supreme Court is fixing to strike down The Voting Rights Act. Is that "sexy" enough?

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/09/15055542-supreme-court-to-consider-voting-rights-act?lite

[bluestate10]

58. I won't come to that conclusion yet. Remember Health Care? All of us thought it was dead when

the court agreed to hear challenges to the ACA. But the ACA ended up getting institutionalized, and Obama's victory settled what the court didn't settle.

[LeftInTX]

66. I think it's Sec 5 which I believe is Pre-clearance with DOJ

For Gerrymandering - redistricting

I'm not too optimistic here....

They won't throw out the Voting Rights Act, but I'm concerned about states such as Texas which require DOJ Pre-clearance for redistricting.

There is a thread on DU about this

[MrSlayer]

56. People just don't turn out for the midterms in our party.

Too many people only came out to vote for Obama. The Republicans come out for every election.

We need the President to really encourage it and we need his ground team to stay intact for it. He needs to mention the midterms every chance he gets.

[bluestate10]

59. We need a DNC that does work other than collect donations. The DNC has the job is keeping

voters engaged and getting new voters registered. I favor putting the DNC in the hands of a solid democrat that is not actively in politics, give it to a Howard Dean again and let that person work for 8-10 years.

[Chathamization]

64. True

And that will take a while to change. Working on it while at the same time taking advantage of decent organizations like DFA and reforming local organizations are all things that need to be worked on. More focus on this from leadership on the left would be nice.

[LeftInTX]

68. 2010 had the Tea Party

We got Occupy Wall Street in 2011

Although the Tea Party is much more organized maybe OWS might be able to play a role?

[MrSlayer]

70. Why would they?

They're the ones spouting the both parties are the same and voting is pointless lines.

[ChangeUp106]

63. .

We'd have control of everything if every House seat was up for election Tuesday night. We just couldn't quite turn around the Tea Bag takeover of 2010 in one cycle